Is this all it really takes ...

For me, confusion is when some one claims (directly or indirectly) that the door of the canon of Scripture was "slammed shut" in 1611 rather than 90AD.

If as we are told that the English words in the KJV are the "pure", "perfect" words of God then plenary inspiration of the English words of the KJV are being claimed.

The first point of confusion is which revision/edition of the KJV is the "pure" and "perfect" Bible since a one word difference (no matter what the cause) would disqualify one or even both editions as being the "pure" and "perfect" words of God.

HankD

 

The only "confusion" taking place is in the accusations of the KJVO crowd about different translations being read during the preaching.

I normally carry a NKJV. My former church, and now the one I am visiting, the KJV was/is used from the pulpit. There is no confusion on my end. And on a Sunday I happen to carry a NIV, or a NASB, or even a RSV, there is still no confusion on my end.

Instead of confusion, I find a clearer understanding of the text, as I am getting two different wordings of the same thing...sort of like having it in stereo.

One funny thing that can happen, though. In my former church, it was hard not to chuckle when our pastor went off a'shoutin' about part of the text, getting all hot and lathered, but he was totally off base as to whatever it was that he was getting so worked up about (let's just say that he was an "old-fashioned" preacher...no nead to study, just flip through the bible the night before, find a verse or two, and shout whatever comes to mind the next morning).

In Christ,
Trotter

 

If my pastor says, "Let us turn to John 3:16", I have no prob...or if he reads it in current English or archaic English, I have no prob.

 

To your ears rather than your eyes.

 

I don't listen with my eyes. If YOU do, I suggest you see a plastic surgeon.

 

To your ears rather than your eyes. </font>[/QUOTE]Unity is not always conformity. In fact in the midst of diversity can be tremendous unity. Most often in the midst of conformity there is not unity but forced confomrity that never reaches the heart.

 

Thank you Brother Robycop3
for refreshing my bowels.

 

This explains your militant position against those of us who stick by the KJV. It's like a converted drunk. Now that you have changed your version stance you cannot stand to see others who have refused to do as you have done.

 

So we must have access to someone who understands Hebrew and Greek in order to have the Holy Scriptures? I guess that is what I would expect from someone who has a degree in Theology. As for me, I will stand with the KJV, the Bible God has blessed beyond measure. I have full assurance that my KJV is the very Words of God for the English-speaking people!

 

This explains your militant position against those of us who stick by the KJV. It's like a converted drunk. Now that you have changed your version stance you cannot stand to see others who have refused to do as you have done. </font>[/QUOTE]Straw man fallacy...To state what another has said in a misrepresentational fashion....AVL has no problem with people that use the KJV; he has problems with those that proclaim the KJV is the only Word of God for English-Speaking people.

If he's more like a converted ALCOHOLIC, who understands that some people can drink without it being addictive, but can't stand to see people drink as an addiction.

 

Terry_Herrington:So we must have access to someone who understands Hebrew and Greek in order to have the Holy Scriptures?

That's better than just blindly accepting just one "scholar's" or set of scholars' word for it, isn't it? That's exactly what the KJVOs have done if they haven't investigated the matter for themselves. If you have a medical prob which isn't clear-cut, you'd most likely seek a "second opinion", right?


I guess that is what I would expect from someone who has a degree in Theology. As for me, I will stand with the KJV, the Bible God has blessed beyond measure. I have full assurance that my KJV is the very Words of God for the English-speaking people!

I have such full assurance also...along with such assurance for the NIV, NASB, NKJV, and others, older and newer. God isn't limited to one version and neither am I.

 

Of course we must Terry. At some point anyway or we wouldn't have an English translation at all.

The KJV translators were the top scholars of their day.

I could even say as michelle does that they were there through the providence of God but not that He superintended the translation which would imply the "re-inspiration" of the Greek and Hebrew words into 17th century words.

That He did not superintend the translation is evident indeed, the evidence being that the Church of England spent over two centuries making enhancements and corrections to the text.

This is not what the Holy Spirit produces, a text that needs correcting. Had the Holy Spirit produced the 1611 English text there would not be the need of even one correction as with the autographs.

HankD

 

Amen, Brother Robycop3 -- Preach it!!

 

Terry_Herrington, I have stated on these forums many times that I still use the KJV as my Bible of choice. Are you so blinded by your hatred of anything or anyone who doesn't hold to the "only" position that you'd defame them? I find this totally unacceptable and helps to prove further my point that most KJVO's are the ones in the attack mode, not the MV supporters.

 

You know, Johnathan Edwards' listeners during the First Great Awakening followed his sermons and lectures using their own copies of Greek New Testaments, not just their English Bibles. If seventeenth century common townspeople with less total education in them than what is available to us today can do it, then surely we can do just as well, if not better. How sad that there are those that reject such knowledge, when our own forefathers knew it was, while not necessarily necessary, was a good idea.


[edited to remove unnecessary quote]

[ October 03, 2004, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]

 

Would you not agree that to even "hold the Greek in your hands" takes a certain measure of faith? It takes faith in the one that complied the text from the multitude of extant manuscripts. It takes faith to believe that the extant manuscripts used, when complied, are accurate representation of the autographs.

In actuallity, the faith that one places in a Greek text is no different than the faith that one places in a translation of that Greek text.

If the translation = the text, which = the originals, then we have the Word of God when we hold our translation. It is by faith that we believe our English translation is a preserved representation of the very words of God.

Rom 14:23 ...for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Rom 1:17 ...The just shall live by faith.

Gal 3:11 ...The just shall live by faith.

Heb 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith...

 

How does it differ from faith in the integrity and rules of the committee that "manufactured" the W/H Greek text that is the basis (nearly identical) for the N/A Greek text today?

My point is that "faith" is the key. It is incidental "where that faith is placed;" the fact is, it is still the faith of the believer in a text, version, or translation. To believe otherwise is hypocritical in my opinion.