Did you know that the KJV denies that we are the sons of God?

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Pastor Larry, Nov 16, 2001.

  1. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Compare 1 John 3:1 in the various versions. The NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NLT (just to name a few) all make it clear that we are the sons of God. The KJV deletes this precious doctrine from the Word of God. What a horrible conspiracy on the part of the KJV translators to deny us the precious privilege of being sons of God. It says we can only be called that; it does not admit that we really are the sons of God.

    Of course, I am speaking in jest. However, you should be quick to notice how the KJVOnly argument is one of convenience. They love to jump on places where the MVs have left things out. But you never hear them mention places where the KJV has left something out. 1 John 3:1 is a pretty serious reference to a doctrine that the KJV has omitted. Does it make the KJV doctrinally deficient? Or does it rather expose the foolishness of the KJVOnly arguments concerning “omissions?”

    I believe there is support for this reading in the Byzantine text type. The Byzantine text type is split on this. Hence, another weakness of the Majority Text approach is shown demonstrating that the Majority text approach is not substantively different than the eclectic approach. It is not simply enough to claim that the Majority text type has it. Within the Majority text, you still have to make textual decisions on what to include and what not to include. The difference between teh Majority text approach and the eclectic text approach is "how much of the evidence will you use in making textual decisions: All of it or just some of it."

    For Paula, Alex, and the others, you have to deal with verses such as this. This verse clearly shows how your arguments against the MVs work just as well against the KJV. You are being inconsistent. Omissions are omissions. You can’t have it both ways. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    [ November 16, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     
  2. Pioneer

    Pioneer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Your attack of the KJV is taking the verse entirely out of context and demonstrates that people like you will say almost anything to make the KJV look inferior. Search the scriptures for in them ye think that ye have eternal life. :D

    P.S. Read verses 1 and 2 together and you will see that we are called the sons of God because we are the sons of God.

    [ November 16, 2001: Message edited by: Pioneer ]
     
  3. Joey M

    Joey M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2001
    Messages:
    593
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hehehe, good one Larry. :D
    Ouch!

    [ November 16, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]
     
  4. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pioneer:
    Your attack of the KJV is taking the verse entirely out of context and demonstrates that people like you will say almost anything to make the KJV look inferior. Search the scriptures for in them ye think that ye have eternal life. :D

    P.S. Read verses 1 and 2 together and you will see that we are called the sons of God because we are the sons of God.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I am neither attacking the KJV nor making it look inferior. I am pointing out words that are not there. If it looks inferior, it is only because it omitted (for some reason) a few words that John appears to have written.

    I have only followed the lead of the KJVOnlyites such as Paula, Alex, and yourself (how could I forget Pioneer) who list a lot of verses out of context to make an invalid point.

    For instance 1 Tim 3:16 "denies" the deity of Christ only when you separate 16a from 14-15 and 16b. John 6:36 denies belief in Christ only if you separate it from vv. 1-35 and 36ff. Col 1:14 is accused of removing the blood. However, Col 1:20 clearly talks about the blood. If you are looking for a conspiracy, you have a very inept bunch of conspirators who left some very clear verses right around those that they "altered."

    You like context when it helps your position and reject it when it doesn't. You cannot play the game both ways. The KJV has done the same thing the MVs do -- namely follow a different textual variant. The KJV has no more deleted doctrine than the MVs do.

    In other words, my method here is exactly what you have done with MVs -- accusing them of deleting doctrine that is clearly found in them. At least I tell you mine is jest.

    I have no doubt that we are the sons of God. My NASB tells me so very plainly. I am glad that I get to preach out of it on Sunday so I can declare this doctrine as plainly as John did.

    [ November 16, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     
  5. Chick Daniels

    Chick Daniels
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2000
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hear you Pastor Larry. However, since you haven't yet got much of a response, I will help those on the KJV-Only side of the aisle with a typical response you would see from them. First, following invalid a priori argumentation, the KJV does not have the reading, therefore, the reading is not original. Any attempt from anyone to say otherwise is an attempt to destroy the Bible. Second, appeal to the spiritual worth of the translators: Surely the KJV translators were such spiritual men, that if they believed it was not original, then clearly God was leading them in this determination--no matter what the manuscript evidence says. Third: make hermeneutically flawed appeals to Scripture: God said that if anyone adds to the words in the book they will received multiplied plagues, and so if something is not in the KJV and someone is trying to add it, then they should watch out for stinging locusts! Fourth: not that its relevant, emphasize the lack of spiritual discernement of textual critics who would dare criticize the sacred text of the KJV.

    After getting such a response, Pastor Larry, you then can make the decision if you wish to keep casting your pearls before swine, or try to straighten out all of the gobble-de-gook.

    Best wishes,

    Chick

    [ November 16, 2001: Message edited by: Chick Daniels ]
     
  6. Pioneer

    Pioneer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
    I have no doubt that we are the sons of God. My NASB tells me so very plainly. I am glad that I get to preach out of it on Sunday so I can declare this doctrine as plainly as John did.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    The NASB in I John 3:1 doesn't even use the phrase "sons of God". We are called the "children of God" in the NASB. Your argument is thus shot to pieces and your confidence in the NASB is a misplaced confidence. As you would say, you can't have your cake and eat it too! [​IMG] :D
     
  7. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

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

    Your attack of the KJV is taking the verse entirely out of context and demonstrates that people like you will say almost anything to make the KJV look inferior.

    In other words, Pastor Larry's treatment of the KJV is exactly the same as the KJVers' treatment of the modern versions when they claim they "deny" the virgin birth, deity or incarnation of Christ, etc!

    I think you've just made his point. [​IMG]
     
  8. Kenneth77

    Kenneth77
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2001
    Messages:
    205
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't get it? What is the point of arguing over translations? My Church is KJV only. I am KJV/Amplified Bible, but not only. These are just the two I care to read. I use a parallel Bible. It would seem sensible that those who have doubts on the new translations would buy a parallel Bible. That way you can compare them easily.

    Sorry for butting in. I have another question but will start another thread. Thanks.
     
  9. S. Baptist

    S. Baptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2001
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    I discuss the Bible daily with "Someone", either here on the web or in person, and the same arguments that "unbelievers" make to me, I see posted "HERE".

    The unbeliever's primary argument against the Bible is the lack of "Physical evidence",
    except evidence can be produced that the natural eye/mind can "SEE" , they will not believe.

    The physical evidence they seek is all around them, but lacking "FAITH" to see God in his creation, their unbelief is justified.

    Mt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

    The above verse is simple to understand, isn't it?? Would you believe I see post after post here that denies the truth of that verse, let me show you.

    1. We've lost the original manuscripts and can't prove the original contents.

    2. Down through the ages "copyist" have made "errors".

    3. The translators worked from "flawed manuscripts" and were subject to the limitations of man in "selecting" words.

    4. God's written word doesn't require the "perfection of God", providing it teaches the "same general idea".

    5. Comparing Manuscripts provides no conclusive evidence.

    Judging from what I see posted, it appear God gave man his word, which man immediately
    allow to "pass away" by losing them, and man has been groping in the dark ever since trying to recover that "WORD" as best he can, and lacking any "physical evidence" to prove one manuscript over another, he is still "in unbelief" as too which is/isn't "God's word".

    WHERE is that "FAITH" that "GOD" has been in charge of preserving his words instead of
    man, why don't they see him "in his word"?

    How did God say we could recognize his words??

    Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

    Many don't like it when you bring this witness in to testify, but it's testimony reveals a "perfection" in God's word that only God can achieve, which in it's self, is another witness that it is "God's word", and his testimony will never change, even on Judgment day.

    "God's word" transcends "words on paper", and like God, there's only "one", however many "images" are being worshipped in it's place, faults christs and faults prophets isn't all Satan produces, however they are all worshipped for the same reason.

    Go figure.
     
  10. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 'I AM' hath sent me:
    I don't get it? What is the point of arguing over translations? My Church is KJV only. I am KJV/Amplified Bible, but not only. These are just the two I care to read. I use a parallel Bible. It would seem sensible that those who have doubts on the new translations would buy a parallel Bible. That way you can compare them easily.

    Sorry for butting in. I have another question but will start another thread. Thanks.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Your position is reasonable and sensible. Unfortunately, those are two things which rarely invade the KJVO issue. :rolleyes:
     
  11. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pioneer:
    The NASB in I John 3:1 doesn't even use the phrase "sons of God". We are called the "children of God" in the NASB. Your argument is thus shot to pieces and your confidence in the NASB is a misplaced confidence. As you would say, you can't have your cake and eat it too! [​IMG] :D<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Actually, John did not use "son" technically speaking. He uses teknia (children, sometimes translated sons depending on teh context). "Sons of God" is a generic term. Whichever way you put, it is not in the KJV. Sorry to confuse you there by talking about what John wrote.
     
  12. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    S. Baptist,

    I am still waiting for you to answer the question you have been ignoring. Which verse identifies the KJV as the perfect Word of God?

    I have asked you several times to do this. You find time to post a lot of other stuff. Why can't you just find time to post a single verse identifying the KJV as the perfect Word of God.

    You can settle this very quickly if you will just tell us where God said what you are trying to make him say.
     
  13. Pioneer

    Pioneer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
    Actually, John did not use "son" technically speaking. He uses teknia (children, sometimes translated sons depending on the context). "Sons of God" is a generic term. Whichever way you put, it is not in the KJV. Sorry to confuse you there by talking about what John wrote.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I am not the one who is confused here, you are. You accuse the KJV of not stating that we are "the sons of God" in 1 John 3:1 (because you are bent on twisting the truth) and then you stated that the NASB plainly tells us that we are "the sons of God" in this verse when in actuality it doesn't even use the term in this verse. We are called "the children of God" in the NASB. Therein lies a great confusion and contradiction of terms (you are the one who is causing the confusion and giving out contradictory statements). The NASB does not use the term "sons of God" in 1 John 3:1 it uses the term "children of God". Your whole argument is nothing but a straw man intended to cast doubt upon the KJV.

    [ November 16, 2001: Message edited by: Pioneer ]
     
  14. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pioneer:
    You accuse the KJV of not stating that we are "the sons of God" in 1 John 3:1 (because you are bent on twisting the truth) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Are you saying that the KJV does state that we are the sons of God in 1 John 3:1??

    Technically speaking, I am telling the truth: The KJV does not say that. And I am not twisting the truth.

    I did make a mistake and use the word "son" when I should have said "children." The text uses the word teknos which is translated both "son" and "child" in the KJV. The KJV does not say either and the NASB and NIV make it very clear that we are the children of God. The KJV does not make this clear.

    So does the KJV say that we are the children of God or does it omit that very important piece of doctrine?

    My point stands that your method of argumentation condemns your own version. It is interesting that you are hung up on my mistake rather than addressing the fact that the KJV omitted something very important and foundational to our Christian life.

    My point is not to attack the KJV but to show the fallacy of the KJVOnly method of argumentation. I think the point has been made.
     
  15. livin'intheword

    livin'intheword
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just Bible.com

    Pastor Larry,




    1 John 3:1Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

    I believe that says we're the sons of God.

    Paula
     
  16. S. Baptist

    S. Baptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2001
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
    S. Baptist,

    I am still waiting for you to answer the question you have been ignoring. Which verse identifies the KJV as the perfect Word of God?

    I have asked you several times to do this. You find time to post a lot of other stuff. Why can't you just find time to post a single verse identifying the KJV as the perfect Word of God.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Why is "physical evidence" so important to you??

    The Bible is a "Spiritual Book" which requires "Spiritual Guidance" to understand, and that understanding goes far beyond those words written on that paper, even farther than most of you have seen or imagined, judging from your post.

    You don't see the flaws in other Bibles because you've never seen the perfection in the KJ.

    I've point out two places where the KJ is very precise in detailing events, "spirit to Ghost", Day of Christ, day of Lord, and it doesn't end there, but that was dismissed as "Translator choice", as if God had no hand in selecting/writing "his words".


    Until you get pass all the "physical evidence" you see or been taught that proves we've lost God's original words, I afraid you're going to miss out on "seeing" a lot of the Bible.

    You'll have to have "FAITH" that GOD has the power to preserved his words, and preserve it in all the "Holiness", "Righteousness" and "Perfection" that is GOD before you'll recognize it as being "God's".

    Reading "God's word" is listening to God speak, not reading what some man "thought" God might have said, and man doesn't chose the words God speaks.


    Education can be a hindrance when allowed to overshadow Faith, and that is all I see offered up today as proof, we don't possess the unadulterated words of God.
     
  17. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by livin'intheword:
    1 John 3:1Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

    I believe that says we're the sons of God.

    Paula
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    No ... actually is says "be called" the sons of God. It does not confirm that we actually are. It leaves open the possibility that we are only "called" it instead of actually being it. (cf. 1 Cor 5:10). The MVs are the only ones who actually say that we are what we are called.

    Now obviously I do not believe that the KJV is denying that we are the children of God. My point is that using the standards by which you made several long posts in another thread, the KJV has deleted doctrine.

    As I said earlier, you cannot have it both ways. The KJV has done exactly what you claim the MVs have done. By your own standard, you must condemn the KJV as "dulling" the word of God.
     
  18. Pioneer

    Pioneer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
    I did make a mistake and use the word "son" when I should have said "children." It is interesting that you are hung up on my mistake ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I am not "hung up" on your "mistake". I believe your so-called "mistake" is intentional deceit. You cannot make your charge against the KJV and then defend the NASB unless you intended to deceive the reader.

    P.S. As a side issue, it is well known that the NASB removes salvation by the blood of Christ in Colossians 1:14 and this fact can be stated with a good conscience and without intentional deceit.
     
  19. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S. Baptist:
    Why is "physical evidence" so important to you??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Because God used "physical evidence" to give us his word. He had no problem communicating inspiration, sovereignty, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, etc. If what you are saying is true (that the KJV is the perfect Word of God), then why didn't he tell us that?

    The point is that you are saying God said something that God didn't say. You cannot offer one iota of proof for it.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Bible is a "Spiritual Book" which requires "Spiritual Guidance" to understand, and that understanding goes far beyond those words written on that paper, even farther than most of you have seen or imagined, judging from your post. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    This is one of the biggest fallacies that pervades theology today. You have suggested a hermeneutic in which there is no objective standard for meaning and Scripture means whatever someone wants it to. Your hermeneutic employed here is where the whole fallacy that started the "church=Israel" idea -- people believing that there was more in the text than could be seen. You have opened the door to charismatic theology by suggesting that God's word is not sufficient; we need something more. I believe that on the pages of Scripture is everything God wants us to know. It is true that its significance cannot be understood apart from the illumination of the Holy Spirit but that significance never goes beyond the words on the page. If God had meant to communicate somethign other than what the words say, he would have used different words. I would suggest you read Milton Terry on Biblical Hermeneutics, Henry Virkler Biblical Hermeneutics or Walter C. Kaiser, Toward an Exegetical Theology on this issue of hermeneutics. You are espousing some things that you are not seeing the end result of. It preaches well ... it just ain't true. Of course, understanding what God is saying in a text has ruined an awful lot of "good preaching."

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I've point out two places where the KJ is very precise in detailing events, "spirit to Ghost", Day of Christ, day of Lord, and it doesn't end there, but that was dismissed as "Translator choice", as if God had no hand in selecting/writing "his words". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    The problem is you have pointed out several places where said distinctions do not exist. They just aren't there -- at least in the texts God inspired. God had no direct hand in the translation of the KJV or any other version. You have shown "precision" that doesn't exist. The Day of Christ and the Day of the Lord are referring to essentially the same thing; the Spirit/ghost distinction just doesn't exist. You have yet to answer that question by the way: If God intended a distinction between Spirit and Ghost, then why did he wait 1500 years to bring that distinction out? Why didn't he inspire the text with that distinction?

    I do have faith that God has the power to preserve his words perfectly. He simply did not do it that way.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Education can be a hindrance when allowed to overshadow Faith, and that is all I see offered up today as proof, we don't possess the unadulterated words of God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    And ignorance can be a great hindrance when it allows one to participate in false teaching. Because you fail to grasp the issues involved in this discussion, you are espousing a doctrine that threatens the very core of bibliology as taught in the Scripture.
     
  20. Rockfort

    Rockfort
    Expand Collapse
    x

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    659
    Likes Received:
    0
    &lt; You don't see the flaws in other Bibles because you've never seen the perfection in the KJ. &gt;

    Did Jesus see "perfection in the KJ?" Did
    Paul? John? Since they did not write the 'KJ' they wrote less than perfect according to you.

    &lt; ...dismissed as "Translator choice", as if God had no hand in selecting/writing "his words". &gt;

    The words in a translation are most definitely "translator choice." And God said nothing about translations.

    &lt; Until you get pass all the "physical evidence" you see or been taught that proves we've lost God's original words, I afraid you're going to miss out on "seeing" a lot of the Bible. &gt;

    You obviously have no concern with "God's original words."

    &lt; You'll have to have "FAITH" that GOD has the power to preserved his words, and preserve it in all the "Holiness", "Righteousness" and "Perfection" that is GOD before you'll recognize it as being "God's". &gt;

    There is one faith that matters, (Ephesians 4:5) and it is absolutely indenpendent of translations of 2nd hand, at best, copies of writings.

    &lt; Reading "God's word" is listening to God speak, not reading what some man "thought" God might have said, and man doesn't chose the words God speaks. &gt;

    Ain't it dandy to know Jacobean English is how God talks? At least you and Joseph Smith thought so.
     

Share This Page

Loading...