Correction on the KJV Position

Salamander,

Let me remind you of what you said earlier (your words in red):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mexdeaf
Again, even though I know it will fall on deaf ears (pardon the pun, my deaf brother) the KJV also added to and took away from God's original words.

Prove it!

Quote:
There is NO WAY to accurately (and with understanding) translate from Greek or Hebrew to English WORD-FOR-WORD exactly same order, any more then there is a way to accurately (and with understanding) translate from KJV English to ASL WORD-FOR-WORD exactly same order, o del revision RVR1960 a espanol exactamente PALABRA-POR-PALABRA en orden. Imposible es.

:laugh: I strongly disagree and find this one of the most illogical and humorous statements ever made concerning th4e word of God as if to conclude it an impossibility to know what God has already said.

 

The silence in here is deafening.

 

Well, no matter which way one changes his/her KJVO position, it's still WRONG. (Unless it's from PERSONAL PREFERENCE. There's simply NO SCRIPTURAL JUSTIFICATION for it.)

 

Um, did I miss something?:laugh: Try spelling it all out in English.

 

Certainly! And would I ever like to see that outline!

Wow! 18 pages ought to be enough to convince anyone, well, except.......:laugh:

 

I already have enough mustard on this hotdog, maybe if you cooked me another?

BTW, is that a Republican elephant or just another donkey in an elephant suit?

It's Alan, not Frankley.

When one stands on the KJB, it's never a matter of trying to defend that which is already defending itsself, it's all a matter of knowing where to stand in the midst of adversity.

I can comment on the word of God all I want, but when I want to show what the word of God is, I quote it.:godisgood:

 

So by your estimation, the word of God never has justified itsself as the word of God and all the agnostics are right!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

(that one earns the dubious award of all the grammatons allowed)

 

Here's the catch. You have to get rid of all your preconceptions and presuppositions, get down on your knees and pray: "Lord, I don't know what to think about the doctrine of preservation. Please teach me." Then you read the Bible completely through, marking all the verses, and you will get a truly Biblical view of the doctrine of preservation: not Metzger's view, not Ruckman's view, but God's view. :type:

 

A-men!:wavey:

 

D.A.Carson has some things to say about the providence of God as it relates to Scripture. He does so in his book :The King James Version Debate : A Plea For Realism, put out by Baker Book House in 1979.

"God, it is argued, has providentially preserved the Byzantine tradition.That is true; but He has also providentially preserved the Western, Caesarean, and Alexandrian traditions. Yet has not God preserved the Byzantine text-type for at least a millennium, during which time the others were unknown? True enough; but He preserved it in one small corner of the world, apart from which the Latin Vulgate reigned preeminent, a version based primarily on a Western textual tradition." ( p.56)

"... And because of the combination of population growth-rates and the rise in world literacy, only a few more years would have to elapse before more people would be reading versions based on non-Byzantine texts than have ever read Byzantine-based versions. Will those who appeal to the argument from providence then concede that divine providence is justifying this development? If they do not and instead write the development off as apostasy, they are guilty of gross inconsistenct, and so the argument cannot be trusted. If they do concede it, then their present defense of the Byzantine text will have been shown to be erroneous, and so again one will have to conclude that something is wrong with the argument."(p.57)

Dr. Carson's argument was four paragraphs long, the preceding was just a portion.Who agrees with Carson aside from myself?Who differs? In what ways do you differ with his view?

 

I believe that would be an interesting read.

Of all the theological study I've done, the most fruitful was a paper I did on the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. Though I have never doubted it, it increased my confidence a hundred thousand fold in the verbal plenary inspiration of the Word of God and how this plank is the fountanhead of the inerrancy and infallability of the Bible, and as such gives a whole new conviction regarding life, ministry, etc.

 

Amen! I was somewhat forced into a study of verbal-plenary information myself by being at BJU in 1972 when a disagreement on the subject arose between my grandfather and Bob Jones Jr. I bought and read a bunch of good books at the time: Warfield, Gaussen, Pache, Rice, Orr, Young, Custer.

 

Warfield was as good as they came. Criswell's "Why I preach the Bible is literally true" and Manly's "The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration" are classics. Dockery does a good job in "Christian Scripture" and "The Doctrine of the Bible."

I could go on and on. But then I'd be giving you my entire bibliography!

I have shared that paper from the pulpit, at lectures, and in pamphlet form. It's blessed me and many. To God be the Glory as people turn their hearts to Him in His Word.

 

Yea, hath God said, "Thou shalt be KJVO"? Chapter & verse, please. If none, we must dismiss it as man-made & untrue. THAT should be the revising of the KJVO position.

 

Um, one question.

Why do most who hold the position that you seem to espouse, seem to believe this to be true for some of I Jo. 5:7-8 and Ac. 18:37, but not true for some other parts of Scripture where there is definitely at least some question, as to the actual text?

Incidentally, the majority texts were also used by the Catholic church, as well, if the theory that the "Old Latin" texts are "more reliable" and closer to the MTs, than are the 'later' (Or is that earlier? I seem to forget, here, at times.) texts that allegedly found their way to be translated into the Vulgate.

Not to mention Wycliffe, who translated the first 'English' Bible from the Vulgate, as well, is considered to have had (or made) a valid version, the Anglican church is considered to have made multiple valid versions (and editions and revisions), even better than did the 'out and out' 'Protestant Reformer' types that did the Geneva Bible, and the most specifically 'Baptist' (English) translation of all Bibles in history, even moreso than the HCSB, which is actually owned by Baptists, namely the NKJV, is labeled as a version that is 'untrustworthy', somehow.

I do tend to agree with one thing in this post, however.

I also recognize "sillyness" (sic) when I see it.

As well as double standards!

Ed

 

Answering my question would do just that. Otherwise, I've nothing more to say on the thread.

Ed