KJVO Authority

FFF. As for John 7:52 the KJB translates it aright. The underlying TR has two aorist active imperatives, "Search!" and "look!", both in singular. Those who spoke these words were Pharisees, and they commanded Nicodemos who was one of them, the same man who visited Jesus by night.

I did not confuse Bible regeneration with "Bible preservation". I believe in Bible preservation but perhaps when it comes to specific details I disagree with you, I cannot tell. Just to inform I will say I am TR-only or -preferred, more specifically Scrivener 1894 is the TR edition I regard as the superior one. As for the OT I stand with the Bomberg/Ben Chayim Masoretic text of 1524-25. So while not being KJV Only I am a proponent of the texts which are claimedly underlying the KJV. I am no friend of the Alexandrian Greek text editions, and I also regard the Majority Text as inferior to the TR type editions. I am likewise averse to dynamic equivalent versions, of which to this day all I have encountered have been based on the corrupted Greek text (Eclectic Text). The best translations available today are such that are based on the said above original language texts and translated by using formal equivalency, also known as verbal equivalency. To mention a few; LITV, MKJV, KJV, YLT, Geneva, NKJV, VW-Bible.

As for formal equivalent versions which are not based on the TR I am more reserved, giving credit where and when they render accurately and faithfully, but lamenting the fact of the faulty text underlying them. Examples of such would be NASB, ASV, ALT (MT-based), Darby.

I hope the above somewhat explains where I stand version-wise, not a KJVO, nor a Modern Versionist, but something else, which I leave for others to classify if they feel such a need.

Harald

 

FFF,

Your responses are out of line. You, like many others, have become caustic and hateful. You have thrown accusations out that have no business here and you have based them, not on the revelation of Scripture, but on the desires of your own mind. I hope you will reconsider your approach and keep it centered on the facts.

Your responses are also woefully inadequate to deal with the issues here. You keep insisting you are not using your own mind to establish the authority of the KJV while all the while refusing to use Scripture to do such. SCripture has not told you that the KJV is perfect; you have used your own mind to establish that. Scripture has revealed to us that things other than the KJV can rightly be called the word of God; yet you have used your own mind to deny that in spite of the revelation of God. The mind that is driven by Scripture will submit itself to Scripture. To this point, you have unfortunately not shown yourself to be willing to do that.

You speak of this great flood of doubt that the MVs cause. Having been in a KJVOnly church and now an exclusive user of MVs in my church, I have not seen this doubt. Without question, the people in my current church that use MVs are much more serious about their spiritual lives and their commitment to Christ than the people in the KJVOnly church. YOur side often talks of the fruit of a version: That is plain proof of the fruit. The answer is to realize that commitment and passion for God is not about the version you use but about whether you follow the word of God. These great clouds of doubt are being sown by your side when you deny the authority of God's word in MVs. I reject that. I think God's word is authoritative in MVs. I don't think God limited his voice to 17th English because of the evidence of Scripture.

I appeal to you to begin thinking biblically about this issue and to leave the biting and caustic remarks at home. Do not bring them into here. They are not necessary. Let us discuss the facts of the issues.

 

Pastor Larry,

You said: [Your responses are out of line. You, like many others, have become caustic and hateful.].

I accept your criticism as valid. I tend to respond to taunting with an increased level of energy. Neal’s taunts toward the KJBOs got under my skin a little. I will respectfully back-off with the hatefulness. I apologize for being hateful to you. In fact, I have spent some time reviewing 1 Corinthians 3 and have found you to be correct. I knew ye was plural, but I believed you later in the verse took it back to the individual in reference to temple. After studying it out I believe your interpretation of this is correct, not mine. I guess God took me in my own craftiness on that one. I still adamantly disagree with you on “homosexual offenders”, but on the issue of “temple” you are right. When I have been shown to be wrong I will try to admit it. It’s pretty hard for someone as vain as myself.

You said: [You have thrown accusations out that have no business here and you have based them, not on the revelation of Scripture, but on the desires of your own mind. I hope you will reconsider your approach and keep it centered on the facts.].

Larry, this is only partially true, and the same argument can be made for MV accusations, even your own at times. This appears (desires of you mind) to be a bit of bullying on your part. I could very easily make this apply to your stance as well.

You said: [Your responses are also woefully inadequate to deal with the issues here.].

I completely reject this. My responses are entirely adequate to deal with the issues here. Again, you want me to tone down, you must do the same.

You said: [You keep insisting you are not using your own mind to establish the authority of the KJV while all the while refusing to use Scripture to do such. SCripture has not told you that the KJV is perfect; you have used your own mind to establish that. Scripture has revealed to us that things other than the KJV can rightly be called the word of God; yet you have used your own mind to deny that in spite of the revelation of God. The mind that is driven by Scripture will submit itself to Scripture. To this point, you have unfortunately not shown yourself to be willing to do that.].

Scripture does not prove your position any more than it does mine. Either position will be based on faith and reason. You know this I’m sure. The difference between me and many of the MVs here is that I do not claim the facts irrefutably prove my position. If you believe you position is irrefutably proved by fact then I am somewhat concerned about your grasp of the reality of the situation. I do not believe Alexandrian manuscripts, modern textual criticism, and new translation methods have come together to improve a situation where the Bible’s manuscript foundation and translation methods were considered solid for nearly 400 years. You have your belief, I have mine.

You said: [You speak of this great flood of doubt that the MVs cause. Having been in a KJVOnly church and now an exclusive user of MVs in my church, I have not seen this doubt. Without question, the people in my current church that use MVs are much more serious about their spiritual lives and their commitment to Christ than the people in the KJVOnly church. YOur side often talks of the fruit of a version: That is plain proof of the fruit. The answer is to realize that commitment and passion for God is not about the version you use but about whether you follow the word of God. These great clouds of doubt are being sown by your side when you deny the authority of God's word in MVs. I reject that. I think God's word is authoritative in MVs. I don't think God limited his voice to 17th English because of the evidence of Scripture. ].

I praise God you are seeing fruits for your labors. I believe the word of God where it is correctly translated has immense power, even in MVs. Certainly commitment and passion for God can exist regardless of version, and I certainly do not question your heart in these matters. However, I believe the full effect and ultimate fruit of MVs will be a negative one when compared with the KJB once the final analysis is in. I believe this, you do not. We disagree.

You said: [I appeal to you to begin thinking biblically about this issue and to leave the biting and caustic remarks at home. Do not bring them into here. They are not necessary. Let us discuss the facts of the issues.]

I have been thinking biblically about this for a long time Larry, you know this from prior engagements we have had here on the BB. As I said earlier, I will back off with my remarks, but someone who expects respect will give it. Insinuations that I have not begun to think biblically about an issue (or as Neal claimed about me living in a bubble) are certainly biting and somewhat caustic. If you are going to require such behavior from me, please do not be hypocritical by doing the same things you rebuke me for (I mean this respectfully).

 

Ah yes, what a refutation of the charges.

Neal </font>[/QUOTE]I'm glad you enjoyed it. It is certainly on your level. I try to provide refutation commensurate with the facts offered for the argument. </font>[/QUOTE]It isn't on my level FFF. Pastor Larry has dealt with this extensively in the past. All KJVO's have evaded dealing with it. The Bible calls writings other than the KJV, "The Word of God". If only the KJV is the Word of God, why doesn't the Bible say so and moreover why does it refer to something else by that title?

In the KJV, there are many NT citations of OT passages- they don't match word for word and sometimes whole sections are added or left off. We had a significant thread on Luke 4:18 compared to Isaiah 61:1.

The peculiar wording of the KJV is not the source of authority for God's Word. Even the internal evidence from the KJV proves this fact.

 

FFF, You have not answered Neal's basic question. You have danced all around it but never given a lucid answer. Why is it valid to charge someone who chooses a MV of using their own mind as their final authority while at the same time using one's own mind to conclude KJVOnlyism?

It does not prove which versions are good or bad. However, it does establish by principle that what we believe about more than one set of words being legitimately called the Word of God. The Bible internally makes reference to versions of the scripture that do not match the KJV.

Not entirely. And after having pleaded with KJVO's for some kind of concrete foundational facts for what they believe, I am convinced that there are none. At the same time, our side of this debate as effectively argued by Pastor Larry accounts for historical and scriptural facts. If we rely on the example of scripture then the only scriptural proof on this subject is that more than one set of words is referred to as the Word of God. This fact does not prove that the NIV is the best available version. It simply proves the versional onlyism is contrary to the biblical example.

With all due respect, you have just indicted yourself. KJVO is your belief- and you do not contend it is based on conclusive fact. That makes your mind, independent of "reality", the final authority on this issue.

 

Once again, this thread has degraded to the point that I feel it best to close it.