Fairness to KJVOs

The details are much to lengthy to be covered in this thread. Read the prologue pages "BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION", pgs 1-53 and The Translators to The Reader of the First Edition of the 1611AV and you will see exactly how they determined this.

They were the MV translators of their day and then as now they were met with much resistance from those who disgreed with the quality of their work.

These were the Puritans, Baptists and Dissenters, for the most part some of whom paid with their life or had body parts removed.

Actually I have never bashed them in the sense that certain KJVO folks bash and insult people michelle. I have simply reported out of the records of history those things which they have done and said and in fact as a like answer to KJVO who accuse MV translators such as Wescott and Hort.

Also as I have said before the KJV translators as well as Wescott and Hort are no different than you or I in their sinful state. Where I am in agreement with them I say so, when in my estimation they are wrong I say that also.

You have done exactly the same concerning the KJV translators.


HankD

 

Marlaky. You are trying to dictate to God that He cannot continue to provide men with any other form of His word other than that which was translated by a bunch of catholic-wannabes back in the early 17th century.

Me, too. But I don't think that you understand that God did not give His word in English to begin with. It was given to the human authors, who wrote it in their native (or, for the NT, most popular) language.

Actually, modern versions are in direct disobedience and contradiction to the rulings of Michelle, Ripplinger, Ruckman, et al. The verses you posted above were ripped out of context (as you well know), and twisted into prooftexts. Try reading them in their native setting to understand what they are actually speaking about.

Actually, it is the King James Version, Michelle.

I have looked at the scriptures within, which are the same scriptures as found in the New King James, the ESV, the NASB, and on and on. Yes, the words are different. Yes, some questionable verses are missing (just because Erasmus and King J's boys decided to keep them in does not mean that they are absolutely, 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt genuine, no matter how much you rant, rave, pout, or hint that I am not saved). But they are still the scriptures, just as the KJV is scripture.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

No, that is not his, or my, doctrine. You have already been told this - yet, you continually bear false witness (lie) when you say it is. You need to stop it.

 

michelle said "And your "doctrine" is that God did not preserve...you indeed believe...PROVIDE the scriptures that THIS BELIEF comes from..."



You're not even close to getting my earlier comments: Once you get past these simple facts, and show me you at least are trying to understand my position (come on! at least try!), we can continue our discussion.

 

Same question to you, Michelle.

Where is your scriptural support for your beliefs, e.g. the KJV is the only pure word of God (other than verses tht can apply to any rag that has "Bible" written on the cover), that God cannot/will not give man the ability and knowledge to rightly translate His word today, that any other translation besides the King James Version alters/adds/subtracts from what God actually said, etc.

You like to cut-and-paste bible verses, Michelle. Show us some that actually back up your beliefs and not a bunch of general purposes prooftexts that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. But I have a feeling that it will be a long wait...

In Christ,
Trotter

 

michelle are you sure you want to go down this path again?

Which of the following is the Word of God and which ARE HIS OWN WORDS since we are to live by every word of God which proceeds out of His mouth?

1611 AV Matthew 16:16 ...Thou art Christ...
1769 AV Matthew 16:16 ...Thou art the Christ...
1982 NKJV Matthew 16:16 ...You are the Christ...

HankD

 

Trotter,

You know she cannot show what is not there. The insane thing is that she actually believes it is there even though it is not. I guess it is the same kind of thinking that cannot understand natters simple question, and rather goes off on a tangent that is not even being discussed. If her theology wasn't so distructive one might be able to laugh it off. Too bad it is harming precious immature souls in the Body of Christ.

Bro Tony

 

Michelle, saying that we can't know is not asserting doctrine.

We're saying: We can't know exactly how God preserved his word because we aren't told how he did it. That's not asserting doctrine, it's actually being very careful NOT to assert doctrine--being careful not to speak where God doesn't.

You are saying that we can know how God preserved his word, even though we haven't been told how he did it. That's asserting doctrine--it's speaking emphatically about things God didn't speak to.

Do you see the difference?

 

That is the whole point. Until Michelle is willing to shut up long enough to look in the mirrior she will continue to parade in the emperor's new clothes.

I agree, Tony, that Michelle's aberrent doctrine is destructive, extremely so to one who may be new or a babe in Christ. Thus, it is against such false teachings that I have to raise my voice.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

It is the KJV-only view that implies that God allowed human fallibility to override His power and providence over the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. Are you willing to name and identify one manuscript in the original languages or even one printed text in the original languages that were the underlying texts for the KJV that you consider to be 100% pure and perfect? Otherwise, your view is suggesting that the KJV translators translated from imperfect or impure texts and that they were given additional revelation in 1611 in opposition to what the Scripture teaches. It is also the KJV-only view that suggests that every single word God has breathed out was not available before 1611 to English-speaking believers and was not available to believers who speak German, Spanish, French, or some other language. A consistent and scriptural view of Bible translation would be true both before and after 1611 and would be true for believers who speak other languages besides English as well as those who speak it.

 

Sigh......
I go off to work for a few hours and what was once a decent thread with a little civility, turns into yet another merry-go-round with the fanatics who do not listen to what people are saying.
This is my complaint. It is for this reason I try to be reasonable and allow my brethren the same kind of liberty I would want afforded me.

Sadly, it is folks like Mis(guided) Michelle who paint the ugly picture of my faith. Kinda like the ugly picture the world has of the RCC; and then saying all christians are pedophiliac sodomites.


In His service;
Jim

 

Sorry I had to step out for a while

I tend to agree with the sentiment you raise here, that God's word doesn't need to be purified. However, of your own admission, the bibles that we have today are full of impurities. Obviously something would have to occur if we were to have the pure words of God. How can you say that the verse is not prophetic, just because it says 'are' and not 'will be'?

Romans 4
17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

That is perfectly within the nature of God to say that something is before it has occured, this just shows the certainty of the thing coming to pass. Look who said it, after all.

 

Thread closed.

It is past page five and has turned into an ugly series of attacks.