MV description -- Let's make it clear.......

[Scott J]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

NUFF SAID!

Sadly, concerning your beliefs on this topic, it probably is "NUFF SAID!" You have faith to be sure... but what have you put that faith in? You can't say the "KJB" because the "KJB" doesn't teach what you believe about versions. In fact, by the examples given within it teaches what we believe.

I have faith that Jesus is God... because the Bible says so.

I have faith in the six days of creation... because the Bible says so... and because it appears to me the best system for explaining all of the facts that are observed in nature.

I have faith that the KJV is the Word of God... because the facts show it to be consistent in message with the evidence we have for the originals.

Your faith is not built on scripture. Your faith is not built on historical facts. Your faith is built on the sands of man's vain imaginings.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

NUFF SAID!

Sadly, concerning your beliefs on this topic, it probably is "NUFF SAID!" You have faith to be sure... but what have you put that faith in? You can't say the "KJB" because the "KJB" doesn't teach what you believe about versions. In fact, by the examples given within it teaches what we believe.

I have faith that Jesus is God... because the Bible says so.

I have faith in the six days of creation... because the Bible says so... and because it appears to me the best system for explaining all of the facts that are observed in nature.

I have faith that the KJV is the Word of God... because the facts show it to be consistent in message with the evidence we have for the originals.

Your faith is not built on scripture. Your faith is not built on historical facts. Your faith is built on the sands of man's vain imaginings.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

NUFF SAID!

Sadly, concerning your beliefs on this topic, it probably is "NUFF SAID!" You have faith to be sure... but what have you put that faith in? You can't say the "KJB" because the "KJB" doesn't teach what you believe about versions. In fact, by the examples given within it teaches what we believe.

I have faith that Jesus is God... because the Bible says so.

I have faith in the six days of creation... because the Bible says so... and because it appears to me the best system for explaining all of the facts that are observed in nature.

I have faith that the KJV is the Word of God... because the facts show it to be consistent in message with the evidence we have for the originals.

Your faith is not built on scripture. Your faith is not built on historical facts. Your faith is built on the sands of man's vain imaginings.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Sadly, concerning your beliefs on this topic, it probably is "NUFF SAID!" You have faith to be sure... but what have you put that faith in? You can't say the "KJB" because the "KJB" doesn't teach what you believe about versions. In fact, by the examples given within it teaches what we believe.

I have faith that Jesus is God... because the Bible says so.

I have faith in the six days of creation... because the Bible says so... and because it appears to me the best system for explaining all of the facts that are observed in nature.

I have faith that the KJV is the Word of God... because the facts show it to be consistent in message with the evidence we have for the originals.

Your faith is not built on scripture. Your faith is not built on historical facts. Your faith is built on the sands of man's vain imaginings.

By what authority do you base your faith on Scott J?

 

[Phillip]

Thanks Orvie, Great work. I am still going to answer since she was responding to my words and let her know my feelings.

Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
it is a difficult translation to read.

Funny, my eight year old can read it fine except for maybe some words that she has not been schooled upon yet. But, if she has a problem, she gets a dictionary and a concordance, not another Bible.

Sure you eight year old can read it. I bet your eight year old does not know that most of the words she reads are not the meaning that she finds in a contemporary dictionary or concordance either. Too many words have changed and many meanings are different. Now, if you tell me you have provided her with a 1700 dictionary with modern language word-descriptions then I might say that you are probably right. Otherwise, she is probably missing a lot of good Bible teaching.

2. I love the beautiful language of the King James, especially in the poetic and prophecy chapters.

Obviously not enough to believe it.

That is an unfounded and libelous remark. If you did not read my first posting, then obviously you would understand that I believe the KJV just as much as my modern versions. But you know what? It is NOT the language we speak today. So, put in THAT context, I have to say that, yes, you are right, probably none of us can REALLY understand the KJV unless we have a dictionary. The KJV IS the Word of God, but so is my ESV. My guess is your daughter would get a LOT more out of a newer version. But, I'm sure that you will fill her in on what she misses.

3. I read the King James and compare other Bibles to it (though not using it as the standard -- as I would compare any other translation with another)

Really, what then is your standard?

All of the Modern Translations that do not vary from the doctrine of Jesus Christ as Son of God, Died for our Sins, Rose again on the Third day, etc. etc. If they all say the same thing as the KJV and they DO, then what is the problem? You are trying to build a strawman. What Biblical reference, besides the fact that God will preserve his word makes you think that the KJV is perfect down to the period and comma?

4. I am NOT a "Word of God" hater. I simply believe the Word of God is not JUST found in a translation that has had many revisions since 1611.

Not revisions, just editions.

5. I do NOT think that EVERY translation is accurate. There have been bad translations and there WILL be bad translations.

Really, what part is not accurate and how do you know?

What part is not accurate and how do YOU know? Oh yeah, you have a "standard" that was revised probably 100 times since it was first printed. Tell me, which one is your standard and which was inspired, The KJV 1611 printing and the translators or the 1769 version and its revisors. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. One has to be perfect (in your mind) down to the last period. Which ones are not. Plus, if you aint got the apocrypha you ain't got the AV1611!

6. I do believe; however, that the mainstream translations of today, specifically the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman, NKJV contain the Word of God and to be clear, so does the King James version (all revisions). I like them in varying degrees. My likes are based on "why I am reading the Bible at a particular time". If I am reading the KJV in Psalms or Genesis to enjoy the language I grew up with in church, that is one thing. If I am reading an entire book and do not have a lot of time to spend on each chapter, then I will usually use my ESV or Holman. I sometimes read the NIV for easier understanding.

So basically, you read God's word when you feel like it.

You like to make personal attacks based on "feelings" don't you. Where in the world did I say that? Why don't we both just keep a log of the time spent reading the KJV over the next year and compare it. You have no idea how much I read!

7. I also believe that by reading and comparing translations, it is possible that the Holy Spirit can utilize this to provide you with insight not seen by a single translation. The Holy Spirit can also do this with one translation, but often I have been reading my parallel Bible and read four versions and the concept the writer was trying to get across suddenly became clearer.

If your relying on the Holy Spirit to help you understand, why use other translations to compare? You think the Holy Spirit needs help?

Absolutely not, so why don't you take the Greek Textus Receptus and read it and let the Holy Spirit tell you what it says? (And I am NOT talking ill of the Sweet Holy Spirit who guides us in our knowledge, thinking and Christian walk with the Lord.) Only pointing out our human limitations in OUR ability to utilize the Holy Spirit. Yes, the Holy Spirit would be capable of interpreting the Greek for you, but is our faith really THAT strong?

8. I also believe that it is defaming the Word of God to call a translation "evil, or demonic" or other names simply because if it tells the story of the Jesus in a way a person can become saved, you just may be treading on very thin ice.

What I believe is that the modern translations are misleading translations from the spirit of the anti-Christ. Yes, they have enough of the Gospel to save a person but since the dawn of the modern versions, the church is becoming more like the world.

That is a very interesting oxymoron. "A modern translation is from the anti-Christ with enough Gospel to save a person." OOOOOOOhhhhhhhhh, Brother!

9. But, I do not have a problem with being critical (as in textual criticism) of particular passages of any translation for the purpose of comparing to the originals.

So the originals is what is the standard.? Don't you think if God can preserve those originals, he can preserve the King James Bible?

God didn't preserve the originals. Otherwise we would worship them and the physical paper, very much like you are getting close to with the KJV.

10. Finally, I do NOT believe that there is enough doctrinal difference between the manuscripts that the KJV was derived from and the "so called" Alexandrian (even though they make up only a portion), to have an effect.

Would not just one be enough?

Sure would, but I have yet to find a legitimate one that is not made up by the KJVO only crowd. I know, I know, you will say look at all the deletions. I will say, look at all the "well meaning additions." Still the doctrine remains the same. I have read my KJV all the way through. I have read my ESV all the way through. I have read my NASB all the way through. I have read the New Testament Holman (that's all I've got, I keep waiting for someone to be kind enough to get me the whole thing--budgets low now. ) and you know what? I leave each with the same story.

There is no Biblical evidence whatsoever, that the KJV is a perfectly inspired book, nor is there any evidence it is of higher level than most modern translations. But, this is not to say that it is a bad translation. Far from it. It IS the Word of God, but so is my ESV.

Though the Bible says nothing about one particular book, it does imply that God will preserve his word and what God does is perfect, therefore I believe by faith that the King James Bible is that perfect book.

</font>

That is simply your opinion. And let me ask you KJVO's just one more time, two measley questions. One the first just tell me which one or all, if you say "all" then you are obviously wrong since they cannot all be perfect in English.

Which ONE of the King James translations is "THAT Perfect book." The 1611 or the 1769, or one in between ---- you may fill in the blank _________?

Where was a perfect Bible up until 1769? Obviously, somebody missed a few hundred years there with a "perfect Bible" if your point of view is correct.

Who decided to get rid of the apocrypha, the inspired translators (who were only 2/3 inspired) of the 1611 or some wise man later. Obviously, the same standard for "inspiration" of 100% accuracy doesn't apply to "translators" like it does "prophets". Otherwise, the need for many revisions would have been unnecessary---then, if it is the final version that is correct and perfect, we can discuss that seperately.

Give me those two answers without a speech or personal attack and I will listen. Otherwise, let's don't rehash the same 'ole KJVO rhetoric.

Thank you!

[ March 26, 2004, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

[Phillip]

Pardon the grammatical errors in the above post. I ran out of time editing. I type quickly then go back and edit and because I think and type at the same time I out-run my typing and therefore there are usually a lot of run-on sentences and disconnects. If people can understand, I usually go ahead and post without a lot of editing.

I just want all of you to understand that I am not quite as illerate as my posts may seem to imply.

Call it laziness if you want to. I call it effeciency. If it works, go with it. Yeah, yeah, I know that's just an excuse. After all, put off everything you can do tomorrow.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Sadly, concerning your beliefs on this topic, it probably is "NUFF SAID!" You have faith to be sure... but what have you put that faith in? You can't say the "KJB" because the "KJB" doesn't teach what you believe about versions. In fact, by the examples given within it teaches what we believe.

I have faith that Jesus is God... because the Bible says so.

I have faith in the six days of creation... because the Bible says so... and because it appears to me the best system for explaining all of the facts that are observed in nature.

I have faith that the KJV is the Word of God... because the facts show it to be consistent in message with the evidence we have for the originals.

Your faith is not built on scripture. Your faith is not built on historical facts. Your faith is built on the sands of man's vain imaginings.

By what authority do you base your faith on Scott J? </font>[/QUOTE]I think he answered you. His faith is in the Word of God, whether it be KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman; his faith is based on the Word of God.

They ALL teach the same doctrine that he is quoting that his faith is in!

 

[Phillip]

Homebound, Since I did not answer number four in the thesis (tongue-in-cheek), that I provided you above; let me ask you a question. What is the difference between a "revision" and an "edition".

A new "edition" of a book indicates that it has been updated with either new information, old information corrected, or some other modification to the content. Yes, these may be "editions" in your mind, but content IS changed, so again, I ask you the BIG question that KJVO's will not answer.

If I buy a book on "biology" and it is Edition 6; I can assume that it is improved over edition 5,4,3,2 and 1, either with new material or corrections of errors. Otherwise, there would be no reason to put out ANOTHER edition.

So, back to my big question:

WHICH OF THE EDITIONS IS THE TRUE INERRANT (TO THE PERIOD AND COMMA) WORD OF GOD?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
By what authority do you base your faith on Scott J?

"My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness, I dare not trust the sweetest frame but wholly lean on Jesus' name. On Christ the solid rock I'll stand, all other ground is sinking sand.... all other ground is sinking sand."

I base my faith on Jesus Christ and God's Word, the Bible. I believe what the Bible teaches about itself (directly and indirectly) and reject any doctrine (ie. KJVOnlyism) that falls short or exceeds scriptural teaching.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:
By what authority do you base your faith on Scott J?

"My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness, I dare not trust the sweetest frame but wholly lean on Jesus' name. On Christ the solid rock I'll stand, all other ground is sinking sand.... all other ground is sinking sand."

I base my faith on Jesus Christ and God's Word, the Bible. I believe what the Bible teaches about itself (directly and indirectly) and reject any doctrine (ie. KJVOnlyism) that falls short or exceeds scriptural teaching. </font>[/QUOTE]AMEN, Scott, Preach On
May the Lord bless you for standing up for what is right and Biblical.

 

[robycop3]

Loren B:Though the Bible says nothing about one particular book, it does imply that God will preserve his word and what God does is perfect,************ therefore I believe by faith that the King James Bible is that perfect book.

What's the basis for such a "faith"? Does the KJVO have a monopoly on faith? Can you *PROVE* the KJV and only the KJV is perfect? I doubt it, especially since the IMperfections of the KJV are well-documented.

I have faith that God can do ANYTHING, and that He provides His word for us AS HE CHOOSES, without regard of any man-made myth that tries to tell Him how he may or may not do it.

Do you understand the leap of logic between what you said before the ****** and after the *******?
Faith is based on fact not on wishes.

There's no FACTS supporting the KJVO myth, so faith in such a myth is BLIND faith.

Our rejection of the KJVO myth is based upon LACK of facts for its veracity.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
You would probably be the only NIVer here, but at least you stand for something. I not seen a modern version (which ever) only yet.

Does that mean you have no problem with my statement and that you agree that the NIV is the perfect book?

 

[Jim Ward]

skan, am I understanding you correctly? (Gotta make sure because a week of steady 13 hour work days has me drained and I may be a bit slow this morning) Are you saying that the niv is the perfect book? Are you saying this even though the people who gave us the niv decided it wasn't good enough and gave us the bogus tniv?


Jim

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Jim Ward:
skan, am I understanding you correctly? (Gotta make sure because a week of steady 13 hour work days has me drained and I may be a bit slow this morning) Are you saying that the niv is the perfect book? Are you saying this even though the people who gave us the niv decided it wasn't good enough and gave us the bogus tniv?


Jim

I am asking the question, "If it is acceptable to say 'I believe, by faith, the KJV is the only preserved word of God in English' then is it also acceptable for someone to say, 'I believe, by faith, the NIV (or any other modern version) is the only preserved word of God in English?" If personal, subjective faith is the ONLY criteria, which cannot be disagreed with, then KJVOs have no grounds to disagree with mv proponents if they say they accepts their mvs by faith.

As to your last question, are you saying this even though the people who gave us the 1611 decided it wasn't good enough and gave us the 1613, 1629, 1762, 1769, and 1873?

Follow what I am saying now? As grandma used to say, "What is good for the goose is good for the gander." If you consider those arguments to be good for the KJV you must also consider them to be good arguments in favor of any mv.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jim Ward:
skan, am I understanding you correctly? (Gotta make sure because a week of steady 13 hour work days has me drained and I may be a bit slow this morning) Are you saying that the niv is the perfect book? Are you saying this even though the people who gave us the niv decided it wasn't good enough and gave us the bogus tniv?


Jim

I am asking the question, "If it is acceptable to say 'I believe, by faith, the KJV is the only preserved word of God in English' then is it also acceptable for someone to say, 'I believe, by faith, the NIV (or any other modern version) is the only preserved word of God in English?" If personal, subjective faith is the ONLY criteria, which cannot be disagreed with, then KJVOs have no grounds to disagree with mv proponents if they say they accepts their mvs by faith.

As to your last question, are you saying this even though the people who gave us the 1611 decided it wasn't good enough and gave us the 1613, 1629, 1762, 1769, and 1873?

Follow what I am saying now? As grandma used to say, "What is good for the goose is good for the gander." If you consider those arguments to be good for the KJV you must also consider them to be good arguments in favor of any mv. </font>[/QUOTE]This makes a lot of sense to me.

I still want to know the KJVO's "Perfect Version". They do not want to answer that question, for some reason.

 

[Trotter]

Phillip,

You described my outlook pretty good with your opening post.

I'll go ahead and answer you 'musing thought' about the KJVO "Perfect Version". They cannot answer anything.

You see, if a KJVO says the 1611, then any version, edition, revision, whatever after that is imperfect and therefore not God's word. And the same follows for all the other versions, editions, revisions, whatever of the King James. If they pick one, then the whole house of cards caves in. But since they sit in silence on this issue, rest assured that they have their "perfect" doctrine intact.

I will say that I love the KJV. Always have. I use it as a part of my study. But it is not the main version I use, since I do not use Shakespearean English as a part of my normal vocabulary.

But, then, since I am not relying on the Holy Spirit to reinterpret the KJV for me (as some others), I really need to repent and get saved, huh?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Jim Ward]

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by Jim Ward:

***yawn***

 

[robycop3]

Jim Ward: Are you saying this even though the people who gave us the niv decided it wasn't good enough and gave us the bogus tniv?

Well, Jim, someone in 1613 decided the AV 1611 wasn't good enuff & gave us the next edition. Which one is perfect? If either is perfect, then why were subsequent editions made?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Jim Ward:
skan, am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that the niv is the perfect book? Are you saying this even though the people who gave us the niv decided it wasn't good enough and gave us the bogus tniv?


Jim

I would say that this is about the same as saying the KJV came from the people who gave us the bogus apocrypha in 1611.