-
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!
Question To KJV Only Advocates
- Thread starter Martin
- Start date
Can we say KJVO Ex Cathedra!
So if that is the case then why be KJVO? Scripture is scripture therefore all faithful translations must fall under your views about inspiration unless you are putting Ex Cathedra solo on the KJV (which ever revision you use).
Now this is getting confusing….
So if that is the case then why be KJVO? Scripture is scripture therefore all faithful translations must fall under your views about inspiration unless you are putting Ex Cathedra solo on the KJV (which ever revision you use).
Now this is getting confusing….
PASTOR MHG
New Member
You can "say" anything you want!
You still did not address the "inspiration of the autoraphs ONLY" myth. You did not address it because you can not address it or prove it from the "Scriptures." OUCH! Kinda leaves the MV side of the debate in the same place you accuse the KJV side of being.
This is where we believe preservation kicks in.
Max
PS - You are right...this MV thing is getting very "confusing" for the church.
Pastor MHG: 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?
I'll be happy to explain, Max. First, we sometimes fail to differentiate between "inspiration" and "influence". I believe God has supervised the translation and distribution of His word from the gitgo, and that He has always supervised every language. I believe that He directly inspired those who first wrote His spoken word. He directly told Moses to write, even writing His ten Commandments with His own hand. Jesus directly told John to write what he saw & heard in the Revelation.He indirectly inspired those who wrote the historical narratives such as Kings & Chronicles. There have been historians in virtually every nation that had/has a written language, and God inspired certain of them in Israel to write what He wanted written.
When it came to making written translations of his word, God INFLUENCED certain people to do it. By His mighty power, He caused translators and scribes in various lands to commit His words to writing in their own languages.
Inspiration...God's causing someone to write what He wanted written for the first time. God placed what He wanted written into their minds by various methods, ranging from observation to directly telling them. It's a no-brainer that when God spoke, it was in the language of His scribe, who wrote in his own language.
Influence...God's causing certain people to copy His already-given word in their own languages. God is fully aware of the differences in languages, of course, since He made tham all to start with.
IOW, God inspired men to write His words for the first time on earth, & influenced others to copy His word, and/or to translate it into other languages. I believe this influence is still occurring.
The AV 1611 and some of Shakespeare's works are contemporary. I've heard the argument that those who wouldn't even dream of changing the first blip of a Shakespeare work don't think twice to change the Bible. This is a weak argument sadly lacking in common sense. Why? When Shakespeare died, his work was frozen in time. While he was living, he more-than-once made some changes in a play he'd written after he saw it performed. But once he died, no one could change anything without destroying its value as an "original Shakespeare". When the last of the AV translators died, the AV was frozen in time...BUT NOT ITS ULTIMATE AUTHOR! After all, the Scriptures are GOD'S work, not the work of any translator or human author. God may alter His own word as He chooses, and I believe He's done so, not to change any doctrine as He originally set it, but to fit the languages He's created.
Not for one nanosecond do I believe either the "Church English" myth nor the "superiority of Elizabethan English" myth. The AV 1611 was written in the same English style of many contemporary works, the most modern English of its day. I believe God still causes His word to be translated/written in the languages of today, including English. God did NOT retire in 1611.
GOD, AND HIS WORD, ARE BOTH ALIVE AND IN CHARGE. As YOU have changed from childhood until now, you still remained Max, and, long as you live, you'll keep changing in appearance, but your essence will remain Max. As time has passed, God changed His living word to keep it understandable as the languages changed. How did He change it? By influencing translators to make new translations in their own current languages.If He hadn't changed it, or caused it to be transated, how many of us would know the meaning of Jesus'original words, "Eli,Eli, lama sabachthani"?
Hope this clarifies, Max!
I'll be happy to explain, Max. First, we sometimes fail to differentiate between "inspiration" and "influence". I believe God has supervised the translation and distribution of His word from the gitgo, and that He has always supervised every language. I believe that He directly inspired those who first wrote His spoken word. He directly told Moses to write, even writing His ten Commandments with His own hand. Jesus directly told John to write what he saw & heard in the Revelation.He indirectly inspired those who wrote the historical narratives such as Kings & Chronicles. There have been historians in virtually every nation that had/has a written language, and God inspired certain of them in Israel to write what He wanted written.
When it came to making written translations of his word, God INFLUENCED certain people to do it. By His mighty power, He caused translators and scribes in various lands to commit His words to writing in their own languages.
Inspiration...God's causing someone to write what He wanted written for the first time. God placed what He wanted written into their minds by various methods, ranging from observation to directly telling them. It's a no-brainer that when God spoke, it was in the language of His scribe, who wrote in his own language.
Influence...God's causing certain people to copy His already-given word in their own languages. God is fully aware of the differences in languages, of course, since He made tham all to start with.
IOW, God inspired men to write His words for the first time on earth, & influenced others to copy His word, and/or to translate it into other languages. I believe this influence is still occurring.
The AV 1611 and some of Shakespeare's works are contemporary. I've heard the argument that those who wouldn't even dream of changing the first blip of a Shakespeare work don't think twice to change the Bible. This is a weak argument sadly lacking in common sense. Why? When Shakespeare died, his work was frozen in time. While he was living, he more-than-once made some changes in a play he'd written after he saw it performed. But once he died, no one could change anything without destroying its value as an "original Shakespeare". When the last of the AV translators died, the AV was frozen in time...BUT NOT ITS ULTIMATE AUTHOR! After all, the Scriptures are GOD'S work, not the work of any translator or human author. God may alter His own word as He chooses, and I believe He's done so, not to change any doctrine as He originally set it, but to fit the languages He's created.
Not for one nanosecond do I believe either the "Church English" myth nor the "superiority of Elizabethan English" myth. The AV 1611 was written in the same English style of many contemporary works, the most modern English of its day. I believe God still causes His word to be translated/written in the languages of today, including English. God did NOT retire in 1611.
GOD, AND HIS WORD, ARE BOTH ALIVE AND IN CHARGE. As YOU have changed from childhood until now, you still remained Max, and, long as you live, you'll keep changing in appearance, but your essence will remain Max. As time has passed, God changed His living word to keep it understandable as the languages changed. How did He change it? By influencing translators to make new translations in their own current languages.If He hadn't changed it, or caused it to be transated, how many of us would know the meaning of Jesus'original words, "Eli,Eli, lama sabachthani"?
Hope this clarifies, Max!
Pastor MHG: 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?
I'll be happy to explain, Max. First, we sometimes fail to differentiate between "inspiration" and "influence". I believe God has supervised the translation and distribution of His word from the gitgo, and that He has always supervised every language. I believe that He directly inspired those who first wrote His spoken word. He directly told Moses to write, even writing His ten Commandments with His own hand. Jesus directly told John to write what he saw & heard in the Revelation.He indirectly inspired those who wrote the historical narratives such as Kings & Chronicles. There have been historians in virtually every nation that had/has a written language, and God inspired certain of them in Israel to write what He wanted written.
When it came to making written translations of his word, God INFLUENCED certain people to do it. By His mighty power, He caused translators and scribes in various lands to commit His words to writing in their own languages.
Inspiration...God's causing someone to write what He wanted written for the first time. God placed what He wanted written into their minds by various methods, ranging from observation to directly telling them. It's a no-brainer that when God spoke, it was in the language of His scribe, who wrote in his own language.
Influence...God's causing certain people to copy His already-given word in their own languages. God is fully aware of the differences in languages, of course, since He made tham all to start with.
IOW, God inspired men to write His words for the first time on earth, & influenced others to copy His word, and/or to translate it into other languages. I believe this influence is still occurring.
The AV 1611 and some of Shakespeare's works are contemporary. I've heard the argument that those who wouldn't even dream of changing the first blip of a Shakespeare work don't think twice to change the Bible. This is a weak argument sadly lacking in common sense. Why? When Shakespeare died, his work was frozen in time. While he was living, he more-than-once made some changes in a play he'd written after he saw it performed. But once he died, no one could change anything without destroying its value as an "original Shakespeare". When the last of the AV translators died, the AV was frozen in time...BUT NOT ITS ULTIMATE AUTHOR! After all, the Scriptures are GOD'S work, not the work of any translator or human author. God may alter His own word as He chooses, and I believe He's done so, not to change any doctrine as He originally set it, but to fit the languages He's created.
Not for one nanosecond do I believe either the "Church English" myth nor the "superiority of Elizabethan English" myth. The AV 1611 was written in the same English style of many contemporary works, the most modern English of its day. I believe God still causes His word to be translated/written in the languages of today, including English. God did NOT retire in 1611.
GOD, AND HIS WORD, ARE BOTH ALIVE AND IN CHARGE. As YOU have changed from childhood until now, you still remained Max, and, long as you live, you'll keep changing in appearance, but your essence will remain Max. As time has passed, God changed His living word to keep it understandable as the languages changed. How did He change it? By influencing translators to make new translations in their own current languages.If He hadn't changed it, or caused it to be transated, how many of us would know the meaning of Jesus'original words, "Eli,Eli, lama sabachthani"?
Hope this clarifies, Max!
I'll be happy to explain, Max. First, we sometimes fail to differentiate between "inspiration" and "influence". I believe God has supervised the translation and distribution of His word from the gitgo, and that He has always supervised every language. I believe that He directly inspired those who first wrote His spoken word. He directly told Moses to write, even writing His ten Commandments with His own hand. Jesus directly told John to write what he saw & heard in the Revelation.He indirectly inspired those who wrote the historical narratives such as Kings & Chronicles. There have been historians in virtually every nation that had/has a written language, and God inspired certain of them in Israel to write what He wanted written.
When it came to making written translations of his word, God INFLUENCED certain people to do it. By His mighty power, He caused translators and scribes in various lands to commit His words to writing in their own languages.
Inspiration...God's causing someone to write what He wanted written for the first time. God placed what He wanted written into their minds by various methods, ranging from observation to directly telling them. It's a no-brainer that when God spoke, it was in the language of His scribe, who wrote in his own language.
Influence...God's causing certain people to copy His already-given word in their own languages. God is fully aware of the differences in languages, of course, since He made tham all to start with.
IOW, God inspired men to write His words for the first time on earth, & influenced others to copy His word, and/or to translate it into other languages. I believe this influence is still occurring.
The AV 1611 and some of Shakespeare's works are contemporary. I've heard the argument that those who wouldn't even dream of changing the first blip of a Shakespeare work don't think twice to change the Bible. This is a weak argument sadly lacking in common sense. Why? When Shakespeare died, his work was frozen in time. While he was living, he more-than-once made some changes in a play he'd written after he saw it performed. But once he died, no one could change anything without destroying its value as an "original Shakespeare". When the last of the AV translators died, the AV was frozen in time...BUT NOT ITS ULTIMATE AUTHOR! After all, the Scriptures are GOD'S work, not the work of any translator or human author. God may alter His own word as He chooses, and I believe He's done so, not to change any doctrine as He originally set it, but to fit the languages He's created.
Not for one nanosecond do I believe either the "Church English" myth nor the "superiority of Elizabethan English" myth. The AV 1611 was written in the same English style of many contemporary works, the most modern English of its day. I believe God still causes His word to be translated/written in the languages of today, including English. God did NOT retire in 1611.
GOD, AND HIS WORD, ARE BOTH ALIVE AND IN CHARGE. As YOU have changed from childhood until now, you still remained Max, and, long as you live, you'll keep changing in appearance, but your essence will remain Max. As time has passed, God changed His living word to keep it understandable as the languages changed. How did He change it? By influencing translators to make new translations in their own current languages.If He hadn't changed it, or caused it to be transated, how many of us would know the meaning of Jesus'original words, "Eli,Eli, lama sabachthani"?
Hope this clarifies, Max!
S
Sounddoctrine04
Guest
On June 3rd, Martin posted this statement:
"That means that I am looking for a solid, Biblical (only) arugment for KVJ onlyism."
He wrote this after giving several restrictions as to the methods defense of the AV position, among which are:
1. No comparisons "between the KJV and other "modern" english translations"
2. No comparisons between "various text types from which the KJV vs. modern texts are taken" (in another words, no manuscript evidence will be accepted)
3. No comparisons of the translators
Therefore, the only two things that logically remain are internal evidence (which Martin will summarily dismiss) and historical evidence (and that carries how much authority??).
Even the challenge itself relies on a AV-only defense while denying the authority of the same.
Such challenges are not worthy of serious consideration.
"That means that I am looking for a solid, Biblical (only) arugment for KVJ onlyism."
He wrote this after giving several restrictions as to the methods defense of the AV position, among which are:
1. No comparisons "between the KJV and other "modern" english translations"
2. No comparisons between "various text types from which the KJV vs. modern texts are taken" (in another words, no manuscript evidence will be accepted)
3. No comparisons of the translators
Therefore, the only two things that logically remain are internal evidence (which Martin will summarily dismiss) and historical evidence (and that carries how much authority??).
Even the challenge itself relies on a AV-only defense while denying the authority of the same.
Such challenges are not worthy of serious consideration.
==If there is no internal (Biblical) evidence to support KVJO, then why hold to it? If there can be no direct/indirect evidence for KJVO in Scripture than it is a theory of man (which may very well be incorrect).
You said that my "challenge" was "not worthy of serious consideration"...is that why I have not gotten an answer? Maybe. However the arugments I usually see for KJVO are strawman arguments (at best). Usually such arguments must, by their very nature, presuppose the superior nature of the KJV. I can't go along with such a position because I see no internal (Scriptural) or external (textual) reason to accept the premise (ie..the superior nature of KJV). As for the translators, again this is not a form of evidence I can accept. I am sure, no...I KNOW, that we can find less than wonderful people on the translating "teams" of the new translations. However we can also find some, "less than wonderful", people involved with the KJV (not the least of whom is King James I himself). However that is not the issue. There were godly people involved with both. Besides this has zero to do with the superior nature of the KJV. This does not deal with the internal or external evidence, or lack there of, for KJVO.
In summary I agree. There is no evidence for KJVO and therefore it is a position not worthy of consideration. In fact I would happily ignore the issue totally....were it not for all the damage it has done to saints and churches. KJVO is a classic example of preference to doctrine legalism. It has no internal or external support. That is not my opinion...that is fact! How can I say that? Where is the real evidence? Surely there would be some textual or Scriptural support for the 1611 KJVO position if it were true? However there is none. This makes me wonder why so many Christians are willing to fight and split over this issue. The answer, I am afraid, is what I said above (preference to doctrine). Sad. It is sad.
Martin.
Martin, most KJVOs, when faced with a serious challenge to the veracity of their myth, "opt out" by saying, "It's not worthy of my time", or deliberately ignore such challenges, hoping they'll simply go away. The former is KJVO-ese for "I am clueless, but my doctrine is correct anyway" while the latter is an inaction they take when they suspect their doctrine is wrong, but they cannot, in Christian conscience, bring themselves to tell lies in its defense, nor bring themselves to abandon it although they finally realize it's false. Somehow, they believe the readership in these forums will overlook or forget about it.
I would be very interested in hearing any "internal evidence" that singles out the KJV, and the KJV only, as being unique.
I would also be interested in any historical evidence that does the same.
Why not? The only reason I can think of for not posting the "evidence" is that you don't have any to post. Could that by the problem?
S
Sounddoctrine04
Guest
Respons to Martin's post on June 9 @ 5:57 PM.
Since you disallowed the defenses previously mentioned, and you also disallow internal and all external evidence, then why ask the question at all if not to gender strife?
It appears it is thou and you (hint as to the superiority of the AV; those who have eyes to see will understand) that is causing the division, and not me/we.
Since you disallowed the defenses previously mentioned, and you also disallow internal and all external evidence, then why ask the question at all if not to gender strife?
It appears it is thou and you (hint as to the superiority of the AV; those who have eyes to see will understand) that is causing the division, and not me/we.
Sounddoctrine 04:Since you disallowed the defenses previously mentioned, and you also disallow internal and all external evidence, then why ask the question at all if not to gender strife?
Martin was asking for SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth, devoid of all the ring-around-the-rosie games the KJVOs usually post instead of giving a straight answer to the actual question. The strife is engendered by the KJVOs who won't answer a plain, simple, very pertinent and valid question..."Please provide us with some Scriptural support for KJVO,"
It appears it is thou and you (hint as to the superiority of the AV; those who have eyes to see will understand) that is causing the division, and not me/we.
The division came about after 1930 when a cult official invented a new idea about the word of God in English, and a few years later, a coupla dishonest Baptists plagiarized his ideas and, although working independently, created a whole new doctrine about English versions of God's word. We who reject that doctrine say it's false, is guesswork, and has no sustaining evidence. Seems that some SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT would show us we are wrong to reject that doctrine. Wanna give it a try?
Martin was asking for SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth, devoid of all the ring-around-the-rosie games the KJVOs usually post instead of giving a straight answer to the actual question. The strife is engendered by the KJVOs who won't answer a plain, simple, very pertinent and valid question..."Please provide us with some Scriptural support for KJVO,"
It appears it is thou and you (hint as to the superiority of the AV; those who have eyes to see will understand) that is causing the division, and not me/we.
The division came about after 1930 when a cult official invented a new idea about the word of God in English, and a few years later, a coupla dishonest Baptists plagiarized his ideas and, although working independently, created a whole new doctrine about English versions of God's word. We who reject that doctrine say it's false, is guesswork, and has no sustaining evidence. Seems that some SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT would show us we are wrong to reject that doctrine. Wanna give it a try?
You said:
Since you disallowed the defenses previously mentioned, and you also disallow internal and all external evidence, then why ask the question at all if not to gender strife?
==What "internal" evidence? Give me one, just one, Scriptural proof (ei...internal) of KJVO. Just one. That is all I ask. If you can't provide one then why hold to KJVO? If there is no internal support (ie..Scriptural) then why consider the (KJVO) position worthy of defense? Again where is the internal (Scriptural) or where is the textual (external) support for it? I have seen none to date other than the strawman arguments I listed earlier. Why did I count them out? Because they prove nothing. They are simply circular arguments that only those who already accept KJVO can be convinced by.
As for "strife"? Let's talk about strife. Who is it that divides churches and fellowships over this issue? Who is it that has written books demonizing those who don't agree with their position? Who is it that, in the very same books, claims that those who don't agree with them are into various forms of new age teaching? The answer to all of those questions is the same: KJVO advocates.
My concern here is proper and sound doctrine (Jude 3). I have seen the damage the false doctrine of KJVO can do, I have seen its foul fruit. I have seen fellowships and churches split because KJVO people could not allow people to use other faithful english translations. The strife is being created by those who hold KJVO, not by the other "side". We are just responding to a legalistic false doctrine (preference to doctrine). The Bible never, not once, advocates peace over truth. Jesus did not and Paul did not. The truth must be defended and error refuted.
____________________________________
I repeat my question, and I await a reply....Where is the Scriptural evidence for KJVO?
Martin.
Since you disallowed the defenses previously mentioned, and you also disallow internal and all external evidence, then why ask the question at all if not to gender strife?
==What "internal" evidence? Give me one, just one, Scriptural proof (ei...internal) of KJVO. Just one. That is all I ask. If you can't provide one then why hold to KJVO? If there is no internal support (ie..Scriptural) then why consider the (KJVO) position worthy of defense? Again where is the internal (Scriptural) or where is the textual (external) support for it? I have seen none to date other than the strawman arguments I listed earlier. Why did I count them out? Because they prove nothing. They are simply circular arguments that only those who already accept KJVO can be convinced by.
As for "strife"? Let's talk about strife. Who is it that divides churches and fellowships over this issue? Who is it that has written books demonizing those who don't agree with their position? Who is it that, in the very same books, claims that those who don't agree with them are into various forms of new age teaching? The answer to all of those questions is the same: KJVO advocates.
My concern here is proper and sound doctrine (Jude 3). I have seen the damage the false doctrine of KJVO can do, I have seen its foul fruit. I have seen fellowships and churches split because KJVO people could not allow people to use other faithful english translations. The strife is being created by those who hold KJVO, not by the other "side". We are just responding to a legalistic false doctrine (preference to doctrine). The Bible never, not once, advocates peace over truth. Jesus did not and Paul did not. The truth must be defended and error refuted.
____________________________________
I repeat my question, and I await a reply....Where is the Scriptural evidence for KJVO?
Martin.
Martin, I hope ya don't hold your breath waiting for a straightforward answer from any KJVO for your perfectly-legitimate, plain-English question. If so, ya might become quite cyanotic.
I've been asking it now for OVER TWENTY YEARS, and occasionally some KJVO will admit there simply ISN'T ANY SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth, but they're as about as common as a July frost in Key West. And after they DO make their admission, they follow it with a novella of excuses as to why KJVO is correct anyway.
BTW, TCassidy is NOT KJVO despite his fairly frequent disagreements with known anti-Onlyismists such as this messenger. He generally deals with the higher points of the case against KJVO. He is opinionated to some degree, but then who isn't?
I've been asking it now for OVER TWENTY YEARS, and occasionally some KJVO will admit there simply ISN'T ANY SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth, but they're as about as common as a July frost in Key West. And after they DO make their admission, they follow it with a novella of excuses as to why KJVO is correct anyway.
BTW, TCassidy is NOT KJVO despite his fairly frequent disagreements with known anti-Onlyismists such as this messenger. He generally deals with the higher points of the case against KJVO. He is opinionated to some degree, but then who isn't?
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
Actually....this whole debate is and always has been a "circular" debate.Roby and others here are always asking for "scripture" to "prove" the KJVO position and I'll be brave enough as a KJV'er to say there is NO VERSE that says such a thing in our behalf.BUT,by the same token,neither is there any(verse)to support what they (the "autograph only or MV'ers)believe either.(In reference to any particular translation,version,or manuscript)As Pastor MHG said above..."that is where preservation kicks in for us."(KJV'ers)I just believe what I believe mostly because I distrust human reasoning and "higher textual criticism".I believe a "perfect" God has to have a "perfect" Word for His people.While I have no doubt many in here think I have been misled at best...or am willfully ignorant at worst,my convictions are honestly held and in my opinion and judgement the KJV IS the perfect Word of God preserved by the providence of our Mighty,Holy,Just and Perfect God for this generation of english speaking people.I will believe that until I go to my Maker and I'm completely convinced and at peace that I can hold the perfect Word of God in my hands and my heart.The big challenge for me is obeying it....not correcting it.Peace ya'll!
Greg Sr.
Greg Sr.
A consistent view of preservation of the Scriptures that is true both before and after 1611 and is true for those who speak English as well as those who speak Spanish, German, Dutch, or other languages does not support the KJV-only view. The KJV-only view in effect puts a great deal of trust in the human reasoning of Church of England scholars in 1611 and in the textual criticism of Erasmus (a Roman Catholic) and in the textual criticism of the KJV translators.
While you say that you do not correct the word of God, the KJV-only view in effect permits Church of England scholars in 1611 to correct it and permits later KJV editors to correct it.
How can your view claim that both the 1611 edition of the KJV and the current Oxford edition
with over 1,000 changes are perfect? How does your view determine which of the over five present-day KJV editions is the 100% perfect one?
Gregory Perry, Sr.: Actually....this whole debate is and always has been a "circular" debate.Roby and others here are always asking for "scripture" to "prove" the KJVO position and I'll be brave enough as a KJV'er to say there is NO VERSE that says such a thing in our behalf.
Correct. And there's no verse nor set of verses that gives the slightese implication in support of such a view. Given the clear, man-made origins of the KJVO myth, there's simply no valid reason for ant Christian to accept it.(remember, I'm talking about the false doctrine that men have built up around the KJV & not the KJV itself.)
BUT,by the same token,neither is there any(verse)to support what they (the "autograph only or MV'ers)believe either.(In reference to any particular translation,version,or manuscript)As Pastor MHG said above..."that is where preservation kicks in for us."(KJV'ers)
But the autographa DID exist at one time. Maybe they have never all existed at once...but at one time or another, an autograph DID exist for each book of the Bible.
I just believe what I believe mostly because I distrust human reasoning and "higher textual criticism".
Are you SURE??
You're placing a lotta trust in ONE group of translators working under the auspices of a denomination generally avoided by mainstream Christians. You're actually GUESSING they were 100% right.
I believe a "perfect" God has to have a "perfect" Word for His people.While I have no doubt many in here think I have been misled at best...or am willfully ignorant at worst,my convictions are honestly held and in my opinion and judgement the KJV IS the perfect Word of God preserved by the providence of our Mighty,Holy,Just and Perfect God for this generation of english speaking people.
Again, you're simply GUESSING. Who's to say any honestly-translated version is not perfect for God's intended purpose in allowing/causing it to be made?
I will believe that until I go to my Maker and I'm completely convinced and at peace that I can hold the perfect Word of God in my hands and my heart.The big challenge for me is obeying it....not correcting it.Peace ya'll!
Despite the obvious booboos discussed in this forum?
I believe that GOD is alive and in charge, and that His word is kept alive by Him, and, being alive & fully under God's control, is manipulated by Him to be readable in the languages He's chosen for today's man to use. He gave His word to His chosen penmen in THEIR languages, while today, almost all mankind uses entirely-different languages than those in which God first gave His word.
Now, did the English of the 1600s use the same language as did their ancestors 400 years earlier? Of course not Their Bibles were in the English of their day. God had supervised His word all those 400 years, same as He's supervised it from the 1600s through now. Just as He caused His word to be available in the English of the 1600s DURING the 1600s, He's caused His word to be available in TODAY'S English. His word is NOT frozen in time as are the works of Chaucer or Shakespeare. The Author is very much alive and in charge.
Again, there's simply NO valid reason for a Christian to be KJVO. KJV-PREFERRED, yes. But he simply has no basis for saying the KJV is the ONLY valid English-language Bible version.
Back to Square One for the KJVO myth...it's just GUESSWORK.
Correct. And there's no verse nor set of verses that gives the slightese implication in support of such a view. Given the clear, man-made origins of the KJVO myth, there's simply no valid reason for ant Christian to accept it.(remember, I'm talking about the false doctrine that men have built up around the KJV & not the KJV itself.)
BUT,by the same token,neither is there any(verse)to support what they (the "autograph only or MV'ers)believe either.(In reference to any particular translation,version,or manuscript)As Pastor MHG said above..."that is where preservation kicks in for us."(KJV'ers)
But the autographa DID exist at one time. Maybe they have never all existed at once...but at one time or another, an autograph DID exist for each book of the Bible.
I just believe what I believe mostly because I distrust human reasoning and "higher textual criticism".
Are you SURE??
You're placing a lotta trust in ONE group of translators working under the auspices of a denomination generally avoided by mainstream Christians. You're actually GUESSING they were 100% right.
I believe a "perfect" God has to have a "perfect" Word for His people.While I have no doubt many in here think I have been misled at best...or am willfully ignorant at worst,my convictions are honestly held and in my opinion and judgement the KJV IS the perfect Word of God preserved by the providence of our Mighty,Holy,Just and Perfect God for this generation of english speaking people.
Again, you're simply GUESSING. Who's to say any honestly-translated version is not perfect for God's intended purpose in allowing/causing it to be made?
I will believe that until I go to my Maker and I'm completely convinced and at peace that I can hold the perfect Word of God in my hands and my heart.The big challenge for me is obeying it....not correcting it.Peace ya'll!
Despite the obvious booboos discussed in this forum?
I believe that GOD is alive and in charge, and that His word is kept alive by Him, and, being alive & fully under God's control, is manipulated by Him to be readable in the languages He's chosen for today's man to use. He gave His word to His chosen penmen in THEIR languages, while today, almost all mankind uses entirely-different languages than those in which God first gave His word.
Now, did the English of the 1600s use the same language as did their ancestors 400 years earlier? Of course not Their Bibles were in the English of their day. God had supervised His word all those 400 years, same as He's supervised it from the 1600s through now. Just as He caused His word to be available in the English of the 1600s DURING the 1600s, He's caused His word to be available in TODAY'S English. His word is NOT frozen in time as are the works of Chaucer or Shakespeare. The Author is very much alive and in charge.
Again, there's simply NO valid reason for a Christian to be KJVO. KJV-PREFERRED, yes. But he simply has no basis for saying the KJV is the ONLY valid English-language Bible version.
Back to Square One for the KJVO myth...it's just GUESSWORK.
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
Logos...my answer to your "rebuttal" is simple...Faith....and a distinct mistrust of the credentials of the modern critics and correctors....and I might add...the "Madison Avenue" marketing techniques($$$)of the modern "bible"sellers.I think it all to be most pure confusion.I'll stick with what I have and what I trust and what "rings true" in my heart.You and I have one thing in common.We may agree to disagree and we are both free to believe what we wish.It's funny how you avoided the first part of my statement....and I was trying to be "balanced".None of us have "scripture" to support our various positions.We either are led by the Holy Spirit to what we believe....or we are led by the flesh....that is what this boils down to.Those are the only two choices for any man.The wisdom of this world is foolishness to God.
Greg Sr.
Greg Sr.
Are you suggesting that KJV-only faith which
did not exist before 1611 or 1769 is the only
Biblical faith? The truth is consistent. Faith in the inconsistencies, false claims, fallacies, and errors of the man-made KJV-only view is not Biblical faith.
Charles Spurgeon observed: "Faith is not a blind thing, for faith begins with knowledge. It is not a speculative thing; for faith believes facts of which it is sure" (ALL OF GRACE, pp. 46-47). KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes wrote: "Faith hath ever a ground--a reason for it, and is ready to render it" (SELECTED WRITINGS, p. 114). Theodore Beza wrote: "It is beyond the ability of anyone to believe that which he is ignorant of" (CHRISTIAN FAITH, p. iv).
Glenn Conjurske, a KJV defender and Baptist pastor, wrote: "Any faith which sets facts at defiance is no faith at all, but only superstition. The Bible squarely based faith upon facts, and faith cannot exist without them" (OLDE PATHS, Sept., 1997, pp. 212-213).
Have you actually examined the credentials of those who label "modern critics and correctors"
so that you know for certain that they are not more doctrinally sound than the credentials of those you trust (the Roman Catholic Erasmus
and Church of England scholars in 1611 and Church of England editors of later KJV editions)? Benjamin Blayney (1728-1801), reviser of the 1769 Oxford edition, made new translations of the books of Jeremiah, Lamentations, Zechariah, and Psalms whose renderings differ from the KJV. Blayney wrote that he made "frequent recourse" to the "Hebrew and Greek Originals." Blayney said that he corrected many errors found in former editions. Was Benjamin Blayney a "corrector" according to your view?
Do you accept the "Madison Avenue" marketing
techniques that promote the many KJV-only books?
The book cover for Grady's book FINAL AUTHORITY
has a statement from a person who claims that
Grady's book "is irrefutable."
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
Greg Sr.
Are you suggesting that KJV-only faith which
did not exist before 1611 or 1769 is the only
Biblical faith? The truth is consistent. Faith in the inconsistencies, false claims, fallacies, and errors of the man-made KJV-only view is not Biblical faith.
Charles Spurgeon observed: "Faith is not a blind thing, for faith begins with knowledge. It is not a speculative thing; for faith believes facts of which it is sure" (ALL OF GRACE, pp. 46-47). KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes wrote: "Faith hath ever a ground--a reason for it, and is ready to render it" (SELECTED WRITINGS, p. 114). Theodore Beza wrote: "It is beyond the ability of anyone to believe that which he is ignorant of" (CHRISTIAN FAITH, p. iv).
Glenn Conjurske, a KJV defender and Baptist pastor, wrote: "Any faith which sets facts at defiance is no faith at all, but only superstition. The Bible squarely based faith upon facts, and faith cannot exist without them" (OLDE PATHS, Sept., 1997, pp. 212-213).
Have you actually examined the credentials of those who label "modern critics and correctors"
so that you know for certain that they are not more doctrinally sound than the credentials of those you trust (the Roman Catholic Erasmus
and Church of England scholars in 1611 and Church of England editors of later KJV editions)? Benjamin Blayney (1728-1801), reviser of the 1769 Oxford edition, made new translations of the books of Jeremiah, Lamentations, Zechariah, and Psalms whose renderings differ from the KJV. Blayney wrote that he made "frequent recourse" to the "Hebrew and Greek Originals." Blayney said that he corrected many errors found in former editions. Was Benjamin Blayney a "corrector" according to your view?
Do you accept the "Madison Avenue" marketing
techniques that promote the many KJV-only books?
The book cover for Grady's book FINAL AUTHORITY
has a statement from a person who claims that
Grady's book "is irrefutable." </font>[/QUOTE]I suggest you to get the book by Professor Krinke. This book is "What happened to the Doctrine of Bible Faith?" The author of this book will tell you about the FAITH and the Bible.
That is why Gregory Perry Sr talked about the FAITH.