More fairness to KJVO's

This thread will be closed with no notice if the personal attacks and insults are carried over.

 

I do not see him saying that as you take it. It is known fact that the manuscripts throughout time have had scribal errors in them. When Erasmus was confronted with those that claimed that not one word should be changed (like many KJVO's claim today), he thundered back - "What will you do with the scribal errors?" Yet, the message of the Bible, then as well as now, remained pure. Futhermore, we see that such dabate is nothing new and probably will continue long after we are gone (if the Lord tarries).

 

James said "I tend to agree with the sentiment you raise here, that God's word doesn't need to be purified."

Good.

James said "However, of your own admission, the bibles that we have today are full of impurities."

You are combining two issues into one. Textual errors are one thing, doctrinal/interpretation errors are another. All English Bibles have textual errors, but not all English Bibles have doctrinal errors. Consider the 1611 KJV - even the most adamant KJV-only supporter will admit it had "printing errors" (a type of textual impurity), but still give it the status of "the pure word of God". Same thing.

James said "How can you say that the verse is not prophetic, just because it says 'are' and not 'will be'?"

Well, because in the case of Psalm 12:6, it would then contradict other verses like Prov 30:5, Psa 119:140, etc. Suppose ALL of these were "prophetic", and God's word was NOT pure for 1600 years. How is that "preservation"? KJV-onlyism has "preservation" as its foundation, but now you seem to be implying that "preservation" didn't take place at all, but rather an "improvement"/"alteration"/"purification" process. But for the sake of argument, let's go with that for a minute: the question then becomes "How do you know what the fulfillment of the "prophecy" of Psalm 12:6 is? Why the KJV and not the Geneva? Why the KJV and not the NASB? Why the KJV and not a Chinese Bible? Why the KJV and not a Bible that hasn't even been published yet? By what authority do you get to decide how the "prophecy" is fulfilled?"

James said "Psalm 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. Just as another example, no one would claim that this wasn't a prophecy of Jesus' crucifixion just because it spoke of the event in the past tense."

Ah, but although Psalm 22:16 was fulfilled in Christ, it was still entirely true before Christ: Contextually, these were David's words about himself and were true from the moment he penned them.

 

--------------------------------------------------
its foundation, but now you seem to be implying that "preservation" didn't take place at all, but rather an "improvement"/"alteration"/"purification" process.
--------------------------------------------------


This had to do with the English language, and NOT the words of God. The words of God are eternally pure. The printing errors, were not errors in God's word, but errors due to printing that were CORRECTED. This is NOT the same as the ERRORS found in the mv's.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

If you are claiming that you don't know the KJV was filled with errors, not just printing errors, then you are bearing false witness. I know you are not ignorant of the truth because you've been involved with numerous threads on the subject.

 

--------------------------------------------------
If you are claiming that you don't know the KJV was filled with errors, not just printing errors, then you are bearing false witness. I know you are not ignorant of the truth because you've been involved with numerous threads on the subject.
--------------------------------------------------


The KJB has NO ERRORS. The mv's do. This is fact.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Careful, Dr.B. Don't go throwing stones at sacred cows.

After all, Abe Lincoln was assassinated because a corrupt translation was published at the time...

Yes, as ludicous as claiming no errors in the KJV. But, then, people never see the defects <snipped as violating the spirit of rule 9 - "The MV crowd will not refer to the KJVOs as "cults," "heretics," "sacrilegious," etc...nor refer to the KJV in derisive terms such as "King Jimmy's Bible," etc.">

In Christ,
Trotter

[ November 13, 2004, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Have fun guys. The last thread was civil and decent. But I am done for now.
The umpire says...."yer outta there!"

(Humbly walks away. Said all I wanted to.)

In His service;
Jim

 

This thread can still be civil, Jim. No one has been uncivil, yet. But the ingredients are there.

All depends on the actions of a certain someone...

In Christ,
Trotter

 

I heard the very same thing in the early 1970's. As far as I can tell those kind of people have been around each time a nerw translation has come out. Nothing new under the sun.

 

Michelle, you have yet to prove this to be true. I and many others have pointed out several errors, not just printing and grammar errors, that were involved in the KJV process from 1611 on. I'm truly sorry you believe that the KJV had/has no errors. This is factually incorrect, and always will be. It does not make God any less God, nor does it make the KJV, or any other version any less Holy.

 

Now prove that statement to be true.