KJVo dare!

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Phillip, Nov 2, 2004.

  1. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a dare to all of you "upper numbered"* KJVo believers.

    * See Dr. Bob's thread on KJVo definitions.

    NO KJVo has answered these few questions. Do you believe your KJVo belief enough to put it to the test?

    Please answer with a real answer. I do not need to know that I would know the answer if I just had "faith".

    I dare those of you KJVo's to answer each and every question with as much detail as you care.

    1) Assuming you believe the KJV to be 100% word-for-word accurate, which version of the KJV is the 100% accurate version?

    2) Which English Bible that the KJV replaced was 100% perfect? Keep in mind that God keeps His Word for all Generations.

    3) Why did the KJV need to replace that perfect English Bible?

    Come on KJVo, don't stick your head in the sands, let us put this on the table and discuss it. I dare you!
     
  2. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I certainly would not want to stake my life on the fact that I will receive just one good answer to any of the questions.

    When you ask the REAL questions, they all duck.
     
  4. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Really cute John!

    To the topic:
    Why bother? This appears to be bait for yet another 20+ pages of "Here we go round the mulberry bush".

    Frankly, I am tired of the same ol' same ol'.

    Aren't you?

    Shouldn't we be more productively engaged in winning the lost?

    In His service;
    Jim
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Don't see any "baiting" here. But see the same lack of answer from the "only" sect.

    When confronted with request for TRUTH and PROOF we will hear - "You should study the Bible" or "You should be soul winning" dodges. Sad.

    What is perfect cannot be changed. So, even though I am NOT an "only" but love the KJV1769 (Scofield Reference Edition), I must state my answer would be the 1611 Edition 1 as the one that was correct.

    Now, that said, I can only smile at the other parts of the question, because they show the futility of the "only" sect and paucity of any history or theology. Sad bunch.
     
  6. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, it is not a "bait", I am very serious. I keep hearing you guys (and gals), try to convert me to your doctrine of KJVonlyism, but when I ask for proof, you won't give it. How are you going to get me to believe what you say when you cannot simply answer my questions?

    Then why are you giving me excuses instead of answers. I've asked for answers and I never get answers. Give me scripture that shows a single English translation of the Word of God and I will certainly consider it.


    Sad, and probably true, but look in a mirror.

    You are spending as much, if not more time, evading my question than you would if you would simply answer the question.

    Again, I tell you clearly. I WILL honestly and sincerely consider your belief, but you are going to have to show me 'why I should.'

    The sad fact is, I am not expecting direct answers---the reason?. . . there aren't any!

    So, again, I make my challenge and dare you to provide direct answers without dodges like the one above! ;)

     
  7. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Phillip is just simply asking for proof of what so many KJVO's preach and teach. So we are waiting for some substance. If no substance, then it is simply a lie. So where's the truth?
     
  8. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Baitng, that's all yall know, sit and wait to ensnare, lying in wait is what God calls it. :( :mad: :( [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  9. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Same thing the serpent asked Eve.
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    It seems clear that KJV-only advocates cannot give any valid, consistent scriptural reasons for their man-made KJV-only theory. Are they unable to see that a consistent and scriptural view of Bible translation would be true both before and after 1611 and would be true for those believers who speak languages other than English as well as those who speak it?
     
  11. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Answer the question, POR.
     
  12. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Same thing the serpent asked Eve. </font>[/QUOTE]Remember the serpent distorted scriture. So who's the serpent here?
     
  13. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    Is it just me, or do KJVO's have this thing for quoting the serpent? Seems like everytime a KJVO can't or won't answer a question, they pull out this quote.
     
  14. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    There is only (1) version of the KJV. All of the subsequent editions were not revisions, they were just that, editions that corrected spelling and printer's errors, rightly removing the Apocrypha, and using different forms of the same word.

    So, to answer your question, the KJV is the version that accurately represents the originals.

    No English Bible, then or now is 100% perfect as a translation. Even the KJV that I take to the pulpit every Sunday contains a few typographical errors. All English Bibles preceding the KJV that were based on the Traditional Received Text was perfect in that it contained no error of fact.

    The KJV became necessary then for the same reason it is necessary today. "In 1603 when King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England, the text of the Bible, current in a variety of English translations, was a source of division among religious parties in England rather than a bond of unity. In order to reconcile differences among the various parties, the king called for a conference to be held in January 1604 at Hampton Court." From this conference the decision to translate a new Bible was born.


    The Bible in Translation Bruce M. Metzger pg. 70
     
  15. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    That is simply not true.

    There are MAJOR revisions, with completely different words and phrases. At least FOUR. + the 100 editions, each different than the others. And even ONE change makes it "not the same".
     
  16. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr bob is correct. The KJV has undergone several MAJOR revisions to update language, syntax, and verbage. It has also undergone several MINOR revisions to correct printing errors, typos, etc. In total, the number of major and minor revisions that the KJV has undergone is over 10. Yet the idea of revising the KJV to update language, syntax, and verbage is viewed by KJVOists as heresy, despite the fact that the history of the KJV (not to mention scripture itself) does not support the KJVO resistance to an update.
     
  17. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    I have always found that a person who has clear reasons can also give clear answers.
     
  18. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is simply not true.

    There are MAJOR revisions, with completely different words and phrases. At least FOUR. + the 100 editions, each different than the others. And even ONE change makes it "not the same".
    </font>[/QUOTE]Just to follow your "logic" Doc, everytime a hair falls from your mustache, does that mean you're a different person each time? Or is it necessary for any certain number for there to mandate this "change"?

    For one "perfect" note: it's the alteration and the evidences of misconceptions that are the concern when the Word of God is read. I 99% agree with the other Bob, but will never agree to any "mistakes" in the KJB, for in thought, clarity, wording , and Truth, there are NONE. [​IMG]
     
  19. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    So is it now that we are to tally your remark as the alter-ego to reason? [​IMG] Be a littlew more ( )

    *clear* (for those left in want) :D
     
  20. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    That is simply not true.

    There are MAJOR revisions, with completely different words and phrases. At least FOUR. + the 100 editions, each different than the others. And even ONE change makes it "not the same".
    </font>[/QUOTE]My statement above should have read, "All of the subsequent editions were not versions, they were just that, editions..."

    I still assert that the text of the KJV is the same version since 1611 that has undergone a handful of revising. I do not count the various "editions" like Thompson Chain Reference, Scofield, Rice Reference Bible, etc. to be what the original question implied.

    Sure, each correction did constitute a "change" in the text, but the change was always to "correct" the text and not to "change" it.
     

Share This Page

Loading...