Does the absolutely error-free KJV teach that Timothy was lost?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Harald, May 12, 2003.

  1. Harald

    Harald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does the absolutely error-free KJV teach that Timothy was lost?

    Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
    Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
    Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

    Act 16:1 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
    Act 16:2 Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
    Act 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.


    How would a KJV Onlyite explain this seeming contradiction/error in the KJV Bible? In one instance in KJV Paul says if a man be circumcised Christ shall profit him nothing, and he is a debtor to do the whole law, and he links it with being justified by the law, and being fallen from grace (lostness?). And in another instance the KJV says Paul himself circumcised Timothy. Thus the KJV says Timothy was circumcised, and according to Paul in Galatians the verdict is "fallen from grace" (lost?). And what does the KJV consequently make Paul to be, seeing he did such a thing? Doesn't Paul greatly contradict himself on the pages of the KJV? How can an absolutely error-free and perfect Bible have such confusion? God is not the author of confusion, says the KJV in 1Cor. 14 somewhere. What say those who consider themselves KJV Only?


    Harald
     
  2. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you would read the passages carefully,you will notice that Timothy was half Jewish and under pressure from the other Jews around him that kept the law.
    One would not have to;no error there.
    I say,read 2 Tim 2:15(KJB)and follow what it says..
     
  3. Jesus is Lord

    Jesus is Lord
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is this question a KJV matter? DonĀ“t the modern versions say the same?
     
  4. Harald

    Harald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    JYD. Thanks for your thoughts. Yet the KJV does not say that Paul or Timothy "was pressured by Jews", nor does it say the Jews "kept the law", whatever you mean by that.

    Jesus is Lord. If you will this is not necessarily a KJV matter, but I addressed mainly KJV Only people because no others claim an English version is absolutely error-free. I haven't checked other versions, but I assume several others are in line with the KJV here. It does look like a contradiction in the version(s)...


    Harald
     
  5. uhdum

    uhdum
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    0
    Harald, I appreciate your post.

    But, as the others said, this isn't a versons issue, nor is it an error.

    While Paul disagreed with the notion that circumcision doesn't do a thing, he realized that allowing the half Jew/half Gentile Timothy to be circumcised was the best option so as not to offend the Jews. Paul knew that Timothy would actually be a stumblingblock to his ministry to the Jews if he did not circumcise him. Everyone knew he was half Jew and half Greek; while he was widely respected by the believers, this offended many of the Jews. Paul was simply being "wise as a serpent" in dealing with the people he was trying to reach.

    Heh, hope I didn't shoot your point you were trying to make in the foot :D You have a good point. I just thought I'd clarify the situation for anyone that didn't know it.
     
  6. Harald

    Harald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    uhdum. No offence. I knew the true explanation even before I posted. It was quite the same as yours; I read it from Gill. My view of Scripture (generally speaking) is that it is totally free from contradiction(s) and errors. Versions may have errors which lead to seeming or real contradictions within the body of revealed truth. The KJV does have translational errors, but this in question is not any real error, and the seeming contradiction could be easily explained, as you did. But as for Gal. 5:2-4 one could desire a clearer rendering of the tenses of verbs in the KJV, as well as in other versions. They are ambiguous, whereas the Greek Testament isn't ambiguous. I could ask a KJV Only man "what exactly is the verbal aspect of the KJV's rendering "ye be circumcised" in v. 2?" I bet I could get many different answers from KJV Only men, because I know KJV Only men won't go to a dead language like that of the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV is translated. While I am at it let me ask you KJV Only men; what exactly is the verbal aspect of "be ye circumcised" in v. 2? Did Paul mean

    a) if ye get circumcised (in the male reproductive organ)
    b) if ye have been circumcised and still are so (in the aforementioned organ)

    c) some other - what?

    And remember, you are not those who will go to a dead language. With interest awaiting some answers.

    Also, in v. 3 when Paul says "is circumcised" did He mean

    a)has been (in the past) circumcised (in the male reproductive organ)and still is so

    b)gets circumcised at some future time (dito organ)

    c) is getting circumcised (dito organ) right now

    d) some other - what?


    If the KJV is THE only absolute truth embodied for the English speaking then it should not be too hard to give the right answer.

    Harald
     
  7. Bartholomew

    Bartholomew
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2002
    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    0
    How interesting... People claim to believe the Bible; they then claim the Bible is wrong when it disagrees with them...
     
  8. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    Bartholomew writes:
    >>How interesting... People claim to believe the
    >>Bible; they then claim the Bible is wrong when
    >>it disagrees with them...

    I notice that you made no attempt to answer his question.....
     
  9. MissAbbyIFBaptist

    MissAbbyIFBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/3374.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    Messages:
    2,567
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well my eyes nearly popped out of my head when I read the tital to this thread! Now there is something called "rightly dividing the truth" and I'll do my best with this.
    First of all, anyone can be saved, wheither circumsized or not. Jews and Gentiles. Romans says the gospel was to the Jew first and then the greek, and other places saying it was for Jew and Gentile. "Circumsision" in the Bible is usualy referring to the Jew, or a practice the Jews did that started in the OT. Timothy is described as a DECIPLE, and a BELEIVER, in fact, Paul calls him his son in one place, and I beleive that means one he lead to Christ.
    I beleive what Paul was saying in the above verses you posted, was that circumsision wasn't nessiceray for salvation. Some of them Jews thought circumsision, {a WORK} would get them to Heaven, but salvation is by GRACE. Does it not make sense to take it in that context?
    And prehaps the reason Timothy was circumsized was for the Jews sake, and not his? After all, if they beleived cicumsision was still to be practiced, why would they listen to one who wasn't circumsized?
    You can take passages from the Bible, and say they contridict, but if you really look at it, it all goes together and fits as it should.
    ~Abby
     
  10. Jesus is Lord

    Jesus is Lord
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey, Abby_the_IFBaptist!

    Well done!
     
  11. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Neither have you!!

    Just Kidding :D

    [ May 13, 2003, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: MV-neverist ]
     
  12. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    I didn't answer it because I am not a KJV'onlyist.
     
  13. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    The KJV is not, I repeat not error free so the whole line of questioning is flawed.
     
  14. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, alrighty then!! I have asked and asked what people use who claim the KJV has errors in it ,and no one will tell me? I mean,if what you have is perfect,infallible,and inerrant then why do you hide it from the Bible believer?? Lets see it!!
     
  15. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think most people here have made public what version they use. Perhaps you, in your effort to create tension, have simply overlooked that.
     
  16. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    "Error-lessness" is found in the originals not the translations there of. But because there are so many of manuscripts (copies) of the originals and can compare them to each other we can rest easy at night that we have what God wanted us to have when originally penned. Your argument is old, worn and in need of serious enlightenment.
     
  17. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Really?? I see some things wrong with what you are saying:The word Scripture according to the Bible(KJB)is always reference to COPIES!! (See:Mark 12:16,Acts 8:32,Acts 17:11), and never once is it refering to the "originals." Jesus read the Scriptures,the Bereans studied the SCRIPTURES(Acts 17:11),the Ethiopian eunuch also had the Scriptures(Acts 8:32),and Jesus rebuked folks for not reading them.Not the originals!!!
    Not near as worn out as the strawman argument about the "Error-lessness" of the Originals that are long gone!!!
     
  18. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,457
    Likes Received:
    93
    Ain't it just the cat's pajamas that the originals can be transcribed and the transcriptions ['scriptures'] are just as valid, and it remains that way even if they are translated into a different language?-- that is, up until a certain point, year 1611, after which that can no longer be done-- except, of course, for a few spelling and word changes improving on the "perfect word," but who counts that, anyway?

    You can hand copy the originals, you can hand copy the hand-copies, you can translate the hand-copies, you can mass-produce the translations... and the purpose of doing all this-- so readers can read the scriptures in their own common everyday language-- is now forbidden. Not the originals,, not the hand-copies of the originals, but a translation into a language nonexistent at the time of the originals, is the standard by which the originals or any copies thereof, must measure up to. Ain't that the cat's pagamas?
     
  19. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,184
    Likes Received:
    326
    The KJV is a TRANSLATION of the Scriptures not a COPY of the Scriptures.

    The KJV is not common everyday English.

    When have you heard this in a cafe?

    Givest thou me a vessel of coffee and a morsel of pie with the victuals of this day.

    So is the original archetype of the first edition of 1611KJV. So there is no way to verify the "correctness" of the several hundred changes to the "jots and tittles" made to it over the centuries by the on-going group of its translators and revisors to perfect the already perfect.

    HankD

    [ May 15, 2003, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]
     
  20. Harald

    Harald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are two possibilities. Either the KJV is absolutely and completely error-free in every sense of the word, on par with the very original autographs. Or the KJV is not absolutely and completely error-free in every sense of the word, thus not on par with the very original autographs. I believe the latter. Some examples I could give, where the KJV deviates from the underlying TR.

    1. In some instances the KJV renders an aorist verb as a perfect. This is error, a deviation from the Divinely inspired form (tense) of a verb. The KJV thereby deceives the Bible student respecting verb tense.

    2. In some instances the KJV inserts a definite article where the TR has none, without italicizing. This is error, a deviation from the Divinely inspired Greek Testament. This is adding to God's word, and deceiving the readers.


    3. In some instances the KJV omits to translate definite articles which the Spirit of God inspired. This is error, a deviation from the Divinely inspired wording of the Greek Testament. It is stealing God's words from one's neighbour.


    The above are some common errors of the KJV, New Testament. This proves the KJV is not a 100 per cent matching copy or representation of the underlying Greek text from which it was reportedly translated. The same errors apply to all other versions as well, but since the KJV is a version claimed to be totally error-free I mentioned it here.


    Harald
     

Share This Page

Loading...