Jeremiah 29:11

But what if I want to have a pity party?

Job 19:21 Have pity upon me, have pity upon me, O ye my friends; for the hand of God hath touched me.


HankD

 

RR:I'll tell you why, the devil. The devil has changed the bible so much that it completely takes away from what God is saying.

Better think again...Do ya REALLY believe God retired in 1611 and no longer protects and provides His word in TODAY'S languages and language styles? Do ya REALLY believe He tossed the AV into KJ's lap & said, "There it is...Take it or leave it"?

OR...has the devil invented such false doctrines as the KJVO myth to cause strife and division? Remember, it was started by a SDA official, so it didn't come from GOD. Think JESUS is pleased with those who attack His word with a doctrine not found in His word, and started by a cult official?

.........THINK...............

 

So did God retire from providentially providing His Word to His people in 1611 or not? You are trying to play both sides against the middle on this question.

BTW, if God's Word was perfectly preserved in 1611, why don't you use that revision of the KJV? What did the poor souls in 1605 use?

Because English is a living, changing language.

God wills that man have His Word in the language we understand. God doesn't change but man's languages do.

No, of course not. It was in the hands of 56 men I believe.</font>[/QUOTE] Yes! Men! Fallible men. Men who neither claimed nor were inspired in their word choices. Men who adopted much of their phrasing from earlier Bibles including the RCC's Douhy-Rheims.

Men who belonged to a church that systematically attempted to stamp out Baptists and other dissenters from the Anglican Catholic state church. Men who had significant doctrinal differences with what a Baptist believes.

Who is causing strife and division? We believe God's word is inspired and preserved in one book. You however do not.</font>[/QUOTE] And this is exactly how YOU cause the strife and division. You cannot be satisfied with your preference. You feel compelled to foist it on everyone else and assert that it is somehow God's choice.

If the Geneva Bible were still the final authority, as it once was, in the churches today, we would not be having this strife and division.

If KJV churches would adopt the NKJV as their standard text, as they should since it uses a form of English that the common man of today understands, we would not be having this strife and division.

If the US had a state church that would impose a single version on all churches, as the Church of England did with the "Authorized Version" in the 1630's upon threat of imprisonment, we would not be having this strife and division.

Oh. Now I see. People like it better when the NASB or NKJV condemn adultery, lying, pride, etc.

Now the rubber finally meets the road.

Show us where you think sin has been watered down in a faithful translation of the Bible like the NASB or NKJV.

Ben Wilkinson. Seventh Day Adventist.

We believe it. And reject those who would any belief that adds to scripture by claiming that this passage proves that only the KJV is acceptable.

 

You are right, because if the KJV was the final authority, no one would be preaching the nonsense of KJVO. Why don't you guys recognize that the KJV does not teach this doctrine? You are creating strife and division and harming teh faith of people in God's word because of a man made doctrine.

 

Prove it's the "Devil's Work", RR. KJVOism is a false doctrine, will always be a false doctrine, and because of it's divisive nature could be called the Devils Work.

 

WRONG. People believed the KJV was the word of God, sure - but we're talking about the false extra-biblical man-made doctrine that only the KJV is the word of God.

WRONG. W/H asserted no doctrines. W/H appear in no doctrinal statements of any church I have ever heard of.

WRONG. Were the KJV translators listening to "Yea, hath God said" when they made their translation instead of simply using the Bibles they already had?

 

WRONG. The third option is that they both say the same thing but you personally misunderstand.

When one gospel says one thing and another gospel says another, is one right and one wrong, the wrong one being "not God's word". No. Plain and simple.

 

RR, how is the NIV wrong? Contextually, it fits wonderfully. The NIV is right, the KJV is right. Your personal understanding is the one that is wrong.

 

Why are you comparing "thought" to "prosper"?

The comparison is between the phrases: "plans to prosper" and "thoughts of peace".

Peace and prosperity often go together as a blessing. The two translations together probably provide a more comprehensive understanding of what God intended in Hebrew than either does alone.

This is precisely why the KJV translators favored a variety of translations.

 

You answered your own question. The KJV doesn't teach that the KJV alone is the inspired, preserved Word of God. It doesn't teach that God "inspired... His Word in the KJB". The KJV, like all other versions and copies, derives its inspiration and authority from the originals- absent the originals, the evidence for the originals.

Once again, the problem is with your understanding. In the 250 or so years between 1611 and WH, you will not find any of the great Christians espousing your belief about the KJV. As late as the end of the 1600's, Baptists and Puritans were still clinging to their Geneva Bibles against the encroachment of the Anglican Bible. They might have even considered the KJV as a symbol of the persecution they faced at the hands of the Church of England.

Jonathan Edwards used the KJV but he also seemed to be fond of using phrases and paraphrasing. Wesley knew the biblical languages and produced his own translation to correct what he saw as weaknesses in the KJV.

The Bible does not say that the KJV is the only acceptable English version... why are you adding to the Bible?

Yes. Any time someone adds a teaching to the Bible and creates division over it... the devil is at work.

Right. And that is what KJVO's repeatedly say when they condemn other faithful versions of the Bible.

 

RaptureReady said "They both cannot be right. The KJB is talking about God's thoughts toward us. The NIV is talking about God prospering us."

WRONG. They are talking about God's thoughts towards, and prospering, Israel when they were in the Babylonian captivity.

 

Yes, I realize you believe that, and I believe it too. But the point is that the KJV does not teach that. You believe something more than your KJV final authority teaches. That means that the KJV is not your final authority. If it were, you would not teach KJVOnylism.

Your understanding is incorrect.

Again, simply false. WH didn't make any doctrine at all. The Bible says not to add or take away to be sure, so by your usage of that doctrine, the KJV is ruled out as the word of God since it has added to God's word in numerous places.

He certainly has succeeded in sowing great confusion in teh body of Christ because of the false teaching of KJVOnlyism. Unfortunately, there are some so undiscerning that they have not yet understood that KJVOnlyism is not the truth of God.

He will not bless your false doctrine. He may work his glorious salvation in spite of it, but it will not be because of it. God never condones false teaching, and KJVOnlyism is not the exception.

 

No it isn't. John Burgon was in the Southern Convocation of the Church of England from which the AV translation committee directed Wescott and Hort to do their work with instructions as John Burgon says on page 3 of his book The Revision Revised, that "the removal of plain and clear errors" in the text of the Authorised Version "were alone to be contemplated".

In other words John Burgon believed the AV contained errors and needed revision

His complaint was not that Wescott and Hort believed that the AV needed revision and correction but that the two mss Aleph and B were used by W&H as models of "the best manuscripts" from which to make those corrections.

The AV or any translation can only be said to be inspired by derivation from the original language texts and in accord with the faithfulness of the translation to those original language texts.

The KJV tanslators were not prophets or apostles or to use their own words they were not "apostolic men" who knew the Lord in the flesh here on earth so as to be authorised to produce the God-breathed Scriptures.

Those original language texts called the Traditional Texts of the Old and New Testaments are the preserved text of the inspired originals.

The Old Itala, the Peshitto, the Latin Vulgate, and the KJV are translations and have derived but not intrinsic inspiration.

HankD