Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
If you wish, you may reply to me via PM, but I am very interested in how you can ascribe ungodliness to Gold City.
-
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
Where did God say this? That is what we are after. We know what your opinion is; we want to know where God said this since our final authority is the word of God.
Yes. I have a couple of copies on my computer. Is there something in particular you wanted to know from it?
Your knowledge is incomplete, no offense intended. There have been word additions and deletions, changes in words themselves, that cannot be explained by spelling errors. FHS Scrivener (of 1894 TR fame) has documented a number of these changes.
In addition, the existence of spelling errors in and of itself undermines the claim of a perfect Bible. Things with errors cannot be perfect, no matter how inconsequential the error. Why would a God who preserved his word perfectly during 1500 years of hand copying fail to get it right on the printing press?
No. The KJVOnly church I was in was beginning to push for CCM which is one reason I left. Since then, they have gone much further down that road with their KJV. My NASB church will not go that route.
If you wish, you may reply to me via PM, but I am very interested in how you can ascribe ungodliness to Gold City. </font>[/QUOTE]By the Rock-a-billy rhythm of their music and their showman antics. They are not alone. Much of SGM has become to country music what CCM is to pop.
I grew up with SGM and saw first hand some of the singer's lifestyles. Many were godly, many others weren't any better than the ungodly CCM artists you can name. Even the good ones I know consider themselves entertainers first. I know one guy personally who used their 'gigs' to cheat on his wife. He eventually left his wife and two young kids for the woman and began drinking. If I am not mistaken, he recently re-joined the same group he had been with before his adultery.
Are you going to answer my questions about "the" word of God in 1605, and why the Peshitta and Old Latin and ALL "Antiochian" manuscripts differ from the KJV? I find this entirely confusing - who is the author of this confusion?
Yes, I even have a couple copies. I also have an English translation of the Peshitta, as well as the Peshitta in Aramic.
http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/revision.htm - now you know of some.
No, I don't. Back to the topic, please.
RaptureReady
New Member
How do I get a copy online? This is a copy of the original MSS's right?
BTW, thanks to all for responding to my personal study question.
How do I get a copy online? This is a copy of the original MSS's right?
</font>[/QUOTE]It is online, but I'll have to search for it - maybe someone else knows offhand where to get it. I use a book, personally. Or Blueletterbible.org if I just want a quick look.
But you have to keep in mind something very important: the "TR" is just a generic name given to a *range* of Green New Testaments, each of which is slightly different. Erasmus produced the first few in the 1500s. Others adjusted and produced their own editions later, like Beza and Stephanus. And perhaps most interesting, the edition of the TR that is "under" the KJV *did not exist* when the KJV was translated, but was created *after* the KJV to give us an edition of what the KJV's TR *would have been* - in other words, the KJV's TR was created by taking other TR's and adjusting them to more closely match the KJV. But *none* of them, even the later-produced "TR under the KJV", match 100% with the KJV.
Which I find confusing. Who authored this confusion?
Not by a wide margin. The text that eventually became known as the TR was originally collated by Desiderus Erasmus from less than a dozen Greek mss that were all incomplete. Only one had Revelation and it lacked the last leaf (7 verses or so). Erasmus' first text and all editions of the TR were new creations that are not identical to any transmitted copy of the NT.
The uninterrupted string of perfectly worded mss that KJVOnlyism demands never existed and did not culminate in the TR.
I think you are the one that cited Sam Gipp. Gipp is in a position to know that what he wrote is untrue. He knows that the variants within the Antiochian text family are significant. In fact, there is probably more variation within that family than there is between the TR and the various CT's when you consider that some of the transmitted mss lack whole passages and even books.
For instance, there is no majority reading for the end of Mark. Many KJVO's get indignant over MV margin notes that declare that there is a question about the ending of Mark. The fact is that it is dishonest to pretend that one ending or another is absolutely certain.
I have no idea.
No, it's not. The TR was a Greek text compiled originally by Erasmus in the early 1500s. He had at his disposal about 8 manuscripts that he used to decide between various readings. He compared these manuscripts and then he selected the ones that he thought were authentic. He had no manuscript that contained Revelation; he had only a commentary with the text imbedded in the comments. He "extracted" the text of Revelation. This commentary also did not contain the last 6 verses so he backtranslated them from Latin (most likely) and thus the last 6 verses of Revelation in the TR did (and does to this day) contain about a dozen clear errors that have no Greek text support.
Erasmus TR went through 4 revisions, as he refined "God's Word." Each of these revisions were places where Erasmus, for one reason or another, decided on a different reading. Interestingly, his first few editions did not contain 1 John 5:7 because, as Erasmus himself put it in Annotationes, he could find no Greek support for it. There was only Latin/versional support. However, he made a deal that if Greek support could be found, he would include it. Eventually someone produced a Greek manuscript containing it in the margin (in a hand that shows it was clearly added). Erasmus, true to his word, added it in. That is the only reason there is a discussion about it today.
Stephanus in 1554, after the death of Erasmus I believe, edited the TR yet again and most believe it was this text that was the basis for the translation of the KJV but it is not positive. The KJV has things in it that these TRs do not have. Scrivener's 1894 TR is a TR that was edited to look like the KJV. It is the TR that most use today.
So in short, the TR is not a copy of the original manuscripts. In most people's estimation, it is not even a good text. There are too many problems with it. Either the majority text (either RP of HF) or the eclectic is a far better choice.
www.e-sword.net
One of the download options for e-sword is
the 1894 Scrivener's TR.
BTW...there is also a King James Concordance/dictionary and a few other items (MKJV, LITV) that you may find
helpful.
-kman
RaptureReady
New Member
I'm sorry that you think this. How do you choose from the many bibles out there? Which one do you bring to church to follow the preacher.
HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU ARE SAVED WITHOUT BELIEVING IN GOD'S WORD. </font>[/QUOTE]I was PM'd by NKJV The Word of God, and he was concerned that I may have been disceptive in quoting only one of his post, which is the above quote. I am sorry if it came across to you that way. I was not trying to be disceptive.
Let me post your quote that appeared immediately after the one above and also my reply to it as well.
I'm sorry that you think this. How do you choose from the many bibles out there? Which one do you bring to church to follow the preacher.
HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU ARE SAVED WITHOUT BELIEVING IN GOD'S WORD.
Terry_Herrington
New Member
I try to bring the version that the preacher will be preaching out of. Ususlly it is the KJV.
HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU ARE SAVED WITHOUT BELIEVING IN GOD'S WORD.
I DO believe in the Word of God. English versions are nothing more than a translation of the Word of God into English.
Because of the differences between Greek/Hebrew and English, there's no such thing as a perfect English translation. Add to that, one cannot discount that the Old English verbage of the KJV has evolved greatly since the 1600's, and many phrases that are in the KJV do not mean the same thing in comtemporary English as they did in Old English.
I DO believe in the Word of God. English versions are nothing more than a translation of the Word of God into English.
Because of the differences between Greek/Hebrew and English, there's no such thing as a perfect English translation. Add to that, one cannot discount that the Old English verbage of the KJV has evolved greatly since the 1600's, and many phrases that are in the KJV do not mean the same thing in comtemporary English as they did in Old English.
RaptureReady
New Member
What do you believe in the word of God?
Can I have a verse please of the phrases you are speaking of?
How about 2 Thess 2:7 for starters. "Let" today means "allow." In 1611 it meant exactly the opposite, "restrain." Thus, the KJV gives the exact opposite idea of what the Holy Spirit intended you to understand. The MVs have the proper reading with "restrain" (NASB, ESV, NKJV) or "holds it back" (NIV).
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
</font>[/QUOTE]If these were the only two options, then I would agree with the author. But to represent these as the only two options is simply, IMO, intellecutally misleading, perhaps even dishonest. I suspect that this author has been around enough to know that the word of God has not been tampered with in good modern versions. So there is no reason to present this false dichotomy.
When words have changed meaning, then the words should be changed. Why not? Why continue with a misleading translation when there are better options available?
Ernie Brazee
<img src ="/ernie.JPG">
There is only one verse that is appropriate here:
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
God gave us his word in English, man has given us the MVs which are the source of confusion, justfollow this thread. No one can agree on the truth, each version gives us a little diferent slant on what man "thinks" God said.
Thank you, but I'll stick with the KJV and be satiafied with the truth found there. As for the MVs, you are free to choose what you will. I wouldnt think of chngeing your opinion. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. Sadly many ignore the Holy Spirit and cling to man's truth.
Have a good day!
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
God gave us his word in English, man has given us the MVs which are the source of confusion, justfollow this thread. No one can agree on the truth, each version gives us a little diferent slant on what man "thinks" God said.
Thank you, but I'll stick with the KJV and be satiafied with the truth found there. As for the MVs, you are free to choose what you will. I wouldnt think of chngeing your opinion. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. Sadly many ignore the Holy Spirit and cling to man's truth.
Have a good day!
The KJV was the 17th English Bible. If you lived in 1611, or even 1511, your personal confusion at the various versions would still exist.Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
There is only one verse that is appropriate here:
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
God gave us his word in English, man has given us the MVs which are the source of confusion, justfollow this thread. No one can agree on the truth, each version gives us a little diferent slant on what man "thinks" God said.
Thank you, but I'll stick with the KJV and be satiafied with the truth found there. As for the MVs, you are free to choose what you will. I wouldnt think of chngeing your opinion. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. Sadly many ignore the Holy Spirit and cling to man's truth.
Have a good day!
Maybe, just maybe, you are misapplying the verse???