Questions for KJV critics

Wake me up when the KJVers come up with a new set of loaded questions.

It hasn't even been 6 months since this list was last trotted out. The thread went on for 6 pages. My answers have changed in the meantime, and somehow I don't think Steve K. is going to contribute anything new to this one.

[ January 23, 2003, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Do you have a perfect Bible?
No. There's no such thing as a perfect English Bible. There's only such thing as a best translation, and this is subjective.

Since you do believe "the Bible" is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice
Yes. But I don't believe that a tralslation of the Bible is the final authority.

could you please show us where Jesus, Peter, James, Paul, or John ever practiced your terminology ("the Greek text says...the Hebrew text says....the originals say...a better rendering would be....older manuscripts read...." etc.)?
No need. When Jesus said, "It is written", he was quoting Hebrew Scripture, and he was quoting it in Hebrew, as per Jewish custom. There was only one language that the OT was written in: Hebrew. As for Greek, the NT doesn't quote itself, however, it does quote the OT, which was written in Hebrew at that time.

Since you do not profess to have a perfect Bible, why do you refer to it as "God's word"?
I don't. I refer to it as an english translation of the inspired word of God.

Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher (John 16:12-15; I John 2:27), who taught you that the King James Bible was not infallible, the Holy Spirit or man?
My (Holy Spirit guided) study of the original texts told me that (1) there are translational ambiguities, (2)the passage of time has changed the meaning of several KJV passages, and (3)the original Greek and Hebrew say nothing about any translation being equal to the original.

Since you do believe in the degeneration of man and in the degeneration of the world system in general, why is it that you believe education has somehow "evolved" and that men are more qualified to translate God's word today than in 1611?
They're not. They're equally qualified. In any event, nothing in the bible says that the men of 1611 were the ultimate authority in translating.

There is one true God, yet many false gods. There is one true Church, consisting of true born-again believers in Christ, yet there are many false churches. So why do you think it's so wrong to teach that there is one true Bible, yet many false "bibles"?
There is one true Bible: the original Greek and Hebrew. English translations are translations of the one true bible, nothing more. They are neither true nor false, they're simply translations.

Isn't it true that you believe God inspired His holy words in the "originals," but has since lost them, since no one has a perfect Bible today?
I accept that as a possibility.

Isn't it true that when you use the term "the Greek text" you are being deceitful and lying, since there are MANY Greek TEXTS (plural), rather than just one?
And this is different for the KJV translators, how? When I say greek or hebrew text, I use the term in a general plurality statement. It seems everyone except you can understand that.

Before the first new perversion was published in 1881 (the RV), the King James Bible was published, preached, and taught throughout the world. God blessed these efforts and hundreds of millions were saved. Today, with the many new translations on the market, very few are being saved. The great revivals are over. Who has gained the most from the new versions, God or Satan?
If Satan is the author of all non-KJV's, then all those in non-English speaking countries with non-English Bibles are hellbound. Also, using your analogy, you could argue that the reason fewer are saved today is because the language of the KJV has become so archaic that is cannot be properly used to save souls today. I don't believe this is true, but it's a possibility using your analogy. It seems the greatest awakening of Christianity was Luther and Calvin's Protestant Reformation, and they did quite well without the use of a KJV. Heck, millions did incredibly well with the Gutenberg Bible, which predates the KJV significantly.

[ January 23, 2003, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

You can find the lead-in post of this
topic complete with the "1" intact
on the web at:

http://members.tripod.com/Pirate_Boy_Arrr/shred/antiem.htm

http://home.sprynet.com/~eastwood01/kjv02.htm

Out of respect for the valuable time
of the readers of this board, please
post only original posts. Thank you.

 

Why are these questions garbage? Simple: They are intellectually dishonest, for the following reasons.

</font>

• Some questions demand that I accept certain questionable premises. If I do not, the question is not even coherent.</font>
• Some questions are falsely posed as either/or questions when there are other obvious alternatives.</font>
• Some questions are only coherent if I already answered a previous question in a certain, expected way.</font>
• Lists of questions like these are a no-win scenario for the person answering, because the deck is stacked against him. For example:
  </font>
  • </font>
  • If I honestly explain how and why the questions cannot be answered truthfully, I am accused of "avoiding" them.</font>
  • If I bite the bullet and accept the implicit assumptions, I have to concede a falsehood.</font>
  • If I ignore the list completely, the KJV-onlyist gets to claim victory because the "Bible doubters can't answer them."</font>
  </font>

Waste of time.

 

Amen, Brother Ransom!
They are a waste of time, and of bandwidth.
Check them on an engine like Google and you
will see how many times they are stored.
Care to engage in some rational original
discussion? I can't see it in this topic,
but some nearly topics like the one
about the nKJV would be interesting.

And thank you for your original post.
May all God's best blessing fall unto
Brother Ransom this day, and unto his
family and his ministry. May all this
be granted that we might give all the more
honor and glory unto our blessed
Lord and Savior: Messiah Iesus. Amen.

 

Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher (John 16:12-15; I John 2:27), who taught you that the NKJV, NASB, and ESV are not infallible, the Holy Spirit or man?

Neal

 

Amen, like the KJV translators did, finally correcting after 1611 years the lies of all "bibles" in the past.

I do now! I'm just grateful I wasn't alive before 1611, when I couldn't have had a Bible.

Amen! I mean, even though they spoke in Greek and Hebrew, and also the NT wasn't even written, and thus really wouldn't have a need to say "the Greek says", or even had a need to, etc, still I'm glad I live after 1611! Heck, Jesus and the apostles didn't even have the New Testament, poor saps!

Yeah, I know what you mean. Some people are even saying 'bibles' prior to 1611 are "God's word"! The nerve! There 'bibles' were full of lies before 1611, like Psa 12:6-7, and no true believer would call a lie "the word of God"!

Amen! I don't really understand why the Holy Spirit waited until 1611 to give us the perfect Bible, but I don't care, I'm alive NOW, not THEN!

Amen! I betcha they even go to "modern" dentists and surgeons! Just give me a spike and a hammer, and a bottle of leeches! Never mind that learning evolved from 0 A.D. to 1611 A.D., that's just coincidence.

Amen! And thank God for the one true church, the Anglicans, who finally gave us the one true Bible, the KJV, replacing ALL the previous false 'bibles'.

Amen! Never mind that he lost them until 1611, though. We weren't alive then, so who cares!

Amen! They also think there were 'bibles' that were the "word of God" prior to 1611, which would actually mean there was the "words" (plural) of God, which we know is impossible, since the word (singular) of God didn't exist until 1611!

Double AMEN! And I would even say there were no real 'believers' before 1611, because they had corrupt 'bibles' - they never had the ONLY WORD OF GOD, the KJV!!! Praise God that he loves me more than those poor medieval saps!

 

If you don't read them, how do you know what he said?

 

Your post was pretty funny, Brian!

I wonder why it is ignored by others and is not getting a big, hearty AMEN from them!

Neal

 

Amen, Brother Neal4christ!

Personally i found so much to agree with
in Brother Brian's post i thought it would be
a waste of bandwidth to repeat all he said
and "Amen" it. So let me just render
one hardy AMEN that covers everything
Brian said. BTW, we note that Brian seasoned
his post with humor.

BTW, recall that I love the KJV so much
i keep not one but THREE versions of it
on my computer desk alone.

[ January 24, 2003, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Ed Edwards ]

 

Now we see why he never answers our questions and just posts his repetitive ramblings.

Isn't reading other people's posts (even those you disagree with) kind of a prerequisite for a DISCUSSION board?

Steve,

Maybe you can start a thread titled "Everything Steve K Knows" and we can all go there and read all you have to say. Then you won't be burdened by having to skip over posters you don't like since you'll be the only one talking.

[ January 24, 2003, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Siegfried ]

 

By the look of it, it'd be an awfully short thread.

 

Well, he could post his thoughts multiple times and copy stuff from other boards like he did above. That would make it look longer.

 

Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher (John 16:12-15; I John 2:27), who taught you that the NKJV, NASB, and ESV are not infallible, the Holy Spirit or man?

Neal</font>[/QUOTE]these bibles leave out the Blood of Christ and Christ being -born of a virgin. thats important to you isnt it?

[ January 24, 2003, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: JOHN3:16 ]

 

That's ridiculous. They all affirm Christ's blood and him being born of a virgin.

 

OK, maybe they do, but they don't have anything about the virgin birth of King James, so there, Brian!

 

Where? No one seems to be able to pinpoint this mysterious version that does this. Every time this argument is thrown out by a KJOnly, it is soundly refuted. Did you find something new?

 

Show me where one of these versions leave those things out. It is found in all of them. Yet another false claim of the KJVO camp.

Neal