Tell it Like it is

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Pioneer, Jun 3, 2003.

  1. Pioneer

    Pioneer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Because there is a "poll" to see if the King James Bible is really under attack on the Baptist Board, I decided to put forth a challenge to all modern version advocates.

    You all claim that you do not attack the King James Bible when you attack the beliefs of us who are King James Bible believers (KJVO). Here is the challenge: Please show me what is wrong with believing that the King James Bible is the inerrant, infallible perfect word of God in the English language without saying something negative about the King James Bible or its translators.

    You make the claim that you are not attacking the King James Bible when you say something against our beliefs. I am calling you a liar. It is impossible for you to speak out against us who are King James Bible believers (KJVO) without saying something negative about the King James Bible or its translators.

    I have never made the claim that you do. I speak out against modern versions and their translators because I am against your belief system. The problem is that you hide behind a cloak of self-righteousness and proclaim yourself clean.
     
  2. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a challenge too:

    Please show me what is wrong with believing that the New American Standard Bible is the inerrant, infallible perfect word of God in the English language without saying something negative about the New American Standard Bible or its translators.

    I speak out against KJV-onlyists because I am against your belief system. The problem is that you hide behind a cloak of self-righteousness and proclaim yourself clean.
     
  3. wizofoz

    wizofoz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2003
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't see what the big flap is about, myself.
    I use KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, and others in conjuction with each other.
    Makes it a lot easier for me to understand some things.
     
  4. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Answering a question with a question.Now that's original!
     
  5. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    I use the KJV.
    I am a Bible believer.
    This presents a paradox. You define "KJVO" as a King James Bible believer but have failed in every instance to provide even a single proof from the KJV of what you believe. Bottom line is: Do you believe the KJV is perfect or not? If you dogmatically promote a doctrine that is not taught by the KJV then either you are in error or the KJV is incomplete (thus imperfect).
    Nothing when those terms are properly defined and understood. When you define them to mean the peculiar wording of the KJV then you extend the terms too far. Using the terms in their proper context and meaning, one can rightly say that the NASB, NKJV, and KJV are versions of the inerrant, infallible, perfect Word of God.... because they are.
    Just to balance this challenge a little- affirm KJVOnlyism using only credible evidence, honestly handled, about the origins of the KJV and its translators. You have not proven KJVOnlyism to be biblical, you have not proven it to be historical, you have not proven it to be supported by mss evidence,... you haven't even proven it by the words of the men who made the translation. In short, you have not proven KJVOnlyism by a sufficient weight of positive sayings. Your arguments necessarily default to attacking other versions and their supporters because there simply is no factual evidence from the Bible or human observation that affirms your belief.

    There are many reasons to believe the KJV is a superior translation. There are even reasons to believe it is the best version available. There is no reason to believe that it is exclusively the Word of God in English... that claim is made by vain men to those with itching ears.

    ... since you are wrong, you are deceived in calling us liars.... since you have been told the truth, you appear to be willfully deceived.
    No it isn't. The KJV was not inspired by God. It was not translated from the original documents that God did inspire. KJVOnlyism assigns to the words of the KJV authority that only belongs to words that proceeded directly from God.

    KJVOnlyism believes things that the KJV translators rightly rejected.

    These are not negative things about the KJV. It is the Word of God. It is not the words of God. To paraphrase the translators, if the word of the king is translated into a tongue foreign to him is the message not still the word of the king? The king never spoke the words but the authority isn't in the words- it is in the word of the king. Inerrant wording (although accurate wording is to disqualify the NWT) is not required to have an inerrant message.

    [ June 03, 2003, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]
     
  6. Arubian Baptist

    Arubian Baptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2002
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey mister Ransom! [​IMG] You here again, my new friend, I will never forget that you agreed with me that The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures and the NASB are the perfect word of God!!

    What a statement!!!

    Great reasoning, by the way, do you know more bibleversions which are based on the same text as The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures and the NASB ??

    Because then we must include them also on the shelf of perfect word of God :D
     
  7. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey, Pioneer, I thought you were not going to interact with us any more!? I just wanted to know something. Do you think that truth, even if it is what you don't want to hear, should be suppressed? What you are defining as negative may simply be truth that you don't like. So are you then entitled to ignore it because you don't like it? Does it make it any less true? Also, I don't really see anything negative about the KJV. It is an excellent translation. But not perfect. I definitely don't see people being as negative about the KJV as KJVOs are of many fine MVs (notice I did not say all [​IMG] ).

    By the way, you don't seem to understand that you are the one affirming an argument. You affirm that the KJV is perfect and is the only true Word of God today. It is your job to prove and defend this, not ours to disprove it. If I say my ESV is the one perfect Word of God today, I would expect that I would have to defend it. See, you have to look at all the evidence, my friend. You have to look at the 'positive' and the 'negative.' Your feelings can't dictate things. If that is the case, anybody can make up their own truth. So, while I admire your zeal, it is not our responsibility to disprove you, but rather you must convince us because you have stepped out and made an affirmation.

    Neal
     
  8. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?

    You do everything that you imply that your opponents are wrong for doing. You attack God's Word (MV's) and those that use/support them. You say unfounded negative things about MV's and their translators. And unless you have come up with a proof since your last post, you claim that MV supporters are deceived by the teachings of man while dogmatically condemning us for not adopting KJVOnlyism which is nothing more than teachings of men.
     
  9. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please show me what is wrong with believing that the King James Bible is the inerrant, infallible perfect word of God in the English language without saying something negative about the King James Bible or its translators.
    To assert that a translation is perfect, inerrant, and infallible, and that such perfection, inerrancy, and infallibility is exclusive to only one translation, is not biblically supportable. There, see? I did not bash the KJV or its translators. Nor did I bash any other translation or translators.

    Please show me what is wrong with believing that the New American Standard Bible is the inerrant, infallible perfect word of God in the English language without saying something negative about the New American Standard Bible or its translators.
    To assert that a translation is perfect, inerrant, and infallible, and that such perfection, inerrancy, and infallibility is exclusive to only one translation, is not biblically supportable. See? It works for the NASB as well.
     
  10. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    Pioneer writes:

    >>Here is the challenge: Please show me what is
    >>wrong with believing that the King James Bible
    >>is the inerrant, infallible perfect word of God
    >>in the English language without saying
    >>something negative about the King James Bible
    >>or its translators.

    That is easy and I have done it numerous times: it is not Scriptural. You even started a thread and made a valid argument for the KJV; however, you never once made a case for KJV-Onlyism.

    >>You make the claim that you are not attacking
    >>the King James Bible when you say something
    >>against our beliefs. I am calling you a liar.

    To be frank, I don't really care. Simply stating something does not make it true.

    >>It is impossible for you to speak out against
    >>us who are King James Bible believers (KJVO)
    >>without saying something negative about the
    >>King James Bible or its translators.

    Ah, but you have wrongly merged two beliefs into one: King James Bible Believers (me) and KJV-Onlyists (you). I share your love for the KJV (I proudly use the AV1611), but unequivocally reject your blanket disregard for all other translations.
    Check my posts on the thread that you started. I did it without attacking anybody.

    >>I have never made the claim that you do. I
    >>speak out against modern versions and their
    >>translators because I am against your belief
    >>system. The problem is that you hide behind a
    >>cloak of self-righteousness and proclaim
    >>yourself clean.

    Exactly who is being self-righteous? You are making a statement without Scriptural proof to support what you claim as doctrine.
    You are becoming more and more belligerent with each post.
     
  11. Bartholomew

    Bartholomew
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2002
    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, anti-KJVOs demand proof they can't even offer for thier OWN position. Scott, here is the bottom line for you: do you believe that God preserved his words only through a multitude of imperfect manuscripts, translations, etc.? And which of your imperfect manuscripts, etc. claims this? If you dogmatically promote a doctrine that is not taught by ANY of your imperfect manuscripts, then either you are in error, or they are all incomplete. (It must have been part of the originals that passed away for ever...)
     
  12. MissAbbyIFBaptist

    MissAbbyIFBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/3374.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    Messages:
    2,567
    Likes Received:
    0
    Posted By Scott J: No it isn't. The KJV was not inspired by God. It was not translated from the original documents that God did inspire.

    Alright, if it wasn't translated by the original documents God inspired, what was it translated from? The King James Bible was from the original Greek and Hebrew. Them other versions come from the Vaticanus and Sinaticus. One found in a TRASH CAN, and were kept under such secrecey they wern't translated for quite awhile, untill the Vatican released a copy. The King James translators had the Greek and Hebrew Texts, and the previous English Translations. The two manuscript lines are diffrent. And it's aparant when you read the King James and another version. I have pages and pages of KJB verses with MV's verses beside it, and you can see the things taken out. And not just little things. Things like the trinity, virgin birth, sinless life of Christ. It's subtle but it's there. And that's why I fight the MV's so much. They take away from major doctrines.
    And all the errers everyone says my KJB has, did you ever think it might be spelling or printing errers? I mean it's very easy when having to change each letter in a printing press to get carless, or not pay attention. And there was no real set rule for spelling when the early translations before the KJB came out.
    I am convinced I have God inspired word of God. It testifies itself. The meetings of George Whitefeild, Jonathon Edwards, D.L. Moody, C.H. SPurgeon, William Booth, and many others won countless souls using the KJB. Their revivals amazing, they shook up contries. And they used "an arcaic, out dated Bible." And I wonder how many people have shacken thousands, won prbably millions with the Modern versions?
    The numerology in the KJB is amazing. Count the letters in "King James" and you get nine. The nuber of frutfullness. Look in Genisis 13:13 in your KJB. NOtice what 13 is in Biblical nemerology, and what was talked about in that reference. And so many other places.
    As long as God gives me breath, by His grace, I'll stand firm with my KJB. Just as my mother birthed me into this world, my KJB helped birth me into God's family {I had to hear the scripture before I could know about salvation!} And those that talked about my mother, despite the fact she left me, I surely took up for her. Now don't you think I would take a stand for the thing so precious to me that pointed clearly my sins, and showed me to an old rugged cross, where I plead the blood and was made a new creation, justified in God's sight? Wouldn't I stand for it, since by faith I beleive it to be perfect?
    Good luck at answering Pioneer's question. I'd like to see if anyone takes his challange.
    ~Miss Abby [​IMG]
     
  13. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    Bartholomew writes:
    &gt;&gt;Again, anti-KJVOs demand proof they can't even
    &gt;&gt;offer for thier OWN position.

    Sure I can: there is no Scriptural support for KJV-Onlyism. To amplify that statement: to embrace the KJV and dismiss all other translations is not Scriptural. Several have tried but to no avail.
     
  14. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The arguement of the TR vs the Vaticanus and Sinaticus texts is a great topic, but this ain't the forum. This forum is about the KJVO position.
     
  15. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting answer! [​IMG]
     
  16. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good luck at answering Pioneer's question. I'd like to see if anyone takes his challange.

    I did just that, quite well, a few posts from the top of page 1.
     
  17. john6:63

    john6:63
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is one lost when one reads a version other than the KJV? No. From what I’ve gathered the facts surrounding the gospel of Jesus Christ and salvation remains somewhat intact.

    In comparing the KJ with versions such as the NIV, NASB and the NWT. I’ve found numerous disturbing contradictions and omissions, which IMO weakens, scripture, therefore the Bible is that of a weapon in the hands of a Christian, see Hebrews 4:12 and II Timothy 3:16. The Holy Bible is also food that we Christians might grow properly. See I Peter 2:2.

    The above is why I choose to study, read and fellowship with the KJV.
     
  18. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,456
    Likes Received:
    93
    That statement is more stupid than most of the idiotic nonsense you post.

    And notice that my previous statement just proved your statement wrong.
     
  19. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Simply put, it is wrong because the Bible doesn't teach it. When your "final authority" is the word of God, then you should limit your beliefs to what the word of God teaches. As it is, the problem with your belief is that it is extra-biblical at best, and in reality, it is anti-biblical becuase it contradicts the biblical doctrine of inspiration.

    You are the one who is lying. My paragraph above shows that I can "speak out against you" without saying anything negative about the KJV or about its translators. It is really simply when your standard is Scripture. That is why I had no problem showing the fallacy of your position.

    I have no self-righteousness. My "belief system" is the one taught by Scripture. Your belief system contradicts Scripture, as shown by your unwillingness to show us from Scripture where your belief is supported and your added unwillingness to conform your belief system to what Scripture does teach. I think the only self-righteous people here are on your side, when you claim to believe the truth but are unable to show us where the Truth said it was the truth. That is the problem we have.

    You can't meet your own challenge. You cannot disprove MVs without saying something negative about the translation or the translators. So you fail by your own standard.
     
  20. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Abby,

    So much to comment on here. You really cannot be blamed for your post since you are the unwitting victim of some teachign taht was not quite accurate. Being a 10th grader can be difficult in this world where ideas are so easily espoused without being easily checked. Allow me to correct a few of your mistakes.

    Not true at all. Vaticanus and Sinaticus form only a part of the basis of modern versions. The Greek text underlying the modern versions takes into account all the manuscript evidence. It starts with the whole pile. The text underlying the KJV takes into account only part fo the evidence. It starts with a partial pile. The KJV (It is a version, not a Bible, by title) was translated from teh original Greek and Hebrew language, not the original documents. The documents underlying the MVs are older than those underlying the KJV and thus are closer to the original time of writing. In other words, both the KJV and the MVs are translated from the original Greek and Hebrew language texts, not from teh original documents.

    Logical fallacy here, one you probably have just not thought through entirely. By saying that the MVs have left things out, you assume that the KJV was perfect. You did not arrive at that position by the truth of Scripture because, as has been shown by those on the KJVO side, Scripture never teaches such a thing. Did you ever consider that the KJV actually adds stuff in?? This is the more likely scenario based on teh reality of the textual evidence.

    This is just simply not true. No one has yet to show a doctrine that has been removed. If you can do it, you will be the first. However, you will most likely repeat the same old lists that have been often answered. The trinity is there, the virgin birth is explicit, the sinless life of Christ is without question, the blood atonement is clear. This is simply a perpetuated lie, started by no doubt well meaning people and perpetuated by the same mindset. Unfortunately "well meaning" did not tell the truth.

    Again, you must not have thought through this very well. How is the word of God "perfect" when there are spelling and word errors. I agree it is easy to get careless. But just like spelling tests in school, the teacher puts a big red X beside a mispelled word and there goes your "perfect score" ... unless you are a KJVO in which case you should tell yoru teacher that spelling errors really aren't errors.

    And imagine further, why God "perfectly protected" his word through 1500 years of hand copying and then couldn't manage to get it right when machines came along. That is an illustration of the absurdity of this suggestion.

    However, that does not even tell the whole story. There are complete word changes, both additions and substractions (including things like the name of God) in the subsequent editions of teh KJV. In fact, the KJVs available today are different and as we know, "Things that are different are not the same."

    [q/b]I am too. I enjoy every morning the NIV and the NASB. My church has shown tremendous spiritual growth under the exclusive preaching from teh NASB. This church went downhill for 30 years while using the KJV and under a KJVOnly pastor. Then we switched and have seen great growth. The reality is that it has nothing to do with the version. It has to do with the teaching and preaching of the word, no matter what translation you use.

    This type of approach is bad theology and false teaching. I do not hold you responsible but it is a serious matter to mishandle the word of God in such a fashion. I hope that you will reconsider this trite handling of God's word and remove yourself as soon as you can from the influence of those who practice it.

    Don't need luck ... we have the truth. Pioneer will no sooner believe it this time than last time, or the time before, or anyone fo the many times before that. Pioneer has shown many times that he has no real interest in the truth. For that we are saddened.

    But I do sincerely encourage you to study this issue more in depth. So much of what you have said is the common approach, but it is all based on myths and untruths. It is a worthy issue to be understood and it is a blessing to all who do.
     

Share This Page

Loading...