-
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 was the KJV Bible given to Anglo Saxons Only?
- Thread starter Ben W
- Start date
I also would like to hear a genuine answer to Marcia's questions which I think are cutting right to the heart of the discussion here.
It amazes me how this type of KJVO Gnostiscm of further revelation is entrenched into some churches. Jesus Christ is the end of all Revelation. There is no subsaquent movment of God in 1611 to create an english copy of the Bible that was the only one correct. That is outright Gnostiscm, teaching that there is further revelation after Christ. As bad as the SDA 1844 Investagative Judgement doctrine. Why is it that all these groups need specific dates after the ressurection to add further things to Christianity?
Again, lets see a genuine answer to Marcia's questioning.
It amazes me how this type of KJVO Gnostiscm of further revelation is entrenched into some churches. Jesus Christ is the end of all Revelation. There is no subsaquent movment of God in 1611 to create an english copy of the Bible that was the only one correct. That is outright Gnostiscm, teaching that there is further revelation after Christ. As bad as the SDA 1844 Investagative Judgement doctrine. Why is it that all these groups need specific dates after the ressurection to add further things to Christianity?
Again, lets see a genuine answer to Marcia's questioning.
Michelle:If you SNIP this scripture AGAIN, and YOU WILL BE showing your true colors. And I will also tell everyone that SCRIPTURES are NOT ALLOWED ON THESE THREADS, unless of course the moderators DECIDE what IS or IS NOT RELEVANT to an ISSUE.[/i]
What IS relevant is these same Scriptures are found in every other valid English BV. Worded a little differently due to language changes and different translators, but the same, nonetheless. They are NOT exclusive to the KJV.
What IS relevant is these same Scriptures are found in every other valid English BV. Worded a little differently due to language changes and different translators, but the same, nonetheless. They are NOT exclusive to the KJV.
Michelle:So are you saying you have NO FINAL AUTHORITY in your OWN LANGUAGE?
he's saying he doesn't limit himself to JUST ONE VERSION of that final authority since GOD isn't thus limited.
Where does God say that a translation is not, nor can be His word of truth?
Same place He says,"ONLY THE KJV is My word of truth in English."
Where does God say, that ONLY HEBREW and GREEK are his pure words?
Same place he says only ELIZABETHAN ENGLISH is.
If we do not have, nor think that we have God's pure word of truth, then we are believing lies and errors of men as our FINAL AUTHORITY. Are you telling me, that I must now either learn Greek and Hebrew, or rely upon someone else today who does?
What we're saying is that when someone as yourself says, "This version is wrong because MY fave version reads differently", then we must look at the SOURCES for each version, for PROOF.
I THINK NOT! God PROVIDED us his word of TRUTH to which you deny because the ONLY WAY you can condone and justify your use of modern versions, IS TO BELIEVE THIS LIE! Shame on you. You outright DENY AND REJECT what God has PLAINLY given to you, so that you may condone the errors in the favorite flavors of the month versions/counterfits.
BUT...You AVOID telling us BY WHAT AUTHORITY you claim these MVs have errors, except to say, "They aint the KJV." Now, if you say the G&H mss are irrelevant, then you have only your own circular reasoning to claim these errors exist.
he's saying he doesn't limit himself to JUST ONE VERSION of that final authority since GOD isn't thus limited.
Where does God say that a translation is not, nor can be His word of truth?
Same place He says,"ONLY THE KJV is My word of truth in English."
Where does God say, that ONLY HEBREW and GREEK are his pure words?
Same place he says only ELIZABETHAN ENGLISH is.
If we do not have, nor think that we have God's pure word of truth, then we are believing lies and errors of men as our FINAL AUTHORITY. Are you telling me, that I must now either learn Greek and Hebrew, or rely upon someone else today who does?
What we're saying is that when someone as yourself says, "This version is wrong because MY fave version reads differently", then we must look at the SOURCES for each version, for PROOF.
I THINK NOT! God PROVIDED us his word of TRUTH to which you deny because the ONLY WAY you can condone and justify your use of modern versions, IS TO BELIEVE THIS LIE! Shame on you. You outright DENY AND REJECT what God has PLAINLY given to you, so that you may condone the errors in the favorite flavors of the month versions/counterfits.
BUT...You AVOID telling us BY WHAT AUTHORITY you claim these MVs have errors, except to say, "They aint the KJV." Now, if you say the G&H mss are irrelevant, then you have only your own circular reasoning to claim these errors exist.
Michelle:The scriptures themselves, reveal that Luke was not speaking of Passover, but the Pagan religous day called Easter - which was when they ate the cakes/eucharist on the day they celebrated the resurrection of thier pagan Babylonian god.
Michelle, you couldn't be more wrong if you said the earth is a square.
Who wrote the book of Acts? Every reliable source says the apostle Luke wrote it, as a letter to his friend Theophilus.
When did he write it? Between 62 and 80 AD.
What language was it written in? Koine Greek.
What word in Greek did Luke write that's found in the verse that by our scripture-numbering system, is Acts 12:4...a word rendered "Easter" in the KJV? The word he wrote is "pascha".
"Pascha", in Luke's time, meant only "Passover". Can YOU prove pascha meant anything but passover to Luke or any other Greek-user at the time? And please tell us WHERE scripture tells us herod was waiting for a pagan feast to end before he would deliver peter to the Jewish leadership.
I hoped I typed slowly enough that it doesn't go over your head again.
God has made this quite evident to us in the scriptures, if we rightly divide the word of truth, to which you all miserably fail to do.
But it's quite evident to us that a certain fable-spinning, close-minded KJVO is WRONGLY dividing the word of truth.
God's word of truth has NO ERRORS.
No, but the translation of it known as the KJV does...as has been PROVEN through empirical evidence.
Michelle, you couldn't be more wrong if you said the earth is a square.
Who wrote the book of Acts? Every reliable source says the apostle Luke wrote it, as a letter to his friend Theophilus.
When did he write it? Between 62 and 80 AD.
What language was it written in? Koine Greek.
What word in Greek did Luke write that's found in the verse that by our scripture-numbering system, is Acts 12:4...a word rendered "Easter" in the KJV? The word he wrote is "pascha".
"Pascha", in Luke's time, meant only "Passover". Can YOU prove pascha meant anything but passover to Luke or any other Greek-user at the time? And please tell us WHERE scripture tells us herod was waiting for a pagan feast to end before he would deliver peter to the Jewish leadership.
I hoped I typed slowly enough that it doesn't go over your head again.
God has made this quite evident to us in the scriptures, if we rightly divide the word of truth, to which you all miserably fail to do.
But it's quite evident to us that a certain fable-spinning, close-minded KJVO is WRONGLY dividing the word of truth.
God's word of truth has NO ERRORS.
No, but the translation of it known as the KJV does...as has been PROVEN through empirical evidence.
Marcia:Still waiting......
I really hope you're not HOLDING YOUR BREATH waiting, Marcia. I've been waiting for some answers from that person for MONTHS now. To wit:
She said, in several posts that she's NOT KJVO...so I asked her what other version(s) she recommended. FINALLY, after several weeks, during which she was continually posting(so she couldn't have missed the question) she gave a vague, political answer about Bibles of the same "line". So, I began asking her what other SPECIFIC version(s) she recommends. She simply WILL NOT answer, except to say she'd ALREADY answered. if that's right, it musta been in white pixels on a white background.
And you've doubtlessly seen where she stated I was "autograph-only". Therefore I asked her to please paste any post of mine from any forum, topic, ot board, where I've made such a statement. After repeated queries, she FINALLY said it was my overall attitude...but when I asked her again to post PROOF, she again said she'd already answered once, that I'd missed it, & she wasn't gonna answer again. So I asked her to at least guide me to her answer...and have received only deafening "silence" from her on the subject.
I believe she's shown us all she has no credibility, at least on this board. The only reason I respond to any of her mush is to wave a red flag to any newbies to the versions issue that there's some phoney baloney from the Onlyist side, and their LACK OF EVIDENCE is the proof.
I really hope you're not HOLDING YOUR BREATH waiting, Marcia. I've been waiting for some answers from that person for MONTHS now. To wit:
She said, in several posts that she's NOT KJVO...so I asked her what other version(s) she recommended. FINALLY, after several weeks, during which she was continually posting(so she couldn't have missed the question) she gave a vague, political answer about Bibles of the same "line". So, I began asking her what other SPECIFIC version(s) she recommends. She simply WILL NOT answer, except to say she'd ALREADY answered. if that's right, it musta been in white pixels on a white background.
And you've doubtlessly seen where she stated I was "autograph-only". Therefore I asked her to please paste any post of mine from any forum, topic, ot board, where I've made such a statement. After repeated queries, she FINALLY said it was my overall attitude...but when I asked her again to post PROOF, she again said she'd already answered once, that I'd missed it, & she wasn't gonna answer again. So I asked her to at least guide me to her answer...and have received only deafening "silence" from her on the subject.
I believe she's shown us all she has no credibility, at least on this board. The only reason I respond to any of her mush is to wave a red flag to any newbies to the versions issue that there's some phoney baloney from the Onlyist side, and their LACK OF EVIDENCE is the proof.
--------------------------------------------------
BUT...You AVOID telling us BY WHAT AUTHORITY you claim these MVs have errors, except to say, "They aint the KJV." Now, if you say the G&H mss are irrelevant, then you have only your own circular reasoning to claim these errors exist.
--------------------------------------------------
No, what I do say is that "they ain't the true word of God" - they are "counterfits"! It is apparent they ain't and that they are counterfit. Do you know anything about counterfit money? Then you would know, that with a trained eye, one can determine the counterfit from the true. Even though the counterfit looks and seems just like the true - it AIN'T THE REAL THING. You ignore the PROOF and the EVIDENCE, because your eyes have not been trained to see the counterfit, because you desire the counterfit to be the true, because it is abundant, you have it, and like it, and are desireous of what it gives to you, even though it is considered robbery, and to do this you hide behind a foreign language. You are using circular reasoning which stems from your doubt of God's word of truth.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
BUT...You AVOID telling us BY WHAT AUTHORITY you claim these MVs have errors, except to say, "They aint the KJV." Now, if you say the G&H mss are irrelevant, then you have only your own circular reasoning to claim these errors exist.
--------------------------------------------------
No, what I do say is that "they ain't the true word of God" - they are "counterfits"! It is apparent they ain't and that they are counterfit. Do you know anything about counterfit money? Then you would know, that with a trained eye, one can determine the counterfit from the true. Even though the counterfit looks and seems just like the true - it AIN'T THE REAL THING. You ignore the PROOF and the EVIDENCE, because your eyes have not been trained to see the counterfit, because you desire the counterfit to be the true, because it is abundant, you have it, and like it, and are desireous of what it gives to you, even though it is considered robbery, and to do this you hide behind a foreign language. You are using circular reasoning which stems from your doubt of God's word of truth.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Ben W and Hank:
Even though the canon was established by some early Catholics, we must remember several things:
First, these men worked before the RCC went bonkers.
Second, they had more materials available to them. Many of these works, which were rejected as Scripture simply faded away.
Third, they had very exacting standards.
Fourth, whether any or all of them were truly Christians or not, God influenced their decisions, and influenced their acceptance by the rest of true Christendom.
True, there have been prophets since then, but God has given us several tests by which we may ascertain whether the prophet is GOD'S prophet or not. And no true prophet has made a prophecy outside of the written Scriptures. For example, the prophet Agabus of Paul's acquaintance, made several prophecies recorded in Scripture...and NONE of them add anything or take away anything from Scripture.
And God told Amos, whom GOD CHOSE as a prophet, that He does NOTHING without first revealing it to His servants, His prophets.(Amos 3:7) And NOWHERE IN SCRIPTURE does God limit Himself as to how He may choose to present/provide His words to man.
The KJVO myth IS a myth because it's simply NOT FOUND, nor even HINTED AT in Scripture. Can the same GOD who created all languages & causes/allows all changes within them not make His own words fit into each and every one of them in a form understandable by the users of each language, or styles/dialects of any given language? Is God limited to Elizabethan style in English?
Whether Michelle agrees or not. God DOES provide a choice. She cannot prove her statements at all.
Even though the canon was established by some early Catholics, we must remember several things:
First, these men worked before the RCC went bonkers.
Second, they had more materials available to them. Many of these works, which were rejected as Scripture simply faded away.
Third, they had very exacting standards.
Fourth, whether any or all of them were truly Christians or not, God influenced their decisions, and influenced their acceptance by the rest of true Christendom.
True, there have been prophets since then, but God has given us several tests by which we may ascertain whether the prophet is GOD'S prophet or not. And no true prophet has made a prophecy outside of the written Scriptures. For example, the prophet Agabus of Paul's acquaintance, made several prophecies recorded in Scripture...and NONE of them add anything or take away anything from Scripture.
And God told Amos, whom GOD CHOSE as a prophet, that He does NOTHING without first revealing it to His servants, His prophets.(Amos 3:7) And NOWHERE IN SCRIPTURE does God limit Himself as to how He may choose to present/provide His words to man.
The KJVO myth IS a myth because it's simply NOT FOUND, nor even HINTED AT in Scripture. Can the same GOD who created all languages & causes/allows all changes within them not make His own words fit into each and every one of them in a form understandable by the users of each language, or styles/dialects of any given language? Is God limited to Elizabethan style in English?
Whether Michelle agrees or not. God DOES provide a choice. She cannot prove her statements at all.
--------------------------------------------------
Asking me if it was a little birdie is pretty condescending, Michelle. I would think someone like you who is always quoting the Bible would be more sisterly.
--------------------------------------------------
And I don't think it is very christlike, and is very condescending for many here to be calling what I believe cultic, sectic, heresy, myth, gnostic, cancerous etc. I also don't see that calling other christians trolls, rabid, disciples of Riplinger, venomous, sister and sweetheart (ungenuinely), etc. to be very christlike. Please explain to me how my question to you was in the family of this? Yet, you, as my sister in Christ, never speak against this sort of thing, but make false accusation toward me for my above question?
--------------------------------------------------
Are you saying that they spoke English in Israel? They spoke Hebrew and Aramaic. The manuscripts that we do have and that were used for the earliest Bibles were mostly Hebrew for the OT and Greek for the NT.
I really want to know: are you saying that Jesus spoke King James English and the writers of the NT wrote down his words in King James English? Help me understand.
--------------------------------------------------
Where did I say such a thing? NO, what I have been saying and will continue to say and believe, until my last dying breath, or until my Lord Jesus Christ comes to take us home is: what Jesus spoke, in the Old and New testament is what we have today in our English language perfectly. Same words, same meaning. Exactly how God desired for us to have.
--------------------------------------------------
Also, you did not answer my question. Do you believe that people in other countries must study English in order to read God's word? That is not a hard question; please answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't focus my attention concerning this issue, with things that have nothing to do with the issue here at hand, and that is God's word of truth in our own language. I by faith, believe that the faithful in other countries are given the whole counsel of God. Where they find it, the Lord will show them, to wherever it is. Only the Lord knows this question, and those who are living in other countries who are the faithful know this. And I HAVE ANSWERED THIS BEFORE. So please stop accusing me, as many here have a bad habit of doing, that I do not answer your questions. I answer most questions. There are some questions however, not worthy of answering, as they are questions of trickery, and to pull one into endless circular arguments, to which are irrelevant, illogical, and unedifying. I have this choice, and it is biblically supported and followed. This is the type of question that is hindering on that. But I am getting tired of being accused of things that are just plain not true, to slander not only my person, but the truth that I and others here share. The only argumentative spirit is coming from those who do NOT LIKE HEARING THE TRUTH of this issue, then attack the messengers of that truth, and also the truth.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Asking me if it was a little birdie is pretty condescending, Michelle. I would think someone like you who is always quoting the Bible would be more sisterly.
--------------------------------------------------
And I don't think it is very christlike, and is very condescending for many here to be calling what I believe cultic, sectic, heresy, myth, gnostic, cancerous etc. I also don't see that calling other christians trolls, rabid, disciples of Riplinger, venomous, sister and sweetheart (ungenuinely), etc. to be very christlike. Please explain to me how my question to you was in the family of this? Yet, you, as my sister in Christ, never speak against this sort of thing, but make false accusation toward me for my above question?
--------------------------------------------------
Are you saying that they spoke English in Israel? They spoke Hebrew and Aramaic. The manuscripts that we do have and that were used for the earliest Bibles were mostly Hebrew for the OT and Greek for the NT.
I really want to know: are you saying that Jesus spoke King James English and the writers of the NT wrote down his words in King James English? Help me understand.
--------------------------------------------------
Where did I say such a thing? NO, what I have been saying and will continue to say and believe, until my last dying breath, or until my Lord Jesus Christ comes to take us home is: what Jesus spoke, in the Old and New testament is what we have today in our English language perfectly. Same words, same meaning. Exactly how God desired for us to have.
--------------------------------------------------
Also, you did not answer my question. Do you believe that people in other countries must study English in order to read God's word? That is not a hard question; please answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't focus my attention concerning this issue, with things that have nothing to do with the issue here at hand, and that is God's word of truth in our own language. I by faith, believe that the faithful in other countries are given the whole counsel of God. Where they find it, the Lord will show them, to wherever it is. Only the Lord knows this question, and those who are living in other countries who are the faithful know this. And I HAVE ANSWERED THIS BEFORE. So please stop accusing me, as many here have a bad habit of doing, that I do not answer your questions. I answer most questions. There are some questions however, not worthy of answering, as they are questions of trickery, and to pull one into endless circular arguments, to which are irrelevant, illogical, and unedifying. I have this choice, and it is biblically supported and followed. This is the type of question that is hindering on that. But I am getting tired of being accused of things that are just plain not true, to slander not only my person, but the truth that I and others here share. The only argumentative spirit is coming from those who do NOT LIKE HEARING THE TRUTH of this issue, then attack the messengers of that truth, and also the truth.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
Whether Michelle agrees or not. God DOES provide a choice. She cannot prove her statements at all.
--------------------------------------------------
God does not provide us a choice or a preference to what is or is not His word of truth. He makes it EVIDENT. God does not give us, nor allow us the choice to DISREGARD or IGNORE verses of scripture long held to and believed and KNOWN to the believers, in the churches. God does not take away from, or add to, or change the meaning of His truth.
I gave abundant scripture for this, in another thread, that you may feel free to read. I find it very ironic and telling, that over and over again you make such baseless and false statements and accusations, lacking the scriptural support for your authority to say and believe such things.
love in Jesus Christo our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Whether Michelle agrees or not. God DOES provide a choice. She cannot prove her statements at all.
--------------------------------------------------
God does not provide us a choice or a preference to what is or is not His word of truth. He makes it EVIDENT. God does not give us, nor allow us the choice to DISREGARD or IGNORE verses of scripture long held to and believed and KNOWN to the believers, in the churches. God does not take away from, or add to, or change the meaning of His truth.
I gave abundant scripture for this, in another thread, that you may feel free to read. I find it very ironic and telling, that over and over again you make such baseless and false statements and accusations, lacking the scriptural support for your authority to say and believe such things.
love in Jesus Christo our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Please note in my post that it was Joseph Smith who claimed to have and use these "Urim and Thummim" in the 1800's.
In the similar manner the KJVO claim that the AV1611 is the re-inspired "very" words of God explaining the use of "easter" for "passover" as "advanced revelation".
Also note that Baptists who opposed King James for the KJV were consigned to earthly flames while we today are consigned (via tantrum decree) to the flames of hell (or implied as such).
HankD
Archangel7
New Member
So would the parallels between Roman Catholicism and KJV-Onlyism. A few spring to mind...
(1) Roman Catholics accept as an unquestionable article of faith that the Bishop of Rome alone speaks for God. KJV-Onlyists accept as an unquestionable article of faith that a 17th C. Anglican Bible translation alone speaks for God.
(2) Roman Catholics argue that God would not have left us in confusion as to the correct interpretation of the Scriptures, so He gave us an infallible interpreter, the pope. KJV-Onlysts argue that God would not have left us in confusion as to the correct wording of the Scriptures, so He gave us an infallible English Bible translation, the KJV.
(3) Roman Catholics cite Mt. 16:18-19 as a Scriptural proof text to demonstrate that God's "final authority" has been preserved in Peter's successors, and will not accept that the passage can be understood otherwise (e.g., that "the rock" is Peter's confession of faith.) KJV-Onlyists cite Psa. 12:6-7 as a Scriptural proof text to demonstrate that God's "final authority" has been preserved in the KJV, and will not accept that the passage can be understood otherwise (e.g., that the psalm is about the preservation of God's people.)
(4) Roman Catholics condemn confusion and disagreement among those who "rebel against God's infallible pope" and interpret the Bible for themselves. KJV-Onlyists condemn confusion and disagreement among those who "rebel against God's infallible KJV" and translate the Bible for themselves.
That would be a start...
AVL1984
<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
We give not only scriptural, but historical proofs and you arbitrarily reject them under the guise of KJVOnlyism. This is not only lacking in knowledge, but lacking in honesty. ALL the doctrines and fundamentals of the faith are found intact in the MV's. You have consistantly chosen not to prove that statement wrong. I challenge you to prove it wrong. You will avoid it, of course, because you cannot prove one single doctrine or fundamental that is destroyed by the MV's. You cannot prove that the MV's are not "preserved" also. You've failed at every turn michelle, and yet you criticize us for pointing it out, questioning our faith, stating that we have none, which is not only degrading, but a lie. Prove your points or leave it alone. I don't mean to spout the mindless drivel that has been coming out, but RIGHTLY DIVIDE and prove your points from the Word of God. I'm tired of you demeaning my brothers and sisters on these forums and then crying when they answer the attacks back.
You sound like the John Kerry of the KJVO sect. You want to accuse others of doing exactly what you're doing and cry about it.
AVL1984