MV description -- Let's make it clear.......

Thanks Orvie, Great work. I am still going to answer since she was responding to my words and let her know my feelings.

Sure you eight year old can read it. I bet your eight year old does not know that most of the words she reads are not the meaning that she finds in a contemporary dictionary or concordance either. Too many words have changed and many meanings are different. Now, if you tell me you have provided her with a 1700 dictionary with modern language word-descriptions then I might say that you are probably right. Otherwise, she is probably missing a lot of good Bible teaching.

That is an unfounded and libelous remark. If you did not read my first posting, then obviously you would understand that I believe the KJV just as much as my modern versions. But you know what? It is NOT the language we speak today. So, put in THAT context, I have to say that, yes, you are right, probably none of us can REALLY understand the KJV unless we have a dictionary. The KJV IS the Word of God, but so is my ESV. My guess is your daughter would get a LOT more out of a newer version. But, I'm sure that you will fill her in on what she misses.

All of the Modern Translations that do not vary from the doctrine of Jesus Christ as Son of God, Died for our Sins, Rose again on the Third day, etc. etc. If they all say the same thing as the KJV and they DO, then what is the problem? You are trying to build a strawman. What Biblical reference, besides the fact that God will preserve his word makes you think that the KJV is perfect down to the period and comma?

Not revisions, just editions.

What part is not accurate and how do YOU know? Oh yeah, you have a "standard" that was revised probably 100 times since it was first printed. Tell me, which one is your standard and which was inspired, The KJV 1611 printing and the translators or the 1769 version and its revisors. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. One has to be perfect (in your mind) down to the last period. Which ones are not. Plus, if you aint got the apocrypha you ain't got the AV1611!

You like to make personal attacks based on "feelings" don't you. Where in the world did I say that? Why don't we both just keep a log of the time spent reading the KJV over the next year and compare it. You have no idea how much I read!

Absolutely not, so why don't you take the Greek Textus Receptus and read it and let the Holy Spirit tell you what it says? (And I am NOT talking ill of the Sweet Holy Spirit who guides us in our knowledge, thinking and Christian walk with the Lord.) Only pointing out our human limitations in OUR ability to utilize the Holy Spirit. Yes, the Holy Spirit would be capable of interpreting the Greek for you, but is our faith really THAT strong?

That is a very interesting oxymoron. "A modern translation is from the anti-Christ with enough Gospel to save a person." OOOOOOOhhhhhhhhh, Brother!

That is simply your opinion. And let me ask you KJVO's just one more time, two measley questions. One the first just tell me which one or all, if you say "all" then you are obviously wrong since they cannot all be perfect in English.

Which ONE of the King James translations is "THAT Perfect book." The 1611 or the 1769, or one in between ---- you may fill in the blank _________?

Where was a perfect Bible up until 1769? Obviously, somebody missed a few hundred years there with a "perfect Bible" if your point of view is correct.

Who decided to get rid of the apocrypha, the inspired translators (who were only 2/3 inspired) of the 1611 or some wise man later. Obviously, the same standard for "inspiration" of 100% accuracy doesn't apply to "translators" like it does "prophets". Otherwise, the need for many revisions would have been unnecessary---then, if it is the final version that is correct and perfect, we can discuss that seperately.

Give me those two answers without a speech or personal attack and I will listen. Otherwise, let's don't rehash the same 'ole KJVO rhetoric.

Thank you!

[ March 26, 2004, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

Pardon the grammatical errors in the above post. I ran out of time editing. I type quickly then go back and edit and because I think and type at the same time I out-run my typing and therefore there are usually a lot of run-on sentences and disconnects. If people can understand, I usually go ahead and post without a lot of editing.

I just want all of you to understand that I am not quite as illerate as my posts may seem to imply.

Call it laziness if you want to. I call it effeciency. If it works, go with it. Yeah, yeah, I know that's just an excuse. After all, put off everything you can do tomorrow.

 

By what authority do you base your faith on Scott J? </font>[/QUOTE]I think he answered you. His faith is in the Word of God, whether it be KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman; his faith is based on the Word of God.

They ALL teach the same doctrine that he is quoting that his faith is in!

 

Homebound, Since I did not answer number four in the thesis (tongue-in-cheek), that I provided you above; let me ask you a question. What is the difference between a "revision" and an "edition".

A new "edition" of a book indicates that it has been updated with either new information, old information corrected, or some other modification to the content. Yes, these may be "editions" in your mind, but content IS changed, so again, I ask you the BIG question that KJVO's will not answer.

If I buy a book on "biology" and it is Edition 6; I can assume that it is improved over edition 5,4,3,2 and 1, either with new material or corrections of errors. Otherwise, there would be no reason to put out ANOTHER edition.

So, back to my big question:

WHICH OF THE EDITIONS IS THE TRUE INERRANT (TO THE PERIOD AND COMMA) WORD OF GOD?

 

"My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness, I dare not trust the sweetest frame but wholly lean on Jesus' name. On Christ the solid rock I'll stand, all other ground is sinking sand.... all other ground is sinking sand."

I base my faith on Jesus Christ and God's Word, the Bible. I believe what the Bible teaches about itself (directly and indirectly) and reject any doctrine (ie. KJVOnlyism) that falls short or exceeds scriptural teaching. </font>[/QUOTE]AMEN, Scott, Preach On
May the Lord bless you for standing up for what is right and Biblical.

 

I am asking the question, "If it is acceptable to say 'I believe, by faith, the KJV is the only preserved word of God in English' then is it also acceptable for someone to say, 'I believe, by faith, the NIV (or any other modern version) is the only preserved word of God in English?" If personal, subjective faith is the ONLY criteria, which cannot be disagreed with, then KJVOs have no grounds to disagree with mv proponents if they say they accepts their mvs by faith.

As to your last question, are you saying this even though the people who gave us the 1611 decided it wasn't good enough and gave us the 1613, 1629, 1762, 1769, and 1873?

Follow what I am saying now? As grandma used to say, "What is good for the goose is good for the gander." If you consider those arguments to be good for the KJV you must also consider them to be good arguments in favor of any mv. </font>[/QUOTE]This makes a lot of sense to me.

I still want to know the KJVO's "Perfect Version". They do not want to answer that question, for some reason.

 

I would say that this is about the same as saying the KJV came from the people who gave us the bogus apocrypha in 1611.