How I KNOW the KJB is the Word of God!!!!!

[Phillip]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bro Shaun:



You are a very poor guesser, Phillip. I have been saved for 5 years and in full time Christian service for 2 of those. Though 5 years may not be a very long earthly time, it matters not in our walk with the Lord. I know many Christians who have been save 40+ years and are still babes in Christ. And since when did having convictions indicate a weak Christian? Just because someone stands up for a cause does not mean they are babes in Christ, if anything it says they are strong Christians. You have to take a stand for something and stick to it, otherwise what good are you. But, if that is the indicator we are using, and we are making guesses, I guess your the strongest Christian here, by those standards. And just another guess, I probably have higher standards than you, if I'm wrong, sorry. But that doesn't make me a better Christian than you.

Now for everyone else, the word I used on Aug. 27 was not, in my oppinion, vulgar. I was just calling apples apples. And I was not calling anyone on this board that name. If it offended the more liberal posters, sorry, it was not my intent to offend. I do find it ammusing, however, that most Christians will allow Holloywood whores to come in their home and smoke, drink, fornicate, cuss, take the Lord's name in vain, practice homosexuallity and a multitude of other sins, but when a fellow Christians uses one of the less vulgar words, he is attacked like Hitler. Just a thought.

To HankD, Pastor Larry and wellsjs:
To say that God preserved His word ONLY in the original Greek and Hebrew texts is an obsurditity. If that were the case then we would have no true perfect Word of God today. How would we know what God expects of us. It may all be a lie then. We might as well go fishing on Sundays. God preserved His Word for every generation, and if He could make the world in 6 days, He could make sure it got through mans hands perfect. Try again.

[ August 29, 2001: Message edited by: Bro Shaun ]

[ August 29, 2001: Message edited by: Bro Shaun ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, Shaun, I was just about correct. I figured about 2 years active as a Christian. Please do not take this offensively, but don't use hypocrites (of which there are thousands) to make your point. This is exactly how the devil wishes for us to see Christians. We all need to get off of our high-horses and calm down on this and other issues. My point was NOT the conviction you have--which I commend, but the way you RESPOND. Obviously, you appear to become quite venomous when your position is questioned. This is simply all I was referring to. Yes, you are a young Christian and yes there are old Christians who are still babes, but you know what? I bet half of those old "Christians" who are still babes and smoke, drink etc etc. are not even Christians at all. These people we need to love and try to bring under our wings and help them.
I do not know what the word was that you do not consider vulgar and this is not the forum for this, but consider that most words used by Christians today such as g-o-l-l-y, (I hope it doesn't edit this out for my purpose here) is nothing more than the Lord's name taken in vain and softened a bit so that it is acceptable. If we study the origin of ALL of these words we will find that most are simply softened curse words--so, actually what is the difference, the intent is the same. However, the one issue of language is not what I am pointing at so much as the general tone and attitude of "believe my way or the highway". THIS my brother is the sign of a young Christian of which you are. I am going to continue to read a somewhere I hope you answered my question as to what Bible was used before the KJV. Have a good Labor Day. I really do care!

 

[Phillip]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:



If they claim this, then they do not "know Hebrew like the back of their hand."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AMEN, Pastor Larry, You know an odd thing I've noticed here is the fact that nobody has mentioned that the Hebrew had no vowels at all until they were added by the Masorites in 300 AD (approx.). If I were to take "War and Peace" and take away all the vowels, I would like to see a perfect translation back to plain English. Everybody seems to slip and forget this little point. The Masorites had to "guess" using the context around the word at what many of the vowels were even though many might have been obvious--many were NOT!

 

[Phillip]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by toolman:
The problem is that people want an easier Christian life. The Bible says that the Holy Spirit helps us understand the Word of God. The base of the KJV 1611 is the God-protected version for the English people. It was later put into a more modern English, but the meanings of the words were not changed, and no Scriptures were left out. The newer versions have changed the meanings and have left out Scriptures.

Rev. 22:18, 19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

It scares me to use another version of the Bible for that reason. God is not the author of confusion, but 1 church and 10 different versions causes confusion. Lets stick to the original Scriptures for the English speaking people. If you have trouble understanding the KJV, maybe you should check to see what you can do to walk closer to the Holy Spirit.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Toolman you are correct in your theory, but let me add something. First of all, as I said before the old Hebrew had no vowels which were added in the 4th century. Have you tried to read english with NO vowels? Second, the new translations leave out portions because new manuscripts have been found which date back older than the manuscripts used in the KJV. Even the KJV translators had trouble with Revelations because they did NOT have COMPLETE copies and had to put several copies together and vote on which ones to use (sounds like the NIV, huh?) I collect old Bibles and pages for a hobby. I have many 1600 pages and Bibles--let me tell you they are NOT the KJV that WE READ TODAY. I bet you could not even read the ancient English and if you could you would be AMAZED at the changes.

Now, when the new versions leave out a text or change something, it is usually because the older texts do not contain those words. Now the KJVO people will say "OH, but these texts are from Alexandria" Let me tell you that some of the Best Christian Jews lived in Alexandria during the early years to escape the Roman destruction of 70 AD and other persecution. These Alexandrian Christians took just as much care to hand-copy their Bibles as did the documents used in the KJV. The NEW Bibles simply use a combination and try to determine which is right based on textual criticism (which we will not EVEN try to discuss here) and they usually make a notation in the margin when manuscripts differ. The NIV is especially good about this. Yes, I think God has preserved HIS WORD, but in MANY languages, including Chinese, Taiwanese and many others that are obviously not KJV because they were not written in old English. God bless you.

 

[Bro Shaun]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:


Liberty U is solidly conservative, and thankfully now, an SBC college. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do not try to give me that garbage. I live in Lynchburg, LU's backyard. I have met many of the students and had the honor to leading several to Christ. LU enrolls muslums, athiests, just about anyone who will pay the tution. The are as liberal as any SB I know, which is most of them.

 

[Bro Shaun]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phillip:


The NEW Bibles simply use a combination and try to determine which is right based on textual criticism (which we will not EVEN try to discuss here) and they usually make a notation in the margin when manuscripts differ. The NIV is especially good about this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was born into a Jehovahs Witness home and raised as a JW for 12 yrs. In studying the differences between the NIV and KJB I have noticed that the verses the NIV deletes are the exact same as the NWT (the JW "bible") deletes. The NIV is nothing more than the JW bible with modern language. The newer NIVs are even taking out the footnotes you all claim make it superior.

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bro Shaun:

Do not try to give me that garbage. I live in Lynchburg, LU's backyard. I have met many of the students and had the honor to leading several to Christ. LU enrolls muslums, athiests, just about anyone who will pay the tution. The are as liberal as any SB I know, which is most of them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LU requires a Christian testimony of all its applicants. Doubtless some false believers enter as is inevitable, but your characterization of Liberty, Southern Baptists, and indeed anything which you are not is based either on willful ignorance or plain dishonesty. Your level of Christian character, charity and omniscience is remarkable!

You have indeed disqualified yourself from any serious interaction on this thread, if not the whole board, and will be pleasantly ignored.

 

[Ransom]

toolman said:
The problem is that people want an easier Christian life. The Bible says that the Holy Spirit helps us understand the Word of God. The base of the KJV 1611 is the God-protected version for the English people.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present . . . The Amazing Self-Refuting Claim!

If the Holy Spirit helps us understand the Word of God, then we don't need a "God-protected version for the English people." We could all understand Hebrew and Greek!

Hey, perhaps the KJV-onlyists' argument proves that the KJV-onlyists are spiritually immature. Otherwise, they wouldn't have to rely on an English version.

[ August 31, 2001: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

[Ransom]

toolman said:

Pastor Larry, you just proved the point I was making. We can not understand a language that we do not speak or read. That is why they translated the Bible into English, but that was not good enough, we have to have it more understandable??

Well, then, the Bible was already translated into English. John Wycliffe did the whole thing in the 14th century. Why isn't his Middle English good enough for you? Do you have to have it more understandable??

 

[Ransom]

Bro Shaun said:

The NIV is nothing more than the JW bible with modern language.

This is utter and complete twaddle.

 

[ddavis]

Ransom, If the KJV-onlyist are spiritual immature, then why is it that you guys need a easier version to read. No matter what version you read it is still a translation, NOBODY HAS ANY OF THE ORIGINALS THAT I KNOW OF. I stay with the KJV because "I" beleive it is the one for the english speaking people, I also understand that in every translation you loose a little of the original meaning because it is a translation. Phillip said they have come up with new manusripts, OH NO, God let the beleivers for the last 400 years beleive they had the truth, does that mean they weren't saved because the didn't have the newer manuscripts? I don't think so. Like it's been said, if aint broke don't fix it.

 

[Bro Shaun]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ransom:
This is utter and complete twaddle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it now? Have you ever looked? It is the truth, if you don't believe me, buy a NWT and check. You can get one at your local Kingdom Hall, but they do sell them in the christian book stores, it is called the NIV.

 

[Scott J]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bro Shaun:


I was born into a Jehovahs Witness home and raised as a JW for 12 yrs. In studying the differences between the NIV and KJB I have noticed that the verses the NIV deletes are the exact same as the NWT (the JW "bible") deletes. The NIV is nothing more than the JW bible with modern language. The newer NIVs are even taking out the footnotes you all claim make it superior.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This post explains more than anything else you have written. I am truly sorry that you were subjected to JW indoctrination.

That said (and I hope not to offend you), you are exhibiting a JW pattern of behaviour. The JW's I know are basically insecure, fearful people. They 'need' the Watchtower to package lifes answers into one tight little package. For them, there has to be a perfect earthly authority. Without it, their whole world crumbles. Once they buy in, it seems that anything contrary to WTBS teachings is rejected without consideration...unless it is a reversal by the Watchtower itself. They refuse to recognize even the most obvious flaws in the organization. They don't care about the Watchtower's lies and deception. They automatically turn off their hearing when confronted with information they are not trained to handle.

In a similar way, you seem to be grasping for the security of one perfect book. It isn't good enough that we have miraculously received the complete Word of God...you demand the perfect words of God...something you can see and touch and...unfortunately, idolize. You selectively screen the evidence only retaining that which agrees with KJVOnlyism. Those who disagree are considered to be apostate or worse.

Compare this to the behaviour of JW's towards those who deny the Watchtower. Those who leave them are evil apostates. All other churches belong to Satan. Anyone who disagrees with them is blinded by Satan.

The JW's believe that "God's Faithful Witness" has the only way to eternal life. I have not seen you express the following opinion but a 7 or 8 year old kid from a local church recently told my 6 and 8 year old sons that a person could only be saved with a KJV Bible. If this is not cultic behaviour, what is?

Someone rescued from a cult should be among the first to recognize the cult-like behaviour of KJVO.

God bless. You are in my prayers.

 

[try hard]

Scott J

I agree with you. Your understanding of TTU is correct.

 

[Scott J]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddavis:
Ransom, If the KJV-onlyist are spiritual immature, then why is it that you guys need a easier version to read.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The ability to read is not prerequisite for spiritual maturity so the ability to read the English of 300 years ago certainly is not.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I also understand that in every translation you loose a little of the original meaning because it is a translation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is very true. Purity is also lost through many generations of hand copying. Therefore, you surely have a problem with the KJV since many of its passages were copied over from previous translations. Also, the Greek text used was based on manuscripts which were all copied more than a thousand years after the originals were written. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Phillip said they have come up with new manusripts, OH NO, God let the beleivers for the last 400 years beleive they had the truth, does that mean they weren't saved because the didn't have the newer manuscripts? I don't think so. Like it's been said, if aint broke don't fix it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Word of God is not a particular set of words. To think that indicates spiritual immaturity.

To follow your logic further, no one could have been saved during the first 300 years of Christianity since there were few if any complete New Testaments. Most churches had imperfect copies of some of the books. Few individuals would have owned significant portions of scripture. Nonetheless in direct contradiction to your supposition that men can only be saved by the 'preserved, perfect words of God', Christianity grew from a few hundred believers to the dominate religion in the known world during this period.

[ August 31, 2001: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

[Chick Daniels]

This thread could really stand to be closed and allow everyone to get a fresh start with something else. Just my humble suggestion.

Chick

 

[Ransom]

ddavis said:

Ransom, If the KJV-onlyist are spiritual immature, then why is it that you guys need a easier version to read.

Never said I needed one.

No matter what version you read it is still a translation, NOBODY HAS ANY OF THE ORIGINALS THAT I KNOW OF.

What of it? Didn't even mention 'em.

I stay with the KJV because "I" beleive it is the one for the english speaking people

You are contradicting yourself. How can you hold, merely as a personal opinion, that every English-speaking person ought to use the KJV only? Either you believe the KJV is for everyone, in which case you should be doing your best to present this not merely as your personal opinion, but something everyone ought to agree with; or it is nothing but a personal preference.

I happen to disagree with your personal belief. So much for it.

Phillip said they have come up with new manusripts, OH NO, God let the beleivers for the last 400 years beleive they had the truth, does that mean they weren't saved because the didn't have the newer manuscripts?

Twaddle. Why can't the KJV-onlyists address the issues that actually exist rather than inventing crises?

 

[Ransom]

Bro Shaun said:

Is it now? Have you ever looked?

Yes, I have looked. You are speaking rubbish.

 

[Bro Shaun]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ransom:
Yes, I have looked. You are speaking rubbish.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't speak rubbish, ever. If you HAD looked you would know it is the truth. Don't say it is untrue simply because it goes against what you believe. Then you would be guilty of what you are accusing us of. Simply defending your "translation" because you think it is the best. We couldn't have that, now could we.

 

[ddavis]

scott, then you are telling me that out of all those manuscripts, you only know which are protected and which aren't. No way, hogwash, GENTELMEN it still all comes down to who we are willing to believe and I will stick with the KJV 1611. It's personal opinion because of the way we were taught and the way we believe. I can't change your minds and you can't change mine. But it sure makes for a good argument.
By the way what the heck is twaddle? I think ol chick may be right.

 

[Ransom]

Bro Shaun filibustered:

I don't speak rubbish, ever. If you HAD looked you would know it is the truth.

On the contrary, Bro. Shaun, it is because I can look any time I want (by going to the library and putting an NIV and NWT side-by-side), and have looked, that I know you are speaking rubbish.

The NIV is not the NWT. It's not even close, your superficial comparisons notwithstanding. I could make the same sort of superficial comparisons between the KJV and the NWT, and you would probably tell me it proved nothing.

Don't say it is untrue simply because it goes against what you believe.

I say it is true not because it goes against what I believe, but because it goes against what I have personally witnessed with my own eyes.

Doubt that if you want. But then it's just your word against mine, because I'll just throw the same accusation right back at you.

But the bottom line is, here you come along, claiming that the NIV, an evangelical translation by men committed to historic Christian orthodoxy and the inerrancy of Scripture, and required to sign a statement to that effect, is the same Bible as the NWT, which is not really a translation at all but a propaganda piece cobbled together by then-Watchtower president Fred Franz, who was ignorant of Hebrew and Greek, to disseminate JW theology.

To this I reply: Rubbish! Twaddle! Balderdash!

Deal with it.

[ August 31, 2001: Message edited by: Ransom ]