Response to Logos' Response to Winman

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by DrJamesAch, Jul 4, 2013.

  1. DrJamesAch

    DrJamesAch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are making an enormous distinction without a difference here. You are attempting to make a straw man out of a mere semantic difference between "autograph" and "language". So if the KJV translators said "original LANGUAGE" instead of "original AUTOGRAPH", you make this sound as if the KJV (or any translator for that matter) was not referring to anything IN WRITING". Since the Koine Greek is now a dead language, and even many of the grammatical rules are out dated (certain dative usages) it is obvious that God did not preserve the original LANGUAGE, so obviously when you are making claims that the Scripture is preserved in the original languages, it is a reference to an AUTOGRAPH, otherwise the claim makes absolutely no sense, and bases the determination of what is and is not the word of God on a subjective standard of evidence.

    When one looks beyond the surface of your argument, this is exactly what you are claiming. That preservation and/or inspiration is limited and confined to the WORDS that were SPOKEN instead of the WORDS that were WRITTEN. Considering that most of Paul's epistles came through DICTATION and some written by PAULS OWN HAND, it is erroneous to attempt to make a distinction from what was written from what was spoken when the evidence shows that BOTH methods resulted in inspired and preserved revelation in print.

    Yet you bifurcate between the 2. You argue for the written inspiration when attempting to validate the veracity of other mss sources that support other translations as scripture, but argue against it when attempting to refute arguments that there are no more original "autographs".

    This much I would have to agree with. There were no complete Greek translations of the OT until close to the 2 century. However, that is certainly not the position of the KJVO critics (like yourself) who argue that the LXX DID exist prior to Origen's Hexapla. So according to your own antiKJVO scholars, the Eunich ver well could have been reading from a Greek copy of Isaiah.

    Nevertheless, that argument is not necessary to prove that there were Greek translations of Hebrew. Acts was still written in Greek. I can site 100 verses off the top of my head that were translated from Hebrew to Greek when the New Testament was written, ALL of which prove that translations fell under inspiration as well as preservation. (Matt 1:23, 2:6, 2:15, 2:18, 3:3, 4:4,7,15-16, 8:17,9:13, 10:35-36, 11:10, 12:18-21, 13:14-15,45, Mark 1:2-3, 4:12, 7:10, Luke 3:4-6, 4:10, 7:27, 8:10, John 1:23, 12:40, Acts 1:20, 2:17-20, 25-28, 13:35, 3:22-23, 7:37, Romans 2:24, 3:10-18, 4:3,7-8, 17-18,22, 8:36, 9:7,9,12-13,15,17,20,25-28, 10:5,6-8,11 {vs 9 is OT but this is a paraphrase}15,18-21 ETC>>>>)

    And somehow you don't think this applies to Westcott, Hort, or Tregelles and Tischendorf, particularly when Vaticanus was missing for 10 years while the diocese in Russian, France and Rome were attempting to track it down, and the evidence of which can now be seen is that there are erasure marks in the texts of both the Siniaticus and Vaticanus possessed by W&H, Tragelles and Tischendorf that were used to underwrite the RV?

    And yet this was acceptable practice with the Hebrews, but is used as a criticism against the KJV EDITIONS (not VERSIONS) that contained spelling errors that were corrected, and the editions with the spelling and/or printing errors discarded.

    And yet KJVO critics refuse to write books about the inaccuracies, omissions, corruptions of THEIR sources, and downright dishonest practice of removing texts of familes that agree with the TR into an Alexandrian family of mss to show that the Alexandrian holds a greater amount of variants and renderings than the TR, or where Aleph and D were corrected to agree with the Traditional Text (for example, where Aleph and D were corrected to agree with the TT on Romans 8:1 because they knew they could not make the accusation that the KJV rendering was based on 11th and 12th century readings when evidence from the 4th century Antiochian and Graeco-Syrian texts said otherwise).

    KJVO critics rely on a distorted view of preservation and inspiration to support their criticisms, and create rules that they themselves do not practice in their own translations. They claim not to be "KJV critics" but you don't see any books written by a KJVO critic criticizing the "errors" in THEIR translations.

    "Thus speaketh the Lord God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book." Jer 30:2
     
    #1 DrJamesAch, Jul 4, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 4, 2013
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    KJV-only advocates continue to show clear misunderstanding or to make obvious distortions and misrepresentations. I did not make it sound at all like the preserved Scriptures in the original languages "was not referring to anything in writing."

    You are jumping to a hasty, false conclusion or are trying to make an distinction that I did not make.

    According to its title page and its preface, the KJV professes to be translated from the original languages. According to its title page for the New Testament, the 1611 KJV's New Testament was "newly translated out of the original Greek." The first rule for the translating referred to “the truth of the original.“ The sixth rule and fifteen rule referred to “Hebrew” and to “Greek.“ Lancelot Andrewes, a KJV translator, wrote: "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 59).

    In the preface to the 1611 KJV entitled "The Translators to the Reader," Miles Smith favorably quoted Jerome as writing “that as the credit of the old books (he meaneth the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth the original Greek.
    Then Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "If truth be to be tried by these tongues [Hebrew and Greek], then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles." In this preface, Smith wrote: “If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.“ Earlier on the third page of this preface, Smith referred to “the original” as “being from heaven, not from earth.“

    Laurence Vance cited the report of the British delegates (including KJV translator Samuel Ward) to the 1618 Synod of Dort that included a reference to “the truth of the original text” (King James, His Bible, p. 47). In the dedication to King James in the 1611, Thomas Bilson also acknowledged that the KJV was a translation made “out of the original sacred tongues.“ John Eadie noted that the account of the Hampton Court conference written by Patrick Galloway, the king’s Scottish chaplain, [“an account revised by the king himself”] stated “that a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek” (English Bible, II, p. 179).
     
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Your reasoning is faulty. The fact that God gave the New Testament prophets and apostles Greek words to translate Old Testament Hebrew or Aramaic words or that God directed them in the specific words to use to translate them themselves as part of the miracle of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God does not show that later translations after the end of the giving of the Scriptures or the completion of the New Testament fall under inspiration and preservation.

    Those words cited from the Old Testament in the New Testament were part of the giving of the New Testament Scriptures to the prophets and apostles.

    That is not the same thing as later translating by men who were not given their words directly from God by a miracle of inspiration.

    The making of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revison and the making of the KJV does not fall under the giving of the New Testament to the prophets and apostles by inspiration of God. Your inconsistent, faulty reasoning does not deal with the fact that the early English translators often disagreed on how to translate the same original language words.

    The Scriptures are the specific written words of God given by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles. According to the Scriptures, God revealed His Word to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 2:10-13, Rom. 16:25-26, Heb. 1:1-2, Acts 1:2, Eph. 2:20, Acts 3:21, John 16:13, John 17:8, 14, John 3:34, 2 Sam. 23:2, Luke 24:25, 27, 44) and not by means of human wisdom or scholarship including that of the KJV translators. The words that proceeded directly out of the mouth of God are those original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Matt. 4:4). God’s Word is “the Scriptures of the prophets” (Rom. 16:26, Matt. 26:56). God gave His words or spoke by the mouth of the prophets (Luke 1:70). All Scripture was given by inspiration of God to those prophets and apostles (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, Jude 1:3). While 2 Timothy 3:16 may not directly mention the prophets and apostles, the parallel verse concerning inspiration (2 Pet. 1:21) clearly connected the miracle of inspiration to them when considered with other related verses. Comparing scripture with scripture, the holy men of God moved or borne along by the Holy Spirit in the miracle of inspiration were clearly the prophets and apostles (2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 16:26, Luke 1:70, Matt. 26:56). The words that the psalmist wrote in Psalm 95 the Holy Spirit spoke or said (compare Ps. 95:7 with Hebrews 3:7). What Moses said to Pharaoh as the LORD told him (Exod. 9:13), the Scripture said (Exod. 9:16, Rom. 9:17). God's Word indicates that there can be no new inspired works without living apostles or prophets (2 Peter 1:21, Eph. 3:3-5, Heb. 1:1-2, Luke 1:70, 24:27, 44-45, Acts 1:16, 3:21, 26:27, Matt. 2:5, Rom. 1:2, Rom. 16:25-26, Jer. 29:19, 2 Chron. 36:12, Dan. 9:10, Amos 3:7).


    Since the entire Old Testament was designated by God with names such as "Moses and the prophets," "the law and the prophets," “all the prophets and the law,“ and “the scriptures of the prophets,“ this could be understood to indicate that all the O. T. writers were prophets (Luke 16:29, 16:31, 24:27; Matt. 5:17, 7:12, 11:13, 22:40, 26:56; Luke 16:16; John 6:45, Acts 24:14, 26:22, 28:23; Rom. 1:2, 3:21, 16:26). The writer of Hebrews could be understood to describe the entire Old Testament as what God spoke by the prophets (Heb. 1:1). William Whitaker affirmed “that the whole scripture of the old Testament was written and promulgated by prophets” (Disputation on Holy Scripture, p. 50). At Luke 16:29, the writer (Moses) is put for his writings. Moses was a prophet (Deut. 34:16). Since the Psalms is sometimes included in the designation "the prophets," it shows that their writers could have been considered prophets. In addition, individual writers of the Psalms were referred to as prophets (Matt. 13:35, Acts 2:30). The oracles of God [the Old Testament Scriptures] given to the prophets were committed unto the Jews (Rom. 3:2) in the Jews‘ language. The writers who received the revelation concerning Christ that would be recorded in the New Testament also seem to be regarded as being prophets or apostles or both (Eph. 3:3-5, 2:20). The N. T. prophets given to the church may refer especially to those prophets that were given revelation that would be written as part of the New Testament (1 Cor. 12:28, Eph. 4:11, Eph. 3:3-5, Eph. 2:20). Along with the Old Testament, New Testament writings are also called Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16, 1 Tim. 5:18). The apostle Peter asserted that the commandment of the apostles are connected with the words revealed and spoken by the prophets (2 Pet. 3:1-2). The apostle Paul noted that his writing or epistle was “the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by means of the Holy Spirit and later written referred to those words that were written in the original languages (1 Cor. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:2, John 17:8, Heb. 1:1-2). The words or word that Jesus Christ spoke were in the original language in which they were given by inspiration to the New Testament writers (John 12:48). Jesus Christ stated: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47). The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses wrote them.

    If some will not accept the authority of the Word of God given to Moses and the prophets and then to the apostles, how will they be persuaded by the translating work of Church of England scholars in 1611 that is in effect separated or cut off from the proper authority of the original language Scriptures according to a consistent application of KJV-only claims or reasoning?
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2

    You failed in your attempt to misrepresent and distort my complete acceptance of what the Scriptures actually state and teach concerning inspiration and preservation.

    Your misunderstanding and misrepresentation of my view which is in agreement with the view of the early English translators including the KJV translators should be obvious.

    You seem to assume falsely that I supposedly accept the Critical Text when I have not recommended the Critical text and have not recommended any English translations made from it. You should learn and know what my view actually is before you make accusations concerning it.

    A consistent and scriptural view of preservation would be true both before and after 1611. A consistent and scriptural view of Bible translation would apply to translations in all languages, not just in English. Typical KJV-only claims cannot be applied consistently.

    Arguments for a modern KJV-only theory depend upon fallacies and upon the use of unscriptural, unrighteous divers measures [double standards].
     
  5. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    Board members names are not allowed to be a part of thread titles.
     
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    You failed to understand what was properly and clearly stated as you misrepresent and distort what I stated. Nothing in what I stated suggested that preservation and/or inspiration was supposedly limited to words that were spoken. How did you imagine such an incorrect claim?

    The word Scripture refers to what is written. I also referred to copies and copiers which clearly is a reference to written words.
     
  7. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Dr. James Ach:


    Have you forgotten where the current KJVO myth comes from? it's derived from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book, jumpstarted by two dishonest authors, withNO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT whatsoever. So, please don't accuse Freedom Readers of making their own rules, while you're working under a completely MAN-MADE theory.
     
  8. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    You must be talking about Westcott and Hort.
     
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Robycop3 was referring to Jasper James Ray [author of God Wrote Only One Bible] and David Otis Fuller [author of Which Bible?].
     
  10. DrJamesAch

    DrJamesAch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have THOROUGHLY debunked your allegation that the KJVO was derived from Wilkinson in several threads that you skipped right over, or got so personal that the thread got closed. I gave you a plethora of other authors of whom Wilkinson derived his ideas that prove that KJVO was not originated in a 7th Day Adventist as you and others claim, and have shown in particular that the 7DA to this day do not agree with Wilkerson on his claims.

    You simply continue to repeat the same lie over and over again as if you've found some "ace in the whole", that one person in history that happens to agree with the KJVO makes all KJVO guilty by association.

    And "scriptural support" for the KJVO? Are you really that stupid? What, should we expect to find a verse in the Bible that says "thou shalt read the KJV only" and because such a verse isn't found, that means its a myth? Where's the "scriptural support" that shows that NIV is the Bible? Where's the "scriptural support" that shows the ESV is the Bible? The NASB, the CEV? Show me one verse in the Bible (whichever one you assume is the Bible) that shows that ANY MODERN VERSION is the Bible?

    Show me anywhere in whatever it is you consider a Bible where "Freedom Readers" is with "scriptural support".

    The fact is when you boil your logic down to its utter conclusion, you nor Logos believe that we have any infallible word of God in ANY translation let alone the KJV. You couldn't produce a copy of it if your life depended on it.
     
  11. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    On what proper basis of logic do you determine any claimed facts when you accept and use fallacies such as begging the question, special pleading, the fallacy of composition, and fallacy of false dilemma along with unscriptural, unrighteous divers measures [double standards] on which a modern, man-made KJV-only theory depends?


    Is your supposed defence of your KJV-only theory your attacks on any believer who disagrees with your non-scriptural opinions?
     
  12. DrJamesAch

    DrJamesAch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    You specifically in what I responded and SEVERAL OTHER PLACES when it is convenient for you to do so "IT IS NOT CLAIMED THAT THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS WERE INSPIRED". You are NOT in agreement with even that which the KJV translators stated because you don't know WHICH of the 'original languages' that they referred to IN WRITING was or is the word of God.

    Of course you don't espouse to the critical text, you don't espouse to ANY text as the infallible word of God.

    Your argument itself is wholly premised on the assumption that I think the KJV is a completely new revelation that is different from any previous Greek, Hebrew, or Latin translations.

    And what's really funny is you and Robosnob offer the ridiculous guilty by association argument that the KJVO originated with Wilkinson which means that the ANTI KVJO literature that agrees with 7DA, Watchtower, the Roman Catholic Church, and even ATHEISTS prove that you have much more in common with heretics that then KJVO have in common with ONE member of an 7DA church who happened to agree with the KJV.

    Are you aware that the "original language" was not the same Hebrew that it was in the Hebrew spoken in the 1st century circa? Hebrew evolved just as English has evolved, as Greek evolved and changed over time. What was spoken by Moses was not the same "original" Hebrew that was spoken in the 1st century, or even 300 years before that NT was written exactly as it was spoken in Moses' day. Furthermore, your argument makes it IMPOSSIBLE that God's word could be truly considered God's word in any other language other than the "original languages".

    In Acts 2, on the day of Pentacost, were those who spoke in 20 different languages NOT REALLY glorifying God because what they said under the direct movement of the Holy Spirit wasn't Greek or Hebrew? Your accusation is that all KJVO believe that the KJV is a brand new revelation that differs from the "original languages" but you argue with the EXACT SAME LOGIC by claiming that the word of God can't truly exist outside of the original languages, that a translation and copy of what you consider inspired and/or preserved is not the same thing as the "original" which in effect, has the exact same result as arguing for a translation that is completely different from the originals in the English Bibles, which makes you just as guilty as what you accuse KJVO of.
     
  13. DrJamesAch

    DrJamesAch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    You forgot your fallacy of dodging the obvious: WHERE IS THE WORD OF GOD?

    And you claim the KJVO is a "man-made" myth, but yet your textual criticism is a science based on the made-made theories developed by Westcott & Hort. A large quotient of sources you obtain your information from are themselves not orthodox in their own beliefs, do not agree with each other, and none of them write books attacking their own preferred translations.

    No honest Bible believer had a problem with the KJV outside of the ilk of the RCC until this last century, and in that light, you are no different than the Jesuits and the Opus Dei infiltrating churches with philosophical clap trap to destroy believers faith in the word of God.
     
  14. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Were the KJV translators "dishonest"?

    Are you claiming that the translators of the KJV were not "honest Bible believers"?

    In their 1611 preface, the KJV translators asserted: "No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it."

    Are you trying to claim that Baptists and other believers in the 1600's that referred to Episcopal bias and errors in the KJV were not "honest Bible believers"?

    S. H. Ford observed that Leonard Busher, a Baptist, in 1613/14 in his A Plea for Liberty of Conscience stated that there were "certain false translations" in the KJV, but he lacked the means and money to print and publish them (Origin of the Baptists, p. 20). Cramp noted that Busher's unpublished tract was entitled: "A Declaration of Certain False Translations in the New Testament" (Baptist History, p. 292). In a book that includes a reprint of Busher's Plea, Edward Underhill observed that Busher was zealous for "the truthful translation of the word of God" (Tracts, p. 6).

    Are you saying that Benjamin Blayney, editor of the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV, was not an "honest Bible believer"?

    The reviser of the 1769 edition of the KJV, Benjamin Blayney (1728-1801), said that he corrected many errors found in former editions (Scrivener, Authorized Edition, p. 238). In his introduction to his new 1784 translation of Jeremiah, Blayney maintained that “our present Version in common use” [the KJV] “is still far from being so perfect as it might and should be” (p. xiv-xv). In this same introduction, Blayney recommended: “Let the work of purifying and reforming what is amiss in the present Edition of our Bible be fairly and honestly set about, and with that moderation and soberness of mind which the gravity of the subject requires” (pp. xviii-xix).

    Are you claiming that Baptist pastor Charles Spurgeon was not an "honest Bible believer"?

    In his preface to the 1859 book The English Bible: History of the Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English Tongue by Mrs. H. C. Conant, Charles Spurgeon noted: "And it is because I love the most Holy Word of God that I plead for faithful translation; and from my very love to the English version, because in the main it is so, I desire for it that its blemishes should be removed, and its faults corrected" (p. xi). Spurgeon continued: “It is of course an arduous labour to persuade men of this, although in the light of common sense the matter is plain enough. But there is a kind of Popery in our midst which makes us cling fast to our errors, and hinders the growth of thorough reformation; otherwise, the Church would just ask the question, ‘Is this King James’ Bible the nearest approach to the original?‘ The answer would be, ‘No; it is exceedingly good, but it has many glaring faults’” (p. xi). In his same preface, Spurgeon wrote: "I ask, from very love of this best of translations, that its obsolete words, its manifest mistranslations, and glaring indecencies should be removed" (p. xii).

    Are you using unscriptural, unrighteous divers measures [double standards] in your determination of who is supposedly a "honest Bible believer"?
     
  15. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    You bear false witness by making a bogus, false accusation. You are also using what you termed a "ridiculous" guilt by association claim.

    My view of the Scriptures and of Bible translations has nothing to do with Westcott & Hort. I already clearly informed you that I have not recommended the Critical Greek Text or English translations made from the Critical Text. You have not demonstrated that my scripturally based view has anything to do with Westcott and Hort.

    My view of Bible translations is the same basic view as that held by the Reformers, by the early English translators including the KJV translators, and by many honest Bible believers throughout history.
     
    #15 Logos1560, Jul 8, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 8, 2013
  16. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    You continue improperly to try to misrepresent and distort what I stated. You avoid dealing with what the Scriptures state and teach.

    I have nowhere claimed that the word of God cannot exist outside the original languages.

    One of my points which is in agreement with what the KJV translators themselves asserted is that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages remain the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all translations.
     
  17. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    What imagined fallacy?

    The Word of God is found in the same ways today as it was before 1611.

    The proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of translations before 1611 was the preserved Scriptures in the original languages just as today.

    Are you suggesting that KJV-only advocates are using a fallacy when they dodge or avoid naming any one specific Old Testament manuscript or even any one Old Testament printed edition of the original language text and any one specific New Testament manuscript or even printed edition of the Greek NT based on Greek manuscripts with textual differences that the KJV translators actually used that is 100% perfect?
     
  18. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Instead of presenting any sound, scriptural case for a KJV-only theory, KJV-only advocates respond with the use of fallacies and attacks on believers. KJV-only advocates attempt to rewrite history, ignoring the truth.

    Using a fallacy of false dilemma and ad hominem fallacy, the honesty or integrity of all Bible believers who do not blindly accept unproven KJV-only opinions is in effect attacked.
     
  19. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    Which versions do you see as being the word of God?
    Are you KJV Preferred, as the nasb/esv etc you would see as being inferior versions, but still word of God?
     
  20. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    Well,it certainly isn't God-made!

    Of course you should define "had a problem with the KJV". Conservative Bible scholars in the 17th century wanted to improve it. You need to elaborate.

    Now here is where your title of "Dr." is hard to justify. You have just entered into the world of Jack Chick here.
     

Share This Page

Loading...