What is the truth?

[tyndale1946]

Chris Temple said:

So, by analogy, the KJV is the product of perfect, sinless nature, meaning either the AV translators did not possess sin natures, or the AV was immediately breathed-out by God??

I guess that about covers it Chris... You brethren are killing me... Brother Glen:

[ May 20, 2002, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

[ChristianCynic]

Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
Pastor Larry,
Someone please explain to this poor dumb country boy why it was neccessary for God to take a bunch of ungodly men to "improve" on what is already perfect?
Ernie

Because, poor dumb country boy, sin was so rampant in the 15th and 16th centuries in the forms of cruelty, bigotry, and many more, that anyone to do the translating work for the English/Scottish pope were 'ungodly men.'

 

[DocCas]

And the sins, and sinners, of today are of a better, higher quality? That sounds suspiciously like self righteousness to me.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by Chris Temple:
So, by analogy, the KJV is the product of perfect, sinless nature, meaning either the AV translators did not possess sin natures, or the AV was immediately breathed-out by God??

but wldn't that force KJBOs to come up w a doctrine of Immaculate Conception to cover those sinless translators?

sounds like a lot of hard work ahead.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
Yes, God is speaking of the promise to man that his word is true, that is the point. Just as he promised to preserve godly men, he promised to preserve his wordand he did!

Where is this promise? We have already stated that Ps 12 is not it.

Not just the KJV, but in many languages.

How can this be if they are not the same? I thought only one thing could be perfect. Once you admit this (and you rightly have) you lose the battle for the perfection of the KJV.

Someone please explain to this poor dumb country boy why it was neccessary for God to take a bunch of ungodly men to "improve" on what is already perfect?

He didn't use ungodly men to improve on what was already perfect. As has been shown, the 1611 wasn't perfect.

 

[Ernie Brazee]

Of couse God didn't use ungodly men as God's word needs no improvement and they MVs are far from and improvement. But, that is the nature of man to think they need to correct God.

Ernie

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
Of couse God didn't use ungodly men as God's word needs no improvement and they MVs are far from and improvement.

... so why did the King James feel a necessity to replace God's Word, the Geneva Bible, in the early 1600's? Could it be that the king and his Anglican clergymen wanted to deny Baptists, Separatists, Independents, and Puritans the Bible they used to deny his prelacy and to preach sound doctrine?

The KJ version of 2 Peter 1:1 was certainly not an improvement. The godly Geneva Bible openly declared that Jesus (like MV's by the way) was God but the AV obscures the fact by making the passage appear to refer to God and the Saviour separately.

If your arguments are valid now, these arguments were just as valid when the KJV was created.

But, that is the nature of man to think they need to correct God.

Ernie

Absolutely correct!!! God in His divine sovereignty did not choose to preserve the originals nor give us a method of determining with 100% certainty what the words of the originals were. He did not reinspire the Bible into English either. He did not promise nor act to maintain "perfect" translations or ms copies.

So, the KJVO substitutes the words of the KJV for the divinely inspired words of God in order to correct God's mistake.

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by Scott J:
... so why did the King James feel a necessity to replace God's Word, the Geneva Bible, in the early 1600's?

It wasn't James I idea. It was presented to him by Anlican puritans who did not like the Bishop's Bible, which was the current "authorized" bible of the Church of England.

Could it be that the king and his Anglican clergymen wanted to deny Baptists, Separatists, Independents, and Puritans the Bible they used to deny his prelacy and to preach sound doctrine?

There is no doubt in my mind that one of the good King's primary concerns was that the common man in the Church of England used the Geneva Bible rather than the Bishop's bible, and James was quite put off by the anti-monarchy notes Calvin had inserted into the 1560 Geneva and Whittingham and Beza had elaborated on for the 1599 edition which was most common in England of that day. But to equate the anti-monarchy nature of the notes with "sound doctrine" is, in my opinion, something of a stretch.

The KJ version of 2 Peter 1:1 was certainly not an improvement. The godly Geneva Bible openly declared that Jesus (like MV's by the way) was God but the AV obscures the fact by making the passage appear to refer to God and the Saviour separately.

This is not a problem with the translation, but with your understanding of English. The word "and" can, in English, serve either as an appositive or a conjuntive. In this case it is serving as a conjuntive, connecting two elements of the same thing. God and Saviour, two elements of the same thing.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
...But to equate the anti-monarchy nature of the notes with "sound doctrine" is, in my opinion, something of a stretch.

If you will read my (albeit imperfect) English you will note that I said "to deny his prelacy and to preach sound doctrine"... two uses, not one use qualified.

None the less, you missed the whole point. My assertion is that if Ernie's arguments are legitimate now then these arguments are useful for establishing that the KJV should have never existed in the first place. Like the KJV translators, I think it is a noble endeavor when men aspiring to a godly purpose attempt to make a good translation. Many KJVO's seem to believe that every attempt after the KJV is a work of Satan.

This is not a problem with the translation, but with your understanding of English. The word "and" can, in English, serve either as an appositive or a conjuntive. In this case it is serving as a conjuntive, connecting two elements of the same thing. God and Saviour, two elements of the same thing.

Dr. Cassidy, My poor grasp of the English language not withstanding (and my even poorer grasp of 17th century English), I don't think that the phrase "...through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" clearly establishes that one person is being talked about. The word "our" brings unnecessary ambiguity into the sentence at best.

Of the many KJVO's that I know personally, I would guess that none of them would read that passage and get the meaning that you say it "can" have.

[ May 21, 2002, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Of the many KJVO's that I know personally, I would guess that none of them would read that passage and get the meaning that you say it "can" have.

I don't know of a single KJVO who does not believe in the deity of Christ and does not preach that verse as being a statement of His deity. Can you give me an attribution to support your assertion?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Of the many KJVO's that I know personally, I would guess that none of them would read that passage and get the meaning that you say it "can" have.

I don't know of a single KJVO who does not believe in the deity of Christ and does not preach that verse as being a statement of His deity. Can you give me an attribution to support your assertion?</font>[/QUOTE]I am talking about people in the pews who don't have extensive resources, not pastors. Also, I am not referring to a lack of belief in the Trinity but rather the use of this verse as as proof text.

On the other hand... a preacher/Sunday School teacher (who is a good friend of mine) was doing a verse by verse study of James and said that James 3:13 meant that Christians shouldn't cuss. He ignored the context and taught the verse based on his understanding of the word "conversation." He was corrected (not by me) but made other similar, less blatant errors later.

He could greatly benefit from a MV even if he just used it as a study aid to his KJV. He isn't highly educated but he is definitely intelligent and has a heart for God. Even though he nor the pastor are KJVO, his father and several of the key leaders of the church are. Whether out of respect or fear, his spiritual growth and effectiveness will probably be hampered by these others.

My assertion above is based on this type of experience... and we've discussed many similar problems before like "is all killing wrong", you know that it means murder but my mom and other KJVO's are confused by it. The same goes for money being the root of all evil or preventing those who are dead.

Therein is a real danger. When uneducated pastors and members believe that all other versions are evil and the KJV means exactly what it says but at the same time don't understand what it is really saying, how long will it be before doctrinal errors creep in?

I found a KJVO board where you were mocked and condemned for being too liberal and a false supporter of the KJV. Do you think those guys will let "Bible correcters" tell them what good doctrine is? How many people do they have influence over that are even more ignorant and reactionary?

Sorry for rambling. My recent interactions with those folks has left me a little hyper-sensitive.

[ May 21, 2002, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

[TomVols]

Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Of the many KJVO's that I know personally, I would guess that none of them would read that passage and get the meaning that you say it "can" have.

I don't know of a single KJVO who does not believe in the deity of Christ and does not preach that verse as being a statement of His deity. Can you give me an attribution to support your assertion?</font>[/QUOTE]For whatever it's worth, in the IFB church I grew up in and other IFB churches I attended as a youth, I did hear a few KJVOs preach against the deity of Christ. I have no tapes or transcripts, just memories. One doesn't have anything to do with the other necessarily though.

 

[Ernie Brazee]

Quote from Tomvols:
For whatever it's worth, in the IFB church I grew up in and other IFB churches I attended as a youth, I did hear a few KJVOs preach against the deity of Christ. I have no tapes or transcripts, just memories. One doesn't have anything to do with the other necessarily though.

...and I have heard few MV supporters preach the diety of Christ!!!!!!

 

[ChristianCynic]

Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:

...and I have heard few MV supporters preach the diety of Christ!!!!!![/QUOTE]

Add one more to your list, Brazee. Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh in whom all the fullness of Deity lives in bodily form.

 

[TomVols]

Yeah, I'd be another mv user that proclaims the deity of Christ. Never heard any colleagues who use mvs deny His deity. Again, as I said before, experiential arguments along these lines are tenuous at best though.

 

[TomVols]

Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Quote from Tomvols:
For whatever it's worth, in the IFB church I grew up in and other IFB churches I attended as a youth, I did hear a few KJVOs preach against the deity of Christ. I have no tapes or transcripts, just memories. One doesn't have anything to do with the other necessarily though.

...and I have heard few MV supporters preach the diety of Christ!!!!!!</font>[/QUOTE]If that's really the case, it's probably just as much of an anomaly as my experiences were.