Is there any evidence?

What if you don't find it? Will you disbelieve it or think that He misquoted it? -- Herb Evans

 

Ok, let's look at this logically....

The text Jesus read from is different from the KJV...
Since Jesus didn't make mistakes, then you have a choice...

1) Throw out the OT from the KJV because that is not what Jesus used...( the proof is in the comparison between Isaiah and Luke.

or

2) realize that Jesus was not a One Version Onlyist.

The choice is yours...

For those of you that believe only the KJV is perfect, how do you explain that Jesus didn't use the underlying texts from the KJV?

 

robycop3 -- Keith can answer for himself, but I'll answer for me...

1. Do you believe the original Autographs were inspired by God? Part of it or all of it?

Yes...all of them. Sir, --Roby

Good! That is a start. -- Herb Evans

More than a start...and that's my FINAL ANSWER.

That is fine but not quite worth a million, though! – Herb Evans

2. Do you believe that any Bible is inspired today? – Herb Evans
3. Which one? –Herb Evans

Yes...Every valid version is equally inspired. --Roby

Well, every "VALID" version means what? Could you give us a half dozen English versions that post date the KJB that are "valid?" Which is your bible of choice? -- Herb Evans

I have given the definition of a valid version umpteen times. Second parta de question...NIV, NASB, NKJV, HCSB, ESV, 1769 Edition of the KJV. Bible of choice...depends upon what I'm doing.

Now, for the record, Roby is saying that these Bibles ARE VALID bibles! – Herb Evans

4. Do all Bibles have errors? – Herb Evans

Yes, in every one I've ever read...some technical errors, translators' opinions, poor translations, etc. I don't count differences in translators' use of different correct meanings for the same Greek/hebrew word/phrase as error. --Roby

Okay, all translations have errors, but what about the underlying texts, do they ALL have errors in them? -- Herb Evans

Dunno...I don't read'em.

Well, do any of them have errors, since they all differ with omissions and/or additions? Please specify. – Herb Evans

5. If yes, which one has the least error? Dunno...I aint counted'em. --Roby

I Dunno's are accepted. Nevertheless, who decides what the errors are? -- Herb Evans

Whoever can read both the UTs & the translations.

So, we put our trust in sinful human men, most of which are not even saved? When you decide something is an error, do you decide it, or does one of these readers decide it for you? – Herb Evans

6. Do you believe that God preserved His or part of His word or parts of His word?
7. Where? – Herb Evans

Yes...in the mss we have, & in every valid translation, regardless of language. -- Roby

Q1. Is this preservation in the mss/translations in any one volume INTACT? – Herb Evans
Q1 Newp! Mosta the mss are separate.
Q1. So there has been no complete Bible found in one volume in regard to the mss? – Herb Evans

Q2. Do all the extant mss have errors in them? -- Herb Evans
Q2. Dunno...don't read'em. That's why we have translations.
Q2. Well, if you don’t read them, how do you know that they all have errors in them? Does someone tell you that they have errors? – Herb Evans

8. What is your authority for your views? History? Language? Professor Whatchamahaczysz? Logic? Reasoning? Your thoughts? Your support tools? What? --Herb Evans

Their creation. Their existence. One either believes GOD caused 'em to be made, or man made 'em on his own. I TRUST GOD to have told us about Himself, & what he wants us to do. -- Roby

Q. 1. Does that blanket authority cover the creation and existence of the KJB and the Koran for that matter, since they were created and exist? – Herb Evans
Q. 1. Depends upon whether ya trust Allah(the moon god) or YAHWEH, the REAL God.
Q. 1.Well, that means that their creation and existence is not enough for an authority and more than the Bible? Now your trust in God for these things is hardly an authority anymore than a Pentecostal experience or KJO’s for trusting God for the same things but based upon the KJB. – Herb Evans

Q2. Did God cause the KJB to be made or does that just apply to something else? – Herb Evans
Q. 2. A. God caused ALL valid versions to be made.
Q. 2. A. What is your evidence of that? Does it include the NWT, the JW bible? And again this word VALID, who determines what is VALID? – Herb Evans

Q. 3. And what are the mechanics for distinguishing which? –Herb Evans
Q. 3. Mechanics? Whether or not they follow their sources closely.
Q. 3. You did not answer the question about who determines what is valid. What if the sources that they follow are in error, the Alexandrian texts, for instance? Can all the texts be right, when they contradict one another? – Herb Evans

3. Would I be wrong in accepting my KJB as my authority rather than all those uninspired, fallible, errant support tools? -- Herb Evans

Yes, if you declare all other versions as non-valid.

Why? Why am I not allowed the same latitude as you who say the other versions are valid even when they radically disagree? – Herb Evans

Support tools aren't scripture.

We agree there, that is the point of the question. But you seem to rely heavily on support tools, more so than the Bible. Why is that? – Herb Evans

 

Quote: 9. Do you believe that the scriptures can THROUGHLY FURNISH the man of God or must he use support tools? – Herb Evans

Depends upon what he's doing, and with whom he's doing it. Some understand more quickly than others. But it all must be based with & upon SCRIPTURE. --Roby

I don't see that disclaimer in the verse, which covers doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction that the man of God would be perfect, throughly furnished. –Herb Evans

Do YOU do the same things all the time in yer service to God? Do you always preach a sermon? Do ya go door-to-door? Do ya read & meditate? Are ya ready to testify to anyone ya may meet, in a store, on a bus, in their homes, in a jail, in a hospital? Do they all have the same command of English you do? In my work, one version does NOT thoroughly furnish me...and a bargeload of different versions wouldn't thoroughly furnish me w/o the HOLY SPIRIT'S help and power. And since it covers DOCTRINE, the One-Versionist is straying FROM doctrine as found in Scripture.

Well, I hardly think that you have made a case for “EVERY VERSIONIST,” but the verse says nothing about what the man of God is doing, and the point is that it is only the word of God that thoroughly furnishes the man of God, regardless of the endeavor. Are you saying that the scriptures do not thoroughly furnish the man of God in these things? – Herb Evans

Q1. But what does it depend on? – Herb Evans
Q1. Again, it depends upon WHAT YOU'RE DOING. If you are able to read a Greek Scriptural ms, you might read it for your own learning, but ya wouldn't read it to one who knows English only.
Q1. Sorry, but I do not see that in the verse. It is not in there; it is not Italian! – Herb Evans

Q2. Would the doctrine inspiration and preservation be covered in that verse? – Herb Evans
Only by implication. I seriously doubt if Paul knew at first, if at all, that some of his writings were to become Scripture.
Q2. Well implication is good enough for me, since all doctrines are implied in this verse. – Herb Evans

Q. 3. Could a person be throughly furnished with only the word of God and without support tools? –Herb Evans
Q. 3. If the HOLY SPIRIT so willed.
Q. 3. Well, then the KJO’s have a fighting chance, don’t they? If the Holy Spirit made the 66 book canon self evident to them; then He could also make some other things to be self evident and even make a consensus to that effect among Bible believers. No? – Herb Evans

Q4. What constitutes "Scripture?" – Herb Evans
Q4. The body of writings considered by worshippers of God to be sacred, authoritative, and either spoken by God to His chosen writers, or written by men under His influence, chosen by Him to be part of His word to mankind.
Q4. Oh? All that the worshippers have to do is to consider them sacred and authoritive? Well, that seems to allow KJO’s in on that, since they “consider” that of the KJB. – Herb Evans

5. What do you mean by "based" upon Scripture? - Herb Evans
5. A. Well, I really shouldn't need to explain it...I believe you're just trying to trick me into saying something wrong, as the Pharisees tried to trick Jesus. So, how did Jesus answer both the Pharisees & their daddy, the devil? "IT IS WRITTEN...."
5. A. Not trying to trick you, sir, just trying to know what you mean by your general statements. – Herb Evans

5.B. So, if some doctrine ABOUT Scripture isn't derived from some fact(s) found in Scripture, then it's untrue & man-made, since there's no higher written authority than Scripture.
5.B. I could not agree with you more. That is why I suspect those who say that my Bible has errors in it, since they are sinful, fallible, humans like me, and I am not interested in their man made theories. – Herb Evans

5. C. The doctrine of the HOLY TRINITY isn't made from direct Scriptural quotes. But it IS based upon Scriptural FACTS. Scripture calls God The Father, God The Son, and God the Holy Spirit all "God" in divers places. It says these three are one. Thus, we have the doctrine of ONE GOD, THREE DISTINCT PERSONAGES, based upon Scripture.
5. C. I could not agree with you more. In other words, the doctrine does not have to be spelled out exactly but should have sufficient evidence to that doctrine. – Herb Evans

However, there's NO such Scriptural basis for any One-Versionism doctrine.
Well, is there a basis for “errors in the Biblism? Every Versionism? 66 Book canonism? Aren’t you being a bit narrow and giving yourself a break here? There is a basis for saying that our Bible, even the words, being preserved until today and for us to say that we have them, (Isa. 59:21). Do you have one standard for the KJVO and another for yourself? – Herb Evans

Quote: 10. If you do, which? Concordances, dictionaries, Greek & Hebrew-English lexicons, world history books & encyclopedias, similar references. Are these support tools as inspired, infallible, and inerrant as the word of God, or are they man made? Do they have errors in them? -- Herb Evans

No, they're entirely man-made, and as such, have goofs. And so do translations, but they have fewer errors since they're the perfect WOG handled by imperfect men, while the 'tools' are based upon man-made things from the gitgo.

Oh, so it is a matter of which has the most errors? Well, I wondered since you seem to rely on the support tools more than you do the Bible itself. But the inspired and preserved translations and texts still have errors in them after being handled by imperfect men, but they are still inspired and preserved according to you. Seems like a low esteem of inspiration and preservation to me. – Herb Evans

Now, willya answer the opening questions of this thread...IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ANY ONE-VERSIONISM? If there is, what is it? Sir, thank you for giving us a profile on what you believe. I would like for you to CLEARLY clarify the points that I addressed above before I answer this question. --Herb Evans

This is about as clearly as is necessary to clarify them. I hold Scripture to be the highest written authority, and I believe NO doctrine that's not supported by Scripture. And I don't believe that the various One-Versionism doctrines can furnish anyone more thoroughly because they're just NOT TRUE.

Well, there are a few more cleanup clarifications that you need to make in blue. If you believe NO doctrine that is not supported by scripture, why do you believe that there are errors in the Bible? Is that doctrine supported by scripture? Seems like a pretty important doctrine not to be in there. I never heard Christ, Paul or the apostles talk like you do about these things. – Herb Evans

 

//And does a "valid" version mean? Who decides?
Are you a "Valid Versions Only?-- Herb Evans//

I used to say:

God's Holy Written Word is inerrant in all English Versions.

But then some here told me that there are some English
Versions that really aren't that great. So then I had to
start making statements like:

God's Holy Written Word is inerrant in all valid English Versions.

Now you want to 'fuss' about technicalities of what that means?

That has already been attended to also.
In this poll:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=34374&page=8

65 people have responded.
Over 65% of the BB-ites responding have determined that these
Bibles are NOT VALID:

The Message by Peterson
Reader's Digest Bible
NWT = New World Translation

Over 70% have construed that these Bibles are VALID:

Geneva Bible of 1587
KJV1611 Edition
KJV1762 Edition
KJV1873 Edition
NASB = New American Standard Bible
NIV = New International Version
ESV = English Standard Version

(we were limited by the BB Polling software to ten choices)

My conclusion there is:
any group of Baptists can decide which are the valid
and which are the invalid bibles -- this includes random
BB members

Recommended for Baptists: let the local church decide ...
or let the Baptist Priests decide

 

Well, Democratic Bible Deciders, I guess we vote on good and evil next. -- Herb Evans

 

So you do not believe in the priesthood of the believers...

Or the ability for believers to interpret the scriptures for themselves...


Hmmmm... KJVO is just like the Roman Doctrine that only the Priest could interpret the scriptures for the congregation.

If you don't like the doctrines of the Baptists then join the RCC... their line of thinking seems to line up with KJVOism.

 

Amen, Brother Tinytim the Great -- Preach it! :thumbs:

It takes more to be 'Baptist' than to list some Baptist denomination
or local Baptist Church on one's Profile. You gotta believe the
Baptist distinctives, 'including priesthood of the believer' and,
'sovereignty of the local church'.

 

The 1560 Geneva Bible was in public use until around the 1650's and perhaps longer in some homes and churches. David Norton cited where Thomas Ward in 1688 indicated that the Geneva Bible was still “in many men’s hands” (History, p. 39). In a footnote, Norton pointed out that “sixteenth-century Geneva Bibles with eighteenth-century inscriptions are quite common” (p. 39, footnote 3). He gave the example of one Geneva Bible in a New Zealand library that “contains signatures, comments and records that date from 1696 to 1877.” Alec Gilmore observed that there is some evidence that a 1610 edition of the Geneva Bible “was still being used in Aberdeenshire as late as 1674” (Dictionary, p. 84).

The Geneva Bible and some of the other pre-1611 English Bibles were reprinted in the mid-1800's, several of them were reprinted more than once in the 1900's, and a modern-spelling edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible was just recently printed.

According to the rules given the KJV translators, according to the preface of the 1611 KJV, and according to comparisons of the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV, it is clear that the KJV is a revision of them (Tyndale's to Bishops').

Rule 1 The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.

In their preface, the KJV translators stated: "Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new translation, not yet to make of a bad one a good one, but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark."

 

tinytim]So you do not believe in the priesthood of the believers...

Oh but I do. -- Herb Evans

Or the ability for believers to interpret the scriptures for themselves...

Again, yes, but believers have the responsibility to interpret correctly. One look at Christendom today will reveal that is not happening. In fact, I draw a parallel with apostasy and the MV's of the Bible a month club. -- Herb Evans

Hmmmm... KJVO is just like the Roman Doctrine that only the Priest could interpret the scriptures for the congregation.

If you don't like the doctrines of the Baptists then join the RCC... their line of thinking seems to line up with KJVOism.

Well, the moderator wanted me to be nice, so I will not dignify that slur with a response. I am a local church only Baptist if you please. Keep it up and you may kill the thread. Perhaps, that is what you want. --Herb Evans

 

Amen

A hearty amen bro. Evans to your whole post - well said :wavey:

Just had to come back for this one folks.

May God bless

 

Thanks Brother Bunyan, looks like the only argument some have is to try to silence the opposition. Par for the course. -- Herb Evans

 

Herb:

Amen, Brother Herb -- Preach it! :thumbs:

I note these descriptors pertain to the my
current Bible of preference: the
HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/.

The HCSB is the very Written Word of God written for me and
my fellow American English Using Baptists of the 21st
Century (2001-2100).

 

KJV-only advocates cannot defend their line of good Bibles as a valid argument if at the same time they deny that the early good Bibles such as the Bishops’ Bible have the correct or inerrant words. Robert Barnett claimed: "It seems that there are only two kinds of Bibles, either correct or corrupted" (Word of God on Trial, p. 9). Which of these two kinds of Bibles are found on the KJV-only view's line, stream, or tree? Can the KJV-only view’s stream yield both salt water and fresh? By the law of non-contradiction, should whatever is affirmed or denied of the "good" line of translations be affirmed or denied for each translation in this same group? Can it be claimed that this good line is inspired and not inspired at the same time? Can it be claimed that this good line is the preserved word of God and is not the preserved word of God at the same time? If it is denied that the earlier English translations such as the Bishops’ Bible are inerrant, it can also be denied that the KJV is inerrant. If it is denied that Wycliffe's, Coverdale's, the Great, or Bishops’ Bibles are perfectly correct, it can also be denied that the other Bibles on this line are perfectly correct. If it is affirmed that one translation in this group is inerrant or perfect, it must also be affirmed that all translations in this group are inerrant or perfect. If it is affirmed that one translation in this group or line is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, it must also be affirmed of all the translations. If it is affirmed that one translation in this line is alive, it must be affirmed of all in this same line. If it is affirmed that one translation in this line is self-attesting, self-authenticating, and self-interpreting, it must be affirmed of all in this same line. Therefore, KJV-only advocates cannot defend their line of good Bibles as evidence for the claimed inerrancy or perfection of the KJV if those translations on it have readings that they claim are "corrupt," "errant," or "imperfect."


Why would KJV-only advocates include the other earlier English Bibles such as the Bishops’ Bible on their good tree if they did not have the correct words and were not the Word of God? The earlier English Bibles are as much sources of the KJV as its original language texts if not more so since the KJV is more of a revision than it is a completely new translation. If these earlier Bibles were the Word of God, did they cease to be the Word of God after they were revised or updated? Did the first authorized English Bible [the Great Bible] expire or cease to be the Word of God at some point? Did the Geneva Bible cease to be the word of God at a certain date? If these earlier English Bibles were not the Word of God, what does that suggest about the KJV which is a revision of them? Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness? Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not “holy,” "accurate," "correct," "good," "valid," "acceptable," "legitimate," or "true" Bibles according to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning? According to the law of non-contradiction, can the KJV have qualities which are not in common with the earlier English Bibles of which it was a revision? While KJV-only advocates appear to want believers to go back to 1611, they usually imply that you cannot go back before 1611 and have a valid English Bible.



How can KJV-only advocates tolerate or accept renderings in the earlier English Bibles or in the margins of the 1611 KJV that they condemn as heretical in other translations? How can they recommend translations on their line as good when these translations have renderings that they consider to be departures from the traditional Hebrew or Greek texts? If the words added by Erasmus from the Latin Vulgate must be kept, what about the words from the Latin Vulgate added by Coverdale? Should the additional words in the old Wycliffe's Bible from the Latin Vulgate be kept? Should all the additional words in the Bishops’ Bible have been kept? If the earlier English translations may be the Word of God and profitable for doctrine though less than 100% perfect and inerrant, then the same may be true of the KJV. If the various English translations before 1611 and Luther's German Bible with many differences from the KJV were and are the Word of God, then translations after 1611 with differences can also be the Word of God. The clear inconsistencies in their claims are a sure sign of error in the KJV-only view. The truth is consistent. Is the KJV-only view the easy way out instead of dealing with the facts of the differences between existing manuscripts and of differences between translations in their own good line?


How can KJV-only advocates build their family tree or genealogical line of good Bibles without the connecting trunk to the inspired Word of God in the originals? Is the analogy of a good tree offered in lieu of actual evidence that all of these translations on this tree are perfect or inerrant? It is interesting to note that there are no actual existing Greek N. T. manuscripts listed on Ruckman's tree. Is that because he knows that there are no Greek manuscripts in existence that agree 100% with the KJV? The only manuscripts listed are the "original manuscripts" (Bible Babel, p. 82), which Ruckman in another book called the "original unreadables" (Problem Texts, p. 17). KJV-only advocates cannot deny the inspiration and inerrancy of the tree, stream, or line of "good or pure" Bibles that lead up to the KJV without demolishing their own claims for the KJV.


A view of Bible translation that makes one exception instead of applying the same standard to all translations on its good tree is a view of translation that is not worth having. If every translation on their tree is imperfect and errant with one exception, by what different process was this one exception made? Making one translation into an exception offers no valid support for KJV-only generalizations or arguments concerning all the translations on their line, stream, or tree of good Bibles. Is not the argument for one exception in exclusive "only" claims for the KJV in effect the same as an unscriptural claim for additional or advanced revelation? Paisley claimed: "Being a translation does not alter one iota of its integrity, inerrancy and infallibility as God's Word" (Plea, p. 9). For this statement to be true it would have to apply to all translations in the good line; otherwise, it becomes another inconsistent claim for making one exception. In order to try to make the KJV into an exception, some seem willing to destroy the very foundations on which the valid authority of translations depends.

The Scriptures do not teach that all scripture is translated by inspiration of God. The claimed superiority of the KJV is not self-evident at every word and every verse when compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages and when compared to the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision. Where do the Scriptures state that the 1611 KJV was directly inspired?

 

Thread reopened with offending post and responses deleted