Is the KJV of God or man?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by swordsman, Nov 22, 2003.

  1. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah,I see.So you are quite able to correct the KJB text eh?? When are YOU going to give us an inerrant Bible???
     
  2. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope.Only way I would admit such, would be if they came from the same Protestant texts of the reformation,instead of the pro-Roman Catholic manuscripts that all modern "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting authorities)come from..
     
  3. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    AMEN!!! Well said!!!
     
  4. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    16,043
    Likes Received:
    440
    The Church of England was not ashamed to correct it both before and after the death of the translators.

    When are YOU going to tell us which edition of the KJV translation is an inerrant Bible?

    HankD
     
  5. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    YES.
     
  6. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    YES. </font>[/QUOTE]In other words, you either don't know or don't care. Either way is sad, really.
     
  7. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    No you are changing the criterial. The fallacy of pro Roman Catholic manuscripts is laughable nonsense. Study; quit repeating this inane foolishness.

    We must take your earlier post as a lie, since you said that you would accept as God's word those versions with are faithful translations. Now you are telling us you were wrong. :rolleyes:
     
  8. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    16,043
    Likes Received:
    440
    I'm disappointed with your answer A-A.

    HankD
     
  9. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm disappointed with your answer A-A.

    HankD
    </font>[/QUOTE]But are you surprised?
     
  10. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,575
    Likes Received:
    10
    I see, as usual, that the Onlyists won't answer the following questions, which has been asked them umpteen times:

    1. Is KJVOnlyism of God or man?

    2. Where was the word of God in English in 1610?

    3. Where's the Scriptural support for KJVO?

    These aren't loaded questions. It's just that the Onlyist avoids answering them because the correct answers debunk the Onlyist myth.

    I can, and have, answered these questions honestly, and to the best of my ability. I await for any Onlyist to do so. I shall be glad to re-post the answers upon request.
     
  11. LarryN

    LarryN
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know I won't make friends of some with this observation, but to me, KJV-onlyism has always seemed a sort of "weak faith".

    The "Doubting Thomas" KJV-ers can't possibly fathom believing in something they can neither see nor touch (the original manuscripts); they must believe in something they can both see and touch (and along the way this something was settled upon as the King James Version).
     
  12. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    16,043
    Likes Received:
    440
    Agreed LarryN, we live by faith not by sight.

    HankD
     
  13. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you have to admit then that the NASB and NIV in modern English are also the word of God. They meet the qualifications you put forth here. </font>[/QUOTE]4,000+ corrupted words in NASB are not the Words of God. 6,500+ corrupted words in NIV are not the Words of God. These 4,000 words in NASB and 6,500 words in NIV are adulterated by these heretics. Therefore 2 Cor. 2:17 (KJV) is proved to be seen. That's TRUE!
     
  14. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    What's true is that you can't determine that based on a simple word count comparison with the KJV. Translation by different people from one language to another will always result in different number of words.

    What's also true, is that you (like so many other KJV-only supporters) throw around numbers that you have not personally examined, nor have even spent 14 seconds considering ("it sounds bad, so let's repeat it!"). Simple math:

    Some sources say the KJV has 775,693 words (that number changes, depending on which edition you count from). "4,000 words in NASB and 6,500 words in NIV". That is only 0.516% and 0.838%, respectively. In other words, you're saying the NASB is 99.484% and the NIV is 99.162% accurate. Mighty generous of you, I don't think the KJV's NT is even that accurate when compared to the TR. ;)

    BTW, what "heretics" are you talking about?
     
  15. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,575
    Likes Received:
    10
    Originally posted by Askjo:
    4,000+ corrupted words in NASB are not the Words of God. 6,500+ corrupted words in NIV are not the Words of God. These 4,000 words in NASB and 6,500 words in NIV are adulterated by these heretics.

    Can you PROVE it??

    The Greek phrase 'me geniteo' means, literally, "May it not(or never)be". Yet, the KJV often renders it, "God forbid". This is not the correct translation of the Greek. Is this not a corruption?


    Therefore 2 Cor. 2:17 (KJV) is proved to be seen. That's TRUE!

    Why, that very verse in the KJV contains a corruption! The Greek word here rendered "corrupt" is 'kapeleuo', which means, "to peddle", derived from the noun 'kapelos', "a huckster". There are several other Greek verbs used for "corrupt" which actually MEAN"to corrupt", such as'phtheiro'. ONLY ONCE does 'kapeleuo' appear in the NT Greek, and in the KJV it's mistranslated. Most later Bibles correctly render it as "peddle".

    Once again, an Onlyist argument proves to be hooey.
     
  16. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    16,043
    Likes Received:
    440
    Lets look at this OT quote in Matthew:

    Matthew 12
    17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,

    18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
    19 He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.
    20 A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.
    21 And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.

    There are 76 words in this NT passage attributed to Isaiah taken from the following passage:

    Isaiah 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
    2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.
    3 A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.
    4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.

    In the corresponding KJV OT passage there are 90 words.

    Forget the fact that the words don’t align, but according to your scheme of reckoning, Matthew or the KJV translators corrupted the OT Word of God because he or they dropped 14 words from the OT rendering of this passage.

    So Askjo, who is the heretic here? Matthew or the KJV translators?

    HankD

    [ November 24, 2003, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]
     
  17. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,498
    Likes Received:
    6
    It's not a weak faith. It's misleading ignorance.
     
  18. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,498
    Likes Received:
    6
    Infant baptism? Please show me, what Scripture in the KJV that the translators produced? </font>[/QUOTE]They transliterated the Greek word (baptizo) for dip, immerse, or wash and called it baptism. There is no such word for baptism in Greek They didn't know what to do because the Greek word would have gone against their theology of pedobaptism. The KJV is also biased by the hierarchal background of their church. The more you study church history the more you will see how the KJV has influenced American theology and the way we do church. The way church was done in the first century is not at all lie we do church today. Just take a cursory look at 1 Corinthians sometime. We have one pastor who is the main leader. They did not. They had a number of leaders who taught as well.
     
  19. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lets look at this OT quote in Matthew:

    Matthew 12
    17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,

    18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
    19 He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.
    20 A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.
    21 And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.

    There are 76 words in this NT passage attributed to Isaiah taken from the following passage:

    Isaiah 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
    2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.
    3 A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.
    4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.

    In the corresponding KJV OT passage there are 90 words.

    Forget the fact that the words don’t align, but according to your scheme of reckoning, Matthew or the KJV translators corrupted the OT Word of God because he or they dropped 14 words from the OT rendering of this passage.

    So Askjo, who is the heretic here? Matthew or the KJV translators?

    HankD
    </font>[/QUOTE]Matthew 12:17-21 were derived from Isaiah 42:1-4

    These are the original texts that God inspired.

    What did I talk about is the preservation of the Holy Scriptures in the apographs.

    The inspiration and the preservation differ each other. Matthew 12:17-21 and Isaiah 42:1-4 in the autographs were inspired by God. If you want to complain against these passages in the autographs, YOU tell God. We complain all the times concerning twisted words in the apographs that God preserved. In ancient time some heretics mulitated many passages from the apographs. Therefore these heretics mulitated many passages from the apographs today.
     
  20. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    I noticed in your profile that you call yourself a "Baptist." My question is WHY?? I mean,you obviously have a problem with the word "Baptize",why dont you show a little consistancy here?? Why dont you call yourself a "Immersionist?" Why not call this the "Immersionst Board?" If you have a problem with the KJB's rendering of "Baptizo" why do you still "use" the KJB???
     

Share This Page

Loading...