What about the nature of version selections

Ken4JC:As a group your use of the fortified and unified myth of scientific evidence is only equal to the people that want me to believe that evolution is a fact also.

Ken, God wants you to believe and worship by faith, but not BLIND faith. He leaves us many signs pointing to what He's done, and that includes how He's presented His word to us.


I do not think that you understand that you have made a science out of desire to be right with no respect to the fact of hard science or the scientific method.

ON THE CONTRARY-

Many of us here have taken a long, hard look at the evidence for and against the KJVO myth, and found KJVO badly wanting. The subject-THE VERY WORD OF GOD-is far too serious for a Christian to be concerned with "winning" a debate by methods other than presenting the TRUTH.


Now before you get your shorts in a knot and fall off your wall of bovine manure, let me also point out that my KJVO view is a mater of faith.

So is mine. I have faith that God, who can do anything, can present/provide His word for us ANY WAY HE CHOOSES, and that to say His word is in only one BV is to attempt to LIMIT GOD. Be careful when you play, "MY faith can whup YOUR faith" lest you fall face-first into YOUR wall of PACHYDERM "waste".


It would seem that unlike yourself I have embraced this fact or ?truth? (to keep to the point). I have come to this unscientific position by personal experience, and personal revelation using the tool of looking to God and putting my flesh to the cross.

Seems like BLIND FAITH to me, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.(I am NOT questionong your FAITH IN GOD; only your faith that He has presented us His word only as you say.


I have seen the also the fortified and unified myth of scientific evidence offered by the KJVO side of this debate and find that they too have missed the point for the most part.

They've ignored a basic law of science God has given us, that nothing plus nothing is nothing.


If you worship science as this generation has for the last 100 years, I have no doubt that you will seek ever new devices to avoid the fact of your idolatry and will as a MV user seek the new and latest diversion or translation and the KJVO will also look for some new speaker and book?s to end all book?s to bring to this alter of ego and carnal desire in the quest for self identity.

God's word is neither static, dead, nor frozen in time as a Shakespeare play is. God intends for EVERYONE to read it or hear it. He did NOT lock it into Elizabethan English, never to be updated as the language changes.


As long as we will seek and buy the ?gods? of this world the Charismatic Consumer market will keep selling it to you, and taking our time and money to the bank. If you ever stop and look at the source of this debate in truth you will see that ALL VERSIONS come from the same source and for the most part are made for the exact same reason ? to get money out of your pocket.

That includes the KJV. Someone somewhere has paid for every copy ever seen in public. If you say, "MY KJV was free-Granny gave it to me!" then you can bet GRANNY paid for it sometime or other.


Now from this viewpoint I would look not to the gods of science or the popes of higher education, I would seek the will of the Father and the peace of a right relation to the Kingdom of God.

That's where we see KJVO is a man-made myth. Clearly, God has presented His word in English in many versions, from Caedmon's in the 600s AD to the latest out today. Not one is like any other. Don't think this is lost on God, and that this isn't by His will.


For me that is the KJB, as I have pulled back to this sword of personal choice I have seen the look of fear in the eyes of my true enemy Satan the eyes of fear that turn a funny yellow red of a foe that has been cut bad and many times before, but you would have to step up to the battle line to see this for yourself and you are far too occupied making money to buy yet another log to put on the fire of your contentment to worship a false god of science. (Rev 3:14-21)

It doesn't take science to see the FACTS of what God has done. Evidently you take it at something besides face value. The KJV is different from its immediate predecessor, the Geneva Bible. are both of them the word of God? If you say the Geneva isn't, then you're saying God didn't preserve His word. If you say it is, then I ask, "By whose authority, besides that of KJ, did the AV translators depart from the text of the GB?" The Onlyist, any version, gets him/herself into this conundrum the instant he/she chooses one version & rejects all others as being valid. This is EVIDENCE FROM GOD-the differing versions.

What is truth? The truth is that KJVO is a false, man-made myth, completely unsupported by the Scripture it theorizes about.

 

Ken, it appeared when you first came here you were quick to bash those of us who aren't confined to just one version of God's word. If it's YOUR personal choice to use only the KJV, fine. But you or anyone else who claims the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation is dead-wrong, same as anyone claiming the same for any other BV.

The 'faith' we call blind is faith without any reason to have faith. There's simply NO reason to believe that the KJV or any other one version is the ONLY valid English BV. You asked about the truth in version selection, and here it is, in the various posts in this thread.

 

Amen, Cranston!

 

Ken,

" and they hate the KJV just as you all do. ."

You were so articulate and well-reasonsed in some of your prior posts!! Now it's the "KJV-hater" thing again.

I'll try something similar to Robycop's but only a little more gentle!

Faith is belief in that which is not seen. The PROBLEM with the KJBO position I think is that it causes much strife - over a point which is NOT EXPLICITLY MADE in the bible. I know the arguments for KJB primacy well - but they simply are far from airtight logically and textually.

So what's wrong with loving the KJB? - NOTHING!!
I'm very pro-KJB. But to jump to the stance that it is the only version is not an argument that can be substantiated with fact or science.

I know that your opinion of textual criticism is probably different that that of many modern scholars - and there's nothing wrong with just saying that KJB feels right for you - but that falls short of being doctrinally valid for anyone other than you if there is no definite scriptural or evidencial proof.

By the way - there are no KJB haters here!

 

Ken4JC:Yes, I have seen finally a real or more real ?steel? of your version selections.

Yes-based upon EVIDENCE, not guesswork.


I have not moved from my KJVO #4, I understand that it is for you a view that you are not willing to embrace at this time also that it is pointless to debate this choice, as there is no common ground to work from.

Debates arent about "common ground" - they're about OPPOSING VIEWS. And I can promise you that I'll NEVER "embrace" the KJVO myth, which has been PROVEN false.


This is why I will not attend any local Church in my area you see it is like you all are just fine with the choice of any version you want and celebrate the great rainbow of Multi Versions including the poor old KJV

That's THEIR choice from what all God has made available for them.


and the poor stupid few that still read this version after all it is just a choice and the old folks will die out and we will not have to be so careful about our more correct version.

Aside from your propaganda, can you PROVE to us that the KJV is more correct?

I was in a Church as an new active member and the last ?old KJV? founder dies and suddenly the pulpit turns from NKJV to ASV and all people who hold to the KJV are fools that we will ?wink? treat with the respect that they deserve. Low and behold, now they have flipped full on to Charismatic renewal, they are embracing ?cell groups? and working to grow a ?mega church plant? they have become ?seeker sensitive? and ?PC?. They meet with other neo-evangelical organizations headed by the ?Assembly of God? with SBC and a host of other new-found higher Charismatic renewal groups like the Vineyard or the old UM and off course the satanic organizations like UPC and RC. The battle cry is ?After all we all are Christian can?t we just get along?.

This has nothing to do with BVs any more than the KJV had to do with Jonestown.


The only version of the Holy Bible that keeps this antichrist organization from working full steam is the KJV, and they hate the KJV just as you all do.

Two incorrect statements. First, the BV has nothing to do with their org. Remember, Vernon Lee Howell, AKA David Koresh, used only the KJV. And please provide PROOF that WE hate the KJV. if you can't, we expect a retraction from you.


I have been on your side of this view. I know how you feel as you have shared from your heart your core desire; I too had this very same fire and passion.

Then evidently you've swallowed the line of some KJVO author without veryfying his/her "facts".


If I could save you the shock that you are heading for or the pain that is at the end of this hall you are walking down I would.

But you CAN'T, because there isn't any.


But I think that you will have to see the destruction first hand, and I only thank God that we are saved by grace and not works and God who took Ananias and Sapphira home will also have this mercy and love for others who are tricked into a lie.

The LIE is the whole KJVO myth. The TRUTH is that it was started by a SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST, extended by some later authors who took his garbage & put it into a more brightly-colored trash bag. The TRUTH is that there's not one scintilla of SCRIPTURAL support for the KJVO myth. If you can provide the first peep of evidence that supports the KJVO myth, then by all means don't keep it a secret.


You know there is a way that looks right to a man but in the end are the ways of death.

Then you might consider that trying to LIMIT GOD in His providing His word to us AS HE CHOOSES might well be one of those ways.


I am not your judge; I only stand in faith on the provision that God has given me.

So do we who reject the KJVO myth.

Nothing in my Holy Bible tells me that God will reject your effort to seek his will, and every thing tells me that he will reward our effort to this task by making a way for us.

And He HAS, by providing His word for us in today's language, same as he's done for many generations. The AV 1611 was written in the best and most modern English of its day.


I am very positive that many will be in Heaven (including me) that I would never have thought could make it. I do not think that I need another version of the Holy Bible

Kewl. You have the right to make that choice, same as I do.


and will not stop thinking that other versions have great problems that all lead back to ROME and bondage to the Catholic Church.

The KJV's NT is based upon the Textus Receptus, first made(& revised several times) by a CATHOLIC named Erasmus Desiderius. And all the AV translators were ANGLICANS, which is a quasi-RCC denom.


As we have come full round on this again I will again offer that by the nature and commitment of this sub board and the rules put down in a fair clear way that I do admit you have the last word but this is not open to any real debate.

You can have as many words within the rules as you wish, same as I. And the debate is still wide open.


Thank you for letting me share, and thank you for sharing.

Happy to share.

I will try to watch and not offend your tradition too much.

Offend it all you wish, but use some FACTS, not guesswork or hearsay, as you've done so far. I have FACTS that debunk the KJVO myth while so far, all you've provided is opinion, guesswork, and fishing stories to support it.

While I'll stop short of calling you a prevaricator, you HAVE made some statements that are dubious at best, I.E. "KJV-haters", etc. To make such statements without becoming a prevaricator, you must provide PROOF that such statements are true. You've been quite lacking in your evidence room so far.

Can you PROVE that the KJVO myth isn't a false doctrine? After all, you asked, "What is truth?" If you have any truth supporting the KJVO myth, empirical or circumstantial, please clue us in.

 

While there may be many who are 'KJVOnlyism haters’, our blessed Lord Jesus compels us to be 'KJVOnlyist lovers’. There is a distinction!

 

Amen, Dr. B.

Love the sinner, hate the sin.

 

>K4JC:Yes, I have seen finally a real or more real ?steel? of your version selections.
>RC3:Yes-based upon EVIDENCE, not guesswork.
>>K4JC:I have not moved from my KJVO #4, I understand that it is for you a view that you are not willing to embrace at this time also that it is pointless to debate this choice, as there is no common ground to work from.
>RC3: Debates arent about "common ground" - they're about OPPOSING VIEWS. And I can promise you that I'll NEVER "embrace" the KJVO myth, which has been PROVEN false.

Start define::
de·bate vti
1. to talk about something at length and in detail, especially as part of a formal exchange of opinion
2. to ponder something carefully

K4JC: I see that the point n3 is what your talking about, I was thinking about point 1,2, n1 and n2. Again, I agree in an even more clear point that we (you and I) are very convinced by our pile of circular reason that we are right and the opposition is ?proven? wrong ? hence the endless and pointless argument.


>>K4JC:The only version of the Holy Bible that keeps this antichrist organization from working full steam is the KJV, and they hate the KJV just as you all do.
>RC3: And please provide PROOF that WE hate the KJV. if you can't, we expect a retraction from you.

Again you are KJVO haters (even haters is not a good word) not KJV haters, I was wrong to say that in the rainbow of Many Versions that you have embraced that KJV was not part of that inclusive pool of wide choice.

Yes, most of the time, most of the KJVOs are wrong most of the time in most of their views. they have absolutely NO evidence to support the KJVO myth.


>RC3:The LIE is the whole KJVO myth. The TRUTH is that it was started by a SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST, extended by some later authors who took his garbage & put it into a more brightly-colored trash bag.

K4JC: So for you SDA put all that together, funny today they seem to like Multi Versions also and most of them are NIV people. I have not studied that cult in detail, when I got to the deep legalism and popish cult leadership I felt I had seen all I needed.

Please clue us in on the details of the NIV cult!!! We've missed something!!! Who's its big kahoona? Where's its HQ? Who are some of its advocates & big shots? Please tell us so's we can attack it also!

I have seen a lot of thinking that has been taken into the SDA from other places and some of the points get pulled out on the other side like you have said. But it does seem to me that the writers of the intro page of the AV predate the SDA, but you may have a deeper understanding of the SDA than I do.

My point exactly. The KJV enjoyed "peaceful co-existence" with later versions, and its own revisions until the modern KJVO myth arose, fueled by an SDA's book.

RC3: The KJV's NT is based upon the Textus Receptus, first made(& revised several times) by a CATHOLIC named Erasmus Desiderius. And all the AV translators were ANGLICANS, which is a quasi-RCC denom.

K4JC: The TR was not the only document used in the translation of the AV ? that is one of the problems I have with the Greek/Hebrew scholarship working over the AV, the TR was is great hot do-do with the Holy Roman whore and they were killing and at war with other great Christians that translated from that set of works into local languages. They also killed off many of the Baptist that predated the ?Great Whore? and have done all to try to eradicate the history of the Church of God.

Then you should have no probs with modern-day eclectic versions, in the light that the modern translators have many more mss available than did erasmus or the AV translators.

>>K4JC: I will try to watch and not offend your tradition too much.
>RC3: Offend it all you wish, but use some FACTS, not guesswork or hearsay, as you've done so far. I have FACTS that debunk the KJVO myth while so far, all you've provided is opinion, guesswork, and fishing stories to support it.

K4JC: ?FACTS? are the problem ? Thank you for not calling me a Prevaricator, I have said I am KJVO #4 using your definition provided I do not hide my place at this table. I have admitted to the error of calling this a ?KJV hater? and exchanged it to be a ?KJVO hater?.

That's the beginning of the expansion of your wisdom.


You ask for ?proof? of my ?myth? and have made any evidence outside of your circular reasoning ?myth?.


Then stop spinning & start providing.


How then can I hope to express ?PROOF? with no hope of a common ground? You are 100% right only because you say you are, in the courts of the Roman Whore you are 100% wrong and they would be just as provocative as you are to me and the argument would be just as pointless.

And just why is it provocative? Because you have NO ANSWERS. You believe a myth not supported by any evidence. If you have any evidence, let's see it.

RC3: Can you PROVE that the KJVO myth isn't a false doctrine? After all, you asked, "What is truth?" If you have any truth supporting the KJVO myth, empirical or circumstantial, please clue us in.
K4JC: No, I cannot ?PROVE? that the KJVO myth isn?t a false doctrine any more than you can prove your Multiple Version myth is not a false doctrine.

Ah, but herein lies the difference; I CAN prove the multi-version thing is FACT.

First, there's the FACT that many devout men have made many English translations, some of them such as Tyndale giving their lives for their translations. And NOT ONE of these translations matches any other. Was this lost on GOD? Not hardly.

Next, we've often posted the differences between Isaiah 61:1-3 & isaiah 42:7 with what JESUS HIMSELF read aloud in Luke 4:16-21-along with numerous other OT quotes by the apostles that don't exactly match what's written in the OT. And remember, JESUS said Scripture cannot be broken.

Next, the Gospels all give differing accounts of the same events. Yet, we accept ALL of them as Scripture. No, this is NOT comparing apples & oranges. The differences WITHIN a given "set" of mss should carry much more weight than the differences between mss written in different times & places.

Finally, the KJVO argues vehemently that God has preserved His word-and of course we do NOT disagree. Plainly, once God has allowed His word to be introduced into any given language, He has kept it there. English is no exception. Not referring to the pre-Tyndale examples of God's word in English, God has steadily caused His word to be presented and updated in English since Tyndale's time. To argue that He retired to a park bench in 1611 & ceased updating His word as the language changed is patently absurd.

There are amny proofs supporting the validity of more than one English BV, but these should do. Do you believe the Tyndale Bible is God's word?(The original, not the modern version that uses his name) How about the Bishop's Bible? Coverdale's Bible? The Great Bible? The Geneva Bible?


You see the term myth is subjective and vague and would say that we both have a story that is not fully understandable as truth or given to any ?PROOF? that is available to offer other than within the circle of our ?myth? created about the view we hold and the obfuscation of ?myth? created about the view we are against. So the nature of the ?TRUTH? at this point is still getting pushed out.

No.

TRUTH is, SDA Benjamin Wilkinson wrote a book full of baloney as a Dagwood sandwich. Some later authors copied many of Wilkinson'e errors & added some imagination of their own. From them & their readership rose a number of authorettes and those who believed their stuff w/o checking it out arose the modern KJVO myth.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, please share it with us or wave your credibility here goodbye.

 

Another fact about the nature of version selection is the most obvious, Ken-the English of the KJV has been left behind by the changes in the language. Did Tyndale, Coverdale, or the AV men make their translations in language styles obsolete in their day?

 

Yes, they did. In 1611 the Middle English pronouns "thee" "thou" "ye" etc., were no longer in use. The KJV translators included the anachronistic pronouns to better bring into English the case and gender of the Greek pronouns. The same is true of the second and third person verb endings "est" and "eth" although they are not as useful and can more easily be determined from context.

 

I dunno, Skan. John Milton(1608-1674) certainly used the 'old' pronouns in several of his works. However, KJ himself used few of them in his writings. Certainly they weren't troublesome to the English speakers of the day. KJ DID use a number of 'eths' & 'ests' in his works.

I reckon it was like someone using '23 skiddoo' today.

 

I know folks who use the old pronouns
as a special prayer language to God.

 

Ed:I know folks who use the old pronouns
as a special prayer language to God.

My mom & dad do, even though they've used modern Bibles throughout their Christian lives.