Questions for KJV critics

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Ransom:


Right. So when are you going to do something about it by very quietly going away?

NO. NO. NO. NO.

The more Steve writes, the more damage he does to KJVOnlyism. There are many KJVO's who come here with a willingness to see the truth. His false posts being refuted may help them more than anything.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by KING JAMES AV 1611:

quote from Dr. Logsdon a man on the revision committee for the nasv.

So now Dr. Logsdon is your final authority? Even if he were as involved as KJVO's want to believe he was, that does not make his opinions infallible or even correct. However, the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence that he had notable involvement with the work.

 

[Steve K.]

Can't see guys? You try to refute truth and can't! Every piece of truth presented to you in every thread concerning the KJV is documented and you have not proven it untrue nor can you. You can spout accusations.I have found why you reject the KJV and cling to mv's and it's scripture.
1Tim 6:1 KJV infallible
1Tim 6:1 niv convincing
Interesting!I choose to keep with the infallible word of God .

 

[Ransom]

KING JAMES AV 1611 said:

Every piece of truth presented to you in every thread concerning the KJV is documented and you have not proven it untrue nor can you.

Every single "piece of truth" (ha!) you have presented in favour of KJV-onlyism has been answered and exposed as false.

That you cannot see otherwise, is simply more proof that your own imagination, not the Bible, is your final authority.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by KING JAMES AV 1611:
Can't see guys? You try to refute truth and can't! Every piece of truth presented to you in every thread concerning the KJV is documented and you have not proven it untrue nor can you. You can spout accusations.I have found why you reject the KJV and cling to mv's and it's scripture.
1Tim 6:1 KJV infallible
1Tim 6:1 niv convincing
Interesting!I choose to keep with the infallible word of God .

Are you sure you are talking about Acts 1:3? If so, this verse is talking about Jesus, not the KJV.

 

[neal4christ]

1Tim 6:1 KJV infallible

"Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed." I Timothy 6:1, KJV

What are you talking about with this verse, Steve? I don't see the word 'infallible' mentioned. Do you know what you are even posting?

Neal

 

[Pastor Larry]

Did Steve just violate another BB rule by posting the same thing in two different forums? Never mind that the "same thing" he posted is not even accurate; have you no regard for what the KJV requires in terms of following the authorities that you have placed yourself under?? Or is the KJV not inspired in those parts?

 

[Alliswell]

Johnny, the common language in Judea when Jesus was here was Aramaic, and His quotes were from the Septuagent translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

God Bless

Alliswell

 

[AV Defender]

the common language in Judea when Jesus was here was Aramaic, and His quotes were from the Septuagent translation of the Hebrew Scriptures

Could you please show proof that He was quoting from the Septuagint that was supposed to be written before 220 A.D.? A quote or a part of quote from ANY new testament writer Quoting from a Greek Old testament written before 220A.D.
Thanks..

[ February 04, 2003, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

[Ransom]

JYD said:

Could you please show proof that He was quoting from the Septuagint that was supposed to be written before 220 A.D.?

Surprise surprise, a KJV-onlyist is trying to create doubt and skepticism again.

 

[AV Defender]

Surprise surprise, a KJV-onlyist is trying to create doubt and skepticism again.

No, your wrong, it is a honest question..

 

[Ransom]

In that case, the authenticity of the Septuagint is attested not only by the letter of pseudo-Aristeas, but by Aristobulus (cited in Eusebius), Philo, Josephus, and the New Testament authors who cited it.

Whether or not one believes the rather fanciful stories of the LXX's translation, the fact remains that there was a Greek translation of the Scriptures made during the intertestamental period, and it is eminently reasonable to believe that it is the Greek translation cited by the above authors.

In other words, the antiquity of the LXX is as well attested as any piece of ancient literature.

There are those who doubt the prior existence of the Septuagint, most notably KJV-onlyists in the Ruckmandroid camp, but it is fair to point out that their view is driven by their peculiar ideology, not scholarship. Furthermore, Occam's Razor favours the mainstream view; if the Ruckmandroids want to refute it, the onus is upon them to produce an authentic and ancient Greek Old Testament with a better claim to being the translation of the Seventy.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Anybody?
I have on order:
CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH VERSION (American
Bible Society, 1995).
I have a copy of NEW AGE BIBLE
VERSIONS (AV Publications, 1991).
Which do you recommend, that i read
the CEV or Riplinger?

 

[Ransom]

Guess that all depends on whether you're in the mood for fantasy literature or theology.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Guess that all depends on whether you're in the mood for fantasy literature or theology.

tee hee

Speaking of "fantasy literature",
16 years ago i was on an internet precusor
near where the actual writers of
L.Ron Hubbard's Science Fiction were writing.
They were cloistered away from the rest
of us, but occassioned by from time to
time. Recall that the late L.Ron Hubbard
was the false christ who started
the false religion of Scientology.
Yep, it was then that the late L.Ron Hubbard's SF
markedly improved

 

[AV Defender]

In other words, the antiquity of the LXX is as well attested as any piece of ancient literature.

Can you or anybody else produce a copy of an Greek old testament written before 220 AD?? The myth of the Septuagint rests on manuscripts written 200-400 years AFTER the death of Christ and they match the New Testament quotations;and they should, the writers had access to Old & New testament Manuscripts at that time.

[ February 04, 2003, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

[rsr]

Please offer some proof of this. It's a KJVO position; everyone else accepts that Jews in Alexandria translated the Old Testament long before the Common Era.

 

[AV Defender]

Please offer some proof of this. It's a KJVO position everyone else accepts that Jews in Alexandria translated the Old Testament long before the Common Era.

That is what I asked for, proof..Give me proof of a Greek Old Testament written before 220AD.

 

[rsr]

History of the LXX:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/quote01.html

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm

http://www.septuagint.net/

http://www.innvista.com/scriptures/versions/lxx.htm

http://www.bible-researcher.com/isbelxx01.html

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Septuagint.htm

http://www.cin.org/mat93033.html

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/translations.stm

http://www.bartleby.com/65/se/Septuagi.html

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/S/Septuagi.asp

[ February 05, 2003, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: rsr ]

 

[Pioneer]

Originally posted by Ransom:

You'll have to explain this one to the people in my young adult Sunday school class, who memorized entire books from the NIV.

If this is true (which I doubt it is) 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) up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, provided the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted amount to 25 percent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted."