Question To KJV Only Advocates

</font>[/QUOTE]Martin, please read the question again carefully. The question is not whether Scripture is inspired. The question was: “Can you prove (error corrected) any version is the Word of God by Scripture alone.” Like Bill Clinton, you have answered a different question.

 

I presume that you do not contest the canon of our present Bible (OT/NT). Furthermore, I assume that you are generally aware of how the canon came into being. It was not a fait accompli as the books were written. The earlier collections of Scripture varied in their inclusions and exclusions. Yet, I doubt that you would want to argue today that books are missing or certain included books were not inspired. Apply your above argument to the canonicity of Scripture and I don’t think you will like the results.

If you are willing to accept by faith the canonicity of Scripture, why do you gag at accepting the preservation of Scripture? Why is it so different to believe that God in His sovereignty brought together over time the varying Greek manuscripts into one collection that we can call the Word of God? This western collection was accepted and understood by the believing church to be the Word of God.

On the other hand, I vehemently challenge the methodology of modern textual criticism. Modern critical text theory is unscientific even though it professes to be an application of the scientific method. However, the proponents of these theories, who masquerade as scholarly intellectuals, are too dull and ignorant to understand its fallacies. They laugh the KJVOs to scorn as ignoramuses whereas they are just as blind and uninformed themselves. Life is a enigma, isn’t it?

 

I presume that you do not contest the canon of our present Bible (OT/NT). Furthermore, I assume that you are generally aware of how the canon came into being. It was not a fait accompli as the books were written. The earlier collections of Scripture varied in their inclusions and exclusions. Yet, I doubt that you would want to argue today that books are missing or certain included books were not inspired. Apply your above argument to the canonicity of Scripture and I don’t think you will like the results.</font>[/QUOTE] Oranges and apples. The only valuable lesson from the recognition of the canon applicable to this debate is that they used a process to evaluate the facts that was reasonable, honest, and consistent with scriptural principles... "onlies" don't do this. They assume the conclusion then demand that the facts agree with them.

Can't speak for Roby but I don't gag at preservation... I simply reject the "only's" ideas about how it occurred. God preserved the substance of His Word. He did not preserve a facsimile of it nor did He inspire latter day prophets to re-create it.

That defeats the ideal of preservation that you seem to be promoting. Why would God have to bring it together over time if it were already preserved? Why would God leave Christians in the interim without His Word?

I haven't found that to be true. It is possible for most people to look at the imperfections of their own position and still believe it to be the best of available choices.

No. I happen to believe that they are wrong and favor the Majority approach. But being wrong does not mean "blind and uninformed". Right or wrong, CT advocates have approached the evidence in a reasonable manner. KJVO's have not.

 

robycop3, I am curious about this statement...

"Scripture cannot be more inspired than God's speaking directly to people such as He did Job & company, and Moses. HE TOLD MOSES TO WRITE DOWN HIS LAWS. Not only did Moses write down the laws, he gave the background for man's worship of God, as well as writing the story of his people."

Lacy nor any other on this thread have made such an argument...of course Scripture is not MORE inspired...our argument is that it is EQUALLY inspired.

Your comments?

Max

 

Paidagogos:I presume that you do not contest the canon of our present Bible (OT/NT).

Correct.

Furthermore, I assume that you are generally aware of how the canon came into being. It was not a fait accompli as the books were written. The earlier collections of Scripture varied in their inclusions and exclusions. Yet, I doubt that you would want to argue today that books are missing or certain included books were not inspired. Apply your above argument to the canonicity of Scripture and I don’t think you will like the results.

But the books were constantly in front of someone somewhere. Here's a link summarizing the formation of the NT canon:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html

If you are willing to accept by faith the canonicity of Scripture, why do you gag at accepting the preservation of Scripture?

I don't. I gag over the false idea that God retired in 1611 & that He no longer oversees his word in English & no longer causes His word to appear in the language style of the day.


Why is it so different to believe that God in His sovereignty brought together over time the varying Greek manuscripts into one collection that we can call the Word of God? This western collection was accepted and understood by the believing church to be the Word of God.

But it wasn't UNIVERSALLY accepted. And it has NOT been proven to be the exclusive and definitive set of mss of Scripture. God didn't allow those others to continue to exist and to be discovered in more recent times for the purpose of brewing a controversy.

On the other hand, I vehemently challenge the methodology of modern textual criticism.

Upon what basis?


Modern critical text theory is unscientific even though it professes to be an application of the scientific method.


However, the proponents of these theories, who masquerade as scholarly intellectuals, are too dull and ignorant to understand its fallacies.

Do YOU propose a better method? if so, what?

They laugh the KJVOs to scorn as ignoramuses whereas they are just as blind and uninformed themselves. Life is a enigma, isn’t it?

The KJVO myth operates entirely from guesswork. You know that, so why defend it?

 

Pastor MHG: robycop3, I am curious about this statement...

"Scripture cannot be more inspired than God's speaking directly to people such as He did Job & company, and Moses. HE TOLD MOSES TO WRITE DOWN HIS LAWS. Not only did Moses write down the laws, he gave the background for man's worship of God, as well as writing the story of his people."

Lacy nor any other on this thread have made such an argument...of course Scripture is not MORE inspired...our argument is that it is EQUALLY inspired.

Your comments?

Verily, verily, the "equal inspiration" argument must be applied to all valid Bible versions; the NIV is as equally inspired as the KJV is. There's absolutely NO evidence pointing to an exclusive inspiration for only one English version. But the KJVO expects us to just accept his exclusive inspiration idea without question. He becomes upset when we DO question the veracity of his theory. I question that veracity because it's simply the word of a few guessers and storytellers, not supported by any evidence at all.

Is it wrong to ask for SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for a doctrine ABOUT Scripture, and to reject that doctrine when no such support can be found?

 

robycop3,

Do you believe that? Do you believe the NIV is as equally inspired as the KJV or the ORIGINALS? If you do then that is fine, you have every right to believe that. Is there evidence to support an "inclusive inspiration?" Just exactly how do you define inspiration? From my perspective it seems that you are out of the MV box if you attribute inspiration to the NIV or the KJV...can you explain?

Thanks,
Max

 

The originals? No. The KJV? Yes... but not equally accurate.

Neither of those versions was directly inspired by God. Both derive inspiration and accuracy to a large degree from their texts.

 

The originals? No. The KJV? Yes... but not equally accurate.

Neither of those versions was directly inspired by God. Both derive inspiration and accuracy to a large degree from their texts. </font>[/QUOTE]Herein lies a great deal of the problem! They are either inspired or they are not. You cannot have partial inspiration...you need to define your terms and make sure that you are using them properly.

 

I presume that you do not contest the canon of our present Bible (OT/NT). Furthermore, I assume that you are generally aware of how the canon came into being. It was not a fait accompli as the books were written. The earlier collections of Scripture varied in their inclusions and exclusions. Yet, I doubt that you would want to argue today that books are missing or certain included books were not inspired. Apply your above argument to the canonicity of Scripture and I don’t think you will like the results.</font>[/QUOTE] Oranges and apples. The only valuable lesson from the recognition of the canon applicable to this debate is that they used a process to evaluate the facts that was reasonable, honest, and consistent with scriptural principles... "onlies" don't do this. They assume the conclusion then demand that the facts agree with them.
(snip)
</font>[/QUOTE]My friend, you have studiously avoided the question and focused on peripheral matters. Do you understand the point? If so, please address it. It's not apples and oranges although apples and oranges do have many similiarities.

 

Inspired means God-breathed. What did He breath? Words... but those words had a meaning. The thing most meaningful to us and apparently God considering the method of preservation that He used was the meaning... not the words.

He most certainly could have transmitted by some form of facsimile like metal plates, stone tablets, or even by divine intervention in the process of hand copying. If He did any of these things then one must wonder why He didn't let anyone in on it.

The meaning is what God wanted us to know about Himself and His will. The NIV doesn't represent this message as well as the KJV IMO but it does represent it in a sufficient way to enable man to know God... thus it represents the inspired Word of God.

Two photographs of you may not be of equal quality in their representation of you but they none the less represent your appearance and are useful for people to identify you. This parallel applies to the value of versions.

The only way in this scenario to know for certain which photo is more accurate would be to compare to you in person. Two people working from memory could disagree over which one represented you well... but one of the best evidences for determining what you look like would be the agreement between the two (or say 5300 individual photos and thousands more with you included in group shots) photos.

Our versions of the scripture support each other in this way. Their accuracy is validated by their massive agreement with each other.

 

I haven't avoided anything. I may not understand your point I admit.

I thought your point was this: since there were differing letters (considered scripture by some) being passed around before the canon was recognized that it is inconsistent of Roby to simultaneously accept the canon but not accept the notion of a word for word perfect text being collated.

If that is the case or close then it is still a case of oranges and apples. The evidences for canonicity were much more concrete than for the exact wording of the NT text. Moreover, those who published the canon seem to have been consistent to the principles for determining the canon... KJVO's and TRO's cannot say this. There are exceptions to every rule they might want to make.

 

I just wanted to say that this is the absolute most cordial thread I have ever taken part of on this (versions) forum. I have very much enjoyed studying everyone's point of view and for the first time I feel like my view is understood even by those who disagree whole heartedly. I appreciate this so much!

God bless all!

Lacy

 

Man you guys lose me on this stuff. I use KJV.
I think its the best translation out there.
I'm still reading, reading , and reading about this issue.
Im just curious. Where I go to church the pastor uses the KJ. He doesnt' mention the fact everytime he preaches but he has told me on more than one occasion that he thinks it the preserved word in english. Now I don't get into discussions with him. I'm not schooled enough in the argument.
Which it seems to be a neverending debate.
Our church is pretty much a traditional style church. We do a little praise and worship stuff. The youth do some things I'm not to comfortable with musicwise. We have a blend of people in our church. Some whose wives always wear dresses. Some who wear whatever. Our pastor is pretty balanced on those things. He doesnt' make those kind of things to be the main thing if you get what I'm saying. I believe we have balance on those kinds of issues. Our church is growing. Good things are happening. The baptismal waters are stirring so on and so forth.
Now the reason I'm posting this story on this thread is because our pastor is one who believes the KJV is the preserved Word of God in english. Yet we just finished the Purpose Driven Life that has about 2 dozen versions used in its pages. Our church didn't even need to go through that book. Our pastor has a vision for our church. Its growing. It is sound. He has been there 20yrs.
He caught his fair share of negative feedback over the PDL one of the main reasons was the Bible version thing. He is the one who trained his people to put such confidence behind the KJV.
What did he expect?
Would you expose your people to so many different renditions of verses if you believed the KJV is the preserved Word?
Is he in the process of changing the whole philosophy of the church?
It doesnt' matter to me what happens I'm strong in my own thoughts about the matter. I don't really care for the PDL thing.
I just thought it odd to push book so filled with different versions if your such a KJV guy?
Any thoughts?

 

Sounds to me like he is more interested in
doing the mission of the church than worshiping
the book (KJV) that tells the mission of
the church.

Personally i find the truth of our mission
for Messiah Jesus in more than the three
different KJVs that i have on my book shelve.
The HCSB = Holman Christian Standard
Bible of 2003 seems to be more like in
the English of today. But, of course, there
is nothing like the 1500 year old, great
track record, Latin Vulgate

 

Is your argument claiming that the KJV is "equally inspired" with the preserved Scriptures in the original languages?

 

Yall ought to take this stuff to pay per view you could call it "KJVO vs MV deathmatch" or
" KJVO / MV Mania" or
"Tagteam Action"
"KJVO & TR battle
MV & Westcott/ hort"

I'm just fooling around.. Both sides seem to know their scripture. I'm KJ preferred I just don't know if I can add that O to it.

My father in law as a good saying "I'm not KJVO but I'm only KJ. I kinda like that.

 

Don't add the "o" to it.

The "O" means that you accept the many myths floating around about the KJV.

KJV preferred is 100% correct and fine in my book.

To be KJV preferred is not to be KJVO. The "O" adds a bad taste to the KJV.

 

I agree David J

 

Is your argument claiming that the KJV is "equally inspired" with the preserved Scriptures in the original languages? </font>[/QUOTE]Absolutely!

The "Scriptures" claim that the "Scriptures" are the inspired word of God. Nowhere in "Scripture" does the word "Scripture" refer to anything other than a copy or translation. Not once can you prove that the word "Scripture" is a reference to the autographs or a copy in the original languages.

Max