My point is that generically, a whale is a large fish as opposed to a land animal. This is not a technical distinction. I don't think the Hebrew or Greek made such distinctions.
-
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!
Scriptural proofs for KJVOnlyism
- Thread starter Scott J
- Start date
KING JAMES AV 1611 said:
You might as well laugh
Thank you! I think I will.
because you can do nothing to disprove the scriptual facts before you.
Coming from the KJV-onlyists, I have about as many scriptual [sic] facts before me as I have pink unicorns.
Now all that is left is the conviction of the Holy Spirit and if you will laugh that off too.
Oh yah, Steve, the Holy Spirit is convicting me of not believing your nonsense right now. No, really, I mean it.
You might as well laugh
Thank you! I think I will.
because you can do nothing to disprove the scriptual facts before you.
Coming from the KJV-onlyists, I have about as many scriptual [sic] facts before me as I have pink unicorns.
Now all that is left is the conviction of the Holy Spirit and if you will laugh that off too.
Oh yah, Steve, the Holy Spirit is convicting me of not believing your nonsense right now. No, really, I mean it.
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
If I understand the position held by most opponents of KJVOnlyism, they assert that the Word of God is preserved in the abundance of manuscript evidence available today. I would ask the same question of you, "What Scripture(s) supports that assertion?"
Please use the same guidelines prescribed,
If you would like to list what you believe are actually KJVO beliefs, I will try my best to answer them based upon Scripture.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Pastor Larry " ... if you have time
to study my 4500 or so posts ... "
My study of your posts was a sample study.
We assumed that the 4500+ total posts wwere reflected in an random sample of 25 posts.
to study my 4500 or so posts ... "
My study of your posts was a sample study.
We assumed that the 4500+ total posts wwere reflected in an random sample of 25 posts.
If I understand the position held by most opponents of KJVOnlyism, they assert that the Word of God is preserved in the abundance of manuscript evidence available today. I would ask the same question of you, "What Scripture(s) supports that assertion?"</font>[/QUOTE] Nice try Pastor Bob but no...
I am not saying that any English version is the only Word of God in English. I believe (like you I think) that the scripture teaches preservation. I then look at the facts that over 5000 Greek mss exist... all different from each other. This precludes the notion that God preserved His Word in only one set of words.
Reconstruction of the original wording is an academic, scholarly pursuit. Both Erasmus and the KJV translators recognized this.
We are not introducing anything new.
KJVO's say that the KJV is their final authority. Since it is clear that books other than the KJV have been rightly called the Word of God in the past, it is perfectly legitimate to ask where in their final authority it says that only the KJV can rightly be called the Word of God now.
You can read the posts of JYD, Steve, Faith/Fact/Feeling, Pure Words, Bob Krajcik, The Harvest, et al. for a complete understanding but the basic belief is that God somehow generated and approved the KJV as the only Word of God in English for our day. They reject any and all English translations that differ from the unique wording of the KJV. To them, only one set of English words equates to God's Word. Everything else is a perversion or worse.
This is interesting. Are you being serious about studying these posts?? I thought you were kidding ... just making a joke. Now I am really curious ... Tell me about this.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
I'm kidding.
I read your posts, you post near me.
You usually make sense.
I don't appreciate those who allege
otherwise.
I read your posts, you post near me.
You usually make sense.
I don't appreciate those who allege
otherwise.
Whew ... I thought you were kidding, then I thought you were being serious for a minute ... glad to know you are kidding ...
Here's a bit of research:
Genesis 2:18: The NKJV ought to make Hillary Clinton proud: "And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make a helper COMPARABLE TO HIM"
The Hebrew word here is ezer which implies an aid comparable to the one being aided.
Genesis 22:8:..."God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:" The NKJV adds that little word "for": "God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering" And destroys the wonderful promise! Where'd they get their little "for"? From the NASV!
This is another example of the outdated syntax of the old KJ english. The word "himself" is a preposition, not an object. In old english, the preposition was implied. For example, "I will make myself a bowl of soup", means "I will make for myself a bowl of soup". It DOES NOT mean, "I will make myself into a bowl of soup". The useage of the word "for" in this verse is constistent with the Hebrew.
Genesis 24:47: The "old" KJV reads: "I put the earring upon her face". But the NKJV has different plans for beautiful Rebekah: "I put the nose ring on her nose". Where did it get the ridiculous idea to "cannibalize" Rebekah? Just take a peek at the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!
Where the KJV says "earring", the Hebrew word is nexem which means "nose ring". Where the KJV says "face", the word is aph which means "nostril", though in a different context it can refer to the whole face.
Ezra 8:36: The KJV reads, "And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants. . ." The "much clearer" NKJV reads, "And they delivered the king's orders to the king's satraps. . ." Who in the world thinks "satraps" is "much clearer" than lieutenants?
The Hebrew word here is achashdarpan which means means a persian governor. A Satrap is what a Persian governor is called today in English.
Psalms 109:6: removes "Satan". (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV).
Here, the Hebrew word satan does not contextually refer to the Devil, it refers to an adversary. The adversary here is the "wicked man" which is in the verse.
Matthew 7:14: change "narrow is the way" to "difficult is the way". There's nothing "difficult" about the salvation of Jesus Christ! Jesus says in Matt. 11:30, "For my yoke is EASY, and my burden is light." THE EXACT OPPOSITE! Boy, you talk about a contradiction!
Yet another example of outdated old english. The greek word is thlibo which implies difficulty. In old English, one would describe a hardship as having one's efforts "narrowed". Today, narrow simply means with little width, but is associated with length.
Matthew 12:40: change "whale" to "fish" (ditto NIV) I don't guess it matters (what's the truth got to do with it?), the Greek word used in Matthew 12:40 is ketos. The scientific study of whales just happens to be - CETOLOGY - from the Greek ketos for whale and logos for study! The scientific name for whales just happens to be - CETACEANS - from the Greek ketos for whale!
The word ketos literally means "great fish". The root of the word "cetology" is the latin cetus, which means "whale", not the Greek ketos, which is completely different.
Matthew 18:26 & Matthew 20:20: The NKJV removes "worshipped him" (robbing worship from Jesus) (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)
The Greek word here is proskuneo which in other context can refer to worship, but here it referrs to the act of kneeling, or bowing, out of respect. The origin of proskuneo comes from the greek pros meaning "towards", and kuon meaning "dog" or "hound". It was used to describe the act of kissing, as a dog licking his master's hand. Sound wierd in English, but it made sense in Greek.
Genesis 2:18: The NKJV ought to make Hillary Clinton proud: "And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make a helper COMPARABLE TO HIM"
The Hebrew word here is ezer which implies an aid comparable to the one being aided.
Genesis 22:8:..."God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:" The NKJV adds that little word "for": "God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering" And destroys the wonderful promise! Where'd they get their little "for"? From the NASV!
This is another example of the outdated syntax of the old KJ english. The word "himself" is a preposition, not an object. In old english, the preposition was implied. For example, "I will make myself a bowl of soup", means "I will make for myself a bowl of soup". It DOES NOT mean, "I will make myself into a bowl of soup". The useage of the word "for" in this verse is constistent with the Hebrew.
Genesis 24:47: The "old" KJV reads: "I put the earring upon her face". But the NKJV has different plans for beautiful Rebekah: "I put the nose ring on her nose". Where did it get the ridiculous idea to "cannibalize" Rebekah? Just take a peek at the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!
Where the KJV says "earring", the Hebrew word is nexem which means "nose ring". Where the KJV says "face", the word is aph which means "nostril", though in a different context it can refer to the whole face.
Ezra 8:36: The KJV reads, "And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants. . ." The "much clearer" NKJV reads, "And they delivered the king's orders to the king's satraps. . ." Who in the world thinks "satraps" is "much clearer" than lieutenants?
The Hebrew word here is achashdarpan which means means a persian governor. A Satrap is what a Persian governor is called today in English.
Psalms 109:6: removes "Satan". (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV).
Here, the Hebrew word satan does not contextually refer to the Devil, it refers to an adversary. The adversary here is the "wicked man" which is in the verse.
Matthew 7:14: change "narrow is the way" to "difficult is the way". There's nothing "difficult" about the salvation of Jesus Christ! Jesus says in Matt. 11:30, "For my yoke is EASY, and my burden is light." THE EXACT OPPOSITE! Boy, you talk about a contradiction!
Yet another example of outdated old english. The greek word is thlibo which implies difficulty. In old English, one would describe a hardship as having one's efforts "narrowed". Today, narrow simply means with little width, but is associated with length.
Matthew 12:40: change "whale" to "fish" (ditto NIV) I don't guess it matters (what's the truth got to do with it?), the Greek word used in Matthew 12:40 is ketos. The scientific study of whales just happens to be - CETOLOGY - from the Greek ketos for whale and logos for study! The scientific name for whales just happens to be - CETACEANS - from the Greek ketos for whale!
The word ketos literally means "great fish". The root of the word "cetology" is the latin cetus, which means "whale", not the Greek ketos, which is completely different.
Matthew 18:26 & Matthew 20:20: The NKJV removes "worshipped him" (robbing worship from Jesus) (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)
The Greek word here is proskuneo which in other context can refer to worship, but here it referrs to the act of kneeling, or bowing, out of respect. The origin of proskuneo comes from the greek pros meaning "towards", and kuon meaning "dog" or "hound". It was used to describe the act of kissing, as a dog licking his master's hand. Sound wierd in English, but it made sense in Greek.
Terry_Herrington
New Member
The silence from the KJV only crowd is deafening.
Ernie Brazee
<img src ="/ernie.JPG">
Not going to wade through all the pages of nonsense posted her so if I repeat something already posted maybe God wanted it repeated.
Proof that the KJV is the pure word of God is fruit. Those who use and trust the KJV have a burniing desire to please God and live for him.
Which churches support and use the MVs? Are they separpated? Probably not, they call those who separate themselves unto God "legalist" and "pharisee." The MVs are dull and have no power. Like it or not they don't produce the fruit of the KJV.
Use what you like, those who want to truly please God will use the book he preserved.
In South Africa the Twsana speaking people have an MV bible, when a missionary found a Moffat bible in their language that was translated from the same text as the KJ they recognized the difference. They said of the Moffat translation "this book has power, our MV doesn't"
Think about it.
Hebrew 4:12For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Proof that the KJV is the pure word of God is fruit. Those who use and trust the KJV have a burniing desire to please God and live for him.
Which churches support and use the MVs? Are they separpated? Probably not, they call those who separate themselves unto God "legalist" and "pharisee." The MVs are dull and have no power. Like it or not they don't produce the fruit of the KJV.
Use what you like, those who want to truly please God will use the book he preserved.
In South Africa the Twsana speaking people have an MV bible, when a missionary found a Moffat bible in their language that was translated from the same text as the KJ they recognized the difference. They said of the Moffat translation "this book has power, our MV doesn't"
Think about it.
Hebrew 4:12For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
In my short ministry, I have seen far greater fruit since I switched to the NASB than there ever was with the KJV. The KJV only church I worked in was dead and lifeless. People didn't care about spiritual growth. They only cared about meeting the budget. Since I have switched MVs, there is a real desire for growth. We have people meeting weekly to pray together and quote their memory verses to each other. We have people reading and studying and asking questions and searching. They are sharing the gospel with others and bringing their friends to church. I never saw that in the KJOnly church I was in.
But the facts prove your wrong. Our church is separated, probably as much if not more than yours is. Our church is growing and people are responding, not to a version, but to God's word faithfully preached.
We want to please God and so we use the book he preserved.
Finally a verse (after three anecdotal paragraphs that weren't even true. However, this verse does not identify the KJV as the only sword.
And that was the point of this thread: From your Bible, show us a place where God said that the KJV is the only word of God. So far we have seen lots of opinions of men (and women), but not one of your side has yet to show us where God said this. Why?
RaptureReady
New Member
Really!? The King James Bible believing church that I attend does what you mentioned and we don't use the MVs. Curious, instead of switching bibles, why not churches?
I know of MV churches that have good fruit and souls are being saved, but they will never have the power and convictions that a KJB church has.
This can go both ways. Do you need a verse that tells you smoking and drinking is wrong? No. Hopefully common sense tells you this.
Question: Is there one bible today that is God's word?
Ya know, it took me quite a bit of effort and bible study to post my previous list, and the fact that you would dismiss my valid research by referring to it as nonsense is rather insulting.
You say that the KJV is the only preserved word of God because of its fruit. I could easily argue that even rotten fruit produces healthy compost.
Now, I don't think that the KJV is rotten, but I do think it imperfect, and my previous post is evident as to why it is so. There is no perfect translation. There are, however, good, though imperfect, translations. The differences between Greek/Hebrew and English make a perfect translations impossible.
Because my point was not about the church itself but about the false connection between a healthy church and a particular version. The problem was not the version in that church. And it is possible to have a healthy vibrant church using a modern version of God's word.
I switched both churches and versions, for good reasons. I left the church to go back to seminary. There I attended a church that used the NASB. I carried my original language texts most of the time though when I didn't I carried the KJV. I always like to carry something different than what is being preached out of. When I became the pastor, I started from the beginning preaching from the NASB because of the accuracy and clarity of text. I found myself able to spend much more time in application because I did not have to spend as much time in clarification of the words and sentence structure.
By what authority do you say this?? This is the type of argument that sounds real good but when you think about it, it is a useless argument because it cannot be proven. A faithful MV will probably have more fruit simply by virtue of using a Bible that is in the common language.
But my pulpit will not preach "common sense." We have a higher authority. And my doctrine is not "common sense." It is very uncommon. That is why it is foolishness to the world. The arguments that have been made here by you and others is that using MVs is wrong, satanic, perverted, etc. Your side has said that the KJV is the only word of God. Our question remains: Where did God say that??
We have no higher authority than Scripture. We will do what God says and we will preach what God says to preach. Therefore I ask you, Where does God say this? If he says it, I desire to be bound by it. If he does not say it, I do not see any way that you can hold it up as doctrine not to be deviated from.
Yes, in fact there are more than one. The KJV is a fine choice, though the language is a little outdated and the sentence structure is very awkward. The NASB is a very good modern translation, though still a bit stiff. The NIV, ESV, and NKJV are likewise good translation. Any one of these Bibles is available today and is God's word.
We have been saying this from day one. Our position has not changed. We have used Scripture and history to back it up.
RaptureReady
New Member
I understand why you are asking for a verse. Obviously there is not verse that says the King James Bible is God's Holy word. Nor does it say that the MVs are His Holy word. Nor does it say that we will have a book with 66 books compiled inside, written by men of God, lead by the Holy Spirit.
BTW, ever bible out there say things differently. Therefore, there must be a final authority. I believe that bible is the King James Bible. How can you pick and choose which verse is correct when reading the MVs. To me, that seems confusing and we all know who the author of confusing is.
BTW, ever bible out there say things differently. Therefore, there must be a final authority. I believe that bible is the King James Bible. How can you pick and choose which verse is correct when reading the MVs. To me, that seems confusing and we all know who the author of confusing is.