Mass Thread Closing

I'm simply asking you to answer your own question first. But, yes, it IS an attempt to turn the tables. You don't like it when I throw your questions straight back at you, do you?

Who's judging people???

This is just SO silly! I have nothing invested in this defence! Nothing except time - time which I have invested for the sake of people with a half-open mind, to show them that your clever debating tricks can't be answered by your own position.

 

I want to begin by apologizing for coming on too strong. In fact, I did put words in your mouth. Looking back over some of you posts, you have affirmed KJVOnlyism without making blanket condemnations as far as I can tell.

That said you objected to:

Are you saying that I am not in error or in sin for using another version? Are you saying that KJVOnlyism doesn't really mean that only the KJV is the Word of God in English?

Does it or does it not? Does your belief establish a standard that you think all godly English speaking Christians should adhere to?

I don't believe you. If you could believe EVERYTHING that the KJV teaches, then (unless you're telling people it's fine to believe an error), that means there's no error in the KJV. That is my position completely.</font>[/QUOTE] Sorry that you don't believe me. I do not believe there is error of doctrine or teaching in the KJV... nor the NASB or NKJV.

This is a historical observation coupled with a belief in God's promise to preserve His Word. If you have proof of a pure line of mss/translation descending from the originals to the KJV or the TR, I would be interested in it. I simply do not see a way it could be possible since the TR itself came from several varying mss which all had to be imperfect in some way or else the one would have been used instead of making the TR.

OK, Scott, I've tried to be restrained in this response, but that statement is a lie. A complete and utter LIE.</font>[/QUOTE] I am sorry for putting words in your mouth. I am guilty of lumping you in with others that routinely do this while lining up on your side of the debate. I did not intend to lie but this is a very great offense.

I hope you can accept my apology and grant forgiveness on this account. Believing you are wrong does not grant me a license to mischaracterize you. It was careless and inexcusable of me.

No, I just seek a BIBLICAL standard - not a load of men's opinions about which verses they've decided aren't actually the word of God any more. My standard is the Authorised Version. How can the AV be "extra-biblical"? Is it not a BIBLE???</font>[/QUOTE] But how can you not see the inherent contradiction in your own answer? Some men decided which verses were to be in the KJV and which were not. The translation choices are the opinions of the KJV translators. The variant choices are the decisions of Erasmus and later editors.

You establish the AV as the standard arbitrarily then say that other men take out verses. The thrust of my two questions is why should I accept your premise?

I still believe that you are. I will take it no further than what you have expressed in this post.

You have stated that the AV is the standard by which the choices of modern scholars should be judged. All I ask for is the scriptural or historical proof that validates this claim. That is all I have been seeking the whole time.

 

Hi Scott,

Thanks very much for the appology! Like I said before, I too am very sorry if I said things that I shouldn't. Basically, this is an argument about how God preserved his word. Was it in a multitude of imperfect copies, and are those copies the Greek texts we have access to now? Or was it together in (at least one) perfect whole, and is at least one example of that the Authorised Version? As I think we agree, the Bible doesn't say explicitly either way. However, I got the distinct impression that you were demanding explicit teaching in favour of the latter, when there does not exist explicit teaching in favour of the former. The point of my posts was simply to highlight this fact. So, we'll have to look at biblical principles and historical facts to try to decide. Such a discussion would probably be quite interesting and worth-while; if it could be done without accusations, name-calling or anything else.

I agree with you - I think some of the posts of some KJVOs have been nasty. However, I also believe that some of the posts of some MVers have been patronising and disparaging. There is no monopoly on error. Perhaps it is a vain hope, but I really would like to see people discuss these issues with decency and love. Where is the love that Jesus commanded? "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (John 13:35) Perhaps if people (on both sides) came with the attitude that they might actually be wrong, then this might work better?

Well, it's great talking to you Scott!

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew