-
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!
KJVO Lies
- Thread starter DeclareHim
- Start date
Michelle, Take a look at Wycliffe Bible Translators. What do you make of their efforts?:
http://www.wycliffe.org/wbt-usa/home.htm
http://www.wycliffe.org/wbt-usa/home.htm
Your facts are disputable.
First for any American who has English as their mother tongue consider:
They enter into school already being fluent in English, as far as being able to speak it.
Secondly, they learn literature and grammar thoroughly for the next twelve years of their education. When they graduate many of them go on to university. In university they usually take a first year course in literature. I am bewildered why many of them come to my wife asking for help in English having to do with Elizabethan English, such as the KJV was written in, or Shakespearean English. Our own North American people can't understand the KJV after 12 years of education.
John Bunyan's allegory, "Pilgrim's Progress," is required reading in university literature courses.
Your premise is all wrong: Take a child for (for argument's sake Afghanistan), bring him to America, teach him English, send him back within about 4 years to teach the Bible correcting from the KJV where there may be any error. So this must assume that the level of education is par with Elizabethan English in 4 years for a typical Afghan.
Keep in mind that William Carey the father of modern missions went to India and translated the Bible into 26 different languages.
The Great Commission is to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature; not to bring children here.
Afghanistan is 99% Muslim. What makes you think you can take an indoctrinated Muslim child, teach him English, assume that he will become a Christian, and go back and teach the Bible. In four years is he going to obtain a Bible education that it takes us 4 to 7 years after 12 years of formal education to learn theological terms such as atonement, justification, propitiation, sanctification, etc. If he doesn't understand these concepts how is he going to translate them?
Some facts about Afghanistan:
It's population is about 20 million--99% Muslim.
It is divided up into 20 cultural groups or tribes, each having their own language. Some of these don't have any Bible at all.
There is an illiteracy rate of 80%. If they can't read or write in their own language, can you imagine the challenge teaching them Shakespearean English, in 20 different languages nevertheless??
Again, to be effective at all, you have to go to them, as the Bible commands. They will not come to you. In fact, in all likelyhood cannot come to you. They probably cannot get a visa to get out of the country in the first place. Most people could never afford such a venture. The country lives in poverty. For years Pakistan has sponsored the largest refugee camp in the world--Afghans fleeing either from Soviet invasion, or far more recent: Taliban rule. They live in deep poverty. You are far too simplistic in your approach, sitting at home in your theological arm chair, obviously never having lived in the "real world" outside of the U.S.A.
DHK
First for any American who has English as their mother tongue consider:
They enter into school already being fluent in English, as far as being able to speak it.
Secondly, they learn literature and grammar thoroughly for the next twelve years of their education. When they graduate many of them go on to university. In university they usually take a first year course in literature. I am bewildered why many of them come to my wife asking for help in English having to do with Elizabethan English, such as the KJV was written in, or Shakespearean English. Our own North American people can't understand the KJV after 12 years of education.
John Bunyan's allegory, "Pilgrim's Progress," is required reading in university literature courses.
Your premise is all wrong: Take a child for (for argument's sake Afghanistan), bring him to America, teach him English, send him back within about 4 years to teach the Bible correcting from the KJV where there may be any error. So this must assume that the level of education is par with Elizabethan English in 4 years for a typical Afghan.
Keep in mind that William Carey the father of modern missions went to India and translated the Bible into 26 different languages.
The Great Commission is to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature; not to bring children here.
Afghanistan is 99% Muslim. What makes you think you can take an indoctrinated Muslim child, teach him English, assume that he will become a Christian, and go back and teach the Bible. In four years is he going to obtain a Bible education that it takes us 4 to 7 years after 12 years of formal education to learn theological terms such as atonement, justification, propitiation, sanctification, etc. If he doesn't understand these concepts how is he going to translate them?
Some facts about Afghanistan:
It's population is about 20 million--99% Muslim.
It is divided up into 20 cultural groups or tribes, each having their own language. Some of these don't have any Bible at all.
There is an illiteracy rate of 80%. If they can't read or write in their own language, can you imagine the challenge teaching them Shakespearean English, in 20 different languages nevertheless??
Again, to be effective at all, you have to go to them, as the Bible commands. They will not come to you. In fact, in all likelyhood cannot come to you. They probably cannot get a visa to get out of the country in the first place. Most people could never afford such a venture. The country lives in poverty. For years Pakistan has sponsored the largest refugee camp in the world--Afghans fleeing either from Soviet invasion, or far more recent: Taliban rule. They live in deep poverty. You are far too simplistic in your approach, sitting at home in your theological arm chair, obviously never having lived in the "real world" outside of the U.S.A.
DHK
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
To use your logic, my dear sisiter:
"I know what I have by the evidence of the Holy Spirit in my life and the fruit that is born. I have told you over and over again, but you have blinded yourself to what I have said."
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
Roger
BTW - great post DHK.
Repent_and_Believe
New Member
One note: "oldest and best"
This comment is used by those that would promote that the oldest Greek manuscripts which were used in translating the King James version were not as OLD as those that were used in translating other bibles such as the Douay version. This is seen in study bibles alot and is misleading.
Here is why:
1. Manuscripts such as I John which promoted the deity of Christ were burned more frequently and thus are in the hard to find category of manuscripts. I John has been altered in several cases which is why the modern bibles say that verses in I Jn 5 are missing (but some add them in just the same either for traditional or other reasons).
2. Cruel rulers of the period burned manuscripts. Thus it is easier to find an older version of a corrupted I John manuscript than it is to find an older copy of I John that is pure.
3. Best is a misnomer. Its not correct. Best is purely a personal opinion. What is FACT is that God gave his words to be preserved for all generations. And men like Wycliffe and Tyndale did their best to bring the Bible into the English language so that the common folks would have the bible. Who says that a manuscrpt is 'best' anyway? Those that would want you to believe that they will someday be able to assemble the complete bible for us. We already have the scriptures. They are in manuscript form, God's words all preserved in various languages with emphasis on the Hebrew, Greek, to some extent Latin, and English.
4. Question: is something right just because it can be dated to an earlier age? Where does accuracy come in?
I agree with the chain of textual authority that Askjo gave for each of the versions he lists. Its a line that cannot be denied.
I also agree with the rules of this forum: Pastor Bob is no dictator and we should (continue to) keep the conversation on friendly note.
This comment is used by those that would promote that the oldest Greek manuscripts which were used in translating the King James version were not as OLD as those that were used in translating other bibles such as the Douay version. This is seen in study bibles alot and is misleading.
Here is why:
1. Manuscripts such as I John which promoted the deity of Christ were burned more frequently and thus are in the hard to find category of manuscripts. I John has been altered in several cases which is why the modern bibles say that verses in I Jn 5 are missing (but some add them in just the same either for traditional or other reasons).
2. Cruel rulers of the period burned manuscripts. Thus it is easier to find an older version of a corrupted I John manuscript than it is to find an older copy of I John that is pure.
3. Best is a misnomer. Its not correct. Best is purely a personal opinion. What is FACT is that God gave his words to be preserved for all generations. And men like Wycliffe and Tyndale did their best to bring the Bible into the English language so that the common folks would have the bible. Who says that a manuscrpt is 'best' anyway? Those that would want you to believe that they will someday be able to assemble the complete bible for us. We already have the scriptures. They are in manuscript form, God's words all preserved in various languages with emphasis on the Hebrew, Greek, to some extent Latin, and English.
4. Question: is something right just because it can be dated to an earlier age? Where does accuracy come in?
I agree with the chain of textual authority that Askjo gave for each of the versions he lists. Its a line that cannot be denied.
I also agree with the rules of this forum: Pastor Bob is no dictator and we should (continue to) keep the conversation on friendly note.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Welcome to the discussion R&B and thanks for your good spirit.
Keep it up! It gets "hot and heavy" here at times and sometimes the "dictators" have to step in .
Keep it up! It gets "hot and heavy" here at times and sometimes the "dictators" have to step in
.Which does not support a single-translation-only position.
The problem is that you have a warped view of the concept of "perfect preservation". Perfect preservation does not require verbatim perfection. This is where you err.
Again, your hypocracy surfaces. If you're correct, and God is not limited to originals, that does not support your notion that God is limited to only one translation.
I see no correlation in that statement to support single-translation-onlyism.
There are several translations that have changed history: The Geneva, the KJV, and the Gutenburg, to name a few. Polularity of translation does not support single-translation-onlyism. The NIV is currently the most popular Bible in the US today. I doubt you would support the idea that its popularity would support single-translation-onlyism.
Well, I do praise Lacy and michelle for finally admitting their true belief concerning the AV1611.
My contention all along is that the father of this doctrine is he who made the following statement.
Notice that Dr. Ruckman does not talk about a slammed door in 90AD - the completion of the canon of the NT Scriptures.
IMO this is the most bizzare form of Anglo-Israeli-ism to date.
But, people are free to believe what they will.
HankD
My contention all along is that the father of this doctrine is he who made the following statement.
Peter Ruckman, The Monarch of Books, Pensacola, 1973, p. 9.
Notice that Dr. Ruckman does not talk about a slammed door in 90AD - the completion of the canon of the NT Scriptures.
IMO this is the most bizzare form of Anglo-Israeli-ism to date.
But, people are free to believe what they will.
HankD
Lacy Evans
New Member
"FINALLY?" How long have I been here debating? I have never hidden my position.
Lacy
My apology then and I am sorry but I don't remember you saying that the KJV is the Only Bible in the sense that all others in any language are not bibles.
Or am I mistaken there also?
Let's clear it up.
Lacy do you agree with this statement: that the King James test is the last and final statement that God has given to the world, and He has given it in the English language, the universal language of the 20th century and that God slammed the door of revelation shut in 389BC and slammed it shut again in 1611?
HankD
--------------------------------------------------
Lacy do you agree with this statement: that the King James test is the last and final statement that God has given to the world, and He has given it in the English language, the universal language of the 20th century and that God slammed the door of revelation shut in 389BC and slammed it shut again in 1611?
HankD
--------------------------------------------------
God has made EVIDENT what he has done. I cannot speak for other languages, I can only see the EVIDENCE in my own native language of what He has done, and throughout the history of the churches prior to this in respect to English. I will leave you with this:
Romans 11
33. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34. For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller?
35. Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36. For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Lacy do you agree with this statement: that the King James test is the last and final statement that God has given to the world, and He has given it in the English language, the universal language of the 20th century and that God slammed the door of revelation shut in 389BC and slammed it shut again in 1611?
HankD
--------------------------------------------------
God has made EVIDENT what he has done. I cannot speak for other languages, I can only see the EVIDENCE in my own native language of what He has done, and throughout the history of the churches prior to this in respect to English. I will leave you with this:
Romans 11
33. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34. For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller?
35. Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36. For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
DeclareHim
New Member
How bout this? NASB onlyism why because I just accept it by faith. or ESV onlyism because I just believe it by faith. ISVO because I just believe it by faith. HCSBO because I just believe it by faith. Boy I know which version is God's Only Word to the English speaking people now.
Boy I know which version is God's Only Word to the English speaking people now.--------------------------------------------------
Is that a yes without saying yes michelle?
--------------------------------------------------
Why is it that you all desire a blanket yes or no answer? Sometimes they can't be answered. Do you know the mind of the Lord? Do you know what God has done in other languages? I cannot tell you that God has made the English KJB the universal word of God. How could I? I only know what HE has done/evidenced in respect to my own language.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Is that a yes without saying yes michelle?
--------------------------------------------------
Why is it that you all desire a blanket yes or no answer? Sometimes they can't be answered. Do you know the mind of the Lord? Do you know what God has done in other languages? I cannot tell you that God has made the English KJB the universal word of God. How could I? I only know what HE has done/evidenced in respect to my own language.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Repent_and_Believe
New Member
Was just noting (duh) that there were many more pages to this topic than I first noted.
Some thoughts:
Lacy and the others - you are both right to a degree. I totally agree that we must go to them, learn their language just as much as I am sure that you can use the KJV to give them a bible in their own language. Its being done by Bearing Precious Seed ministries founded by Charles Keen in Ohio. Our former Spanish pastor is working with others in translating a Spanish bible from the KJV.
Thus both of you are on the right track in many ways. I dont advocate bringing the world to the US any more than I support using the Alexandrian manuscripts (wont call them what I think of them) for newer bibles. Go to the country - learn the language first if you can.
The basic premise of Bearing Precious Seed is that the local, visible, NT Church is the guardian of the scriptures. Not a think tank. Thus the CHURCHES are responsible for taking care of the scriptures. And ministries should be under a church's authority in order to be scriptural. For instance, Paul and Baranabas were accountable to their sending church at Antioch. Later on you can say that Paul spent more time in Greece and later Rome and thus 'transferred' his membership to them. This isnt off topic - its a basic belief I have adopted based on sound scriptural evidence. When a ministry gets away from being church based they have no governing body that was ordained by Christ over them. How does this affect the scriptures? The folks that took care of the scriptures in Jesus' time were ... the scribes who were accountable to the High Priest and other Levites. The NT scriptures were given to the church and a similar process of scribal copy was used. Thus the scriptures were the property of the CHURCH.
Not a publishing house ...
In Christ and over and out for my first day on the forum. Thanks Pastor Bob. This place keeps you doctrinally sharp.
Some thoughts:
Lacy and the others - you are both right to a degree. I totally agree that we must go to them, learn their language just as much as I am sure that you can use the KJV to give them a bible in their own language. Its being done by Bearing Precious Seed ministries founded by Charles Keen in Ohio. Our former Spanish pastor is working with others in translating a Spanish bible from the KJV.
Thus both of you are on the right track in many ways. I dont advocate bringing the world to the US any more than I support using the Alexandrian manuscripts (wont call them what I think of them) for newer bibles. Go to the country - learn the language first if you can.
The basic premise of Bearing Precious Seed is that the local, visible, NT Church is the guardian of the scriptures. Not a think tank. Thus the CHURCHES are responsible for taking care of the scriptures. And ministries should be under a church's authority in order to be scriptural. For instance, Paul and Baranabas were accountable to their sending church at Antioch. Later on you can say that Paul spent more time in Greece and later Rome and thus 'transferred' his membership to them. This isnt off topic - its a basic belief I have adopted based on sound scriptural evidence. When a ministry gets away from being church based they have no governing body that was ordained by Christ over them. How does this affect the scriptures? The folks that took care of the scriptures in Jesus' time were ... the scribes who were accountable to the High Priest and other Levites. The NT scriptures were given to the church and a similar process of scribal copy was used. Thus the scriptures were the property of the CHURCH.
Not a publishing house ...
In Christ and over and out for my first day on the forum. Thanks Pastor Bob. This place keeps you doctrinally sharp.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Welcome again R&B.
I strongly disagree with this statement:
I strongly disagree with this statement:
Why take another step away from the what the human writers originally wrote?
Lacy Evans
New Member
You didn't make a mistake. There area alot of folks here expressing alot of opinions. I don't guess I should be so vain as to expect everyone to keep up with mine. Sorry.
Concerning the MVs and non-English translations, here is my position. I think I give them almost as much credibility as you do and I believe some of them are necessary (Moreso the the foreign Bibles than English Bibles). I believe they are to varying degrees "reliable", "close to the original", etc. (Just like most MVers.) And they have truth in them. I don't believe any of them are perfect. (Just like MVers.)
Here is where I differ:
I don't believe scripture teaches that inspiration was ever meant to be limited to the autographs.
I believe the scripture teaches that Timothy held inspired copies in his hand. (Probably a 1st century Greek OT.)
I believe scripture teaches God promised to preserve his Words.
I believe scripture teaches that God preserves by resurrecting things.
I believe scripture teaches that we can test the veracity of a prophet by its fruit.
I believe the KJV passes with flying colors any possible objective test of fruit you could apply to it, compared with not only the other versions and translations. But it even stands up to comparisons with the fruit of the autographs. (And if something showed up in a resurrected form wouldn't it be as good or better than the original.)
I agree with some of it. I would remove the word "final" because I can't see the future. I certainly believe the part about the "universal language of the last days". That is almost indisputable. I don't think the door has been slammed shut. If we reject the truth and drift from doubt to despair like so many have done in the past, I believe God will "shut the mouth of the prophets" and take away his side of the conversation with us. (He did it over and over in the OT. I believe he did it to some degree in the dark ages.)
God help us if that happens with English speakers, after God piggy-backed the greatest revivals in history on a worldwide secular movement like British expansionism, (Quite frankly, the miracles of the 17th and 18th century are as remarkable as the plagues of Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea.)
I believe God will turn elsewhere, (Perhaps Asia, China specifically, where there are rumblings of incredible revival of holiness, and revelation.)
In scripture, God gives perfect revelation to those who take the imperfect and run with it. In II Kings, Josiah was acting on his imperfect revelation. He only knew that the temple ought to be rebuilt. When he moved God allowed him to discover the BOOK!, a perfect copy of scripture in the rubble of his work. Those Chinese may be closer than us to finding the book. God might slam the door shut on us. The KJV might have only been number 6.
Lacy
Lacy Evans
New Member
I'm leaning for the weekend. Won't be back. Cell phone turned off, no computers where I'm going. Love ya'll. See ya. Don't try to find me. PLEASE! PLEASE PRAY FOR ME! Very big decisions on the mountain top!
Love, your brother in Christ, Lacy
Love, your brother in Christ, Lacy