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!
No one that I am aware of made this assertion. It is a false assumption to say that we believe the Bible came into existence in 1611. Of course we realize the Word of God was here before the KJV.
Again, we do not assert that the Bible "specifically" says the KJV is the Word of God, but we do believe that the KJV is the English translation that most accurately reflects the originals. The Bible does teach that God's Word will not pass away. It does not say that God 's Word may be found in a multitude of various and differing versions and only those who know the original languages can truly sort it all out and discern what the original really said.
Steve just said that the issue is a heart issue, implying that if everyone's heart was right they would be KJOnly. That assertion is not one that you made, it is one that he made and it is one that is demonstrably false.
I do not believe, as I have said before that you have reckoned through the implications of this statement. If you admit that the Bible was in existence before 1611 then you cannot assert that things that are different than the KJV are not the word of God. That is the bottom line. For us, we can assert that things that are different than the KJV are the word of God because we are not bound to the KJV as others are.
The position you have cited for Jesus is the one that the vast majority of evangelicals hold. Yet your side routinely accuses us of not believing the Bible. It shouldn't be hard to understand, you are right. I wonder why it is. The implications of your statements are perhaps things your side have not thought through. I really wonder how anyone can hold a KJVOnly position with a straight face. Something tells me they are laughing inside as they carry on this conversation. Something else tells me they honestly believe this.
Then why does your side keep telling us that we are unbiblical, influenced by Satan, blind to the truth, when not one verse can be offered to substantiate your position. You believe that the KVJ is "the English translation that most accurately reflects the originals" yet you have not seen the originals. Truth be told, you are dependent on others to tell you this, evidence that your final authority is not Scripture. That is fine in this case; just realize the implications of your position.
All through Scripture, differing texts and translations are used. Therefore, the historical evidence shows your statement to be inaccurate.
Where did you see that? It certainly wasn't from my post above. The Bible is my final authority. If the Bible is your final authority, then show me where the KJV is identified as the only word of God.
How does my situation differ from yours in this statement?
Could you expound on this. I'm not sure I understand your point.
What??? My authority is Scripture. I have said that many times and demonstrated it by my doctrine.
My point is that Scripture is the authority. What man says is authoritative if it corresponds to Scripture. Where it does not, we must reject what man says. Scripture is clear that translations and copies of the word of God other than the KJV are indeed the word of God. Therefore, there is biblical support for my position that translations and copies other than the KJV can be called the word of God. The KJV translators said this themselves.
Actually they do agree. You have been mislead on this point. The doctrines of Scripture, the teachings of Scripture are the same. There are some minor variations due to following different copies. When Erasmus compiled his text (that became known as the TR), he followed about 8 manuscripts. It took him 5 tries to "get it right." The KJV has been changed substantively in many places in the years following its production. This fact of change undermines your claim that the KJV is the perfect word of God (as you use the word perfect). It clearly is not or it would not have had to be changed.
Why would I cry martyr? Martyrs die because they are in the minority. I am in the majority of evangelical and fundamental Christianity and I hold the position that church history has always held. I have not tried in the least to shake people's confidence in the KJV. To the contrary, I affirm their confidence in that translation. I, like the translators of the KJV, affirm that the word of God is any faithful translation and that a variety of translations should be used.
Oh, you mean that the Alexandrian bibles are exempt from the rule? they introduce a new version of the the same worn out text every other year;these so called "changes" in the KJV you speak of were nothing more than puctuation & spelling corrections.
Show me where Alexandrian bibles are the word of God from scripture.
Who told you to use Alexandrian bibles??
Does this bother you?? give me scripture to support the Alexandrian bibles;your side makes like KJV supportors are ignorant,unlearned dolts who could not find a bowling ball in a bathtub because we dont know Greek or Hebrew or have not read all of the available texts.
Have you??
Again,who told you different??
Steve, I didn't say I did not understand it, just that I preferred more modern English for reading and study. If I was German, I would want it in German or, if Vietnamese, in Vietnamese. Is the message in those Bibles different as well? I think not. The message comes through Bibles in all languages, even those modes of communication not yet invented. Take for example the year 3003. How many different worlds will Mankind have expanded to then? How different will be the languages? What about sentient alien races? What versions of the gospel will they peruse?
Well what is the final authority in 2002? I know what mine is;just answer the questions,Who told you to use a Alexandrian bible?? give me scipture to justify using bibles that omits the blood,virgin birth ect.
You are willing to let a certain few tell you that the KJV is teh best translation without checking it out for yourself by comparing it against Scripture. When someone, such as Steve as such timely illustrated, says that the KJV is the perfect translation, they did not get that from Scripture; they got it from a man. It is demonstrably inaccurate as has been shown many times, Steve's protestations to the contrary. If someone is going to claim thier Bible is a perfect translation, then they must have the originals to compare it by. If they do not, then it is a matter of probability and reasonability as to the choices between textual variants.
Could you expound on this. I'm not sure I understand your point.</font>[/QUOTE]Sure. For those who say the KJV is the only translation we should use, their argument is refuted by documented Scriptural practice. No one in Scripture had the KJV and yet they all quoted Scripture with authority. No one had the originals or a perfect copy of the originals yet they all quoted it with authority. The point is that it is biblical to use the name Scripture or Bible for things that are not the KJV. It is also clear that things that differ from the KJV can rightly be called the inspired, inerrant, word of God. That is why I am urging Steve and others to get back to a biblical doctrine of inspiration rather than the man made one.
Then don't post here. This is a "discussion board" so named because people discuss things.
Sure they do. Perhaps you would like to demonstrate what you mean by this.
I have a Bible. In a little while I will stand and use it to call people to repentance to the virgin born Son of God who is the Savior of those who believe. Don't feel sorry for me. I love having God's word in my language.
Then why did it take so many tries to get it right and why does it still contain demonstrable errors? There is no need to get upset with me. The truth is at issue. If you would like to discuss it, then feel free. IF not, just read along.
