Adding To Scripture?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Bob Krajcik, Apr 4, 2003.

  1. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Myself, I’m not wanting to argue this. If there are any “Whatever-Only cult” that want to argue there are no differences in the versions, proceed without me.

    Are there any willing to say that if one receives/believes the Authorized Version readings, while rejecting those places in other versions that are clearly contradictory, that they have added to Scripture?

    What say ye? Yes, they have added to Scripture, or no they have not added to Scripture?

    If your answer is yes, then where is the Scripture that says clearly contradictory readings are the word of God and “very pure” as the “word” is said to be?

    KJV Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.
     
  2. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes there are differences in the versions. The reason the KJV is right, because it is 400 years older. But the Geneva Bible is 415 years older so it is more right!!! The Geneva Bible is the word of God in every words, phrase, thought, and letter. It did not need to be corrected. God did not lie, but keeping his words from his people, but provided it in the Geneva Bible.
     
  3. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0


    Yes. All versions after the originals added or omitted or changed text. How do I know? The same way you know that you should accept the wording of the KJV as "pure" exclusive of all others. At least I can prove biblically that what I call pure (the original God-breathed words) is what God called pure.

    In all seriousness, which is more than your post deserves, NO- MV's have not added to the substance of scripture. If you wish to prove they have then produce the originals.
     
  4. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pete R

    What an informative answer you have provided. Perhaps a topic for another thread could be, is Pete R a Geneva-Only and should he be called a cultist, and divisive, since he recommends the Geneva on this message board. Or another topic for a different thread might be, does anyone actually believe Pete R when he says what he does about the Geneva, and if they do actually believe he is being honest, why isn’t he called a cultist and Geneva-Only, the same way any that dare say they believe the KJV readings rather than contradictory readings from other versions, by the majority of those thus far posting on this message board.

    Scott J

    What would you recommend Scott, going through every shred of evidence and where there is any difference with any other evidence, throw that part away, and only use what is the same? You are saying something about pure, exclusive of all others. Here is what I say. Where there are clear contradictions, I don’t call those places each pure.

    Scott, what I am saying, is where there is a clear difference in meaning between the KJV and any other version, in those places I settle on the KJV.

    Perhaps you could make what you do in those places where you find a clear difference the topic of another thread. Do you tell others, if you are sharing a passage of Scripture, that you know there is a different reading showing a different meaning, or do you just say you have told them the true and pure reading, and ignore the fact there are what you claim are differences in readings, differences you claim are also the pure word? That might be a problem for some people. If you make a different thread to share how you handle the differences, some might find it interesting.

    I’m settled with the KJV so I have no conflict, except the conflict brought forth by others that consider that divisive and cultic.

    Back to the questions. . .

    Are there any willing to say that if one receives/believes the Authorized Version readings, while rejecting those places in other versions that are clearly contradictory, that they have added to Scripture? My intended meaning about adding to Scripture, I don’t mean in the sense of adding all the verses listed in the KJV that are not listed in most all other versions, but I mean in the sense of an extra biblical mandate that a translation could be wholly true.


    What say ye? Yes, they have added extra biblical mandate, or no they have not added extra biblical mandate?

    With that said. . .

    If your answer is yes, an extra biblical mandate is added, then where is the Scripture that says clearly contradictory readings are the word of God and “very pure” as the “word” is said to be?

    Certainly the original autograph was given by inspiration of God, and was inerrant, but I say that same word could be made available in a different language, translated, and so be inerrant, trusted, and rightly so, to be very pure.

    KJV Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.
     
  5. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why?

    And stop baiting people with the whole "cult" thing. You know that's off limits.
     
  6. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob, could you clarify what you're asking.

    Also, one could ask you that, if additional renderings of a verse are problematic, how problematic is it that the KJV is different from its predecessors?
     
  7. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why?

    And stop baiting people with the whole "cult" thing. You know that's off limits.
    </font>[/QUOTE]That cult thing will be dropped by me. I hadn't realized that word had been dropped from the vocabulary here, having seen it used so many times by various ones towards those that believe the KJV is true.

    What about the topic of the thread?
     
  8. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps we need some soothing music to keep some from getting upset. I would hope not.

    You've posted twice to the thread in about three minutes time, at teh ame time I was posting a clarification. I'll wait and see if you have clarification of what you do not understand.

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Back to the questions. . .

    Are there any willing to say that if one receives/believes the Authorized Version readings, while rejecting those places in other versions that are clearly contradictory, that they have added to Scripture? My intended meaning about adding to Scripture, I don’t mean in the sense of adding all the verses listed in the KJV that are not listed in most all other versions, but I mean in the sense of an extra biblical mandate that a translation could be wholly true.


    What say ye? Yes, they have added extra biblical mandate, or no they have not added extra biblical mandate?

    With that said. . .

    If your answer is yes, an extra biblical mandate is added by those saying the KJV translation is wholly true and inerrant, then for the opposing view, where is the Scripture that says clearly contradictory readings that appear in the many different versions are the word of God and “very pure” as the “word” is said to be?

    KJV Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

    [​IMG]
     
  10. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a straw man.
    I'm not upset at all, just trying to decipher what you're getting at :D I also notice you're not answering queries. [​IMG]
     
  11. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. I say go through the evidence. Evaluate it based on its quality and quantity then determine what the originals most likely said.
    Short of producing the originals, you must rely on some other source to prove that the KJV is pure while others are not. Most KJVO's rely mostly on feelings. When facts are actually related, they are contorted to fit the KJVO presuppositions.

    Further, you have to figure out some way of overcoming the obstacle that God never inspired an English version of His Word. English versions are all the productions of fallible men. If the KJV is "pure" then the character, behavior, and theology of the translators become issues of paramount importance. On these issues, the KJV would have to be rejected since some of the translators failed on all three counts.

    And... so what? You didn't have to start a thread to tell us that. Everyone who has interacted with you knows that. What KJVO's have failed to produce is a single reason for going past the KJV preferred position to the KJVO position.
    If the issue comes up, I am honest. The Bible is quite redundant in its teachings though so I am not afraid of these type situations. Most people understand that slight differences might creep into a book over hundreds of years of hand copying
    I likewise have no conflict being prepared for issues if they arise and armed with the truth.
    Yes. But are you talking about the Word or the words? The originals were directly inspired by God, including the words. They are the standard for "purity". Absent them, we have a mountain of evidence to help us reconstruct a "very pure" facsimile of those originals. All we ask from KJVO's is proof that the AV is that single text of identical substance and worth to the originals.

    Ps 119:140 Your word is very pure, Therefore Your servant loves it. NASB

    Ps 119:140 Your word is very pure; Therefore Your servant loves it. NKJV

    Psa 119:140 Your Word is pure and Your servant loves it. LITV
     
  12. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tom

    Straw man? You seem to suggest I am telling a lie about not being aware the word was removed from the vocabulary here. The term has been used more than a few times in the posts I have read in recent days. You said don’t use the term, I said I would stop, and now you seem to be calling me dishonest. Interesting.

    Actually, I have thought I would keep the thread on topic, rather than be swayed by diversionary tactics. One thing I noticed in the few threads I skimmed over, is the effort to keep the threads on topic. Now it seems for this thread that is a problem.

    Back to the questions, I’ll attempt to clarify for those interested. If you don’t understand what I say I suggest you ignore the questions. . .

    Are there any willing to say that if one receives/believes the Authorized Version readings, while rejecting those places in other versions that are clearly contradictory, that the person has added to Scripture? By adding to Scripture, I mean in the sense of adding an extra biblical mandate saying a translation could be wholly true.

    What say ye? Yes, they have added extra biblical mandate, or no they have not added extra biblical mandate?

    With that said. . .

    If your answer to the above is yes,, please answer the following. If it applies to your belief, where is the Scripture that says contradictory readings that appear in the many different versions are the word of God and “very pure”?

    KJV Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott

    I'm reminded of the time someone posted a note to me, not having any idea what I believed, but they were convinced they would find it to be error. They said to me, "Post something and we'll tell you what you are wrong about." Well, such an attitude really doesn't impress me.

    I really don't know what you call a KJVO, and don't care. Further, I doubt you even know what I believe about the issue, and I doubt if you even care, for you seem content to carry on about what the KJVO is, and what the KJVO believes, and what you demand of the KJVO. You seem to assign those traits of "your" KJVO to any that come by here and say they believe the KJV.

    I don't know what "you" mean by Word with a capital Vs words without a capital. No need to explain, for I'm not wanting to know.

    If believing the KJV is true, no provable errors, causes so much fuss on this message board that is “listed as a KJV message board” what would happen if one were to post on a “whatever-only” message board and said they believed the KJV were true??? I don’t even want to think about it.

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
     
  14. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,184
    Likes Received:
    326
    Isaiah 42
    1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
    2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.
    3 A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.
    4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.

    Matthew 12
    18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
    19 He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.
    20 A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.
    21 And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.

    Which of these contradictory readings (things not the same are different) is the "pure" one?

    HankD
     
  15. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Patently false. Your straw-man attempt is when you write:
    To my knowledge, it's never been used towards those who believe the KJV is true. It has been used towards those who believe that that only the KJV is true, and rightly so. Still, stop baiting. You know better.

    Ad hominem nonsense. Cut it out.

    Be very careful how you proceed. You're treading on thin ice relative to BB rules.
     
  16. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    {violation edited}

    Or could I have an answer, from those interested, based on my purpose for making this thread?

    Back to the questions. . . If you don’t understand what I say I suggest you ignore the questions. . .

    Are there any willing to say that if one receives/believes the Authorized Version readings, while rejecting those places in other versions that are clearly contradictory, that the person has added to Scripture? By adding to Scripture, I mean in the sense of adding an extra biblical mandate saying a translation could be wholly true.

    What say ye? Yes, they have added extra biblical mandate, or no they have not added extra biblical mandate?

    With that said. . .

    If your answer to the above is yes,, please answer the following. If it applies to your belief, where is the Scripture that says contradictory readings that appear in the many different versions are the word of God and “very pure”?

    KJV Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

    [ April 05, 2003, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]
     
  17. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes Bob (Muskeegetter? Polycarp?). If these are aliases for your, I am fairly sure I know the basics of what you believe. In a previous dialogue, Muskeegetter questioned my salvation for not accepting his choice for a final authority. I even linked to the thread once here on the BB. As I recall, you became pretty agitated.

    OK... but for the sake of those who might be curious, there is a distinct difference between someone's words and their word. If you are claiming to give someone my words then you are quoting in precise detail how I said something- every word and letter the same. However, you could give someone my word on a matter without using any of my words or even the original language. A translation can never be anything more than one's "word". By rule, it can never be someone's "words" unless they restated the text in the second language.

    That is not what causes the "fuss". The fuss starts when KJVO's declare that the KJV and only the KJV is the Word of God in English.
     
  18. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    {Violation edited}

    [​IMG]

    [ April 05, 2003, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]
     
  19. christfollower55

    christfollower55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2003
    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    0
    THE KING JAMES VERSION IS THE ONLY BIBLE ON THIS EARTH! The KJV is alive. It is the infalable, inerrite Word of God. It worked for my great grandfather, my grandfather, my father and he has worked for me.

    GOD BLESS AMERICA
     
  20. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Christfollower55,
    The KJV doesn't work for me. I live in the 21st century and am happy with my MV's, especially the NIV and the NASB.

    These excellent versions will work for my children, their children, their children's children...
     

Share This Page

Loading...