-
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 Refuse to Answer
- Thread starter Phillip
- Start date
I'm going to bump this back up. Seems funny out of eight pages only one decent attempt to answer the question. The big LOUD KJVo's around here seem to scatter when this question is answered.
Right you are Robycop3, I could have just as easily said 1575. 1605 was just an arbitrary "pre-publication" date for the KJV, that I picked. Even if it did exist in some form at that date, it was not yet provided to the "generation" who obviously used ANOTHER word-for-word, letter-for-letter perfect translation.
So, if you wish, I have no problems changing it to. What was the correct English Bible in 1550? There, that should still remain within the English language era and certainly PREDATE the KJV.
Any takers on this question? Any of you KJVo's at all want to give a real answer? King James Only does not need my copy of changes from the 1611 to the Oxford edition to answer this question. That is a cop-out, so if he wishes to quit playing his little stalling games and provide a REAL answer, I will e-mail the changes, otherwise I'm tired of playing his little game of stall, stall, stall
You know, the: "I know the answer, and I'm smarter than you, but I'm not telling you, because if I tell you, you will know everything I know." type of childish game.
Point is, there ain't no answer without disproving the KJVo myth. That is the reason everybody has scattered and only the people who know the truth have stuck it out.
Au Contrare. It is my understanding, based on a former KJVo member that as long as the foreign Bible was translated from the KJV, that it was perfectly acceptable. In fact, the same person said that every single language in the world is and has THIS promised perfect-letter-for-letter Bible in their own language.
Funny how our mission boards stay busy translating to new dialects that have never had a Bible until today. . .
Say, Phillip, ask your KJVo friend what hope those people who knew no English and who lived and died prior to 1611 ever had of being saved since "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by THE [emphasis mine] word of God" Romans 10:17.
Guess hell will have a lot more people in it than what I realized.
Let's see, even Wycliffe (for whom the Wycliffe Bible Translators are named) will be there I suppose, not to mention all of our Baptist forefathers who were put to death for their faith during the Dark Ages.
Guess hell will have a lot more people in it than what I realized.
Let's see, even Wycliffe (for whom the Wycliffe Bible Translators are named) will be there I suppose, not to mention all of our Baptist forefathers who were put to death for their faith during the Dark Ages.
King James Bible Only
New Member
I don't need your copy of changes, this is true. I don't mind if you send it to me, but if that is too much of a hassle, keep it.Originally posted by Phillip:
So, if you wish, I have no problems changing it to. What was the correct English Bible in 1550? There, that should still remain within the English language era and certainly PREDATE the KJV.
Any takers on this question? Any of you KJVo's at all want to give a real answer?
King James Only does not need my copy of changes from the 1611 to the Oxford edition to answer this question.
That is a cop-out, so if he wishes to quit playing his little stalling games and provide a REAL answer, I will e-mail the changes, otherwise I'm tired of playing his little game of stall, stall, stall
You know, the: "I know the answer, and I'm smarter than you, but I'm not telling you, because if I tell you, you will know everything I know." type of childish game.
You accuse me of stalling but my answer, or at least the beginning of it, is eight posts before these statements you make. People have been commenting on it.
Also, I have been privately conversing with some of the members concerning the issue, instead of cluttering the board with multiplied replies.
You say that I'm stalling, but I'm not, I'm just very busy with work and other obligations that I can't play on the board all day and night. I've not been the least childish in this, but I have heard a lot of speaking as a child from others.
Just in case you don't get to look at my other answer I will answer the new one again, leaving the explanation in the previous post.
"What was the correct English Bible in 1550? There, that should still remain within the English language era and certainly PREDATE the KJV."
The King James Bible was the perfect word of God in English in 1550, and even before then, indeed, the King James Bible has always been the word of God in English.
Don
King James Bible Only
New Member
Incredible, the KJV was the perfect Word of God before it ever existed. Now I would like to know how that works. Is there any reasoning with a person who would make such a ridiculous statement as this?
Bro Tony </font>[/QUOTE]Tony,
Look a page or two before, reason is given. Don't shut down your brain when someone says something you don't agree with. A ridiculous reply as yours proves you did not think through the entire reply. It seems you want a one line answer but it has to have 400 pages of commentary and demonstration. Too many of you don't wish to hear reason and proofs, you want short statements that you can sarcastically deride the conclusion. Seems a little lazy on your parts.
I do hope that someone actually wants to carry on an intelligent type of discussion (to aviod the word debate for adverse connotation), I'm listening to what other have to say, I'm just not hopping to the demands of the imprudent.
Don
One major serious problem with your statement is its failure to name and identify the specific edition of the KJV that you claim is "the perfect word of God." There are more than 5 present-day editions of the KJV with variations between them.
As you know, there are many differences between the 1611 edition of the KJV and the present-day Oxford edition. In effect, your statement is claiming that English-speaking people before 1611 or 1769 or some later year did not have to have or need a perfect edition of the English Bible.
In effect, are you also implying that the KJV was a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not the "word of God?" Another problem with your statement is that is your opinion and is not stated in the Scriptures. You may think that you base it on the Scriptures, but your understanding of them is not perfect nor infallible. All the verses that you likely base your view on were in the earlier English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops'], and if those verses were interpreted the same way then as you understand them, the KJV
should never have been made. Are your interpretations of the Scriptures the same as that understood by genuine believers since A. D. 100 and regardless of the language they speak?
What the Scriptures teach concerning themselves was just as true for English-speaking believers before 1611 as it for such believers today. If your view implies that English-speaking believers before 1611 did not have to hold in their hands a "perfect word of God" in one translation in English, then your view also suggests that there is also no such need today. The truth is consistent. You have not yet shown your view to be consistent and scriptural.
King James Bible Only
New Member
And you say I'm holding a double-standard.
This will be the last post I respond to tonight, for I must go sleep.
I suppose that the writer is referring to my declaring that the King James Bible is the word of God, for ever settled in heaven. Or maybe the member was not even responding to anything I said at all, I'm not sure, he didn't quote anybody.
I did not say that there is not in English in print "a Bible that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled," for I have not gotten very far in my vindication of the King James Bible. It should be pretty clear from other posts I wrote that I do believe I have the perfect word of God in my hands and in my heart.
Don
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
Believing that the Bible is a Supernatural Book as I do and trusting that my God preserved it in my own language in perfect form without any errors does require faith in the face of all your arguments to the contrary.I found last night where one bible "scholar" whom I have respected since early in my christian life(Clarence Larkin)built an entire doctrinal supposition on one mistranslation of a verse from the RV.It was the teaching regarding the pre-adamic earth and the passage was in Isaiah 45:18.Just another example of why I trust no other bible than the KJV.
The bottom line for me is simply that I believe the evidence presented that supports the KJV/TR position....and obviously most of you guys don't.It is obvious to me that I am not educated enough to carry on a running argument with most of you and most of you are not humble enough to make me feel comfortable(or convinced)with your position.I know that may sound a bit mean but the truth of the matter is that some of the pride I sense in this thread and others is unnerving to me.And I sense it on BOTH sides of the fence.
I'm just going to keep believing the Book that the Holy Spirit has always used to bear witness with my spirit.The rest leave me uneasy...at the very least.I for one KNOW I'm not smart or wise enough to presume that I could ever correct the Word of God and when you start using multiple translations it is almost impossible for most men to resist the temptation to say such things as.."a better translation would read...." or 'such and such a word was incorrectly translated....'or the classic "this verse was not found in the oldest and best known manuscripts...".At the very best this leaves fallible men on very shaky ground."Pride goeth before a fall....".
Greg Sr.
The bottom line for me is simply that I believe the evidence presented that supports the KJV/TR position....and obviously most of you guys don't.It is obvious to me that I am not educated enough to carry on a running argument with most of you and most of you are not humble enough to make me feel comfortable(or convinced)with your position.I know that may sound a bit mean but the truth of the matter is that some of the pride I sense in this thread and others is unnerving to me.And I sense it on BOTH sides of the fence.
I'm just going to keep believing the Book that the Holy Spirit has always used to bear witness with my spirit.The rest leave me uneasy...at the very least.I for one KNOW I'm not smart or wise enough to presume that I could ever correct the Word of God and when you start using multiple translations it is almost impossible for most men to resist the temptation to say such things as.."a better translation would read...." or 'such and such a word was incorrectly translated....'or the classic "this verse was not found in the oldest and best known manuscripts...".At the very best this leaves fallible men on very shaky ground."Pride goeth before a fall....".
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
How long canit take Don, to tell us:
Which publisher's edition of the KJV is -
The letter for letter
word for word
preserved in heaven
Word of God?
Methinks you have "shot yourself in the foot" with your "letter fot letter" claim. EVERY printing has some slight letter changes.
Glory Bound
New Member
My guess is that Don is thinking along these lines:
The KJV (or KJB, whichever is your preference) is exactly the same as the TR, which is exactly the same as the original autographs from the original writers. So in that case, the KJV (which is THE Word of God) has ALWAYS existed, even before it was called the KJV.
Of course, the languages are different, but God has seen to it that the translations along the line were always accurate, therefore preserving the TRUE Word of God.
Am I on track, Don?
The KJV (or KJB, whichever is your preference) is exactly the same as the TR, which is exactly the same as the original autographs from the original writers. So in that case, the KJV (which is THE Word of God) has ALWAYS existed, even before it was called the KJV.
Of course, the languages are different, but God has seen to it that the translations along the line were always accurate, therefore preserving the TRUE Word of God.
Am I on track, Don?
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
But if it is "letter for letter" only one printing of one edition by one publisher is right. Every edition has misprints, spelling differences, slight word changes, etc.
For example - How does God spell Saviour? Some Bibles spell it with the "u", some without. If there is a "letter for letter" Bible one of these is wrong.
For example - How does God spell Saviour? Some Bibles spell it with the "u", some without. If there is a "letter for letter" Bible one of these is wrong.
Yes, C4K, if it's different by JUST ONE LETTER from the "perfect" edition, it aint perfect, is it?
Mr. Perry...I'm just a simple ole unedjikated steel worker. I make little steel bars outta big steel bars. But I can READ.
I've read virtually every piece of junk written by the pro-KJVO authors, as well as some honest attempts to justify the KJVO myth by the likes of Dr. Thomas Holland. And I've seen that NONE of them can deal with the fact that there's not one blip of Scripture supporting the myth.
Don...YOU haven't even begun to deal with the fact that NO TWO ENGLISH BVS ARE ALIKE.
One of the great English translators and men of God of all time was Myles Coverdale. He is associated with at least three English BVs-the Coverdale Bible, the Matthew's Bible, & the Geneva Bible. He worked upon the first two in peril of his life. He certainly didn't believe God was limited to just one English version, as God used him to make three of them.
God did NOT retire in 1611, leaving us just the one 400-yr-old version that's written in now-archaic language. This is a MODERN view, originating from a cult official. He still provides His word in OUR language. Remember, God is Master of the languages also, as well as His own word.
Mr. Perry...I'm just a simple ole unedjikated steel worker. I make little steel bars outta big steel bars. But I can READ.
I've read virtually every piece of junk written by the pro-KJVO authors, as well as some honest attempts to justify the KJVO myth by the likes of Dr. Thomas Holland. And I've seen that NONE of them can deal with the fact that there's not one blip of Scripture supporting the myth.
Don...YOU haven't even begun to deal with the fact that NO TWO ENGLISH BVS ARE ALIKE.
One of the great English translators and men of God of all time was Myles Coverdale. He is associated with at least three English BVs-the Coverdale Bible, the Matthew's Bible, & the Geneva Bible. He worked upon the first two in peril of his life. He certainly didn't believe God was limited to just one English version, as God used him to make three of them.
God did NOT retire in 1611, leaving us just the one 400-yr-old version that's written in now-archaic language. This is a MODERN view, originating from a cult official. He still provides His word in OUR language. Remember, God is Master of the languages also, as well as His own word.
God has not preserved a Bible in English. In fact English was not around when the Bible was completed. He has preserved His word. God in his sovereignty decided to have the Bible recorded in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. God did not choose English. Man chose to do a translation in English.
(Must stop guffawing long enough to type...................................)
I just tuned in to this thread, and I see that King James Bible Only has produced the answer to the often asked question of exactly where did God's Word exist prior to the completed translation of & publication of the KJV in 1611. The long-awaited answer is (drumroll...............): In the form of the King James Version!