#2 Which KJV is your authority?

This thread is beyond page 5. Unless there is sufficient reason to leave it open we will be closing it by 4.00 CDT today.

 

I have heard some rhetoric about the different "revisions" or "editions" of the KJV. An honest person will, no doubt, see that these are editions and revisions are the same by definition. Let's see.
EDI'TION, n. [L. editio, from edo, to publish.]
2. Republication, sometimes with revision and correction; as the second edition of a work.

REVI'SE, v.t. s as z. [L. revisus, reviso, to revisit; re and viso, to see, to visit.]
1. To review; to re-examine; to look over with care for correction; as, to revise a writing; to revise a proof sheet.

The KJV was visted and edited to correct gramatical errors.

Psalms 12:6, 7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

The result of folks revisiting and editing the KJV is the duplicity of KJVs that, while do not say word for word the same thing, they are, however the same book.

Things that are different are not the same, this is true. The KJV, 1611 - 1769 or which ever (I have not seen the KJV21 yet so, it is not included in "which ever") is the same KJV that has been visited and edited to correct grammatical inconsistencies.

My authority is Jesus Christ. I believe he speaks perfectly in the KJV. Particularly the Cambridge (I am not sure what year it was published).

BELIE'VE, v.t. To credit upon the authority or testimony of another; to be persuaded of the truth of something upon the declaration of another, or upon evidence furnished by reasons, arguments, and deductions of the mind, or by other circumstances, than personal knowledge. When we believe upon the authority of another, we always put confidence in his veracity.

When we believe upon the authority of reasoning, arguments, or a concurrence of facts and circumstances, we rest our conclusions upon their strength or probability, their agreement with our own experience, &c.

-DeaconLew

 

Actually, a case could be presented to show that it is not the same book.

The KJV First Edition was in Gothic font (nearly illegible to the modern English reader), it included the Apocrypha, it included a calendar of "saints" days including St. Mary, it included a daily "Scripture" reading chart with the apocrypha specified on certain days, it included cross-references in the margins (some to the Apocrypha), it included translation alternatives in the page margins, it included a lengthy introduction "to the reader" and other blurbs, it included a frontice piece page embellished with both Christian and pagan symbols, etc., an almanac, a perpetual Easter calendar, a liturgical calendar, a calendar of "Holy Days" (including the purification of "the Blessed Virgin" and the Annunciation of "the Blessed Virgin").

HankD

[ September 29, 2004, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

God gave you ONE Book for English-speaking available today. The Book that God provided you is the KJV. It is God's authority. If not, what is your human authority against God?

 

Askjo said "God gave you ONE Book for English-speaking available today. The Book that God provided you is the KJV. It is God's authority."

By what authority do you say that?

 

Well then Askjo then list the scripture that says God gave us ONE BOOK for the English speaking people and that says it's the KJV. Did you make this claim based on your human authority Askjo?

End the bible version debate right here and right now! Post the scripture or admit that KJVOIsm is liberal modernism with no scripture to support it.

You keep making claism that God said this and that about the KJV but you have yet to provide the scripture to back it up. Show me in the KJV the following:

You said that God gave us one book the KJV.

You said that God authorized it. Prove it with the KJV.

If you can not list the scripture that tells me which KJV and that it is the KJV that God approved then you my friend are telling a story!

I believe it's time for you to put up or shut up.

 

I agree DavidJ. I'm tired of the militant Onlyists nonsense and circular reasoning.

AVl1984

 

The fact that God gave us a perfect Bible really gets your goat, doesn't it. I mean after all you are a doctor, you are educated and you cannot stand that there is a Bible that God has used throughout the past several hundred years to bless the English-speaking Christian people. To believe in a God-blessed Bible that even the simple man can read kind of puts your expertise in jeopardy, doesn't it? We really don't need you to explain what God is really saying if it can be found in one book. We don't need a scholar to compare one version with another in an attempt to come up with the truth if God put in in one book, the KJV Bible. It reminds me of what Festus said to the apostle Paul:

Acts 26:24
24 And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.
(KJV)

 

The fact that God gave us a perfect Bible really gets your goat, doesn't it. I mean after all you are a doctor, you are educated and you cannot stand that there is a Bible that God has used throughout the past several hundred years to bless the English-speaking Christian people. To believe in a God-blessed Bible that even the simple man can read kind of puts your expertise in jeopardy, doesn't it? We really don't need you to explain what God is really saying if it can be found in one book. We don't need a scholar to compare one version with another in an attempt to come up with the truth if God put in in one book, the KJV Bible. It reminds me of what Festus said to the apostle Paul:

Acts 26:24
24 And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.
(KJV) </font>[/QUOTE]Sounds good until you realize:

1. You didn't answer the challenge. Perhaps because you can't.

2. Your logic is false. First, you assume cause and effect. "Because God has blessed English speaking people via the KJV, it is therefore, "perfect." Nope. God has also used the NASB, the Geneva Bible, the NIV, and other translations. Second, in referring to "several hundred years," you make it sound like its duration has something to do with the level of blessing bestowed on it by God. Well, the KJV still doesn't hold the record for longevity with regard to that issue. Second, it sets up a false dilemma, yet another logical fallacy. You make it sound like, of all the choices available, because God has used something long lived, the only conclusion that can be made is that it is somehow "perfect," when, in fact, there are more options available. Finally, the entire argument displays circular reasoning. You beg the question, because it is patently obvious that you assume the truth of what you are trying to argue and then argue the premise.

One more time, God can't use and doesn't use logical fallacies in order to substantiate truth. By the use of multiple logical fallacies, you show ungodly use of logic, plain and simple. The only way any KJVOnlyist can affirm KJVO is to resort to one or more logical fallacies. That alone is proof that KJVOnlyism is a false belief/doctrine, because correct logic underlies correct doctrine. Granted logic is a a tool, and plenty of people that have right doctrine use bad logic to affirm their beliefs, but those right doctrines can be reexpressed with correct logic. However, as Norman Geisler wrote, every unbelieving objection, doctrine, belief, or worldview has, at its core, a logical fallacy or a self-defeating premise. That's true of KJVonlyism. At its core is an inescapable use of logical fallacy.

Finally, your entire use of Festus quote makes no sense whatsoever, since Paul was an extremely well educated man, a "doctor and scholar" of his own people, and Festus was mocking Paul. That actually makes you into Festus and Dr. Bob into Paul in your analogy. It appears we do need educated people and that God does in fact use them, even to write Scripture. Oh, and for the record, we don't need a scholar to "come up with the truth and put it in one book." With regard to the KJB, MANY scholars contributed to it and they all left margin notes telling us that there were variants and none of them seemed to believe in the perfection of their translation. Why is it that you do?

 

That is very obvious that your quotation shows that you are a rationalist.