1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Restored Texts and Question God's Words

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Askjo, May 21, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 1 of 2
  1. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    StandingfirminChrist quoted:
    Very interesting suspicion on this quotation is very serious for today. Is that true to say that the Satan questioned God's Words while he tempted Eve?

    Dr. Thomas Strouse wrote:
    These critics questioned God's Words because they restored the texts that God chose NOT to preserve. In our day we as KJV defenders, realized many tectual critics questioned God's Words such as Dr. Bruce Metzger, W/H and others, for example. The KJV is the FINAL AUTHORITY. Why did W/H hate the TR is because W/H were closet catholics. Roman Catholics monks killed William Tyndale and burned his Bibles because he took care of his Tyndale Bibles prior to the KJV. Remember Tyndale's prayer saying to Lord God, "Lord, open the King of England's eyes." That is how we got the Bible, namely the KJV.

    When the KJV's arrival, many preachers preached saying, "Thus saith the Lord, Amen!"

    [Assumptions and attacks against people claiming they hated the KJV removed] Why? Replace the KJV! But they FAILED. According to David Cloud he said that Roman Catholic rejects the KJV.

    Who were W/H? They were anglicans and closet catholics. One of them HATED the democracy; other was a socialist. They were textual critics because they produced their ERV. [Claimed people's unbelief based on their use of textual criticism and also claiming they were closet catholics]

    In our current day many textual critics produced multiple modern versions because they directly followed W/H's idea. Most of them oftenly said that the KJV has errors. "Today" textual critics questioned God's Words as an example of Dr. Metzger questioned the authorship of the Holy Scriptures as what David Cloud reported. Not only Metzger, but many names that David Cloud provided in his websites and booklets.

    Most KJV defenders do not NEED textual criticism because they by faith believe God's Words such as the KJV for English-speaking people.

    Most MVOists demand manuscript evidence showing that the KJV has errors because they restored these manuscripts and produced new bibles AGAINST the KJV.

    One of the KJV defenders named Will K. He provided his answers against modern versions because he showed you many contradictions and errors in modern versions. [Attack against Modern Versions deleted]

    NONE of KJV defenders questioned God's Words, but Modern Versions defenders questioned God's Words because of manuscript evidences that they showed these KJV defenders against the KJV and for modern versions. I read many posts saying modern versions are MORE accurate THAN the KJV.

    Edward F. Hills explained concerning two methods: Consistently Christian method and Naturalistic method because he saw two sides: the KJV and Modern Versions. He found that the KJV is the best one. To understand the naturalistic method is that textual critics had no logic of faith.

    StandingfirminChrist is right because I agree with what he said. [removed attack claiming Satan attacked the Word of God through the use of MVs] See here! Look at the word, "future" here because many INCOMING NEW modern versions will come in the future. New modern version in 2010.... New modern version in 2015.... New modern version..... WHO NEED THEM? Not KJV defenders, but MV defenders do.

    Christians THANKED those critics because they restored the texts that God chose NOT to preserve.

    I only use the KJV. I said, "Thus saith the Lord." I pointed at the KJV and said, "This is the Word of God!" Amen!

    [ May 22, 2006, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]
     
    #1 Askjo, May 21, 2006
  2. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    We are all now dumber for having been duped into reading this.
     
    #2 DesiderioDomini, May 21, 2006
  3. Diggin in da Word

    Diggin in da Word New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Speak for yourself, I happened to learn quite alot.
     
    #3 Diggin in da Word, May 21, 2006
  4. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very well, I learned quite a bit of false information here.

    As did you.
     
    #4 DesiderioDomini, May 21, 2006
  5. Linda64

    Linda64 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did the truthfulness of the post reveal the false information you've been holding on to?

    I hate to burst your bubble, but you can't be right all the time, DD :rolleyes:
     
    #5 Linda64, May 21, 2006
  6. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    1
    Askjo, twice in your post you mentioned "the texts God chose NOT to preserve." Are we to assume now that you know the mind of God, and that He has communicated to you which texts He chose to preserve and which texts He chose not to preserve? And why is it that God's word was not preserved until the textus receptus showed up? Is not the TR a compilation of various manuscripts, none of which were complete? Wasn't the TR put together from bits and pieces, somewhat like a jigsaw puzzle?

    There is a serious problem with this stance, Askjo. If you believe that God did not want these texts to survive, then please tell us why you believe God did not destroy these texts completely, but allowed them to remain for textual critics? Do you believe God didn't have the power to destroy these supposedly faulty texts if that was truly His will? Or is it that you believe God was undecided, so that He allowed these texts to survive in bits and pieces for people to find years later?

    Think about your fanciful claims, Askjo. Do you really want to question God's actions? Do you really want to question God's powers? Do you really want to questions God's choices? If you honestly answer these questions you will have to conclude that your claims are wrong, that these claims were made hastily and without serious thought about what you were saying. Please do not question God's actions, His powers and His choices, Askjo. He isn't happy with us when we do those things.
     
    #6 Keith M, May 21, 2006
  7. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    1
    Actually, the untruthfulness of the post reveals the false information KJVOs have been holding on to. :eek:

    If anyone chooses to use exclusively the KJV, then that is their own decision to make. But there is absolutely no truth to the false claims of the KJVO myth.
     
    #7 Keith M, May 21, 2006
  8. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    1
    My, my, my, such authority! Do I detect a bit of arrogance there, Askjo? Just because you agree with someone doesn't make them right. In fact, when you support the KJVO myth, Askjo, you are also wrong!

    If anyone chooses to use only the KJV, that decision is up to them. But anyone who supports the KJVO myth is not right. They're absolutely wrong, even if you do agree with them!

    :eek: :rolleyes: :D [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
    #8 Keith M, May 21, 2006
  9. Diggin in da Word

    Diggin in da Word New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is not AskJo who is questioning God's Word, AskJo is defending God's Word.

    Does it ever occur to anyone that God may have preserved that word not on paper, but in the heart of man? In Psalms 119:11 David said, Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

    We have today, men who are able to quote many passages of scripture from memorization. Why, Jack Van Impe has memorized over 87% of the Bible himself.

    I hold that God's Word was preserved. In the hearts of men.

    Does not God move on men to memorize the Word?

    Is not God powerful enough to write His Word in the heart of the man who has given diligence to know that Word?

    Does not God have a choice in how His Word is preserved? Does it have to be on paper?

    It is not AskJo who is questioning God's Holy Word, she is defending it.
     
    #9 Diggin in da Word, May 21, 2006
  10. His Blood Spoke My Name

    His Blood Spoke My Name New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,978
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is not AskJo who is questioning God's Word, AskJo is defending God's Word.

    Does it ever occur to anyone that God may have preserved that word not on paper, but in the heart of man? In Psalms 119:11 David said, Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

    We have today, men who are able to quote many passages of scripture from memorization. Why, Jack Van Impe has memorized over 87% of the Bible himself.

    I hold that God's Word was preserved. In the hearts of men.

    Does not God move on men to memorize the Word?

    Is not God powerful enough to write His Word in the heart of the man who has given diligence to know that Word?

    Does not God have a choice in how His Word is preserved? Does it have to be on paper?

    It is not AskJo who is questioning God's Holy Word, she is defending it.     </font>[/QUOTE]Amen! Well said.
    I am not KJVO. As many have seen, I have been posting from the NASB in my posts. But, the attacks on those that are convicted that God has preserved His Word for the English speaking people in the KJV, are not of God.

    I believe God very well could have preserved His Word in the hearts of man. I am open to that.

    Reading the many hateful remarks toward one who claims to be of Christ is contrary to God's will for His people. Did not the Psalmist write,

    Psalm 133:1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is For (a)brothers to dwell together in unity!
    NASB

    (The (a) and (b) are references to scripture. Genesis 13:8 and Hebrews 13:1)
     
    #10 His Blood Spoke My Name, May 21, 2006
  11. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It is good to see that Askjo finally believes that if God did not preserve the words then they are not the right words. Rev 17:8 shows that the words as found in the KJV are not the words God preserved. They were added by men. I am glad to see that Askjo now admits that the words as found in the KJV at verse 8 are words that God did not preserve so they are not the words of God.
     
    #11 TCassidy, May 21, 2006
  12. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    DD said:

    We are all now dumber for having been duped into reading this.

    You read it? I've never been happier that I bought a mouse with a scroll wheel. [​IMG]
     
    #12 Ransom, May 21, 2006
  13. Diggin in da Word

    Diggin in da Word New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    TCassidy, I hold to the fact that God has preserved His Word. That God did indeed preserve His Word in man's heart; That the phrase 'and yet is' is indeed in the KJV because God had preserved that Word in man's heart to be written in His Holy Word.
     
    #13 Diggin in da Word, May 21, 2006
  14. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    BY WHOM, Diggin?

    Did John write it, or did some LATER MAN add to John's Revelation?
     
    #14 DesiderioDomini, May 21, 2006
  15. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Quoted above: // CHRISTIANS SHOULD THANK TEXTUAL CRITICS FOR RESTORING THE ORIGINAL TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE THAT GOD CHOSE NOT TO PRESERVE.//

    The KJV1611 Edition, in it's translator footnotes PROVES
    that the translators of the KJV used TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
    The above statement is true of the KJV
    (or else there is a wide DOUBLE STANDARD going on here).
     
    #15 Ed Edwards, May 21, 2006
  16. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, Polycarp used the TR because he received it from John the Apostle. When Polycarp was a martyr, his TR was destroyed. Likewise William Tyndale and his Bible. The TR went back to the 1st Century. That is how we get the Bible. If the TR was not there, we would NOT get the true Bible.

    Dr. Waite wrote:
    The fact about the TR is that the TR was there in apostolic times.
    I thank Diggin in da Word for his response to you. I agree with him.
     
    #16 Askjo, May 22, 2006
  17. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen to that! [​IMG]
     
    #17 Askjo, May 22, 2006
  18. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV translators risked their life. These modern version translators did NOT risk their life!!!! See the difference between them.
     
    #18 Askjo, May 22, 2006
  19. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Askjo: //The KJV translators risked their life.//

    Your statement is NOT true.
    No KJV translator rised his life; the translators
    were paid by the head of the Church of England:
    King James.

    BTW, the opening post contains a decption:

    TR should be 'TRs' in many uses.
    The T'extus Receptus' should be translated
    received texts''
     
    #19 Ed Edwards, May 22, 2006
  20. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Why in the world do you think the KJV translators risked their lives when the King sanctioned the KJV.

    I also notice in a post above that you call W/H closet catholics.

    What in the world do you think the church of England was? The only reason it didn't answer to home Pope was Henry the eighth wanted to whack his wive's heads off. The Church of England (now the Episcopals) are about as close to Catholic as you can get.

    In fact, it was the protestants of Holland who rejected the KJV for the Geneva translation. The Geneva was what was brought over on the MayFlower for freedom of worship from the tyranny of the English Church.

    Have you not studied your history?
     
    #20 Phillip, May 22, 2006
Page 1 of 2
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...