-
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!
just curious
- Thread starter bro. coley
- Start date
ChristianCynic
<img src=/cc2.jpg>
Them KJV rewriters of the centuries-old Bible just didn't git that there lesson learned, did they?
BTW, 'KJVTIM,' are you a disc jockey and that's your name on the air?
K
KEVO
Guest
BrianT,No,But we are blood brothers.Neither one of us have had time to get on BB the last couple of months.
Kevin
Kevin
I don't know "Bro. Coley" but if he would like to engage in a substantive discussion of the issues I would be glad to.Originally posted by KEVO:
Pastor Larry, Bro. Coley is my pastor.Now why don't you tell him how he is teaching me unsound doctrine,and all the other stuff you said about him. Take it easy on them Bro.Coley
bro. coley
New Member
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. {Romans 3:4, KJV}
other verses in the epistles with this error inThe error is at the beginning. The phrase is 'May it not be;' not "God forbid." The name of God is NOT in the text. There are at least 10 the KJV.</font>[/QUOTE]My apologies I had to leave the discussion on Sunday night and have been in meetings. Please sir, explain by what standards do you conclude the errors. Thanks.
bro. coley
New Member
I don't know "Bro. Coley" but if he would like to engage in a substantive discussion of the issues I would be glad to.</font>[/QUOTE]Pastor Larry, I would be happy to discuss the issues with you concerning doctrinal errors of the King James Bible and/or discussions concerning the inspiration of scriptures (KJB).Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KEVO:
Pastor Larry, Bro. Coley is my pastor.Now why don't you tell him how he is teaching me unsound doctrine,and all the other stuff you said about him. Take it easy on them Bro.Coley
Please give me your standards by which you conclude errors in the KJV. By the way, does it not seem strange to you that all of the discussions are over the accuracy of one book?
GrannyGumbo
<img src ="/Granny.gif">
You 'BAMA boys hang in there! We don't have backbone in our pulpits today such as existed in the 1700's, so it blesses this ol'heart to see that there's still MEN like there used to be!
"Be faithful so much the more as you see the day approaching!"
"Be faithful so much the more as you see the day approaching!"
Bro. Coley,
Are you going to explain how my comments on 1 Tim 6:10 and Isa 45:7 are out of context?
We discuss many books here. Sometimes we discuss the accuracy of the KJV, because some make a claim for it that elevates it beyond what many of us think is truthful.
Also, just curious - what is your opinion of Peter Ruckman?
God bless,
Brian
[ July 21, 2002, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]
I have no discussion to have about doctrinal errors of the KJV. (It is a "Version" not a "Bible" according to the title page found in each copy.) You will have to find someone else to have this discussion with.
Again, the Scriptures are inspired (God breathed, 2 Tim 3:16). Any faithful translation partakes of inspiration.
Its level of conformity to the original language texts. There are different issues however. There is a level of interpretational difference which is not an "error" per se. There are mistranslations where the KJV does not say what the original language text says (e.g. Heb 10:23 where elpis (hope) is mistranslated as "faith" (pistis). There are places where the KJV is based on questionable textual basis which constitutes a textual difference (e.g. 1 John 5:7) where the KJV follows an extreme minority of textual witnesses.
Only in the sense that it is so far fetched that it is amazing that anyone believes it. As fundamentalists have always believed, there is no one perfect translation. It would be a theological impossibility unless God 'were pleased to perform a perpetual miracle' (as Gray put it in the fundamentals).
GrannyGumbo
<img src ="/Granny.gif">
there is no one perfect translation[PLarry]
"Good afternoon, pastor! I do believe the KJBible is the true, pure Word of God, as He said He would preserve His Word forever; either He did or He didn't. I've noticed that most folks who use the so-called MV's are saying He didn't. I think God gave only one set of Words & it is preserved in the KJBible(& it's ancestors before that). There can only be one Word of God. [attack deleted]
[ July 21, 2002, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]
"Good afternoon, pastor! I do believe the KJBible is the true, pure Word of God, as He said He would preserve His Word forever; either He did or He didn't. I've noticed that most folks who use the so-called MV's are saying He didn't. I think God gave only one set of Words & it is preserved in the KJBible(& it's ancestors before that). There can only be one Word of God. [attack deleted]
[ July 21, 2002, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]
bro. coley
New Member
I have no discussion to have about doctrinal errors of the KJV. in each copy.) You will have to find someone else to have this discussion with.
(It is a "Version" not a "Bible" according to the title page found
Again, the Scriptures are inspired (God breathed, 2 Tim 3:16). Any faithful translation partakes of inspiration.
Its level of conformity to the original language texts. There are different issues however. There is a level of interpretational difference which is not an "error" per se. There are mistranslations where the KJV does not say what the original language text says (e.g. Heb 10:23 where elpis (hope) is mistranslated as "faith" (pistis). There are places where the KJV is based on questionable textual basis which constitutes a textual difference (e.g. 1 John 5:7) where the KJV follows an extreme minority of textual witnesses.
Only in the sense that it is so far fetched that it is amazing that anyone believes it. As fundamentalists have always believed, there is no one perfect translation. It would be a theological impossibility unless God 'were pleased to perform a perpetual miracle' (as Gray put it in the fundamentals).</font>[/QUOTE]"unless God" Hmmmmm! now there is a thought!
[ July 21, 2002, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: bro. coley ]
bro. coley
New Member
PLEASE EXCUSE MY MARGIN OF ERROR IN TRANSLATING WORDS ON THIS SITE.
Where did God say this? I have yet to find it. Before you offer Ps 12:6-7, that has already been refuted. That is not what that Psalm teaches. Furthermore, this is not about the preservation of his word, per se. I fully believe God preserved his word. It is about whether or not his word resides only in one translation originally translated in 1611 (leaning heavily though not completely on previous translations) and changed many times since then.
Who? I have never seen any orthodox supporter of MVs say this.
But if things that are different are not the same, then how can the KJV and the ancestors (which are demonstrably different) be both the word of God? On the other hand, if things that are different can be called the Word of God (which you have just admitted), then you cannot rule out all MVs. That is the simple conundrum that you have found yourself in. And it is an unfortunate one because it is one from which the only escape is a move away from the position you treasure.
You think God performed a perpetual miracle to preserve his word inerrantly? There are so many historical/theological problems with this it is hard to believe that you seriously entertain this notion. There are 5000+ manuscripts of varying length and quality, no two of which match and none of which are complete. Every Greek testament is the result of compilation in which editors made choices about what words should be included. The TR has gone through numerous editions, each one different than the one before, either by addition or subtraction. I have never read of a miracle of God by which it took multiple tries to get it right.
However, if you would like to address the substance of the issues, that would probably be more productive for us here.
Hi Granny,
This is the first time I've seen you use the disclaimer "and its ancestors before that", so I want to make sure we understand you: by this disclaimer do you mean previous editions of the KJV (1611, 1613, 1629, etc. down to the 1762 and 1769 editions), or do you mean the translations prior to the KJV (Geneva, Tyndale, Bishop's, Great, Rheims, Wycliffe, etc., etc.)?
Brian
Brian I think you are mistaken I have Rheims(English) from Vulgate(Jesuit Bible of 1582)... Not the lineage of the KJV 1611( from the Received Text)... Is this correct Doc Cas?... Brother Glen
bro. coley
New Member
It is one thing to say I'm wrong, and another to explain how I'm wrong. Please, go ahead.</font>[/QUOTE]My explanation is simple, You must rightly divide the word of truth. Everything in God's word is written for you but it is not all written to you. There are three beings that speak in God's word. God, who never lies, man, who sometimes lies, and satan who frequently lies. Likewise, there are only three groups that are spoken to. These are the jews, the gentiles and the church. In the subject matter of the "love of money" you must read the entire chapter, if you do not understand that Paul is speaking concerning church age doctrine, then I can understand how easily one would be deceived to misinterpret the word of God. Paul says in I Timothy chapter 6:8
"and having food and rainment, let (us) be therewith content." Verse 9 - "but (they) that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lust, which draw men in destruction and perdition." WHY? verse 10 - "for the love of money is the root of all evil: ect...." Paul is speaking to Timothy verse 11 - "but thou, O man of God, ect..." and is giving instruction to the church. Please let the Bible say what it says and not what we want it to say. In the context Paul is not dealing with rape, pride, ect...., but with riches.