Mellowing out on the KJV

I don't 'dog' the KJV. I am actually quite fond of it. I don't know of many who do 'dog' the KJV. However, I do know many who 'dog' many good MVs.

Neal

 

I know what they said. I can also tell you how myself and MVrs get the best sense of the scripture, read the KJB.

Ah, no, I trust a Bible God has used mightily for the last 400 years, a Bible that is even used by its critics, a Bible that was used to solidify fundamentalist doctrine, a Bible that was used by God in the Great Awakening, you know Scott, all those facts you so conveniently fail to address in your lopsided presentation of fact. You are the one following blindly the scholarship of today that will eventually fully discredit the authority, accuracy and veracity of scripture. Some of your beloved MV scholars that worked in the textual criticism that brought about these MVs don’t believe the books of the Bible were written by who they claim to be written by. Many of them also do not literally believe many of the miracles of the OT and NT as well. Do you have evidence that these Anglicans rejected these things? But this is the key difference isn’t it. Just ignore those facts that damage your stance. Yes, their doctrine was messed up, but they weren’t so far out they rejected the Bible as authentic as written.

This is a tired old argument. How many hundreds of years has it been since it had these footnotes. Did it have them during the Great Awakening? The footnotes have been gone for a good long time now. They’ve not been needed for hundreds of years, and their not needed now.

So Cloud is all about distortion huh? This statement is much worse than anything that ever came from Cloud. Cloud is 99% correct in what he says. No, what Cloud says is strong meat, what you put out about Cloud is out and out slander. Is that a speck in brother Cloud’s eye that you see?

Here you go again, making false accusations. My point is still valid. Scripture proves a strong rebuke, which is almost always interpreted as mean-spirited or hateful, is Biblical. If you judge a man based on this you would have rejected every prophet, NT saint, and the Lord Jesus Christ had you practiced this feelings based judgmentalism in their day. You have a habitual way of failing to consider the biblical falsehoods of your logic.

And it is your inability and unwillingness to face that there are a plethora of biblical examples of where historical facts stood in opposition to faith. Your inane statement about superstition is invalidated by scripture.

Nope? Are you on medication? That is my very point. Of course it “seemed to be true”, yes!!!! It seemed that way because the facts stood in opposition to that faith based position. Are you unable to put yourself in Noah’s day taking the stance on facts you take and still not see that it would be hard for you believe it would rain and flood the whole earth when it had never rained!!! Can’t you see how hard that would be to believe???

It demonstrates nothing of the kind. That is your silly opinion. What it demonstrates is that you have a limited grasp of the words your dealing with. It is exactly the definition being implied. You are saying it would be superstition to assign supernatural mechanisms to the KJB based on your interpretation of manuscript evidence and church history. This is not a diversion, it is the key point that you slip and slide around and try to dodge any way possible. Do you really think it takes faith to stand on fact. Give me a break. Fact and faith are opposites. They naturally oppose one another. Any faith based struggle is naturally going to be with fact. If the facts support your position, what do you need faith for??? Huh??? You don’t need it. I repeat my point: faith is only truly tested when contradicted by fact. It doesn’t become superstition at that point. That is nonsense. Faith is only faith when contradicted by fact, in what other capacity is faith faith?????

A belief consistent with the evidence??? Listen to yourself. You call this faith. Again you default to human wisdom to prove your point. Human wisdom is the default MV logic base. It is not the Bible definition that belief (or faith) is based on the tangible. No, the word of God defines it differently. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, or have you not even read Hebrews 11. Go in there and see that it verifies what I am talking about with Abraham and Noah. That’s where I get my logic from, the Bible.

Just because you MVrs reject the volume of scriptures on preservation, and about it referring to words, not meanings, and continually rebuff the comments made by Bible believers on this matter certainly does not mean the KJB is not the preserved word of God. Oh, and even Jesus used scriptures not in the originals, well Scott, to use an argument you use to death, Jesus was God. The command was for us not to change one word, obviously God can put it any way he wants to. You don’t think scholars have the same authority God has do you?? And you think this proves that you can word the scriptures any way you want, and disregard the dire warnings in the Bible???? Talk about a non-biblical doctrine. Do you really believe that if Christ quoted the OT differently that you can?? Please.

Not bound by presuppositions?? How about the presupposition the a multitude of varying manuscripts is how God preserved His word??? How about the presupposition that if older manuscripts are found they must be closer to the originals???? Oh, I know, I can here it now, no modern scholar automatically accepts this, we weigh all the evidence. Yea, right. It is all too obvious how much influence a couple of manuscripts have made in calling into question scripture. Manuscript variation, there is the source of it right there. Yea, there is some difference outside of the Alexadrians, but nothing like what those things bring into the mix. No, your bound by your bias to human wisdom and it’s audacious claims today that it’s, wait for it, going to get us back to the originals. Don’t you just love extra-biblical presuppositions like this???? No presuppositions. And you think Cloud and Chick have a problem???

Yes, and again, you apply your faith only where it is safe. Your extreme prejudice for historical so called “facts” would have ruled you out as an eyewitness if you had been there. You have as much scripture to discern what is the preserved word of God today as the people of Jesus’ time had to discern He was the Messiah. Most of the people that came to Him and had faith in Him probably knew little of messianic prophecy and probably were unaware of how much of it He had fulfilled. They did have a spiritual sense about them though. To the contrary, the Pharisaical scholars and theologians, who professed belief in the resurrection and the things written by the prophets were the ones who rejected Him. Or have you not heard that by wisdom the world knew not God when He came in the flesh??? Do you think you don’t need spiritual discernment today just like they did then??? Your rinky dink proof failure comment fails to hold water when faced with the scriptural presentation of the absolute necessity of spiritual discernment in all matters.

Convenient out. You are full of them. I like how you profess faith…. as long as it lines up with the facts of your modern scholars. Boy, now that really takes some faith. I’m not impressed. No, Scott, your facts and your reasoning and your logic are all lacking and incomplete, as is mine. Your repeated attempts to force feed your biased presumptions about what the facts imply is exactly what I run into with evolutionists. I’ll tell you just like I do them, you’re welcome to believe what you want, but don’t tell me I follow faith and you follow fact, oh no, don’t think you’re getting by with that for a moment. No, whether you believe in creation or evolution, that the Bible is fact or fiction, or that God preserved His words in Alexandria or the KJB, whatever it is you believe, don’t deceive yourself and lie to others that what you have is fact. Grow up, get out of the knee britches, and get into some long pants. You got your faith and I got mine. And before someone jumps on here and says this is some kind of liberal position or something, I would like to remind you, the Lord is liberal enough to let you believe what you like, He’ll let you believe your way straight to hell if you like. Yes, you have liberty to believe what you like.

No failures here. You got the interpretation right though. It’s obvious you grew up KJB, at least you know a little Bible.

These people stand in defence of a proven Bible, one God has used. There has not been a great spiritual awakening in this country as a result of MVs. Quite the opposite. Get you some good charts on the divorce rate, abortion, violent crime, unwed mothers, and on and on and on. Where is this great spiritual benefit of MVs??? Huh??? It’s not there. You guys go on and on about people getting saved by MVs, people growing spiritually now that they can read and understand the Bible. Where are the facts??? You guys like facts don’t you??? It’s just like the ecumenical philosophy, or the Christian rock philosophy, oh, we’re reaching people for Christ you could not reach with your hymns and archaic Bible. Kinda like Graham putting Catholics that come forward back in the hands of Priests. Good logic. Yea, we’re really going to make spiritual progress when we get the Church more like the world. Brilliant.

Please provide scriptural proof that Alexandrian manuscripts should be used to rewrite our Bible. Please provide scriptural proof it is God’s will we have 100 different translations all with some passages rendered differently. If not, then at least admit you follow the wisdom of modern scholars. I’ll admit I take my position on faith, and agree with KJB defenders. Now, will you admit you take your position on faith, and not fact as you continually claim?

I just love the timing of this one. It was Johnv I was referring to. Please go back and see in this thread how other MVrs had to correct him on the KJB errors he listed. He claimed in a prior thread that Daniel 7:13-14 dealt with Enoch, what think ye? I think this is second coming prophecy of Christ, or would you call this a “private interpretation”?

[ May 16, 2003, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Faith, Fact & Feeling ]

 

But do you believe it??

 

Patently untrue on all accounts. If you compare your KJV with the Greek text, you will see that these errors are very clear. Knowing people do not dispute them. They are disputed only by those who do not take the time to do the simple homework and look them up. My final authority is not my own mind. I have begged and pleaded with you to show me from Scripture that you are right. You have failed, thus showing that Scripture is not your authority. Scripture is my authority and as soon as you show me from Scripture that you are right, I will change my mind. Until then, I will go with what Scripture says.

 

Of course. It is God's Word.

Neal

 

This (Gen1:2) is not an error, and I would ask that you stop posting it as such.
Between you & Pastor Larry, I must bow to the knowleged on the subject on this point

 

John,

I didn't mean to be rude if I came across that way. I just remember seeing you post that as an error before and I thought I said something about it then (I very well could not have). I could have phrased my request a little better to you.

Hope you don't take any offense from my post.

Neal

 

Nah, not at all.

 

Actually, no. We get it exactly the way the KJV translators suggest- by comparing alternative translations. Now, do you agree with the with the producers of the version you hold up as perfect in every sense or not?

Ah, no, I trust a Bible God has used mightily for the last 400 years,</font>[/QUOTE] Nice attempt at diversion but all of the things you mention did not produce the KJV nor was it used by active choice. It was used by default after the CoE outlawed all other English versions. Ungodly men using the force of law to force Christians to use their production of the Bible is poor testimony to what you believe.

There aren't many I have seen that say the KJV isn't a good translation. The primary object of our criticism is KJVOnlyism. Of course you have tried to subtly employ a favorite deceptive tactic of your side- deflect criticism of KJVOnlyism by claiming it as criticism of the KJV itself.

Not really. "The Fundamentals" uses the ASV, RV, and KJV, respecting them all as scripture. The real fundamentalists held to the orthodox doctrine of the Bible espoused by those you oppose here.

The Great Awakening was not the only great movement of the Spirit in history... convenient for your purpose, it is just simply one that happened to use the KJV. It did not occur however because of the KJV. It occurred because the Holy Spirit used godly preachers and convicted sinners. For you to some how turn this credit back to some supposed perfect translation by the KJV translators is simply wrong.

Anecdotal, experential proofs that aren't even unique to the KJV do not prove that the KJV is perfectly worded or specifically chosen by God.

No. I am not. I recognize fully that some of the modern scholars are unsound in their theology and unduly influenced by worldly philosophies... just like I recognize (what you fail to or else would discount by double standard) that the KJV translators were unsound in their theology and unduly influenced by the Church of Rome.

However, there are and were trustworthy scholars with sound fundamental beliefs that have validated the work of both modern scholars and the KJV translators.

I am not ignoring anything. I am simply making the point that if you are going to look at the scholars behind MV's, you must likewise look at the scholars behind the KJV with the same standard.

First, there is no way to prove that none of them held these beliefs as far as I am aware. They didn't leave testimony to this issue.

Second, if we accept the Bible as authentic as written then they most certainly did not. Their doctrinal beliefs contradict scripture.

Third, not all modern scholars reject the Bible as authentic as written. In fact, a very large number of them believe and affirm inerrancy. For example, all of the NASB translators signed a statement of faith affirming inerrancy.

This is a tired old argument.</font>[/QUOTE] You mean the tired old unanswered argument, right?

So somehow the perfect work of the translators required them but at some point later they weren't required? They were required to usher in the "philadelphian" age but not needed to perpetuate it? I am definitely interested in your explaination of this...

I don't have an 18th century version of the KJV. Do you?

Why?

 

It demonstrates nothing of the kind. That is your silly opinion. What it demonstrates is that you have a limited grasp of the words your dealing with. It is exactly the definition being implied.</font>[/QUOTE] Appropriate definitions are determined by context and author's intent. I am the author and the sole human authority of which definition was employed. I think the fact that I understand that the word's meaning varies by use and context demonstrates your condescending accusation of "limited grasp" to be false.

No. Please listen. I am saying it is superstition because it stands in direct contradiction to known historical and biblical facts.

And you would accuse me of a limited grasp of English words?

Fact: Reality; truth
Faith: The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition advanced by another; belief, or probable evidence of any kind. In theology, the assent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed.

Far from being opposites, they are as I stated complimentary especially when concerning God. I am well aware of the difference between the two. But truth never contradicts truth. FFF this is a fundamental concept.

Because some truth resides outside of that which is measurable. We cannot measure God. We cannot measure prophecy. We cannot go back and observe Christ's miracles. We have the fact of scripture's testimony as the basis of our faith.

True faith never contradicts fact. Faith accounts for all truth. That which is demonstrated by natural "fact" and that which is revealed by God over and above the natural realm.

Yes. By faith, I believe that the perfect God inspired the writers of scripture to write the exact words that He intended for His written revelation to mankind.

By faith, I beleive that God providentially chose not to preserve perfect facsimiles of those originals or if He did He chose not to identify them.

By faith, I believe that God providentially preserved His Word to mankind employing the multitude of slightly varying but mutually complementary mss. I would even add that by faith He did this to prevent precisely the kind of obsession with "the letter" that KJVO's engage in.

You are wrong as shown above and in many other posts.

Also, you have yet to demonstrate that KJVOnlyism is not founded on the wisdom of men. Your whole post evades this point. You know there is no scripture for the belief nor is there historical evidence. Therefore, you try to twist and distort the positions until you can make it a simple matter of one's faith against another's.

 

So in short,you don't believe in ANY perfect Bible?? None at all?? Right?? Fess up!!!

Listen,any man with an ounce of wisdom would abstain from using any book that came from the corrupt Alexandrian family of Manuscripts.It's not rocket science,just use plain common sense!!

 

The Bible defines wisdom as fearing God and keeping his commandments. In light of this clear biblical teaching, please show us where God said the wise man will abstain from certain manuscripts of his word. Please show us where God commanded us to abandon manuscripts that he has preserved for us.

We all know what you believe. Quite frankly, most of us don't care about a person's individual beliefs. What we care about is what God has said. We are skeptical of your statements; we do however value God's word above all else. So if you will use God's word to make your point, you would be much more convincing and we would be very open to what you have to say ... but only when you use God's word to say it.

 

As I see it. When some KJVO's talk about "by faith" in reality this their "by faith" is nothing but mere superstition and presumption, and positive wishing. In the Bible one definition of "faith" (pistis) is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen", according to the KJV Bible.

(ASV) Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.

(Darby) Now faith is the substantiating of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.


When it comes to measuring the errorfreeness or errancy of the KJV one does not have to rely on things hoped for or things unseen. One just needs to compare the KJV renderings with the Textus Receptus underlying it. The deviations of the KJV from the TR are clearly seen by any honest person who has eyes with which to see. Where the KJV omits to translate a divinely inspired definite article it errs. When it adds a definite article without italicizing it likewise errs. When it renders a divinely inspired aorist tense as a perfect or a future it likewise errs. Such errors are also called deviations. The KJV has them, just as other versions. This makes the KJV something less than absolutely and totally free from errors of whatever kind. The KJV Only argument is blown to pieces. No faith which is of the operation of God will ever deny this, only falsifiers of truth will do so in their man-made "faith", i.e. ostrich-like positive thinking.


Harald

 

Well, in light of the FACT that the Alexandrian family of Manuscripts are Catholic in origin(or should I say 'Origen')and what the Scriptures(KJB) say about these sort of matters(Psalms 103:3).And what Mark 12:38,and Luke 20:46 says,I would say if a person cannot see the OBVIOUS,well,he's crippled to high for crutches!!

Great!!!! That will cut down on confusion.

WHAAAAA!!!!! Since when!? Any person who is a King James Bible believer is a target of ridicule here! You know, being "superstisious" and such..

I did.

 

Wow, I guess you will stop using the KJV since the TR was put together by a Catholic humanist cleric and it has readings directly from the Latin Vulgate (esp. in Revelation), the Catholic church's official Bible for many centuries. Of course, I am sure you will ignore this and continue on with your conspiracy theories.

Also, faith is not blind or clueless. It is not something that you don't use your head with. Faith will line up with reality and fact just fine. It is assurance of things we don't see now, but we do have some knowledge of them.

Neal

 

If you would keep your mouth shut sometimes I am sure there would be much less 'ridicule'. Most of the time I see one of these discussions it is started by a KJVO saying all other versions are corrupt or other false claims. I have no problem if you want to use the KJV exclusively. It is a very good translation. Just stop trying to force you leap of faith on everyone else and spreading lies.

Neal

 

This thread has degraded to the point that I feel it best to close it.