-
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!
KJV-Onlyism Commentary
- Thread starter Jason Gastrich
- Start date
Missed this one! Here we see a grain of Ruckman's "all truth is English truth" logic. Based on the supposed righteousness of the English culture. But it is highly debatable how much "closer to the truth" the English have been to begin with. They have sinned and distorted the Gospel in many ways just like everyone else.
I believe the KJV text is superior (though reasonable changes, like the MKJV's, are acceptable; the NKJV does go too far in many places, IMO), but not because it is from the English. That is not how we determine "truth": Set one culture up as the sole guardian of the truth, so then whatever they produce is good. This shows that this is really a cultural issue, and contradicts the Gospel that all are concluded under sin, and it is only individuals, saved by grace, who are declared righteous before God.
artbook1611
New Member
The chewing of the cud supposed error:
In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.
However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.
It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the sceptics are wrong.
God, through Moses, was giving instructions that any Israelite could follow. It is inconceivable that someone familiar with Middle-Eastern animal life would make an easily corrected mistake about rabbits, and also inconceivable that the Israelites would have accepted a book as Scripture if it were contrary to observation, which it is not.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp
art
[edited to add link to source]
[ August 30, 2004, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]
In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.
However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.
It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the sceptics are wrong.
God, through Moses, was giving instructions that any Israelite could follow. It is inconceivable that someone familiar with Middle-Eastern animal life would make an easily corrected mistake about rabbits, and also inconceivable that the Israelites would have accepted a book as Scripture if it were contrary to observation, which it is not.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp
art
[edited to add link to source]
[ August 30, 2004, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]
artbook1611 said "the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’"
Then why wasn't the English translated that way?
artbook1611 said "It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day"
But 'chewing the cud' was not what scripture said in Moses' day. 'chewing the cud' is an English translation of what scripture said in Moses' day.
artbook1611 said "inconceivable that the Israelites would have accepted a book as Scripture if it were contrary to observation, which it is not."
I don't think anyone is saying scripture in Moses day was wrong. The issue is how it was translated into English.
Nice to meet you artbook1611.
natters1560
Then why wasn't the English translated that way?
artbook1611 said "It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day"
But 'chewing the cud' was not what scripture said in Moses' day. 'chewing the cud' is an English translation of what scripture said in Moses' day.
artbook1611 said "inconceivable that the Israelites would have accepted a book as Scripture if it were contrary to observation, which it is not."
I don't think anyone is saying scripture in Moses day was wrong. The issue is how it was translated into English.
Nice to meet you artbook1611.
natters1560
steaver, I really liked how Will pointed out Jasons blatant and obvious contradictions of his own beliefs. I didn't see in Jason's second round where he dealt with that either, but it is possible that I missed it. Will deals in facts, truth, honesty all done in Christian love, I am unsure what Jason deals with, but truth and honsty are lacking so far in his posts.
Jim
Jim
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Welcome artbook1611 to the BB.
Your web site's SOF is: "We believe that the King James Bible
is God's masterpiece in the English language, and is flawless,
100% reliable, and free from error."
Amen, Brother Artbook1611 -- Preach it.
However, i ask most everbody this question.
I have three books on the bookshelve around my computer
monitor (Flat screen
) which I have heard individually
and collectively the KJB = King James Bible.
They all say King James Version (KJV) on their outer cover.
To you, which of these three KJVs is the KJB?
1. KJV1611 Edition
2. KJV1769 Edition (most common on
---- the internet electronically
---- and in printed books)
3. KJV1873 Edition
Your web site's SOF is: "We believe that the King James Bible
is God's masterpiece in the English language, and is flawless,
100% reliable, and free from error."
Amen, Brother Artbook1611 -- Preach it.
However, i ask most everbody this question.
I have three books on the bookshelve around my computer
monitor (Flat screen
and collectively the KJB = King James Bible.
They all say King James Version (KJV) on their outer cover.
To you, which of these three KJVs is the KJB?
1. KJV1611 Edition
2. KJV1769 Edition (most common on
---- the internet electronically
---- and in printed books)
3. KJV1873 Edition
artbook1611
New Member
Maybe all 3. Theres probably little or no difference between them.
Why do you believe that Will must prove the KJB inerrant as opposed to Jason proving that it isn't?
Jason has given Will six "errors" now to deal with and Will has debunked every one of them using facts and reason. If you are "missing it" then you are concreted in your position and nothing Will nor any other KJB believer shows you will change your point of view.
Can you provide a quote where inerrancy of the KJB is disproven?
There is no such quote which proves anything either way. But thus far what was presented as "errors" has not been proven as errors. And not only this ,but has thus far vindicated the KJB and therefore I say that Will is crushing the critics thus far.
Why won't Jason tell us which manuscripts are inerrant and why? Can you tell me which one's are and why?
God Bless!
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Welcome artbook1611 to the BB.
Your web site's SOF is: "We believe that the King James Bible
is God's masterpiece in the English language, and is flawless,
100% reliable, and free from error."
I say:
I believe that the King James Version 1611 Edition
is God's masterpiece in the 17th Century (1601-1700)
English language, and is flawless,
100% reliable, and free from error.
I believe that the King James Version 1769 Edition
is God's masterpiece in the 18th Century (1701-1800)
English language, and is flawless,
100% reliable, and free from error.
I believe that the King James Version 1873 Edition
is God's masterpiece in the 19th Century (1801-1900)
English language, and is flawless,
100% reliable, and free from error.
I believe that the New King James Version (nKJV)
is God's masterpiece in the 20th Century (1901-2000)
English language, and is flawless,
100% reliable, and free from error.
I believe that the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
is God's masterpiece in the 21st Century (2001-2100)
English language, and is flawless,
100% reliable, and free from error.
I believe the five books are different, one from
the other, using different words in the English language
of the day in which they were first printed.
Brother Artbook, which of these three books do you own?
1. KJV1611 Edition
2. KJV1769 Edition (most common on
---- the internet electronically
---- and in printed books)
3. KJV1873 Edition
Praise Iesus
Your web site's SOF is: "We believe that the King James Bible
is God's masterpiece in the English language, and is flawless,
100% reliable, and free from error."
I say:
I believe that the King James Version 1611 Edition
is God's masterpiece in the 17th Century (1601-1700)
English language, and is flawless,
100% reliable, and free from error.
I believe that the King James Version 1769 Edition
is God's masterpiece in the 18th Century (1701-1800)
English language, and is flawless,
100% reliable, and free from error.
I believe that the King James Version 1873 Edition
is God's masterpiece in the 19th Century (1801-1900)
English language, and is flawless,
100% reliable, and free from error.
I believe that the New King James Version (nKJV)
is God's masterpiece in the 20th Century (1901-2000)
English language, and is flawless,
100% reliable, and free from error.
I believe that the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
is God's masterpiece in the 21st Century (2001-2100)
English language, and is flawless,
100% reliable, and free from error.
I believe the five books are different, one from
the other, using different words in the English language
of the day in which they were first printed.
Brother Artbook, which of these three books do you own?
1. KJV1611 Edition
2. KJV1769 Edition (most common on
---- the internet electronically
---- and in printed books)
3. KJV1873 Edition
Jason has made some contradictions but he continues on as if he doesn't. He doesn't deal with it. I don't see Jason as a villin. I believe he loves the Lord and is a brother in Christ. I do believe that he has placed himself upon the wrong side of this issue and has wasted valueble time attacking something which is mightly blessed and obviously backed by God, the Word of God. Anything less than inerrant cannot be the Word of God, that would be like an oxymoran or something. "Ah, this is the Word of God, but it has errors in it" Boy that would make the new convert eager to dive into it!
One thing a would ask Will to do, and that would be to restrain himself from belittling remarks. Sometimes passion makes us get a little to picky. The facts he presents is more than enough to handle the "errors" thus far.
God Bless!
I believe that using different words which mean the exact same thing is perfectly ok. But that isn't the problem with multiple versions, nor the crux of this debate. It is when the meaning is changed completely or makes the meaning questionable. Many so called "errors" are not. It is only called an error because thus person believes there is a better way of saying it. Jason needs to stick with out right errors. I don't think he will find any.
God Bless!
artbook1611
New Member
Ed Edwards
I can do without your sarcasm. I use the King James, find no fault in it and don't need you trying to toy with me.
That quote is on my website, If you don't agree with it, don't read my website.
I can do without your sarcasm. I use the King James, find no fault in it and don't need you trying to toy with me.
That quote is on my website, If you don't agree with it, don't read my website.
eschatologist
New Member
Some obvious errors, although most knowledgeable people know the meaning, are words in which the KJV combine under a singular word or meaning.
Example: The KJV uses the word 'world' (i.e. "the end of the world") when the actual Greek meaning is 'age'. Unless you believe there is no difference between the end of the world and the end of the age this poses no problems. Also the word 'Hell' is used for both words 'Hell' and 'Hades' which do have distinguished meanings.
Although I value the KJV translation, I do believe that some of the more modern versions correctly apply the Greek (i.e., NASB, NIV, ESV, etc.). What many do not realize is that the KJV translators used other translations like the Wycliff Bible and the Geneva Bible as well as MANY translations of the Greek by Erasmus. Erasmus mainly attempted to re-translate the Greek back from the Latin Bible, which I will say is a very dangerous way to arrive at the original Greek meaning!
And for these 'KJV only' advocates I ask this: Before the KJV translation were those who used these other translations not saved or in trouble in some way?
Example: The KJV uses the word 'world' (i.e. "the end of the world") when the actual Greek meaning is 'age'. Unless you believe there is no difference between the end of the world and the end of the age this poses no problems. Also the word 'Hell' is used for both words 'Hell' and 'Hades' which do have distinguished meanings.
Although I value the KJV translation, I do believe that some of the more modern versions correctly apply the Greek (i.e., NASB, NIV, ESV, etc.). What many do not realize is that the KJV translators used other translations like the Wycliff Bible and the Geneva Bible as well as MANY translations of the Greek by Erasmus. Erasmus mainly attempted to re-translate the Greek back from the Latin Bible, which I will say is a very dangerous way to arrive at the original Greek meaning!
And for these 'KJV only' advocates I ask this: Before the KJV translation were those who used these other translations not saved or in trouble in some way?
artbook1611
New Member
And for these 'KJV only' advocates I ask this: Before the KJV translation were those who used these other translations not saved or in trouble in some way?
END QUOTE
A person gets saved from receiving the Lord Jesus Christ as their saviour.He shed His precious blood on the cross of Calvary to pay the penalty of our sin.If a person is saved, it is because of the blood, not which version one reads from.
"When I see the blood"........
Most of my christian friends use various versions and our fellowship is sweet for the most part even though I only use the KJ. I am no better than they and do not think myself above them in any way. I am a sinner saved by grace and look forward to the Lords return with my fellow believer.
However I do feel that the devil back in Gen 3 was in the business of adding to, taking from and outwardly denying the words of God. Has he changed his game plan? I think not.
I prided myself some 34 years ago in having 22 different translations in my library but as I put them into use, I noticed many were downright contradictory when compared to my greek helps. So one by one I discarded them til I was left with the KJ only of which I have yet to find a fault when comparing to my greek helps.
I knew nothing of KJonlyism, and didn't have a clue they even existed. These findings were mine and mine alone.
Just like one needs a sharp knife to make a clean incision without tearing, so a believer needs a bible that is accurate and free from man made changes.
This Bible in our english language is the KJ Bible
as far as I'm concerned.Preserved indeed by the same God who inspired the originals that are no longer in existance.
Thats my stand and I will not argue the issue.
END QUOTE
A person gets saved from receiving the Lord Jesus Christ as their saviour.He shed His precious blood on the cross of Calvary to pay the penalty of our sin.If a person is saved, it is because of the blood, not which version one reads from.
"When I see the blood"........
Most of my christian friends use various versions and our fellowship is sweet for the most part even though I only use the KJ. I am no better than they and do not think myself above them in any way. I am a sinner saved by grace and look forward to the Lords return with my fellow believer.
However I do feel that the devil back in Gen 3 was in the business of adding to, taking from and outwardly denying the words of God. Has he changed his game plan? I think not.
I prided myself some 34 years ago in having 22 different translations in my library but as I put them into use, I noticed many were downright contradictory when compared to my greek helps. So one by one I discarded them til I was left with the KJ only of which I have yet to find a fault when comparing to my greek helps.
I knew nothing of KJonlyism, and didn't have a clue they even existed. These findings were mine and mine alone.
Just like one needs a sharp knife to make a clean incision without tearing, so a believer needs a bible that is accurate and free from man made changes.
This Bible in our english language is the KJ Bible
as far as I'm concerned.Preserved indeed by the same God who inspired the originals that are no longer in existance.
Thats my stand and I will not argue the issue.
Hi Michelle,
I have been gone for a while. It is interesting to see that you are still putting yourself on the pedestal of being one of the few people on this board who can hear the Holy Spirit.
I just cannot understand why you keep using this as a "proof" factor when people like J. Smith used the same thing as proof.
What you are saying is that since about 90% of this bulletin board does not believe the KJV to be letter perfect, that 90% of them cannot hear what the Holy Spirit is saying to you.
This is not to be an insult, I am simply pointing out that your argument holds little water.
If there is a difference between the Greek/Hebrew, are you saying the the KJV "fixed" any of these problems? Because we do know for a fact that there are some difference between even the TR and the New Testament of the KJV. Besides, which KJV do you recognize as the 100% correct one? The words have been changed -- only one can be 100% accurate -- is it the 1611 or 1869 or one of the other versions? Or the New KJV?
[ August 30, 2004, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]
John Gilmore
New Member
What you are saying is that since about 90% of this bulletin board does not believe the KJV to be letter perfect, that 90% of them cannot hear what the Holy Spirit is saying to you.
I think there are a large number of lurkers like myself who are not KJVO or anti-KJVO. I appreciate this debate on a forum open to all Christians. My only suggestion to both participants is that they use more references to the teachings of the church fathers (both early and Reformation) to support their respective positions.
I think there are a large number of lurkers like myself who are not KJVO or anti-KJVO. I appreciate this debate on a forum open to all Christians. My only suggestion to both participants is that they use more references to the teachings of the church fathers (both early and Reformation) to support their respective positions.
Artbook1611,
Appart from having 22 versions in my library (I only had the NIV and the KJB ) you have mirrored my hearts feelings in your entire post. Everytime I ever cross refferenced the KJB English with the Hebrew and Greek the KJB word used was correct.
The only reason some feel it is in error today is because most all other versions have relied upon manuscripts which either were discarded as corrupted by the founding fathers or created in the 20th century after the KJB. Get the right inerrant manuscripts and you will get the right inerrant translation. We all know you cannot get good fruit from a bad tree!
God Bless!
Appart from having 22 versions in my library (I only had the NIV and the KJB ) you have mirrored my hearts feelings in your entire post. Everytime I ever cross refferenced the KJB English with the Hebrew and Greek the KJB word used was correct.
The only reason some feel it is in error today is because most all other versions have relied upon manuscripts which either were discarded as corrupted by the founding fathers or created in the 20th century after the KJB. Get the right inerrant manuscripts and you will get the right inerrant translation. We all know you cannot get good fruit from a bad tree!
God Bless!