Why AKJV only?

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Edifier:
Oh Sweet Jesus, please place Your protective arm
around Sister Alexandria Spears.
She has done gone and jumped into the middle of a
pit of writhing Baptists. Slithering Baptists
who love to eat KJVOs for breakfast.
And they don't spit no bones out.

Oops, i made an error, sorry

Oh Sweet Jesus, please place Your protective arm
around Sister Alexandria Spears.
She has done gone and jumped into the middle of a
pit of writhing Baptists. Slithering Baptists
who love to eat KJVOs BEforE breakfast.
And they don't spit no bones out.

 

[Ed Edwards]

I took the "NIV test" but used
the New King James Version (nKJV).
I got 100%. Why then do the
AKJB-onlyists OBJECT to the KJV?

I've been around long enough to
experience the history of the nKJV.
In the 1960s i remember the then current
AKJB-onlyists said that no MV uses
the textus recdeptus (TR) for a source;
therefore all MVs are bad.
In the 1980s, the nKJV translators set out
to satisfy the DEMANDS of the AKJBOs.
So they wrote the NKJV using the TR
as the primary source.

But alas, AKJBOs are slithery as snakes
(but not gentle as doves )
The AKJBOs have an immoderate appetite
and don't like the nKJV written to their
specifications.

The above is another AKJVO lie exposed.

BTW, does anybody remember the addy of
the proof that the AKJB was
authorized by a homosexual? Makes me wonder
why some folk are so keen to even speak
of the AV instead of the KJV

 

[Ed Edwards]

Askjo: "Are you one of the W/H groups

No.

I don't understand Hebrew,
I don't understand Greek.
I am dependant upon the
English versions to get God's wriltten word.

I praise God

that He, in His Divine
Providence has provided His inerrant
holy written word in not one version (KJB),
not three versions (KJV1611, KJV1769, KJV1873),
but in all the English Versions!
Praise Jesus

(

i like that Baptist smilie!
He just raises one hand when praising
Jesus

)

 

[gb93433]

No translation is 100 percent accurate. There are words when translating from one language to another that are not translatable. No translation is inspired. A translation is not the Bible. It is a translation of the original Bible. There are a number of idiomatic expressions in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic that do not always translate well. For example "Bowels of mercy." There are many more.

You cannot translate accurately without knowing both cultures and languages well. There is no translation without interpretation as well.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by gb93433:
No translation is 100 percent accurate. There are words when translating from one language to another that are not translatable. No translation is inspired. A translation is not the Bible. It is a translation of the original Bible. There are a number of idiomatic expressions in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic that do not always translate well. For example "Bowels of mercy." There are many more.

You cannot translate accurately without knowing both cultures and languages well. There is no translation without interpretation as well.

With your assumption of the scriptures not being inspired, what if the mistake lies in the salvation plan? According to you and others, it could happen. If you don't believe what the Bibles says is correct, how do you know your saved? Do you pick and choose what to believe? Why not believe it all? What harm could come to you or anyone else if you did?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Askjo:
I did not ask you to look at Luke 19:10, but I ask you, what doctrine is Matthew 18:11?

You really struggle with some basic issues Askjo. This is simply unbelievable. You claim a doctrine is missing from MVs and cite Matt 18:11 as proof. I show you the exact wording from Matt 18:11 in the MVs as undeniable proof that the doctrine of Matt 18:11 is not missing. How can you continue to say what you say??

Had you argued that a verse was missing, I could agree with you. But you didn't. You said that a doctrine was missing. I clearly showed you to be wrong.

You did not answer my question. Why did most modern versions remove this passage?

That wasn't your question. You can't even tell the truth about what question you asked. Do you not think that honesty is a key ingredient here to these discussions?????

Here is your post, verbatim:

KJV on Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

What doctrine?

Now, you tell me what question you asked. Be honest. You asked "What doctrine?" You did not ask "Why did most modern versions leave out this verse?" You have to be honest with the facts. You asked What doctrine? My answer directly answered the question you asked. I said, "Would this be the same doctrine listed in the following versions????" The obvious answer is Yes, it is the same doctrine as found in Luke 19:10.

Now, if you want an answer to why the MVs omitted that verse, the answer is because Matthew did not write it. The MVs are committed to giving us only what Matthew wrote. There is strong evidence that Matthew did not write that verse in that place.

14 manuscripts removed this verse! However the evidence is that 47 manuscripts have this passage!

To be truthful, no manuscripts removed it. It is virtually impossible to remove something from a manuscript. Erasers don't work well on those old parchments. What they did was copy what they had in front of them. To compare 14 to 47 is somewhat misleading. If those 47 copied a bad manuscript, then those 47 are wrong. (Same with teh 14). What we are judging in not 14 vs. 47, but rather 1 vs. 1. It does not matter how many times sometimes repeats an error. It is still an error, even if it is repeated 47 times.

Please answer my question: what doctrine is on Matt. 18:11?

I already answered that question. The same doctrine (and words) that is in Luke 19:10. Any honest person can see that the doctrine is not what is missing. The doctrine is plainly there.

You are in over your head here Askjo. Rather than pontificating about this, you should commit yourself to learning. You show increasingly that you are not familiar with basic facts involved in the truth about this matter. I do not say that to shame you or embarrass but rather to encourage you. You are repeating somethings that you have heard. Unfortunately, they were not true when you heard them and your repeating them will not make them true.

Let's go to the next level here and get past these false accusations.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Luke wrote what Mary said. You misread this passage and misunderstand it.

So Mary didn't know that Jesus was born of a virgin?? Was Mary wrong?? It sounds to me like your beef is with Mary since she talked about Jesus' father.

This shows how unthinking you are about this. Mary said that Jesus had a father, Joseph. How can that do anything but undermine the virgin birth, from your perspective?? You are applying a standard to the MVs that you are not willing to apply to the KJV. It is obvious you do this because it would blow your position away if you were fair in teh standard you applied. As it is, you have simply believed false teaching, unknowing probably to this time. But now you are being shown the truth. Will you turn from the error of your ways and accept God's word??

But let's look at the question more deeply. Do the MVs deny the virgin birth?? The following quotes are from teh NIV and NASB95 presented without comment.

Matthew 1:23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us." 24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Matthew 1:23 "BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US." 24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

Clearly, to charge the MVs with denying the virgin birth is false. They affirm the virgin birth without question, as seen in the passages listed. To continue to charge the MVs with denying the virgin birth is to propogate false teaching and to attack the word of God.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Johnv:
Forget about what versions say "father" and what versions say "Joseph". What do the original texts say?

16 manuscripts supported "father." However 43 manuscripts supported "Joseph." </font>[/QUOTE]Weren't you the one who informed us all yesterday that truth is not determined by a majority vote??

What if, in a class of 59 people, 43 of them answered that 2+2=5? Would they be right?? Of course not. Which proves you half wrong and half right. Your statement of today is based on a wrong basis. Your statement of yesterday is right. Stick with yesterday's statement.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
I sure am glad that I don’t know Greek, I may be as messed up as you guys are. I’m glad God saw that I needed to tell the difference between the two without having to learn another language.

Knowing some basics would have prevented you from slandering God's word out of lack of knowledge. We pity those poor souls who had the original manuscripts who would have been so confused about it. Man, it's a good thing God wasn't really serious back then. He would have had no way to communicate his truth until 1611 ... or 1613 ... or 1631 ... or [insert year of your favorite revision here].

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Yes - they deny it! Look at: what Luke wrote and what Luke wrote what Mary said.

Look at what Matthew wrote in Matthew 1:23-25 and what Isaiah wrote in Isa 7:14. To say that the MVs deny the virgin birth is clearly false. They affirm it in unmistakeable terms. It is a simple lack of honesty to suggest that the MVs deny the virgin birth.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Alexandra Spears:

The KJV is the only inerrant Bible for four reasons:

Superior TEXTS
Superior TRANSLATORS
Superior TECHNIQUE
Superior THEOLOGY

Think about this Alexandra...

Even if these assumptions, not facts, are true, superior does not equal inerrant.

One could rightly say that a particular baseball player was the best of all time because he has a high fielding percentage, high stolen base ratio, high batting avg, high slugging percentage, and a high put-out assist total. It's called being a "5-star" player. What you couldn't say is that they never made any errors, struck out, missed a sign, etc. Baseball players are human and make mistakes. You also couldn't say that there will never be a better player.

Likewise, the KJV translators were scholarly men. They weren't directly inspired by God as the original writers were. They made translation choices subject to their fallible, sin-stricken choices.

I agree that the KJV is a superior translation. I use it as my primary version... but it is not a perfect facsimile of what God inspired. The evidence for the originals disproves this notion.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
It is a simple lack of honesty to suggest that the MVs deny the virgin birth.

"Lack of honesty". Those three words probably sum up the arguments and attacks of the onlies the best.

I thought of them as "deceived, ignorant or simply fawning toadies" following a KJVO guru (like Ruckman or Hyles or PCC), but now, as time has passed and the arguments for "onlyism" shown to be totally errant, then it boils down to the will.

Lack of honesty is a moral failure. Sadly. And anyone attacking the Word of God (as the "onlies" certainly do, though claiming the opposite) is fair game for me.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Alexandra Spears:

The KJV is the only inerrant Bible for four reasons:

Superior TEXTS
Superior TRANSLATORS
Superior TECHNIQUE
Superior THEOLOGY

</font>[/QUOTE]uh huh, here goes another D.A. Waiteism!



the most laughable (=pathetic) aspect IMO is Waite's view of TECHNIQUE, by which he compares his FE-esque conception to a handbag pitched across the room.

i'd suggest for Alexandra to read some real books that deal w the subject. or at least some minimally honest ones.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by gb93433:
No translation is 100 percent accurate. There are words when translating from one language to another that are not translatable. No translation is inspired. A translation is not the Bible. It is a translation of the original Bible. There are a number of idiomatic expressions in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic that do not always translate well. For example "Bowels of mercy." There are many more.

You cannot translate accurately without knowing both cultures and languages well. There is no translation without interpretation as well.

Thou dost my mind speaketh. (KJV)
You speak my mind. (KNJV)
You expressed my thoughts verbatim. (RSV)
My sentiments exactly. (NIV)
We're singing from the same hymnal!! (The Message)

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:
QUOTE]n how many supported 1 John 5:7?

how many against? [/QB]

19 manuscripts supported 1 John 5:7-8.

18 manuscripts removed them.

A full defense of this most important Trinitarian passage is to get Jack Moorman's essay.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Askjo:
19 manuscripts supported 1 John 5:7-8.

Please list them. I count 3, plus 3 others that have it noted in the margin (i.e. not in the text itself).

18 manuscripts removed them.

I count 31, not including ancient translations.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by Askjo:
19 manuscripts supported 1 John 5:7-8.

u can't include the spurious.

check out this defense: http://www.bibleman.net/johannine.htm

18 manuscripts removed them.

did u include Erasmus' 1st 3 editions?

or did u honour only the ones approved by the Romanist authorities?

A full defense of this most important Trinitarian passage is to get Jack Moorman's essay.

i'll stick w Erasmus. he was a gt Protestant Baptist scholar, wasn't he (i speak as a KJBO)?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Alexandra Spears: "One Bible is inerrant.
The rest aren't. How hard
is that to understand?"

It is simple to understand.
SO maybe that is why simple people
understand it?
When one gets off the MILK and into
the MEAT, they will find God is
NOT limited to one book to
hold His written word.

Speaking of "word", my dictionary has 23 meanings
of it. The Greeks had two significant terms
that are translated "word" in the KJV:

LOGOS - the living word of God (Jesus)
REMA - the written word of God (Bible)

In my dictionary meaning #9 and meaning #10
of the 23 meanings of "word" are these two meanings.

The new testament uses "word" 197 times,
in the KJV1769.
208 times in the nKJV.
Oh no! the KJV1769 has removed the
VERY "WORD" OF GOD 11 times!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Darby Version uses "word" 253 times

 

[timothy 1769]

It is simple to understand.
SO maybe that is why simple people
understand it?

1 Corinthians 1
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

 

[gb93433]

With your assumption of the scriptures not being inspired, what if the mistake lies in the salvation plan? According to you and others, it could happen. If you don't believe what the Bibles says is correct, how do you know your saved? Do you pick and choose what to believe? Why not believe it all? What harm could come to you or anyone else if you did? [/QB][/QUOTE]

Your assumption about me is absolutely wrong! I believe the Bible from front to back. I believe there are no errors. But I do not believe for one minute baby baptizers will give an accurate trabslation when it comes to translating bapitzo. They tranlslated the KJV of 1611. A translation is not inspired. It is the scripture that is inspired. The scripture is the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic text. Not the English text. That is the reason I chose to study Hebrew, Greek and some Aramaic.

Can God use a translation? Yes. No translation can be absolutely accurate unless there is explantion. Why do you think so many schools require their students to study Greek and Hebrew? They know what most do not? It is of utmost importance. Most poor doctrine comes from a sharing of ignorance and no study. It's kind of like asking a man to build a house who can't read the plans. The translation from plans to house will be inaccurate.

The inspired Bible is not the same as a translation of the Bible. There are some parts that are easily translated and some are not. Never is any translation exactly the same as the original in another language.

I will give you an example that if you ask your Spanish/English speaking biligual friends to translate, come estas? and como esta? with a direct translation and no explanation they will just smile at you and tell you it can't be done. The English you read only gives about 25 percent of the full impact that the Greek gives. The English gives about as much light as trying to see at night with a 25 watt light bulb. You can still see but not as well as during the day or when a bright light shines.

Once you begin to study the historical context and language of scripture you might be surprised at how much you have swallowed from others who were simply ignorant, and you nor they knew.

Lasnguage is the key to a culture.

For example if someone ran over an animal we would not say the animal was killed. We would most likely asy it was run over.

If a person died we often say they passed away. They didn't vaporize and vanish. They died.

In America we call your CPU a computer. But in another country a direct translation of their word for computer is "thinking machine." Can you imagine calling our computer a thinking machine. Nor would we think of a computer as a machine that computes. In every culture there are ways of saying things that unlock the culture.

Hebrew does no have a word for wife. It is phrased as woman of him or woman of a man's name. When you read the Greek you see in so many cases that the writers had a Jewish background by the way they write and the phrases they used. The English does nothing to reflect that cultural key.

Until you study a language you will not understand what I mean.

If you really want to better understand scripture you will study the languages that scripture was penned in.

[ July 17, 2003, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: gb93433 ]