liberalism

James_Newman asked:

When a 'pastor' stands in the pulpit and says that the correct rendering of a verse is blah blah blah, or the better translation should have been yadda yadda then is he not elevating his knowledge above the bible?

Were these people?

 

Well, we could be Catholic a few years back and let the priest interpret the Vulgate to us.

 

I did once. But, I was wrong. You are just really confused. I think it has something to do with living in Europe so long or that aweful tower in the background of your picture. Come back to the light, Roger... </font>[/QUOTE]Well, a liberal on this issue. Politics is a whole different story .

 

James,

Everyone knows that the King's translators were totally unaware that there was even such a thing as Koine Greek and that they had no grammars or lexicons for that dialect. Everyone also knows that the King's translators were 400 years closer to the Roman Catholicism of the Dark Ages. And of course everyone knows that for the past 400 years both the Hebrew and the Greek languages have been intensely studied with tens of thousands of volumes of research results being published.

Even the most fanatical KJOists do NOT use ANY of the very few language tools used by the King’s translators and none of them have been in print for hundreds of years because they have all been superceded by hundreds of newer and very much more accurate tools, not to mention ten of thousands of volumes of analysis of the Greek New Testament and other Greek writings of the New Testament period.

I have in my personal library a first edition of Edward Pococke’s commentary on the Hebrew text of Joel. I bought the book from a dealer in Jewish antiquities—the book was published in 1691 and our knowledge of the Hebrew text of Joel has increased so much in the past 314 years that Pococke’s commentary on the Hebrew text of Joel is of no value at all other than its value as a rare book. And we must not fail to consider that 314 years ago when Pococke’s commentary on the Hebrew text of Joel was published, the King James translation of the Bible was already 80 years old and seriously out of date. If Pococke’s commentary on the Hebrew text of Joel is so dated as to be useless for any kind of serious study, what does that tell us about the much older King James translation of the Bible?

 

Craig.....You use the argument of the "age" of Mr.Pococke's commentary on the Hebrew text of Joel AND the "age" of the King James translation to shoot down its accuracy while at the same time I bet you and your "modern textual criticism" buddies would stand on a mountaintop and shout loudly about how the "oldest and best known manuscripts(to quote the footnotes found in many of the MV's)ie.,Vaticanus and Sinaiticus,etc.,are the best and MOST ACCURATE due to their AGE!Hummmmm....sounds a bit like a double-standard to me.Just a thought.Sometimes I'd be willing to bet that "much learning doth make thee mad"!On the top of the mountaintop I'm most frequently on there is a definite sense of safety in the "singularity" of my unquestioning loyalty to my "old" King James Bible.Think I'll stay with what I'm most comfortable with.Have a nice day.

Greg Sr....(LOL)

 

Only because most of us probably couldn't have read anyway

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Apples and oranges Gregory!

Dispute the information Craig gave with facts and not opinions Gregory. He gave you one source that he owns from 1691.

No back to liberalism.

KJVOist can be conservative in both social and doctrinal issues (with the exception of those like Ruckman who teach heresies). My point about KJVOism being liberal is very valid. The KJVOist when confronted about KJVOism with facts must become liberal in order to defend KJVOism. KJVOism has no scripture to stand upon, it has no historical foundation, it's anti-Baptist in it origins, many KJVO defense methods are based on distortions and lies, and it's totally based on guess work.

KJVOism must pardon people like J.J.Ray, David Ottis Fuller, Peter Ruckman, and Gail Riplinger. The above people told lies, created myths, and published works full of slander and revisionist history. There is no excuse to pardon the founding fathers of the KJVO myth.

Another thing that makes KJVOism liberal is that KJVOism is anti intellectualism.

Just because one is a social and doctrinal conservative does not make KJVOism conservative. In order to defense KJVOism one must compromise the truth in order to defend the KJVO myth with the following:

1. Guess work based on KJVO *authors works and loose research.
2. Emotional reasons based on guess work and personal preference.
3. Facts and historical evidence are dismissed as being part of some made up Alexandrian cult or ages old conspiracy theory.

*many times these KJVO writers argue from circular reasoning. Some even go as far as to lie. Ruckman, Gipp, Fuller, and Riplinger are good examples of KJVO authors that lie and distort facts.

To those who disagree with me I would ask that you prove me wrong. As a former KJVO I am fully aware of what is thrown around in the KJVO Camp concerning modern bibles, etc… I am fully aware of the lack of historical evidence and the lack of scripture to support KJVOism. The history and documentation found in the KJV family destroys the KJVO myth completely. The translators marginal notes and the “Message to the Reader” found in the AV1611 nails the coffin shut on KJVOism.

It’s one thing to prefer the KJV or the TR line but it’s another thing to claim perfection when the TR and KJV family do not agree 100% thus destroying the myth of only one English bible that is perfectly preserved. If you want to dispute this then do it with facts and documentation and not emotional guess work.

Again I ask my brothers and sisters in the Lord who are KJVO to research the evidence and think about what I have written. I have never told anyone not to use the KJV and I have never said that the KJV is not a valid translation. I use the 1599 Geneva a lot and the 1611 KJV, 1769 KJV, and KJ21 when I study the scriptures to compare what is being said in the Word. I mainly use the NASB1995 for all my church activities and study.

 

James Newman;
Good post! And an excellent reply, by the way.
I would also like to know how it is that "thousands" of resources make for accurate understanding? The scribes of old had tons of "commentaries" yet MISSED Jesus! And they SPOKE the biblical languages. And they HAD the "originals"! LOL

Things that make you go...hmmm?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

They didn't have the key to the "advanced revelations" revealed in 1611 and exegeted 400+ years after that.

HankD

 

LOL...that's right Hank! Just like Joseph Smith, Peter Ruckman had to show the people what the "advanced revelations" were. Oh puleeeeze! LOL

 

Rom 1:9 For God is my witnesse, whom I serue with my spirit in the Gospel of his Sonne, that without ceasing I make mention of you, alwayes in my prayers, (KJV)

 

They didn't have the key to the "advanced revelations" revealed in 1611 and exegeted 400+ years after that.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]__________________________________________________

That's RIGHT! How could I forget?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

LOL Jim!