Questions for KJVOs

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Caissie:
1. I think it is the better translation
2. Both. The King James Version (KJV) is translated off of the "Textus Receptus" or Received Text. There are currently 5,321 of these manuscripts that have been found and they all massively agree. The Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New International Version (NIV) and most of the other newer versions are translated from the Alexandrian manuscripts. There are currently 45 of these manuscripts, in which, no two consecutive verses in them agree!
In my opinion, it would be "better" to have 5,321 witnesses saying the same thing than 45 witnesses saying different things.

3. I don't have as much against the NKJV as I do all the rest. I would rather someone use a NKJV than no bible at all. What I have against the NKJV is very minor compared to all the others. (like when Jesus said in Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." The liberal NKJV changes damned to condemned. They did the same in Romans 14:23 and 2 Thes 2:12. Most words from other languages have more than one meaning. Yes, I know that the Greek word in question here can be translated either way, and I think that the KJV has it right. Then Gen 2:18 in the NKJV states "I will make a helper COMPARABLE TO HIM" Where did the NKJV translators get that word "Comparable" from? Not from the T.R. Anyway, I know you are probably thinking these are so minor. I could go on, and on but like I said earlier, I do not have as much agains the NKJV as I have against all the other corrupt versions. Oh yeah, I am not sure I like that the NKJV has the symbol of the female god trinity on the cover.

4. N/A. I only think it is the best translation in English. I have found some words that should have been translated better, but the meaning of the verse stayed the same.

5. The Textus Receptus. There are different degrees of accuracy. The originals were 100% accurate, and everything else is not. But the KJV is more accurate than all the other English versions that are in print today.

6. Again, there are diffent degrees of accuracy and I do not believe that any translation can possibly be 100% accurate.

I do not bother getting in to debates about KJV vs NKJV. Now, I can put all other Bibles NIV, RSV, Message, and NASB to shame when compared to the KJV (as I do in my website: http://biblestuff.freerovin.com/favorite_links.html )

You're Welcome

Wow, same ole', same ole'. At least it mentions that it is simply a "better translation", rather than God's ONLY INSPIRED WORD.

Welcome to the Bulletin Board. I think you should read Ed's post regarding the TR and majority text. Do you realize the TR you are now using was generated AFTER the KJV?

Ed also asked a good question. When did the KJV become accurate--it certainly wasn't in 1611 if the 1769 version is?

Do you also realized that the translators of the 1611 had thirteen different manuscripts of which no two were either complete or alike and they pieced them together even piecing verses together to come up with one copy of The Revelation of Jesus Christ. This is no different than the textual criticism that takes place today when making translations. The translators finally went to the Vulgate, Bishop's Bible and Geneva (among others) for help. Of course, this was done all the way through the Bible---that is the reason the Bishop's Bible has so many verses that are the same as the KJ1611. It is DEFINITELY not a PURE translation, much of it was already translated for the translators.

[ March 20, 2004, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by charlie parker:
Phillip wrote>>"Including the cover?"

Yes Sir, "Holy Bible"

Charlie

Mine was given to me by my parents and has my name on the cover. Am I Inspired????????

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Mine was given to me by my parents and has my name on the cover. Am I Inspired????????

No

more like an Okie

 

[Jim Ward]

I think you should just be honest with yourself and admit that your final authority is your own self.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Jim Ward:
I think you should just be honest with yourself and admit that your final authority is your own self.

One of the main reasons I rejected KJVOnlyism is that you guys really do make yourselves the final authority but would deny it to the death.

There is no scriptural text nor example that supports KJVOnlyism. There are no historical nor textual proofs for KJVOnlyism. The KJV translators did not claim to be inspired and even if they did they don't meet the scriptural qualifications for writers of scripture.

The Bible (KJV) is filled with examples of different versions of the same message/event. There is reasonably good evidence that a translation was quoted from by the writers of the NT that differs with the Hebrew text of the KJV.

Simply put, the message communicated in the original, perfect, God inspired words is the Word of God. Any translation that accurately and faithfully relates this message is also the inspired Word of God. If not, then we are all in the same boat... we have no inspired Word of God, not even you.

 

[HankD]

One of the main reasons I rejected KJVOnlyism is that you guys really do make yourselves the final authority but would deny it to the death.

Actually the "final authority" of KJVO doctrine are two persons, a man and a woman.
I won't mention any names.

Most KJVO (at least on this posting board) distance themselves from them but then go on to put their stamp of approval on all their "ex cathedra" dogma (e.g. second inspiration, advanced revelation, English supercedes Hebrew/Greek, etc).

HankD

 

[Jim Ward]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jim Ward:
I think you should just be honest with yourself and admit that your final authority is your own self.

One of the main reasons I rejected KJVOnlyism is that you guys really do make yourselves the final authority but would deny it to the death.

There is no scriptural text nor example that supports KJVOnlyism. There are no historical nor textual proofs for KJVOnlyism. The KJV translators did not claim to be inspired and even if they did they don't meet the scriptural qualifications for writers of scripture.

The Bible (KJV) is filled with examples of different versions of the same message/event. There is reasonably good evidence that a translation was quoted from by the writers of the NT that differs with the Hebrew text of the KJV.

Simply put, the message communicated in the original, perfect, God inspired words is the Word of God. Any translation that accurately and faithfully relates this message is also the inspired Word of God. If not, then we are all in the same boat... we have no inspired Word of God, not even you. </font>[/QUOTE]Well then Scott, you have a real serious problem on your hands then. According to mv doctrine ALL versions ahve errors in them and therefore ALL versions are not faithful and accurate and cannot faithfully relay all of God's written message to man.

What does this mean? it means that for the mv defender, they, in their minds and attitudes, get to play God and determine what is and what isn't God's word at any time, according to what pleases them.


There is plenty of documented evidence to show how inaccurate and unfaithful the mv's are. One of the most telling is how often new mv's comes out, each one supposedly more accurate and faithful then all the others, according to the "scholars" who worked on them. Yet, clearly they are not or these publishes would stop selling all the inaccurate ones, but then, I guess there is money to be made in peddling, isn't there?

Oh what quicksand you mv "defenders" live in.


Jim

 

[robycop3]

Jim Ward:Well then Scott, you have a real serious problem on your hands then. According to mv doctrine ALL versions ahve errors in them and therefore ALL versions are not faithful and accurate and cannot faithfully relay all of God's written message to man.

There's no such critter an an "mv doctrine". And I don't believe anyone here thinks that EVERY book called a "bible" is actually a valid Bible.

What does this mean? it means that for the mv defender, they, in their minds and attitudes, get to play God and determine what is and what isn't God's word at any time, according to what pleases them.

No, that would be the KJVO, who PROVES this by rejecting anything that differs from the KJV.


There is plenty of documented evidence to show how inaccurate and unfaithful the mv's are. One of the most telling is how often new mv's comes out, each one supposedly more accurate and faithful then all the others, according to the "scholars" who worked on them. Yet, clearly they are not or these publishes would stop selling all the inaccurate ones, but then, I guess there is money to be made in peddling, isn't there?

It's called "advertising". It's a free-enterprise activity, as opposed to royal edict. The potential buyer now has a CHOICE instead of having to do business only with a royal monopoly. It is the Onlyists through the last 400-or-so years who've sought to suppress all other English bvs. And, for the umpteenth time, if a publisher doesn't publish books that sell, or continues to print books that aren't selling, he doesn't stay in business very long, does he?

Oh what quicksand you mv "defenders" live in.

Looks as if the "stuff" the KJVO's live in has turned to concrete around their feet. They say, "well, at least we have a solid foundation." Fine-till the flood waters come in...

 

[Jim Ward]

though at the same time I feel really

for you

 

[Jim Ward]

I wish I could find the post where you stated you were not going to respond to my posts anymore, cuz I would post that time and again so everyone can see how little your words mean to you, and see more of the corrupt fruit exampled for us by a follower of false doctrines.


Once a liar, always a liar until regenerated by the Spirit, I guess.

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by Jim Ward:
Do you know that you still have a very hard time answering direct questions?

Are you aware this proves how unstable you are and how faulty your viewpoint really is?


No and No? Thats what I thought.

Ed, Jim is good for laughs.

 

[HankD]

One of the most telling is how often new mv's comes out, each one supposedly more accurate and faithful then all the others, according to the "scholars" who worked on them.

And what exactly does it "tell"? because This is a description of the history of the KJV.

In 1611 the King James Bible was one of a string of approximately 120 versions before it (mostly before the advent of the printing press) with the KJV translator "scholars" (most were "doctors") promoted its accuracy in the introduction to the King and the people.

Also the KJV translators proclaimed that all the other translations, even "the meanest" (worst) of them were also the Word of God.

Nonetheless, they were opposed by the Puritans who loved and cherished the Geneva Bible, which, when they fled England by reason of the Church of England persecution, they brought with them to America.

In the meantime the AV 1611 under went several revisions one of them to remove the heretical Apocrypha from the Holy Bible.


HankD

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by Jim Ward:
I think you should just be honest with yourself and admit that your final authority is your own self.

I think you should just be honest w/ yourself and admit that your final authority is Anglicans who you have exalted to prophets, and a king who hated Baptists.

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by Jim Ward:
Once a liar, always a liar until regenerated by the Spirit, I guess.

KJVO's:kjbo's.."by their fruit you will know them", some like J__ W___ are Pharisees.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Jim Ward:
I think you should just be honest with yourself and admit that your final authority is your own self.

WHO? ME?

My final authority is God's word. I'm just now reading one in a language I can understand. THe Holman CSB (I only have the NT though)

If you would like to donate a complete one so I will have the complete "final authority" in that particular translation, I would SURE appreciate it. Do you need my mailing address?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Jim Ward:
I wish I could find the post where you stated you were not going to respond to my posts anymore, cuz I would post that time and again so everyone can see how little your words mean to you, and see more of the corrupt fruit exampled for us by a follower of false doctrines.


Once a liar, always a liar until regenerated by the Spirit, I guess.

Uh, Jim, I'm not a moderator, but I can see a personal attack when I read it. Let's stick our debates to the subject and quit trying to play lawyer by impeaching a person because they allegedly said something once and possibly changed their minds. This does not make one a liar. But, I believe personal attacks against a fellow Christian are against KJV doctrine also.

 

[charlie parker]

Jim Ward wrote&gt;&gt;"Once a liar, always a liar until regenerated by the Spirit, I guess.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naaa Jim, Liars are liars, saved or lost, I appreciate your stand, "therefore stand" is our commandment on the subject.
Charlie

 

[charlie parker]

Ed Edwards wrote&gt;&gt;"Am I Inspired????????&lt;&lt;"

I would definately say yes, I think that you are most certainlly inspired, but your name on the cover has nothing to do with it.
Charlie

 

[dianetavegia]

Posting Rules:
3. Show grace to the other posters. When someone disagrees with you, discuss it; but be slow to offend, and eager to get into the Word and find the answers. Remember, when discussing passionate issues, it is easy to go too far and offend. Further, if we are "earnestly contending for the faith" it would be unrealistic not to expect at times to be misunderstood or even ridiculed. But please note that your words can sometimes be harsh if used in the wrong way. The anger of man worketh not the righteousness of God.

4. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. The board has an edit button enabled. We encourage you to use it and edit your own words. Moderators and Administrators will be visibly proactive in dealing with potentially offensive situations. Posts of a violent or threatening nature, either implicitly or explicitly, will be deleted, and the poster's membership revoked. We encourage personal problems with other members be resolved privately via email or personal messaging.

Please refrain from personal attacks and name calling.

Thank you,
Diane
A Moderator

 

[charlie parker]

Phillip wrote&gt;&gt;"But, I believe personal attacks against a fellow Christian are against KJV doctrine also."
_______________________________________________

Unless of course the personal attack is upon Dr. Ruckman, In that case, its "christian observation."


Chaelie