Bible? Inspired or Expired?

The 1611 KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops'). The earlier pre-1611 English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops') are on the KJV-only view's tree, line, or stream of good Bibles. Any quality or attribute claimed for the KJV would have to have already been in the earlier English Bibles of which it is a revision. According to the law of non-contradiction, can the KJV have qualities which are not in common with the earlier English Bibles of which it is a revision?

Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not alive and inspired? Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness? Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that were alive or dead?

 

3 thoughts:

• Mr. Evans, EVERYONE here knows that Jesus read the Queen's English in Luke. You win. We surrender.
• Most folks here are quite happy that you enjoy the 1769 revision of the AV1611. I like it too...among other solid translations.
• I feel certain when your work on earth is done, and you go to be with the Lord, He's going to ask you, "Herb...of all the battles you could have fought in My name, why on earth did you pick that one?

You have been rude to many of my brothers and sisters in Christ here. You are not showing a gentle spirit, or lovingkindness. I'm kind of a happy guy. Jesus has saved me, He's allowing me to reach kids for His glory, and I get to do it full-time! What could be better?

I refuse to let someone like you steal my joy. Good day.

RBell

 

I came to that conclusion because of your dementor, your posts, and your lack of respect for others.

Your article you posted wasn't that big of a deal to me. It's an arguement that has been hash and rehashed over and over again... do a search. The difference is when someone new comes in with the sole intent to "stir the pot".

No one has said anything about "silencing" you.. We just don't have to play.. You can continue to rant and rave if you would like, but the choice to play the game in this sort of debate, is each users choice and I choose to not play.


As far as who has the problem... I didn't come to the board to "stir the pot" and post on topics that have been talked about over and over again. I came here to the BB to share, fellowship, and learn with my brothers and sisters in Christ. Yes, sometimes the debates get heated, but it's never the main point of the thread to start with..


Jamie

 

Dear new poster....
I used to be KJVO... until [snip] people like you that stood for the KJVO kept spewing forth trash.. It is obvious to see you do not have the love of Christ by the way you came to this board shooting away.

If you want to convince others that the KJV is the ONly word of God, may I suggest you practice the doctrine of love as found in the KJV. I have no need for Brothers or Sisters in Christ that do not love each other. God doesn't either..

BTW there is a universal church, and IFBs are not God's only chosen people.

Also, I am ABC-USA... so fire away.

 

1 Co 14:18 (KJV1611 Edition):
I thanke my God, I speake with tongues more then you all.

I think my God, I use more KJVs then you all. :wavey:

Check out my topic:
Daily Reading the KJV1611 Edition at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=31304

 

no-no, gotta quote the REAL KJV:

Proverbs 6:16-19 (KJV1611 Edition):
These sixe things doeth the Lord hate;
yea seuen are an abomination vnto him:
17 A proude looke, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood:
18 An heart that deuiseth wicked imaginations,
feet that be swift in running to mischiefe:
19 A false witnesse that speaketh lies;
and him that soweth discord among brethren.

 

Well first Mr. Evans I know you think you want an answer when you want it, but I don't sit here waiting to talk to you. So your frequent asking of the same question will be answered when I come in.

Secondly, you are the one stating that you have biblical support for your KJVOism. So it is incumbent on you to provide the proof from the Bible. You can't because it doesn't exist. And btw when you do please use the original KJV not your revised version.

Third, my answer to your question is found in 2 Timothy 3:16 & 17---I will let you read it in any translation you want and you will notice no mention of a particular version, just the fact that all Scripture is inspired...

Finally, you are new here and have come in intentionally offending Bible believing Christians, and those who are led to be apart of SBC churches. Your pharisetical attitude has been brought here before, shown for what it is and the offender soon leaves. Your unbiblical man-made doctrine of onlyism will be shown for what it is. Let's save some time, go to the archives and get caught up on what has already been said. Then we can deal with something that has not already be proven false.

Bro Tony

 

This applies to the definitions KJVO's use as well. The key terms they stumble all over and misdefine are inspiration, preservation, "word", and "perfect".

Rather odd argument since the JW's started out using (misinterpretting) the KJV and the Mormon's to this day depend on the peculiar wording of the KJV to sustain some of their non-sense.

They don't want their folks reading from other versions since they might do what the KJV translators promoted- get the true sense of scripture.

Who argues this? Can you put some names to this argument?​

I don't personally think "transmission" is an accurate term concerning original inspiration. God didn't send the original writers a radio message... He "breathed out" scripture.​

Citation please. FTR, the transmission of scriptures via the manuscripts is hardly an ignored field.​

​

Nope. What God said has not been lost. It has been "transmitted" as He sovereignly chose by the hands of men. He providentially insured that His "Word" would not be lost. It is more than obvious to the rational observer that He did not choose to do that by preserving a single set of words.

The first problem with KJVOnlyism is that they confuse preservation of God's "Word" with preservation or reinspiration of a single set of words.

Precisely why KJVOnlyism is NOT TRUE. It relies on the opinion of people who deny the obvious evidence as a standard for determining which Bible version is correct on any particular word or phrase.

True and irrelevant to the validity of the copies and faithful translations. However it is very relevant to the notion that the KJV is inspired since we know for a fact that the originals were not given in English of any era.

This is where your whole argument collapses. God's breathed Word is absolutely NOT restricted by human words, ink, or paper... not even those of the originals.

Accurately transmitting what God said is far more important than arguing over what words to use to express it. For example, let's say these two versions of the speed limit appear in Missouri law:

"The unposted speed limit in Missouri is 55 mph."

"Missouri statute establishes a 55 mph speed limit for all unposted highways".

Which is accurate? Both.
Which is authoritative? Both.
Which justifies an expectation of compliance? Both.

The argument could be made that one is clearer or more accurate than the other but neither can be declared inaccurate nor ineffectual.

Let's go a step further than that. If God was as hung up on words as KJVO's are or if it were His intent to give us a single set of words... then why didn't He have the originals carved into stone or etched into metal? Why did He cause the original penmen to use ink and paper that were corruptible being subject to the fall?

Why? Because it is His Word, not ink and paper, that is alive. It His Word as in the power of His divine will and revelation that is alive... not some set of human words.

The answer is no. It would still be corruptible pen and paper. It would still be human words. it would be the meaning of those words that is alive... not the pen strokes.

Jeremiah was biblically qualified to receive direct inspiration. He was a God chosen and validated prophet. The KJV translators were not. They do not biblically qualify to receive inspiration since they were not prophets or Apostles. God specially chose the men by whom He delivered revelation... the last one died about 100 AD and his name was John. He personally punctuated the Bible at the end of Revelation.

 

Another good reason KJVOnlyism cannot be true. The KJV did not exist before 17th century Anglicans created it. The Word of God that it communicates did but the particular words were new in 1611. They had never existed together before in all of history.

Nope. The message communicated by the KJV is alive. The text itself is nothing more than a vehicle.

Can you explain why it took an act of the state church of England to effectively outlaw the Geneva Bible before the people accepted it? Can you explain why our forebearers even went to the extreme measure of having a black market to bring Geneva Bibles into England? Why did those leaving England to escape religious persecution bring the Geneva with them and not the KJV? If the monarchy and CoE in that era were godly enough to be the instruments of reinspiration then why was it necessary for anyone to seek religious freedom to believe and practice like we do? Why were Baptists and Separatists persecuted under these same civil and religious authorities?

If you are going to say that inspiration didn't end with John then you very well should join them.

Yet your experience and the opinions derived from that experience not only binds others but serves as a standard for the validity of their testimony?

You mean like they did for 1500 years prior to the KJV?

The KJV was not profitable to Timothy either. Is it therefore disqualified?

Most of the people who we will know in heaven received this profit from some version other than the KJV.

If you want to use that argument then you must deal with the statistical fact that more martyrs have died since the introduction of MV's, more people have been saved, and more of the world has been reached with the gospel than during the 250+/- years of KJV/TR dominance. Your argument is simply not true because it cannot account for contrary evidence.

That is simply not a true statement even if one were to allow that something about the KJV had caused any of those things. God uses His Word and His people. He is by no means limited by the translation choices of 17th century Anglican scholars... some of whom were not only unlikely to be saved but had an active hand in persecuting those who taught that salvation was by faith and that baptism was for believers... and not salvation.

I could go on and maybe will at some point but this should suffice for now. The argument you post is so full of logical fallacies and inaccuracy that its only merit is that it is presented confidently... If you can call confident presentation of error a merit.

 

As we have discussed this topic over and over, unless there is some new contribution to the discussion I am imposing a 50 post limit to this thread.

If at that point there is some new aspect to the discussion I will consider extending it.

Roger
C4K
Moderator

 

I'll toss in my two pfennings, and see if I can add to (or take away from) the topic title, just a bit.

I vote for "expired" over "inspired".

II Timothy 3:16 'reads' : "pasa graphe theopneustos..."

At the risk of sounding 'flip', ("On the BB?? C'mon!" - My alter-ego, Language Cop)

'All Scripture is 'God-breathed-out'', hence 'EX-pired', for God breathed it out,; He didn't inhale it, rather He ex-haled it.

Ed

 

Herb may be a bit rough around the edges, but I gotta give the man credit for calling a spade a spade. Most of you guys talk about choosing bible versions like you're choosing which wine will go best with chicken. The ESV may have a fruity bouquet, but the earthiness of the NIV helps bring out the flavor. Where has the inspiration gone to?

 

Bro Evans,

When you enter a discussion board and from the very start label those who disagee with you "Bible correctors" and their Bibles as "counterfeit" you surely must have expected some type of negative response since you have no scriptural basis for those terms.