franklinmonroe
Active Member
For you then, there need not be any connection whatsoever between the RT and the KJV. So, why not just leave the TR (v. CT) out of the discussion since in the end it doesn't determine the 'perfection' of the KJV?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why no commitment?
- Thread starter Winman
- Start date
- Status
franklinmonroe
Active Member
God did not promise to preserve all of His words in written form. You frequently confuse "the word of God" with 'the Bible'.
The Vulgate was not a CT-based text.
The Reformation produced the TR, as much as the other way around. The Reformation was brought about by historical events such as the invention of moveable (printing) type and the fall of Constantinople. The Bible had been available in English since about 1400.
Last edited by a moderator:
Many more millions have and do believe in transubstantiation. So what?
It would be dumb to commit to one version when NO Bible says we should. The KJV doesn't say- this is the only English Bible you should commit to. It is the only perfect word of God in English. The translators knew better as well. We believe in Sola Scriptura for the tenth time. That means we don't commit to things the Bible does not demand we commit to.
As I said before, according to the Trinitarian Bible Society, there have been nearly 40 versions of the TR, although their differences are very small.
What is generally held to be the TR today was actually a back translation of the KJB back into the Greek.
So, it is proper to say the KJB used the TR if one understands that the most popular TR was actually a reproduction of the Greek texts used to translate the KJB.
Now, that is all interesting, but my conviction is not based upon all this. I really do not worry how the KJB came to be.
For me, it was a matter of finding where God's preserved Word was. And when I examined and compared the KJB to the MVs that came from the CT, I was fully convinced that the KJB was the preserved version in English. And I am not afraid to take a stand on it.
Winman:I don't demand that only the KJB is God's preserved Word in English, I believe it by faith and millions of other Christians boldly proclaim the same.
Actually, ya believe it by GUESSING. Ya have NOTHING FROM GOD backing you.
If the KJB is not the preserved Word of God in English, then which version is? Why do I have to ask this over and over again?
Cuz ya WON'T accept our answer: EVERY VALID TRANSLATION. You CANNOT prove differently, butcha stubbornly keep asking anyway!
But because KJBs take a firm stand does not prove we are in error like the JW or Mormon's. We could be correct, and I believe we are.
JWs & mormons have NOTHING FROM GOD to support their views, & NEITHER DO KJVOs.
Actually, ya believe it by GUESSING. Ya have NOTHING FROM GOD backing you.
If the KJB is not the preserved Word of God in English, then which version is? Why do I have to ask this over and over again?
Cuz ya WON'T accept our answer: EVERY VALID TRANSLATION. You CANNOT prove differently, butcha stubbornly keep asking anyway!
But because KJBs take a firm stand does not prove we are in error like the JW or Mormon's. We could be correct, and I believe we are.
JWs & mormons have NOTHING FROM GOD to support their views, & NEITHER DO KJVOs.
Wait a minute! Look at 2 Baptist Colleges for example: TTU in Tenn and BBC in MO – TTU used the CT and BBC used the TR. Are the CT and the TR SAME? Absolutely NOT !! The problem is that they taught DIIFFERENTLY because they used different texts. According to BBC, it only used the KJV in class because of the TR.
This contradicts with one verse that you take or avoid.
2 Timothy 2:2
And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
Why did TTU and BBC disagree with which Greek texts when they are able to teach FAITHFUL men? Why did they commit the DIFFERENCE to faithful men?
Last edited by a moderator:
It reminds of the Highlander- THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!
But the fact of the matter is that the Word of God is found not in one but in the Superabundance of manuscripts. You are not defending the Word of God by demanding that only one text be it and you are certainly not defending it by demanding (or believing, whatever) that the Word of God is only ONE translation. You are actually weakening it by limitation.
Yes, and what was the foundation of their scriptures? The Alexandrian or Critical Text. You are not helping yourself.
It is not dumb to commit to one version. If God demanded that his Word be copied word for word and not to be added to or diminished from, then there can only be one correct version. That is plain logic.
Now, the KJB did add words or else much of the English scriptures would be unintelligable. The MVs had to do this as well. But in the KJB these words are identified in italics, while other versions do not.
I fully realize you are unwilling to commit to any version of scripture, that is why I started this thread.
What do you fellows say when a new convert asks which Bible version he should use? Boy, that must be a real mess. :laugh:
I reject the premise of the OP.
The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the Word of God stands forever, even if the KJVOs disagree.
Thanks friend!
I've seen it.
I've seen it.
Because they don't believe in the sophistry of human-centered, ear-tickling KJVO. Let God be true and man be a liar.
I doubt it's millions, but "millions" who believe a distortion of the truth do not make change the fact that it's a distortion the truth.
The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the Word of God stands forever, even if the KJVOs disagree.
Thanks friend!
Versions are not preserved. They are versions of what God has preserved.
They are versions of the Word of God which God has preserved.
The very idea of "version" declares that it is not in and of itself the actual thing.
It is a version of the actual thing.
All lower textual critics know this- including the ones who translated the KJV.
Absolutely true. That is highest percentage.
Yes, of course!
You know these defenders of MV/CT’s way. So do I. God’s warnings are found in the Bible, but will they take God’s warnings or ignore them? It is up to them !!
4,000 differences in NASB. 6500+ difference in NIV. 2,000 differences in the NKJV. They differed from the KJV/TR.
The manuscripts of the traditional text are the best. That is where the KJV was derived from.
Amen! Amen!
Anti-KJV man called the KJV, “inferior translation.” You go ahead and SHOUT at him. If you want to know who this man is, please pm me.
Good point.
I disagree with you about the KJV perfection. I prefer the KJV accuracy over the KJV perfection. I agree with you that the KJV is the preserved Word of God in English.
All sinners are not perfect, but Jesus is sinless.
All scriptures made known to all nations – any language. Romans 16:26
Beside a word, “perfect.” The point is the BIBLE that the question is: Will we proclaim it is the Word of God or shut up?
Interesting! I see the difference between you and Edward F. Hills.
Last edited by a moderator:
We absolutely have to get our Bibliology right. Those who don't need to shut up. There's no place in the pulpit for those who deny God's Word, be they KJVO or some liberal who believes there is no such thing as the word of God.
We have the Word of God. And I thank God that tomorrow, men will stand with KJVs, NIVs, NLTs, etc., and proclaim that we do and that it's inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, and authority demand a life-change that only the Holy Spirit can bring about, because there are people in desperate need of that change.
Winman;1576704Robycop, do you even understand what faith is? Faith is never something you can prove.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
SUBSTANCE & EVIDENCE! KJVO has neither.
What is the deal with the "gansta" talk you have going here and when you said "butcha" earlier? You will appear far more intelligent if you use proper English. I know you are intelligent, but you are not helping your cause with language like this.
Simple Computerese.
I don't worship my Bible, it is ink on paper. But I do worship the God who said he would preserve his Word to all generations, who said heaven and earth would pass away, but his words would never pass away.
And, who is NOT COMMITTED to any one text nor translation.
If we are wrong, we are wrong.
And you ARE. Not in your committment, but in your REASONS for it.
It is not unscriptural however at all.
It's not? OK, lessee ther Scriptures. And please, DON'T say "Psalm 12:6-7. That "thingie has been proven FALSE by the AV1611 itself.
God said he would preserve his Word, we believe it, and believe in the English language he preserved it in the KJB. There is the remote possibility we are wrong, I have always said that. We believe by faith, not scholarly proof.
No "remote" to it...you're simply GUESSING. Faith has SUBSTANCE & EVIDENCE as ya know by quoting Heb. 11:1, and again, KJVO HAS NEITHER!
But if the KJB is not the preserved Word of God in English, then which version is?
EVERY VALID VERSION. YOU CANNOT PROVE OTHERWISE!
And no one here is saying the KJV aint a valid version.
And that is a question that has never been answered by any MV except to give the false argument that all versions are the preserved Word of God.
WRONG. I just answered it for the zillionth time. You just don't like that answer, butcha CANNOT PROVE OTHERWISE!
There is no verse in the Bible saying that God would preserve his Word in the English language in a version called the King James Bible.
Nor any other specific version. Butcha evidently liketa pretend there is!
But God did say he would preserve his word to all generations. So it is very scriptural to believe that God's true and preserved Word is in the world. No version is identified, so we must seek to identify it on our own. We have the witness of early church fathers whose writings agree with the RT but do not agree with the CT texts. We have very early scriptures in other languages that agree with the RT but do not agree with the CT.
We also have the witness of those who followed the CT versus the RT. What came out of the CT? The Roman Catholic Church and their suppression for nearly 1000 years, their murder of hundreds of thousands if not millions of true Christians, their complete corruption. It was not called the Dark Ages without reason.
What fruit did the RT produce? It brought about the Reformation and the breaking away from the slavery of the RCC for millions. The common man now had the scriptures he could hold in his own hands and study, and not be dependent upon the corrupt RCC church. We have worldwide evangelism where the gospel was taken and preached on every continent and in all nations.
The Scriptures were around long before the "RT". Again, you're simply GUESSING. Without ANYTHING FROM GOD IN HIS WORD about any doctrine of worship, we MUST assume it's false, since there's only ONE other ultimate source of doctrines of worship other than GOD......
Matt 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
And the fruit of KJVO is a big fat lemon.
Long ago, we identified the MAN-MADE SOURCE of the current KJVO edition as being a CULT OFFICIAL'S book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) by Dr. Ben Wilkinson, a 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official. So there's some EVIDENCE for KJVO's MAN-MADE origin. Now, do you have ONE QUARK of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT or authority for KJVO? Newp! Therefore, KJVO isshownyabee MAN-MADE AND FALSE. Since it aint from GOD, it must be from the devil. Betcha CANNOT prove otherwise!
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
SUBSTANCE & EVIDENCE! KJVO has neither.
What is the deal with the "gansta" talk you have going here and when you said "butcha" earlier? You will appear far more intelligent if you use proper English. I know you are intelligent, but you are not helping your cause with language like this.
Simple Computerese.
I don't worship my Bible, it is ink on paper. But I do worship the God who said he would preserve his Word to all generations, who said heaven and earth would pass away, but his words would never pass away.
And, who is NOT COMMITTED to any one text nor translation.
If we are wrong, we are wrong.
And you ARE. Not in your committment, but in your REASONS for it.
It is not unscriptural however at all.
It's not? OK, lessee ther Scriptures. And please, DON'T say "Psalm 12:6-7. That "thingie has been proven FALSE by the AV1611 itself.
God said he would preserve his Word, we believe it, and believe in the English language he preserved it in the KJB. There is the remote possibility we are wrong, I have always said that. We believe by faith, not scholarly proof.
No "remote" to it...you're simply GUESSING. Faith has SUBSTANCE & EVIDENCE as ya know by quoting Heb. 11:1, and again, KJVO HAS NEITHER!
But if the KJB is not the preserved Word of God in English, then which version is?
EVERY VALID VERSION. YOU CANNOT PROVE OTHERWISE!
And no one here is saying the KJV aint a valid version.
And that is a question that has never been answered by any MV except to give the false argument that all versions are the preserved Word of God.
WRONG. I just answered it for the zillionth time. You just don't like that answer, butcha CANNOT PROVE OTHERWISE!
There is no verse in the Bible saying that God would preserve his Word in the English language in a version called the King James Bible.
Nor any other specific version. Butcha evidently liketa pretend there is!
But God did say he would preserve his word to all generations. So it is very scriptural to believe that God's true and preserved Word is in the world. No version is identified, so we must seek to identify it on our own. We have the witness of early church fathers whose writings agree with the RT but do not agree with the CT texts. We have very early scriptures in other languages that agree with the RT but do not agree with the CT.
We also have the witness of those who followed the CT versus the RT. What came out of the CT? The Roman Catholic Church and their suppression for nearly 1000 years, their murder of hundreds of thousands if not millions of true Christians, their complete corruption. It was not called the Dark Ages without reason.
What fruit did the RT produce? It brought about the Reformation and the breaking away from the slavery of the RCC for millions. The common man now had the scriptures he could hold in his own hands and study, and not be dependent upon the corrupt RCC church. We have worldwide evangelism where the gospel was taken and preached on every continent and in all nations.
The Scriptures were around long before the "RT". Again, you're simply GUESSING. Without ANYTHING FROM GOD IN HIS WORD about any doctrine of worship, we MUST assume it's false, since there's only ONE other ultimate source of doctrines of worship other than GOD......
Matt 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
And the fruit of KJVO is a big fat lemon.
Long ago, we identified the MAN-MADE SOURCE of the current KJVO edition as being a CULT OFFICIAL'S book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) by Dr. Ben Wilkinson, a 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official. So there's some EVIDENCE for KJVO's MAN-MADE origin. Now, do you have ONE QUARK of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT or authority for KJVO? Newp! Therefore, KJVO isshownyabee MAN-MADE AND FALSE. Since it aint from GOD, it must be from the devil. Betcha CANNOT prove otherwise!
Last edited by a moderator:
What a profoundly ridiculous thing to say. The KJB only has 400 years of history in the Christian church.
Unflattering.
You aren't. Will you say right now that your version is the only perfect, infallible version in English?
So why does this bother MVs? You guys ridicule KJVOs constantly. It doesn't bother me at all, but it is obvious many MVs absolutely despise and hate those who hold to the KJVO position. It shows.
How can a version with nearly 3000 less words in the Greek be exactly the same? Either on added to God's word, or the other diminished from it, but it is absurd to argue they both are valid. Of course, I do not know what you mean when you say valid.
I answered this. Again, your style of writing is very juvenile.
The RT is the scriptures.
You've got a short memory. On another thread we discussed this and there are records of Baptists who held to a KJVO long before this author wrote this book.
- Status