More fairness to KJVO's

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by James_Newman, Nov 12, 2004.

  1. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I wasn't done yet.

    Sorry I had to step out for a while.

    I tend to agree with the sentiment you raise here, that God's word doesn't need to be purified. However, of your own admission, the bibles that we have today are full of impurities. Obviously something would have to occur if we were to have the pure words of God. How can you say that the verse is not prophetic, just because it says 'are' and not 'will be'?

    Romans 4
    17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

    That is perfectly within the nature of God to say that something is before it has occured, this just shows the certainty of the thing coming to pass. Look who said it, after all.
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    This thread will be closed with no notice if the personal attacks and insults are carried over.
     
  3. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Understandable. I was quite enjoying the thread for the first few pages.
     
  4. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  5. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    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).
     
  6. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    James said "I tend to agree with the sentiment you raise here, that God's word doesn't need to be purified."

    Good. [​IMG]

    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.
     
  7. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah, so God's word can be pure in an ultimate sense, and ALSO be purified to a state of purity in an earthly practical sense. Thank you for pointing out that sometimes scriptures have more than one application.
     
  8. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    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
     
  9. manchester

    manchester
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  10. manchester

    manchester
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  11. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    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
     
  12. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Now that is hilarious. And sad.

    You certainly don't believe that, Michelle, unless you adapt the 200+ "errors" (as even Ruckman agrees exist) are just ADVANCED REVELATION to the newly inspired 1611 Anglicans?

    Or maybe you DO believe this. You've stepped in with both feet and you need to clear it up for us, Michelle. Thanks.
     
  13. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 &lt;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."&gt;

    In Christ,
    Trotter

    [ November 13, 2004, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
  14. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trot - My pastor (seminary President and heir of WB Riley) WARNED in 1966-70 that a cult of Bibliolaters was arising within fundamentalism. He said the battle would be over manuscripts and translations from them.

    He was a visionary.

    BTW, he used the ASV1901 as the "best" of English translations in the classroom, but always used the Scofield (KJV1769) from the pulpit.

    We will await Michelle's admission. Either way she goes, she will open herself up to more problems.
     
  15. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  16. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  17. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    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.
     
  18. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    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.
     
  19. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    We're being civil, Jim, although "snipping" slander on the Word of God. Now we are waiting a simple, definitive answer.

    Wonder, since you carry the AV1611 sig line, how YOU feel about this issue, Jim.

    We are waiting for Michelle, but would be glad to hear your take on it.

    1. Are their errors in the AV? Michelle said NO.
    2. Are these advanced revelations, where the 1611 Anglican translators corrected/perfected the Word? Michelle has not come by to answer it, yet.
     
  20. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Now prove that statement to be true.
     

Share This Page

Loading...