Questions for KJV critics

[Pioneer]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:

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

The above website mentioned is operated by a person that openly defends rock and roll music (as well as body piercing) and he also praises Charismatic churches. This is an example of a "Baptist" using a "body piercing Charistmatic rocker" to defend his position against the King James Bible.

[ February 05, 2003, 02:06 AM: Message edited by: Pioneer ]

 

[Ransom]

JYD said:

Can you or anybody else produce a copy of an Greek old testament written before 220 AD??

Can you or anybody else produce a copy of Plato's Republic or Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics written before 1000 AD?

Are you now going to argue that these books did not exist before then?

You gotta laugh.

[ February 05, 2003, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

[Ransom]

Pioneer said:

If this is true (which I doubt it is)

Would you doubt it if I said they memorized the KJV instead?

then your young people are in violation of the NIV copyright (1984) which states - "The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic, or audio)

A live recital is neither written, nor visual, nor electronic, nor audio.

Snigger!

You people are so desperate to discredit the NIV, you'll say anything.

Here's a Free Clue <tm>: What's the first part of "copyright"? Are you making a copy by reciting Philippians in church?

You gotta laugh.

 

[Steve K.]

oops! Acts 1:3
Does your mv even have the verse?

 

[Ransom]

KING JAMES AV 1611 said:

oops! Acts 1:3
Does your mv even have the verse?

KJV-onlyists just love to wallow in irrelevancies, don't they?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by JYD:
Can you or anybody else produce a copy of an Greek old testament written before 220 AD??

This is a terribly inconsistent argument to be coming from you, who cannot produce a great majority of the KJV readings prior to the 9th century. You are asking for proof that you do not even have for your own preference.

As for hte LXX, it is well-established.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by KING JAMES AV 1611:
oops! Acts 1:3
Does your mv even have the verse?

Yep. My NKJV says infallible just like the KJV. The NASB has it with "convincing".

Also, just because I like to check things out thoroughly before affirming or denying them, I looked up the word "convincing". According to Webster's:

To overcome by argument; to force to yield assent to truth; to satisfy by proof.

I am not sure what your argument would be with the use of this word.

 

[Steve K.]

Infallible and convincing are not the same word and if you'll be honest you will admit it.Therefore one is right and one wrong.KJV is right. Way to go JYD you got em on that one!!
God does not owe you or any skeptic proof.It is by faith I believe and so must each person.The issues you present are not even valid.They come from desperation and are weak .Faith is the susbstance with which I and so many people trust the KJV to be the word of God.You or no one you know will ever disprove that.

 

[Ransom]

KING JAMES AV 1611 said:

God does not owe you or any skeptic proof.

You're not God, though, and therefore your lack of proof continues to make you and your KJV-onlyism the laughingstock of this forum.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by KING JAMES AV 1611:
Infallible and convincing are not the same word and if you'll be honest you will admit it.Therefore one is right and one wrong.KJV is right. Way to go JYD you got em on that one!!

The KJV has here added to the word of God. The text says "tekmeriois" (count the words) and the KJV says "infallible proofs" (count the words). God used one; the KJV translators used two. Clear enough??

Actually the word "tekmeriois" means proofs. A proof is something that is convincing, that cannot be refuted. So the reality is that your failure to study has led you to make a distinction where there is none. "Convincing" and "infallible" communicate the same idea.

God does not owe you or any skeptic proof.

No one here is a skeptic. We believe the word of God. In fact, we are waiting for you to show us from the word of God where he says we should only use the KJV. Why won't you just show us this "infallible proof" of God's preference on the matter? Do you not have this proof? Is your silence an admission that God did not tell us to use only the KJV?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by KING JAMES AV 1611:
Infallible and convincing are not the same word and if you'll be honest you will admit it.

I didn't say they were the same word. But both words are effective for communicating the meaning of this verse.

Therefore one is right and one wrong.

No. I work in printing. Blue and Cyan are not the same color. However, if you tell a 4-color pressman his blue is too weak or that his cyan is too weak, he will know exactly which ink fountain to adjust. Translations by their very nature invite differences in wording. This is not harmful as long as the original meaning is accurately expressed... and here it is by either word.

KJV is right.

OK. Once again, where's your proof? Show us your expertise in Greek by demonstrating that the only proper way to translate this passage is with infallible.

God does not owe you or any skeptic proof.

I am not asking God for proof. He has provided all the proof we need. His Word does not support KJVOnlyism in any way. The evidence He has providentially provided does not support KJVOnlyism in any way. Therefore, when you claim that KJVOnlyism is true and make it a matter of debate, I have every right to ask YOU for proof... and so far, you have been woefully lacking.

It is by faith I believe and so must each person.

Faith in things contrary to revealed truth has a name, "superstition." Making a dogma out of an extra-biblical doctrine also has a name, "vain traditions of man."

The issues you present are not even valid.They come from desperation and are weak .

If this were so then you wouldn't be play "escape and evade" now. You would be citing evidence to disprove what I have written. Instead, you have returned to personal attacks and generalized condemnations. You have no real factual evidence so you must run scared.

Faith is the susbstance with which I and so many people trust the KJV to be the word of God.You or no one you know will ever disprove that.

Will you ever open your eyes and see the truth? Everyone on our side of this debate affirms in agreement with the KJV translators that even the meanest translation is the Word of God. Some of us even prefer the KJV over others, like myself. But there is a critical difference between respectful preference and idolatry.

 

[AV Defender]

You are asking for proof that you do not even have for your own preference.

As for hte LXX, it is well-established.

I'm asking for solid evedence for a Pre-220A.D Greek new Testament,not hearsay.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by JYD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You are asking for proof that you do not even have for your own preference.

As for hte LXX, it is well-established.

I'm asking for solid evedence for a Pre-220A.D Greek new Testament,not hearsay. </font>[/QUOTE]We have asked for solid proof for a number of things:
1. That God said the KJV is the only word of God.
2. That the readings in the majority text predate the 9th century.

YOu have offered none. But you want us to offer proof of something else (which has been shown by the documents given above such as early historians and proof from a manuscript dating to about 150bc I believe (Though my memory may fail me on the date). If you look up the Septuagint in any one of a number of good Bible dictionaries, you will have all the proof you want.

Now, why don't you provide the same type of proof for your position ... Is that too much to ask?

 

[AV Defender]

Now, why don't you provide the same type of proof for your position ... Is that too much to ask?

Instead of trying to dodge the question with a question,show me hard evedence not heresay..

 

[Steve K.]

They have no proof JYD! Never have never will!We have the one true word of God the KJV!Though given facts,documented facts they cannot see.

 

[Steve K.]

The real problem you guys have is authority.The KJV says in 1Tim.6:1 his doctrine referring to God's doctrine.
MV's have it "our doctrine" Well I don't want yours I want God's!
My silence where you are concerned Larry is because as I have told you you will not accept truth and I believe you teach heresy.As for your memory you have not been able to retain this fact.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Steve,
You're a fine one to talk about not having any proof. In all the crap you have posted, I have never seen anything that even closely resembles proof, except proof of your own ignorance.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by KING JAMES AV 1611:
The real problem you guys have is authority.The KJV says in 1Tim.6:1 his doctrine referring to God's doctrine.
MV's have it "our doctrine" Well I don't want yours I want God's!

I want God's doctrine too. What is the final authority that will tell me what the "final authority" is? You say I have a problem with "authority" - yes, you are right! I have a problem understanding by which authority I should accept the KJV as the final authority, since the KJV doesn't say this. Is it not by *your* authority that you say I should accept the KJV? Why should I believe you? What makes you so authoritative?

 

[Steve K.]

Take an aspirin and rest Terry you'll feel better in the morning.Then I suggest getting a KJV and reading it.BYE

 

[Steve K.]

Brian all of the evidence that you receive you reject.The evidence is scriptual,documented,sound,honest,pure,etc.. and yet you will not receive it.Yes I think it's an authority problem.