NKJV - NASV - ESV among new ones
KJV, Bishop's, Geneva, "Great", Tyndale's & Wycliffe's among older ones.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
"Is King James Onlyism Scriptural?"
- Thread starter robycop3
- Start date
- Status
NKJV - NASV - ESV among new ones
KJV, Bishop's, Geneva, "Great", Tyndale's & Wycliffe's among older ones.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
1) As native Arabic-speaking, Lebanese man, who learned English mainly off of TV and believes the King James Bible to be the inspired words of God (insert shriek at heresy here), I can tell you that our fundamental disagreement with the non-KJVOs is not actually about the KJV - it's about the existence (or lack thereof) of any perfect Bible.
2) We also differ on our understanding of the doctrine of inspiration.
Those are the differences at the macro-level. Like I said, we may disagree, but if you keep 1 & 2 in mind, it may help you understand why we disagree.
Yep ! We are to fight false doctrines.
Not at all. They can't disprove my anti-KJVO assertions, while I can disprove most of their pro-KJVO stuff.
And the theme of this sub-forum is Bible versions/translations. If I talked about Tom Brady's signing with Tampa Bay here, I'd be wrong, as this is not the purpose of this sub-forum. I'm not obsessed with the KJVO myth; it just happens this is the sub-forum to discuss it.
The KJV is far-from-perfect. I have posted some of its goofs & booboos many times in this sub-forum.
And there's no proof the KJV is more-inspired than any other version in any language, except the originals, which God allowed to vanish lest they become icons of worship in the manner of the "Holy Grail".
IS THERE ONE QUARK OF SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS THE UNIVERSE IS MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD?
IS THERE ONE QUARK OF SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS GOD LET THE ORIGINALS VANISH LEST THEY BECOME ICONS OF WORSHIP?
I didnt say it was in the wrong forum. I said you are overly obsessed with the issue. There are very few KJVO on here. Some of us like the KJV, but very few regulars adhere to KJVO. Its as if you are preaching the choir the same sermon for the 200th time.
I am throwing you on the same category as Spurgeon except that you have a Model A.
You do not present your understanding of the doctrine of inspiration, and you do not show that your understanding is more sound and scriptural.
According to the Scriptures themselves, it could be soundly concluded that inspiration would be a term for the way, method, or process by which God directly gave the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles or for the way that the words proceeded from the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Matt. 4:4, Eph. 3:5).
Jim Taylor defined the term inspiration as follows: “A process by which God breathed out his very words through holy men in order that his very words could be recorded’” (In Defense of the TR, p. 328). Jim Taylor affirmed: “As a theological definition, inspiration is a process” (p. 33). Jim Taylor asserted: “Inspiration is a process which was completed when the last New Testament writer wrote the last word” (p. 34). David Cloud maintained that 2 Timothy 3:16 “describes the original process of the giving of Scripture,” and he noted that “the same process is described in 2 Peter 1:19-21” (Glorious History of the KJB, p. 213). David Cloud observed: “Inspiration does not refer to the process of transcribing or translating the Bible, but to the process of God giving the words to the men who wrote the Bible” (O Timothy, Vol. 11, Issue 11, 1994, p. 4). D. A. Waite asserted: “The process of inspiration does apply to the original manuscripts (known as the autographs). This process was never repeated” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information, p. 106). Charles Kriessman wrote: “Inspiration is a process by which God breathed out His Words from Genesis to Revelation” (Modern Version Failures, p. 46). Kriessman quoted Thomas Strouse as stating: “Inspiration is a process whereby the Holy Spirit led the writers of Scripture to record accurately His very Words; the product of this process was the inspired originals” (p. 47). Irving Jensen noted: “We cannot explain the supernatural process of inspiration, which brought about the original writings of the Bible. Paul refers to the process as God-breathing” (Jensen’s Survey of the OT, p. 19). Gregory Tyree asserted: “This process of inspiration will never again be repeated because the canon has been closed” (Does It Really Matter, p. 32).
The sixteenth verse in 2 Timothy in the KJV stated “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” but the verse does not actually say or assert that it would be later translated by inspiration. There is no mention of the process of translating in the verse. Do some try to assume by the fallacy of begging the question that somehow the process of translating is found in the verse? Do some try to use a weak argument from silence and try to find something in the verse that is not directly stated? Would the Holy Spirit of truth guide believers to assume opinions by fallacies? Would trying to suggest that 2 Timothy 3:16 teaches something it does not state be evidence of sound spiritual discernment?
This verse in the third chapter of 2 Timothy does not actually assert nor infer that there is a giving or re-giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God each time it was copied or each time it was translated into a different language. This verse does not assert nor teach that the process or method for the making of Bible translations is by inspiration. It has not been soundly demonstrated from the Scriptures that inspiration would be a correct term for the way, method, or process by which the original-language Scriptures are copied or are translated into other languages including into English.
Do KJV-only authors clearly demonstrate that they merely let the Scriptures themselves define inspiration, and do they present that definition? Perhaps it has never occurred to some KJV-only advocates that their definition, understanding, and interpretation of inspiration may not be sound or perfect. What is their clear, precise, sound definition and understanding of inspiration that can be applied consistently, soundly, and justly in the same sense (univocally) including both before and after 1611?
The fact that you believe something does not demonstrate that that belief is sound and scriptural.
I don't see that KJVO is cultic unless you are going to say that dispensationalism or millions and millions of years, etc., are cultic. 
Plenty of scientific evidence says so. And scripture hints at it. It says God's spirit moved over the face of THE WATERS, showing He was preparing to work on an already-existing world.
Seen any originals lately ?
Is t
Hat why T-Rex went extinct?
Spurgeon knew that he had picked up an Enlightenment belief because he acknowledged that millions and millions of years was not what was believed in the olden days. We now know that the Europeans got it from the Greeks who got it from the Hindus (I myself am wondering if it was from Alexander the Great in India?). They say that Spurgeon identified evolution as atheistic but he seldom mentioned either evolution or millions and millions of years (deep time). Of course, Spurgeon probably used the Model-T KJV so draw your own conclusions. Dinosaurs (a 19th century word for dragon) may have largely died off during the 700 years ice age after the great flood although some lasted longer here and there.
Actually, it's Hinduism.
IOW, you don't need a quark of evidence for your pet beliefs?
So that proves WHY they don't exist!? Which is what your asserted.
You make a strong boast of only going by the scriptures when you are talking about everyone else's quirks, but can't come up with the quarks you need for your own.
Building an argument on the idea that KJV-onlyism is wrong because there is nothing in the Bible supporting KJV-onlyism is almost as wrong as KJV-onlyism.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what your reply has to do with what I wrote.
- Status