Makers of KJV as Bible revisers

[DrJamesAch]

God never promised to preserve His Word in any language other than the original languages used in the original autographs (Matt. 5:17-18). The phrase “the law or the prophets” (Matt. 5:17) was used to denote the entire Old Testament Scriptures. The specific features “jot“ and “tittle“ at Matthew 5:18 and the “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would indicate the particular original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God. Since the Scriptures indicated the positive that preservation would be in the exact specific words that were given by God in the specific original languages in which He gave them, it did not need to state the negative that preservation did not relate directly to different words that are used in translations. When the positive principle for the preservation of the Scriptures in the original languages given to the O. T. prophets was indicated, there was no need to state again the same principle for the preservation of the additional Scriptures given to the N. T. prophets and apostles. If preservation cannot be limited to the original languages, it could also not be scripturally limited to translation into any other languages. Christ’s comment about the writings of Moses (John 5:46-47) would also refer to Moses’ writings in the original language that had been preserved and could still be read and believed. The Scriptures or oracles of God committed to the Jews or Hebrews were in the original language (Rom. 3:1-2). “The scriptures of the prophets” were in the original language (Rom. 16:26). The prophecy that came in old time would have been in the original language (2 Peter 1:21). The Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles were in the original languages (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Rom. 16:26). The actual languages in which God said or revealed His words are the original languages. The actual languages of the specific, precise, pure words given to the prophets and apostles by inspiration of God are the original languages.

It is amazing how many times you contradict yourself. One post says the KJV despised the Vulgate, another post says they adored it. One post says the KJV despised the Douay Rheims, another says it influenced the KJV. One post you say you never claim that the Bible is preserved in the original manuscripts, and then say that God promised to preserve it in the original LANGUAGES, and then when cornered about what languages actually mean, bifurcate between languages as a spoken element from that which is written.

Now here is another one of your unfounded and unscriptural interpretations:

God never promised to preserve His Word in any language other than the original languages used in the original autographs (Matt. 5:17-18)

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled"

Where in this verse is there ONE WORD about LANGUAGES? NONE. That is a man-made accusation that dances around the promise of preservation and inspiration. The LANGUAGE that is preserved is GOD'S LANGUAGE, not Hebrew or Greek or ENGLISH. Not one single verse you cited says ANYTHING about preservation in ORIGINAL LANGUAGES. Preservation is about what GOD SAID not MANS LANGUAGES.

If God promised to preserve His word in ONLY and original language, then why didn't He translate the tongues of everyone that spoke them in Acts 2 INTO HEBREW? And then give the hearers the understanding IN HEBREW?

When Paul quoted numerous passages from the OT into GREEK, he referred to the GREEK TRANSLATION OF A HEBREW PASSAGE "God breathed". So if translations from Hebrew to Greek are considered God breathed, then you can not eliminate translations from Greek to Latin or Greek to English as God breathed either because in several HUNDRED places in the New Testament are verses that are NOT ORIGINAL HEBREW but TRANSLATIONS of Hebrew. Furthermore, the Hebrew language itself had changed in dialects and some words that were used in 600 BC in Babylon were not used in AD 33 onward so the manuscript Jesus quoted from in Luke 4 from Isaiah 61 was not the same Hebrew that was used in 600BC when it was written, and yet Jesus said 'this day is the SCRIPTURE fulfilled in your ears'.

Thus yours and every other KJVO critic that claims this bogus "inspiration in the original language only" is a man-made accusation that is unfounded in Scripture. You can site the preface of the KJV all you want, because what they KJV translators themselves said about their translation does not change what the Bible says about itself (many of them were Calvinists so siting what they believed about their own translations is not evidence against the KJVO position even though you seem to think that it's your trump card).

You simply do not have any book that you can point to that you can say IS the PERFECT INSPIRED WORD OF GOD. Common sense tells me that if I owned a Chevy, and one owners manual says the carburetor is under the intake manifold, and another manual says that its in the crank case, BOTH MANUALS CAN'T BE RIGHT, and only ONE OF THEM IS.

Now you will then say "but the KJVO holds that no Bible was complete because they admit it is based on compilations". Compilations does not mean ALTERATIONS. If I took that same manual and ripped out 30 chapters, all 30 chapters are still the same manual. What you do is attempt to make compilations into DIFFERENCES and act like the DIFFERENCES in the KJV editions are equivalent to the ALTERATIONS, DELETIONS and MISSING BOOKS in the Alexandrian texts, as if "Thee" to "You" is somehow equal to removing the entire last half of Mark 16 or Acts 8:37, or changing "the Son of God" in Daniel 3:25 to "a son of the gods" in all the other versions.

Your arguments are just as silly, unfounded as the rest of the KJVO critics and based on ridiculous illogical straw man arguments. Israel had ONE HEBREW BOOK for 1500 years, not 30,000. The NT church had ONE BOOK until Origen messed with it 200 years later. Now have 30,000 different versions, manuscripts like Vaticanus with the entire book of Revelation missing, and you critics say like an evolutionist, put springs, nuts and screws into a can and in a billion years it will become a watch; take the phone book, a dictionary, a newspaper article, and a bumper sticker and shake them up and you have the word of God because all of those CONTAIN something derived from the Bible (whichever that may be).

You and all of your ilk (Carson, White, Wallace, Price, Lockman, Kutilek et al) have given the enemies of the gospel reason to blaspheme and antagonize Christianity that even the atheist recognizes is a flaw in Christianity.

http://atheistbillboards.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/AA_Christianity_Atheism_rs.jpg

 

[Mexdeaf]

If you have to look to the atheists as confirmation for your doctrine, I pity you.

 

[DrJamesAch]

If you have to look to the atheists as confirmation for your doctrine, I pity you.

And how is that different from you and others quoting Catholics, and even non Christian historians about the history of Hebrew and Greek texts? Have you ever actually read some of the sources sited by Logos?

Furthermore, don't all of you site Benjamin Wilkinson, a 7th Day Adventist as evidence that the KJVO movement has it's origins in a cult? So it's OK for a KJVO critic to site Wilkinson, but when a KJVO sites an atheist to show that unbelievers site the multiplicity of differing versions as a criticism against Christianity, you want to apply a double-standard that you would NOT throw at your own crowd! Gotcha:thumbsup:

And I guess that very last thing about the atheist was the only "confirmation" I wrote about defending my position. Typical critic that only sees what they want to see.

 

[Baptist4life]

It is amazing how many times you contradict yourself. One post says the KJV despised the Vulgate, another post says they adored it. One post says the KJV despised the Douay Rheims, another says it influenced the KJV. One post you say you never claim that the Bible is preserved in the original manuscripts, and then say that God promised to preserve it in the original LANGUAGES, and then when cornered about what languages actually mean, bifurcate between languages as a spoken element from that which is written.

Now here is another one of your unfounded and unscriptural interpretations:



"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled"

Where in this verse is there ONE WORD about LANGUAGES? NONE. That is a man-made accusation that dances around the promise of preservation and inspiration. The LANGUAGE that is preserved is GOD'S LANGUAGE, not Hebrew or Greek or ENGLISH. Not one single verse you cited says ANYTHING about preservation in ORIGINAL LANGUAGES. Preservation is about what GOD SAID not MANS LANGUAGES.

If God promised to preserve His word in ONLY and original language, then why didn't He translate the tongues of everyone that spoke them in Acts 2 INTO HEBREW? And then give the hearers the understanding IN HEBREW?

When Paul quoted numerous passages from the OT into GREEK, he referred to the GREEK TRANSLATION OF A HEBREW PASSAGE "God breathed". So if translations from Hebrew to Greek are considered God breathed, then you can not eliminate translations from Greek to Latin or Greek to English as God breathed either because in several HUNDRED places in the New Testament are verses that are NOT ORIGINAL HEBREW but TRANSLATIONS of Hebrew. Furthermore, the Hebrew language itself had changed in dialects and some words that were used in 600 BC in Babylon were not used in AD 33 onward so the manuscript Jesus quoted from in Luke 4 from Isaiah 61 was not the same Hebrew that was used in 600BC when it was written, and yet Jesus said 'this day is the SCRIPTURE fulfilled in your ears'.

Thus yours and every other KJVO critic that claims this bogus "inspiration in the original language only" is a man-made accusation that is unfounded in Scripture. You can site the preface of the KJV all you want, because what they KJV translators themselves said about their translation does not change what the Bible says about itself (many of them were Calvinists so siting what they believed about their own translations is not evidence against the KJVO position even though you seem to think that it's your trump card).

You simply do not have any book that you can point to that you can say IS the PERFECT INSPIRED WORD OF GOD. Common sense tells me that if I owned a Chevy, and one owners manual says the carburetor is under the intake manifold, and another manual says that its in the crank case, BOTH MANUALS CAN'T BE RIGHT, and only ONE OF THEM IS.

Now you will then say "but the KJVO holds that no Bible was complete because they admit it is based on compilations". Compilations does not mean ALTERATIONS. If I took that same manual and ripped out 30 chapters, all 30 chapters are still the same manual. What you do is attempt to make compilations into DIFFERENCES and act like the DIFFERENCES in the KJV editions are equivalent to the ALTERATIONS, DELETIONS and MISSING BOOKS in the Alexandrian texts, as if "Thee" to "You" is somehow equal to removing the entire last half of Mark 16 or Acts 8:37, or changing "the Son of God" in Daniel 3:25 to "a son of the gods" in all the other versions.

Your arguments are just as silly, unfounded as the rest of the KJVO critics and based on ridiculous illogical straw man arguments. Israel had ONE HEBREW BOOK for 1500 years, not 30,000. The NT church had ONE BOOK until Origen messed with it 200 years later. Now have 30,000 different versions, manuscripts like Vaticanus with the entire book of Revelation missing, and you critics say like an evolutionist, put springs, nuts and screws into a can and in a billion years it will become a watch; take the phone book, a dictionary, a newspaper article, and a bumper sticker and shake them up and you have the word of God because all of those CONTAIN something derived from the Bible (whichever that may be).

You and all of your ilk (Carson, White, Wallace, Price, Lockman, Kutilek et al) have given the enemies of the gospel reason to blaspheme and antagonize Christianity that even the atheist recognizes is a flaw in Christianity.

http://atheistbillboards.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/AA_Christianity_Atheism_rs.jpg

:applause::applause::applause::applause:

 

[Mexdeaf]

And I guess that very last thing about the atheist was the only "confirmation" I wrote about defending my position. Typical critic that only sees what they want to see.

The rest of your post was typical KJVO baloney. I've had my fill of that lately.

 

[Baptist4life]

The rest of your post was typical KJVO baloney. I've had my fill of that lately.

"......typical baloney."
Funny, that's exactly what I think when I see Logos posts! :tongue3:

 

[robycop3]

Dr. Ach:

Furthermore, don't all of you site Benjamin Wilkinson, a 7th Day Adventist as evidence that the KJVO movement has it's origins in a cult?

Betcha can't cite any other source for the foundation stone of the current KJVO myth.

And remember, one of the two dishonest authors who actually jumpstarted the KJVO myth was Dr. D. O. Fuller, a BAPTIST, who dishonestly concealed all mention of Dr. W's cult affiliation in his book, Which Bible?

And you simply CANNOT handle the fact that KJVO has no Scriptural support.

 

[Baptist4life]

And you simply CANNOT handle the fact that KJVO has no Scriptural support.

Cain's wife??

 

[Logos1560]

It is amazing how many times you contradict yourself. One post says the KJV despised the Vulgate, another post says they adored it. One post says the KJV despised the Douay Rheims, another says it influenced the KJV. One post you say you never claim that the Bible is preserved in the original manuscripts, and then say that God promised to preserve it in the original LANGUAGES, and then when cornered about what languages actually mean, bifurcate between languages as a spoken element from that which is written.

You failed to demonstrate any contradictions at all. You provided no actual direct quotations from me that support your bogus misrepresentations and distortions.

Where is my actual statement that claims that the KJV despised the Latin Vulgate? The KJV translators rejected the incorrect arguments for a Latin Vulgate-only theory, but the KJV translators consulted the Latin Vulgate in their translating.

It is a well-established fact that the KJV translators borrowed a good number of renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament. The 1582 Rheims did influence the making of the KJV regardless of whether or not you reject that established fact.

 

[Logos1560]

Your arguments are just as silly, unfounded as the rest of the KJVO critics and based on ridiculous illogical straw man arguments.

You failed to show that I use any fallacies in my arguments.

It is KJV-only arguments that are fallacies such as the fallacy of begging the question, the fallacy of special pleading, the fallacy of false dilemma, the fallacy of composition, and straw man distortions of the views of believers.

The KJV-only use of fallacies [false arguments] and use of unscriptural, unrighteous divers measures [double standards] does not establish a KJV-only theory.

It is amazing that you suggest that my acceptance of what the Scriptures state and teach is "silly" or "ridiculous."

 

[Logos1560]

Now you will then say "but the KJVO holds that no Bible was complete because they admit it is based on compilations". Compilations does not mean ALTERATIONS. If I took that same manual and ripped out 30 chapters, all 30 chapters are still the same manual.

Your claim and reasoning does not hold up. You are uninformed or misinformed.

It is a fact that the original langauge manuscripts on which the printed original language texts from which the KJV is translated were imperfect and incomplete, having a number of copying errors including omissions, additions, and changes, The original language texts that underlie the KJV were not merely compiled unchanged and unaltered as you incorrectly claim since the facts are that those incomplete manuscripts were edited, altered, changed, and corrected by the various editors who worked on them. The parts of the original language manuscripts are not all the same or identical in those places were they include the same Old Testament or New Testament books.

The twenty or more varying Textus Receptus editions were compiled from imperfect sources [corrupt sources according to the fallacy of composition] that had actual textual differences. The first two editions edited by Erasmus did not have three whole verses [1 John 5:7, Luke 17:36, Mark 11:26] along with other whole clauses or phrases because they were missing from Greek manuscripts on which those TR editions were based. Erasmus wrote in many corrections in his Greek manuscripts that he prepared for the printer to follow in printing his text. Those manuscripts in which Erasmus wrote his changes or alterations still exist. Erasmus also added readings from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome as printed in his day that were not found in his Greek manuscripts. Later editions of the Textus Receptus kept those added readings found in no Byzantine Greek manuscrits, kept "minority readings" found in only a few Byzantine Greek manuscripts, and include conjectures made by Erasmus and Beza.

If according to your use of the fallacy of composition, the fact of any copying errors or any imperfections in manuscripts supposedly makes their entire text "corrupt", the same applies to the original language manuscripts on which the Textus Receptus was based.

 

[DrJamesAch]

You failed to show that I use any fallacies in my arguments.

It is KJV-only arguments that are fallacies such as the fallacy of begging the question, the fallacy of special pleading, the fallacy of false dilemma, the fallacy of composition, and straw man distortions of the views of believers.

The KJV-only use of fallacies [false arguments] and use of unscriptural, unrighteous divers measures [double standards] does not establish a KJV-only theory.

It is amazing that you suggest that my acceptance of what the Scriptures state and teach is "silly" or "ridiculous."

Interesting that you always site "false weights and divers measures" which have absolutely nothing to do with translations, but interestingly enough, the verse is found in Proverbs 16:11.

 

[Logos1560]

When Paul quoted numerous passages from the OT into GREEK, he referred to the GREEK TRANSLATION OF A HEBREW PASSAGE "God breathed". So if translations from Hebrew to Greek are considered God breathed, then you can not eliminate translations from Greek to Latin or Greek to English as God breathed either because in several HUNDRED places in the New Testament are verses that are NOT ORIGINAL HEBREW but TRANSLATIONS of Hebrew.

Your reasoning is faulty and incorrect. You make an invalid comparison.

The fact that God gave the New Testament prophets and apostles Greek words to translate Old Testament Hebrew or Aramaic words or that God directed them in the specific words to use to translate them themselves as part of the miracle of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God does not show that later translations after the end of the giving of the Scriptures or the completion of the New Testament fall under inspiration and preservation. Those New Testament words are directly inspired or God-breathed because they are part of the miracle of the giving of the New Testament Scriptures to the NT prophets and apostles.

The preservation of the original language Old Testament words did not cease because they were given again by inspiration of God in a different language in the New Testament original language words.

Those words cited from the Old Testament in the New Testament were part of the giving of the New Testament Scriptures to the prophets and apostles.

That is not the same thing as later translating by men who were not given their words directly from God by a miracle of inspiration.

The KJV translators were revising, changing, and altering words in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision. The KJV translators were not given their English words in the same way that the NT prophets and apostles received their words by inspiration of God.

 

[Yeshua1]

Your reasoning is faulty and incorrect. You make an invalid comparison.

The fact that God gave the New Testament prophets and apostles Greek words to translate Old Testament Hebrew or Aramaic words or that God directed them in the specific words to use to translate them themselves as part of the miracle of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God does not show that later translations after the end of the giving of the Scriptures or the completion of the New Testament fall under inspiration and preservation. Those New Testament words are directly inspired or God-breathed because they are part of the miracle of the giving of the New Testament Scriptures to the NT prophets and apostles.

The preservation of the original language Old Testament words did not cease because they were given again by inspiration of God in a different language in the New Testament original language words.

Those words cited from the Old Testament in the New Testament were part of the giving of the New Testament Scriptures to the prophets and apostles.

That is not the same thing as later translating by men who were not given their words directly from God by a miracle of inspiration.

The KJV translators were revising, changing, and altering words in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision. The KJV translators were not given their English words in the same way that the NT prophets and apostles received their words by inspiration of God.

Who KJVO make this so hard for themselves?

jesus promised that the originals as penned down under the inspiration from/of the HS thru the Apostles were THE Revelation of God to us in written form, and they were perfect !

And the promise of christ to perserve those originals happened, as we have the written extant hebrew/Greek texts to base translations upon!

Those originl language texys are essential the originals to us, being essentially what was first written to us, so any versions off them would be seens as the word of god to us in that language, english/spanish/german etc!

 

[Rippon]

No one falsely claims "perfection" for a man-made translation except the Adventists and now a few Baptists.



But to claim that Jacobean English 1611 (whichever revision one thinks is "perfect" or the actual 1611 itself) is the actual "preserved Words of God" is idolatry AND an attack on the first fundamental of the faith.

I love the Bible. I am not fond of some translations of the Bible and EVERY translation has poor, weak, inaccurate words, verses, paragraphs and even chapters.

Man-made is NOT God-made. Things that are not the same are different.

To defend the KJVO folks they probably think that the pre-1611 versions were quasi-perfect. But hey,that won't fly. They think that the KJV revisers were astute enough to pick out the perfect parts of previous translations. God must have given them this super discernment. Of course why would a number of them continue to use the Geneva Bible decades after 1611 would remain a puzzle that only Ruckman and Ripplinger could unravel.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

This Whole Mess Makes Me Tired

You know...I occasionally just get weary of all of this and today is one of those kind of days. When I get this way it tends to take me back to the basic reason that I adopted the KJV Only position many years ago. It "came to a head" for me back in the early 80's when I was confronted with two basic "schools of thought"....they are as follows:

One group or "school of thought" was setting forth the idea (and offering evidence in that regard) that a Perfect and Holy God inspired imperfect sinful men to pen His words into print and divinely protected and moved them to do so in such a way as to maintain the absolute perfection of the "finished product"...thus we have the "autographs"...the "inspired Originals"...forever settled in heaven and available here on earth AT THE TIME OF THEIR WRITING. This same group also schooled me to believe that God then divinely protected and preserved those same words AND THE PERFECTION AND TRANSMISSION OF THEM so I could have that PERFECT word in my hands in the language that I was born to speak(English). They further taught me that I could have absolute faith and confidence in those words in the form of my King James Bible. As most of you here know, that is the position that I adhere to.

The "other" group or "school of thought" was encouraging me to accept the idea that there is no "perfect" translation or version of the Bible (that they ALL have mistakes in them)but that we have the "perfect" (so-called)word of God in the form of the plethora of the many manuscript fragments and versions and translations of the same that are in existence today. They would say that I need to "consult" as many different versions as possible (with some exceptions) in order to "get the sense" of what God is ultimately saying. Many of them might even tell me that I need to acquire a working knowledge of the "original" languages..Hebrew and Greek...and possibly Aramaic)Most or many of them would probably point me to the NIV,NASB,ESV,Holman or such other "modern" versions while telling me that the KJV contains misteakes and errors and is too archaic and difficult to understand. In other words, there is no "perfect" Word of God in MY LANGUAGE that I can hold in my hand and have absolute confidence in. Basically they are saying that our PERFECT God inspired the Original (and now non-existent) Autographs.....and from that point forward basically took His hands OFF the process of preservation and transmission of the text of His Word, thereby relegating it to the vagaries of imperfect men and "godly scholarship". Thus, what we have is a bunch of imperfect translations and versions which COLLECTIVELY make up the perfect (so-called) Word of God. How horrific!

That is the basics of the argument as I see it. For me....when I saw it for what it was....knowing that I believe in a Perfect, Righteous, Holy and Just God who can do anything merely by opening His mouth and speaking.....this whole matter became "no contest" at all for me. I am thankful with all my heart that I have the Word of God in my language and don't have to question the veracity or accuracy of one single word of it. The rest of you can believe what you wish. I have a book which I believe is perfect and without error.....inspite of the many places you non-KJVer's might try to convince me are "in error". The bottom line is that I reject your opinion of the KJV and always will. I am a TR/KJV guy and always will be. For the record, I think a more valid subject of discussion in this forum would be to analyze the many errors that can be found in the Modern Versions (as compared to the TR) even though I know the MV's weren't derived from the TR, but rather the CT. I personally think the problem with the MV's IS the Critical Text. That is my basic opinion but I will readily admit that my knowledge of the subject is very basic and based upon what I have read by other "experts" on the subject. I have just shared my opinions on this matter, so now I will step aside and let those that have more learning and knowledge (on both sides of the fence) "do the dance". Have a nice day!

Bro.Greg :saint:

 

[Mexdeaf]

You know...I occasionally just get weary of all of this and today is one of those kind of days. When I get this way it tends to take me back to the basic reason that I adopted the KJV Only position many years ago. It "came to a head" for me back in the early 80's when I was confronted with two basic "schools of thought"....

Bro.Greg :saint:

I faced the same quandary at about the same time, but took the other road. Like Paul and Barnabas... sometimes both are "right" in their own time and way.

 

[Yeshua1]

You know...I occasionally just get weary of all of this and today is one of those kind of days. When I get this way it tends to take me back to the basic reason that I adopted the KJV Only position many years ago. It "came to a head" for me back in the early 80's when I was confronted with two basic "schools of thought"....they are as follows:

One group or "school of thought" was setting forth the idea (and offering evidence in that regard) that a Perfect and Holy God inspired imperfect sinful men to pen His words into print and divinely protected and moved them to do so in such a way as to maintain the absolute perfection of the "finished product"...thus we have the "autographs"...the "inspired Originals"...forever settled in heaven and available here on earth AT THE TIME OF THEIR WRITING. This same group also schooled me to believe that God then divinely protected and preserved those same words AND THE PERFECTION AND TRANSMISSION OF THEM so I could have that PERFECT word in my hands in the language that I was born to speak(English). They further taught me that I could have absolute faith and confidence in those words in the form of my King James Bible. As most of you here know, that is the position that I adhere to.

The "other" group or "school of thought" was encouraging me to accept the idea that there is no "perfect" translation or version of the Bible (that they ALL have mistakes in them)but that we have the "perfect" (so-called)word of God in the form of the plethora of the many manuscript fragments and versions and translations of the same that are in existence today. They would say that I need to "consult" as many different versions as possible (with some exceptions) in order to "get the sense" of what God is ultimately saying. Many of them might even tell me that I need to acquire a working knowledge of the "original" languages..Hebrew and Greek...and possibly Aramaic)Most or many of them would probably point me to the NIV,NASB,ESV,Holman or such other "modern" versions while telling me that the KJV contains misteakes and errors and is too archaic and difficult to understand. In other words, there is no "perfect" Word of God in MY LANGUAGE that I can hold in my hand and have absolute confidence in. Basically they are saying that our PERFECT God inspired the Original (and now non-existent) Autographs.....and from that point forward basically took His hands OFF the process of preservation and transmission of the text of His Word, thereby relegating it to the vagaries of imperfect men and "godly scholarship". Thus, what we have is a bunch of imperfect translations and versions which COLLECTIVELY make up the perfect (so-called) Word of God. How horrific!

That is the basics of the argument as I see it. For me....when I saw it for what it was....knowing that I believe in a Perfect, Righteous, Holy and Just God who can do anything merely by opening His mouth and speaking.....this whole matter became "no contest" at all for me. I am thankful with all my heart that I have the Word of God in my language and don't have to question the veracity or accuracy of one single word of it. The rest of you can believe what you wish. I have a book which I believe is perfect and without error.....inspite of the many places you non-KJVer's might try to convince me are "in error". The bottom line is that I reject your opinion of the KJV and always will. I am a TR/KJV guy and always will be. For the record, I think a more valid subject of discussion in this forum would be to analyze the many errors that can be found in the Modern Versions (as compared to the TR) even though I know the MV's weren't derived from the TR, but rather the CT. I personally think the problem with the MV's IS the Critical Text. That is my basic opinion but I will readily admit that my knowledge of the subject is very basic and based upon what I have read by other "experts" on the subject. I have just shared my opinions on this matter, so now I will step aside and let those that have more learning and knowledge (on both sides of the fence) "do the dance". Have a nice day!

Bro.Greg :saint:

You do know that the modern versions such as the Niv and the Nasb actually honor Jesus as Lord moree so than the Klv, right?

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Good !

I faced the same quandary at about the same time, but took the other road. Like Paul and Barnabas... sometimes both are "right" in their own time and way.

You know Mex...that is probably one of the more gracious responses I have gotten in here in some time regarding this subject and I respect and appreciate you for it. Thank you brother.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Actually No....

You do know that the modern versions such as the Niv and the Nasb actually honor Jesus as Lord moree so than the Klv, right?

I neither know OR believe such a thing. The comparisons I have done over the years lead me to believe something contrary to that but I respect the FACT that you are entitled to your opinion on the matter. That's really all I know to tell you about that. All I hope for is the same respect in return.

Bro.Greg:saint: