Featured Random KJVO Discussion Poll

Only where the CT, ET, TR, MT and f35 agree. Where they do not agree, the actual word of God is at issue.

 

They all agree in what, 98 % of the timer, and no disagreements affect at all any essential doctrines?

 

Difference is-WE have the TRUTH, as has been PROVEN.

 

It does affect essential doctrines in places, Ephesians 3:9, John 3:13, but not on the whole. So not "at all" is not true. How important is the issue of eternal Sonship? With John 1:18 either the Son was always the Son or became the Son only in His incarnation.

Gensis 12:7 the preincarnate Word appeared to Abram. Either as only the preincarnate Word or as being always the preincarnate Son. John 1:18.

 

Is Jesus God is the all important truth!

 

Your comparison is bogus and wrong. There is no comparison between movie make-believe and the repeating of scriptural truths.

You ignore and dodge the truth that KJV-onlyism is not a dead horse.

 

In being the Christ, as in Ephesians 3:9. Which the CT omits.

 

KJVO-related threads on the BB, how many have actually been started by a KJVO? How many by those trying to make anti-KJVO a cottage industry, churning out one rehashed post after another?

 

Clearly shows that you don’t know hardly a thing in this regard- saying “NO” proof. Nonsense.
I digress. Not getting tangled up anymore in this web.

 

Were YOU there when any of those mss. were made? Do you know who made them when or where? Do you know what source(s) their authors used? if not, you're just guessing.

 

And the KJV at times denies that paul and peter meant that Jesus is the great God and Savior! Calls the Holy Spirit it...

Just saying that all translations have some issues, as none are inerrant!

 

Cite the Paul reference and the Peter reference. Bear in mind the KJV translators did not observe the Granville Sharp rule (1735-1813). The Greek text is what counts.

 

They were not aware of it, as had not been invented yet, but would not Inspired translators been told regardless how to render those passages though?

 

There’s evidence of 76 church fathers quoting the TR before 400AD. Eg. Ignatius
No evidence of B (Vaticanus) and (Aleph) Sinnaticus after 600AD. It just dropped off whereas throughout history, consistent records of TR being used. I’m not going to get into with you any further, Roby. You can’t suck me into your vacuum! Heheheh.

 

Again, a small margin believe the translators were inspired.

 

Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) asserted: "I do not hesitate to say that there is no mistake whatever in the original Holy Scriptures from beginning to end. There may be, and there are, mistakes of translation; for translators are not inspired" (The Scriptures: Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. XXXV, p. 257). In a March 19, 1868, sermon on Psalm 139:17, Spurgeon stated: “I believe that the very words, in the original Hebrew and Greek, were revealed from heaven” (Spurgeon at His Best, p. 25; Complete Works of C. H. Spurgeon, Vol. 57, Sermon No 3246). In a sermon entitled "The Bible Tried and Proved," Spurgeon noted: "We have occasionally heard opponents carp at certain coarse expressions used in our translation of the Old Testament; but the coarseness of translators is not to be set to the account on the Holy Spirit, but to the fact that the force of the English language has changed, and modes of expression which were correct at one period become too gross for another" (Infallible Word, p. 20). Charles Spurgeon declared: "Let us quote the words as they stand in the best possible translation, and it would be better still if we know the original, and can tell if our version fails to give the sense" (The Greatest Fight, p. 23). Spurgeon wrote: “Such superlative nonsense may be indulged in if we forget that translations cannot be verbally inspired, and that to the original is the last appeal” (Commenting and Commentaries, p. 25).

Spurgeon asserted: “I became a Baptist through reading the New Testament,--especially in the Greek” (Autobiography of Charles Spurgeon, Vol. I, p. 150). Spurgeon stated: “Our fullest revelation of God’s will is in that tongue [Greek], and so are our noblest names for Jesus. The standard of our faith is Greek. . . . Greek is the sacred tongue, and Greek is the Baptist’s tongue; we may be beaten in our own version, sometimes; but in the Greek, never” (Autobiography of Charles Spurgeon, Vol. II, p. 327) In his publication The Sword and the Trowel, Spurgeon commented: “The more reading of the Scriptures the better, and it is best of all when that reading occupies itself with the original. Every member of our churches, who has a fair English education, should aim to acquire sufficient Greek to read the New Testament” (August, 1885, p. 431).

In his preface to the 1859 book The English Bible: History of the Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English Tongue by Mrs. H. C. Conant, Charles Spurgeon noted: "And it is because I love the most Holy Word of God that I plead for faithful translation; and from my very love to the English version, because in the main it is so, I desire for it that its blemishes should be removed, and its faults corrected" (p. xi). Spurgeon continued: “It is of course an arduous labour to persuade men of this, although in the light of common sense the matter is plain enough. But there is a kind of Popery in our midst which makes us cling fast to our errors, and hinders the growth of thorough reformation; otherwise, the Church would just ask the question, ‘Is this King James’ Bible the nearest approach to the original?‘ The answer would be, ‘No; it is exceedingly good, but it has many glaring faults’” (p. xi). In his same preface, Spurgeon wrote: "I ask, from very love of this best of translations, that its obsolete words, its manifest mistranslations, and glaring indecencies should be removed" (p. xii). Again in this preface, Spurgeon asserted: “It was a holy thing to translate the Scriptures into the mother tongue; he that shall effect a thorough revision of the present translation will deserve as high a meed of honour as the first translators. Despite the outcry of reverend doctors against any attempt at revision, it ought to be done, and must be done. The present version is not to be despised, but no candid person can be blind to its faults“ (pp. vii-viii). Spurgeon maintained: “Multitudes of eminent divines and critics have borne their testimony to the faulty character of King James’s version: there must therefore be some need for a little correction” (pp. viii-ix). Spurgeon then gave several example quotations from several authors as evidence that supported his statement. In one example, Spurgeon favorably quoted Anthony Blackwall as saying concerning King James’s version: “Innumerable instances might be given of faulty translation of the divine original” (p. ix). Spurgeon also favorably quoted Richard Fuller as writing in 1850: “That our present English version has some defects is admitted on all hands, and by every denomination. That the Word of God ought to be purged of all defects in the translation which the people read,--this is also admitted” (p. x).

 

You think a discovery of a Biblical truth is a mere invention. Then my answer cannot matter to.