KJV -vs- ESV

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by eric_b:
I don't quite understand the argument, but it isn't a big deal to me. KJV is absolutely the preserved Word of God and anyone who reads it does a good thing.

Eric[/QB]

Reads and believes right?

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Too bad it was a site that mislead you. The KJV that you hold in your hand is the product of a library of preserved manuscripts, a very small library at that. It did not avail itself of even the majority of manuscripts. Erasmus used less than a dozen by his own admission. Certainly God could have preserved his word in one book instead of a library. But he didn't do it. He preserved it in a library of over 5000 manuscripts.

I believe the site was talking about KJV plus all the other MV's.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Japheth:
But Daniel did not follow a bare foot man who castrated himself for heavenly merits either(Origen.)

... nor did he follow someone who believes that the anti-christ will be a 10 foot tall black man or a woman who claims that God inspired the words of her book ("New Age Bible Versions" by Gail, aka "God and" Riplinger).

Come to think of it, Daniel rejected the idea of emperor as a lower god also while Erasmus acknowledged the papacy (Christ's Vicar).

vicar

\Vic"ar\, n. [OE. vicar, viker, vicair, F. vicaire, fr. L. vicarius. See Vicarious.] 1. One deputed or authorized to perform the functions of another; a substitute in office; a deputy. [R.]

If you are going to assume that anything marginally associated with a heretic is tarnished then you need to explain why Erasmus sought the approval of "Christ's Vicar" for his text.

The KJV translators recognized their monarch's "headship/prelacy" over the Church of England- effectively their pope. The leaders of the translation committee also persecuted dissenters which included our Baptists forebearers. You should also be aware that the non-Anglicans in the early 1600's rejected the KJV until forced by law to use it.

If you are going to question the accuracy of a work based on the character of those associated with its production then the TR/KJVO position is completely indefensible.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
Boy, did my comparison of the ESV go downhill fast once the KJVO's got their hands on me.

Phillip,
IMO you invited the "KJVO's" to join in when you made the following statement:

Originally posted by Phillip:
...I am definitely not "If you don't read the KJV" you'll never make it to heaven crowd.

That is a mischaracterization of the KJVO philosophy. In addition to that, your first post on this thread invited discourse between KJVO's and those who prefer MV's.</font>[/QUOTE]Do you mean I'm not allowed to whine about when I'm overrun? Hmmmmmmm, you would think after this long I'd learn to keep my mouth shut.

You guys remind me of the lawyers that have been deposing me for the last four months, you can find a piece of paper (or a post) written anytime, anywhere, just when you need it. Oh well, my infinite lack of "trying to be funny" seems to be my downfall.

I think I better start taking my lawyer's advice:
and stick to the following responses:

'yes'
'no'
'I don't recall.'

[ October 09, 2002, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

[Japheth]

... nor did he follow someone who believes that the anti-christ will be a 10 foot tall black man or a woman who claims that God inspired the words of her book ("New Age Bible Versions" by Gail, aka "God and" Riplinger).QB]

And neither do I. I follow that Book(KJV)!!not Man. But,good ole' W&H(Origen) can't say that.

[ October 09, 2002, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Japheth ]

 

[Phillip]

I follow that Book(KJV)!!not Man. But,good ole' W&H(Origen) can't say that.

If you lived in 678 A.D. what would you follow?

 

[Japheth]

I would have found the true word of God and went from there.

 

[eric_b]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by eric_b:
I don't quite understand the argument, but it isn't a big deal to me. KJV is absolutely the preserved Word of God and anyone who reads it does a good thing.

Eric

Reads and believes right?

[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Sure, that's even better... and reads, believes, and lives out would be best of all

Eric

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Japheth:
I would have found the true word of God and went from there.

That's an interesting proposition. At that time, the real variations such as missing text, contradictions, etc. between Bibles would have been much greater than anything we see now... and the majority of the existing Greek texts would have been Alexandrian.

Precisely how would you have gone about finding the "true word of God"?

 

[Ransom]

Homebound said:

These Bibles were perfect for that time in which they were.

So truth is relative to the age in which you live?

 

[RaptureReady]

What I am saying is, I believe God does not reveal everything in the Bible the first, second, third, or one hundredth time you read it. If everything was revealed to you in the Bible then please explain everything to me.

 

[Ransom]

We weren't talking about what I may "get" out of the Bible after reading it, we were talking about the Bible. It is there whether I read or understand it or not.

If a perfect Bible existed before 1611, then either you must acknowledge that it is still a perfect Bible today (and therefore where it differs in meaning from the KJV, the KJV must be in error), or you must acknowledge that truth is relative to the age.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Choose.