is the king james the only right version?

Michelle:Thank you for answering my question. Now please undertand this, omittions to Gods word of truth is indeed reason for a Pastor to be concerned for his flock, and therefore warn them of this.

As are ADDITIONS. You're still stuck with trying to explain how an OLDER ms could OMIT something found in a NEWER ms without a COMMON SOURCE from which BOTH were made.


This is not only loving and in care and concern for the sheep, but for his love and trust in every word of God for the believer and his life.

And most pastors have the advantage of a sound education in the Scriptures, as well as a powerful love for the Scriptures, which leads many of them to reject false doctrines about Scripture, such as KJVOism.


This is what Pastors are doing, and this falls into line with their responsibity, as you so wonderfully explained. The implication was that these men should not be teaching/warning their flocks regarding this issue.

ON THE CONTRARY-

Many a pastor warns his flock about such false doctrines as KJVO constantly.


That is your opinion, based upon the label you have placed on those who reject the modern versions because of the facts and the evidence concerning this issue, and obeying God and the scriptures, to separate from such.

There are NO facts nor any evidence whatsoever to support the KJVO myth. The TOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT is especially telling, and in effect negates any of the other arguments the KJVOs may invent.

I have already answered your question many times, but many just choose to either ignore it, or twist the truth because they do not see it that way, and instead replying and rejecting the truth by asking questions, instead of answering the questions posed.

Well, let's see. You said elsewhere that you could provide Scripture to support your rather convoluted view that the older mss have omitted material found in newer ones, without the existence of a common source for both. In effect, you're saying it's wetter underwater during a rain shower, or it's shorter to Los Angeles than it is by train. There's no rejection of TRUTH by me, but there IS a clear, unequivocal rejection of a man-made false doctrine about Scripture(KJVO) and all the bunny trails its supporters attach to it.


It is evident to me, that even those here claim they believe that God would preserve his words as he promised, they really don't believe this at all. I have nothing more to say, than I have already said on this matter.

Then you're as a rookie American football player at midfield looking for the 55-yard marker. I don't think you've looked very closely at the issue.

You say you're not KJVO. What other BV(s) would you recommend along w/the KJV?

 

Well, Michelle?

You've posted elsewhere since I posted above. Question too tuff? I'll type it more slowly this time:

You say you're not KJVO. What other BV(s) would you recommend along w/the KJV?

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------robycop quoted:

Well, Michelle?

You've posted elsewhere since I posted above. Question too tuff? I'll type it more slowly this time:

You say you're not KJVO. What other BV(s) would you recommend along w/the KJV?
--------------------------------------------------

robycop,

I do not appreciate your implying that I was ignoring your post and avoiding your question. I have not seen your reply on this until today. However, there are many things I do purposely ignore and do not respond to if I have already answered the question.

Any translation that has clearly and accurately translated from the Recieved text, using the same methods of translation as did the KJV translators, and believe first and foremost in the preservation of God's pure words of truth for every generation along with a great love for his words. I do have to mention, in this day and age of apostacy and iniquity and the lack of sholarly abilities as that of the KJV translators, I doubt that this could be done accurately today. God has already provided his words of truth for the english speaking people over 400 years ago.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Dr. Bob quoted:

As both a pastor and prof for 34+ years, I am sensitive to the need to warn folks of BOTH omissions and additions.
--------------------------------------------------

Dr. Bob,

I was just curious, do you warn then, your flock to stay away from the KJV because this version has "added" to God's words? Now what bible version do you recommend to your flock out of the plethora of modern versions that differ and how is it you come to know which one is the very words of God preserved? What is your basis for this? Or do you not agree that God would preserve his very words for you?

Just one more thing I am curious to know. Do you believe God would preserve a stronger testimony of himself, or a weaker? and why?


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle,
You made the statement that a translation from the Textus Receptus may be okay if translated properly.

Which of today's Textus Receptus compilations do they need to use?

My point here is that there is more than one and it would not be right to create one by translating the KJV backwards. This would in-essence be the same as the game "telephone".

It is very obvious that the KJV translators not only used a "few" TR manuscripts, but they obviously borrowed heavily from older Bibles, including the Bishop's, The Great Bible and even the Vulgate... would you consider the Vulgate a good translation?

Also, remember the Vulgate was around much longer than the KJV. Does this mean the Vulgate is more accurate?

The point I am trying to make is that your point of view is no different than being around in 1611 and realizing that the KJV is an MV at that time and all of a sudden realizing that the Word of God is coming out in a new version that has not been around before. I could look at the Vulgate and say, "Oh, its been around for a thousand years, then it must be right."

The KJV that you are refering to has only been around since about 1769 at the last major modification.

You keep talking about the "Words" that are left out, but you wouldn't post in the other forum about which words have been left out that make any doctrinal difference.

How many times do people have to state that the quotation from Psalms 12 and "them" refers to "people"; read several verses in context:

Okay, let me try something that has not been tried and may cause the scholars to cringe, but maybe help you see something.

God's Words are silver, purified seven times. Let us take a very "literal" look at this. Silver is purified seven times by melting and scrapping the dross off of the top of the molten silver. Theoretically, each time you melt the silver and scrape the dross off, you obtain a purer level of silver. There is a point of diminishing returns. There is no such thing in this world as 100% pure silver. There is silver that is very close to being pure, but never is it possible for 100% purity, there will always be "trace elements".

You actually have "pure silter" the slight trace elements do not keep you from saying that it is pure silver, the element even acts like silver from a chemical point of view because the remaing traces have no effect on it. This is the same way with the Word of God. If slight changes are made in the individual Words, they can be likened to these "trace elements" that have absolutely no effect on the "Word of God".

Now, look at what I said, "Trace elements". Remember, you keep talking about all of the words left out. Remember, also that I have stated that these words mean nothing to the "message of God" or in reality: "The Words of God." THey do not take away, nor do they add. We would like to get rid of any added words and obtain any deleted words. Maybe, just maybe these trace elements can represent these few words that have no doctrinal effect to God's Words.

Now, I know this is a long stretch, but Michelle, you have yet to explain adequately what my Bible was during the time the Vulgate was popular. You also have not provided me with a name or location where I myself, personally, Phillip, can go and obtain a copy of the Greek Textus Receptus which I know is 100% pure an unadulterated. Maybe that is my key question. Where do I obtain this TR that is 100% perfect with no flaws. I want one so I can study it. Can you tell me where I can obtain it "specifically" and even provide a book ISBN number where I can find a copy of it?

Even the Old Testament, as well documented as it is, contains a word here and a word there that scholars are unsure of. Where do I find a copy of this "word for word" perfect Old Testament in Hebrew?

Just curious.

[ April 20, 2004, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

Well, obviously since we have the divinely inspired Word of God in the English language in the AV 1611 there is no longer the need to preserve a 100% pure Greek TR.

Shawn

 

No kidding, Shawn

But since she said I could translate from the TR, I want to know where the perfect TR is.

 

Why, it's in the KJB, just translate back to Greek and there you go.

How's that for circular reasoning for ya!

 

Michelle:I do not appreciate your implying that I was ignoring your post and avoiding your question.

I don't see how ya coulda missed it. It was at the end of several posts I made this AM , posts to which YOU REPLIED shortly after they appeared!I don't see how I was to imply anything else.


I have not seen your reply on this until today. However, there are many things I do purposely ignore and do not respond to if I have already answered the question.

or, at least, you've convinced YOURSELF that you've answered, but if you count spin as an answer, oh well...

Any translation that has clearly and accurately translated from the Recieved text, using the same methods of translation as did the KJV translators, and believe first and foremost in the preservation of God's pure words of truth for every generation along with a great love for his words.

What are these versions' NAMES??

But then I wasn't really expecting a straight answer. Just face it-you're really a KJVO trying to call the myth by another name.


I do have to mention, in this day and age of apostacy and iniquity

As if there's now a monopoly on apostasy/iniquity! In 1611, the RCC was much more powerful and apostate than it now is, virtually every official accepted graft, and most Europeans were more interested in whacking their neighbors than they were for the things of God.

and the lack of sholarly abilities as that of the KJV translators,

ONE PERSON, using a modern pc, can do more in one week than the whole AV committee could do in almost 8 years. We now have the knowledge available to them, plus some 400 years of learning since then, including this end-time explosion of knowledge.

I doubt that this could be done accurately today. God has already provided his words of truth for the english speaking people over 400 years ago.[/I]

Actually, He first provided His word in English LONG before that. Also, He did NOT retire in 1611. He still provides His word in the English of the day, same as he's done for a long time. At one time, the Tyndale bible was the most modern English Bible in existence, as was the Geneva, then, the AV 1611, then the RV.

 

Michelle:Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Dr. Bob quoted:

As both a pastor and prof for 34+ years, I am sensitive to the need to warn folks of BOTH omissions and additions.
--------------------------------------------------

Dr. Bob,

I was just curious, do you warn then, your flock to....

I'm sure Dr. Bob will reply, but what reason have you given him to answer you? You won't even answer a simple, legitimate question I've asked you, a question onlu YOU can answer, a question whose answer you should have without the slightest hesitation.

Based upon your own statement that you're not KJVO, I asked you a very straightforward question-"What other BV(s) would you recommend using besides the KJV?" This is NOT a loaded question, and I intended it to be nothing else but exactly what I said. But you replied with what you believe a BV should be, instead of naming any version. If you're not KJVO, that means you also use at least one other version. It shouldn't be hard for you to tell us which one it is. They ALL have names.

After answering as you have, don't be surprised if Dr. Bob replies in kind until you answer OUR questions directly.