Real and perceived reasons

Alcott, the option on your poll read, "Influence of church, family, or friends". Since when did reading an idea in a book, then reading other books and the Bible, and ultimately putting one's trust the preservation of God's word, count as "influence of church, family, or friends?" Besides, your poll asks WHY we believe something; not how we first heard about it. I first heard about creationism from my mother. But she's not the reason WHY I believe it. Your previous post, to which I was responding, was telling us to admit what the other side could easily see, and one of your examples was "tradition". Well, just because the other side thinks they can see it, it doesn't mean they've got their glasses on. Again, I am not going to admit that which is not true.

 

I read something similar - it made sense and seemed to fit the facts and the Bible.</font>[/QUOTE] Which facts? What did you read and who is the source that convinced you?

I have faith in the preservation of God's Word. However, reading you post it sounds like your choice of the KJV as the single manifestation of that preservation was rather arbitrary. I know you weren't trying to be comprehensive in your explaination but I am wondering how the KJV was chosen out of a great number of legitimate options.

Not trying to be offensive but this seems to fit the charges cast against KJVO's. Namely, that you decide what you want to believe then evaluate and collate facts based on whether they agree with your presuppositions.

The relevant question I suppose is, "What would it take to change your belief in KJVOnlyism?"

For instance, I would adopt KJVOnlyism if someone could cite scripture that proved it or if someone could use historical/mss facts to prove it in a way that left no contradictions.

 

Well, I once saw a book for sale (about evolution), which I thought looked interesting. I bought it for THAT reason. I then read another book BECAUSE it was written by that same author, whom I had enjoyed the last time. That book reccomended another book on another science issue, which I bought for THAT reason, and ALSO because it looked interesting. That book introduced me the KJVO. I find this quite a stretch from "influence of church, family or friends"!!!

Exactly! I don't hold to the AV because of where I heard about it, but because of the preservation of God's word, and other things I clikced on your poll.

I said it to point out that the person who introduces you to something is not neccassarily the reason why you believe it!!! My mother is Anglican; I am a baptist. My mother introduced me to baby-sprinkling. Does that mean I believe it? Let alone the REASON for believing it?

 

I read quite a bit; but I suppose the most important thing was Psalm 12.

I will answer your question, but am not prepared to argue it in this thread, because it goes beyond the stated subject. I chose the AV becuase it bares more hall-marks of the preserved word of God than any other version I know of (except perhaps the Old Latin). It has saved more people, brought more Godly living, etc. It was also providentially preserved by God in a way the other Reformation English versions (of which it was a distilling and purification) were not. It is also in the international language, which language BEGAN to be the international language during James I's reign; and is also translated from the TR texts, which, as many will agree with me, were also provientially preserved. Now you know why I believe what I do - now why do you believe your position (bare in mind that the Bible nowhere teaches God's word would only be preserved imperfecctly)?

Rubbish. You have NO IDEA what I wanted to believe. I actually WANTED to believe that the NKJV was just as good as, if not better than, the AV. You know NOTHING of my situation, so please stop making comments like that. Besides, have you NEVER believed something, and then checked more facts, which either change your mind or cement your view? It is nothing to do with "choosing what we want to believe"; rather to do with going off what evidence there is, and then finding more.

Well,
1. If someone would show me another view being aspoused in scripture - e.g. a verse that shows God preserves his word only in imperfect copies; or that Hebrew and Greek are always better than English; or that God cannot work through translators to translate perfectly; or that only the originals were inspired or perfect. And
2. If someone showed me another candidate for the preserved Bible that had more evidence in its favour than the AV.

But this may be off-topic!

 

Well,
1. If someone would show me another view being aspoused in scripture - e.g. a verse that shows God preserves his word only in imperfect copies; or that Hebrew and Greek are always better than English; or that God cannot work through translators to translate perfectly; or that only the originals were inspired or perfect. </font>[/QUOTE]How about verses that show Jesus using a different version of Isaiah? Compare the exact wording of Isa. 61:1-2 with the exact wording of the same passage in the Bible Jesus read from in Lk. 4:16-21. Apparently Jesus had no problems with different versions, so why should we?

 

But Archangel, I could use the same argument to advocate the New World Translation - "apparently Jesus had no problems with a different version, so why should we?" We don't know why our English text in Luke reads differently to that in Isaiah; but it in no way proves that one of them isn't word-for-word correct; nor that "any version goes". In fact, I could just as easily use this passage to argue that Jesus was quoting from another translation, which, although very slightly different from the Hebrew, was yet perfect and totally without error. Alternatively, he could have been quoting from a faulty source, which was never-the-less completely true in that passage: e.g. if the AV is correct in Luke 4:5, then the NIV must also be correct in Luke 4:5, even though they use slightly different words. I am quite right to say the NIV speaks the truth in this passage; but it does not make it correct in every passage. But whatever the reason, this passage is a far-cry from a verse that tells me that God would not move in translators to translate perfectly; or that God only preserves his word in imperfect copies; or that only the originals were inspired or perfect. I am still waiting...

But I think we are wandering off-topic. This is about reasons why people believe something; not arguments about the validity or otherwise of their beliefs. Perhaps we should start a new thread?

 

No you couldn't. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that Jesus used the text He read from carelessly or with a "it doesn't matter, anything goes" attitude. There is every reason to believe that He used that text authoritatively.

The most reasonable conclusion is that Jesus used a different text of Isaiah than the KJV translators did.

But it does prove that one of them IS NOT word-for-word perfect and therefore by extension the KJV is not word-for-word perfect either.

You keep setting this straw man up- so who on our side believes this way?

Which is exactly what we have been trying to get you to recognize about MV's all along.

It is not our responsibility to show you a verse that says God would not do something. There are many things that God would not do for which there are no direct scriptures.

You are the one affirming that He did so move translators. It is your job to show scripture or proof that demonstrates that He promised or did what you say. You cannot establish doctrine from biblical silence. If God didn't say it and there is no other tangible proof of it then it follows that God didn't do it.

The originals were inspired by God and therefore perfect because He is perfect. This idea has scriptural support.

They were subsequently collated, copied, and translated by men. There is no scriptural support for the proposition that God divinely inspired any of these workers and because all of the copies appear to be imperfect (by a word-for-word standard) by one measure or another we can only deduce that God did not directly inspire this work. You can prove He did by identifying that single perfect manuscript of the NT that followed a perfect, uninterrupted line of divinely inspired transmission from the originals. Hint: It won't be the TR since the TR has readings with no Greek support at all.

It is your job to demonstrate that a) scripture says that translators will be inspired and b) the KJV translators were inspired.