Sola Scriptura & the modern versions

[jbh28]

Hi Stilllearning, I hope you are willing to learn. I'm going to ignore the fact that this verse has nothing to do with Bible preservation because it is taught very clearly in other parts of the Bible.

Wrong. It has lots of Scriptural support;
Here is one example.........
Psalms 12:6-7
V.6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
V.7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Please share with me where it has anything to do with the KJV here.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Reminder - we will not allow anyone to attack good English translations of God's Word. You attack the NIV, ESV, ASV or the AV1611 and the hammer will come down. Feel free to attack fake "translations" that cults produce - like the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.

Speaking of "cults", we also do not allow the word "Cult" to be used as a perjorative (unless speaking of an actual "cult" like Moonies or Mormons). If someone holds to the teaching of "onlyism", it is a "sect" of fundamentalism that I persnally am glad to see dying off. But it is not a "cult" per se, and most of its members might truly be born again.

Careful with wording.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi James, nice to hear from you.

First you said..........

1. The original autographs are God-breathed. No originals are known to exist. Yet, the Word of God abides forever--preserved by The Holy Spirit in the pillar and ground of The Truth(not the holy see).

I agree; If “the pillar and ground of The Truth”, that you referred to, is the one from 1Timothy 3:15.
The Word of God, has been Supernaturally preserved, by “the Church”.
-----------------------------------
Then.......

2. There are hundreds of copies from various time periods. Some are more consistent than others.

I agree:
----------------------------------
Then.......

3. Translations are not inspired. They have the biases of the translators and their behestors;

I strongly disagree, because if this was true, than #1 & #2, couldn’t be true.

You continued with some of the same old misinformation that can be found all over the internet, aimed at the KJB, but ends up simply attacking God’s Word.
---------------------------------
Then.......

4. All things considered, the Geneva Bible, from which the KJV seems to have been derived, is among the best. Some say there was a church of 37 souls on the Mayflower, 1620, Plymouth Rock--they used the Geneva.

I have heard that also.
---------------------------------
Then.......

5. There are two streams of copies out there. One of them is seriously corrupted. The holy see was not the only one with copies of scripture. Praise the Lord, He has preserved the Received Text.

I fully agree. But if you feel this way, than why have you been badmouthing the one Bible, translated from the Received Text?!?
---------------------------------
Then.......

6. Understanding the scripture is kind of like what Jesus told Nicodemus: You must be born again. Nicodemus had no spiritual discernment; yet he was a Master(Doctor of Divineness) of Israel.

I agree, and so does 1 Corinthians 2:14
But what does that have to do with the subject at hand.
-----------------------------------
Then.......

7. We have no excuse for not knowing what God said.

I agree.
-----------------------------------
Then.......

8. The traditions of man always lead to the ditch--The Word of God is the lamp for the feet to trod the straight and narrow.

I fully agree.
-----------------------------------
Lastly.......

9. Sola scriptura was in effect long before Martin Luther was born.

Of course.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Hi Stilllearning, I hope you are willing to learn. I'm going to ignore the fact that this verse has nothing to do with Bible preservation because it is taught very clearly in other parts of the Bible.




Please share with me where it has anything to do with the KJV here.

Don't expect an answer. Deceit has no answers in the face of truth.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello jbh28

I don’t know what Mexdeaf’s problem is, but I wish people would stop calling me a liar.

As for your question..........

“Please share with me where it has anything to do with the KJV here.”

For me, the whole issue of being KJVO, is believing that God has kept His Word, by preserving His Word for us.
And Psalms 12:6-7, is one of many Scriptures, where God has given us this promise.

I know that some people, want to slat or twist this passage, to make it mean something else(by ignoring it’s context in this chapter), but that is their problem not mine.
--------------------------------------------------
You said....

“I hope you are willing to learn”

Yes I am, but there are some things, that every Christian must be dogmatic about.

For instance, is someone was going to try to convince us, that Jesus wasn’t really God in the flesh; Those of us with any sense would not give our ear to them.
We might be accused of not having a teachable spirit, but God’s Word warns us not to give our ear to false teaching.

In the same way, if someone tries to convince us, that God’s Word has been lost, and that we need to wait for scholars, to possibly find some undiscovered manuscript, before we can “know for sure” that we have God’s Word, than we should not listen to their argument; Because it is based on a false premise; “That God’s Word has been lost”.

There are even some who say, that “a translation” can not be inspired; When Jesus Himself, read and quoted from a translation(the LXX).

Bob has said, that KJVOism, is “dying out”; I agree.
It is dying out, at the same pace that the Church is sliding away from the Faith.

Therefore Jesus said........
Luke 18:8
“I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?”

When Jesus returns, He will be hard pressed to find any faith, on the earth;
Even in Church!

 

[annsni]

Hello jbh28

I don’t know what Mexdeaf’s problem is, but I wish people would stop calling me a liar.

As for your question..........


For me, the whole issue of being KJVO, is believing that God has kept His Word, by preserving His Word for us.

I'm sorry but you are quite inconsistent. God has kept His Word and preserved His Word for us - but stopped doing so in 1611? So then you do not believe that God can preserve His Word for us because the language of the 1611 is no longer the language we speak today.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Hello jbh28

I don’t know what Mexdeaf’s problem is, but I wish people would stop calling me a liar.

My problem is that misapplication of Scripture is deceit. There's no way around that. Psalm 12:6,7 is not referring to ANY translation, much less the KJV.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi annsni

You said.......

“I'm sorry but you are quite inconsistent. God has kept His Word and preserved His Word for us - but stopped doing so in 1611? So then you do not believe that God can preserve His Word for us because the language of the 1611 is no longer the language we speak today.”

No, He didn’t stop in 1611. He will never stop.
But it seems as though, you are defining the word “preserve” differently than I am.

Preserve:
1.To maintain in safety from injury, peril, or harm; protect.
2.To keep in perfect or unaltered condition; maintain unchanged.
3.To keep or maintain intact: tried to preserve family harmony.
See Synonyms at defend

God’s Word was preserved and is still being preserved!
--------------------------------------------------
Now I can guess what you are going to say next......
“Being preserved means, that as language changes, Bible translations must also change to keep up with those changes.”

Normally I would agree; But we are living in some extraordinary times.
Today, using the excuse of “updating the Bible”, publishers end up removing parts of it.

Therefore forcing Christians like me, to use a Bible that was published 242 years ago.
I don’t really like using such an old Bible, but there is no other way that I can have the whole thing intact!

What makes it even worse, is millions of my fellow Christians, criticize me for even expecting to have a complete Bible, and say “no translation is perfect”!
Then they say, “the missing parts, don’t change any major doctrine, so don’t worry about it”.
--------------------------------------------------
I am not going to trust my faint, to anyone else;
Therefore I want a complete Bible.

 

[annsni]

Hi annsni

You said.......


No, He didn’t stop in 1611. He will never stop.
But it seems as though, you are defining the word “preserve” differently than I am.

Preserve:
1.To maintain in safety from injury, peril, or harm; protect.
2.To keep in perfect or unaltered condition; maintain unchanged.
3.To keep or maintain intact: tried to preserve family harmony.
See Synonyms at defend

God’s Word was preserved and is still being preserved!
--------------------------------------------------
Now I can guess what you are going to say next......
“Being preserved means, that as language changes, Bible translations must also change to keep up with those changes.”

Normally I would agree; But we are living in some extraordinary times.
Today, using the excuse of “updating the Bible”, publishers end up removing parts of it.

Can you show me where the publishers are removing parts of the Bible? I've not seen that. Yes, I've seen some verses put into the margins or footnotes because they have not been found in early manuscripts. That means that it's not the publishers who are removing the verses but instead these verses were added later on. If the manuscript evidence showed that the verse was in fact there without a doubt and it was not put in the Bible then yes, I'd agree that the publishers were removing parts of it.

Therefore forcing Christians like me, to use a Bible that was published 242 years ago.
I don’t really like using such an old Bible, but there is no other way that I can have the whole thing intact!

See, you are using man's opinion on this matter. Yes, you can absolutely have the whole "thing" (I prefer to not use "thing" to describe the Bible but since you did, I will use your wording to answer you) in any good modern Bible.

What makes it even worse, is millions of my fellow Christians, criticize me for even expecting to have a complete Bible, and say “no translation is perfect”!
Then they say, “the missing parts, don’t change any major doctrine, so don’t worry about it”.
--------------------------------------------------
I am not going to trust my faint, to anyone else;
Therefore I want a complete Bible.

You are completely trusting your "faint" [sic] to someone else - the translators of the KJV of the Bible. The KJV is no more complete than the NASB. You argue against the "opinions of man" but then you go running straight to the opinions of man for your beliefs.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Think the crux of the matter is, "Knowing the truth (about passages like (Ps 12) and still touting it as support for a translation 2500 years later is deceptive at best, intentionally lying at worst."

It is one this to err; it is another to willingly reject truth and try to make the Word of God and its precious truth apply to some man-made document totally unrelated to what the Word says.

Very sad.

 

[jbh28]

Hello jbh28

I don’t know what Mexdeaf’s problem is, but I wish people would stop calling me a liar.

As for your question..........


For me, the whole issue of being KJVO, is believing that God has kept His Word, by preserving His Word for us.
And Psalms 12:6-7, is one of many Scriptures, where God has given us this promise.

I know that some people, want to slat or twist this passage, to make it mean something else(by ignoring it’s context in this chapter), but that is their problem not mine.

Actually, looking at the context supports that it's not about preservation. It's only when you isolate verses 6 and 7 out of the context. However with that being said, the Bible does say that the Bible will be preserved.

Now here's the problem, nowhere in that passage does it even mention the KJV. The issue you have isn't about preservation but about applying something to your favorite translation. Preservation is a smoke screen. Was the Bible preserved before the KJV came out? Of course you must answer yes. Then the KJV cannot be the perfect preservation because it wasn't till 1611 and it doesn't match anything perfectly before 1611.

 

[Rippon]

Actually, looking at the context supports that it's not about preservation. It's only when you isolate verses 6 and 7 out of the context. However with that being said, the Bible does say that the Bible will be preserved.

Now here's the problem, nowhere in that passage does it even mention the KJV. The issue you have isn't about preservation but about applying something to your favorite translation. Preservation is a smoke screen. Was the Bible preserved before the KJV came out? Of course you must answer yes. Then the KJV cannot be the perfect preservation because it wasn't till 1611 and it doesn't match anything perfectly before 1611.

That's totally reasonable jbh,therefore it will be entirely unacceptable to sl.

 

[TCassidy]

I don’t know what Mexdeaf’s problem is, but I wish people would stop calling me a liar.

The best way to avoid being called a liar is to stop lying.

I know that some people, want to slat or twist this passage, to make it mean something else(by ignoring it’s context in this chapter), but that is their problem not mine.

That is exactly what you do. You twist the passage to make it refer to the preservation of the KJV and ignore the context of God preserving His people from those who would afflict them. Shame on you!

We might be accused of not having a teachable spirit, but God’s Word warns us not to give our ear to false teaching.

But that is exactly what you have done. You have given your ear to the false teaching of KJVOism.

In the same way, if someone tries to convince us, that God’s Word has been lost, and that we need to wait for scholars, to possibly find some undiscovered manuscript, before we can “know for sure” that we have God’s Word, than we should not listen to their argument; Because it is based on a false premise; “That God’s Word has been lost”.

Yes, you make a false accusation that we non-KJVOs believe that God's word has been lost when it has not been lost and we don't believe it has. This is another reason MexDeaf insinuated you are not entirely truthful.

There are even some who say, that “a translation” can not be inspired; When Jesus Himself, read and quoted from a translation(the LXX).

How do you know Jesus quoted from the the LXX? Can you give me an example of any NT quote uttered by the Lord that agrees word for word with the LXX?

 

[TomVols]

I am not picking a fight; I just can’t see how anyone can claim to be led by Sola Scriptura, and use more than one Bible.

Non-sequitur. It would be equally true to say how can someone hold your view and hold to Sola Scriptura. How can anyone deny the preservation of God's Word in other versions and claim Sola Scriptura?

Swing and a miss, friend.

 

[robycop3]

Hi robycop3

You said.......


So, how many Bible’s do you think there are?

One 'Bible', which is the body of all the ancient Scriptural manuscripts collectively, even if they're not all in one place. What mosta us use are TRANSLATIONS made from many of these mss.

You next presented me with three interesting questions.......


Probably no, to all three of these questions;
But it doesn’t matter, because I trust the LORD, to have kept His Word for me.

So do we Freedom Readers. But, unlike some people, we do NOT try to LIMIT GOD as to how He may present His own word to us, nor imply that He retired in 1611 & no longer superintends His word, keeping it before us in the languages HE has given us.

Then you said.......


I haven’t declared ANYTHING! I have just stated my opinion and presented the evidence that supports that opinion.

And that's EXACTLY what I meant when I say that KJVO is based upon GUESSWORK & OPINION, not FACTS. Sorry, Sir, but you haven't presented one quark of EVIDENCE supporting KJVO.

Next you make three erroneous statements....

Assuming there is such a thing as a “KJVO doctrine”, it is based upon facts.
(Some of which, have been stated in this very thread.)

No, they are TRUE statements. You even admit above that your belief in KJVO is your OPINION, but you CANNOT produce any EVIDENCE to support it. And I see NO rebuttal to the fact that the current edition of KJVO is derived from Dr. Wilkinson's book, expanded on by "J. J. Ray", Dr. D. O. Fuller, and others, using the power of modern media to spread their hooey. As for SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, you haven't provided one quark of Scripture that supports KJVO ny the slightest hint of the slightest implication.

Wrong. It has lots of Scriptural support;
Here is one example.........
Psalms 12:6-7
V.6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
V.7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

We have discussed the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" ad nauseam in other threads, and there's no use repeating all the evidence that shows V7 is about PEOPLE, as the AV translators themselves believed. Your use of this Scripture to support KJVO is wrong. After all, those verses are found in EVERY legitimate Bible translation, not just the KJV.

Everyone here believes that GOD has preserved His own word, so you are trying to put a kickstand on a horse by arguing for word preservation. But unlike you, we Freedom Readers know GOD has caused many translations of His word to have been made, and we don't try to LIMIT Him.

I can’t answer that, because I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Oh, but we think you DO, Sir. The "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" you mentioned above comes STRAIGHT FROM DR. WILKINSON'S BOOK! So, tell another prevarication before that one grows cold!

Then you said.......


No bunny trails here. Try looking at all the gymnastics involved in explaining why, every MV needs to be consulted, in a search for God’s Word.

No "gymnastix" from us Freedom Readers at all, Sir. YOU have the burden of trying to make us believe in a MAN-MADE DOCTRINE not found whatsoever in Scripture, and, wishing to avoid that FACT, try to invent excuses to justify believing it. You are only fooling YOURSELF. KJVO is simply NOT FROM GOD, and is simply NOT TRUE. Now, if you wishta use only the KJV, fine, but when you tell others that it's the ONLY valid English Bible translation, you are telling something that's simply NOT TRUE. If you are truly "still learning", it's about high time you learned that simple, stark FACT!