Some Help; Maybe!?

[KEVO]

ACTS 4:25 EXPLAINS ITSSELF.THE KJV IS RIGHT AND THE NIV IS WRONG.BRIAN I HAVE SOMETHING ON THE NIV YOU MIGTH BE INTERSTED IN.STAY TUNED.BRIAN IF YOU DON'T DO ANYTHING ELSE DO A STUDY ON WESCOTT AND HORT.THAT IS WHERE YOUR NIV CAME FROM.

 

[KEVO]

DEAR PASTOR LARRY,
AT LEAST WE AGREE ON ON THING BROTHER,THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.I DON'T MEAN TO SOUND LIKE A SMART BUTT.I HAVE READ MORE THAN A COUPLE OF BOOKS.I ATTEND BIBLE COLLEGE.I LOVE THE LORD.I KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT CONCERNING THIS MATTER,I JUST HAVE A HARD TIME PUTTING IT INTO WORDS SOMETIMES.THERE IS SO MUCH I WANT TO SHOW YOU AND THE OTHERS ON THIS SUBJECT THAT I JUST MESS EVERYTHING UP SOMETIMES.PASTOR I WOULD LIKE TO SEND YOU SOMETHING TO READ IF YOU WOULD LIKE.IT IS CALLED "LET'S WEIGH TGE EVIDENCE".IF YOU WILL EMAIL ME I WILL SEND IT TO YOU.I WILL ALSO BE GLAD TO READ ANYTHING YOU HAVE ON THE SUBJECT.

 

[KEVO]

PASTOR LARRY,
SORRY ABOUT THAT.I MESSED UP.I HAVE ONLY BEEN ON BAPTIST BOARD ABOUT 2 DAYS.
WHEN I FIRST GOT SAVED I WOULD ASK A LOT OF QUESTIONS ON DIFFERENT SUBJECTS LIKE TONGUES,WOMEN PREACHERS,ETERNAL SECURITY,WHICH VERSION,ECT. IT SEEMED LIKE I NEVER GOT A STRAIGHT ANSWER ON ANYTHING.I SAID THEN I AM GOING TO START STUDYING AND ASKING GOD TO SHOW ME THE TRUTH.THAT WAS EIGHT YEARS AGO.I STUDIED AND GOD SHOWED ME THE TRUTH.I NEVER RELY TOTALY ON WHAT A MAN SAYS.MAN WILL LET YOU DOWN.GOD WAN'T.SO I PROMIS YOU I AM STUDIED UP AND PRAYED UP ON THE MATTER.I KNOW IT MAY NOT SEEM LIKE IT BY THE THINGS THAT I WRITE ON THESE POST,IT JUST DON'T COME OUT THE WAY I WANT IT TO SOMETIMES.
KEVIN

 

[Pastor Larry]

Kevo,

While I appreciate your professed love for the truth, I seriously doubt whether you have studied the issue. Your recommendation of Burton's book, "Let's Weigh the Evidence" is further proof to me of the unsound basis for your position. I have Burton's book on my bookshelf. I could go through page after page and show you outright untruths, misrepresentations, bad handling of the evidence, bad argumentation and logic ... and in doing all that I have not yet even begun to address the biblical teaching about inspiration. That book, and others like it, have either no regard for the biblical teaching and its implications or no understanding of it. Either way, it is simply bad information. I would like to think Burton is simply ill-informed. However, by assuming the place of a teacher he is now influencing others with his misunderstanding and that is most unfortunate both for him (James 3:1) as well as those who hear him.

You say that you don't rely on man. Yet you cite Burton and no doubt cite others. You appeal to your Bible college where men are the ones teaching you. You say that you believe what the Bible teaches. But nowhere does the Bible assert the perfection or exclusivity of the KJV. You say that you prayed and asked God to show you. Yet many others have prayed and asked God to show them who have reached an entirely different conclusion. There are a number of people here who are willing to give you straight answers on these subjects from both Scripture and the factual evidence.

There are a number of good resources available that you should get ahold of. James White's The King James Only Controversy, Central Seminary's One Bible Only?, are two that I would recommend beginning with. These lay out the issues in a good way that is easy to understand while explaining the issues thoroughly enough to be able to inform the reader adequately.

Lastly, may we ask you again to quit using all capital letters when you post. It is very difficult to read and is generally considered to be in bad taste on the internet.

[ March 25, 2002, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by KEVO:
IF YOU WOULD TAKE ABOUT 6 MONTHS AND STUDY WHERE THE KJV CAME FROM AND WHERE THE OTHER VERSIONS CAME FROM YOU TO WOULD BE KJV ONLY.

I've been seriously studying KJV-onlyism and other translation information for about 6 years. Oh, that's my mistake. I've studied it too long.

ACTS 4:25 EXPLAINS ITSSELF. THE KJV IS RIGHT AND THE NIV IS WRONG.

Thanks for the thorough explanation. Very convincing.

BRIAN IF YOU DON'T DO ANYTHING ELSE DO A STUDY ON WESCOTT AND HORT.

I have studied them. I have also studied Erasmus and the KJV translators as well. Shall we discuss them?

 

[DocCas]

TYPING IN ALL CAPS. Kevo, you were asked, very politely, not to type in all caps. Now you are being told, don't type in all caps! All posts in ALL CAPS will be deleted. I will be gone most of today so you have some time to go back and edit your posts into a proper format.

Thomas Cassidy
Bible Versions/Translations Forum Moderator
Baptist Board Administrator

 

[tyndale1946]

KEVO said

HEY BRIAN, IT'S NOT JUST WHAT SOUNDS GOOD TO ME.IF YOU WOULD TAKE ABOUT 6 MONTHS AND STUDY WHERE THE KJV CAME FROM AND WHERE THE OTHER VERSIONS CAME FROM YOU TO WOULD BE KJV ONLY.I WILL BE POSTING MORE STUFF LATER.
KEVIN

I've been studying the KJV for 20 years or more and as far as I'm concerned it is the only Bible for me. I can't speak for others who read their various versions. I have compared them to the KJV and never would read another version.

To say anything less it to say God didn't perserve his word for his english speaking people. I won't argue the point as it brings no honor to God as I can see it! No mater what version of the Bible you are reading it is not the written word but the Living Word that is responsible for Eternal Salvation.

I tell you a little about the name I chose if you know your translation history of the KJV.

WILLIAM TYNDALE
1494 - 1536
Bible translator and reformer, Tyndale was ordained as a priest in 1521, having studied Greek diligently at Oxford and Cambridge universities Following his studies he joined Sir John Walsh's household, with duties not easy to define. Some accounts describe him as a tutor to Sir John's children; some make him chaplain to the household; while another suggests he acted as secretary to Sir John.

One day Tyndale was engaged in a discussion with a learned man who told him it was better to be without God's law than that of the Pope. To this Tyndale retorted that he defied the Pope and all his laws, adding that if God were to spare his life, before many years passed he would cause a boy who drove the plough to know more of the Scriptures than this learned man. Tyndale had found his vocation: translation of the Bible into English.

Tyndale conferred with Luther in Germany and stayed on the continent translating the Bible from Greek into English. The printing of the translation was begun at Cologne in 1525, but was stopped by an injunction obtained by Johann Dobeneck, a vain and conceited man who hated the Reformation and opposed it in every possible way. Tyndale fled to Worms, where the book was printed. Copies were smuggled into England, where Archbishop Warham and Bishop Tonstall ordered them seized and burned.

Eventually Tyndale was betrayed by a friend and arrested in Brussels, Belgium. Despite the efforts of Thomas Cromwell and others to save him, he was tried for treason and heresy against the Church. He was condemned, degraded from holy orders, strangled, and his body burned. His last words were a prayer, "Lord, open the king of England's eyes."

Tyndale's influence upon English literature was great, chiefly through the use made of his renderings in the King James Version of the Bible (1611). It is estimated that 60 percent of this translation is derived from that of Tyndale.


I would like anyone here to name another translation that was the answer from God to a dying martrys prayer? I also read the history and background of all the translators who were chosen by King James and inspired by God. KEVO I believe in the KJV without question and will not argue the issue with those who do not. To me it is dishonoring to God and puts brother against brother. You want to email me personally we will talk about the KJV the Bible I have always loved without question!... Brother Glen

 

[tyndale1946]

Pastor Larry said

I am very familiar with the KJV and believe that it is an excellent translation. I do not overlook its flaws or exalt it to a position that denies the biblical doctrine of Scripture.

I will leave this one thought with you: "If God did not preserve his Word... Which I believe is the KJV the inspired Word of God! Then God never preserved his church!... Which I believe without question he did on both points.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Thats the KJV and thats my Bible... Brother Glen

[ March 25, 2002, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

[BrianT]

tyndale1946, the issue is not about whether God preserved his word or not. We all believe he did. The issue is *how* that preservation took place. This is one of the biggest hurdles for KJV-only supporters to understand. Perhaps this question will help make my point: Was the word of God "preserved" 10 years before the KJV? Explain how, and how it would not conflict with KJV-onlyism.

 

[tyndale1946]

The preserved word of God before the KJV was preserved by his people down through the ages. The question for you is do you believe they were preserved on leather skins or paper? You need to visit Baptist History and learn about your people. Then you will find out how God preserved his Word down through the ages. Have you ever studied Baptist History? You ever read Foxes Book Of Martyrs? Have you ever read the story behind the translation of the KJV? What about the people God selected from among men to preserve his Word down through the ages. Ever heard of a people named the Waldenses? How about the Lollards? What about the Piedmonts? How about the Hugganots? Not to forget the Anabaptist? These were Gods people down through the ages that preserved his Word. Before anyone attacks the KJV as God needed to change what he preserved to an english speaking people, can anyone tell me if the english language has changed? Before anyone says that thee, thou, thine and, mine are old english and Shakespearian let me remind you that Shakespear borrowed his english from the King James Bible and people of that time talked like you and I... Brother Glen

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
I will leave this one thought with you: "If God did not preserve his Word... Which I believe is the KJV the inspired Word of God! Then God never preserved his church!... Which I believe without question he did on both points.

Then we agree becuase I believe he did also.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

These verses are also found in the NASB, NIV, NKJV, and host of other translations. It proves nothing with regard to the exclusivity of the KJV.

As Brian said, the issue is not "Did God preserve his word?" We all agree that he did. The issue is "How did he preserve it?"

Kevo, I think Brian's point is that the KJV omits the Holy Spirit in Acts 4:25. If we were to argue as your side does, we would say that the KJV denies the work of the Spirit in revelation and inspiration. It deleted the name of the Holy Spirit. Of course, that would be bad argumentation from us ... just like it is from your side about other verses.

 

[Ransom]

KEVO said:

A SUBTLE SATANIC ATTACK AT THE VIRGIN BIRTH.

Sir, how dare you call the Word of God "satanic."

 

[Ransom]

Originally posted by KEVO:

If you would take about 6 months and study where the KJV came from and where the other versions came from you to would be KJV only. [de-capped for clarity]

Yes, perhaps if I took a whopping 6 months to study the issue I might be KJV-only.

But you did say you have been a believer since 1994, correct? In that case, I have been studying the Bible versions issue for two years longer than you have been a believer in Christ.

In other words, after studying the issue 20 times longer than you recommend, I come to the opposite conclusion.

[ March 25, 2002, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

[TomVols]

kevo,
Please stop typing in all caps. It is not allowed.
Also, do not call God's Word satanic. That is REALLY not allowed. I delete any post that refers to any version of God's Word as satanic.

Otherwise, join in.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
[QB]The preserved word of God before the KJV was preserved by his people down through the ages.

[/qb[]

Exactly my point ... the Word was there long before the KJV. And remember, almost half of church history apparently did not have the manuscript family from which the KJV was translated from.

I am familiar somewhat with all these groups you mention. That is not the point. Most if not all of these groups never had the KJV and none of them took the position that it was the "only word of God" in English. If you are going to appeal to them, I consider it only fair that you hold my position since they held my position ... or rather I hold the position they hold.

The English language clearly has changed. There is no dispute about that. There are places in the KJV were the word used currently has precisely the opposite meaning as it did in 1611. Therefore, to use it now would be to understand precisely the opposite meaning of what God intended. I suggest that God is no pleased when his word means something other than He did.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
The preserved word of God before the KJV was preserved by his people down through the ages.

Perhaps you misunderstand my question. Yes, I have studied history, I have read Foxe's, I have read about the translation of the KJV. I have heard about the groups you mention.

My question has to do with *how* that preservation took place. Is it a word-for-word prervation, where any change in any word is considered a corruption? This is what KJV-onlyism teaches. Yet what Bible, translated or used by any of these Godly men before the KJV, matched the KJV word for word?

You did not answer my original question: Was the word of God "preserved" 10 years before the KJV? Explain how, and how it would not conflict with KJV-onlyism. I agree God's word has been preserved, both before and after the KJV. But it has not been preserved in the way KJV-onlyism requires it to be.

Brian

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

Kevo, I think Brian's point is that the KJV omits the Holy Spirit in Acts 4:25. If we were to argue as your side does, we would say that the KJV denies the work of the Spirit in revelation and inspiration. It deleted the name of the Holy Spirit. Of course, that would be bad argumentation from us ... just like it is from your side about other verses.

Yes, that is *exactly* my point. Thanks Pastor Larry.

 

[KEVO]

[Name calling edited] Tell me this,when I hold that kjv1611 in my hand I know I am holding the word of God in my hand,If you don't believe that it is the word of God,where is it!!Bro.Glen, thanks for helping me out.

[First and last warning. If you call anyone on this forum a name again you will be banned. Period.]

[ March 26, 2002, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by KEVO:
Tell me this,when I hold that kjv1611 in my hand I know I am holding the word of God in my hand,If you don't believe that it is the word of God,where is it!!Bro.Glen, thanks for helping me out.

First, as has been pointed out several times, it is unlikely that you own a kjv1611 and even less likely that you read one.

Second, no one here has ever said that the KJV is not the Word of God. Your lack of understanding about what the Word of God is and is not does not give you a license to falsely accuse others.

Third, what you say the Word of God was before 1611 is a very pertinent. As a KJVOnly, you have the burden of proof to show that there was a perfect equivalent to it down through the ages. Since there was not, you are left with this dilemna: either a) the Word of God didn't exist before 1611 or b) that it is possible to have different word usage and still have the Word of God.

If "b" then to show that the NASB, NIV, NKJV, etc. are not the Word of God, you must do it without comparing it to the KJV. If "a" then you reject your own premise which is that God preserved His Word.

Fourth, for you and Bro. Glen, what was the Word of God before the printing press? The evidence that we have (5000+ Gr. mss, 10,000+ ancient versions, 10000+ witnesses) suggests that all of the ancient handwritten Bibles differed from one another. Some changed word order. Some left words out. Some added words. Some left out entire passages. Some left out books. Some included apocryphal books. What was the preserved Word of God for these people? If only one set of words can be called God's Word, what about the Christians before Guttenburg?

We sometimes forget how unique we are in the history of Christianity. For more than 3/4 of church history, the average Christian could not own a personal Bible. For many hundreds of years, a person had little opportunity to read the Bible for themselves unless they knew Latin. The Bibles that existed were very expensive. Those Christians were satisfied to meet daily to hear the Bible read and taught...even with the possible flaws.

I wonder how many of them accused others of having a "perversion" or "Satan's Bible" because it didn't match theirs word for word.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

yes, the leaders of KJBOism have left a bad example in this claiming that theirs is the 1611.

in the so-called DEFINED King James Bible, the frontispiece claims it to be "The Authorized King James Bible: Unaltered, Large Print, with Uncommon Words Defined." full review at http://www.post1.com/home/amarillo/revDKJB.htm

yet the editor of that Bible elsewhere claims that there are no fewer than 136 SUBSTANTIAL changes between the 1611 and the 1769 revision.

Originally posted by Scott J:
[QB]First, as has been pointed out several times, it is unlikely that you own a kjv1611 and even less likely that you read one.