Use of the NKJV?

[Baptist in Richmond]

Bartholomew writes:
>>If I found the original manuscript of 1
>>Corinthians, and taped it to a Book of Mormon,
>>would that make the text of 1 Corinthians
>>imperfect??? Please answer this question.

Well, you STILL have not provided any Scriptural basis for KJVonlyism, but I will answer your question: it is irrelevant to your argument. I am asking about adding the Apocrypha to what YOU claim to be the only English translation of the Inspired Word of God (imperfect to perfect), and you are talking about adding a book from the Inspired Word of God to a book that we would all agree is not even Christian (perfect to blasphemy). Again: please prove to me that the KJV is the ONLY Inspired Word of God.

>>If the answer is "no", then your argument
>>against the AV has been proven to be false.

What? I have said on several occasions that I believe that the KJV is the Inspired Word of God. I do not, however, believe that it is the only English version. I have no "argument" against the AV, and I am asking about YOUR argument that the AV is the only English version of the Word of God. Please prove to me that it is the ONLY English translation worthy of being called the Inspired Word of God. I have stated on numerous occasions that I hold the KJV as sacred. To imply otherwise is an outright lie.

>>Oh, and BTW - how can you attack the AV for
>>originally including the Apocrypha, and yet
>>defend the Geneva Bible, that was FULL of
>>UNINSPIRED notes???

This statement is particularly hilarious: is that is the best you could do? There are marginal notes in both of my KJV's as well. AS A MATTER OF FACT, some of the notes in the KJV margins refer to the books of the APOCRYPHA. Once again: thank you for pointing out yet another reason that the Geneva Bible is SUPERIOR to the KJV.

Besides, Calvin NEVER offered up these notes as the inspired Word of God. To imply that he did is also an outright lie. That is twice now. If you have PROOF that the notes were offered as Inspired, please provide it for us.

Lastly, you did not address my request to provide the SCRIPTURE that supports a KJV only stance??

Alas, my question remains unanswered....

 

[HankD]

No, the point is that they DID have the spiritual sense to exclude the apocrypha in editions from 1629; and that they DIDN'T believe it was inspired before that anyway. Besides, the Apocrypha doesn't make the canon imperfect anymore than do maps, or Schofield's study notes. I'm not defending everything the Anglicans do (I recently left that church myself), but that doesn't mean God didn't work THROUGH them.

And I believe God worked through them as well, imperfect as they were.
And that BTW IS the point I am trying to make, they as well as their work, the AV, was imperfect.

The inclusion of the Apocrypha in the AV in and of itself is NOT the issue, The exclusion of the Apocrypha is not the issue.
The issue is the imperfection of man which taints EVERY TRANSLATION.

One of those imperfections was The Anglican/Catholic view in 1611 of the Scripture was tainted by their romish leanings both then and possibly now. This may well be said of any translation which includes the Apocrypha, be it Itala, Vulgate, Geneva, Douay Rheims, or Coverdale.

However as long as the point keeps showing up, I would like to keep repeating that the reason for which the CoE were enamoured with the Apocrypha was because of their recent (in 1611) schism with the Church of Rome. The Church of Rome held then and now that the Apocrypha has the authority of Scripture. Now, they (CoE) denied this with words but treated it in the same manner as the Church of Rome with cross references in the AV and devotions in the Book of Common Prayer involved with readings from the Apocrypha.
Later, yes as they became wiser it fell away, for this they are to be commended.
They also later deleted the marginal helps, Saints Days, liturgical data and other romish grave clothes.

Not only that but it is not just the Apocrypha which they finally expunged from the AV, but another proof of their self-confessed imperfection was when there was a conflict discovered with the English text versus the Traditional Text as a result of a translation error or printer error, they corrected it.

And that IS indeed the point. They were imperfect, the fruit of their labor, the AV was imperfect as is every and any translation.

They never pretended the place of purity and perfection which the KJVO have attributed to them. Contrarily they diligently worked to correct the errors they introduced into the text over the years.

The history of the continual correction of the English text of the AV flies in the face of the KJVO dual-inspiration theory.

HankD

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

MV-Neverist writes:

>>Great! Then you know what is?? Please tell us
>>what is perfect and infallible so I can have a
>>copy too.

Hello, and welcome to the party.
Once again, I said that the Inspired Word of God can be found in the KJV. As a matter of fact, I have said it numerous times. I also believe you can find it in the Geneva Bible, as well as the ESV. I am honestly trying to understand why this thought evades you.

>>That is the same thing I've been wondering
>>about the nonsense thats been going on since
>>1881;I mean,if the RV replaced the KJB,why
>>revise it?? Why do we need to replace versions
>>every 6 months?? Does English get archaic twice >>a year??

How does this reinforce the argument that the KJV is the ONLY English translation of God's Holy Word?

>>So? again,SO?? The underlying text behind the
>>Gneva [sic] and the KJB did not either.Next!!!

This statement makes no sense, and does not support the belief that the KJV is the ONLY English translation of God's Holy Word. Besides, if it was not in the "underlying text" behind the KJB, then why was it added? I am looking at my KJV: it's there.

>>------------------------------------------------
>> You said that the KJV was God's "Perfect Word"
>>and you still have not proven it:
>>------------------------------------------------

>>I say it also.And you have not proven it
>>isn't.

Um, right. Let's analyze the answer I receive:

My question:
"Prove to me WITH SCRIPTURE your belief that the ONLY English version of the Word of God is the KJV."

The response I receive:
"Prove that it isn't."


The belief is yours, not mine. This is the best I can hope to receive?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

To Bartholomew:

That was an EXCELLENT job of citing the fact that the original Geneva Bible contained the Apocrypha (not the 1599 edition). You stole some of my thunder in a sense: I was crafting a post that used this point (citing with the website you mentioned) to make my point. This would mean that either one of two things:
1. The KJV fails the “God’s Perfect Word” test along with the Geneva Bible.
2. The Geneva Bible passes the “God’s Perfect Word” test as does the KJV.

Either way, that fact does not support a KJV-Only position.

I have already stated that I have no problem whatsoever with the Apocrypha being contained in the original KJV (I even take it to church with me!) so it doesn’t bother me that it was initially in the Geneva Bible. I am actually trying to secure an older repro. to add to my copies of the Word of God.

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
Bartholomew writes:
>>If I found the original manuscript of 1
>>Corinthians, and taped it to a Book of Mormon,
>>would that make the text of 1 Corinthians
>>imperfect??? Please answer this question.

Well, you STILL have not provided any Scriptural basis for KJVonlyism, but I will answer your question: it is irrelevant to your argument. I am asking about adding the Apocrypha to what YOU claim to be the only English translation of the Inspired Word of God (imperfect to perfect), and you are talking about adding a book from the Inspired Word of God to a book that we would all agree is not even Christian (perfect to blasphemy).

So, you admit adding non-canonical books doesn't make the canonical ones imperfect. So you've proved your own argument false.

What? I have said on several occasions that I believe that the KJV is the Inspired Word of God. I do not, however, believe that it is the only English version.

So if it is inspired, is it without error? If you answer "yes", you agree with me. That means that if any other version disagrees, it is wrong. But if you answer "no", does that mean God inspired an error???

I have stated on numerous occasions that I hold the KJV as sacred. To imply otherwise is an outright lie.

Does it have "sacred errors"?

>>Oh, and BTW - how can you attack the AV for
>>originally including the Apocrypha, and yet
>>defend the Geneva Bible, that was FULL of
>>UNINSPIRED notes???

This statement is particularly hilarious: is that is the best you could do? There are marginal notes in both of my KJV's as well. AS A MATTER OF FACT, some of the notes in the KJV margins refer to the books of the APOCRYPHA. Once again: thank you for pointing out yet another reason that the Geneva Bible is SUPERIOR to the KJV.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? I'm simply saying the presence of non-canonical material does NOT make the canonical material errant! Is this a difficult concept to grasp???

Besides, Calvin NEVER offered up these notes as the inspired Word of God. To imply that he did is also an outright lie. That is twice now. If you have PROOF that the notes were offered as Inspired, please provide it for us.

And I never said he did. It is an outright LIE to suggest I did. I'm simply pointing out non-canonical material doesn't invalidate the canonical material.

And finally, as for the proof for my position: it exists, but writing it here would be casting pearls before swine, because you anti-KJVOs tend not to argue on a level playing field. You prove to me that EVERY WORD of the originals was without error, and I'll do the same for the AV. Or you give me scripture that God only preserves his word imperfectly, and I'll give you scripture that he does it perfectly.

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
To Bartholomew:

That was an EXCELLENT job of citing the fact that the original Geneva Bible contained the Apocrypha (not the 1599 edition). You stole some of my thunder in a sense: I was crafting a post that used this point (citing with the website you mentioned) to make my point. This would mean that either one of two things:
1. The KJV fails the “God’s Perfect Word” test along with the Geneva Bible.
2. The Geneva Bible passes the “God’s Perfect Word” test as does the KJV.

No, it actually proves: 3. That inclusion of the Apocrypha does not mean there are errors in the words of the canonical books.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Bartholomew writes:
>>And finally, as for the proof for my position:
>>it exists, but writing it here would be casting
>>pearls before swine, because you anti-KJVOs
>>tend not to argue on a level playing field. You
>>prove to me that EVERY WORD of the originals
>>was without error, and I'll do the same for the
>>AV. Or you give me scripture that God only
>>preserves his word imperfectly, and I'll give
>>you scripture that he does it perfectly.

First I received an ad hominem attack, and now I have been likened to "swine."

Here is your "level playing field:"
Prove to us using the Word that a KJV ONLY attitude is Scriptural. Prove to us that, to quote you, "If you abandon KJVOnlyism, you will only believe all 'Bibles' have errors. You will have less faith in the Bible than before."

That is a simple, honest and fair question. Don't answer my question with a question, and don't ask me to support the counter argument. Hey, you said it - not me. The floor is yours - I have put away my other translations and I am sitting here with my KJV Repro. as well as my Reference Edition of the more-widely-distributed version of the KJV (mine is printed by Nelson). Go ahead: cast the "pearls before swine."

Take your time - there is no rush.
My question again is:
"Prove to me with scripture your belief that the ONLY English version of the Word of God is the KJV." In other words: provide us with the evidence that KJV Onlyism is sound Biblical doctrine.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Baptist in Richmond,
Don't expect a real answer for your question. This is the protocol here at the baptist board. We have a few KJV onlyist here who continually put forth this doctrine of the KJV being the only acceptable English version of the bible. However, when they are asked to prove their point with the bible, they turn to emotional responses and have no real facts to back up their claim. Then, when this tactic fails to work they resort to direct or indirect name calling, such as the reverence to "swine."

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

"Prove to me with scripture your belief that the ONLY English version of the Word of God is the KJV." In other words: provide us with the evidence that KJV Onlyism is sound Biblical doctrine.

The problem is that you'r so Biblical that you are un-Biblical! look at Ecc 8:4.The KJB was translated under the authority of a King;nothing since has been translated under the authority of a King!!Period..
Not to mention Psalms 147:19.James is the English form of Jacob.Of course,I don't expect you to believe any of this,so lets look at the underlying texts;the Protestant text of the English and German reformation is the text behind the KJB,Geneva,ect..The Alexandrian family of texts( Alexandrinus, VATICANUS ,and Sinaiticus-aka,the TCV)are responsible for RCC bibles,and all bibles from 1881 on;these are the Dark age,RCC texts of Jerome!!!!

Then, when this tactic fails to work they resort to direct or indirect name calling, such as the reverence to "swine."

Hey,he did not call him anything,read Hebrews 4:12!! Don't get upset when it cuts cross grain..

 

[bapterian]

I knew this topic would degenerate to a KJV-only debate. "KJV-onlies" love to jump all over the NKJV. This discussion has strayed completely from the original post.

quote:
"The KJB was translated under the authority of a King;nothing since has been translated under the authority of a King!!Period.."

So? Is it necessary to have a King authorize the translation of the Bible in order for that translation to be valid? The answer, of course, is NO.

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
First I received an ad hominem attack,

WHERE???

and now I have been likened to "swine."

I actually quoted it as the reason why I won't write down my evidence on here (in accordance with Jesus' command); not to insult you or anyone else. But even if it does insult you, it's a Biblical phrase, and quite appropriate, I feel.

Prove to us that, to quote you, "If you abandon KJVOnlyism, you will only believe all 'Bibles' have errors. You will have less faith in the Bible than before."

Easily. The KJVO position says the AV has ZERO errors. The only other position I have seen on here says that EVERY Bible currently in existence has errors in it. Therefore, to turn away from KJVO means to believe errors in a Bible, where you didn't believe them before. Does your position argue for a Bible other than the AV that has ZERO errors???

Don't answer my question with a question, and don't ask me to support the counter argument.

Of course not! Why, we couldn't turn the same arguments YOU use straight back on YOUR position, could we? Why, that would be UNFAIR, wouldn't it? After all, Jesus never answered questions with questions, did he? He always let men with inconsistent standards get away WITHOUT having the tables turned, didn't he??????????

In other words: provide us with the evidence that KJV Onlyism is sound Biblical doctrine.

Certainly, as soon as YOU prove YOUR position. PROVE that the EVERY WORD of the original manuscripts was without error. Or, PROVE from scripture that God ONLY preserves his words IMPERFECTLY. For all the time you anti-KJVOs spend asking US to prove OUR position, why don't you PROVE YOUR OWN???

 

[neal4christ]

Good response, Bartholomew. I would love to see the day a KJVO answer this question directly. It is your assertion that the KJV is the ONLY error free translation, thus the burden of proof is on you, not B in R. If you fail to put forward the evidence for your position, well, you don't have much of a warrant for holding that belief. You may as well be a Pentacostal or such and just live off of your experiences and emotions, you would fit in well.

Neal

P.S. Ecc. 8:4 says nothing about Bible translation or the requirement for the Bible to be commissioned by a king. I would call that a straw that someone is reaching for if they use that verse as proof for KJVOism.

 

[neal4christ]

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

P.S. Ecc. 8:4 says nothing about Bible translation or the requirement for the Bible to be commissioned by a king. I would call that a straw that someone is reaching for if they use that verse as proof for KJVOism.

Ok,was any other Bible translated under the authority of a King??? Yes or No. Did you even read and study out what I posted?? Or will you just simply ignore it??

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Bartholomew,

True to my word, I will say nothing. You have the floor.

My question again is:
"Prove to me with scripture that the ONLY English version of the Word of God is the KJV." In other words: provide us with the evidence that KJV Onlyism is sound Biblical doctrine.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

MV-Neverist:
You are more than welcome to take a stab at my question as well:

Prove to me with scripture that a KJV Only stance is scriptural. I will say it a different way: provide us with scripture that KJV ONLYISM is sound Biblical doctrine.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

MV-Neverist:
You are more than welcome to take a stab at my question as well:

I DID!! And in 6th grade English at that!!! I knew you would not look at them;par for the course!

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

MV-Neverist:
You quoted
Ecc 8:4.
and
Psalms 147:19

Is that the basis for your KJV ONLYISM doctrine?
Do you have anything more you would like to add?

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Do you have anything more you would like to add?

NO! I already did earlier!! look below

so lets look at the underlying texts;the Protestant text of the English and German reformation is the text behind the KJB,Geneva,ect..The Alexandrian family of texts( Alexandrinus, VATICANUS ,and Sinaiticus-aka,the TCV)are responsible for RCC bibles,and all bibles from 1881 on;these are the Dark age,RCC texts of Jerome!!!!

Remember?

 

[neal4christ]

Ok,was any other Bible translated under the authority of a King??? Yes or No. Did you even read and study out what I posted?? Or will you just simply ignore it??

Please show me how Ecc. 8:4 has anything to do with translation of the Bible. And you are totally misapplying Ps. 147:19. First off, King James did not translate the Bible, he merely authorized it. Second, your application would require that God directly spoke His word to King James and he then wrote it down. I think you would agree that this did not happen. Third, and most importantly, this Jacob is referring to Israel, not some 17th century king. You cannot merely grab a verse, take it totally out of context, twist it, and then throw it out to justify your position. If this is all the evidence you have then your position is extremely weak. You remind me a lot of some other denominations who like to take verses out of context and then build doctrines off of them.

If you truly look at your position it does not stand up under scrutiny from the Scriptures. As an aside, did Jesus have the original perfect manuscripts when He read from them? Did it seem to bother Him that He did not have the word-for-word originals?

Neal