timothy 1769
New Member
Good news! Each and every inspired verse of the Bible is attested to by the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (3 witnesses). So it's OK to believe (and follow) every single verse of your Bible.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
No Doctrines Are Changed?
- Thread starter Will J. Kinney
- Start date
timothy 1769
New Member
The KJV is speaking of the pharisitical practice of straining wine after a gnat is found in it - hence, strainging at (the discovered presence of) a gnat. Check the OED.Originally posted by Orvie:
Shall we say, "strain at (out) a gnat"?
When you hvae a gnat in your wine, you don't strain at it, you strain it out. Forget the OED, look up the word in the BAGD ... after all, that is where you find the word that God used.
Plain Old Bill
New Member
Dear Will,
Facts are Facts whether they are old or new.I admire your stand although I disagree with it.I do notice how you completely ignored everything in the post.I hope you at least read it all before you dismissed it .I do not think any amount of facts or information will ever change your mind.
Facts are Facts whether they are old or new.I admire your stand although I disagree with it.I do notice how you completely ignored everything in the post.I hope you at least read it all before you dismissed it .I do not think any amount of facts or information will ever change your mind.
If I didn't know any better, (and I willfully DON'T
What I do appreciate of the Lord's Goodness, is that many mv proponents this day and time are REPENTING and turning back the the AV 1611 they once forsook and brought railing accustaion against.
When I read the pasage in Luke 14:10, I saw what the Lord had for all, not what the mv advocates suggest. For there to be proper worship, one MUST abase himself and prefer the other. NEVER is there ANY indication of "man" being worshipped, but on the contrary, Jesus taught the valuable lesson of humility, something we all need the Lord to work within us; not a "new operation of the old brain", but a renewing of the mind.
When you hvae a gnat in your wine, you don't strain at it, you strain it out. Forget the OED, look up the word in the BAGD ... after all, that is where you find the word that God used. </font>[/QUOTE]You don't understand the entire gist of what Jesus was saying. Certainly the gnat was "strained" out of the wine, but the pharisee called all the others to the attention of the gnat, causing them to STRAIN AT the gnat bewhilst the "camel" was passed right through their lips and they swallowed the "Gospel of Grace"/ the camel, and consumed it upon their own lusts, and have "fallen from grace".
Learn the parable before you try to discect it.
"Strain AT a gnat" is CORRECT. "Straining out the gnat" fails the intent of Christ in His relating Truth; something the pharisees always seemed to fall short of in comprehending what Jesus ACTUALLY said, but also certainly they soon became angry and sinned against God.
How many more camels will be swallowed while straining at gnats?
The "gnat" is the little tiny "imperfection" in the wine in the pharisee's sight. He could never pefect what God has already perfected, no matter how hard he tries. He swallows many "camels" in his endeavor to rationalize the "Wine". He can't "see the forest" because of one little shrub he thinks he's found at the edge of the trees.
VaROOOOOOOOM! Right over your head!
ScottEmerson
Active Member
To be honest, I've seen many, many, many more people on this board and in real life step away from the KJVO myth. I don't think I've ever met a person who was a staunch advocate for modern vesions who changed mid-stream into KJV after examining the evidence. The only KJVO's I've seen are usually born into the myth or taught it in college when they really don't know any better.
Plain Old Bill
New Member
I guess I should explain the reason for my very lenthly entry.Over the last couple of months I have read the ongoing battle on Bible versions.Although Will seemed very dogmatic it appeared to me he had gone to the trouble to really research his arguement. I truly thought if I put all of the con arguements in one place Will would once and for all address these questions and statements. He may have done this long ago but it is to far back for me to find . So I was hoping he would refresh us by addressing all of this since I put it in one place in an orderly manner for him to refute or question blow by blow.Then we or at least I could truly understand his position and why he truly rationly takes it. I can be convinced by facts.My mind can be changed but only if he provides the same courtesy that he would like me to show him.
Pastor KevinR
New Member
Thank you Will for allowing me to "side step", as I demonsrate to fair minds and spirits the double standard of many KJVO's, i.e. If you can show problem text in the MV's, I can show their are problems with the KJV, when taken at face value, instead of looking at it's source. And you are wrong about Neb. I agree that he was polytheistic, but he did not worship Daniel, he fell prostrate in reverence to him.
Matthew 4:10? why did you say that? When Jesus said, "only" the LORD was to be worshiped, He didn't mean only? and if you are taking the KJV at face value then there's a apparent contradiction with Luke 14:10 that clearly states that if the friend went up higher, he'll have "worship" (KJV)super plain to me.
Jesus said that, and in light of what He said in Matthew 4:10...Again the NKJV clears up the matter about worship. Let's not minimize the unfortunate renderings in the KJV, and maximize those in the MV's.BTW, I'm not addressing what you brought up because I know the MV's are human translations, and the Text varies, so I know the human MV's have human flaws in them, again, I'm just pointing out in fairness that the KJV has to meet the same standard as the MV's...The KJV is not the standard.
Pastor KevinR
New Member
Will said-"Hi brother Precepts, thank you for your contributions to this ongoing discussion. You are right about the use of the word worship in the KJB. Kevin just tried to switch tracks on us."
KR-"Both of you are wrong, worship means worship, and I attempted to "switch tracks" to show your double standard."
Will K-"Anyway, as a temporary side path, I will address the Luke 14:10 verse as it stands in the true words of God in the English language.
Luke 14:10 "then shalt thou have worship"
One of the verses frequently criticized by the Bible Correctors is Luke 14:10. The King James Bible has the Lord Jesus saying: "But when thou art bidden (to a wedding), go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have WORSHIP in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee."
The Bible correctors then ask: "Did Jesus teach a way for men to be worshipped according to Luke 14:10, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4:8? (remember: you may not go to the Greek for "light" if you are a Ruckmanite)."
Well, I am not a Ruckmanite, but I am a King James Bible believer, and I don't need to "go to the Greek" to explain the obvious meaning of the passage. "
KR-"Obvious meaning of the passage is "worship"..I thought you believe the English? And it's not true to call us a Bible correctors for doing the very same thing the translators of the KJV did."
Will K-"Whether the Lord Jesus actually said these words to Peter in Luke 4:8 or not seems to be of little importance to the Bible correctors. They focus instead on the word "worship" in Luke 14:10 and raise a big stink about it. I have never run into any one of these guys who actually believes there is an inspired Bible anywhere on this earth that is the complete, unadulterated, infallible, inspired word of God. Each of them "corrects" ALL Bible versions and sets up his own mind as the Final Authority."
KR-"You should start a cult, Will...we're consistent that the Word of God was God breathed in the Originals, whereas you falsely imply that God limped through the centuries until 1604 when He chose a king with PROVEN character flaws, who hated Baptists, (Anglicans) to concrete His Word in the English language."
Will K-"Rather than railing against the alleged and phony "errors" in the King James Bible, they would do better to learn a bit more about the Bible itself and their own English language."
KR-"You are the one who twist 'worship' in Luke 14:10 and we don't understand the English language?
Will K-"Not only does the King James Bible read " then shalt thou have worship" but so also do Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Miles Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible, the Bishop's Bible, and the Geneva Bible 1599."
KR-"So what? in 2004 to translate it as worship is MISLEADING."
Will K-"The word "worship" comes from the Old English weortscipe, and literally means "condition of worth" from weorth or worth. Webster's 1828 dictionary defines worship as:
1. Excellence of character; dignity; worth; worthiness. --Elfin born of noble state, and muckle worship in his native land.
2. A title of honor, used in addresses to certain magistrates and other of respectable character. My father desires your worships company.
4. Chiefly and eminently, the act of paying divine honors to the Supreme Being; or the reverence and homage paid to him in religious exercises, consisting in adoration, confession, prayer, thanksgiving and the like.
6. Honor; respect; civil deference. Then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. Luke 14:10 (Notice his use of this very verse in his dictionary)
WORSHIP, v.t. 2. To respect; to honor; to treat with civil reverence. Nor worshipd with a waxen epitaph.
Random House Webster's Dictionary 1999 Worship # 3 adoring reverence or regard.
Funk and Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary 1963 gives the archaic definition of worship as "Dignity; worthiness"
Let's take a look now at how the Old Testament uses this word "worship"; it may surprise you. The same Hebrew word for to worship is used both in reference to God and man. The word is # 7812 shah-ghah, and is variously translated as "to worship, to do reverence, to do obeisance, and to bow down to." "
KR-"So what? what does the word mean to the modern reader? and since you wanna weaken the word worship in Luke 14:10 to force the KJV to be right, then attempt to weaken it in Matthew 4:10. In spite of all your writings...when a person reads Luke 14:10 at face value, it STILL says the friend will have worship, when Jesus said only He was to be worshiped."
Will-"Without exception I have found that anyone who tries to criticize or correct the Authorized King James Holy Bible, does not believe any translation is totally accurate or contains all of the infallible words of the living God. They have no "originals" to work with and believe in a mystical bible that exists only in their own individual minds. They want to become your Final Authority in all matters of faith and practice, rather than believing God has kept His promises to preserve His inspired words in a Book we can actually buy, read, memorize, put into practice and believe is the infallible words of God."
KR-"This has been addressed time and time again to the point of being tiresome. If your position were true, then God failed until that magic year of **1611**. You keep blowing about Originals, but you CANNOT produce the Original 1611, it does not exist. And although you minimize the differences in the 1611 to 1769, and maximize the differences in the MV's, you prove to me, and probably many others, that you position is simply inconsistent and replete with double standards.
According to the way you defined and "dictionaried" me about the word, "worship", then is it fair to say that you "worship" the KJV?
KR-"Both of you are wrong, worship means worship, and I attempted to "switch tracks" to show your double standard."
Will K-"Anyway, as a temporary side path, I will address the Luke 14:10 verse as it stands in the true words of God in the English language.
Luke 14:10 "then shalt thou have worship"
One of the verses frequently criticized by the Bible Correctors is Luke 14:10. The King James Bible has the Lord Jesus saying: "But when thou art bidden (to a wedding), go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have WORSHIP in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee."
The Bible correctors then ask: "Did Jesus teach a way for men to be worshipped according to Luke 14:10, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4:8? (remember: you may not go to the Greek for "light" if you are a Ruckmanite)."
Well, I am not a Ruckmanite, but I am a King James Bible believer, and I don't need to "go to the Greek" to explain the obvious meaning of the passage. "
KR-"Obvious meaning of the passage is "worship"..I thought you believe the English? And it's not true to call us a Bible correctors for doing the very same thing the translators of the KJV did."
Will K-"Whether the Lord Jesus actually said these words to Peter in Luke 4:8 or not seems to be of little importance to the Bible correctors. They focus instead on the word "worship" in Luke 14:10 and raise a big stink about it. I have never run into any one of these guys who actually believes there is an inspired Bible anywhere on this earth that is the complete, unadulterated, infallible, inspired word of God. Each of them "corrects" ALL Bible versions and sets up his own mind as the Final Authority."
KR-"You should start a cult, Will...we're consistent that the Word of God was God breathed in the Originals, whereas you falsely imply that God limped through the centuries until 1604 when He chose a king with PROVEN character flaws, who hated Baptists, (Anglicans) to concrete His Word in the English language."
Will K-"Rather than railing against the alleged and phony "errors" in the King James Bible, they would do better to learn a bit more about the Bible itself and their own English language."
KR-"You are the one who twist 'worship' in Luke 14:10 and we don't understand the English language?
Will K-"Not only does the King James Bible read " then shalt thou have worship" but so also do Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Miles Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible, the Bishop's Bible, and the Geneva Bible 1599."
KR-"So what? in 2004 to translate it as worship is MISLEADING."
Will K-"The word "worship" comes from the Old English weortscipe, and literally means "condition of worth" from weorth or worth. Webster's 1828 dictionary defines worship as:
1. Excellence of character; dignity; worth; worthiness. --Elfin born of noble state, and muckle worship in his native land.
2. A title of honor, used in addresses to certain magistrates and other of respectable character. My father desires your worships company.
4. Chiefly and eminently, the act of paying divine honors to the Supreme Being; or the reverence and homage paid to him in religious exercises, consisting in adoration, confession, prayer, thanksgiving and the like.
6. Honor; respect; civil deference. Then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. Luke 14:10 (Notice his use of this very verse in his dictionary)
WORSHIP, v.t. 2. To respect; to honor; to treat with civil reverence. Nor worshipd with a waxen epitaph.
Random House Webster's Dictionary 1999 Worship # 3 adoring reverence or regard.
Funk and Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary 1963 gives the archaic definition of worship as "Dignity; worthiness"
Let's take a look now at how the Old Testament uses this word "worship"; it may surprise you. The same Hebrew word for to worship is used both in reference to God and man. The word is # 7812 shah-ghah, and is variously translated as "to worship, to do reverence, to do obeisance, and to bow down to." "
KR-"So what? what does the word mean to the modern reader? and since you wanna weaken the word worship in Luke 14:10 to force the KJV to be right, then attempt to weaken it in Matthew 4:10. In spite of all your writings...when a person reads Luke 14:10 at face value, it STILL says the friend will have worship, when Jesus said only He was to be worshiped."
Will-"Without exception I have found that anyone who tries to criticize or correct the Authorized King James Holy Bible, does not believe any translation is totally accurate or contains all of the infallible words of the living God. They have no "originals" to work with and believe in a mystical bible that exists only in their own individual minds. They want to become your Final Authority in all matters of faith and practice, rather than believing God has kept His promises to preserve His inspired words in a Book we can actually buy, read, memorize, put into practice and believe is the infallible words of God."
KR-"This has been addressed time and time again to the point of being tiresome. If your position were true, then God failed until that magic year of **1611**. You keep blowing about Originals, but you CANNOT produce the Original 1611, it does not exist. And although you minimize the differences in the 1611 to 1769, and maximize the differences in the MV's, you prove to me, and probably many others, that you position is simply inconsistent and replete with double standards.
According to the way you defined and "dictionaried" me about the word, "worship", then is it fair to say that you "worship" the KJV?
Pastor KevinR
New Member
To be honest, I've seen many, many, many more people on this board and in real life step away from the KJVO myth. I don't think I've ever met a person who was a staunch advocate for modern vesions who changed mid-stream into KJV after examining the evidence. The only KJVO's I've seen are usually born into the myth or taught it in college when they really don't know any better. </font>[/QUOTE]Thank God the He delivered me from this myth. What peace. Anyone know of an Ex-KJVO club? The shackles are off, praise God.
Pastor KevinR
New Member
More "side steps" if I may: The KJV calls the "Living Creatures" in Revelation, the very same thing it calls the Anti-Christ, "beast"...if it appeared this way in the MV's the KJVO's would be all over it, but are strangely silent about this.
Rev 17:6-if taken at face value in the KJV, it states that John admired the Great Harlot! well, get a NKJV, etc to know that he was amazed, not admired in the MODERN everyday understanding of the word, which KJVO's seem to care very little about.
Does the KJV "attack" the Holy Spirit in the O.T. again and again by using lower case? "spirit" instead of "Spirit"? If it appeared this way in the MV's the KJVO's would be all over it, but again they only pick and choose apples and oranges, and the "problems" in the KJV, they suppress, or write page after page after page to force the English right at all costs, even though when a 10 year old reads these words, he wonders why the KJV teaches man worship in Luke 14:10...etc..etc...
Rev 17:6-if taken at face value in the KJV, it states that John admired the Great Harlot! well, get a NKJV, etc to know that he was amazed, not admired in the MODERN everyday understanding of the word, which KJVO's seem to care very little about.
Does the KJV "attack" the Holy Spirit in the O.T. again and again by using lower case? "spirit" instead of "Spirit"? If it appeared this way in the MV's the KJVO's would be all over it, but again they only pick and choose apples and oranges, and the "problems" in the KJV, they suppress, or write page after page after page to force the English right at all costs, even though when a 10 year old reads these words, he wonders why the KJV teaches man worship in Luke 14:10...etc..etc...
timothy 1769
New Member
When you hvae a gnat in your wine, you don't strain at it, you strain it out. Forget the OED, look up the word in the BAGD ... after all, that is where you find the word that God used. </font>[/QUOTE]When a gnat was found in wine, of course it was removed (by hand). Insects aren't kosher (though some locusts are - yuck). What, according to Jewish law, allowed the remaining wine to be kosher was straining it, just in case any more impurities might be found in it. If you couldn't strain it, ALL the wine was to be thrown away. So - they strained AT the discovery of a gnat, which may or may not strain additional gnats.
I understand many KJV opponents love this "error", but IMO the only error here is with their understanding of English and Jewish law.
The KJV has the better translation.
Nice try Precepts, but you miss the point. Jesus used a word. That word means to "strain out," not to "strain at." Your problem is not me; it is the word that Jesus used. The point is that they were paying attention to all kinds of minute things while overlooking the major things. They were crossing all the T's and dotting all the I's of the law while missing the actual point of the Law. To strain at something is to struggle with it; to strain out is to get rid of. You don't struggle with a gnat; you get rid of it.
This is yet another case where you guys are so intent on maintaining a position that you will say absolutely silly things without regard for the truth of it.
Tim tries to defend himself while not making sense. He, in effect, says what I say and then tells me it is wrong. Hey says, What, according to Jewish law, allowed the remaining wine to be kosher was straining it, just in case any more impurities might be found in it. They would run it through a straining cloth to take "out" all the impurities. That is why it is called "straining out," not "straining at."
The word Jesus used means "strain out." If you don't like straining out, your problem is not a translation. Your problem is the words of Christ.
This is yet another case where you guys are so intent on maintaining a position that you will say absolutely silly things without regard for the truth of it.
Tim tries to defend himself while not making sense. He, in effect, says what I say and then tells me it is wrong. Hey says, What, according to Jewish law, allowed the remaining wine to be kosher was straining it, just in case any more impurities might be found in it. They would run it through a straining cloth to take "out" all the impurities. That is why it is called "straining out," not "straining at."
The word Jesus used means "strain out." If you don't like straining out, your problem is not a translation. Your problem is the words of Christ.
timothy 1769
New Member
Pastor Larry,
Please read my post again and try to make sense of it. This construction in English is very clear to me and to the editors of what is arguably the utmost authority on the English language, the Oxford English Dictionary.
Jews strained when an insect was found - that is, at (the discovery of) a gnat.
"Among the accusations Haman is said to bring against them to Ahasuerus, and the instances he gives of their laws being different from the king's, this one {r}; that "if a fly falls into the cup of one of them, "he strains it, and drinks it"; but if my lord the king should touch the cup of one of them, he would throw it to the ground, and would not drink of it.""
T. Bab. Megilla, fol, 13. 2. Vid. T. Hietos. Sota, fol. 17. 1.
Notice, they strain at the discovery of an insect, which is what Jesus alludes to.
The Greek word means to filter through, strain thoroughly, or pour through a filter. A literal rendering would indicate filtering the gnat itself, or something through the gnat itself, which makes no sense, thus some interpretation is necessary. Since 'gnat' is singular and people don't generally strain to find only one individual impurity, but many, the KJV's interpretation makes the most sense as one would strain when discovering only one gnat.
Again, far from being an error in the KJV, the KJV has the best translation which fits all the facts.
Please read my post again and try to make sense of it. This construction in English is very clear to me and to the editors of what is arguably the utmost authority on the English language, the Oxford English Dictionary.
Jews strained when an insect was found - that is, at (the discovery of) a gnat.
"Among the accusations Haman is said to bring against them to Ahasuerus, and the instances he gives of their laws being different from the king's, this one {r}; that "if a fly falls into the cup of one of them, "he strains it, and drinks it"; but if my lord the king should touch the cup of one of them, he would throw it to the ground, and would not drink of it.""
T. Bab. Megilla, fol, 13. 2. Vid. T. Hietos. Sota, fol. 17. 1.
Notice, they strain at the discovery of an insect, which is what Jesus alludes to.
The Greek word means to filter through, strain thoroughly, or pour through a filter. A literal rendering would indicate filtering the gnat itself, or something through the gnat itself, which makes no sense, thus some interpretation is necessary. Since 'gnat' is singular and people don't generally strain to find only one individual impurity, but many, the KJV's interpretation makes the most sense as one would strain when discovering only one gnat.
Again, far from being an error in the KJV, the KJV has the best translation which fits all the facts.
I understood your post the first time. My point is that while your explanation makes sense, it is not what the text says. Surely you admit that what Christ said is more important than what you or the OED says. They did not strain at the discovery of a gnat. The point is that they would strain out a gnat (a small thing) while letting a camel go through (a big thing). Your whole explanation requires you to add to the text, something you are apparently willing to do to maintain your KJVO position. You would be better off leaving the text at it stands and changing your position.
They didn't strain when an insect was found. When an insect was found, they strained the wine to get the insect out. In other words, they strained out a gnat. But in so doing they were willing to leave the camel.
You have completely distorted the meaning of the word. As you say, The Greek word means to filter through, strain thoroughly, or pour through a filter. They would pour something through a filter to get a gnat out of it; but they would not remove a camel.
How much more plain could it be? Christ is addressing their hypocrisy. Notice the immediately preceding verse. You tithe down to the smallest matter but ignore the bigger stuff.
Once again, all I do is appeal to the meaning of the word Christ used, not the OED or any other such thing.
They didn't strain when an insect was found. When an insect was found, they strained the wine to get the insect out. In other words, they strained out a gnat. But in so doing they were willing to leave the camel.
You have completely distorted the meaning of the word. As you say, The Greek word means to filter through, strain thoroughly, or pour through a filter. They would pour something through a filter to get a gnat out of it; but they would not remove a camel.
How much more plain could it be? Christ is addressing their hypocrisy. Notice the immediately preceding verse. You tithe down to the smallest matter but ignore the bigger stuff.
Once again, all I do is appeal to the meaning of the word Christ used, not the OED or any other such thing.
Uh, am I missing something here. There is a LOT of conversation regarding the KJV's interpretation and an MV's interpretation of a very specific issue that does not have a lot of concern to me as far as my doctrine is concerned.
I am sure that we could take any MV AND the KJV and find certain areas translated a little better in the KJV and many areas translated better in an MV. AND...we could also find variations in the quality of specific translations in MV to MV.
How does all this relate to the fact that the KJVO's have not given any Biblical proof that the KJV is a completely inerrant translation into the English language?
And...why are we English, so blessed that we have the only inerrant Bible?
I think the thread is moving off-course somewhat in that the original discussion is "specifically what doctrines are changed in an MV which is in conflict with our doctrines?"
We can "strain" all we want to, but I would still like to see an answer to the above questions that is satisfactory and not just....I believe it by faith. Because, I can believe it by faith the Koran is true, but I would be wrong.
I think we all will have no problem using the Bible as our final authority and since we are dealing with KJVO's on this board, let's use the KJV. Now, show me, where in the KJV that God says he will keep the bible translations inerrant in ENGLISH?
I have even heard statements to the effect that the KJV is SOoooo old, it must be closer to the truth. Has anybody looked at a time-line. Four hundred years is NOT old compared to 2000. Plus, when you consider the last changes that were made to correct the KJV were more than 100 years later, we find a Bible that is really only about 250 years of age. Does this mean that every song in our Baptist Hymnal are somehow blessed if they date back to the 18th century?
Come one, what REAL doctrines are changed?
I am sure that we could take any MV AND the KJV and find certain areas translated a little better in the KJV and many areas translated better in an MV. AND...we could also find variations in the quality of specific translations in MV to MV.
How does all this relate to the fact that the KJVO's have not given any Biblical proof that the KJV is a completely inerrant translation into the English language?
And...why are we English, so blessed that we have the only inerrant Bible?
I think the thread is moving off-course somewhat in that the original discussion is "specifically what doctrines are changed in an MV which is in conflict with our doctrines?"
We can "strain" all we want to, but I would still like to see an answer to the above questions that is satisfactory and not just....I believe it by faith. Because, I can believe it by faith the Koran is true, but I would be wrong.
I think we all will have no problem using the Bible as our final authority and since we are dealing with KJVO's on this board, let's use the KJV. Now, show me, where in the KJV that God says he will keep the bible translations inerrant in ENGLISH?
I have even heard statements to the effect that the KJV is SOoooo old, it must be closer to the truth. Has anybody looked at a time-line. Four hundred years is NOT old compared to 2000. Plus, when you consider the last changes that were made to correct the KJV were more than 100 years later, we find a Bible that is really only about 250 years of age. Does this mean that every song in our Baptist Hymnal are somehow blessed if they date back to the 18th century?
Come one, what REAL doctrines are changed?
Come one, what REAL doctrines are changed?
_________________________
These "doctrinal change" threads usually get off topic pretty quickly because no one has ever shown an actual doctrinal change. Someone starts by throwing out a few verses where the translation is different or the text itself is different, and then ignore all the other passages that teach the exact same doctrine.
These people just can't grasp that a difference because of text or translation is not the same as a difference in doctrine.
_________________________
These "doctrinal change" threads usually get off topic pretty quickly because no one has ever shown an actual doctrinal change. Someone starts by throwing out a few verses where the translation is different or the text itself is different, and then ignore all the other passages that teach the exact same doctrine.
These people just can't grasp that a difference because of text or translation is not the same as a difference in doctrine.
Why would it be an example of the Lord's Goodness to cause someone to repent from something that is not only not sinful but instead edifying to the spirit?
God gave us His Word and not once did He say anything about using one particular translation in English. Now you are anointing yourself to establish new sins?
BTW, I never turned away from the KJV. I never said it was not God's Word. I turned away from the sinful deception of ascribing inspiration to the KJV translators and from going beyond what God revealed about His Word, its preservation, and its translation.
BTW, I have been around this issue for awhile now and have never known of anyone who had the facts laid out honestly before them... who were left to their own conclusions and chose KJVOnlyism.
I have seen people swayed by deceptive propaganda like "The NIV had a lesbian..." or "Is your Bible missing these verses?" or "Did you know the men responsible for MV's were occultists?"
I have also seen people intimidated and bullied and threatened with being looked down on for not accepting KJVOnlyism. In fact, this is the way most KJVO's that I personally know came to their position. They wanted to be "accepted"... to be "spiritual". In fact, they made themselves nothing more than men-pleasers.
But never, NEVER have I seen someone that was given an accurate portrayal of the history of the Bible from John til now (without any kind of pressure) who then saw any merit in the KJVO myth.
Will J. Kinney
Member
And then the long posts like the one pasted from some ignoramus who has no idea what he is talking about when he criticizes the alleged "errors" in the King James Bible.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott posts:
Way to respond to the post, Will. With such a rebuttal, how can those who use MC's possibly win?
There were several "new" arguments that I haven't seen on the board before; why not respond to those?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott, this whole thing is avoiding all the examples I brought up in the initial article. So far, none of you seem willing or able to discuss these. Instead you go off on tangents such as that really sophomoric pasting by Plain Old Bill. Most of them were really stupid and silly examples of "errors" in the KJB. There wasn't one I noticed that I hadn't seen before.
Now, if you care to examine any one of them that you thought was really devastating to the KJB only position, then post it and I will try to answer as best I can.
God bless,
Will Kinney
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott posts:
Way to respond to the post, Will. With such a rebuttal, how can those who use MC's possibly win?
There were several "new" arguments that I haven't seen on the board before; why not respond to those?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott, this whole thing is avoiding all the examples I brought up in the initial article. So far, none of you seem willing or able to discuss these. Instead you go off on tangents such as that really sophomoric pasting by Plain Old Bill. Most of them were really stupid and silly examples of "errors" in the KJB. There wasn't one I noticed that I hadn't seen before.
Now, if you care to examine any one of them that you thought was really devastating to the KJB only position, then post it and I will try to answer as best I can.
God bless,
Will Kinney