Preserved in English God's Word KJV

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by DeclareHim, Aug 12, 2004.

  1. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    Most of us on this board believe God said He would preserve His Word. But our KJVO friends deny this with there beliefs. They say God preserved His Word in the English language but there was no copy of God's Word in English before 1100 A.D. So God didn't keep His promise (according to the KJVO) because we didn't always have a copy of God's Word in the English language. (This is the very reason I believe in manuscript inspiration and preservation.) We have always had a mss so therefore according to my beliefs God has always preserved His Word.
    [​IMG]
     
  2. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    How you come to this conclusion is that they say all mss today are corrupted :confused: Because if it's not corrupted then we could make new translations.
     
  3. Trotter

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    DeclareHim,

    If it is not a manuscript that the KJV derived from, then it must be corrupted. At least, that is the logic (or lack thereof) that the KJVO use.

    They seem to forget that the KJV does not come from ANY manuscript, but from a compilation of several different manuscripts and the Latin Vulgate. But, then, facts have never been a strong point for the KJVO falacy.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  4. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  5. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]

    Not debating but I thought this was funny.
     
  6. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,429
    Likes Received:
    72
    If only that graphic could be used without the KJV 1611 on the front....
     
  7. KJVBibleThumper

    KJVBibleThumper
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me explain something about the Wescott and Horton text that most(if not all,im not sure.) MVs use...it came from manuscripts found in a Roman Catholic monastary.I believe the manuscripts were called the "Vaticanus"(sp?),this does not seem like a very good thing to use to me.
     
  8. KJVBibleThumper

    KJVBibleThumper
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] </font>[/QUOTE]We have a lot of facts,its your side that doesnt. [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  9. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    KJVBibleThumper said "Let me explain something about the Wescott and Horton text that most(if not all,im not sure.) MVs use...it came from manuscripts found in a Roman Catholic monastary".

    Gasp!

    And just where do you think the Byzantine manuscripts were kept??? Gail Riplinger's attic?
     
  10. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    KJVBible ironically followed this up with "We have a lot of facts":

    Let me explain something about the Wescott and Horton text that most(if not all,im not sure.) MVs use...it came from manuscripts found in a Roman Catholic monastary.

    Uh, no, it was a Greek Orthodox monastery.

    I believe the manuscripts were called the "Vaticanus"(sp?),

    The name you are groping for is Sinaiticus. (Gee, I wonder where an MS named "Vaticanus" might have been found?)

    this does not seem like a very good thing to use to me.

    Yes, better we use the thousands of other manuscripts preserved by the Catholics and Orthodox than this one or two, right?

    Man, I love it when the KJV-onlyists try to impress us poor heathen with "facts." You gotta [​IMG] [​IMG] .
     
  11. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Plus Church history and Scripture to boot(Acts 11 & 13).
     
  12. Major B

    Major B
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/6069.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't usually get involved in this forum, but the first English translation of which we have a record was Wycliffe's in the late 1300s.

    Second, the preservation of old manuscripts was ALL accomplished by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox scholars in their areas, and MUSLIM scholars (in North Africa).
     
  13. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Anti-Alexandrian said "Plus Church history and Scripture to boot(Acts 11 & 13)."

    Ya, history and scripture are FULL of KJV-only teachings. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
     
  14. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    1389AD
     
  15. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey, Natters, be nice.
    BOth Acts 11 and Acts 13 mention the
    city of Syrian Antioch (not to be confused
    with Pisidian Antioch). To bad that
    the Antiochian texts are more often referred
    to as the Benyzine Texts by most scholars.
    But, of course, by KJVO Double standards:
    the comments of an ignorant KJVO superceeds
    the comments of a wise foreign language
    scholar.
     
  16. AVL1984

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

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    Thanks for that laugh! I needed it! Yes, I can just see the Apostle John circa 90AD preaching from the KJV! LOL NOT! ;)

    AVL1984 [​IMG]
     
  17. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    KJVBT said:

    Why not ?

    Not everything that comes out of the Vatican is wrong.

    The Reformers all came out of the Vatican, and thanks to that era, you have the beginnings of your KJV, right ?
     
  18. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's right,but that's just it,they got away from it,just like they got away from the Vatican's official mss.;Apocrypha and all.

    Do a little research into Church history,you will find the rejection of the "oldest and best"(and the "bibles" from them) is nothing new.
     
  19. AVL1984

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

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    Please, don't confuse them with the facts. They don't want to acknowledge that the reformers were splinters off the RCC. They don't want to acknowledge that the KJV is a part of that heritage. It frightens them. [​IMG]

    AVL1984 [​IMG]
     
  20. Major B

    Major B
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/6069.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even Dean Burgeon (sp) and Everett Hills did not attempt to go with "English preservation." I do not agree with their conclusions, but at least they are intelligent and plausible.

    And, speaking of church history, an interesting point is that the Puritans, by and large, did not accept the KJV when it came out--they greatly preferred the Geneva Bible to the "modern" version of the KJV translators. It took a generation for the KJV to take hold.
     

Share This Page

Loading...