What Happens if you are Not KJB only?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Will J. Kinney, Jan 5, 2004.

  1. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    What Happens if you are Not a King James Bible Only believer?

    One of the first things that must occur for someone to no longer believe in a complete, infallible, inspired Bible is to somehow not believe or explain away the following verses that the Holy Bible says about itself.

    THE PRESERVED WORD OF GOD

    Even though the onslaught of Bible corruption has intensified in these last days, God has promised that He will preserve His Word pure for ever.

    The Bible cannot be clearer concerning it's preservation:

    Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the Word of our God shall stand for ever."

    Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

    Psalm 138:2: "I will worship toward Thy holy temple, and praise Thy name for Thy lovingkindness and for Thy Truth: for Thou hast magnified Thy Word above all Thy name."

    Psalm 100:5: "For the LORD is good; His mercy is everlasting; and His Truth endureth to all generations."

    Psalm 33:11: "The Counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of His heart to all generations."

    Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning Thy Testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. ... Thy Word is true from the beginning: and every one of Thy Righteous Judgments endureth for ever.

    Isaiah 59:21: "... My Spirit that is upon thee [Isaiah], and My words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

    Matthew 5:17-18: "Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled."

    Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away."

    1 Peter 1:23-25: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the Word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the Word which by the gospel is preached unto you."

    John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."

    Instead of believing God has preserved His infallible words in any single Book, the Bible of the Month Club member, who promotes a multitude of conflicting versions all based on different texts and changing the meanings of hundreds of verses, believes the true words of God are found "somewhere out there" in all the manuscripts, except where these have been corrupted by scribal errors. He thinks it is up to the scholars to try to restore what God apparently has lost, only his favorite group of scholars don't seem to be able to agree even among themselves as to which texts are correct nor how to translate them. Every man ends us "doing that which is right in his own eyes", and he no longer has any text or Bible he believes to be the infallible, inspired words of God.

    I have been involved in the Bible version debate for several years now, and have had ample opportunity to find out what those who are not King James Bible only believers think and where they stand on this issue. I know God can and does use other versions to bring people to faith in Christ as their Saviour. I do not deny this; but that does not make them the repository of His complete and perfect words.

    God never promised to give every nation a Bible, let alone a perfect Bible - see Psalms 147:19-20 for this biblical principle. "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD." But God did promise to preserve His words and the evidence that He has done so perfectly only in the Authorized King James Bible is overwhelming.

    Most of the popular modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV all are based on a very different Greek text than the time tested and God honoured King James Bible. See my article on the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" that form the basis of most modern translations.

    http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/oldbest.html

    See also the article dealing with the most disputed readings between the KJB and the modern versions in the Old Latin Version, which shows these readings were found in this ancient version 200 years before they were omitted by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

    http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/OldLatin.html

    The NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV also depart many times, and not always in the same places, from the Hebrew texts. See my two articles showing this at:

    http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html

    and http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos2.html

    It is my contention that once a person no longer believes the King James Bible is the inerrant word of God, they become their own authority and they end up not believing any text or any Bible in any language is the infallible word of God.

    The following quotes come from people who do not believe the KJB is the only true word of God in the English language. They have embraced the multitude of modern versions and this is how their thinking has been affected as a direct result.

    A man who calls himself Robycop says the following: "the books of Kings & Chronicles were written by MEN, under the auspices of the Holy Spirit,hence,the differences among those books. You and I could observe a swimming pool and each make somewhat different estimates of how much water it holds-and it's entirely possible that the different writers did exactly that, or they got their info secondhand from another observer. You cannot truthfully attribute every word in those books to the Holy Spirit, as it's apparent that they differ among themselves."

    Robycop: "But who are we to assume that the Holy Spirit said to these writers,"write down every word I say",and then dictated the text to these men. I believe it was more like,"Write down everything you have observed"-if He communicated directly with these men at all-and then He preserved these writings from then till now. For that reason,I believe all the differing accounts as presented in our English Bible translations."

    Robycop: "The texts used by the translators of some versions didn't include words found in other texts used by other translators. Until the questions of textual authenticity or non-validity are answered, we have no authority to declare one correct to the exclusion of any other."

    Another Christian called gconan says: "You know I do believe that we do have God's inspired, infallible Word! But we need several Bibles to be 100% correct."

    At another Christian club I asked these questions, and Matt responded in the following way.

    1. Where is the complete, infallible, pure, inerrant wordS of God today?

    Matt>>> Those orignal Bible manuscripts no longer exist.

    2. Where can I get a copy?

    Matt>>>You can't. However, if you pick up a Nestle's Greek text you can see most of it. And if you get a New King James Version Bible, you will be able to get a drift of most of the message that the authors were trying to convey.

    Matt

    It is even more ironic, that though Matt is very vague about where God's words are found and seems to think we can only "get a drift of most of the message they were trying to convey" (how pathetic), but Matt seems blissfully unaware that the NKJV is not based on the Nestle Greek text, where he says "we can see most of it". The NKJV contains some 5000 more words and several whole verses not found in the Nestle text.

    I frequently ask this question. "Do you personally believe that any text or any translation is the inerrant, inspired, complete words of God that you would not "correct" in any way?

    Brother Scott, over at the Baptist Board answers: "I think that we are still on a quest to find not only the original words that were written in the autographs, but as our language and scholarship changes, so does our ability to effectively translate those manuscripts."

    When I asked this same question, a Christian who calls himself Tinytim answers with uncharacteristic honesty: "No one has a complete infallible bible, God seen fit to destroy the originals. If you have a problem with that talk to Him. We do have reliable english translations that give us God's message to humankind, but to say that they are inspired, infallible, or inerrant is a lie. They are merely a translation. God preserved his words in the varying manuscripts. That's why I carry a parallel Bible. There is so much pride in the KJVO beliefs that it is sinful."

    Another Christian who calles himself Archangel responds in this way: "I'd characterize the differences between our approaches more like this: you begin with a pre-determined notion about what God *must* have done; I look at the facts to determine what God has *actually* done. I hold that every believer has "soul liberty" in the matter of textual and translational differences and is responsible before God for his textual and translational choices concerning the Biblical text just as he is responsible before God for his interpretation of the Biblical text... I believe that God has given His word to the English-speaking people in many different translations both before and after 1611."

    OK, let's check out the practical outworkings of Archangel's ideas. He goes on to post:

    "The KJV has inferior translations in some places. Example: Mk. 1:10, where it renders the forceful Greek participle scizomenous -- meaning "torn open" or some similar equivalent -- as "opened," thus completely missing the force of the verb and its connection with Mk. 15:38. Since the translation of the KJV is capable of being improved here in Mk. 1:10, it is not "perfect."

    To which I answered: "Well Archy, first of all the KJB is not alone in translating this word skizo as "opened" or "opening", for the Tyndale, NKJV, NASB, RSV, NKJV 1979 edition, Webster's, Weymouth, New Century Version, KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, and the ESV do so as well.

    Secondly, we see that this is the force of the word here in Mark, because in the other two accounts found in Matthew and Luke, the Holy Ghost used the word anoigo (to open) instead of skizo as here. Thus demonstrating the force of the word in this context." It seems others equally as qualified would disagree with Archangel's personal opinion.

    Archangel also mentioned a second "shortcoming" of the KJB. He said: "The KJV lacks material which is clearly present in the original language texts. Example: Psalm 37 in Hebrew is an acrostic psalm (i.e., the first section begins with the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the second section begins with the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and so on). This acrostic feature is not preserved in the KJV even though the translators demonstrated elsewhere that they knew how to do it (see the acrostic Psalm 119). Since the KJV is capable of being improved by structuring Psa. 37 in such a way as to preserve its acrostic feature, it is not "perfect."

    I then answered Archangel in this manner: "It should be noted that not only does the KJB not render Psalm 37 as an acrostic but neither do the NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, RV, ASV, Young's, Darby, NEB, nor the NRSV." Archangel should just go ahead and write his own bible version. That is the only way he will be satisfied.

    At the Baptist Board, another professing Christian named Daniel says: "Now look, I could not continue (being a KJV onylist) when I saw each of these ERRORS that CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AWAY, I walked away from the KJV. Remember, I was KJVO. It took the truth to set me free."

    Then Daniel posts the following examples of "errors that cannot be explained away".

    1. Any use of "God forbid" in the New Testament. This is not a translation of the greek words for "God" and "forbid". The two words used literally mean: Certainly not or May it never be.

    Daniel should do some more in depth study of this expression which is accurately rendered as "God forbid", instead of parroting such baseless objections raised by men like Doug Kutilek. Here is my article which destroys this false accusation.

    http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Godfd.html

    2. 1 Timothy 6:20 - the KJV uses the word "science". Nevermind that the word is "Gnosis", meaning "knowledge".

    Perhaps Daniel would do well to look up the meaning of the word "science".

    Webster's dictionary: Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know 1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study 3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.

    The word "science" means knowledge. Not only does the KJB translate gnosis as "science" but so also do Tyndale's New Testament, the Geneva Bible, the Spanish Reina Valera "ciencia", Italian Bibles "scienza", the Portuguese bibles, Webster's 1833 translation, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the KJV 21st Century Version, and the Third Millenium Bible. What greater so called "science" is Satan using to try to destroy the Christian's faith in God's word than the two bugaboos of evolution and the "science" of textual criticism? For an in depth article showing the myth and hocus pocus that is the so called "science" of textual criticism go to my two-part series:

    http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/science.html and http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/science2.html

    3. Romans 8:16 - The KJV uses the word "itself" in reference to the Holy Spirit. Now, I prefer to not regard the Holy Spirit as Neuter as the cults do, but the KJV translators must have had an essoteric experience on this one. Nice work.

    Again, Daniel would do well to do a little more study on this false accusation made by Doug Kutilek against the KJB reading of "it" for the Holy Ghost. Here is my article completely refuting this alleged error.

    http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/rom8.html

    4. Luke 1:35 - The KJV uses the word "thing" in reference to the Christ child. Now, from what I know, Christ was MALE, not a thing.

    Once again, Daniel should learn a bit more before criticizing the KJB. The fact is the angel announcing the birth of the Saviour shows his amazement at what is happening - God is becoming a baby, and the Greek itself puts the expression in the neuter gender, not in the masculine. It literally reads "that holy thing being born", and so do Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, Young's "literal", Darby, the Diodati, Lamsa, Spanish Reina Valera, Webster's 1833 translation, and the American Standard Version. If Daniel would consult the NASB 1960 edition which reads: "that holy offspring", but in later editions was changed to "that holy child", he would see a footnote that says: "literally - that holy thing". Other places where a neuter gender is used to refer to Christ are Matthew 1:20, and 1 John 1:1.

    Dr. Bob, one of the moderators of Baptist Board says: "One must examine the principles of choice of Greek readings in the new combined Greek text and then evaluate objectively and see which text is truly reflective of the "original". Personally, I opt to use the 1550 Stephens Greek text , then compare each verse to the modern eclectic text." This same Dr. Bob is the one who also said all the Hebrew texts have been corrupted in places, and he changes them when he thinks some "scribal error" has crept into the Hebrew readings. Dr. Bob has no inspired, complete, infallible Bible anywhere on this earth. He is his own final authority as to which texts to adopt and how to render them, and of course, his own personal mystical bible version is different from that of everybody else's.

    The NKJV itself promotes this type of thinking where every man does that which is right in his own eyes. On page 1235 of the 1982 edition regarding the hundreds of variant readings listed in the footnotes, the NKJV editors say: (caps are mine) "It was the editors' conviction that the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers. The also recognized that IT WAS EASIER FOR THE AVERAGE READER TO DELETE SOMETHING HE OR SHE FELT WAS NOT PROPERLY A PART OF THE TEXT, than to insert a word or phrase which had been left out by the revisers."

    Is the Bible the inspired word of God?

    Many preachers will stand in the pulpit or Christian authors will write books in which they say "The Bible is the inspired, infallible word of God." But what exactly are they referring to when they say this? There are presently well over 100 different English bible versions available to the general public and none of them agree with the others in both text and meaning in hundreds of verses. I can easily prove this and it is well noted by many atheists, Muslims and other Bible bashers on the internet.

    So, which of these different bibles is really the inspired, inerrant words of God? Or has the complete, pure, inerrant words of God been somehow lost in the shuffle and God has failed to preserve His words as He promised?

    Some Christians say, "Well, only the originals were inspired." Since we don't have any of the originals and nobody knows what they really said, how can we then say the Bible is the inspired words of God? Shouldn't we be saying, the bible WAS the inspired word of God?

    I believe, along with thousands of other Christians, that God has kept His promises to preserve His words and He has done so in the King James Bible.

    Modern versionists will say they are examining the evidence and trying to come up with the best text to restore the words of God. I believe God has already gone through this process using the men He chose to bring forth the King James Bible. If God has already done this in order to preserve His words and carry out the great modern missionary movement, there is no need to do it again, unless He decides to put His words into another language other than English.

    Some speak of the same general message and principles being found in all valid versions. Yet we can point out many direct contradictions concerning these basic principles.

    The "any bible will do" position leads to uncertainty, doubt and unbelief. There are a multitude of contradictory versions, several whole verses being found in some that are not in others. (17 entire verses omitted from the New Testament in the NIV, NASB, and even more in the RSV - when compared to the KJB, NKJV, TMB.)

    Is the Jesus Christ in your bible the one who lied in John 7:8 NASB, ESV? The KJB, NIV, RV, and NKJV say: "Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come"...verse 10 "But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." But the NASB, ESV have Jesus saying: "I do NOT GO up to this feast... But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up".

    Did the Lord Jesus Christ need a blood sacrifice to be cleansed from sin in Luke 2:22 as the NASB, NIV teach? Both these versions read: "when the days of THEIR purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished", as opposed to the KJB, NKJV, Geneva bibles which have "when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished". The only O.T. reference for this sin offering to make an atonements is found in Leviticus 12:6-8 where only the woman offered the sin offering for her purification.

    Is the Lord Christ the one who has "origens from ancient times" in Micah 5:2 as the NIV, RSV, NWT teach, or were His "goings forth from everlasting" as the KJB, NKJV, NASB have it?

    Can God be deceived as the NASB teaches in Ps. 78:36? The NASB says the children of Israel DECEIVED GOD with their mouths, but the NKJV, KJB, NIV, RV, ASV all say they "flattered" God with their mouths and lied unto Him. You can flatter God by saying nice things about Him but not letting Him control your behavior, but you certainly cannot deceive Him.

    Is the Lord Jesus Christ the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God BEFORE His incarnation? The NIV never refers to Christ as "the only begotten Son". Christ was the only begotten Son from all eternity, but not in the NIV.

    The NIV even perverts true doctrine when the Bible speaks of the resurrection of Christ, when He was quickened from the dead and raised again to life to become "the first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5), and "the firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18).

    In Psalm 2 and Acts 13:33 where God says (and ALL GREEK TEXTS read) "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN: as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE". The specific Day that Christ was begotten from the dead was that first Easter morning. However the NIV actually says "Today I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER"!!!

    The NIV here teaches that there was a time when God was not the Father of Christ. This is also the reading of the Jehovah witness "bible" (New World translation), and they use this verse and Micah 5:2, which also reads the same in their version as the NIV, to prove that Jesus Christ is a created being and not from everlasting.

    Proverbs 14:5 tells us: "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies."

    There are many lies found in the new bible versions and it is the accumulation of such lies that reveal them to be false witnesses to the whole truth of God. One such lie is found in 2 Samuel 14:14.

    The context is when Absalom had slain Amnon because he raped his sister Tamar. Absalom fled to Geshur and was there for three years, yet the soul of king David longed for his son Absalom. Joab decides to put words in the mouth of a wise woman from Tekoah and he sends her to speak to the king.

    In the course of their conversation the woman finally tells king David in 2 Samuel 14: 13 -14: "the king doth speak this thing as one which is faulty, in that the king doth not fetch home again his banished. For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him."

    The meaning is pretty straightforward. We all must die and God does not respect any person or show partiality to one more than another in this regard.

    Other Bible versions that read as the King James Bible are the Geneva Bible of 1599, the Jewish Publication Society of America's 1917 translation, Young's "literal" translation, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millenium Bible.

    However when we get to the New KJV, the NIV and the NASB instead of "neither doth God respect any person" they read "YET GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE". This is a lie and a contradiction.

    Just two chapters before this event we read of the child born to David in his adulterous affair with Bathseba that "the LORD struck the child, and it was very sick" and on the seventh day it died. 2 Samuel 12:15. In Deuteronomy 32:39 God Himself says: "I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." In Genesis 38:7 and 10 we read of two wicked sons of Judah, Er and Onan "and the LORD SLEW him", and "wherefore he slew him also." I Samuel 2:6 tells us: "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up." And 2 Samuel 6:7 says: "And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah. and God smote him there for his error: and there he died by the ark of God."

    In the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ says in Luke 12:5 "But I will forwarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him."

    God obviously does indeed take away life, and the NKJV, NIV and NASB are all in error here in 2 Samuel 14:14 where they say that He doesn't take away life.

    In 2 Peter 3:12 the KJB correctly says we are "looking for and HASTING UNTO the coming of the day of God". The date is already fixed in God's timetable and nothing we can do will make it come any faster. It is we who in our fleeting lives are fast moving towards that day. However the NKJV, NIV, NASB all teach that we can "speed" or "hasten" the coming of the day of God. This contradicts numerous other Scriptures and is a false doctrine. See my more complete article on this verse here: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/hastingunto.html

    God is "no respecter of persons", but the NKJV, NASB, NIV say God is not partial. Which one is the truth? The phrases do not mean the same thing. Exodus 4:11 "And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?". "The rich and poor meet together: the LORD is the maker of them all." Proverbs 22:2.

    Not to show partiality is to treat all men equally; and this God does not do, as His word clearly testifies. For a fuller explanation see http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/respect.html

    Our only hope of righteousness before God is to be clothed in the righteousness of Christ. He alone is our righteousness. Revelation 19:8 speaks of the church of God, the wife of the Lamb being arrayed in fine linen, clean and white. "for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints". Versions that read just like the KJV are Tyndale's New Testament of 1534, Geneva of 1599, Green’s interlinear, Daniel Webster's of 1833, Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Bible in Basic English, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Third Millenium Bible, and the 21st Century KJB version.

    But the NKJV, NASB, ISV, Holman Christian Standard Bible, and the NIV have, “the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints.” If our righteous acts are going to make up our wedding dress, it will be pretty soiled and tattered. So, which one is true?

    Psalm 10:4 describes a wicked man: "The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God; GOD IS NOT IN ALL HIS THOUGHTS." In other words, in everything this man thinks, God never enters the picture. The NKJV, NIV agree with the KJV. But the NAS has "All his thoughts are 'There is no God.'" Not even the staunchest atheist walks around all day long thinking; "there is no god, there is no god, there is no god." This is a false and preposterous statement in the NASB.

    Ephesians 5:13 says along with the NKJV, NIV,ASV, Darby, Geneva and Spanish: "But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light; for WHATSOEVER DOTH MAKE MANIFEST IS LIGHT." In other words, the light of God's truth shows things for what they really are. It tells us what sin and unrighteousness are by exposing them. The NAS would have us believe "everything that becomes visible is light," Oh, really?

    1 Corinthians 8:4 "we know that an idol is nothing in the world" - this is the meaning found in the NIV, NKJV too. However the NASB says: "there is no such thing as an idol in the world". No idols in the world, huh?

    Is Judah faithful to God as the KJB, RSV, NKJV teach or is Judah unruly against God as the NASB, NIV teach in Hosea 11:12?

    These are just a few of the problems you have if you think God is the one guiding and directing the modern versionists. This God seems to be a bit confused and muddled in his thinking. He can't seem to make up his mind as to what he said or meant.

    So if you think all these modern versions are from God, you have no sure words and your case is getting worse all the time as new versions continue to roll off the presses which in turn contradict the previous ones.

    Wasn't there something written in the Bible that told us of the falling away from the faith in the last days?

    Has Satan changed in his hatred and opposition to the words of God?

    Has man "evolved" to a higher state in these last days and so now he can think more clearly?

    If the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ is found only in the Bible, and this "bible" contains contradictions, false information, completely different meanings in scores of verses, many verses found in some but not in others, then how do we know the gospel of which they speak is true?

    If God hasn't kept His promises to preserve His words, then how do you know God will keep His promise to preserve your soul?

    Is the Bible the inspired, inerrant words of God? And if so, what are you referring to when you say this?

    Will Kinney
     
  2. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    The King James is most certainly not the infallible, inspired Word of God. We must only call that which is inspired what was originally written. There are many reasons why, which have been flippantly explained away by the KJVO's for the last 50 years or so. Those who believe that the KJV is the only true infallible word of God are guilty of a belief in a progressive revelation, as no one until about 50 or so years ago believed that the KJV is infallible. That makes them no better than the Catholics who believe that the Papal office continues to get divine revelation.

    But, I'm willing to strike up KJVO's as those who just don't know any better. It's interesting to see the history of KJVO belief, and just how desparate some people are to have a specific text in their hands. They have to believe in something that they can see, so they opt to believe in a book that has been shown to be fallible for 400 years.

    I'll opt for common sense and a little bit of knowledge, thanks. I'll echo the statement made by, well, me, in your little article: "I think that we are still on a quest to find not only the original words that were written in the autographs, but as our language and scholarship changes, so does our ability to effectively translate those manuscripts."
     
  3. Refreshed

    Refreshed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just wanted to point out that there are places where the Geneva and the KJV have different readings (refer to Acts 12:4 Easter vs. Passover), and Luther's translation did not even have 1 John 5:7. Not only do no two mss agree, no two bible versions agree 100 percent, not even the 1611 KJV vs. the 1769 KJV. I sure am glad I don't use the "wicked bible" (thou shalt commit adultery).

    At what point do we say a bible version becomes the spawn of the anti-christ, after the 40th change, 400th change, 4000th change? But now we're getting into harder questions, see. Questions that cannot be answered by a KJVO, trust me, I've tried.

    Jason

    Jason
     
  4. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    I guess someone needs to remind a few people that no translation is perfect. The KJV is a translation not the original manuscript. Any translator in any court or anyone who translates documents can tell you that some words do not translate.

    The Bible makes great claims for itself not the translation. A translation of the word of God is just that--a translation not the original inspired by God version. The KJV may have been inspired by some pedobaptists but not God. It is a translation done by pedobaptists.

    Now after all your claims prove to anyone that a translation is the real, deal that it is the original manuscript. Only the original manuscripts can lay claim to inspiration by God.
     
  5. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just wanted to point out that there are places where the Geneva and the KJV have different readings (refer to Acts 12:4 Easter vs. Passover),

    The terms Easter and passover were synonyms, both referring to the Jewish feast in 1611.
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Will, you are wrong. Again.

    Do you feel you gain points by posting a 10-page paper on the BB? When you start with a faulty premise - that if we do not believe the KJV is the only Bible then we don't have one - puts you DANGEROUSLY CLOSE to #5.

    #4 for sure. And I feel genuinely sorry for you. You are leading others into error and will be so held accountable for your many words.
     
  7. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    The original Geneva Bible of 1557 reads "entending after Easter to bringe him forth to the people" in Acts 12:4. You must be reading one of the later revisions of the Geneva Bible. [​IMG]
     
  8. TheOliveBranch

    TheOliveBranch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,597
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr.Bob,

    I can see what Will is saying, and what he is basing his beliefs on. He is giving the reasons why we should only believe the TR, not other manuscripts. Arguments for the MV's are based on the "older and better" manuscripts, and this argument is used to take the stand that he does. What I don't understand is the argument on the "inerrancy of the KJV", when error can be blatantly shown.

    I wonder why we are not given copies of the original, inspired writings. Maybe because man would do what many #5 KJVO's try to do, make themselves higher than others because of what God has revealed to them.

    I agree with Will to an extent. I cannot see the "older and better" manuscripts as taking precidence over the TR. Too many MVers base their beliefs on these manuscripts, doing exactly what the KJVOers are doing: making their MSS "better" than others to degrade another Christians belief, or to disprove a Bible over menial things.
     
  9. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
    What Happens if you are Not a King James Bible Only believer?

    First, to answer the question above, let's assume this question is asked to Christians only. The answer is, you're gaining a much-broader understanding of the Scriptures, as God wishes each believer to do. You are more fully-prepared to do the works of God as He presents you the opportunity.

    Next: READERS, I AM THE ROBYCOP WILL MENTIONS-CRANSTON P. ROBY. What I said is the absolute truth about the books of samuel, Kings, & Chronicles. Their writers did NOT know they were writing Scripture, and from those books we see that other such books were written which were not chosen by God to become Scripture. These OT books have BEEN Scripture since well before Jesus' earthly time, and the differences between them have been known since that time. Unlike the diehard KJVO of today, the people of those days recognized they were different books written by different witnesses from different perspectives. The Onlyist doesn't want to admit this because he knows that premise can be applied to the differing Scriptural mss, which would effectively destroy the only spark of validity the entire KJVO argument has.

    Will likes to compare the Bible versions among themselves, but his logic is flawed for two reasons. First, he uses circular reasoning, assuming the KJV rendering of a given passage is always the only correct one, & that any other rendering is incorrect. Second, he readily admits that he CANNOT prove that one rendering really IS correct or another one wrong.

    On another board, Will was called to account for not being able to PROVE his assertions. Since he feels free to quote me(and I don't mind at all if he does, as I'm not ashamed of my own statements)I feel equally free to quote him in his response to his respondent:

    (Name snipped), {i]I don't have to prove which one is correct. In fact, there is probably no way anybody can do that. You do not profess a belief in any inspired, infallible bible. You don't have one. All those totally different renderings were made by people who had gone to seminary and learned the "original languages" and they all had similar training, yet they come up with total confusion.[/i]

    You see, he readily admits he cannot prove a thing he says, but in trying to compensate for his lack of proof, he uses a standard ad-hominem attack against those who oppose his views:"You have no inspired, perfect, infallible Bible. You have no final authority". This translates into, "I am clueless, so let's distract the other readers from that fact by putting my opposition on the defensive".

    Cold, hard fact is, Will, like all other KJVOs simply cannot justify the KJVO myth.
     
  10. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will Kinney said:

    What Happens if you are Not a King James Bible Only believer?

    One of the first things that must occur for someone to no longer believe in a complete, infallible, inspired Bible is to somehow not believe or explain away the following verses that the Holy Bible says about itself.


    And at the point when you falsely equate "King James Bible Only believer" with "believe in a complete, infallible, inspired Bible" is the point where you go wrong.

    Two whole sentences and you've already blown your own argument to shreds with a categorical error. Is that a BB record, by any chance? [​IMG]
     
  11. Refreshed

    Refreshed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    0
    The original Geneva Bible of 1557 reads "entending after Easter to bringe him forth to the people" in Acts 12:4. You must be reading one of the later revisions of the Geneva Bible. [​IMG] </font>[/QUOTE]Dang it. I'm so tired of having to say Geneva 1599, but I guess I will. :mad:

    Jason
     
  12. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    LOL! Well, my point was that the Geneva, the standard bible prior to the KJV (according to the common people) was felt to be in need of revision by 1560 when the change first occurred.

    Just as there were changes in the KJV from 1611 to 1769.

    Just as there were changes in the NASB and the NIV.

    Every bible has been changed, even if ever so slightly, so the idea of one "perfect" and therefore "standard" version is a myth. [​IMG]
     
  13. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I fyou are not KJVO, then you have the opportunity to believe what God taught about Scripture. A KJVO will never have that opportunity.
     
  14. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    The post that started this thread began with a severely false a priori assumption--the beginning of invalid (circular) reasoning--and likely could go nowhere but downhill from there. [​IMG]
     
  15. doulon

    doulon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will,

    The only real question I have for you is:

    Why do you waste your time with this group of reprobates?

    Marty
     
  16. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Presumably the same thing that happens if you're not a Tyndale Bible Only Believer, or a Geneva Bible Only Believer, or.... [​IMG]

    But apparently what happens with *some* who happen to be "King James Bible Only believers" is that they lose their capacity to present all the facts. For example:

    Actually, what I said was,

    I'd characterize the differences between our approaches more like this: you begin with a pre-determined notion about what God *must* have done; I look at the facts to determine what God has *actually* done. You assign a kind of "papal infallibility" to Erasmus in his textual choices and to the KJV translators in their translational choices; I hold that every believer has "soul liberty" in the matter of textual and translational differences and is responsible before God for his textual and translational choices concerning the Biblical text just as he is responsible before God for his interpretation of the Biblical text. You seem to believe that every English-speaking person who had the misfortune to live before 1611 (1769?) didn't have the word of God in his own language; I believe that God has given His word to the English-speaking people in many different translations both before and after 1611.

    (You can read the full post here -----&gt; LINK)

    It's customary when quoting someone in print either to cite the entire quotation or to indicate with ellipses (...) that something has been omitted. Failure to do so is at best shoddy research and at worst dishonesty and misrepresentation of the facts.
     
  17. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Over time in this forum, we have had the wonderful privilege of seeing some of these "reprobates" abandon their KJVOnlyism when they start studying the truth of God's word. For that, it is worth it.
     
  18. Singleman

    Singleman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2002
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    No offense, but this forum would probably cease to exist if all its users employed logical, reasonable, coherent, and truly biblically-based arguments at all times.
     
  19. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    gb writes: "I guess someone needs to remind a few people that no translation is perfect. The KJV is a translation not the original manuscript. Any translator in any court or anyone who translates documents can tell you that some words do not translate.
    The Bible makes great claims for itself not the translation. A translation of the word of God is just that--a translation not the original inspired by God version.
    Now after all your claims prove to anyone that a translation is the real, deal that it is the original manuscript. Only the original manuscripts can lay claim to inspiration by God."

    gb, what a bunch of gobbledygook! So if "the Bible" makes claims for itself (you know, things like God's words will never pass away, etc.) and this does not apply to a translation, then God has lied to us all, hasn't He? Where are your "originals"?

    Secondly, when was it ever a problem for God to translate His words into another language without "losing something"? Did you get this idea out of the Bible?

    Thirdly, where did you get the idea that only the originals can be inspired, and not a translation? You certainly did not get this bogus idea out of the Bible. Maybe you got it from some seminary or from some guy who went to seminary and paid good money to have his faith in the the Bible stolen from him, but you didn't get it from the Bible. Chapter and verse please.

    While you are searching your "bible" for the verse that tells you only the originals were inspired, you might try reading my article Can a Translation be Inspired?

    http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html

    Will K
     
  20. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just curious, where did you get the idea that God translated his words into another language? Did you get this idea out of the Bible?
     

Share This Page

Loading...