NASB and NIV, True and Trustworthy.

Steve, as best as I recall, you never dealt with my questions about Riplinger nor the links I provided. She claimed direct inspiration for her book in a published article. I gave a link to a radio broadcast in which she flagrantly states that "Jesus" gave her the acrostic algebra.

So Steve, Is she a liar and heretic or do you still maintain that she is a source of truth? Can you believe the truth when you here it with your own ears? Will you be like the Sanhedrin that refused to hear true witnesses but rather cried "blasphemy" to drown out the truth of Christ's testimony?

 

Steve K. said:

hu haw hah huh haw hyu hyu ha ha Oh you were serious? When you change the word of God I can't possilbly take you serious.Who's Pete? Truth hurts no matter how many times you read it.

and

The info I posted all applied to topic and all was truth.Not the lies told by men? like White and his kind.

and

What a perversion of scripture to say that Psalm 12:6&7 are referring to man! The context is God's word clearly because it says WORD!

So it's come to this.

The KJV-only position has been reduced to mockery and dismissal, unproven ad hominem attacks, and rote recitals of bumper-sticker slogans, rather than actually trying to be convincing.

If I ask again for one good reason to believe in KJV-onlyism, will I actually get a reason? Or will I get another macro? Or, better, yet, will I just get called an "apostate" again for asking inconvenient questions?

 

but earlier you wrote...

no more? no less? they are different. one is wrong. my vote is niv

 

no more? no less? they are different. one is wrong. my vote is niv</font>[/QUOTE]If we are talking about the words rather than the Word then my vote goes for the originals being "right" since that is the only copies of scripture ever directly inspired by God Himself.

 

Rakka Rage said:

one is wrong. my vote is niv

Your broad, vague and over-generalized opinion is noted.

 

You do not have the originals and niether does anyone else.How can you or anyone claim final authority from something that does not exist? Riplinger as I told you was telling the truth.Don't say I did not answer you when I did.

 

But the mss evidence does exist as do 1000's of quotations of early Christians and early translations. The hard evidence is far more convincing than your opinion and the unproven speculations of Gipp, Riplinger, et al.

Yes. You gave this same unqualified response... but didn't completely answer. Was she telling the truth about being inspired by God directly in her writing?

Baptists and genuine fundamentalists believe that the scriptures were complete and inspiration ceased when John completed Revelation.

Now you say that she was telling the truth... but if I accept that answer (which I am trying to make certain before doing), you are neither a Baptist nor fundamentalist by belief.

 

I am not a fundamentalist! I am a baptist although not your flavor because I still believe the KJV to be the very words of God. Your claims are the ones I doubt.

 

nice cut and run... your self contradicting position is noted and disregarded

 

Sorry to step in on this edifying conversation, but I'll answer you Ransom. If I can't answer someone as to what I believe, then I have no standing on which to believe it.

Reasons to believe in KJV-onlyism:
1. One can authoritatively preach from the word only if he believes that what he holds in his hand are the very words of God, given to us for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.
2. To apply modern textual criticism to the word of God is to reduce it to the level of Homer's writings or that of Josephus, and will result in questioning the veracity of the very words God gave us by which we are to live as children of his. The fruit of this textual criticism has indeed been the questioning of the authenticity of many verses and has culminated in the error and heresy of the Jesus Seminar.
3. When English-speaking preachers of the 1600's, 1700's, and 1800's stood and preached with the power of the inerrant, inspired, unadulterated word of God, they had no question that it could be found in their hands, and this enabled them to preach with authority. They did not question the Bible, nor would they tolerate anyone casting doubt as to the veracity of the very words of the Book. They, indeed saw no need to put their faith in the originals, as they believed what they had mirrored those manuscripts.

As a final point, not a reason to believe KJV-only---

I question neither the salvation nor the Christian walk of those who use modern versions. I merely believe, as did most English-speaking preachers prior to 1881, that I can hold the very words of God in my hand and preach them with authority, AS the words of God. I rely neither on modern secular scholarship, nor upon liberal Theologians to recreate the Bible for me, as it has been here in the English language all along, in the KJV.

Thanks for reading!

Jason

 

KING JAMES AV 1611 attempts to cast doubt and create skepticism:

You do not have the originals and niether does anyone else.How can you or anyone claim final authority from something that does not exist?

You make a good point. Please produce the original manuscript of the 1611 KJV that was sent to the printers, and show us that your KJV is a reliable copy of the original.

Turnabout is fair play.

[ January 30, 2003, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Another thought:

You do not have the originals and niether does anyone else.How can you or anyone claim final authority from something that does not exist?

If I cannot produce the corpse of my great-great-grandfather, does that mean I cannot prove I exist?

 

Rakka Rage said:

your self contradicting position is noted and disregarded

Thank you.

 

Refreshed said:

1. One can authoritatively preach from the word only if he believes that what he holds in his hand are the very words of God, given to us for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

Yes, but you don't go from the above to "the KJV and only the KJV is 'the very words of God.'" That is a non sequitur.

2. To apply modern textual criticism to the word of God is to reduce it to the level of Homer's writings or that of Josephus,

Since the KJV is also a translation of texts collated through the "modern textual criticism" of Desiderius Erasmus, this argument is nothing but special pleading on the KJV's behalf.

3. When English-speaking preachers of the 1600's, 1700's, and 1800's stood and preached with the power of the inerrant, inspired, unadulterated word of God. . . . They, indeed saw no need to put their faith in the originals, as they believed what they had mirrored those manuscripts.

How many of these "English-speaking preachers of the 1600's, 1700's, and 1800's" have you read? The above certainly does not sound like John Owen (1600s), Jonathan Edwards (1700s), or Charles Spurgeon (1800s), or many other Puritan preachers I have read. We are in factual disagreement.

 

Ransom:

I have read
1. Sunday
2. Moody
3. Spurgeon
4. Whitefield
5. Wesley
6. Bunyan

This is a partial list and only pertains to the English speakers (with Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, et al, left out for obvious reasons), but I can't recall in a sermon I have read given by the above men where they question the veracity or translation of a particular word or verse.

Admittedly, I haven't read the complete works of any of them either. I know they used (as I do when I preach) the Greek and Hebrew to help explain things, but if you know where one of them corrected the King James Bible or called to question a translation of a word within, I would be very much interested.

I would be particularly interested in Edwards, Owens, and Spurgeon quotes.

Thanks in advance,

Jason

[ January 30, 2003, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: Refreshed ]

 

Refreshed said:

I know they used (as I do when I preach) the Greek and Hebrew to help explain things,

I thought you said they didn't "put their faith in the originals"? You've changed at least one of your premises. (Backpedalling is not what you would call a solid basis for your opinion.)

I would be particularly interested in Edwards,

Read Edwards' Charity and Its Fruits, a series of sermons on 1 Cor. 13. Right at the beginning, he says that the KJV's translation of agape as "charity" is incorrect: "The word properly signifies or that disposition or affection whereby one is dear to another; and the original (agape) which is here translated 'charity,' might better have been rendered 'love,' for that is the proper English of it" (emphases in original).

Owens

Look through John Owen and count the number of Greek cites. Here is a man who certainly "put faith in the originals," as you so confidently assert the preachers of his era did not.

Spurgeon quotes.

Of the three, Spurgeon I know best. Here is but a sampling of where he corrects the KJV rendering.

From a sermon titled "Death for Sin, and Death to Sin," on 1 Pet. 2:24:

From "The Lamentations of Jesus," on Luke 19:41:

From "Our Own Dear Shepherd," preaching on John 10:14ff, Spurgeon says:

In fact, Spurgeon preached an entire sermon from three words, "and we are," which form part of 1 John 3:1 in the Revised Version, though the words are omitted from the KJV. He says:

As I understand it, there around places in Spurgeon's sermons and works where he corrects the KJV with the RV.

 

I didn't know that using the Greek and Hebrew to gain interesting insights was against the KJVO position. I have a Strong's that I use to look words up, as I am sure many other KJVOs do. I would hardly consider this backpedalling.

The quotes, however, prove one thing (which I already believed), that one does not have to exclusively use the KJV as an evidence of their salvation. I don't think anyone would question Spurgeon's!

Hey, these guys weren't perfect and may have been mistaken, but, Ransom, your point about them correcting the KJV is well-taken.

Jason

 

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamen!!!!!

Only in the same sense that Bill Clinton was a moderate. Rightly or wrongly, we live in a day and age where anyone can co-opt any label they choose... even if they contradict the meaning of the label.

You call yourself Baptist yet reject what Baptists have historically believed by the Bible as indicated by the various confessions.

... then by all means, disprove my claims. Give factual, honest rebuttals by checking me out. I suspect you would rather cling to the security of your doubt than take the chance that the facts will bear out my opinions to a very good degree.

[ January 30, 2003, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Scotty aka Scott J ]

 

I don't agree with this statement. We hold the very Word of God in our hands.

I can authoritatively tell you that the word of the state of Missouri is "do not drive 50 mph in a 35 mph zone." I have never seen the text establishing this law but I have seen driving booklets in layman's language that says to obey the speed limit signs. The authority is the same if the message is the same.

[ January 30, 2003, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Scotty aka Scott J ]

 

What a perversion of scripture to say that Psalm 12:6&7 are referring to man! The context is God's word clearly because it says WORD!

Not if you look at the Hebrew it was translated from. If you look at Ps 12:6-7 strictly in Hebrew, this is what it literally says:

Yahweh's commands are pure commands. Monetary silver, earthly furnace smelted, refined sevenfold. Yahweh to guard and protect this age eternal(ly).

While the KJV authors read this to mean that the words of God will be protected and preserved, others tend to think that God's words are used to protect his people forever.

One thing is clear to me in the Hebrew, however. This verse has NOTHING to do with the KJV being the preserved word of God.