"Our Authorized Bible Vindicated", Ben Wilkinson

It would be wonderful if they would, Roby, but I think we both know better.

A KJVO wants only what backs him up. If it smacks of the truth, or it smells of anything that doesn't bow before the altar of the AV, they want no part of it.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

I could barely read that book just got to page 4 and I couldn't read anymore. amazing what they come up with.

 

I say,it is sad when someone from the SDA has more discernment concerning the word of God than the "good,godly scholars" that just want to "bring us closer to the originals";Rooking the common man with the re-instatment of the Jesuit Bible of 1582!

I do not endorse Wilkerson or the SDA,but the book he wrote just reflects what CHURCH HISTORY(and quotes pre-dating 1930) has been showing now for centuries;the rejection of the "oldest and best" from North Africa.

 

Hey Ed, another KJVO Double Standard! Exalt the scholarship of those who promote the KJVO myth, even SDA's and Anglicans, and minimize "good, godly scholars" who want to do the very same thing as the AV translators...bring God's Word into our language.

 

It is even more sad when a supposed conservative/fundamental Baptist persists in spouting lies, distortion, and error.

What was the Jesuit Bible of 1582 AA? Please prove that MV's are "closer" to it than the AV. That would be a rather incredible feat since the texts used for MV's wouldn't be developed until 300 years later.

Or better yet, tell us why the Catholic Erasmus is superior to these Jesuits for producing a reliable version of God's Word.

 

I am on to that! Your entry will be the 73rd documented
KJVO Double Standard documented.

The entry reads:

---210 - Exalt the scholarshi0p of those who promote the KJVO myth (even if SDAs & Anglicans); minimize good, godly scholars that work with MVs even if Baptists).

 

Bottom line fellows;
You don't believe it to be possible that God has preserved one 'book' for EACH language on earth, whereas we do. Simple. You call it myth. We call it faith. You call it scholarship. We call it fact. We trust a God big enough to override all your so-called problems with preservation, you do not.
Jim
And BTW EVERY 'double-standard' you accuse us of has been identified in your work as well. And when confronted, your gang also runs away. For example, see the thread in the Theology forum about accountability, no substantive replies when confronted with the absolute necessity for obedience to God in order to gain entrance into the millenial Kingdom. Don't play 'holier than thou' when discussing any subject here fellas, it don't look so good on anybody.

 

Amen Brother -- Preach it!

The KJV1611 edition is the preserved book
for 17th century English speaker.
The KJV1769 edition (usually called the
KJB) is the preserved book for
the 18th century English speaker.
The RSV is the preserved book for
the 19th century English speaker.
The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
is the preserved book for the
21st century English Speaker.

Amen, Praise Jesus, Glory to the Lord, Amen!

 

Believing in something in spite of the facts is not faith. It's fallacy.

It isn't a matter of faith Jim. KJVOnlyism is demonstrably false and has been proven false over and over again. You and your cohorts would rather ignore the truth than deal with it.

Scholarship is collation of facts in accordance with the rules of logic and reason with complete respect for the truth. You have to be willing to follow the facts where they lead even if they disprove something you want to believe.

You believe in neither scholarship nor the facts or else you wouldn't be KJVO.

We believe in a God that is big enough to preserve His Word without respect to the translation choices of 17th century Anglican scholars. We believe in a God whose Word can accurately be expressed by more than one set of words in any language.

We believe in a God that so highly esteems His Word that He has preserved it to us in the mss evidence and in many faithful texts and translations. That He can and has preserved His Word above and beyond the artificial limitations that KJVO's would place on Him for no other reason than vanity, insecurity, and pride.

Prove it. If you catch me in a double standard, I will gladly recant and change my views- or at the very least correct my argument. I suspect that all of us who oppose KJVOnlyism here would.

In my 4 or 5 years of frequenting this board, I don't think I have seen anyone from our side of the argument shrink or run away.

I have seen KJVO's come and go in much greater numbers than non-KJVO's. Usually when a KJVO comes in, is faced with a factual case against their position, and is not allowed to use hostility/shout down tactics/personal attacks/engage in un-Christian behavior- they leave.

I hope you will forgive some of us for not reading or posting on every thread you find interesting... but I admit that I have no idea what you are talking about. And just from the snippet you have shared- it doesn't sound very interesting or fruitful to me.

In any event, what does that thread have to do with versions?

First you say that you rely on faith while we rely on scholarship (and of course everyone knows that scholarship is modern and evil) then now you want to charge us with playing 'holier than thou'?

I have complete and total faith in God's Word. I don't have complete and total faith in the word choices of any group of fallible translators or textual scholars- NOR do I have faith in the conjectures of KJVO's who ignore all relevant evidence, scriptural principles, and methods of reason in an effort to maintain their presuppositions.

 

The Bible calls it presumption.

Deu 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. (KJV)

 

The King James Bible of 1611 is really two different Bibles that contradict each other in Ruth 3:15. Some 1611 King James Bibles read “he” in this verse and others read “she.”

In my study at home I have several King James Bibles. But they do not agree with each other as to what God’s Word says. One day I started comparing the New Testaments in all my King James Bibles and I just got started when I found this:

Mat 4:2 And when hee had fasted forty dayes and forty nights, hee was afterward an hungred. 1611

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered. 1817

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered. 1824

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1867

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered. 1874

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1898

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, Oxford Bible

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1917, Scofield Bible (Oxford)

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, recent, Oxford Bible

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, recent, Cambridge Bible

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward ahungered. 1971, American Bible Society


We find here five different renderings of the last phrase in Matt. 4:2, all of them in the KJV:

1. hee was afterward an hungred.
2. he was afterward an hungered.
3. he was afterward a hungered.
4. he was afterward an hungred.
5. he was afterward ahungered.

Has the KJV preserved for all eternity God’s Holy Word in English? My grandmother did a better job than this of preserving her strawberries.

God preserved Matt. 4:2 in Greek, and the Greek text here is very plain and easy to read. The KJV is confused and radically obscure. Anglican Bishop (1613-1667) Jeremy Taylor gave us this translation, “he was afterwards an hungry.”

The NASB 1995 is very plain and easy to read, “He then became hungry.” This is also a very accurate translation of the Greek tense here, the active aorist indicative.

[ June 23, 2004, 05:20 AM: Message edited by: Craigbythesea ]

 

Apparently you are typing in your sleep. KJOism has nothing at all to do with millennialism. But since you brought up the subject, there is no place in the Bible that says that “obedience to God” is an absolute necessity in order to gain entrance into the millennial Kingdom. Are you one of those confused Bible readers who believe that the Kingdom of God is synonymous with the Millennial Kingdom? The Millennial Kingdom is NOT synonymous with the Kingdom of God! The Millennial Kingdom is only one aspect of the Kingdom of God. To think that they are synonymous is like thinking that a crayon is synonymous with a box of crayons.

 

KJOism is obviously a false doctrine, but I do not believe that you have made the case for its origin. It would be interesting to me, however, to know more of its origins. Does any one know who first actually taught that the KJV is, exclusively, the Word of God?

 

All I can say is that why did Fuller steal BW's work and lie about it?

The KJVO myth makers today follow the set examples created by a SDA cultist. BW is the father of the modernism known as KJVOism. We see that those who claim to be I.F.Baptist are not so fundamental when it comes to KJVOism.

I have yet to see one KJVO correct Fuller for stealing another man's work and then telling lies about it. I guess this is another thread all together...

Anyway, I'm amazed when KJVOist defend BW and Fuller thus ignoring that between these two men are a cult, lies, and stealing! The fathers of the KJVO movement built the myth of KJVOism on the back of lies and deception.

If someone Bruce Metzger has used BW's ideas them KJVOist would scream so loud that the whole Earth would move!