A very silly KJVO argument...

Dr. Bub closed the inerrancy thread before C4K and some of the other guys answered my relevant question concerning all of the new versions read by liberal minded Baptists.
The question was, "Has there ever been anything pertaining to God that has been improved by adding more of the flesh or man's thought and ideas to it?"

 

I would take "liberal minded Baptists" to be those who do not hold to the fundamentals (elevating a specific translation is not a part of those fundamentals). I, for one, hold to the fundamentals... do you?

As to your question, no. Nothing of God has ever been improved by man's additions. This applies to all things of God including bible translation. Your setup question for the KJV also includes the KJV... it is also a product of fallen man and not a second work of inspiration. The question also includes the source texts for both the KJV and today's translations. Both the TR (compiled by Erasmus and you REALLY don't want to go there) and the Aland manuscripts fall into the same category.

 

The question is totally irrelevant and has nothing to do with a discussion of translations.

 

Nice dodge. Every Christian knows or should know, and be willing to say that the answer to the question is unequivocally, NO! But we discover that you can't bring yourself to state such since it would undermine your position. :sleep:

 

Dr. Bob, it is fine if you disagree with Still learning, Cutter, me or anyone else, but it is inexcusable the way that you insult and belittle others. It is extremely shameful in my opinion for a pastor to behave in such a way, especially on a public forum for all the world to witness.

 

The problem is not that you present evidence, it is the way in which you do it.

Maybe you don't mean it to be belittling in your heart, but that is how is comes across in print.

 

Thank you Dr. Bob. Blessings to you! :godisgood:

 

I consider Dr. BOB a friend and would appreciate your respecting him. At least he is gentleman enough to apologize when he is corrected.

And to answer your question- the answer is NO- and that includes the work of the translators of the KJV. Their "Preface to the Reader" is proof that they would be the first to say "GOD FORBID" to the idea of "One Version Onlyism" and would recoil in horror to know that some today have placed them and their version on a pedestal.

 

While you were speaking to Dr.Bob, I will take this opportunity to offer my own apologies to you.

I tend to speak using a broad brush. This is the way I actually talk and reason and it drives my wife crazy at times. While this is a facet of my personality, it can also come across as a general condemnation of all who hold solely to the KJV. This is absolutely NOT my intention in the least. The KJV is a fine translation of the word of God and there is nothing wrong in using it as your sole translation.

I vehemently oppose the "one version onlyism" espoused by some here. While I will readily agree that the KJV is the word of God I will also fiercely oppose any who deem themselves as equal to God and declare the KJV to be the sole repository of God's word in English (or any other language). This claim is a man-made lie dreamed up by the SDA cult and them propagated by liars and sensationalists.

The only "one version onlyism" in history before the last century was that of the Catholics claiming the Latin Vulgate to be the sole repository... and this was for the sole reason of keeping the word of God completely non-understandable by the common people. And yet this very lie has arisen yet again, but this time it is with the KJV. If the KJV was to be the sole word of God in English, why was it not claimed as such from the get-go? Why did this man-made abomination not come forth for three hundred years after many other translations had been made? Surely if the KJV is God's only word in the English language it would have been defended against any other translations that were produced, would it not? Instead it was used side by side by many preachers for many, many years... until this blasphemy against God's word was poured out and taken up by others.

 

Cursed be ye by God for referring to a man of God as blind.

 

Dr. Bob called you a brother. Would it be more acceptable for you to be referenced
as having some blinders on?

Your reply was uncalled for -- sinful.

 

And sometimes hundreds of years after the earliest manuscripts extant.

Very true. Pietistic expansion happened frequently. A lot of scribes thought they needed to "adjust" the text.

And in the Majority texts at least hundreds of additions were made.

Much of what the TR and MT people rely upon are from the 9th century or later.

Yes indeedy.

 

I agree, hence the inaction on my part.

 

Actually most of the earliest copies of Scripture, such as, e.g., p45 and p66, are so wild that not even the most ardent NT textual critic would rely on them for preserving the original wording intact. Copies at least 150-200 years later are generally considered much better and more stable representations. It is a truism of textual criticism that the earliest survivable documents do not necessarily preserve the earliest text, just as numerical preponderance does not necessarily indicate authenticity. Perhaps you would like to pinpoint a particular passage of Scripture to demonstrate your point?

Jonathan C. Borland