What do you think?

Somone posted Originally posted by DHK:
Is winning souls really the most important thing in the world? I wouldn't necessarily agree. Obedience to God is.[

Obedience to God requires that we witness for Christ. (I was going to say requires that we win souls, but Christ wins them. We just witness for Him.)

 

Actually Jim, based on my arguments, Scott is perfectly justified in arguing "Guilt by association". I associate the nearly exclusive use (and undeniable dominance) of the KJV with the fruit of that time period, which was like no other since the 1st century when Greek was the dominant language and the Greek bible bore much fruit

Lacy.

 

Maybe because we don't believe in latter day revelations/inspiration. God didn't say anything in the Bible about which translation to use. You may have a personal conviction outside of the revelation of scripture but that isn't the position you argue here. A personal conviction should never be thought of as binding on anyone except ourselves.</font>[/QUOTE]You're confusing two totally different things.

1st: We come to know Jesus Christ as our Saviour, personally, through present day revelation; nothing "latter" about that, except we live in the last days.

2nd: Convictions come ONLY from the Spirit of God, otherwise they are nothing more than preferences, the LORD is not confused, wicked, nor deceived, and defintitely, not only in part.

Are you saying that someone can understand and comprehend the KJV though they are void of the ability to actually read? Can you cite a real life example of this miracle?

Someone can be yield to the "Spirit in all matters of life and practice" and use MV's that they easily understand. [/quote]

Yes, my greatgrandfather; couldn't read a lick, could barely write his name. Pastored the Second baptist Church of LaGrange, Ga.

Many others, especially in the early 20th century, most of them black, and NOT that I am prejudiced.

I would submit that it is those willing to be simple and submitted that want God's Word in a form that is plain and understandable to them. It would seem more likely that those tied up in their own wisdom would want others dependent on them to tell them what the Bible means. [/QUOTE]
I rather believe the Spirit of God over what men say. It is His Spirit that identifies me as His child, bearing witness with my spirit, Biblically, not theoretically, and definitely not of man's "school".

I believe my point is well taken, at least by those who do know the LORD. I am not speaking of advanced revelation, for we have the completed Word of God, but I definitely don't leave God out of the equation. You can try to place Him in the "box' all you want, but then you should at least punch holes in that box to give Him air at least if you want Him to be alive tomorrow, but then we do have His living Word, and not that Living Bible.

 

You're confusing two totally different things.</font>[/QUOTE]</font>[/QUOTE] No. I am not.

No. It is not a "present day revelation". It is the same gospel given in the 1st century. No one has possessed the biblical mandate to change or add to it since then.

That is not true. The Holy Spirit does convict but convictions can come from a sense of right and wrong that is not a direct manifestation of the Holy Spirit in operation.

Ultimately some convictions, even for Christians, are not because the Holy Spirit moved but because someone's preferences or training influenced preferences strongly.

Are you saying that someone can understand and comprehend the KJV though they are void of the ability to actually read? Can you cite a real life example of this miracle?

Someone can be yield to the "Spirit in all matters of life and practice" and use MV's that they easily understand. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, my greatgrandfather; couldn't read a lick, could barely write his name. Pastored the Second baptist Church of LaGrange, Ga.[/quote] So you are telling me that he couldn't read at all except for reading the KJV of the Bible?

I knew a man in my home town who couldn't read but was a very good preacher. His daughter would read the Bible to him until he memorized the texts he used.... but he didn't miraculously receive the ability to read.

I would submit that it is those willing to be simple and submitted that want God's Word in a form that is plain and understandable to them. It would seem more likely that those tied up in their own wisdom would want others dependent on them to tell them what the Bible means. </font>[/QUOTE]I rather believe the Spirit of God over what men say.[/quote][/qb] I do not believe that the Holy Spirit told you that the KJV was the only valid version of God's Word in English.

Can you show me scripture where He said this? This would prove me wrong and I would immediately adopt your position.

Can you show me scripture that says that the Holy Spirit would tell someone what version to use? Can you explain why He might tell some to use the KJV while He told others to use the Geneva (Back when born again believers rejected the KJV) or the NKJV?

Where exactly did He say this? Do you believe that you are receiving advanced revelation that cannot be found in the KJV itself? If so, then who do you really think your final authority is?

Which has absolutely, positively nothing to do with which version of the Bible God approves of.

Are you saying I don't know the Lord because I disagree with a belief that cannot be found in the Bible anywhere?

If the Word of God is complete and you are not claiming advanced revelation then you should be showing us scripture rather than claiming that the Holy Spirit told you something that is not found in the Bible.

It isn't me that is putting words into His mouth by claiming that HE SAID that the KJV is the only valid version in English.

 

Read my post again Jim. I specifically said that I do not blame the KJV. However if someone is going to say the KJV caused all these great things in the past then the same line of reasoning is valid in the negative.

The KJV was the version used by both of them.

But this contention is no more silly than saying that the good fruit cited by Lacy was because of the KJV (as opposed to the truth that any faithful version could have and has been used just as greatly).

 

Actually the JW's success is based on their trust in a MV. (The NWT) Scott, do you believe the NWT is better than the KJV? Why or why not?</font>[/QUOTE] No. For very obvious reasons... not the least of which is that the men responsible for the NWT "translation" had virtually no original language skills. They made up a version to suit themselves.

The Book of Mormon was intentionally worded to sound like the KJV.

Notably, they also were single version onlyists at the height of their power... using a Bible few laymen understood to lord over the masses.

To answer your question, they "reformed" themselves to a degree after the reality finally sunk in that they could no longer use force and oppression.

How can you justify that statement biblically?</font>[/QUOTE] Many ways. First, tradition is not authoritative. Second, we cannot be dishonest about the facts of history.

God didn't hand down a decree that the KJV was the version to be used. In fact, you could almost make the case that God used the KJV in spite of some of its Anglican bias and in spite of the way it became the dominant Bible version.

God greatly used men who used the KJV. God is greatly using men today who use other versions as He did before the KJV existed.

It relates to people not inanimate ink and paper.

The KJV in and of itself has NO fruit. It is the power of the Spirit that brings revival through faithful men. Some of the great leaders during the time you note were not shy about stating corrections to the text of the KJV.

I don't see a difference. They are all lost.

Let me try this on you though.... I will take a godly preacher using an MV over a Mormon using a KJV any day.

He could, if the evidence was not so overwhelming.</font>[/QUOTE] It isn't overwhelming. You are cherry picking to get the results you want to see.

Let me give you an example. In the 1830's... right in the middle of this great period you speak of, the US with virtually no protest from KJV thumping Christians stole millions of acres from the 5 civilized tribes.

Thousands of Cherokees died as men, women, children,... young and old were force marched from NC, GA, and east TN to Oklahoma.

During this same period of time, our forebearers with some of my own ancestors included enslaved and many times abused blacks... and justified it often using the KJV of the Bible.

These are things that occurred on a massive scale.

On the individual level, we think that morality was better but that couldn't be supported by any tangible fact.

Hardly. You haven't cited any irrefutable evidence. You have made a statement of an opinion.

That is a question without an answer since they had the prophets and Apostles and also spoke the languages of the originals.

The OT is frequently cited in the NT and is expounded upon. We aren't told whether the Hebrew words were given then translated or not during preaching.

Mark 15:22 and others seem to suggest that sometimes this was the practice.

See above.

I believe that our Bibles are inspired in that they accurately reflect the meaning of the originals.

I don't beleive that any of them are inspired in their peculiar wording... and I don't think you will find a NT preacher that claims that his Greek OT was made up of God inspired words either.

Fallacy of limited alternatives. You could also choose to read the Bible in your own vernacular.

I don't agree with you Lacy but I do respect you.

BTW, I still use the KJV and attend a church that only uses the KJV as a Bible text.

 

I agree with whoever said "neither."

I use a variety of Bibles for a variety of reasons. As long as I am confident they are accurate.

Once, when witnessing to a girl with Downs Syndrome I even resorted to using "Good News For Modern Man," and I really, really dislike that translation in general - but when I showed it to this dear girl she hugged me and cried and thanked me for giving her a bible she could read all by herself. Her mother later thanked me also.

I try to pray and let God lead me to the translation that best fits the situation. A group of young children often have trouble with King James. A group of elderly often have trouble with NIV. I consider both to be accurate.

 

I think that is a sweet story. Praise God! As have said before, I have witnessed using no Bible at all just some colored paper. When I was in the Philippines, I handed out Illongo New Testaments that were translated directly from the KJV and Tagalog bibles that were basically MVs. I also handed out tracts that I'm not sure what version they contained. My Filipino Baptist preacher friend said they were good and I just had to take his word for it.

I recently have been attending a church that uses MVs and is definitely not KJVO (I am). But like Scott, I'd sure rather sumit to a Godly preacher with a MV than a Mormon with a KJV.

Having said that, When there is a question about a wording, I believe that the KJV is the authority not "The Greek", so I will always defer to the KJV wording. That is my conviction because of the fruit I mentioned above. (Soul winning, Missionary growth and pioneering, personal holiness, purity of the local church, growth & spread of pure churches, advances in and restoration of New Testament doctrine, evidence of a "salted" world, obedience to scripture, etc. are the fruits of a true prophet.)

You said:

and

That is where I have deep convictions. I won't scream "you are wrong" and call you an idiot like some KJVOs because I concede the possibility that I might somehow be wrong. But I cannot with a clear conscience base what I believe on "accuracy" or "faithfulness to missing autographs" that cannot be confirmed. We have no autographs. The Bible never exalts the original autographs over any other scripture. And we don't IMHO see anyone in the Bible fiddling around with the written Word like modern preachers do.

Lacy


Lacy

 

quote:I consider both to be accurate

Lacy Evans:That is where I have deep convictions. I won't scream "you are wrong" and call you an idiot like some KJVOs because I concede the possibility that I might somehow be wrong.

The "possibility" is quite REAL. There's simply no evidence supporting the KJVO myth. It's all a matter of personal preference.

Can BOTH be accurate? Why not? Virtually every Christian, regardless of what BV(s) are used, believe all four "Gospels" to be true, despite many glaring differences between them. The same criteria one uses to believe all the Gospels MUST BE APPLIED to differences between versions as well. MY criterion for such is that each Gospel(and manuscript, and each translation) was written by a different author, with different perspectives and writing abilities, same as we are ourselves all different.


But I cannot with a clear conscience base what I believe on "accuracy" or "faithfulness to missing autographs" that cannot be confirmed. We have no autographs. The Bible never exalts the original autographs over any other scripture.

Nor does it exalt any one version of itself, either.


And we don't IMHO see anyone in the Bible fiddling around with the written Word like modern preachers do.

I often hear the KJVO preacher having to stop and say, "Now here's what this verse means in OUR English...". Is THIS the "fiddling" to which you refer?

 

There's simply no evidence supporting the Autograph-only myth. But there is evidence supporting the scripture only truth.

Of course they might be "accurate" in a relative sense. But your whole position can be boiled down to this: God left us "relatively accurate" Bibles to choose from. I simply cannot find that definition of "scripture" or that method of preservation in the Bible.

If you want to debate whether the NIV is more accurate than the NKJV, etc., then we can debate that. But what is the scriptural standard of comparison and what is the Biblical method for testing?

That is true enough. I have never argued that it did. That part seems to me to be a wash.

At least we are all speaking the same language, and we have a Biblical precedent for that kind of fiddling (I Sam 9:8-11).

Lacy

 

There's simply no evidence supporting the Autograph-only myth. But there is evidence supporting the scripture only truth.

Then KJVOism has failed your test sir. KJVOism is 180% from Sola Scriptura. KJVOism has zero scripture to support it.

 

I'm sorry David, that post did not make sense to me. can you rephrase?


My point was that the Bible teaches us that "Scripture" can be inspired. That inspiration is never limited to "originals". In fact, I don't see where the word "scripture" and the term "inspiration" ever even refer to autographs, much less is limited to the autographs.

Scripture always refers to copies, translations, etc. Scripture is given by inspiration.

Autograph-Onlyism has zero scripture to support it. Autograph Onlyism is 180 degrees from "Sola Scriptura".

Lacy

 

Lacy Evans, in an earlier post to Scott, you said the JWs rely on the NWT. However, the NWT is comparatively recent in their history, as that cult was founded about 1877 as a splinter group from the SDA. They used the KJV until they decided it wasn't close enough to many of their doctrines. Therefore, Fred Franz(who was soon to become the JWs' Grand Imperial Poobah) and his buddy George Gangas, another JW big shot, got together & made the NWT, finishing it in 1950.

And speaking of the RCC...The Reformation began about 1517 and was more or less over before the AV was made.

Speaking of "fruits"...Every orchard farmer, even when his mature trees bear mucho fruit, plants new trees to begin bearing fruit by the time his present fruit-producing trees go into decline & no longer bear enough fruit to sustain his business. Now, while the KJV has borne its share of fruit and still bears fruit, it's not at all the only fruit-bearing "tree" in God's "orchard" of English Bibles.

 

Scripture always refers to copies, translations, etc. Scripture is given by inspiration.

This logic can be applied to all faithful translations of the Word of the Lord no matter what time period and language barriers.

This statement alone destroys the KJVO myth.

What I'm saying is that God did not limit His Word to only the KJV in English. God's Word is living therefore it lives within out own time period. God's Word will never die in one language from one time period. God desires that we know Him and I simply don't see Him retiring in 1611 or 1769. Imagine what a mess we would be in "if" God retired when the Vulgate was finished OR if we had to fight to understand a Wycliffe Bible that remained in the style of that day.

Why are you KJVO? I'm not talking about KJV preferred but KJVO. Just wondering... Your previous statement does not sound KJVO.

Your brother,

David J

 

God inspired His Words in the autographs. He preserved His inspired Words in the apographs. He preserved His inspired Words in accurate translations prior to KJV, the KJV and foreign accurate Bibles.

Modern versions are &lt;snipped&gt; translations. We do NOT need TOO MANY English translations such as NIV, NASB because of 2 Cor. 2:17 (KJV). MVs &lt;snipped&gt; because the source said that 51% of anyone who are not born again, used MVs over the KJV. How sad!

The KJV is most accurate translation because we thank Him for giving us the CERTAINITY of His Words! Therefore, the KJV is the inspired, preserved Word of God.

[ May 13, 2005, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Askjo states the KJVO myth in a nutshell. It's based upon this kind of logic:

A. Love is blind.

B. Ray Charles was blind, & he sang about love.

C. Therefore Ray Charles was love, and since he's dead, so is love.

 

So 49% of the lost use one version, while the other 51% use all of the other versions combined?