[sarcasm]Lack of scriptural support [/sarcasm]

Lacy Evans: There must be something else besides "I think", and "I prefer", or "Dr. So-and-so says", etc. There just has to be.

That's exactly what I often say about the KJVO myth. Wilkinson's, Ray's, and Fuller's opinions without any Scriptural support are worthless.

I am however talking about the fruit of that book, it's absolutely incomparable effects on the world, on language, on the church, and on millions of Christians who trusted it unquestioningly.


By "that book", you must be referring to the Latin Vulgate.

 

I'd say the Geneva.

 

I'd say the Geneva. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Brother Slambo -- Preach it!


Psalm 12:6-7 (Geneva):
The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes,
as the siluer, tried in a fornace
of earth, fined seuen folde.
Psa 12:7 Thou wilt keepe them,
O Lord: thou wilt preserue
him from this generation for euer.

 

Originally posted by Slambo:

I'd say the Geneva.</font>[/QUOTE]So, if the Geneva is "the 100% letter perfect Word-of-God", why did the KJV translators even bother?

And since the KJV is different from the Geneva, how can it hold to the same office of "perfection"?

Answers please?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

But Trotter both are perfect!

The Geneva? Amazing!

The old KJVO war cries "things that are different are not the same" has been tossed out the window! It's called the fine art of double standards and blind-eye tactics.

I don't expect a real answer to this mystery!

So then why complain about MV's?

 

Oy vey, Davey boy! Now everything is clear as crystal! Why didn't you enlighten me sooner?

Oh, my wasted years...



In Christ,
Trotter

 

None of the common views of the inspiration of Scripture are taught in the Bible. The correct translation of 2Tim.3:16 has always been in doubt, but even if we assume the common translation to be correct,

16. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

we have no way of knowing whether Paul was writing only about the Old Testament Scriptures or if he also had in mind some of the writings that are now in the New Testament. He certainly did not have in mind any of the four Gospels or the Revelation as they had not been written yet, and neither had many of the other books that we presently consider to be part of the N.T. Canon. And of course Paul may very well have had in mind a number of writings that we today do not consider to be canonical (if we have ever even heard of them). And it is highly unlikely that Paul had 2 Tim. 3:16 in mind. And of course if he did not have 2 Tim. 3:16 in mind, there is no Biblical basis for believing that it was inspired, and if 2 Tim. 3:16 was not inspired; the concept regarding the Scriptures being inspired has no direct biblical support.

The bottom line is that the inspiration of the Scriptures is a personal conviction that many, including myself, hold to, but which many others reject.

The King James translation of the Bible, however, is a 400-year-old work of very imperfect men using very imperfect grammars and lexicons (they were so very poor that no one, even the most ardent KJOist would even dream of using one of them—even if he could find one that has not been thrown into the trash) and very imperfect manuscripts that was printed by very imperfect men on ancient printing presses that virtually guaranteed a multitude of printing errors. The end result, as we all know, was a mess that it took the best editors at the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford more than 150 years to cleanup. But correcting the multitude of spelling, grammatical, and printing errors did nothing to correct the many translation errors.

My personal conviction is that God is a very perfect and holy God who does not create messes, and those who believe that the KJV is the best that God could do believe in a VERY DIFFERENT God than I do.

 

I assure you it wasn't for the same reasons the W&H commitie had.

 

Why then Slambo, since you are so certain?

 

Wescott & Hort is a dead horse (pun intended), Slambo. You are starting to sound like a broken record. Are you and Anti-Alexandrian related?

Just answer the questions. If you can.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

It is not imporatant to me what the prefect Bible was in 1650, 1550, 1450, 1350, 1250, etc.
What is important to me is that I know I have a perfect Bible now.
I no more know how God did it than I know how Jesus, or even Peter, walked on water. All I know is it happened.
Does it boil down to conviction? Sure it does. I can explain it to a certain point, but after that it becomes faith, just as surely as does my faith that God IS.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

But the point is, Jim, that it is YOUR personal conviction that you have faith in. It cannot be backed up with scripture, and therefore cannot be considered a doctrine.

There is nothing wrong with your conviction, or that you have faith in it. But when anyone comes along trying to claim that their personal conviction is supposed to be the same for everyone, we gotta problem.

You hold to and believe that the KJV (whatever revision/edition) is perfect. OK. I do not hold to that, nor can you back up your claim outside of what you have chosen to believe. I can believe my '93 Escort is perfect, too...doesn't mean it is, though.

KJVO is nothing more than personal choice that deluded people have tried to make a doctrinal stance. No scriptural foundation, no deal.

If you understood, then you'd understand.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

If I didn't know your spiritual stand, Lacy, my brother, I'd conclude you were a Methodist.

Se ya next week at the package store.

In Christ,
Trotter

PS- the deluded remark was leveled at Ruckman, Ripplinger, Gipp, et al.

 

But the point is, Jim, that it is YOUR personal conviction that you have faith in. It cannot be backed up with scripture, and therefore cannot be considered a doctrine.
__________________________________________________

That's precisely the sticky point isn't it? We offer what we believe to be Scriptural support, yet your side refuses to accept it. Instead what you do is deny that what we offer even applies. So what do you expect of us? If you are going to interpret what we see differently than the way we see it, we then have no choice but to remain steadfast on our faith.
This is not unusual. Other similar examples could be offered to illustrate.
Calvinism vs Arminianism. The one side sees it one way and the other see it the another way. And never the twain shall meet.
Post-mil, pre-mil, a-mil.
Accountability vs absolute freedom.
There are dozens of examples I could offer. I suppose however, that you all would not even accept them as similar problems. So be it.
I stick with my AK 47, thank you very much.

In HIS service;
Jim