The NIV Challenge

For real!!!! It doesn't shock me that if its a simple issue its not viable. I read KJV as a young kid and it actually stopped me from reading the bible because I couldn't grasp the whole thing then as a teenager I was still having a difficult time getting it till my friends who happen to be a pastor and wife got me an niv and I finally started to understand what I was reading.

On a different note, I find it interesting that its not a viable reason with kjvonly people but in the marketing world they make things purposly easy to read so you can grasp the concept and understand it, so why not the word of God too? I always liked AVB's song "Growing up with King James" its so true.

Sue

 

Rockfort said:

1. Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies, hang them that curse you, give cyanide to them that hate you, and pray for them that lick your nostrils and persecute you."

[etc.]

I think the Baptist Pillar owes Rockfort $50. He did, after all, answer each and every one of their questions.

 

Some observations about the KJV controversy.

I was 25 when saved and the KJV came alive to me. No problem understanding a thing, but then when I went to school I was taught to read, maybe that is the answer for the new genration who say only us old folks can read the KJV and understand it. Also attempted to read the KJV prior to salvation, couldn't understand a thing.

Some who oppose the KJV have said they don't rject the KJV but spend countless hours attacking same.

Where do the modern scholars get their authority? There have been countless arguments abpout the original Greek, hmmm, it doesn't exist. So how can the modern scholars know what it says.

Finally, check the background of the translators Wescott & Hort, they couldnt possibly come up with a God honoring translation!

Have a good day. I do as I read the truth from God's Word and He speaks to me through His inerrant word

Ernie

[ September 25, 2001: Message edited by: Ernie Brazee ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No problem understanding a thing, but then when I went to school I was taught to read, maybe that is the answer for the new genration who say only us old folks can read the KJV and understand it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So be it. However, our job is to reach people on a level they understand, not to condemn them because they cannot understand our preferred Bible. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Also attempted to read the KJV prior to salvation, couldn't understand a thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Is your suggestion that the Holy Spirit gives us the ability to understand the scripture we read or that the Holy Spirit miraculously endowed you with an ability to understand a language you could not understand previously?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Some who oppose the KJV have said they don't rject the KJV but spend countless hours attacking same.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I oppose KJVOnlyism because it is a false teaching that actually diminishes the dignity of the KJV. Actually, I spend more time memorizing the KJV than I do opposing KJVO's.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Where do the modern scholars get their authority? There have been countless arguments abpout the original Greek, hmmm, it doesn't exist. So how can the modern scholars know what it says.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Where did the KJV translators get their authority? They didn't have the originals either.

What modern scholars have is thousands of mss/witnesses/ancient versions (some that are about 1800 years old), a couple hundred years of scientific biblical archeology, and the accumulated knowledge of many past scholars on how best to evaluate and translate ancient languages. There are only a few places (such as the ending of Mark) where there is significant doubt as to what the originals said.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Finally, check the background of the translators Wescott & Hort, they couldnt possibly come up with a God honoring translation! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wescott and Hort were Anglicans and didn't believe what Baptist believe. The accusation that they were into spiritualism has been refuted and documented elsewhere on this board...

But while you are in the mood to check backgrounds, why don't you check the history of Archbishops Bancroft and Andrewes. These men presided over the KJV translators and also the persecution of our Baptist forebearers. Can men who hated good doctrine so viciously that they imprisoned and tortured its preachers possibly preside over a God honoring translation?...The miracles is that they did...and while W & H were not perfect God used their work also.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...God's Word and He speaks to me through His inerrant word<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have tried in the past to get to answer these questions, maybe you will:

1- Please define "God's Word" or the equivalent "Word of God".

2- Since they are not the same, are the originals inerrant or is the KJV inerrant?

 

Aaron,
I was really hoping it was your spell checker and not a blatant attempt at rudeness.
Russell

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott J:
1- Please define "God's Word" or the equivalent "Word of God".

2- Since they are not the same, are the originals inerrant or is the KJV inerrant?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>1. God's word is the bible and the bible is God's word. 2. They are the same. I don't know were you got the idea they were different.

The autographa were inspired, and infallible. God then preserved His word in the apographa. Today the apographa are the preserved copies of His inspired infallible word. (By the way, the word "inerrant" was never, historically, used of the bible, but was borrowed from astronomy by Warfield in the early years of the last century. It is a word that means "does not deviate from orbit" and was used to explain the movement of the planets around the sun.)

Today the English bible can be considered "inspired" in the derivative sence. The prophecies of the English bible are "inspired" prophecies, the promises of the English bible are "inspired" promises, and the history of the English bible is "inspired" history because those prophecies, promises, and history are derived from the preserved apographs which preserve the inspiration of the autographa.

It can also be considered "infallible" in that the promises and prophecies will never fail to come to pass.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rhoneycutt:
Aaron,
I was really hoping it was your spell checker and not a blatant attempt at rudeness.
Russell<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I apologize. I kind of lose it when I see my Lord and Savior mocked so.

 

After reading through this thread tonight I have yet to see anything that has been redeming. I've seen a lot of people get ripped though and torn down... time to end discussion?

Until Next Post, Adam

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
1. God's word is the bible and the bible is God's word. 2. They are the same. I don't know were you got the idea they were different...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dr. Cassidy, you answered in an eloquent way which I would most certainly agree with. If it pleases you then replace "inerrant" with "without error".

I would like to know whether folks like Ernie, Smith, et al. would agree. Your explaination in my opinion precludes KJVOnlyism.