KJV -vs- ESV

[Phillip]

Brother,
I do not have the authority to chose moderators. That is at the discretion of the Webmaster. As far as the "balance" is concerned. My views expressed are those of a member just like you. They carry no extra weight because I happen to be the moderator. I hope they carry extra weight because they are biblical, but of course, that is relative.

My duties as moderator are to insure that the posting rules are not violated. I try to be as unbiased as possible in the execution of my duties. After 20 years of marriage and having a mother-in-law, I've learned the art of getting along with those that I disagree with.

If and when another moderator is chosen, I'm sure the Webmaster will make the right choice.

Ah, roger that.

Yes, I'd agree with you 100%! I wasn't sure how the 'moderator' was supposed to operate here, so thanks for clarifying your duties here on this topic's BB. I feel sometimes that the current moderators, and perhaps this applied to only DocCas, were a bit strident in editing posts here. I only want to make sure that those like myself who oppose KJV-onlyism aren't going to be censored by a KJV-onlyist moderator who may just decide that he's going to edit my post because he didn't like something I said. Obviously, those who blatantly disregard 'tact' in their posts should have questionable parts deleted or modified by someone who can 'moderate' the BB. So far, I cannot say anything against you (Pastor Bob) for I believe that your personal integrity in moderating here is without question.

I think Pastor Bob was originally placed as Moderator for this subject matter because HE IS fair and objective, allowing people to speak their minds. This also includes his right to speak his mind.

I have never known Pastor Bob to abuse his editing powers. He is a good moderator.

[ October 07, 2002, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

[RaptureReady]

I'm with Pastor Bob on this one. Glad to see that someone else on this site believes in an almightly, all powerful, all perfect God.

 

[RaptureReady]

Sorry about that. I was only looking at page one and forgot about page 2 and 3. Pastor Bob's comment on page 1 was what I was referring to.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
I'm with Pastor Bob on this one. Glad to see that someone else on this site believes in an almightly, all powerful, all perfect God.

Are you implying that if one is not KJV-only, one does not believe in an almightly, all powerful, all perfect God?

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by BrianT:
[QB Are you implying that if one is not KJV-only, one does not believe in an almightly, all powerful, all perfect God?[/QB]

I was implying that if you don't believe in a perfect Word of God, how can you believe in an almightly, all powerful, all perfect God. God's word is how God is know.

P.S. If there is no perfect Bible, then there is no perfect God.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
I was implying that if you don't believe in a perfect Word of God, how can you believe in an almightly, all powerful, all perfect God. God's word is how God is know.

P.S. If there is no perfect Bible, then there is no perfect God.

Was there a perfect God before 1611?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
I'm with Pastor Bob on this one. Glad to see that someone else on this site believes in an almightly, all powerful, all perfect God.

There are a lot of us on here who believe in an almighty, all powerful, all perfect God. But that has nothing to do with the issue at hand here.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by BrianT:
Was there a perfect God before 1611?

I should have been a prophet. As soon as I saw BrianT join the discussion, I new this question would be asked. I have seen this question raised time and again. Frankly, I do not feel it is a logical question. Quite simply, the answer is, "yes" there was a perfect God before 1611. "Yes" there was a perfect Bible before 1611.

A common misconception about the KJVO philosophy is that we are presumed to believe that the KJV is the first and only perfect Word of God. That is simply not true.

We believe that any faithful translation derived from the Traditional Text, which has been providentially preserved down through the ages, is the Word of God regardless of the language it is translated in.

The AV 1611 and it's later revisions in English form are the latest of a long line of Providentially preserved Bibles.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
I should have been a prophet. As soon as I saw BrianT join the discussion, I new this question would be asked. I have seen this question raised time and again. Frankly, I do not feel it is a logical question.

It is a logical question. I have asked it time and time again, because I have yet to see a logical answer.

If there was a perfect Bible before 1611, the KJV was wrong to deviate from it. Things that are different are not the same.

A common misconception about the KJVO philosophy is that we are presumed to believe that the KJV is the first and only perfect Word of God. That is simply not true.

Really? I thought KJV-only was about KJV-only.

We believe that any faithful translation derived from the Traditional Text, which has been providentially preserved down through the ages, is the Word of God regardless of the language it is translated in.

That is not KJV-only. That is RT-superior.

 

[Japheth]

Well said Pastor Bob! The KJV came from that text Things that are different are not the same? I beg to differ; the MV's come from the same ole'North African text as the one before it..

[ October 08, 2002, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: Japheth ]

 

[eric_b]

Originally posted by Japheth:
Well said Pastor Bob! The KJV came from that text Things that are different are not the same? I beg to differ; the MV's come from the same ole'North African text as the one before it..

Mostly true, but with some important exceptions (NKJV, mKJV, and Webster). NKJV is the translation that I use more than any other for what it's worth...

Eric

[ October 08, 2002, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: eric_b ]

 

[RaptureReady]

Again, I agree with Pastor Bob. The answer I have about the Bible being perfect before 1611 is yes it was. Pastor Bob gave the different Bibles that have been published before 1611. These Bibles were perfect for that time in which they were.

 

[kman]

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
We believe that any faithful translation derived from the Traditional Text, which has been providentially preserved down through the ages, is the Word of God regardless of the language it is translated in.

Then you are TR-Only with a belief that the King James Version is the best translation of the TR available in English?

If I'm not mistaken this is the stance Edward Hills takes (one of the more scholarly King
James defenders). He seems to have avoided
alot of the errors of radical KJO'ism.

BTW..anyone interested can read his book online:

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdefen.htm

-kman

 

[eric_b]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
Again, I agree with Pastor Bob. The answer I have about the Bible being perfect before 1611 is yes it was. Pastor Bob gave the different Bibles that have been published before 1611. These Bibles were perfect for that time in which they were.

But they are no longer perfect? Perfection changes?

Eric

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Japheth:
Well said Pastor Bob! The KJV came from that text Things that are different are not the same? I beg to differ; the MV's come from the same ole'North African text as the one before it..

Boy, did my comparison of the ESV go downhill fast once the KJVO's got their hands on me.

So, you really don't think those scribes exiled in Egypt could do a very good job of keepinig their documents from corruption, just because of their surroundings? I thought Daniel did a fair job in Babylon.

 

[RaptureReady]

I'm not exactly sure what took place between each publication of the Bible, but I'm sure Pastor Bob has some good stuff on this. The thing that comes to my mind is, the manuscripts were not all revealed, there or maybe they were locked up.??????? I took this from another site: "If we are to know the truth which will set us free (Jn. 8:32), and if the word is truth (Jn. 17:17) then we must be able to know and recognize the word! Certainly the God who Gave The Word could Preserve it in One Book instead of a library! Preservation presumes production!!!" Sounds good to me.

 

[Japheth]

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

 

[eric_b]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
I'm not exactly sure what took place between each publication of the Bible, but I'm sure Pastor Bob has some good stuff on this. The thing that comes to my mind is, the manuscripts were not all revealed, there or maybe they were locked up.??????? I took this from another site: "If we are to know the truth which will set us free (Jn. 8:32), and if the word is truth (Jn. 17:17) then we must be able to know and recognize the word! Certainly the God who Gave The Word could Preserve it in One Book instead of a library! Preservation presumes production!!!" Sounds good to me.

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

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
"If we are to know the truth which will set us free (Jn. 8:32), and if the word is truth (Jn. 17:17) then we must be able to know and recognize the word! Certainly the God who Gave The Word could Preserve it in One Book instead of a library! Preservation presumes production!!!" Sounds good to me.

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.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

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.