The Sound of Silence

[robycop3]

We've noticed that whenever we press the Onlyists for EVIDENCE to lend any veracity to their assertions in the versions issue, in any topic here, that topic quickly dries up, ending in a series of posts from anti-Onlyismists asking the Onlyists, "Where's the beef?" I'm assuming those KJVOs are Christians & Baptists & therefore don't want to tell a blatant lie, and so remain silent because thay cannot bring themselves to provide an honest answer which would be in opposition to their Onlyism doctrine. Any Onlyists care to discuss this?

On other boards, I've received such answers as, "It's beneath me to discuss such stuff", which translates to, "I am clueless". Another fave answer they have is, "We've posted our proof a hundred times", but, when asked for the post #s where they've supposedly posted their proof, I'm greeted with either"You know where", or, the "sound" of silence.

OK, I'll present one of your assertions and give you the chance to prove it right. In fact, I'll make it easy so any of you can check it out yourselves, right here on this board.

Some of you assert we anti-Onlyismists are anti-KJV, that we wish to toss it out of the Baptist faith, and even that we don't consider it a valid Bible version. Quite recently, Askjo said we were KJV-haters. My challenge-Find and paste any post on this board where any legit member has said that he/she hates the KJV or says it's not a valid BV. If you cannot do it, then please, as Christians, be honest and admit that assertion is wrong.

Please stick to the actual challenge and not paste sideshows such as, "I believe the NIV renders this verse better than does the KJV", or, "It's an Anglican Bible" or something similar. Please paste only those posts that match YOUR assertion, that we HATE the KJV, and/or consider it a bogus version.

And while you're at it, here's your chance to disprove an assertion by ME(and quite a few other non-Onlyists). I assert that the Geneva Bible is as valid an English Bible version as any other. Can you prove me wrong-by EVIDENCE, and not by rhetoric?

 

[skanwmatos]

Have you ever considered the possibility that the lack of response from the KJVO folks may be due to the "dog pile" mentality often exhibited by many anti-KJVO people?

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
Have you ever considered the possibility that the lack of response from the KJVO folks may be due to the "dog pile" mentality often exhibited by many anti-KJVO people?

Yes, I've considered both sides of the coin in my years of versions discussions because the truth from God is infinitely more important to me than "being right" in any debates with my fellow men. I have looked for signs that the KJVOs actually had some proof for their assertions, but they're simply not there. All I've EVER seen from them is guesswork and opinion, with not one scintilla of evidence, tangible, empirical, or circumstantial, to lend the slightest credence to their claims.

Now, I'm not talking about those who PREFER the KJV above any other version; I'm talking about those who claim to believe the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation. This has been clearly proven false, its origins clearly proven to have been man-made, and each and every one of this doctrine's points & arguments torpedoed.


I remain open to any proof they can provide, & I'm giving them a chance here to prove JUST ONE of their assertions, and to disprove one of ours.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

We've noticed that whenever we press the Onlyists for EVIDENCE to lend any veracity to their assertions in the versions issue, in any topic here, that topic quickly dries up, ending in a series of posts from anti-Onlyismists asking the Onlyists, "Where's the beef?"

You mean more like "where was the word of God in......" Just silly inmature rhetoric.

I'm assuming those KJVOs are Christians & Baptists & therefore don't want to tell a blatant lie, and so remain silent because thay cannot bring themselves to provide an honest answer which would be in opposition to their Onlyism doctrine. Any Onlyists care to discuss this?

Since when does being "Christians & Baptists" become a bullet-proof sheild for not lying???

On other boards, I've received such answers as, "It's beneath me to discuss such stuff", which translates to, "I am clueless".

No,it's a nice way of telling you what Proverbs 27:22 says so well..

". Another fave answer they have is, "We've posted our proof a hundred times", but, when asked for the post #s where they've supposedly posted their proof, I'm greeted with either"You know where", or, the "sound" of silence.

And they probaly did;your problem is,you reject it;just like you will reject any evedence in this thread,you are simply instigating an argument so you can inject your GMO/BAO baloney..

Some of you assert we anti-Onlyismists are anti-KJV, that we wish to toss it out of the Baptist faith, and even that we don't consider it a valid Bible version. Quite recently, Askjo said we were KJV-haters. My challenge-Find and paste any post on this board where any legit member has said that he/she hates the KJV or says it's not a valid BV. If you cannot do it, then please, as Christians, be honest and admit that assertion is wrong.

Most "closet" KJB haters are too much of a COWARD to ever admit they wish the KJB gone;which reminds me of an quote:"Cowadice is epidemic." Dont you think it is time to "come out?"

Please stick to the actual challenge

OK.The Bible(KJB) is silent concerning Alexandria as being associated with the word of God;Antioch,however,is;read Acts 13.The KJB comes from Antiochan manuscripts.Also,God bears witness to the things pertaining to Him,as per john 16:13;Proverbs 22:17-21;1st Corinthians 2:9-13.

And while you're at it, here's your chance to disprove an assertion by ME(and quite a few other non-Onlyists). I assert that the Geneva Bible is as valid an English Bible version as any other. Can you prove me wrong-by EVIDENCE, and not by rhetoric?

The Geneva Bible is the word of God;it comes from the same foundation the it's successor(the KJB)does;anything from 1881 does not have the same foundation,and therefore cannot be put in the same catagory.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
The Geneva Bible is the word of God;it comes from the same foundation the it's successor(the KJB)does;anything from 1881 does not have the same foundation,and therefore cannot be put in the same catagory.

Correct!

What foundation did these MVs have?

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

What foundation did these MVs have?

The non-Biblical Alexandrian foundation which is built on sand(Matt7:26).

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
The Bible(KJB) is silent concerning Alexandria as being associated with the word of God;Antioch,however,is;read Acts 13.The KJB comes from Antiochan manuscripts.Also,God bears witness to the things pertaining to Him,as per john 16:13;Proverbs 22:17-21;1st Corinthians 2:9-13.

I'm confused. Why does Antioch being mentioned mean that the only real texts are from Antioch? I can't find such an assertion made in Acts 13, no matter the version. Could you point it out?

Second, it seems to me that there are many, many Christians who believe that other versions of the Bible contain as much of the Word of God as the KJV. It seems that they are led by the Spirit in their teaching, in their living, and in their witnessing. Personally, I find that the Spirit is clear in His speaking to me through the words of the NIV and other translations. So this is hard for me to understand. It would seem that you, as well as anyone else, could espouse a false doctrine and claim those passages of Scripture. Because of that, it would seem that the the passages are not really a strong proof of anything. Even David Koresh could have cited those passages as to why he was who he said he was.

The Geneva Bible is the word of God;it comes from the same foundation the it's successor(the KJB)does;anything from 1881 does not have the same foundation,and therefore cannot be put in the same catagory. [/QB]

So then, you are not KJV-only? Is that what I'm understanding?

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> What foundation did these MVs have?

The non-Biblical Alexandrian foundation which is built on sand(Matt7:26). </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly! Correct!

That's why God did not allow Paul to travel to Alexandria. The people at Antioch where Paul visited were called, "Christians."

 

[Charles Meadows]

The "onlyist" debate will go on for quite a while I figure. Is it really possible to answer the question? We're judging God's word in the court of the human mind!

I'll take a step backwards! To me the KJV is the "best" English version - it's so beautiful and reverent in its phrasing and wording! The NIV and NASB are more "modern" in their flow but to me sound thoroughly ungraceful!! For me the KVJ is superior. But it seems this argument is not just about superior; it's about ONLY.

There have been a number of points raised by "onlyists" in favor of the "only" position.

The Alexandrian manuscripts are older but they did come from a weird place - we all know (I think) that Alexandria was home to alot of weirdos who expounded alot of weirdness!! Could the older manuscripts have been "weirdified"? Well, honestly yes they could have! But we do not know for sure.

The Alexandrian manuscripts are fewer in number. This is indisputable. But most of the Eastern church preserved Greek as a language for alot longer than other areas so the picture gets a little muddy.

God will preserve his Word - no argument here. Indeed the KJV was around for a while without the "modern translations". For this reason I'd have to deduce that God approves of it!

We could go on and on!!

We can surmise without a doubt that the KJV is God's Word. But can we say that the KJV - the KJV exclusively - is God's Word?

I think that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls gave a great boost to our confidence in the preservation of God's word. The book of Isaiah was found in its entirety. There were a few letters and pronouns different than the masoretic text - but absolutely no SIGNIFICANT change! God has preserved His "imrah" or revelation. Is it this possible for two slightly different English translations to both be the "Word of God"?

To the KJVO guys out there -
here's my 2 stumbling blocks for the "only" position:

1. Lots of people cannot understand the wording. Take Dan 11:34. "Now when they shall fall they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries." Find a teenager who can understand that! Most adults can't even get the thee, thou, thy thing straight.

2. This debate has caused strife in the church! Since the bible does not unambiguously say that on the KJV is God's word than this whole thing may a good point for debate - but NOT worth splitting the brethren. Indeed even the tone in each of these past few postings has been a little testy!!

So insummary I'd say that there are many reasons to be pro-KJV. But I honestly cannot see the facts to be more emphatic than that.

Remember we're all on the same side!

Any thoughts??

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
The "onlyist" debate will go on for quite a while I figure. Is it really possible to answer the question? We're judging God's word in the court of the human mind!

I'll take a step backwards! To me the KJV is the "best" English version - it's so beautiful and reverent in its phrasing and wording! The NIV and NASB are more "modern" in their flow but to me sound thoroughly ungraceful!! For me the KVJ is superior. But it seems this argument is not just about superior; it's about ONLY.

There have been a number of points raised by "onlyists" in favor of the "only" position.

The Alexandrian manuscripts are older but they did come from a weird place - we all know (I think) that Alexandria was home to alot of weirdos who expounded alot of weirdness!! Could the older manuscripts have been "weirdified"? Well, honestly yes they could have! But we do not know for sure.

The Alexandrian manuscripts are fewer in number. This is indisputable. But most of the Eastern church preserved Greek as a language for alot longer than other areas so the picture gets a little muddy.

God will preserve his Word - no argument here. Indeed the KJV was around for a while without the "modern translations". For this reason I'd have to deduce that God approves of it!

We could go on and on!!

We can surmise without a doubt that the KJV is God's Word. But can we say that the KJV - the KJV exclusively - is God's Word?

I think that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls gave a great boost to our confidence in the preservation of God's word. The book of Isaiah was found in its entirety. There were a few letters and pronouns different than the masoretic text - but absolutely no SIGNIFICANT change! God has preserved His "imrah" or revelation. Is it this possible for two slightly different English translations to both be the "Word of God"?

To the KJVO guys out there -
here's my 2 stumbling blocks for the "only" position:

1. Lots of people cannot understand the wording. Take Dan 11:34. "Now when they shall fall they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries." Find a teenager who can understand that! Most adults can't even get the thee, thou, thy thing straight.

2. This debate has caused strife in the church! Since the bible does not unambiguously say that on the KJV is God's word than this whole thing may a good point for debate - but NOT worth splitting the brethren. Indeed even the tone in each of these past few postings has been a little testy!!

So insummary I'd say that there are many reasons to be pro-KJV. But I honestly cannot see the facts to be more emphatic than that.

Remember we're all on the same side!

Any thoughts??

Please, would you define this term, "Only" for me?

 

[Charles Meadows]

A definition of "only" as it relates to this thread? I'm using it in the same context as "KJVO". By that I mean one who would adhere to the position that the KJV, and the KJV alone, is the word of God.

 

[gopchad]

I agree. I am KJV only for ME. I distrust the MV's, and find them to be extremely more difficult to memorize. This is my position based upon faith that God has preseved his word to me and other english speakers through the KJV. Does that mean there can never be another English version that will not adequately replace the KJV... I would have to say no. I have two KJV's that have minor differences between the wording found in each (presumably to differnt revisions). Under the KJVO argument, one of them cannot be the word of God, The Geneva Bible cannot be the WOG, but something had to be before the KJV, or else God did not preserve His word.

The crux of the issue is that I am going to attend a church where the KJV is respected and used, others may not and that is between them and God. It does not make them any less saved or able to serve and be used of God.

 

[gopchad]

One thing that I would like to add is that no one is saved when we refuse to get past these differences concerning translations, and I think that from the tenor of some of the replies that it is a bad testimony for Christians to attack Christians in an arena that is open to the world, such as this forum. I think that the best approach is to agree to disagree on the issue, or debate in a manner becoming the saints, then concentrate our efforts toward a lost and dying world.

In Christ

Chad
A KJV loving Biblicist

 

[Dr. Bob]

And, as Roby said when he started this thread, no one comes up with EVIDENCE. They just side-step the issue, say it's beneath them to answer, make fun of questions like "Where was the Word of God before 1611?", etc etc.

And as I just read the thread from the oily sect, that is what they've done here!

But we who believe God preserved His Word in Greek/Hebrew so that ALL English translations that are faithful to it are valid are "suspect", "liars", "not to be trusted", and somehow (the lack of logic here is scarey) not even "Christian" like the Antioch crowd.

KJVonly is an ignorant, divisive sect who hold an extreme liberal view of Scriptures in lower criticism (that make Wilhaussen and Graf look conservative in their higher criticism!)

 

[Charles Meadows]

I wouldn't say personally that I distrust the modern versions - I just don't think they sound pleasing to the ears. I think the translations are pretty good. Sometimes they just don't have the umph of the KJV! But that's my opinion! It just seems like no one likes to discuss this in a friendly manner!

 

[Dr. Bob]

Charles - Will share a little BaptistBoard history. We used to have just a couple forums. The KJV controversy (and the Calvinism) got so heated that it DOMINATED every thread.

So decided to make some sections DICUSSION and FELLOWSHIP, where we have fun and discuss without casting doubt on the manhood of posters. And some DEBATE forums where we are civil, but little else.

We don't call each other heretics and we don't judge the salvation of someone who believes differently. But the "gloves are off" and no holds barred in these DEBATE forums.

Come on down to the Coffee House and I'll buy you a cuppa joe. I give no mercy to the onlies or to the semi-pelagian arminians; but they ARE my brothers and sisters, so I won't kill them.

Yet.

 

[Ransom]

Anti-Alexandrian said:

The non-Biblical Alexandrian foundation which is built on sand(Matt7:26).

I am curious. Has any KJV-onlyist ever quoted a Bible verse in a manner that showed the proper respect for its author and his intent?

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> We've noticed that whenever we press the Onlyists for EVIDENCE to lend any veracity to their assertions in the versions issue, in any topic here, that topic quickly dries up, ending in a series of posts from anti-Onlyismists asking the Onlyists, "Where's the beef?"

You mean more like "where was the word of God in......" Just silly inmature rhetoric.

Well, then, where IS your Proof?

I'm assuming those KJVOs are Christians & Baptists & therefore don't want to tell a blatant lie, and so remain silent because thay cannot bring themselves to provide an honest answer which would be in opposition to their Onlyism doctrine. Any Onlyists care to discuss this?

Since when does being "Christians & Baptists" become a bullet-proof sheild for not lying???

More evasion. You know full well that I'm referring to REAL Christians and baptists who live their lives for God.

On other boards, I've received such answers as, "It's beneath me to discuss such stuff", which translates to, "I am clueless".

No,it's a nice way of telling you what Proverbs 27:22 says so well..

Yep! That's EXACTLY what Onlyists say about themselves.

". Another fave answer they have is, "We've posted our proof a hundred times", but, when asked for the post #s where they've supposedly posted their proof, I'm greeted with either"You know where", or, the "sound" of silence.

And they probaly did;your problem is,you reject it;just like you will reject any evedence in this thread,you are simply instigating an argument so you can inject your GMO/BAO baloney..

Once again...WHERE'S THE BEEF???

Some of you assert we anti-Onlyismists are anti-KJV, that we wish to toss it out of the Baptist faith, and even that we don't consider it a valid Bible version. Quite recently, Askjo said we were KJV-haters. My challenge-Find and paste any post on this board where any legit member has said that he/she hates the KJV or says it's not a valid BV. If you cannot do it, then please, as Christians, be honest and admit that assertion is wrong.

Most "closet" KJB haters are too much of a COWARD to ever admit they wish the KJB gone;which reminds me of an quote:"Cowadice is epidemic." Dont you think it is time to "come out?"

Once again...WHERE'S YOUR PROOF???

Please stick to the actual challenge

OK.The Bible(KJB) is silent concerning Alexandria as being associated with the word of God;Antioch,however,is;read Acts 13.The KJB comes from Antiochan manuscripts.Also,God bears witness to the things pertaining to Him,as per john 16:13;Proverbs 22:17-21;1st Corinthians 2:9-13.

More evasion. Just about every Apostle was sent to a specific place or places. Peter and Paul, both Jews, were sent to specific places among the GENTILES. Just because Paul wasn't sent to Alexandria doesn't mean God sent NNE there. Remember, Scripture is silent about most of the other Apostles. As for Alexandria and Egypt in general, God said,in Isaiah 19:25, Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, "**Blessed be Egypt my people***, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance."

While I'm not saying that the KJV doesn't pertain to God, where does God say that only the KJV pertains to Him???

And while you're at it, here's your chance to disprove an assertion by ME(and quite a few other non-Onlyists). I assert that the Geneva Bible is as valid an English Bible version as any other. Can you prove me wrong-by EVIDENCE, and not by rhetoric?

The Geneva Bible is the word of God;it comes from the same foundation the it's successor(the KJB)does;anything from 1881 does not have the same foundation,and therefore cannot be put in the same catagory. </font>[/QUOTE]What does that matter? What does that prove? How can you prove one "foundation" right and another wrong? generations of language scholars haven't done it; have YOU done what THEY haven't? Once again, WHERE'S YOUR PROOF???

Thanx for bearing us out. You haven't provided any proof at all for ONE KJVO assertion. Par for the course.

 

[robycop3]

AA, I see you believe the Geneva Bible is the word of God. I suppose you know it differs from the KJV in quite a few places in the text(footnotes aside). Now, if you claim the KJV is perfect and inerrant, how can you also claim the GB is the word of God?

Once more,we ask for PROOF.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Once more,we ask for PROOF.

I gave you all the proof you need;your problem is,your so deep in the kool-aid that you dont know what flavor it is.