Chapter and Verse

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Oct 28, 2003.

  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    IF only the AV1611 (or whichever revision) is the only true, perfect, etc etc Word of God and no other English translation is, then I would like a chapter and verse to verify this fact.

    Nobody need give opinions or ideas. Just chapter and verse that says the AV is THE ONLY English Version.

    Reference is fine. We can all look it up.
     
  2. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    That would be in the book of Hezekiah, methinks.
     
  3. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    What do you mean IF?


    First of all it is the w ord of God with a small w ,not the Word;the W ord is found in John 1:1;not to be confused with "My w ords shall not pass away"(Matt.24:35);get it right...

    No,you are trying to be deceptive;I never said that ANY Bible from Antiochan(Acts13)manuscripts was corrupt;I said any "bible"(whichever of the 200+ versions that conflict one another in thousands of places)that hails from corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts was hoplessly corrupt.


    Acts 13 does not say the KJB is the only word(little w)of God in English verbatim;but it does make reference to the word(little w)of God coming from Antioch,the KJB has it's foundation in those Antiochan(Acts13) manuscripts;it does NOT say nothing about Alexandria concering the word(little w)of God.


    GOOD!! Look up what I have posted;read it slow;and while you are at it,give me chapter and verse that proves your doctrine of Alexandria being where the word(little w)of God comes from....


    Oh wait,I remember the verses for Alexandrian based "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting versions);I think it was 2nd Hezallua 13:13 and 3rd Hellzapopin 6:66...Look em up..
     
  4. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I expected a chapter and verse. Of course I knew you couldn't give it.

    Simple post, to show the BANKRUPTCY of your error! And you proved it! Thanks! Part of being a teacher is to not only proclaim truth but to help the student see the folly of error.

    BTW, I capitalize the Word of God because it is a proper noun. I love the Word. Written and Living. Just a thing I have.
     
  5. Michael Hobbs

    Michael Hobbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can you give a chapter and verse that says it isn't?

    However, since the book of Revelation was written around 95-100 A.D., and the English language didn't come into existance until the 5th century, your question is a strawman argument.

    Some interesting facts about the English language:
    1. It is the second most spoken language in the world. Mandarin (Chinese) is spoken by more people, but English is by far the most widespread of the world's languages.
    2. It is estimated that there are 300 million native speakers and 300 million who use English as a second language and a further 100 million use it as a foreign language.
    3. It is listed as the official or co-official language of over 45 countries and is spoken extensively in other countries where it has no official status. This compares to 27 for French, 20 for Spanish and 17 for Arabic.
    4. Half of all business deals are conducted in English. Two thirds of all scientific papers are written in English. Over 70% of all post / mail is written and addressed in English. Most international tourism and aviation is conducted in English.

    Source: The Origin and History of the English Language

    Now, concerning the AV, perhaps this verse is pertinent:

    Ecclesiastes 8:4 Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?

    I know it doesn't say English but it is interesting that there has been only one Bible translated under a king.
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    [/qb]Can you give a chapter and verse that says it isn't?[/qb][/quote]Yes 2 Tim 3:16, says all Scripture is inspired, not just one English version. Additionally, the pattern of the NT is that both Christ and the apostles used versions other than teh KJV. So we could cite numerous verses that back up our claim that things other than teh KJV is the word of God.

    So yes, we can prove our position from Scripture. You cannot.

    Of none of them speak 17th century English.

    And none of them speak 17th century English.

    Of none of it in 17th century English.

    You have just given three great reasons for modern translations.

    This is the grossest kind of scriptural abuse. Unfortunately it is a pattern used to support your unbiblical belief. Ecc 8:4 has nothing to do with translations or authority. You twist the word of God you claim to love. You make its authors out to liars for the sake of furthering your own false teachings. How shameful ...
     
  7. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    what's that got to do w anything, even if the KJB's the only version made under a king?

    1. the verse is taken out of context.

    2. the KJB's translators said that the King's word in whatever language (doesn't havta be English), even in the v meanest translation, is still the word of the King--so the power remains.

    3. the false argument cld be applied to the Sistine Edition of the Vulgate, made under Sixtus V, Vatican monarch.

    4. weren't Tyndale, Coverdale, Westcott, Hort, n many other Christians Kings (n Priests)? unless u're not a real baptist after all ;)

    as one sage has said, A Prooftext taken out of Context is only a Pretext.
     
  8. Michael Hobbs

    Michael Hobbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes 2 Tim 3:16, says all Scripture is inspired, not just one English version.[/quote]

    Talk about twisting scripture. As someone has said many times, "You've gotta laugh!"
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Strawman, they couldn't use something that didn't exist in a language that didn't exist.

    Has any KJVO person EVER said that the originals were not the word of God? If they did, I would disagree with them as well.

    You can provide the chapter and verse that says AV is NOT the ONLY English Version?? Please do.


    You don't have to speak 17th century English to understand 17th century English. Well, maybe you do but I don't. ;)
     
  9. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michael Hobbs said:

    Can you give a chapter and verse that says it isn't?

    Can you give me a chapter or verse that says I'm not God?

    No? Well, I guess I must be, then.
     
  10. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can you give a chapter and verse that says it isn't?</font>[/QUOTE]Yes. Compare Isa. 61:1-2 in your KJV with the same passage as it appears in the Bible Jesus used (Lk. 4:18-19 in your KJV). You'll notice that your KJV gives two different versions of the same passage. Therefore, your own KJV tells you that God sanctions different versions.
     
  11. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Strawman, they couldn't use something that didn't exist in a language that didn't exist.</font>[/QUOTE] Which is precisely why the KJV has no claim to being the only Word of God in any language.


    You don't have to speak 17th century English to understand 17th century English. Well, maybe you do but I don't. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]I have known KJVO preachers/teachers who misapplied or misinterpretted verses because they were sure they understood language that they in reality did not understand. Commonly used words that have changed meanings sometimes don't give themselves away by context, words like "communicate, conversation, prevent". The phrasing also creates situations where passages can be totally misunderstood while one thinks they understand them completely.

    Maybe this isn't a problem for you... but YOU aren't the only person the Bible was written for. It was written for everyone... even those who would rather read the Bible in a language they already understand. It should not be necessary for someone to learn a new language in order to read God's Word... that's why we have translations in the first place.

    God chose to inspire the Bible in the common language of the people. KJV English IS NOT the common language of 21st century Americans.

    I just spoke to a new Christian this morning who attends the church we recently left over this very issue. She gave me unsolicited testimony that the pastor is telling her to only use the KJV and if she doesn't understand it to just pray and keep reading it over and over. The direct implication is that if she is really spiritual, she will eventually "get it". The growth of new Christian is being stunted and discouraged because she is effectively being forced to use only a Bible that she can't understand. She didn't grow up using the KJV like I did. She doesn't have advanced education or a sophisticated vocabulary. She is by all appearances a simple, sincere person who wants to grow who speaks today's English.
     
  12. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is a loaded question TAUGHT to you by the ones you answer to as your final authority;it,at the very least, SMACKS of Bible agnosticism...


    I mean really!!! Dont you have somthing better to do other than BAIT Bible believers?
     
  13. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    He didn't. He baited the KJVO.
     
  14. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    The Bible is silent on the issue of translational authority. Hence, no one can biblically assert that one translationis authoritative over another.
    That's completely false. In Englans alone, there have been no less than three monarchs that have issued translations. The aforementioned Authorised Version of King James is one. King Henry VII authorised the Great Bible. Queen Elizabeth I also aithorized a single English authorized version.

    The Monarchy of the Netherlands has also issued translations in Dutch, dating back hundreds of years. Other monarchs have done so in native languages as well.
     
  15. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then please tell us what the following terms mean (without looking them up):

    "to let"
    "suffering"
    "narrow"
    "comprehend"
    "advertise"
    "to do to wit"
     
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Strange that you recognize this. You do it so often.

    But it disproves your point. The KJV cannot be the only word of God because it did not always exist.

    Christ and the apostles didn't use the originals either. But some KJVOs have said taht the KJV is better than the originals. That is heterodoxy.

    Already showed from the pattern of Scripture that versions other than the KJV are indeed teh word of God. That is all we need to do. It is up to you to change your theology to reflect what Scripture teaches.


    You would neither speak nor understand 17th century English very well. But that is not the point. The point is that the English you refer to in your post has nothign to do with the English of the KJV. If you are going to use the points you did in your post, you must grant that the MVs are actually the English that most people are speaking around the world.
     
  17. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    </font>
    • Okay, AA - you have now made the accusation that</font>
    • My challenging you to find chapter and verse was taught to me?</font>
    • Taught by people I answer to?</font>
    • By men that are a final authority for me?</font>
    • And for that I am unsaved, an agnostic?</font>
    Hello, friend. I was NOT baiting anyone; I was posting such an absurdity - in Jacobean English that is called HYPERBOLE - to show how ineffective and innocuous your vapid arguments are.

    [ October 28, 2003, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]
     
  18. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0


    Just chapter and verse that says the NIV is THE ONLY Version.

    Just chapter and verse that says the NASB is THE ONLY Version.

    Just chapter and verse that says the NKJV is THE ONLY Version.

    Just chapter and verse that says the GENEVA is THE ONLY Version.

    Just chapter and verse that says the ORIGINALS are THE ONLY Version.

    Please, give me a break, you know that there is not a verse that says that there is any Bible version. I bet that if there were a verse that said such a thing, there would be people denying it, saying, "well, MSS A + B did not equal C so therefore it's wrong. This is just plain common sense that there be one book that contains God's word, why, less confusion.
     
  19. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interestingly, it's only the KJVO's that say multiple translations equates to confusion. There appears to be no confusion in the non-KJV world.

    But, assuming you're correct (which is a big assumption) there's no biblical support that says the KJV (or any version) is THE single authoritative translation. And that doesn't even begin to address the concerns of the non- English speaking world.
     
  20. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Speaking of being on the same page, 1 Cor 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

    I guarantee that having different versions of the Bible in church will not allow ye all to speak the same thing. Why would God want this? That there be no divisions among you, that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. Sounds like ONE BOOK.
     

Share This Page

Loading...