Answers to posts from another topic....

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by robycop3, Mar 19, 2007.

  1. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    In the 'another Riplinger video' topic, some posts that are off-topic, but deserve some answers, have come up. therefore, to keep within the rules of staying on topic, I've started this new topic to deal with the questions raised there, so we can stay upon the subject of the Riplinger video in THAT topic.

    The first post I shall answer from there is this.n, by Rufus_1611.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by robycop3
    A Crown sanction is a COPYRIGHT in England, & the KJV is under such copyright in England. Don't believe it? just contact the nearest BRITISH EMBASSY!

    We've already gone down this path. The Brits do not answer questions regarding this issue. Why do you continue to encourage people to do this? It is a Crown Copyright and is unique to the others.

    Again, just PHONE the nearist British embassy & ask'em if ya can legally print the KJV within England's realm w/o anyone's permission. Or, contact Oxford or Cambridge.

    Of course its unique. It's for that version alone!

    The copyright holders are the presses of Oxford & Cambridge Universities, Eyre & Spottiswoode Publishing Co. & Wm. Collins & Sons Publishing Co., now known as Harper Collins through its merger with Harper & Rowe Publishing Co. They also own Zondervan!

    Eyre & Spottiswoode Co. was the royal printer for awhile, & while such, acquired a royal permit to print & sell the KJV. Here's their statement, found on the backs of the title pages of KJVs printed & sold by them: All rights in respect of the Authorized (King James) Version of the Holy Bible are vested in the Crown in the United Kingdom and controlled by Royal Letters Patent. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature without written permission.

    My Cambridge Edition has the university's coat-of-arms, with the latin words "cum priviligio"(with privilege) beneath it. Those same words are found on the title page of the AV 1611's New Testament, and on the title page of earlier Bibles & upon the title pages of EVERY book holding a Crown copyright. The Crown copyright is the oldest form of copyright in Great Britain, and in the case of the KJV & a few other worx, it has remained perpetual. But ya kin bet yer sweet bippy that it IS a copyright, with as much authority in the British realm as any other British copyright.
    Quote:

    Yes, any (per)version of the scriptures can be copyrighted ($$$), but not the God-blessed scriptures themselves. God holds the copyright to The Holy Bible, not Zondervan or Thomas Nelson. In Acts 2, when the disciples spoke in many different languages (not Hebrew & Greek), was what they spoke the word of God? Hmmm.....

    That's right. Anyone can make a new Bible version w/o anyone's permission.
    Quote:
    First, a friendly reminder...The moderators of this board don't allow calling God's word a "perversion". And don't argue that MVs are not God's word. That won't work here; it's not an acceptable excuse.

    Mongol, feel free to call the belief that God's Word being contained in any book that has the word "Bible" on it, or any "valid" book (as subjectively defined by each individual belief in what Bible works best for them), or any version that uses manuscripts containing the word "Vatican" or that are found in the trash of a Catholic monastery, a "myth" as this word is preferred over "perversion".

    yes, feel free to believe a false doctrine, made by men, not found in Scripture.

    Rufus:Robycop, have you not made the argument that some modern versions are not God's word? There are folks that contend that The Message is a modern version of God's Word but are you not in the camp that the Message is not a "valid" version? What is argued typically on this board is which versions are "valid" and which are "invalid" and I for one can not pin ya'll down in objectively defining how one goes about that determination. Therefore, you have an opinion that some modern versions are the word of God, others say none of them are. Since you are advocating for this issue being subjective anyway, why be so vehement about who is right? From your worldview each man's opinion is what reigns no?

    You know the rules. If Mongol had named a SPECIFIC "VERSION" such as "Good As New", I wouldn'ta said a word, but he applied the term in a ganeral manner, which is against the rules.

    And I have said many times that a valid translation is one which follows its sources closely.

    Quote:
    Now, as to copyrights...TRANSLATIONS are copyrighted, and there's no such thing as a "free" copy of the Bible in ANY version.

    I can copy a complete King James Bible word for word, bind it in paper and charge you for that copy without fear of being sued. If I copy more than 500 verses of an NIV, or copy a book of the Bible, and try to sell it (or even give it away), then I will have violated the Copyrights of Zondervan and will be at risk of litigation.

    Try doing it with the KJV within the realm of the British Govt.

    Quote:
    Someone somewhere paid for it. Even if you sit down & make a Mongol Bible & give copies of it away at no charge to the recipient, YOU will be paying for the materials used to make it, & for the actual printing.

    Materials are not relevant to copyright. I can charge for materials + profit of a KJV without getting consent of any man. I would have to get Zondervan's permission to copy NIVs for they own the right to their words.

    But it's not an absolutely-free copy, is it? Someone somewhere paid for the materials to make it.

    Quote:
    A simple fact of life is that printers must make money to stay in business. I assure you that if the KJV didn't make money for its printers, it would no longer be printed.

    I assure you that it would be printed, for Christians would do everything within their power to follow the footsteps of the King James Translators, Wycliff, Rogers, Tyndale, and the others who shed their blood to get the Word of God in the English language into the hands of the common man. Contrary to the behaviors of Zondervan/Harper-Collins/Rupert Murdoch, Thomas Nelson, Lockman, NavPress etc. not all Bible publishers and printers are/were motivated by the love of money. However, this is unnecessary as His word has been preserved just as He promised and there is no cause to rewrite it or start our own printing presses.

    The printing would last only as long as the money lasted. No printer worx for free.

    Quote:
    Lemme close my reply with this comment: YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY **NO** SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR YOUR BELIEF!

    NOR DO **YOU** FOR YOURS!

    I don't have any doctrine of worship that needs to be proven. The KJVOs have the burden of proving a doctrine. Every doctrine I hold is already proven BY SCRIPTURE. KJVO, however, isn't proven by ANYTHING. it's entirely man-made, and we know its sources.

    In fact, in order for one to hold your position one has to believe that God is the author of confusion and thus, your position runs contrary to scripture (In my subjective opinion of course).

    Actually, the OPPOSITE is true. When a KJVO disses all other versions, he/she generates confusion, especially among neophyte Christians who use other versions. It can cause such people to doubt the truth of ANY Bible. You KNOW that KJVO has wrecked churches, ended friendships, & even caused families to divide. So, WHAT/WHO is the author of confusion here?


    __________________
    "The worst crimes were dared by a few, willed by more and tolerated by all." - Tacitus

    Rufus, didja know that Tacitus, the Roman historian, mentioned JESUS in his worx while he was dissing all Christians and their worship? Consider that FACT before ya quote him again.
     
    #1 robycop3, Mar 19, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 19, 2007
  2. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    We've gone down this path, I did this, they said figure it out yourself.

    It's unique in that it is unlike all the others. You can quote and copy from it without restriction, the others have restrictions.

    I lost my last bippy at the tracks.

    200+ versions later and folks are still doing it. No book like it in the world. There are not 200+ versions of the Qu'ran or the Talmud or the Odyssey, I've never heard of folks rewriting Shakespeare but the Holy Bible that needs worked and reworked over and over again.

    Feel free to believe a false doctrine, made by men that says any Bible is a good Bible or your doctrine that Bibles are valid as long as they follow their sources, irregardless of the problems with those sources.

    It is indeed against the rules, which was why I was recommending the use of applying the word "myth" to the all Bibles are good Bibles positions as this has been acceptably used over and over again in reference to the KJVo belief.

    Very well. I subscribe to the belief that a valid translation is one that follows the proper sources closely and there is only one preserved version of that which meets that criteria.
    I am not a subject of Britain. I've heard there are still one or two Christians left in the UK, I am sure they can manage their own Bible Version controversies.

    Yes they did. It still has no bearing on copyright issues.

    I would work for free if it meant being used to preserve God's word.

    The AVrs don't have the burden of proof, the AV was understood to be the Word of God before the church-wreckers came along.

    __________________
    The quotation is an endorsement of the words not an endorsement of the man. I have quoted Goethe, W Bush, and other men that I stand very much opposed to.
     
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    A Puritans Mind
    at:
    http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/GenevaBible.htm

    sez (Bolding & underlining by ed):

    The 16th & 17th century would run
    from 1601-1700 and 1701-1800.
    That is half the claimed acendancy of
    the KJVs of 400 years.
     
    #3 Ed Edwards, Mar 19, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 19, 2007
  4. Mongol Servant

    Mongol Servant
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Answers to posts from another topic

    Roby:
    "Mongol Servant, you have many, many errors of the KJVO doctrine within your framework. First, Psalm 12:7 is about the PEOPLE named in Ps. 12:1-5, as a simple reading of the AV 1611 & the translators' marginal note for the 2nd them in V7 will showya."

    Maybe you misread those verses (Psalm 12:6), they aren't talking about people, my friend, as any child with a 6th grade intelligence level could attest.

    "And i've read Ray's work. It's largely a plagiarism of 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. Don't believe it? Just read Wilkinson's book for yourself. And tryta find a bio of Ray anywhere, or who actually owns Eye-Opener."

    Once again, you resort to the old jesuit tactic of "character assasination" - who cares what Ray's bio is or who owns Eye-Opener (or who Wilkinson was for that matter) - the info in the book is irrefutable! You are obviously impressed with people who have letters behind their name (titles) -better read Job 32:21-22!

    "Sightler, as Riplinger, tells only ONE SIDE of the story, although he's not as deliberately dishonest as she is.. And none...NONE...of the KJVO authors can provide the first quark of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth!"

    You obviously haven't read Sightler's book. Truth only has ONE SIDE!

    "So, if the KJV was made largely from vernacular Bibles, did they lose their validity after 1611? just what WAS the HB in English before 1611? Or, do ya believe God waited over 1500 years to give His complete word to mankind?"

    None of the modern versions came from any of those vernacular Bibles, as did our present Holy Bible - they ALL came from Westcott & Hort's garbage - wake up & smell the coffee! :wavey:
     
  5. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mongol Servant: //Maybe you misread those verses (Psalm 12:6), they aren't talking about people, my friend, as any child with a 6th grade intelligence level could attest.//

    Try reading the source:

    ----------------------
    Psa 12:5-7 (KJV1611 Edition):
    For the oppression of the poore,
    for the sighing of the needy,
    now will I arise (saith the Lord,)
    I will set him in safetie from him that ||puffeth at him.
    6 The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes:
    as siluer tried in a fornace of earth purified seuen times. 7 Thou shalt keepe them, (O Lord,)
    thou shalt preserue + them,
    from this generation for euer.


    Margin notes:
    ||Or, would ensnare him
    +Heb. him, every one of them,
    ----------------------

    The original source for the KJVs shows
    that the pronouns in verse 7 are refering to
    the nouns (people) in verse 5 NOT the parenthetic
    verse six. Secondary sources (such as the
    common KJV1769 Edition generally omit the
    TRUTH in the translator notes.
     
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mongol Servant: //Once again, you resort to the old
    jesuit tactic of "character assasination" ... //

    Which is kinder than the sin of 'Holy Bible Assasination' that
    Modern BIBLE Version bashers commit.
     
  7. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Alright fellas.

    Lets step back and take a deep breath. My internet has been down and is still sporadic. I would hate to have to edit and close a whol ebunch of threads when I get back up and running.

    Please obey the rules posted in this BVT forum, they are different from the general rules.

    It would be nice if we could behave like Christian gentlemen instead of "biting and devouring" one another.
     
  8. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by robycop3
    Again, just PHONE the nearist British embassy & ask'em if ya can legally print the KJV within England's realm w/o anyone's permission. Or, contact Oxford or Cambridge.

    Rufus_1611:We've gone down this path, I did this, they said figure it out yourself.

    Funny...I phoned them about 5 years ago & they said that the KJV is still under a Crown copyright, and for anyone within the British realm to repro the KJV, he/she hadta have written permission from one of the authorized copyright holders. No figuring out to be done...THE KJV IS COPYRIGHTED within the British realm.


    It's unique in that it is unlike all the others. You can quote and copy from it without restriction, the others have restrictions.

    Try it in England.

    Quote:
    The copyright holders are the presses of Oxford & Cambridge Universities, Eyre & Spottiswoode Publishing Co. & Wm. Collins & Sons Publishing Co., now known as Harper Collins through its merger with Harper & Rowe Publishing Co. They also own Zondervan!

    Eyre & Spottiswoode Co. was the royal printer for awhile, & while such, acquired a royal permit to print & sell the KJV. Here's their statement, found on the backs of the title pages of KJVs printed & sold by them: All rights in respect of the Authorized (King James) Version of the Holy Bible are vested in the Crown in the United Kingdom and controlled by Royal Letters Patent. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature without written permission.

    My Cambridge Edition has the university's coat-of-arms, with the latin words "cum priviligio"(with privilege) beneath it. Those same words are found on the title page of the AV 1611's New Testament, and on the title page of earlier Bibles & upon the title pages of EVERY book holding a Crown copyright. The Crown copyright is the oldest form of copyright in Great Britain, and in the case of the KJV & a few other worx, it has remained perpetual. But ya kin bet yer sweet bippy that it IS a copyright, with as much authority in the British realm as any other British copyright.

    I lost my last bippy at the tracks.

    Win another one by betting the KJV is copyrighted in England.

    Quote:
    Quote:

    Yes, any (per)version of the scriptures can be copyrighted ($$$), but not the God-blessed scriptures themselves. God holds the copyright to The Holy Bible, not Zondervan or Thomas Nelson. In Acts 2, when the disciples spoke in many different languages (not Hebrew & Greek), was what they spoke the word of God? Hmmm.....

    That's right. Anyone can make a new Bible version w/o anyone's permission.
    200+ versions later and folks are still doing it. No book like it in the world. There are not 200+ versions of the Qu'ran or the Talmud or the Odyssey, I've never heard of folks rewriting Shakespeare but the Holy Bible that needs worked and reworked over and over again.

    Quote:
    Quote:
    First, a friendly reminder...The moderators of this board don't allow calling God's word a "perversion". And don't argue that MVs are not God's word. That won't work here; it's not an acceptable excuse.

    Mongol, feel free to call the belief that God's Word being contained in any book that has the word "Bible" on it, or any "valid" book (as subjectively defined by each individual belief in what Bible works best for them), or any version that uses manuscripts containing the word "Vatican" or that are found in the trash of a Catholic monastery, a "myth" as this word is preferred over "perversion".

    yes, feel free to believe a false doctrine, made by men, not found in Scripture.

    Feel free to believe a false doctrine, made by men that says any Bible is a good Bible or your doctrine that Bibles are valid as long as they follow their sources, irregardless of the problems with those sources.

    The false doctrine is the KJVO doctrine, which has no Scriptural support whatsoever, direct nor implied.

    Quote:
    Rufus:Robycop, have you not made the argument that some modern versions are not God's word? There are folks that contend that The Message is a modern version of God's Word but are you not in the camp that the Message is not a "valid" version? What is argued typically on this board is which versions are "valid" and which are "invalid" and I for one can not pin ya'll down in objectively defining how one goes about that determination. Therefore, you have an opinion that some modern versions are the word of God, others say none of them are. Since you are advocating for this issue being subjective anyway, why be so vehement about who is right? From your worldview each man's opinion is what reigns no?

    You know the rules. If Mongol had named a SPECIFIC "VERSION" such as "Good As New", I wouldn'ta said a word, but he applied the term in a ganeral manner, which is against the rules.

    It is indeed against the rules, which was why I was recommending the use of applying the word "myth" to the all Bibles are good Bibles positions as this has been acceptably used over and over again in reference to the KJVo belief.

    Now, just WHO said "all Bibles are good Bibles"? I believe you've seen my slams of the TNIV & "Good As New" among others. However, there are several valid English versions out there, old & new.

    Quote:
    And I have said many times that a valid translation is one which follows its sources closely.
    Very well. I subscribe to the belief that a valid translation is one that follows the proper sources closely and there is only one preserved version of that which meets that criteria.

    Try doing it with the KJV within the realm of the British Govt.

    I am not a subject of Britain. I've heard there are still one or two Christians left in the UK, I am sure they can manage their own Bible Version controversies.

    Well, it IS copyrighted in GB, like it or not. And once again, the copyrights issue is completely irrelevant to the KJVO controversy. That thingie was started by some KJVOs desperate for something...ANYTHING...to tryta justify their doctrine. Guess they'd never hearda the FAIR USE provisions of the American copyright law. GB has similar provisions.


    Quote:
    Quote:
    Someone somewhere paid for it. Even if you sit down & make a Mongol Bible & give copies of it away at no charge to the recipient, YOU will be paying for the materials used to make it, & for the actual printing.

    Materials are not relevant to copyright. I can charge for materials + profit of a KJV without getting consent of any man. I would have to get Zondervan's permission to copy NIVs for they own the right to their words.

    But it's not an absolutely-free copy, is it? Someone somewhere paid for the materials to make it.
    Yes they did. It still has no bearing on copyright issues.


    Quote:
    Lemme close my reply with this comment: YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY **NO** SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR YOUR BELIEF!

    NOR DO **YOU** FOR YOURS!

    Yes, I DO. Please compare Isaiah 61:1-3 and Isaiah 42:7-8 with what JESUS READ ALOUD in Luke 4:16-21. Also, compare Isaiah 53:7-8 with Acts 8:32-33, as well as many other OT quotes found in the NT.

    I don't have any doctrine of worship that needs to be proven. The KJVOs have the burden of proving a doctrine. Every doctrine I hold is already proven BY SCRIPTURE. KJVO, however, isn't proven by ANYTHING. it's entirely man-made, and we know its sources.

    In fact, in order for one to hold your position one has to believe that God is the author of confusion and thus, your position runs contrary to scripture (In my subjective opinion of course).

    Actually, the OPPOSITE is true. When a KJVO disses all other versions, he/she generates confusion, especially among neophyte Christians who use other versions. It can cause such people to doubt the truth of ANY Bible. You KNOW that KJVO has wrecked churches, ended friendships, & even caused families to divide. So, WHAT/WHO is the author of confusion here?


    The AVrs don't have the burden of proof, the AV was understood to be the Word of God before the church-wreckers came along.

    And so was the GENEVA BIBLE,before the AV...and the NASB, NKJV, NIV, etc. until the church-wreckers, I. E. the KJVOs started heavilyhawking their codwallop.

    __________________
    Quote:
    "The worst crimes were dared by a few, willed by more and tolerated by all." - Tacitus

    Rufus, didja know that Tacitus, the Roman historian, mentioned JESUS in his worx while he was dissing all Christians and their worship? Consider that FACT before ya quote him again.


    The quotation is an endorsement of the words not an endorsement of the man. I have quoted Goethe, W Bush, and other men that I stand very much opposed to.

    So, ya gotta use secular sources to prove Christian tenets? I see...........
     
  9. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Swell.

    Send me the plane fare.

    I was joking. Turns out I don't bet and I'm unaware of what a "bippy" is.

    The false doctrine is the every Bible is a good Bible or all Bibles are good Bibles except for _____ and this doctrine has no scriptural support whatsoever, direct nor implied.


    How does that make you any different than a KJVo person and where is your scriptural basis for these claims? KJVo believes that there is one Bible that is valid and this offends the sensibilities of the folks that read from Bible W, Bible X, Bible Y and Bible Z. You say that Bible W and Bible X are valid but slam Bible Y and Bible Z offending the believers that think Bible Y and Bible Z are actually Bibles. Turns out we have more in common than I thought.


    I only got in the muck as you were trying to encourage folks to contact the British officials on this issue again. I did as you asked, I reported back their response and you're still using this as an argument.

    The KJV was the masterpiece of the previous few including the Geneva Bible. Out of many came one and today the MV'ers have abandoned the one for hundreds.

    [Snipped as message exceeded 10000 limit]

    Here's another secular quote for ya...

    [makes W with her hands] "Whatever". - Amber from Clueless
     
  10. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Roby: "Mongol Servant, you have many, many errors of the KJVO doctrine within your framework. First, Psalm 12:7 is about the PEOPLE named in Ps. 12:1-5, as a simple reading of the AV 1611 & the translators' marginal note for the 2nd them in V7 will showya."

    Mongol servant:Maybe you misread those verses (Psalm 12:6), they aren't talking about people, my friend, as any child with a 6th grade intelligence level could attest.

    In the AV 1611, there's a punctuation mark, called a dagger, after the second them in Psalm 12:7. This punctuation mark was used then to indicate s footnote exists for the main text, same as it does now. The corresponding dagger is found in fronta this marginal note: Heb. him, I. euery one of them". Almost every other BV indicates in the text itself that the subject of V7 is the PEOPLE mentioned in the first 5 verses. The AV translators, knowing the verse was about PLURAL people, used a plural pronoun in place of the singular Hebrew & indicated such in their note. (The Geneva Bible has him in this verse.)

    I had these punctuation marks taught in the 4th grade, but you're right...anyone with the intelligence of a 6th grader or lower would believe Ps. 12:7 is about God's words when the Bible you exalt says differently.



    "And i've read Ray's work. It's largely a plagiarism of 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. Don't believe it? Just read Wilkinson's book for yourself. And tryta find a bio of Ray anywhere, or who actually owns Eye-Opener." Once again, you resort to the old jesuit tactic of "character assasination" - who cares what Ray's bio is or who owns Eye-Opener (or who Wilkinson was for that matter) - the info in the book is irrefutable! You are obviously impressed with people who have letters behind their name (titles) -better read Job 32:21-22!


    Actually, that "info" is quite refutable, and has often been refuted in the 52 years it's been on the market. And once again, just read Wilkinson's Our Authorized Bible Vindicated & compare Ray's book with it.

    And obviously, you aren't concerned that the current KJVO doctrine was started from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book, which was PLAGIARIZED by several dishonest authors who followed. And some KJVOs claim their doctrine, steeped in dishonesty, is from GOD???????


    "Sightler, as Riplinger, tells only ONE SIDE of the story, although he's not as deliberately dishonest as she is.. And none...NONE...of the KJVO authors can provide the first quark of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth!"


    You obviously haven't read Sightler's book. Truth only has ONE SIDE!

    But Sightler tells only HALF of it, as Riplinger does.


    Yes, I HAVE read his book...but here's a short review of it, done by another member of this board, who's far-better at these things than I am:

    http://www.kjvonly.org/rick/norris_review_sightler.htm



    "So, if the KJV was made largely from vernacular Bibles, did they lose their validity after 1611? just what WAS the HB in English before 1611? Or, do ya believe God waited over 1500 years to give His complete word to mankind?"


    None of the modern versions came from any of those vernacular Bibles, as did our present Holy Bible - they ALL came from Westcott & Hort's garbage - wake up & smell the coffee!

    All I smell is espresso.

    It's easy to blame W&H, to make them the whipping boys for the fact that God didn't retire in 1611, that He still provides His word in the languages now in use.

    If anyone woulda condemned W&H, it woulda been Dean John Burgon, the superhero of the KJVOs. But he didn't! And don't forget that W&H, Burgon, & the AV translators were all ANGLICANS.

    Modern translators simply CANNOT ignore any of the mss discovered since the KJV was made, mss that are older than those used by the AV men. w/o being disingenuous & unfaithful to their task.

    And here's something that KJVOs just won't comment about...If the "Alexandrian" mss are so corrupt, WHY DID GOD ALLOW THEM TO KEEP EXISTING? Tischendorf had NOT set out to visit the Greek Orthodox monastary St. Catherine's where he found Sinaiticus. He found it accidentally in a container of discards. DID GOD PROVIDENTIALLY PRESERVE IT?

    Vaticanus' survival oughtta make one ponder. It was given to officials in the Vatican in the 1400s. Now, the vatican officials had a practice of burning any writings passed off as Scripture, and V was somewhat different from the RC version of the Scriptures. However, insteada burning it, the officials placed it in their library, where it remained forgotten for a long time. When it was "re-discovered" during a library housekeeping, it was examined closely, and is now among the most prized mss found in the vatican library. Again, I ask, DOES VATICANUS STILL EXIST DUE TO GOD'S PROVIDENTIAL PRESERVATION?
     
  11. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    It exists for the same reason that the Roman Catholic Church still exists. God allows us the choice of choosing to serve Him, the mother of harlots, or one of her daughters.
     
  12. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rufus_1611: //The false doctrine is the every Bible
    is a good Bible or all Bibles are good Bibles
    except for _____ and this doctrine has
    no scriptural support whatsoever, direct nor implied.//

    2Ti 3:16-17 (KJV1611 Edition):
    All Scripture is giuen by inspiration
    of God, & is profitable for doctrine,
    for reproofe, for correction,
    for instrution in righteousnesse,
    7 That the man of God
    may be perfect, throughly furnished
    vnto all good workes.


    Using the KJV as a dictionary we find
    perfect = throughly furnished

    (though freqenetly some try to sell
    perfect = without flaw, which isn't at
    all scriptureal)
     
  13. Mike Berzins

    Mike Berzins
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    The word "perfect" may not necessarily always mean without flaw, but nevertheless the idea of the scriptures being without flaw is scriptural.

    Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth. Psalms 119:151

    Using the KJB as a dictionary, we find that in Psalms 119 "commandments" are synonymous with God's "word," as are his "precepts."

    Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way. Psalms 119:128

    Many more verses could be listed (every word of God is pure, etc).

    What verse even hints at the idea that the scriptures have flaws?
     
  14. Mongol Servant

    Mongol Servant
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Roger - Mods

    1st - let me follow Roger's request to step back & take a deep breath. I will end my discussion of this (and other similarly related) topics with this thought (which I also had as a part of my 1st post):

    My Holy Bible states "by their fruits, you'll know them."

    I was warned by several Pastors, Evangelists, and Missionaries (among others), not to get involved on internet forums, bulletin boards, discussions, blogs, etc, because they were a serious waste of time. I followed that advice for over 10 years. Recently, I purchased several faith-strengthening books, articles, CDs, and other material from the Bible-believers Bookstore, via the web. On their site was a banner for the Baptist Top 1000. Out of curiosity, I clicked the banner and noticed the churches, articles, sites, and other items offered. Many of them seem to be very good. However, some are not so good (i.e. advertising non-Baptistic material, etc.). When I noticed the "Starbucks for the Soul" (being I enjoy good coffee), indicating this BaptistBoard as a place for real Baptists, I thought I'd take a look. When I noticed many of the topics, with their inherent tone, two thoughts came to mind: (1) Those that warned me about these forums were right and, (2) Something is "wrong in Denmark" when Baptists sit around and kick The Holy Bible they supposedly got their salvation from.

    Lord Bless each and everyone of you who have the peace that The Lord Jesus Christ gives thru His word (John 14:27 - Psalms 119:165). Since I have trusted Christ as my personal Saviour, He has shown me the Truth and I want to give it to as many people as I am able to. That's why I'm on the mission field.

    As the BaptistBoard motto says:
    KJV - John 8:32 "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

    Mongol Servant :praying:
     
  15. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Dear MS ,

    So Baptists sit around and kick the Holy Bible around ? On the BB they examine the baseless claims of the KJVO myth . Some here who contest King James Onlyism prefer the KJV actually . The KJV is a translation -- really a minor revision of William Tyndale's work . His wording was retained a sizeable majority of the time in the KJ New Testament .

    I challenge you to substantiate that anyone here is figuratively kicking the Word of God around .

    Maybe you think something is wrong in Denmark -- they're not reading the KJV because it's not in their language . And it's not in the "language" of 21st century English speaking people either .

    So the Lord has shown you the truth , has He ? I pray that the "truth" is not your KJO mentality . I hope that isn't the substance of your ministry on the mission field .
     
  16. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by robycop3
    And here's something that KJVOs just won't comment about...If the "Alexandrian" mss are so corrupt, WHY DID GOD ALLOW THEM TO KEEP EXISTING? Tischendorf had NOT set out to visit the Greek Orthodox monastary St. Catherine's where he found Sinaiticus. He found it accidentally in a container of discards. DID GOD PROVIDENTIALLY PRESERVE IT?

    Vaticanus' survival oughtta make one ponder. It was given to officials in the Vatican in the 1400s. Now, the vatican officials had a practice of burning any writings passed off as Scripture, and V was somewhat different from the RC version of the Scriptures. However, insteada burning it, the officials placed it in their library, where it remained forgotten for a long time. When it was "re-discovered" during a library housekeeping, it was examined closely, and is now among the most prized mss found in the vatican library. Again, I ask, DOES VATICANUS STILL EXIST DUE TO GOD'S PROVIDENTIAL PRESERVATION?


    It exists for the same reason that the Roman Catholic Church still exists. God allows us the choice of choosing to serve Him, the mother of harlots, or one of her daughters.

    My question suggested a possibility, while your answer also suggests a possibility. It's typical of KJVO answers when faced with that possibility.
     
  17. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Mongol servant:My Holy Bible states "by their fruits, you'll know them."

    Ao do mine...all of them.

    I was warned by several Pastors, Evangelists, and Missionaries (among others), not to get involved on internet forums, bulletin boards, discussions, blogs, etc, because they were a serious waste of time.

    Actually, they were wrong. The Internet is a medium to preach the Gospel to many people at once, same as radio or TV.

    I followed that advice for over 10 years. Recently, I purchased several faith-strengthening books, articles, CDs, and other material from the Bible-believers Bookstore, via the web. On their site was a banner for the Baptist Top 1000. Out of curiosity, I clicked the banner and noticed the churches, articles, sites, and other items offered. Many of them seem to be very good. However, some are not so good (i.e. advertising non-Baptistic material, etc.). When I noticed the "Starbucks for the Soul" (being I enjoy good coffee), indicating this BaptistBoard as a place for real Baptists, I thought I'd take a look. When I noticed many of the topics, with their inherent tone, two thoughts came to mind: (1) Those that warned me about these forums were right

    In what manner(s)?


    and, (2) Something is "wrong in Denmark" when Baptists sit around and kick The Holy Bible they supposedly got their salvation from.

    No one here kicks the Holy Bible. My salvation came from hearing the word of God from the NASV. It's as much a Holy Bible as any other.

    Lord Bless each and everyone of you who have the peace that The Lord Jesus Christ gives thru His word (John 14:27 - Psalms 119:165). Since I have trusted Christ as my personal Saviour, He has shown me the Truth and I want to give it to as many people as I am able to. That's why I'm on the mission field.

    I hope your mission is successful!

    God gives each believer specific work, as well as those things He expects from all Christians. There are plentya unsaved people right in my own 'hood in southeast Ohio USA who needta hear the Gospel, same as do the Mongols. God has sent you there, while keeping me here. He has caused me to war against false religions such as Jehovah Witness & Mormon, and against false doctrines within Christianity such as KJVO. We each run the race on the particular course God has set for each of us.

    As the BaptistBoard motto says:
    KJV - John 8:32 "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."


    I am somewhat concerned that you're advocating making a Mongol translation from an existing English translation. While I reckon a translation from a translation is better than no Bible at all, what's wrong with having a translation made from the ancient texts? A little something is lost when making any translation, and making a translation from a translation loses a little more.

    Please bear in mind that no matter what anyone tells you, that GOD IS NOT LIMITED to any one translation of His word in any language, and YOU don't hafta be, either.
     
  18. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    You would've preferred an impossibility?
     
  19. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mike Berzins: //The word "perfect" may not necessarily
    always mean without flaw, but nevertheless the idea
    of the scriptures being without flaw is scriptural.//

    That is correct, but changing the subject.
    Here was the scripture.

    2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV1611 Edition):
    All Scripture is giuen by inspiration
    of God, & is profitable for doctrine,
    for reproofe, for correction,
    for instrution in righteousnesse,
    7 That the man of God
    may be perfect, throughly furnished
    vnto all good workes.


    The 'perfect, throughly furnished' is talking
    about the 'man of God' NOT the 'word of God'.

    The 'man of God' is NOT perfect = without flaw;
    the 'written word of God' is perfect = without flaw.
    The 'man of God' can be perfect = complete;
    the 'written word of God' is perfect = complete.
    The 'written word of God' is NOT the
    same as the 'living word of God' which
    is Messiah Jesus: the Savior who rose from the dead.
     
  20. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mongol Servant: //I was warned by several Pastors,
    Evangelists, and Missionaries (among others), not
    to get involved on internet forums, bulletin boards,
    discussions, blogs, etc, because they were a serious
    waste of time. I followed that advice for over 10 years.//

    That is interesting. Here is my story:

    I was called by God to get involved on internet forums,
    bulletin boards, etc, so I could minister* to God's servants
    like yourself. I have been faithful to that call
    for over 22 years (23 years come July 2007).

    *note: I had already been called to minister to
    ministers back about 1975, called to Christ
    back in 1952.

    I believe that a multitude of translations in both
    the English, another language one knows, and the
    original languages will enhanse one's walk with
    God. I believe that God has preserved His
    inerrant Written Word in a multitude of languages
    including English versions.
     

Share This Page

Loading...