-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Presuppositionalism and KJV onlyism
- Thread starter AV
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
GB said,
"No problem, I just tell her the truth. Again when will you unashamedly tell us what the name of your perfect Bible?"
The King James Bible. You tell her 'the truth.'?
John 17:17, "Sanctify them through THY TRUTH; THY WORD IS TRUTH."
It's your turn. Identify YOUR PERFECT BIBLE (BOOK OF THE LORD) WITH SPECIFICITY (ie. no uncertain terms, no vague ambiguities, no nebulous nonentities, no abstract intangibles, no pixie dust, no long time ago's, no far far aways, no Once Upon a Times, no internationally scattered manuscraps, no vain obscurities, no distant potentialities, no almost realities...)
How long wilt thou hide? Shew thy face.
All cards on the table face up.
Waist high, down the middle of the plate.
Show 'em you're a tiger; show'em what you can do! (Tony the Tiger; Kelloggs Frosted Flakes commercial; modern vernacular)
"No problem, I just tell her the truth. Again when will you unashamedly tell us what the name of your perfect Bible?"
The King James Bible. You tell her 'the truth.'?
John 17:17, "Sanctify them through THY TRUTH; THY WORD IS TRUTH."
It's your turn. Identify YOUR PERFECT BIBLE (BOOK OF THE LORD) WITH SPECIFICITY (ie. no uncertain terms, no vague ambiguities, no nebulous nonentities, no abstract intangibles, no pixie dust, no long time ago's, no far far aways, no Once Upon a Times, no internationally scattered manuscraps, no vain obscurities, no distant potentialities, no almost realities...)
How long wilt thou hide? Shew thy face.
All cards on the table face up.
Waist high, down the middle of the plate.
Show 'em you're a tiger; show'em what you can do! (Tony the Tiger; Kelloggs Frosted Flakes commercial; modern vernacular)
Bookborn
The Word of God.
All of God's truth is not contained in any Bible. God's word extends way beyond the Bible. It extends beyond my comprehension. The truth is found in the application of God's word--fear God. When I know God then I will have knowledge. Until I know God I will not have knowledge. Many claim to have knowledge but do not know God. All they have is an intellectual knowledge about God but they do not know Him and cannot have the truth. The demons believe and shudder.
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction."
"But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves."
One who is not a doer is deluded.
The Word of God.
All of God's truth is not contained in any Bible. God's word extends way beyond the Bible. It extends beyond my comprehension. The truth is found in the application of God's word--fear God. When I know God then I will have knowledge. Until I know God I will not have knowledge. Many claim to have knowledge but do not know God. All they have is an intellectual knowledge about God but they do not know Him and cannot have the truth. The demons believe and shudder.
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction."
"But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves."
One who is not a doer is deluded.
AV had emailed me his interesting synopsis/refutation of James White's King James Onlyism book. I don't think he'd mind if I posted excerpts out here. Check it out from AV....
Here is what I compiled from Whites book:
1. The original readings although not found in any one book (the book of the LORD for example), can be found by comparing all of the manuscripts.(pg.47) For example if there are 10 copies made of a document the 10 copyists will not likely make the same mistake in the same place. And so by comparing the 10, although they are different, the original reading can be recovered. (pg.39-40)
· However the method given above requires a majority approach to the manuscripts. But James flatly rejects such an approach which he calls an artificial rule. He states that the majority of manuscripts are late (pg.153) and we need an eclectic approach to the manuscripts. This is what most scholars do anyway as only a small minority of scholars use an ‘artificial rule’ such as the majority approach. (pg.151-2) Scholars prefer the older is better rule. (pg153) So on the one hand the majority agreement among the manuscripts prove the veracious nature of the New Testament text (pg.39-40), but this method must be abandoned when it comes to the variant passages. Perhaps Mr. White believes a majority approach only applies to a minority of manuscripts, after we establish the 90% agreement among the entire collection of extant manuscripts. [But there still is no guarantee that the older is right, nor that we know which is the older.] So we use the majority text approach to establish 90% of the text, abandon it to establish the Alexandrian manuscripts and reinstitute it to establish the correct Alexandrian readings.
2. Try to follow this concatenation of reason.
· All versions have fundamentally the same message (pg.40) so you should simply pick a translation that you prefer (pg.5).
· You shouldn’t pick only one translation you should pick multiple translations to be more accurate (pg.7)
· We should invest our energies in discovering which of the variant readings reflect the original reading because they are not the same.(pg.48)
· Don’t bellow about having to learn ancient languages, that is simply laziness and anti-intellectualism. We should learn the original languages as well as textual matters. (pg.26-7, pg.151)
· You should pick an easy to understand translation because the KJV is so difficult to read!(pg234-7)
· Also they complain about archaic KJV words which effect no doctrine, and then contend that 64000 omitted words effect no doctrine.- Beware of the leaven word of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy.
3. Satan has played no part in the differences in the manuscripts through any kind of “conspiracy”. Why would he attack only 2 out of 5 doctrinal verses and not all 5? (Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees Mt.16:6,12) This is how we know there is no Satanic cover up because he didn’t remove all of the verses on any given doctrine.
A better explanation of the differences among manuscripts is that the scribes being influenced by their own
‘expanding piety’ and secret desires to make any variations match and parallel influence of other portions of
scripture, usually added to the scripture. This theory isn’t nullified by observing all the passages of scripture which vary and are not harmonized, we simply apply two standards. Common experience however will have to be rejected to accept this objection. Do criminal investigators rule out a potential poisoning because only a small portion of someone’s meal was poisoned and not the whole meal replaced by poison? Or do store owners rule out a possible theft because every item on the shelf wasn’t stolen? I trow not.
4. Any theories of heretics corrupting manuscripts must be rejected because they lack documentation (Like what? The minutes from the meetings in the smoke filled rooms or memorandums from the heretical hierarchy?). There is not one historical allusion to any such subterfuge and therefore they must be rejected as conjecture. (pg.154-187)
Better theories equally unsubstantiated should be accepted in their place, namely harmonization (pg.37-8), parallel influence (pg.155-6), expansion of piety (pg. 45-6, 153), and scribal errors (pg.36). These make more sense since scholars of any age have good intentions. What percentages of error occur with doctrinal verses as opposed to non doctrinal errors? The types of changes and omissions evince some form of malevolent design. (Refer to New Age Bible Versions by Gail Riplinger)
5. The most likely time when the most textual errors occurred would be quite early in the church. This was when Christianity was still illegal and hidden and copying of the manuscripts would have occurred under the worst of conditions by the least qualified. This was when scribes were not professional and more prone to errors, harmonizations, parallel influence, expansions of piety. (pg.42, 152)
The earliest manuscripts are generally the most reliable. (pg. 153) Thy testimonies are very sure? Ps.93:52
Here is what I compiled from Whites book:
1. The original readings although not found in any one book (the book of the LORD for example), can be found by comparing all of the manuscripts.(pg.47) For example if there are 10 copies made of a document the 10 copyists will not likely make the same mistake in the same place. And so by comparing the 10, although they are different, the original reading can be recovered. (pg.39-40)
· However the method given above requires a majority approach to the manuscripts. But James flatly rejects such an approach which he calls an artificial rule. He states that the majority of manuscripts are late (pg.153) and we need an eclectic approach to the manuscripts. This is what most scholars do anyway as only a small minority of scholars use an ‘artificial rule’ such as the majority approach. (pg.151-2) Scholars prefer the older is better rule. (pg153) So on the one hand the majority agreement among the manuscripts prove the veracious nature of the New Testament text (pg.39-40), but this method must be abandoned when it comes to the variant passages. Perhaps Mr. White believes a majority approach only applies to a minority of manuscripts, after we establish the 90% agreement among the entire collection of extant manuscripts. [But there still is no guarantee that the older is right, nor that we know which is the older.] So we use the majority text approach to establish 90% of the text, abandon it to establish the Alexandrian manuscripts and reinstitute it to establish the correct Alexandrian readings.
2. Try to follow this concatenation of reason.
· All versions have fundamentally the same message (pg.40) so you should simply pick a translation that you prefer (pg.5).
· You shouldn’t pick only one translation you should pick multiple translations to be more accurate (pg.7)
· We should invest our energies in discovering which of the variant readings reflect the original reading because they are not the same.(pg.48)
· Don’t bellow about having to learn ancient languages, that is simply laziness and anti-intellectualism. We should learn the original languages as well as textual matters. (pg.26-7, pg.151)
· You should pick an easy to understand translation because the KJV is so difficult to read!(pg234-7)
· Also they complain about archaic KJV words which effect no doctrine, and then contend that 64000 omitted words effect no doctrine.- Beware of the leaven word of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy.
3. Satan has played no part in the differences in the manuscripts through any kind of “conspiracy”. Why would he attack only 2 out of 5 doctrinal verses and not all 5? (Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees Mt.16:6,12) This is how we know there is no Satanic cover up because he didn’t remove all of the verses on any given doctrine.
A better explanation of the differences among manuscripts is that the scribes being influenced by their own
‘expanding piety’ and secret desires to make any variations match and parallel influence of other portions of
scripture, usually added to the scripture. This theory isn’t nullified by observing all the passages of scripture which vary and are not harmonized, we simply apply two standards. Common experience however will have to be rejected to accept this objection. Do criminal investigators rule out a potential poisoning because only a small portion of someone’s meal was poisoned and not the whole meal replaced by poison? Or do store owners rule out a possible theft because every item on the shelf wasn’t stolen? I trow not.
4. Any theories of heretics corrupting manuscripts must be rejected because they lack documentation (Like what? The minutes from the meetings in the smoke filled rooms or memorandums from the heretical hierarchy?). There is not one historical allusion to any such subterfuge and therefore they must be rejected as conjecture. (pg.154-187)
Better theories equally unsubstantiated should be accepted in their place, namely harmonization (pg.37-8), parallel influence (pg.155-6), expansion of piety (pg. 45-6, 153), and scribal errors (pg.36). These make more sense since scholars of any age have good intentions. What percentages of error occur with doctrinal verses as opposed to non doctrinal errors? The types of changes and omissions evince some form of malevolent design. (Refer to New Age Bible Versions by Gail Riplinger)
5. The most likely time when the most textual errors occurred would be quite early in the church. This was when Christianity was still illegal and hidden and copying of the manuscripts would have occurred under the worst of conditions by the least qualified. This was when scribes were not professional and more prone to errors, harmonizations, parallel influence, expansions of piety. (pg.42, 152)
The earliest manuscripts are generally the most reliable. (pg. 153) Thy testimonies are very sure? Ps.93:52
What's perfect about the KJV translation, that is not perfect in any other translation? As a translation, it is not a perfect translation. In fact, there is no perfect translation, because translating from one language to another is inhierently imperfect.Originally posted by Bookborn:
How long have I been with thee, GB, and you still do not know? The King James Bible.
Since scripture itself does not promise a perfect translation of scripture, I fail tosee why this is even an issue among Christians today.
DHK said:
Would you accept other Bibles in other languages translated from the textus receptus? Why or why not?
I have wondered why so many Modern Versions are based on other texts than TR, why they are contaminated with Septuagynt, different from Masorah.
If there had been any other English version than KJV, which is based on the same bases as KJV, then we could have reasonably discussed after reviewing it. If it had happened, there would have been no debate like this.
BTW, DHK, I am thirsty of your answer on the contradiction of Acts 12:3-4. Only after you can reasonably explain about the contraction, your argument that KJV has an error in that verse start to be valid.
My study shows (as you could see in the sites which I mentioned) that:
1) Ishtar took place 1 day after Pesach, Pesach 14th of Abib month, Ishtar 15th of the same month. Ishtar lasted 8 days as well.
2) Ishtar was much more popular throughout the Middle East world, while Pesach was celebrated by religious people of Israel.
3) Kings believed that Ishtar had the authority to appoint the kings and to dismiss them, and therefore Herod would have paid very much attention to it.
4) Even King Solomon worshipped Ishtar and didn't care about the Passover, but King Herod was more faithful with Passover?
5) Days of Unleavened Bread had the focus on the first day, Passover, then I believe that Ishtar had the focus on the final day, as a finale, with a lot of Orgy's
6) Both Pesach and Ishtar festival were called Pascha in Aramaic I can imagine nobody would have called it as Ishtar because it was holy to them.
7) Then it was re-translated as PASXA in Greek.
Otherwise, it would be very difficult to understand the contradiction and the whole situation in Ac 12.
In my view, KJV is all the time attacked from wrong angle, from PLuralism, from Distrust on the Word of God, based on the manipulated texts.
Would you accept other Bibles in other languages translated from the textus receptus? Why or why not?
I have wondered why so many Modern Versions are based on other texts than TR, why they are contaminated with Septuagynt, different from Masorah.
If there had been any other English version than KJV, which is based on the same bases as KJV, then we could have reasonably discussed after reviewing it. If it had happened, there would have been no debate like this.
BTW, DHK, I am thirsty of your answer on the contradiction of Acts 12:3-4. Only after you can reasonably explain about the contraction, your argument that KJV has an error in that verse start to be valid.
My study shows (as you could see in the sites which I mentioned) that:
1) Ishtar took place 1 day after Pesach, Pesach 14th of Abib month, Ishtar 15th of the same month. Ishtar lasted 8 days as well.
2) Ishtar was much more popular throughout the Middle East world, while Pesach was celebrated by religious people of Israel.
3) Kings believed that Ishtar had the authority to appoint the kings and to dismiss them, and therefore Herod would have paid very much attention to it.
4) Even King Solomon worshipped Ishtar and didn't care about the Passover, but King Herod was more faithful with Passover?
5) Days of Unleavened Bread had the focus on the first day, Passover, then I believe that Ishtar had the focus on the final day, as a finale, with a lot of Orgy's
6) Both Pesach and Ishtar festival were called Pascha in Aramaic I can imagine nobody would have called it as Ishtar because it was holy to them.
7) Then it was re-translated as PASXA in Greek.
Otherwise, it would be very difficult to understand the contradiction and the whole situation in Ac 12.
In my view, KJV is all the time attacked from wrong angle, from PLuralism, from Distrust on the Word of God, based on the manipulated texts.
There are numerous translations based primarily on the TR. The NKJV, the MKJV, ASV, Websters, Darby, Geneva, and several others.Originally posted by Eliyahu:
If there had been any other English version than KJV, which is based on the same bases as KJV, then we could have reasonably discussed after reviewing it. If it had happened, there would have been no debate like this.
WordOfAKing
New Member
Originally posted by WordOfAKing (that's me)
________________________________________________________________________
I would like to propose a challenge to the opponents of a perfect, preserved Bible. Could you put together a few verses to back up your claim to God NOT preserving his word and leaving it up to you or some other Bible rejector to preserve.
Since no one has taken up this challenge, I assume there is no one who is able to do so. The only time I've seen any Alexandrianites use a Bible verse is to critisize it. Maybe I've asked for too much here. I asked for a few verses. Let's take baby steps (Heb 5:12), and start with just one verse to support your assertion that no translation is/can be perfect.
Still no takers! You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. Not one verse to prove your point. Just vain jangling. I'll ask again. Got one verse to prove "no perfect translation"? Come on, fellas. We're all adults here. Hit us with all you got.
________________________________________________________________________
I would like to propose a challenge to the opponents of a perfect, preserved Bible. Could you put together a few verses to back up your claim to God NOT preserving his word and leaving it up to you or some other Bible rejector to preserve.
Since no one has taken up this challenge, I assume there is no one who is able to do so. The only time I've seen any Alexandrianites use a Bible verse is to critisize it. Maybe I've asked for too much here. I asked for a few verses. Let's take baby steps (Heb 5:12), and start with just one verse to support your assertion that no translation is/can be perfect.
Still no takers! You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. Not one verse to prove your point. Just vain jangling. I'll ask again. Got one verse to prove "no perfect translation"? Come on, fellas. We're all adults here. Hit us with all you got.
The NIV and KJV agree in Amos 4:4. While the KJV and NIV do not agree with the LXX and MT the other English translations do. The NIV and KJV agree with an eclectic text the NIV uses.Originally posted by WordOfAKing:
Since no one has taken up this challenge, I assume there is no one who is able to do so. The only time I've seen any Alexandrianites use a Bible verse is to critisize it. Maybe I've asked for too much here. I asked for a few verses. Let's take baby steps (Heb 5:12), and start with just one verse to support your assertion that no translation is/can be perfect.
The NIV which the KJVO folks bash agrees with the KJV in Amos 4:4.
WordOfAKing
New Member
GB,
You seem to be answering a question that I haven't even asked. I'm asking (and I'll try once more to make it clear), give me a verse of scripture, taken from any Bible, whether you believe the verse is in the originals or not. Not just any verse, but one that would support your claim that God HAS NOT preserved His word. Type that verse out (in english preferably) for all eyes to see. Not a critisism of a verse, a verse, that can be interpreted to say "The scriptures are not preserved, and there can be no perfect Bible/translation". A verse of scripture, mind you, that teaches the doctrine of non-preservation of scripture. NOT a verse which you believe to be an error. NOT a criticism of a Bible. A verse that proves the doctrine which you hold so dear, ie that God does not preserve his word, Word, or words in a book or Bible.
Happy hunting
You seem to be answering a question that I haven't even asked. I'm asking (and I'll try once more to make it clear), give me a verse of scripture, taken from any Bible, whether you believe the verse is in the originals or not. Not just any verse, but one that would support your claim that God HAS NOT preserved His word. Type that verse out (in english preferably) for all eyes to see. Not a critisism of a verse, a verse, that can be interpreted to say "The scriptures are not preserved, and there can be no perfect Bible/translation". A verse of scripture, mind you, that teaches the doctrine of non-preservation of scripture. NOT a verse which you believe to be an error. NOT a criticism of a Bible. A verse that proves the doctrine which you hold so dear, ie that God does not preserve his word, Word, or words in a book or Bible.
Happy hunting
Come on guys you know how to read something in context. But to help you out on this one (Psalm 12:6-7) read the whole chapter. This chapter is talking about God preserving His people. There are other texts in the Bible to prove preservation of God's Words, without using this one out of the context from which it was written.Originally posted by WordOfAKing:
Tiny Tim said __________________________________________
Again Psa 12:6-7 are taken out of context. Taking a verse out of context is the same as adding to or removing it.
_________________________________________________
I gave you two succesive verses in the bible. How, pratell, do you judge context? The whole verse? The whole chapter? The whole book? Or, the whole bible? I would copy the whole Bible, and paste it here, but first of all, my clipboard will not hold the entire thing. Secondly, I do not think folks would appreciate me wasting the space here. Lastly, if you think a broader context brings out some meaning which I have falsely taught, show us the context so no one will be confused. Personally, I don't think you can get any better sense of the passage than looking at Ps 12:7 and seeing that it refers to keeping the words of God.
____________________________________________________________
There is nothing wrong with CCM, Nor NIV, nor Christmas.
____________________________________________________________
Nice emphatical statement. Were all so impressed by this great truth you have presented here.
____________________________________________________________
What is wrong is Christians that call things sin that is not called sin in the Bible, nor the KJV. Again you are adding to the Word of God.
____________________________________________________________
By your definition of "adding to the Word of God", you have committed this sin by saying "There is nothing wrong with CCM, Nor NIV, nor Christmas". You added to the word of God by making this statement. None of these words or statements are found in any Bible anywhere. Pro 30:6 "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."
BTW, check side notes in your 1611 KJV, the translators even agree with me.
As for me adding to the Bible, That is so hilarious. Someone else said that CCM, NIV, and Christmas was sin. I am just saying "PROVE IT" from the word of God. If you can't YOU are guilty of adding to the word.
Why is it that the ones that are supposed to stick only to the scripture for their doctrines(some of the IFBs) are the ones that want to add all the unnecessary laws to it? Amazing huh.
KJVO is not found in Scripture. Therefore to hold to it as a doctrine is fallacy.
No translation is "contaminated" with the "Septuagint." You are misinformed. In fact, the Jesus (in places) quoted from the Septuagint. The Septuagint is simply a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.Originally posted by Eliyahu:
DHK said:
Would you accept other Bibles in other languages translated from the textus receptus? Why or why not?
I have wondered why so many Modern Versions are based on other texts than TR, why they are contaminated with Septuagynt, different from Masorah.
By "Masorah" do you mean "masoretic text', the accepted text of the Hebrew Old Testament?
The NKJV is based on the textus receptus. It is basically the KJV updated. It is a good Bible for immigrants and those that do not understand the English language very well.If there had been any other English version than KJV, which is based on the same bases as KJV, then we could have reasonably discussed after reviewing it. If it had happened, there would have been no debate like this.
But my question was directed toward the Bible in other languages, outside of English. To get a list of other Bibles translated from the TR try looking at the Trinitarian Bible Society website.
TBSDistribution of the Bible and Scripture portions has spread to over 118 countries. In 1996 the number of Bibles published bearing the Society's name increased by 30 per cent to about 812,000 copies.
The KJV is in error. That much is obvious. I have no obligation to reconcile that timeline to you than I have to reconcile how Jesus could die on Friday, rise again on Sunday and still spend 3 days and 3 nights in the grave. That is not my obligation. That is not the discussion. You are going about things backwards. We don't develop theology from wrong translations. We develop our theology from the Word of God, not the translation of the Word of God.BTW, DHK, I am thirsty of your answer on the contradiction of Acts 12:3-4. Only after you can reasonably explain about the contraction, your argument that KJV has an error in that verse start to be valid.
My study shows (as you could see in the sites which I mentioned) that:
1) Ishtar took place 1 day after Pesach, Pesach 14th of Abib month, Ishtar 15th of the same month. Ishtar lasted 8 days as well.
2) Ishtar was much more popular throughout the Middle East world, while Pesach was celebrated by religious people of Israel.
3) Kings believed that Ishtar had the authority to appoint the kings and to dismiss them, and therefore Herod would have paid very much attention to it.
4) Even King Solomon worshipped Ishtar and didn't care about the Passover, but King Herod was more faithful with Passover?
5) Days of Unleavened Bread had the focus on the first day, Passover, then I believe that Ishtar had the focus on the final day, as a finale, with a lot of Orgy's
6) Both Pesach and Ishtar festival were called Pascha in Aramaic I can imagine nobody would have called it as Ishtar because it was holy to them.
7) Then it was re-translated as PASXA in Greek.
Otherwise, it would be very difficult to understand the contradiction and the whole situation in Ac 12.
In my view, KJV is all the time attacked from wrong angle, from PLuralism, from Distrust on the Word of God, based on the manipulated texts.
The Word of God says pascha.
Pascha means passover.
The KJV is in error.
This case is closed. It is that simple.
You have no verse to prove God promised a perfect "TRANSLATION"Originally posted by WordOfAKing:
Originally posted by WordOfAKing (that's me)
________________________________________________________________________
I would like to propose a challenge to the opponents of a perfect, preserved Bible. Could you put together a few verses to back up your claim to God NOT preserving his word and leaving it up to you or some other Bible rejector to preserve.
Since no one has taken up this challenge, I assume there is no one who is able to do so. The only time I've seen any Alexandrianites use a Bible verse is to critisize it. Maybe I've asked for too much here. I asked for a few verses. Let's take baby steps (Heb 5:12), and start with just one verse to support your assertion that no translation is/can be perfect.
Still no takers! You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. Not one verse to prove your point. Just vain jangling. I'll ask again. Got one verse to prove "no perfect translation"? Come on, fellas. We're all adults here. Hit us with all you got.
If So Then Where is it that God Promised it only to English speaking people.
And if He did promise to provide a perfect TRANSLATION then what about all those before 1611? Did He lie to them?
BTW, how do you define a perfect translation.
Is it literal word for word or do you make room for dynamic equivilancy?
Does a perfect translation have to be word for word; or thought for thought?
How would you know if you had a perfect translation? Do you have the original manuscripts to compare it to? If not then what do you have? You certainly don't have a promise from God to preserve a certain TRANSLATION.
If God was going to preserve a translation, he would have preserved the original manuscripts.
Why? because He knew that there would be some that would worship it instead of Him. Like the RCC did with their version and now the IFBs are doing with 1611 KJV.
No one has taken up this challenge??????Originally posted by WordOfAKing:
Originally posted by WordOfAKing (that's me)
________________________________________________________________________
I would like to propose a challenge to the opponents of a perfect, preserved Bible. Could you put together a few verses to back up your claim to God NOT preserving his word and leaving it up to you or some other Bible rejector to preserve.
Since no one has taken up this challenge,
I have already asked this question (challenge) two or three times, and each time it goes unanswered. (I wonder why)
I will ask again:
If I translate (from the Greek TR) John chapter one (and I believe I can) into English, will it be just as "inspired" as the KJV? why or why not?
DHK
How as it that you read such nonsense into what you thought I believe?Originally posted by WordOfAKing:
A verse that proves the doctrine which you hold so dear, ie that God does not preserve his word, Word, or words in a book or Bible.
According to the KJVO there was no salvation until the KJV came along because there was not God's word and no preachers. If no preachers then there is no nobody to give out the message and nobody can be saved because they cannot hear.
But God did preserve his word long before the KJVO folks were born and came along for the ride as a parasite. His word was also preserved long before English came into being. He preserved it in the way He chose.
God's word is preserved through the faithful, not some name it and claim it theology. It is not preserved through the peddlers.
2 Cor 2:17-3:3, "For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God. Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you? You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts."
FYI, Some more verses on the logos of God
Matt 15:6
Mark 7:13
Luke 5:1
Luke 8:11
Luke 8:21
Luke 11:28
John 10:35
Acts 4:31
Acts 6:2
Acts 6:7
Acts 8:14
Acts 11:1
Acts 12:24
Acts 13:5
Acts 13:7
Acts 13:46
Acts 17:13
Acts 18:11
Roma 9:6
1Cor 14:36
2Cor 2:17
2Cor 4:2
Colo 1:25
2Tim 2:9
Titu 2:5
Hebr 4:12
Hebr 13:7
1Joh 2:14
Reve 1:2
Reve 1:9
Reve 6:9
Reve 17:17
Reve 19:13
Reve 20:4
WordOfAKing
New Member
Originaly posted by DHK
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
I have already asked this question (challenge) two or three times, and each time it goes unanswered. (I wonder why)
I will ask again:
If I translate (from the Greek TR) John chapter one (and I believe I can) into English, will it be just as "inspired" as the KJV? why or why not?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
It depends. First off, did God lead you to translate it into English? After all, why try to improve on perfection? Who told you the King James needed updating? Scholars, scribes, those that reject the word of God first, then base thier theology upon that premise. The King James translators had an indirect mandate from God to make thier translation.
Pro 24:21 "My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change:"
Pro 21:1 "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will."
Tit 3:1 "Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,"
Col 1:16 "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"
Rom 13:1 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."
Who told you to make a new translation in English? A king? A magistrate? Someone else in a position of power? Who, pratell?
Exo 17:14 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book..."
Neh 8:3 "And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law."
Luk 4:17 "And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luk 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
Luk 4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
Luk 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears."
Jesus Christ himself called the book that was given him the scripture. He used it as an authoritative text, and not one time refered to the original autographs. Let's follow in His footsteps.
So, to answer your question, if you translated John chapter 1, into English, it would not be as (preserved) as the King James, because a king didn't tell you to translate it (Prov. 21:1). Unless of course you translated exactly like it reads in the King James. That would be alright. Then you would just be proving the point that the King James didn't need updating in the first place!
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
I have already asked this question (challenge) two or three times, and each time it goes unanswered. (I wonder why)
I will ask again:
If I translate (from the Greek TR) John chapter one (and I believe I can) into English, will it be just as "inspired" as the KJV? why or why not?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
It depends. First off, did God lead you to translate it into English? After all, why try to improve on perfection? Who told you the King James needed updating? Scholars, scribes, those that reject the word of God first, then base thier theology upon that premise. The King James translators had an indirect mandate from God to make thier translation.
Pro 24:21 "My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change:"
Pro 21:1 "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will."
Tit 3:1 "Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,"
Col 1:16 "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"
Rom 13:1 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."
Who told you to make a new translation in English? A king? A magistrate? Someone else in a position of power? Who, pratell?
Exo 17:14 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book..."
Neh 8:3 "And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law."
Luk 4:17 "And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luk 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
Luk 4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
Luk 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears."
Jesus Christ himself called the book that was given him the scripture. He used it as an authoritative text, and not one time refered to the original autographs. Let's follow in His footsteps.
So, to answer your question, if you translated John chapter 1, into English, it would not be as (preserved) as the King James, because a king didn't tell you to translate it (Prov. 21:1). Unless of course you translated exactly like it reads in the King James. That would be alright. Then you would just be proving the point that the King James didn't need updating in the first place!
What does an ungodly king have to do with this anyway?
So anything we do we must be led by a earthly king? That is ridiculous.
I let the Holy Spirit lead me.
You know God, Christ, Holy Spirit.
King of Kings.. . . . .
OK, then if God leads me to do something then a King HAS told me to do it.
OK I see now.
BTW which King James Version do you use?
Which is perfect?
So anything we do we must be led by a earthly king? That is ridiculous.
I let the Holy Spirit lead me.
You know God, Christ, Holy Spirit.
King of Kings.. . . . .
OK, then if God leads me to do something then a King HAS told me to do it.
OK I see now.
BTW which King James Version do you use?
Which is perfect?
Do you mean the pedobaptist, King James?Originally posted by WordOfAKing:
Unless of course you translated exactly like it reads in the King James. That would be alright. Then you would just be proving the point that the King James didn't need updating in the first place!
Why does Amos 4:4 in the KJV not agree with the LXX and MT? But it does agree with the eclectic text behind the NIV.
Which version of the KJV do you suggest is perfect?
DHK said,[/B
Pascha means passover.
Where did you get this from?
Do you trust that source, while you don't trust KJV? It is up to you.
Where did you get the statement that Jesus died on Friday and resurrected on Sunday?
I believe it is a nonsense without knowing the difference between High Sabbath and regular sabbath.
You may not believe that Jesus spent 3 nights and 3 days before His resurrection.
Have you ever compared KJV and MV's in Luke 6:1?
What is the meaning of deutro-proton Sabbath?
I have noticed Egyptian Coptic Orthodox has the right Bible based on TR/Masoretic OT and one of Modern Greek Bibles seems to be based on TR too.
One minor Chinese (not the main Bible of Chinese) is based on TR/MT too.
There is no confirmation that Septuagynt was used by Yeshuah. He mentioned Yod and Title shall not fall away from the Torah. There is no Yod and Title in Greek but in Hebrew. He spoke to Paul in Hebrew. The sign at Cross had the Hebrew inscription too. Jews hated Greek very much as they eat pork meat, full of idolatory in their language, full of myths.
Jesus(Yeshuah) mentioned the Bible in the order of Torah, Neviim, Ketuviim which is exactly the order of Masorah, not Septuagynt.
He also mentioned the last Martyr, Zechariah, because he was mentioned in the last book of OT, which means Chronicles. Septuagynt had different order.
Some verses look like the quotation from LXX, but Dead Sea Scroll implies that there might have existed another type Masorah in Hebrew. One from Palestinian or from Egypt the other from Babylonian.
If you ever tried to translate OT from any Hebrew texts you would find the discrepancy quite a lot between Hebrew text and LXX, and that LXX was not the Word-to-Word translation.
In other thread, titled Who translated NKJV, I mentioned many differences between KJV and NKJV.
Some of them I can illustrate now:
Acts 3:13, 3:26, 4:27
1 Corinthian 1:21 ( Message is foolish or Method of preaching looks foolish?)
1John 5:13
1 KIng 14:24 ( Sodomites vs Perverted Persons)
Genesis 37:28 ( Joseph was pulled by Midianites or by his brethren)
I also mentioned some problems with NASV in the other thread called:
NASV is more accurate than KJV?
Even though you say that they were not influenced by Septuagynt, please look at Daniel 9:26 - Messiah will be cut off but not for himself (but for us) vs Messiah will be cut off and have nothing.(HCSB)
The more discusion reveals the limit of your knowledge, I think, since I had thought you know very much, in the beginning of the debate.
Pascha means passover.
Where did you get this from?
Do you trust that source, while you don't trust KJV? It is up to you.
Where did you get the statement that Jesus died on Friday and resurrected on Sunday?
I believe it is a nonsense without knowing the difference between High Sabbath and regular sabbath.
You may not believe that Jesus spent 3 nights and 3 days before His resurrection.
Have you ever compared KJV and MV's in Luke 6:1?
What is the meaning of deutro-proton Sabbath?
I have noticed Egyptian Coptic Orthodox has the right Bible based on TR/Masoretic OT and one of Modern Greek Bibles seems to be based on TR too.
One minor Chinese (not the main Bible of Chinese) is based on TR/MT too.
There is no confirmation that Septuagynt was used by Yeshuah. He mentioned Yod and Title shall not fall away from the Torah. There is no Yod and Title in Greek but in Hebrew. He spoke to Paul in Hebrew. The sign at Cross had the Hebrew inscription too. Jews hated Greek very much as they eat pork meat, full of idolatory in their language, full of myths.
Jesus(Yeshuah) mentioned the Bible in the order of Torah, Neviim, Ketuviim which is exactly the order of Masorah, not Septuagynt.
He also mentioned the last Martyr, Zechariah, because he was mentioned in the last book of OT, which means Chronicles. Septuagynt had different order.
Some verses look like the quotation from LXX, but Dead Sea Scroll implies that there might have existed another type Masorah in Hebrew. One from Palestinian or from Egypt the other from Babylonian.
If you ever tried to translate OT from any Hebrew texts you would find the discrepancy quite a lot between Hebrew text and LXX, and that LXX was not the Word-to-Word translation.
In other thread, titled Who translated NKJV, I mentioned many differences between KJV and NKJV.
Some of them I can illustrate now:
Acts 3:13, 3:26, 4:27
1 Corinthian 1:21 ( Message is foolish or Method of preaching looks foolish?)
1John 5:13
1 KIng 14:24 ( Sodomites vs Perverted Persons)
Genesis 37:28 ( Joseph was pulled by Midianites or by his brethren)
I also mentioned some problems with NASV in the other thread called:
NASV is more accurate than KJV?
Even though you say that they were not influenced by Septuagynt, please look at Daniel 9:26 - Messiah will be cut off but not for himself (but for us) vs Messiah will be cut off and have nothing.(HCSB)
The more discusion reveals the limit of your knowledge, I think, since I had thought you know very much, in the beginning of the debate.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.