1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Once again...the 1610 English scriptural authority was...?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by robycop3, Aug 22, 2004.

Top Posters
Page 4 of 5
  1. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle, simply explain how your premise is sound. No more vague answers. I don't mind you saying "John 16,17", but you are not explaining what in John 16,17 supports your premise, because I believe John 16,17 was also true before 1611. You are not explaining, you are dancing.

    You have not demonstrated your premise is sound, you have only demonstrated that you believe your own premise.

    Really, if you would simply explain yourself clearly, we could move on with this conversation. Also, realize that I'm not trying to convince you (I realize that is impossible), at this point I am simply trying to understand you. You are extremely confusing. Your arguments are confusing. Your answers are confusing. God is not the author of confusion. Clear up the confusion.
     
    #61 natters, Aug 23, 2004
  2. AVL1984

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

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    7,506
    Likes Received:
    62
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You don't seem to have much of a grasp on the subject, do you? You are basically saying the KJV is the only truth, and all others are liars. Wow! What else would we expect from someone blinded enough not to admit that it is a version, which even the translators admitted freely. If all others are liars, michelle, then that would imply that people saved under the ministries of the NKJV, TEV, NASB, NIV and others aren't saved and aren't using the Word of God. Is that what you're implying?
    Second question, is the KJV a "VERSION" :eek: or not?

    AVL1984
    [​IMG]
     
    #62 AVL1984, Aug 23, 2004
  3. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    God provided a better and more accurate translation with the 1611, to which he has preserved unto this very day. God is not doing a new thing, and reversing what he already provided.
    No, He isn't. He's still providing His word in today's language. But the KJV, Geneva Bible, Tyndale's, etc. still exist in their original form. The only two that were changed are the Geneva Bible(quite a few editions between 1560 & 1599) and the AV 1611, with quite a few subsequent editions being made between 1611 and now.

    --------------------------------------------------

    If this is true, please then explain to me, how God is now allowing serious deletions/additions that affect the doctrines of our faith and the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, to his word of truth in our language, that he has kept preserved for generations? Is God changing back, and taking away from us, what He has provided all these generations? If I were you, I would think long and hard about this, and take off the glasses of doubt, a false man made label, just for once, so that you may see the truth. Stop focusing on the past, but focus on the here and now - present today. All you continually rant is doubt, and excuses for obvious errors. This is unacceptable to me.

    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #63 michelle, Aug 23, 2004
  4. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    AVL - That people who were "saved" using the RSV or NIV are not truly born again was taught by Dr. Jack Hyles and HAC from 1980 until his recent death. Followers of PSR (Ruckman) and Gail likewise hold this EXTREME position.

    His false teaching was greatly disseminated among his sycophants and cronies and still evidenced today.
     
    #64 Dr. Bob, Aug 23, 2004
  5. AVL1984

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

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    7,506
    Likes Received:
    62
    Faith:
    Baptist
    michelle there is a huge anomaly in this statement.

    first you say ” God gradually provided his words for the English speaking people, through various translators, as He so willed and saw fit. They were the very words of God for those people, and at that time, but eventually many felt there were corruptions in it(conviction of the Holy Spirit?)”

    Then you say “God provided a better and more accurate translation with the 1611”.

    How can this be that God provided the first translation which was the “very words of God” yet with “corruptions” in it?

    HankD     </font>[/QUOTE]Also, how could it be when it was revised upward into the late 1760's? :confused: Care to explain, michelle?

    AVL1984
     
    #65 AVL1984, Aug 23, 2004
  6. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    But...He may have taken away what shouldn't have been there to start with. And He's certainly taken away the need for someone to hafta study up on Elizabethan English before he/she can read God's word with understanding.
    --------------------------------------------------

    Now you are making excuses that are contrary to the scriptures, the truth and faith in these.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #66 michelle, Aug 23, 2004
  7. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    That's right...THE KJVO IS WITHOUT EXCUSE. He/she is denying God's authority and ability to refine His word to meet the changes in the languages He causes/allows. Instead, the KJVO has fallen for a myth started by a known cult official.
    --------------------------------------------------


    The changes in a language do not constitute alterations of the truth in the scriptures, as we have seen the mv's are very guilty of. This is just another one of your excuses. The KJB is not a foreign language, but one STILL UNDERSTOOD and read and believed by the common person today. The "ends justifies the means" (very humanistic thinking) is not a biblical principle to apply to this issue, to which seems to me, you are doing for justification in condoning these errors. How is it that you sleep peacefully at night?


    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #67 michelle, Aug 23, 2004
  8. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How can this be that God provided the first translation which was the ?very words of God? yet with ?corruptions? in it?

    --------------------------------------------------

    Because for them, at that time, they were the very words of God, that they had and were available to them.

    And did God give'em CORRUPT versions?


    It was the belief eventually that the word had been corrupted. This is why they desired a new translation.

    Patently false. I provided the REAL reasons, as found in several reference books, which didn't have the FIRST HINT that anyone without some denominational axe to grind believed any of them to be corrupt. Of course, there were feeble local attempts to make BVs, same as now, but we're talking about those versions universally recognized in the English-speaking realm. Naturally, the RCC believed ANY English version was corrupt, & the Anglicans believed the "Calvinist" version was corrupt, etc. But no NEUTRAL reader wrote that those older versions were corrupt. Therefore, you're WRONG.


    Did you read the preface of 1611? If so, then you know what I am talking about. Other than that, all I know, is what was said there. Like I said, I didn't live then to know what people thought. I can only go by what was said in that time.

    So you believe ONLY those things in the AV 1611 that support the Onlyist myth? Seems like it! You believe those parts of the preface that MIGHT lean toward your myth, but you DISbelieve those very same men when they write a footnote explaining the wording of Ps. 12:7. Nothing like a good ole DOUBLE STANDARD to make your day, eh?


    Hank you are seriously in the wrong, condoning the errors in the modern versions over this. I would really think hard about this, and pray to the Lord for HIS wisdom and understanding concerning this issue.

    Hank's done just fine. Unlike some around here, he knows what he's talking about.

    We've PROVEN that the current KJVO myth was started by a CULT OFFICIAL. We've shown every KJVO premise as incorrect. We've shown KJVO was NOT preached in churches WHATSOEVER for many years, even though there have been multiple English versions around AND IN USE long after the KJV was made...BEFORE any so-called MV was made.

    What have YOU shown us? Nothing but "that's irrelevant" about something in which you're clueless, and "the MVS all have errors"...without the FIRST PIECE OF EVIDENCE! And you say, "The G&H aint important no more". In that case, you have NOTHING with which to prove any MV wrong...except, "It aint the KJV", which is circular reasoning, which proves NOTHING.

    That's why we mention circular reasoning...IT CANNOT PROVE NOR DISPROVE ANYTHING. It's just like the kid why asks a parent, "Why?"-& the parent responds, "Because".
     
    #68 robycop3, Aug 23, 2004
  9. AVL1984

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

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    7,506
    Likes Received:
    62
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is exactly what I'm trying to get to, Dr. Bob. It basically boils down to being a bibliolator. I hate it when KJVO's say that the MV's are perversions, corruptions, leave out the blood, etc. All the doctrines and fundamentals of the faith are found IN TACT in them. Viv and I left a church that had a Hylesite pastor nearly two years ago (may have been three), and we've never looked back. I've learned just as much or more from the NIV, NASB and other versions as I have from the KJV, and I still us the KJV by choice.

    AVL1984
     
    #69 AVL1984, Aug 23, 2004
  10. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Wrong, I am sure as I have said before that you are sincere in what you believe. Deceived in a few things IMO but sincere in those beliefs.

    Again I disagree. There is no yesterday for God and His Word. Everything about it and it’s history is relevant.

    But you and others keep bringing up the past. Just recently you gave us a history lesson concerning the translations of the different English Bibles, the believing churches for the past 400 years, etc., etc. Why do you allow yourself this luxury but balk when I try to answer these very posts using these facts of history you brought up, then somehow magically it is transformed into “ falsely turning the attention to the irrelevant past

    No more so than the King James translators who did not idolize these languages but justified why they were using them (Greek and Hebrew) instead of the Latin Vulgate as their prime source as translators down through the Church age have always done:

    Here again you appeal to history but won’t allow me the same priviledge.
    I will anyway. This is not factual, Dissenters, Anabaptists and Puritans gave little and usually no support to the AV calling it by the same names the KJVO use for the modern versions of our day.

    This is not true on my part, I have always let it be known that I support the Traditional Texts and do not subscribe to the theories of Wescott and Hort.
    I have also said that I support the MVs where they are faithful to the Traditional Texts.
    This means that I don't support the readings which disagree. Still even the "meanest" of them are the Word of God. BTW the KJ translators used the Latin Vulgate (including the Apocrypha) extensively in their translation, who much "meaner" can you get?
    On the contrary, I turn to the Greek and Hebrew to show the mistranslations in the KJV such as calling the Passover of God by the name of a Pagan goddess “easter”.
    Oh yes you have relied on scholars. You have taken the word of the Church of England scholars who (in the manner of the Pharisees and scribes) put fellow believers to death as well as affirming the baptism of babies calling it the “birth into the Church”

    Again, these were the words of our spiritual brethren who gave their lives (literally and wasting away in prison) and members of their bodies in opposition of the Church of England.

    IMO, you have been deceived by modern day scholars of whom you say you do not follow after. I believe you that you don’t have a first degree connection with them but anyone IMO who claims (for instance) that the “easter” in Acts 12:4 is not a mistranslation is their unwitting disciple.

    HankD
     
    #70 HankD, Aug 23, 2004
  11. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    "IN EVERY VALID ENGLISH BV, OLD OR NEW."

    --------------------------------------------------

    Please enlighten me, as to how it is that YOU DETERMINE what is VALID, and WHAT IS NOT?


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #71 michelle, Aug 23, 2004
  12. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    roby:But YOU said the G&H was irrelevant. Therefore, you have no grounds to stand on & say, "The MVs are corrupted" . Again, just saying, "They aint the KJV" simply won't do, as that would be circular reasoning, which PROVES nothing.
    --------------------------------------------------

    Yes I do, because the word of God that we have today in our language is from those texts.

    If they're irrelevant to you, how do you KNOW? If you ignore the background, someone coulda made some verses up & added'em, knowing there was no way to disprove they didn't belong there.


    The mv's are not from those same texts.

    If they're irrelevant, HOW DO YOU KNOW?


    Even without my knowing about the different stream of texts concerning the mv's and KJB, I still do not need to refer to the Greek and Hebrew to know that the mv's are in error.

    Yeah, we know, we know...QUEEN MICHELLE SAID SO!

    I have the word of God in MY OWN LANGUAGE and I have CHURCH HISTORY and I have FAITH and I have THE HOLY SPIRIT OF TRUTH and I have THE SCRIPTURES! The Hebrew and Greek are IRRELEVANT TODAY.

    Then you don't really know what's corrupt & what isn't. Like every other KJVO, you're just GUESSING.


    Why is it so hard for you to understand these simple FACTS?

    They're not hard at all for me to understand. I KNOW they're NOT facts. Simple enuff?

    Unlike the KJVO, I actually check out those statements for veracity, instead of merely guessing as YOU do.
     
    #72 robycop3, Aug 23, 2004
  13. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This has been answered for you before. If you would actually read the responses given to you rather than closing your mind when someone gives you a factual answer, you might not need to have these things repeated.

    To answer, one way to determine these things is by doctrinal agreement with other versions. Another way is for scholars to evaluate their faithfulness to the source text. Another way, albeit not as reliable, is to look at the beliefs and biases of the translators.
     
    #73 Scott J, Aug 23, 2004
  14. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    And to your statement that you have proven the KJBO side wrong. You couldn't be further from the truth. The truth cannot be proven wrong, as it is the truth.

    My point exactly. There's no truth in the KJVO myth
    --------------------------------------------------

    The truth, and the ONLY truth are the scriptures to which REVEAL JESUS CHRIST who is the TRUTH, robycop. This is the foundation of the faith for christians. (Mark 12:24, Luke 24:31-32, John 2: 22, 5:37-40, 7:38, 10:34-35, Acts 17:2-3, 11-13, Acts 18:26-28, Romans 15:4-6, Romans 16:25-27, 2 Tim.3, 2 Peter 1:16-21, 3:14-18)


    Where can you find this truth today?


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #74 michelle, Aug 23, 2004
  15. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle asked "Where can you find this truth today? "

    The Bible. Many versions, including (but not limited to) the Geneva.
     
    #75 natters, Aug 23, 2004
  16. Cix

    Cix New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
    Being ignorant must be cool.
     
    #76 Cix, Aug 23, 2004
  17. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    Michelle, simply explain how your premise is sound. No more vague answers. I don't mind you saying "John 16,17", but you are not explaining what in John 16,17 supports your premise, because I believe John 16,17 was also true before 1611. You are not explaining, you are dancing.
    --------------------------------------------------

    Please don't accuse my understanding of the truth and your not understanding it, "dancing around the issue". You are the one doin the dancing around the issue, and the question.


    Now please answer my question. Where is it that one can find the word of God perfectly in our own language today?


    If you cannot answer this question, I end this conversation with you, as you are only desiring to argue. I will not be party to it any longer. I have much better things to do with my time, than wasting it, on arguing with someone, who's only desire is to argue, and cares not at all for the truth.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #77 michelle, Aug 23, 2004
  18. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Michelle:God provided a better and more accurate translation with the 1611, to which he has preserved unto this very day. God is not doing a new thing, and reversing what he already provided.
    roby:No, He isn't. He's still providing His word in today's language. But the KJV, Geneva Bible, Tyndale's, etc. still exist in their original form. The only two that were changed are the Geneva Bible(quite a few editions between 1560 & 1599) and the AV 1611, with quite a few subsequent editions being made between 1611 and now.

    --------------------------------------------------

    If this is true, please then explain to me, how God is now allowing serious deletions/additions that affect the doctrines of our faith and the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, to his word of truth in our language, that he has kept preserved for generations?

    He may be removing that which shouldn't have been there, & restoring that which SHOULD be. A clear example is where the KJV and geneva Bible both read "grove" in 2 Kings 21:3. and other verses...when the HEBREW word is "ASHERAH", the SPECIFIC name of a certain idol idol...while "grove" is a small group of trees. The newer versions restore what GOD had His writers commit to parchment...ASHERAH.

    But you say the G&H are irrelevant. Therefore, if the AV translators had written "parking garage" in 2 Kings 21:3, you'd have accepted it without question.


    Is God changing back, and taking away from us, what He has provided all these generations?

    Knowledge has vastly increased since 1611, and that includes knowledge about GOD. In His own time, in His own methods, He could be further refining His word, removing some medieval mistakes carried over for generations. At any rate, He did NOT retire in 1611...He's still refining His word to fit the languages of today. Now, before you say something like, "You're letting the language tail wag the scriptural dog", remember WHO MADE ALL LANGUAGES and who CONTROLS all of them. NO change occurs in ANY language outside God's will.


    If I were you, I would think long and hard about this, and take off the glasses of doubt, a false man made label, just for once, so that you may see the truth. Stop focusing on the past, but focus on the here and now - present today. All you continually rant is doubt, and excuses for obvious errors. This is unacceptable to me.

    And what's unacceptable to ME is your constant statements, I.E. "All mvs are corrupt"..."The G&H are irrelevant"...without one scintilla of proof or evidence for such statements, which makes them absurd.
     
    #78 robycop3, Aug 23, 2004
  19. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Neither God nor scripture never promises a translation that is perfect in our own language today, so this point is quite moot.
     
    #79 Johnv, Aug 23, 2004
  20. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle asked "Now please answer my question. Where is it that one can find the word of God perfectly in our own language today?"

    I can and will answer your question when you demonstrate that the premise behind the question is sound. It is a simple request.
     
    #80 natters, Aug 23, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 4 of 5
Loading...