Use of the KJV

timothy 1769 · Oct 2, 2003

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Besides, last I checked Metzger never produced a Bible version (false statement number 1 by you); Genesis in the Old Testament, not the new where Metzger did his work.

The Reader's Digest Condensed Bible (shudder)

Forever settled in heaven · Oct 2, 2003

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />so why do KJBOs pretend that the Masoretic Text is superior when Jesus chose to endorse something else?

A possibility is that the entire Masoretic Text is endorsed, and these few extra alternate verses are endorsed as well. [/QB][/QUOTE]WOW, this IS reeeeally exciting ... this ... this ... this (totally like breathless) is the STRONGEST refutation of Version-Onlyism i've seen in a long while!

timothy 1769 · Oct 2, 2003

Originally posted by Scott J:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by timothy 1769:
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.

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? [/QUOTE]The Bible nowhere states or implies that the 1611 translation is the one and only Word of God in English, AFAIK. It does *clearly* teach preservation, however. Should I quote the scriptures again?

Also note that the Bible nowhere teaches the efficacy of textual criticism, or even the contents of the canon for that matter. Are we both adding to the Word of God?

The Bible does teach:

Ephesians 5:11
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

And given unbelieving spirit of many(most?) of the textual critics, I think all non-TR based translations qualify.

timothy 1769 · Oct 2, 2003

Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by timothy 1769:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />so why do KJBOs pretend that the Masoretic Text is superior when Jesus chose to endorse something else?

A possibility is that the entire Masoretic Text is endorsed, and these few extra alternate verses are endorsed as well. [/QUOTE]WOW, this IS reeeeally exciting ... this ... this ... this (totally like breathless) is the STRONGEST refutation of Version-Onlyism i've seen in a long while!

[/QB][/QUOTE]Why? All these verses are contained in the perfect Word of God - the King James Bible.

But I am glad I made you happy

timothy 1769 · Oct 2, 2003

Originally posted by Askjo:
timothy 1769 and I thank Him for giving us His preserved Word

AMEN!!!

Lacy Evans · Oct 2, 2003

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
timothy 1769 and I thank Him for giving us His preserved Word

AMEN!!! [/QUOTE]What am I chopped liver?

Lacy

Pastor Larry · Oct 2, 2003

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

Read the context and you will see. Why do you insist on taking verses out of context? This verse is about preaching teh true message of Christ. It has nothing to do with translations. We have discussed this before. Did you forget already?

Pastor Larry · Oct 2, 2003

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

These verses apply to the KJV as well, which added verses and changed others in violation of this command. Have you so soon forgotten these basic facts??

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

Add me to the list. I thank God that he has given us his preserved word. More than that, I am thankful for translators who gave it to us in the common language so that we can better understand God.

Pastor Larry · Oct 2, 2003

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Besides, last I checked Metzger never produced a Bible version (false statement number 1 by you); Genesis in the Old Testament, not the new where Metzger did his work.

The Reader's Digest Condensed Bible (shudder)

I was referring to mainstream translations. So far as I know, he was not involved in any evangelical mainstream translation. And what is under discussion is a Greek text, not Metzger's personal life or personal endeavors. Let's keep this on topic.

Pastor Larry · Oct 2, 2003

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
It does *clearly* teach preservation, however. Should I quote the scriptures again?

Who here is disputing that? I think we all agree that God has preserved his word. Let's put that straw man aside.

Also note that the Bible nowhere teaches the efficacy of textual criticism, or even the contents of the canon for that matter. Are we both adding to the Word of God?

If you are using this line of argument to argue against textual criticism then you must throw out your TR because it is the product of textual criticism. It is impossible to have a Bible apart from textual criticism.

But the more important issue is to understand that the Bible does not teach us "how" God preserved his word. For you or anyone else to make dogmatic statements about it is wrong. You cannot know.

The Bible does teach:

Ephesians 5:11
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

And given unbelieving spirit of many(most?) of the textual critics, I think all non-TR based translations qualify.

What about the false religion of the Anglicans?? Does that not qualify them for "unfruitful works"? I would certainly think so. Therefore, the KJV is out based on your argument.

However, your argument misses the boat because textual criticism is not a matter of belief or unbelief. That is an attempt made by some to argue against something they do not like. An unbeliever can be a good textual critic if he knows Greek and if he understands the principles of textual criticms (whichever method he chooses to follow). Textual criticism is not about theology or belief; it is about the words on the page. We need to get that through our heads and quit chasing these straw men. They take up space that could be better spent on other things.

Archangel7 · Oct 2, 2003

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by timothy 1769:

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

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? [/QUOTE]We have Christ's endorsement of that particular reading, and nothing more. [/QUOTE]If there truly were only one God-ordained version of the Scriptures, then we shouldn't expect to find Jesus using and endorsing even a single verse from a different version. Instead we should expect to find Jesus setting the example for us by using a Bible that was word-for-word the same. But Jesus didn't do that. The implications for any form of "one-version onlyism" should be obvious.

Askjo · Oct 2, 2003

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
2 Cor. 2:17 tells about anyone corrupted the Word of God. What does this verse refer to?

It has nothing to do with translations. [/QUOTE]You see, what do you deny is here.

Askjo · Oct 2, 2003

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />timothy 1769 and I thank Him for giving us His preserved Word

Add me to the list. I thank God that he has given us his preserved word. More than that, I am thankful for translators who gave it to us in the common language so that we can better understand God. [/QB][/QUOTE]If you believe Psalm 12:6-7 referring to the doctrine of preservation of the Scriptures, you are welcome to be added to the list.

Baptist in Richmond · Oct 2, 2003

Originally posted by Askjo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />timothy 1769 and I thank Him for giving us His preserved Word

Add me to the list. I thank God that he has given us his preserved word. More than that, I am thankful for translators who gave it to us in the common language so that we can better understand God. [/QUOTE]If you believe Psalm 12:6-7 referring to the doctrine of preservation of the Scriptures, you are welcome to be added to the list.

[/QUOTE]Psalm 12:6-7 does not support KJV-Onlyism in any way, shape or form.

Terry_Herrington · Oct 3, 2003

Askjo said:

"You see, what do you deny is here."

Would you mind explaining this sentence? The gramme is so bad, I don't understand what you are saying.

Pastor Larry · Oct 3, 2003

Originally posted by Askjo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
2 Cor. 2:17 tells about anyone corrupted the Word of God. What does this verse refer to?

It has nothing to do with translations. [/QUOTE]You see, what do you deny is here.

[/QUOTE]What in the world does this mean??

The verse you reference has nothing to do with what you were talking about. You are the one who misused the verse. You are the one who took the word of God and twisted them to make them mean something they were never intended to mean. How does that make me wrong??

Pastor Larry · Oct 3, 2003

Originally posted by Askjo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />timothy 1769 and I thank Him for giving us His preserved Word

Add me to the list. I thank God that he has given us his preserved word. More than that, I am thankful for translators who gave it to us in the common language so that we can better understand God. [/QUOTE]If you believe Psalm 12:6-7 referring to the doctrine of preservation of the Scriptures, you are welcome to be added to the list.

[/QB][/QUOTE]Beleving in the preservation of God's word has nothing to do with Psalm 12:6-7. We have been through this. Please start learning and stop misusing Scripture. We have been through this many times, we have shown you from Scripture (unlike you who are unable to show us your position from Scripture). It is time for you to move forward.

I fully believe in the preservation of God's word without apology and without misusing Scripture.

Gromit · Nov 28, 2003

I'm not sure who originally wrote this, but apparently it's a KJV Onlyist:

Outsell? The KJV still outsells since 1611. You can't count - gone back to 1611. Thank God for giving us the accurate Bible for English-speaking tongue.

You're arguing that the KJV wins by default or accident. First of all, the KJV was not readily accepted when it first came out, as many people (even the men who created the KJV) continued to use the Geneva. You can read more about that in this post at another board

After support for the Geneva dwindled (due to the political / religious climate of England, not due to it being a poor translation), more people began using the KJV.

It's my understanding that until the late 1800's that the KJV was one of the only (English) versions available. It didn't face competition.

It's like if the only car offered for sale is the Model T, of course that's the only one people will use and buy. However, if you could offer people a mustang or ferrari, I'm sure most would drop the Model T for one of those cars.

Well, now the KJV does face competition -- and it has lost (which doesn't mean it's a horrible version). The NIV now outsells the KJV. Read more about that at the following URL
Ellison Research Regarding Bible Versions

Also see:
Geneva Bible Notes

An Introduction to the Geneva Bible

-- getting back to the earlier point -- and that is not the first research showing the the NIV is used/sold more than the KJV. I recall seeing similar findings over the past few years.
================
Visit Bible Versions Discussion Board!

robycop3 · Nov 29, 2003

Askjo, I mentioned that "corrupt" as the KJV renders the Greek 'kapeleuo' in 2 Cor.2:17 is a poor rendering, as the word actually means, "peddle, or street-vend". I see no response to this FACT. However, I've seen more than one KJVO state that some other version is wrong for using "peddle" in this verse. Since when is using the LITERAL TRANSLATION of a Greek word wrong???

I'll agree that the sense in this verse was of MISUSE of the Scriptures, but this is QUITE DIFFERENT from actually corrupting the SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES. paul was referring to peddling or street-hawking the Scriptures as part of a pattern of misusing them such as Simon the Sorcerer had been doing, and is being done by the "religious" hucksters of today.

However, to the Onlyists, their "wisdom" is justified of her children-themselves.

Askjo · Nov 29, 2003

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I thank God that he has given us his preserved word.

Originally posted by Askjo:

If you believe Psalm 12:6-7 referring to the doctrine of preservation of the Scriptures, you are welcome to be added to the list.

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

Beleving in the preservation of God's word has nothing to do with Psalm 12:6-7. I fully believe in the preservation of God's word without apology

You pointed off what you are saying.

Use of the KJV

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

<b>Moderator</b>

<b>Moderator</b>

<b>Moderator</b>

<b>Moderator</b>

New Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

<b>Moderator</b>

<b>Moderator</b>

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member