KJV and the modern versions

[Askjo]

I would encourage you to start with James White's book, The King James Only Controversy. He does an excellent job of answering some of these questions. You may not agree, but at least you won't have to ask me the questions.

Why are you interested in this anti-KJV author of that book? I read it from the beginning to the end. Many of James' quotations in that book are WRONG. I do not recommend it for everyone.

 

[Rippon]

Why are you interested in this anti-KJV author of that book? I read it from the beginning to the end. Many of James' quotations in that book are WRONG. I do not recommend it for everyone.

Dr.White is not an "anti-KJV author".I really doubt that you read his book all the way through.What quotations of his are wrong?

You do not recommend it for everyone.Therefore you recommend it for some.

 

[Askjo]

No I didn't. Go back adn read the first thing I said, and then read the second. I specifically did not accuse you of lying.

Yes, by saying it is not the Word of God, and thereby calling God's promises and God's word into question.

I agree. But they don't contradict the God who has spoken. They are his word.

No it doesn't. That's nonsense. I Have used modern versions for fifteen years and my doctrine and faith is stronger now than it ever was. I have seen far more fruit of ministry under modern versions. And on top of that, or underneath it, are the promises of God.

Of course it does. I agree with the KJV. The problem is that the KJV teahes what I believe, not what you believe.

Nowhere that I am aware of or that has ever been shown.

Of course it does. It just doesn't agree with what you said.

You still denied because you are so blind. When you said MVs are God's Words, you have the God-speaking contradicting Himself on your hands.

 

[Askjo]

HP: Thanks but no thanks. Your problem is that you are gaining your information from the wrong sources.

Amen! I strongly agree with you.

 

[Askjo]

It is in what you chose to ignore:You take the Nestle-Aland Greek texts, or the United Bible Societies Greek texts, or the Hodges-Farstad Majority text, and you will see at the bottom an apparatus. In each apparatus are the manuscript evidences given by ANCIENT manuscripts.

I do not buy them because they are catholicized.

 

[Askjo]

Dr.White is not an "anti-KJV author".I really doubt that you read his book all the way through.What quotations of his are wrong?

You denied it. Only God knows me! Yes, SURE! I read it.

An intelligent resreacher questioned him in regard of his book, but why did James refuse to answer some questions? James did not use his name in his website -- NONE! NOTHING! ZERO! Ask yourself why?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Why are you interested in this anti-KJV author of that book? I read it from the beginning to the end. Many of James' quotations in that book are WRONG. I do not recommend it for everyone.

Show me.

IMHO James R. White does a much better job than AWE. I will be glad to go thru AWE and show the untruths.

 

[Askjo]

Show me.

IMHO James R. White does a much better job than AWE. I will be glad to go thru AWE and show the untruths.

He advises you to be a Calvinist.

 

[Ed Edwards]

She lies about what Wescott & Hort said - a very easily checked lie.

He is ignored by me, if he advocates Calvinism. I don't believe in Calvinism (I'm a 3.5 point Calvinist )

 

[Rippon]

You denied it. Only God knows me! Yes, SURE! I read it.

An intelligent resreacher questioned him in regard of his book, but why did James refuse to answer some questions? James did not use his name in his website -- NONE! NOTHING! ZERO! Ask yourself why?

If I could make heads or tails out of what you have here I could respond more intelligently.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Why are you interested in this anti-KJV author of that book? I read it from the beginning to the end. Many of James' quotations in that book are WRONG. I do not recommend it for everyone.

I am not interested in the author. The book is well written, well documented, and shows the error of the KJVO position. I am not aware of any of James' quotations that are wrong. Feel free to show some if you think they are. I know that he showed that a number of quotes of anti-Bible people to be wrong.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You still denied because you are so blind.

I am not sure what this is in reference to. I would not call me blind. I am relatively confident that I have studied this topic more than you, and I certainly appear to know more about it than you do.

When you said MVs are God's Words, you have the God-speaking contradicting Himself on your hands.

This makes no sense. First "the God-speaking" is unintelligible. I don't even know what that means. When I say that the MVs are the the Word of God, I am simply telling the truth. That's not contradictory in the least. If you don't like it, that's not my problem. Your problem is with something else.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor Larry: I know that he showed that a number of quotes of anti-Bible people to be wrong.

HP: So you equate those that believe the MV’s utilize corrupted manuscripts as ‘anti-Bible?’

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor Lary: David Cloud is a documented liar on this issue, as well as posting outright misleading statements.

HP: That is a direct personal attack on another believer. You did not even have the courtesy to document what you claim is a lie or misleading. Have you as a moderator ever stopped to read the rules of this forum about refraining from personal attacks?

Where is your evidence?

 

[Pastor Larry]

HP: So you equate those that believe the MV’s utilize corrupted manuscripts as ‘anti-Bible?’

They are attacking the Bible, and I consider that anti-Bible. I don't see how that can be debated.

HP: That is a direct personal attack on another believer. You did not even have the courtesy to document what you claim is a lie or misleading. Have you as a moderator ever stopped to read the rules of this forum about refraining from personal attacks?

Where is your evidence?

David Cloud is a public figure who has published his material. The evidence has been posted numerous times in other places both here and elsewhere. Cloud is not trustworthy on this topic.

I can't help but notice how you are not actually addressing the issues however. You want to run after peripheral things rather than the substance. My conclusion is that you have been backed into a corner from which you cannot escape and so you are changing the subject to distract from that.

There are real issues about which you have made and are making serious errors. I have no problem with people who prefer one version or one text over another. I do have an issue with those who attack the Word of God in other texts or translations, particularly when they haven't taken the time to actually learn about the issue but instead simply repeat the same old tired stuff that has been shown to be false before.

 

[ccrobinson]

Why are you interested in this anti-KJV author of that book? I read it from the beginning to the end. Many of James' quotations in that book are WRONG. I do not recommend it for everyone.

This is an interesting thread to me. Would you be so kind as to post a couple of quotations in James' book that are wrong?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor Larry: David Cloud is a public figure who has published his material. The evidence has been posted numerous times in other places both here and elsewhere. Cloud is not trustworthy on this topic.

HP: There is no reason whatsoever to call another a liar on this board period, if in fact we are bound not to personally attack another, and certainly not as believers anywhere without careful documentation, and even then caution would be in order. Being a moderator should not exempt you from the rules the rest of us are required to keep. A Pastor of all people should set an example of Christian charity and honor the rules of this board. Such comments do nothing to make this debate more profitable, nor do such comments add weight to your position. As a matter of fact they weaken your case. Generally speaking when the personal attacks start, the attacker is out of real solid evidence.

PastorLarry: I can't help but notice how you are not actually addressing the issues however. You want to run after peripheral things rather than the substance. My conclusion is that you have been backed into a corner from which you cannot escape and so you are changing the subject to distract from that.

HP: That is a mere smoke screen, a mere chimera, again with no factual support. You are starting to sound like another on this list, often claiming to have the upper hand in a debate or accuse the other etc. Such comments are merely self serving. I can only hope they serve that purpose effectively, for such comments certainly add no weight to your position. If what you are saying is true, show us where you have backed me into the corner. Show me the questions I have not answered directly. I will do my best to comply.

Pastor Larry: There are real issues about which you have made and are making serious errors. I have no problem with people who prefer one version or one text over another. I do have an issue with those who attack the Word of God in other texts or translations, particularly when they haven't taken the time to actually learn about the issue but instead simply repeat the same old tired stuff that has been shown to be false before.

HP: Trust me, the feeling is mutual. What else is new in debate?? Try debating the issues and cut this peripheral nonsense. If you are out of ideas, just say so. If not, take one of the most important points you feel I have overlooked and bring it to the table.

One of the problems we always find is that often too many issue are brought to the table in a single post to address then effectively. We all, I included, need to try our best to limit our posts to one or two pertinent points to keep better focused. Less personal attacks, more substance, and that to the point.

Now to the substance. :thumbs:

PL: You don't seem to understand logic and argumentation. The "presupposition" is a premise, and the premise is that one hundred copies are in error. (I didn't say what they were copies of.) If you copy down "2+2=5" one hundred time, it will still be wrong. Period.

HP: Your argument is faulty. It supposes that the first copy is in error, and then there is accumulative error. No evidence supports that notion for obvious reasons. Were you there to witness which copy successive copies were made from and to the error they contained if any? Where is the proof that the text from which 95% of the textual evidence hails is wrong? Give us the facts not your false theories. Tell us of the probabilities of that being the case, if you want to deal in probabilities. Where is any reliable 'proof' that the text from the mere 5% or less of all textual evidence is closer to the truth?

The latter position is all based upon theories of men like W&H, some of which I have proved false by clear illustration. It is mere speculation, speculation you yourself stated could be wrong. Show us this eye opening truth in any MV that we as a church have been missing for over four hundred years? Oh, I almost forgot. We were missing all those omissions and footnotes and faulty word changes that confuse and bring doubt into the minds of the reader as to just what comprises the Word of God and questions whether or not ‘thus saith the Lord.’ Just great. I believe I can do without such help, and so can the Church.

 

[Pastor Larry]

HP: There is no reason whatsoever to call another a liar on this board period, if in fact we are bound not to personally attack another, and certainly not as believers anywhere without careful documentation, and even then caution would be in order.

I disagree. I think when someone threatens the faith of God’s people with dishonesty like Cloud has done, it is not only acceptable to call them out, it is required. To do less is to abandon the truth in the hour of attack.

Being a moderator should not exempt you from the rules the rest of us are required to keep. A Pastor of all people should set an example of Christian charity and honor the rules of this board.

I agree, and try to uphold that. My responsibility as a Christian, a pastor, and a moderator require pointing out the truth, even when it is unpopular.

Such comments do nothing to make this debate more profitable, nor do such comments add weight to your position. As a matter of fact they weaken your case. Generally speaking when the personal attacks start, the attacker is out of real solid evidence.

These issues are well documented other places so I need not repeat them here. Pointing out the truth always strengthens a case. My point is that Cloud is not to be trusted in much of what he says on this issue and that has been documented. I am not the bad guy here.

HP: That is a mere smoke screen, a mere chimera, again with no factual support.

The factual support is seen in your posts, that you have not addressed the issues.

HP: Trust me, the feeling is mutual.

I have not addressed feeling, so whatever you are feeling is not mutual in the least. This is about facts and truth.

PL: You don't seem to understand logic and argumentation. The "presupposition" is a premise, and the premise is that one hundred copies are in error. (I didn't say what they were copies of.) If you copy down "2+2=5" one hundred time, it will still be wrong. Period.

HP: Your argument is faulty. It supposes that the first copy is in error, and then there is accumulative error.

Again, you miss the point. The first copy, in my example, is in error. Therefore, all copies afterward, no matter how accurate to the first copy are in error. I am here dealing with a principle and you are missing it. The principle is simple: 100 copies of an error is still an error. It didn’t become fact because it got repeated enough times. BTW, 100 accurate copies are still accurate.

No evidence supports that notion for obvious reasons.

The evidence is prima facie. Consider my example: If you write “2+2=5” one hundred times, it is still wrong. Do you disagree?

Were you there to witness which copy successive copies were made from and to the error they contained if any? Where is the proof that the text from which 95% of the textual evidence hails is wrong?

I haven’t made that case here. I have addressed a particular argument you made and showed it to be false. The majority text may be right (in which case the KJV is wrong), but if the majority of texts are correct, it is not because they are the majority. That is the point. Being in the majority is irrelevant. Being accurate is relevant.

Give us the facts not your false theories.

As an aside, let me see if I have this straight. If I say David Cloud is giving false theories, I am engaging in personal attacks, but you are allowed to do it?

Tell us of the probabilities of that being the case, if you want to deal in probabilities. Where is any reliable 'proof' that the text from the mere 5% or less of all textual evidence is closer to the truth?

You again are misguided, which reminds me that the idea that amateurs shouldn’t have this conversation has some merit. There is no proof of anything. Your asking for it shows you don’t understand the issues.

The latter position is all based upon theories of men like W&H, some of which I have proved false by clear illustration.

So you did what no one else has ever been able to do? Wow … and you are posting on the Baptist Board?

It is mere speculation, speculation you yourself stated could be wrong.

I don’t agree that it is speculation. Any theory of text criticism, whether the critical theory, the majority theory, or the TR is built off of educated conclusions. Calling that “speculation” is misguided.

Show us this eye opening truth in any MV that we as a church have been missing for over four hundred years?

I am not aware of any.

We were missing all those omissions and footnotes and faulty word changes that confuse and bring doubt into the minds of the reader as to just what comprises the Word of God and questions whether or not ‘thus saith the Lord.’

You are the one sowing confusion by telling people they can’t trust their Bibles. I disagree with that and call to mind the words of Christ that those who damage the faith of his little ones should have a millstone hanged around his neck and drowned.

Just great. I believe I can do without such help, and so can the Church.

Continuing in misguided error is not a good thing. The church never believed what you believe, and the church as a whole doesn’t believe it now.

So in conclusion:
1. If you are going to accuse me of personal attacks, please refrain from attacking me at the same time.
2. Please take time to learn about the issues. Feel free to disagree with me, but at least know what you are talking about.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor Larry: You are the one sowing confusion by telling people they can’t trust their Bibles. I disagree with that and call to mind the words of Christ that those who damage the faith of his little ones should have a millstone hanged around his neck and drowned.

HP: This is about as low as one can get in the realm of personal attacks.

 

[Pastor Larry]

HP: This is about as low as one can get in the realm of personal attacks.

Under what possible definition is that a personal attack? I think I only described what you are doing.

Are you building the faith of people in the Word of God in translations such as the NASB or the ESV or the NIV? Or are you confusing them by telling them that they can't trust those translations of the Word of God?

In my ministry, I have had the misfortune of trying to pick up the pieces of faith of those who have been influence by teachings such as your propounding here. And it is not pretty when people are ready to walk away from the church because they have been taught that only one version is the real Word of God. It is one of the most disturbing parts of ministry. It's one thing to deal with people for their own sin. It's completely different to try to deal with their faith that has been harmed by false teaching to the point of not even knowing whether or not they can trust their Bibles.