Use of the KJV

If in fact Christ used the Greek Bible (the international language of his day), rather than the "Original Hebrew" (especially considering WHERE he was preaching), in my opinion, it speaks volumes for "preservation by resurrection".

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- if a different version resurrected in the international language of the day was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for us.


All sarcasm aside, the only place that the KJV New Testament Quotes the Old Testament and specifically mentions the chapter is in Acts 13:33 and here the quote is EXACT.

It is possible that some of the NT qoutes are from works that God chose not to preserve. In other words, perhaps there were other writings of Isaiah for example that weren't canon. Some of the NT quotes may be from these other works of Isaiah, etc. I support this with the fact that there are many quotes from books that don't exist at all now and were never considered scripture. (see Josh10:13; 1 Ki 11:41; 1 Chron 29:29, etc) But the fact that these particular verses made it into our Bible show that the writers were inspired to "bring them in".

Another possibility for some of the NT quotes varying is "inspired paraphrasing". If Christ changes (or paraphrases) an OT verse guess what, He can do that.

If MVers disagree, then they have a bigger problem. See KJV Mark 1:2, KJV Malachi 3:1 vs RSV, NAS, NIV et all. Was it written in "the prophets" or in "Isaiah the prophet".

Something to think about

Lacy

[ October 01, 2003, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Lacy Evans ]

 

actually, this disproves the argument for the inspiration of the KJV. The Onlyists argue that God inspired the words. We agree. But Christ played "loose" with the words ... that is, he did not quote them exactly. Now, if the exact words are so important, why did Christ feel the liberty of using a translation that used different words? And if Christ used a translation with different words, why should we be afraid to do the same?

The only way this works as an argument for the inspiration of the KJV is if "re-inspiration" is a doctrine. Clearly, for Christ, the original language Hebrew was dispensable for a modern translation of that Hebrew. If the exact words of the Hebrew can be dispensed with for a modern translation, then how valuable were those words to begin with?

I think the argument works against the KJVOs because it shows that translations with different words are still considered the authoritative word of God ... and that is exactly the position that we hold. Only it was held by Christ and the apostles 2000 years ago.

 

Another possibility is that
a) the Hebrew autographs had been lost,

b) that Christ (Like his Father) had little regard for being restricted to "originals" (see Exodus 32:19 with Exodus 34:1,27; see Jeremiah 36),

c) and that God in His Mighty Providence raised them back up in the dominant language of the day rather than the original language.

Lacy

 

The fact that you even use a hymnbook is a testimony to the fact that you left the older ways behind in preference for the modern way of printed hymnbooks. The early church did not use hymnbooks. In fact, more than 3/4 of church history has not used printed hymnbooks. So you have already succumbed to modern ways. You probably worship in a church that uses musical instruments. This was of great concern to those who wanted to reject the appeal of modernism. But most Christians understood that the use of musical instruments was not, in and of itself, improper.

In this discussion, we must learn to draw important dichotomies between things that are causal and things that are merely correlative. By causal we means that A causes B. By correlative we mean that A happens at the same time as B but not necessarily so; they can happen independently.

So I think we should reject your argument anyway because these two things do not go hand in hand. There is a part of modernity that is good and proper. We use it to our advantage in every church service. We are, in your words, desensitized because we use it all the time. But that does not change the message of God's word. There is a danger in modernity. But it is not found in using modern words. It is found in adopting modern philosophies and those are two entirely different entities. We can use modern words without adopting their philosophies. And that is what the church should be doing, because that is what the church has always done.

And this is one of the problems of the KJVOs. They have falsely identified good men with radicalism and extremism. Just witness those who have called us heretics, Bible corrupters, members of the Alexandrian cult, and other things (many of them unmentionable in decent company). The fact that we hold the same position that some ungodly men do does not mean that we believe everything they believe. Again, remember what I said above, that the fact that two things exist together does not mean that one causes the other.

There is a strange change that has taken place where Bible doctrine is being pushed out of evangelicalism on both ends ... on the one side by liberals and on the other by KJVOs. We need to find the biblical teaching.

[ October 01, 2003, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

I agree with this. BUt I can't see how you would because it seems to undermine your whole premise, namely, that only one set of words can truly be called the word of God. Christ was perfectly willing to call something other than the KJV the word of God and if you were to read it in Greek today, would we not have to say that it is the "Word of God" even though it is not in original language? We most certainly would.

That is why I don't think you can use this in support of your position. It is much more in line with ours. We believe that the word of God is not limited to one set of words. We also recognize that 1611 English is not the dominant language of this day. Therefore, your arguments seems to fall on two counts.

 

Christ can freely paraphrase and reinspire all He wants to because He is God. We simply don't have that privilege.

Revelation 22
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

 

This seems out of place here since no one is talking about paraphrasing and reinspiring. This point was about the biblical data concerning the transmission of the text. The people of that time would have used this translation and Christ never condemned them.

A promise worth remembering for sure ...

 

I posted about Metzger on this BB before. Go to the Website:
Metzger

 

We have 2 kinds of printing companies: Business printing and Ministry printing. They are separate because business printers send Bibles to Christian stores where customers shop; however, Ministry printers send Bibles to many ministries. I learned that both of them show KJV is number one seller.

 

Click here: Metzger

 

We can't judge his heart, however we can judge his outward appearance.

 

However, the "dominant language of the day" in *our* day is not 17th C. English.

 

Read Isa. 61:1-2 and Lk. 4:16-21 in your KJV *very* carefully. Jesus was not "freely paraphrasing" anything -- he was reading the exact words in the copy of the Bible handed to him. Jesus himself saw nothing wrong with using a different version of Isaiah. So why should we not follow Christ's own example?

 

Read Isa. 61:1-2 and Lk. 4:16-21 in your KJV *very* carefully. Jesus was not "freely paraphrasing" anything -- he was reading the exact words in the copy of the Bible handed to him. Jesus himself saw nothing wrong with using a different version of Isaiah. So why should we not follow Christ's own example? </font>[/QUOTE]We have Christ's endorsement of that particular reading, and nothing more.

 

Read Isa. 61:1-2 and Lk. 4:16-21 in your KJV *very* carefully. Jesus was not "freely paraphrasing" anything -- he was reading the exact words in the copy of the Bible handed to him. Jesus himself saw nothing wrong with using a different version of Isaiah. So why should we not follow Christ's own example? </font>[/QUOTE]We have Christ's endorsement of that particular reading, and nothing more. </font>[/QUOTE]so why do KJBOs pretend that the Masoretic Text is superior when Jesus chose to endorse something else?

 

Read Isa. 61:1-2 and Lk. 4:16-21 in your KJV *very* carefully. Jesus was not "freely paraphrasing" anything -- he was reading the exact words in the copy of the Bible handed to him. Jesus himself saw nothing wrong with using a different version of Isaiah. So why should we not follow Christ's own example? </font>[/QUOTE]We have Christ's endorsement of that particular reading, and nothing more. </font>[/QUOTE]so why do KJBOs pretend that the Masoretic Text is superior when Jesus chose to endorse something else? </font>[/QUOTE]A possibility is that the entire Masoretic Text is endorsed, and these few extra alternate verses are endorsed as well.

 

2 Cor. 2:17 tells about anyone corrupted the Word of God. What does this verse refer to?

 

This verses are dangerous for anyone who corrupted God's perfect breathed and preserved Word because they will give account of themselves to Him.

If you play against God's word, you will fearfully look at His

Or

If you better leave God's Word alone, you will make Him

timothy 1769 and I thank Him for giving us His preserved Word

 

I posted about Metzger on this BB before. Go to the Website:
Metzger </font>[/QUOTE]All right. Apology accepted. I'll check out the link.

 

Please cite where the Bible says one set of English words would constitute the one and only Word of God in English or any other KJVO belief you hold. If you cannot then re-read the scripture you cite... are you not adding to scripture?