Some Queries For KJV Proponents

The answer for me from God's Word for men like you can be cherry picked from
1 Corinthians 14:38

 

Rippon, I answered your post right away, and I answered honestly. I really do not delve into this matter anymore. I am not a scholar who makes a lifetime study out of this sort of thing. When I was young, I immediately noticed many differences between a KJV and RSV I owned. This caused me to be confused on which version is the accurate version of the Word of God, and at that time I read many detailed books on the subject, some of which dealt with issues you have brought up. But I can't even remember the names of the books I read. And that is not important to me anymore, I did learn enough from these books to be satisfied that the KJV translators did an excellent job of translating the scriptures with many strict tests to weed out errors.

But still, books like this are not positive proof that the KJV is the preserved, infallible, and inerrant Word of God. For every good book supporting the KJV, there is a good and scholarly book refuting it.

And this is what I have been trying to tell everybody from the beginning, you are never going to be able to prove this through scholarship. You are spinning your wheels needlessly.

2 Tim 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

You can study this subject for ever and you will never be able to come to the knowledge of the truth. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out, it is common sense.

It is always going to come down to whether you believe God's promise to preserve his pure word or not. I realized that, and I knew that God never lies and so his word is in the world today, and always will be. So, then the question becomes which version is that preserved version. All the various versions cannot be the preserved word of God because they differ greatly, often conveying a very different understanding that affects doctrine.

1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

The KJV in 1 Tim 3:16 tells us that Jesus was very God himself and that God was manifest in flesh. That is a fantastic statement concerning doctrine. The Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe Jesus is God, they believe him to be a lesser "god". So this is important doctrine here. What do the MVs say here?

1 Tim 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He [fn] appeared in a body, [fn] was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

The NIV simply says Jesus appeared in a body. So what? There is nothing special about that, you and I both appear in a body. Sure, there is a footnote saying that some versions say God here, but people do not always read the footnotes or give them the weight of scripture. And as I asked Ann when she said her children memorized scripture, do her kids memorize the footnotes? I seriously doubt they do. So, to argue that a footnote carries the weight of scripture is very unreasonable.

You keep on studying this issue, and when you find absolute proof through scholarship which version is the preserved, infallible, and inerrant Word of God you let me know. But I will not hold my breath.

 

Cutter, I read the verse out of curiosity and I think you are putting forth an attempt at some type of veiled insult or worse questioning someones salvation. And, all this over the fact that someone doesn't recognize the KJV as being the only legitimate version of the Bible. The last time I checked the Bible says (and I use the KJV.) For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:13) No where does it read, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, and believe that the KJV is the only legitimate Bible, shall be saved."

 

Winman, Mormons and JW's are great at text proofing too but that doesn't make them right.

 

I agree with you 100%. The whole doctrine of Calvinism is built on proof-texting and is total error in my opinion.

But showing obvious differences between the KJV and MVs is not a matter of proof texting. It is obvious to any sincere and honest reader that the various versions often convey a different meaning. Look at this important difference between the KJV and ASV.

KJV:

John 7:8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.
9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.
10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

ASV:

John 7:8 Go ye up unto the feast: I go not up unto this feast; because my time is not yet fulfilled.
9 And having said these things unto them, he abode [still] in Galilee.
10 But when his brethren were gone up unto the feast, then went he also up, not publicly, but as it were in secret.

Notice the ASV omits the first "yet" in verse 8. Is that important? Absolutely. The ASV appears to make Jesus a liar, he told his brothers he was not going up to this feast, and then in verse 10 he goes up.

An enemy of Christ could say Jesus was a liar and he could prove it with the scriptures. He could grab an ASV and go to John 7:8 and show people that Jesus said he was not going to this feast, but two verses later did.

Is that important? Would it make a difference if Jesus was a liar? Could he be our perfect and blameless sacrifice if he were a liar?

So, I ask you, does the omission of the first "yet" in John 7:8 in the ASV make an important difference? Do the KJV and ASV convey the exact same meaning in John 7:8?

 

No, in the ASV Jesus said he was not going to this particular feast period.

John 7:8 Go ye up unto the feast: I go not up unto this feast; because my time is not yet fulfilled.

Then two verses later he goes up secretly which an enemy of Christ could further use to argue that Jesus was not a perfectly honest person.

And the ASV does not provide a footnote showing that the KJV says "yet" here. And I'll ask again Ann, when your kids memorize the NIV, do you have them memorize the footnotes as well?

 

Much ado about nothing. A simple reading of the text (especially when you consider context instead of violently ripping it away) explains it without question.

Anyone who uses this to argue or intimate that Christ is not honest as a possibility must believe that is a possibility as a presupposition. I believe in the full deity of Christ and believe it is impossible for him to engage in duplicity.

I guess we disagree yet again.

 

If a new Christian were to read John 7:8 in the ASV it is easy to imagine this verse causing confusion, because according to this version Jesus clearly said he was not going up to this feast and two verses later did.

And there are plenty of folks out there who would love to attempt to prove from the scriptures that Jesus was not sinless. This passage as shown in the ASV could easily be used by them to say Jesus was a liar.

It is obvious that you are oblivious to any evidence that the KJV and MVs are very different in many verses and passages and clearly say different things many times. That's your problem, not mine.

 

Simple reading of the text in context with functioning cognitive skills. Amazing how that solves the issue.

Exactly! Only an illiterate moron or someone lifting verses out of context could come to such a conclusion. Again, JW's and Mormons proof text but that doesn't make their argument legit anymore than this outright attack on an MV. Funny, if we were to use the same technique on the KJV then we would be accused of attacking the Word of God. But, what's not alright for us is OK for KJVOnlyists. The hypocrisy is blaring.

 

Well, there are lots of morons out there, here is a new convert to Islam that uses this verse to prove Jesus was a liar. He claims the MVs are correct and that the KJV added the word "yet" to cover this up.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/bible_says_jesus_is_liar.htm

Now, what are the chances of converting a Muslim to Christ who has heard or read articles like this?

You can continue to deny all you want that this verse in the MVs can mislead a person to believe Jesus was a liar, I just proved to you that I was correct.

 

If God is doing the saving, 100%. If you are only trying to reason with him, he wouldn't hear you anyway.

 

God always does the saving, that is not the issue. You folks try to pretend this verse isn't misleading in the MVs, I just proved to you that it is, and can be used by those who hate Christ to teach Jesus is a liar.

And you seem to suggest a person can be saved outside hearing the gospel. If that is the case, then why are the scriptures necessary?

 

And I have shown you that the KJV is also used by those who hate Christ. So where does that leave you?

 

Wow, I can take the KJV or any number of MV's and use the different numbering schemes or the differing accounts of Jesus' resurrection and build a pretty good "proof text" case against the Bible. Again, JW's, Mormons, and now Muslims use proof verses to build their cases against the Bible, but that doesn't make them right. The "Jesus is a Liar" argument is as old and as lame as they come. Surely you can do better than that tired old argument.

 

Oh, for sure. But what is the title of that article?

The Bible says Jesus was a Liar

Of all those verses, he chose this as his title and focused first on John 7:8 to try to prove that Jesus was a sinner. Why? Because it clearly seems to say that in some versions like the ASV. He chose to list first what he felt was his strongest evidence.

Are any one of you willing to admit this verse could be misleading to some and used as an argument to try to prove Jesus was a sinner?

 

And further, if all the versions of scripture had the word "yet" as the KJV correctly says, isn't it true he would not be able to use this verse to attempt to prove the Bible says Jesus is a liar?

Come on, tell the truth. You know the answer to that question.

You see, that fellow is actually arguing that the MVs are correct, and only later added the word "yet" in the footnotes as a coverup. He believes the verse as shown is correct in the MVS. But the word "yet" was always in the KJV, which he considers a corruption added later. So this fellow in effect supports the MVs over the KJV. Doesn't that tell you something?