What has happened to "Thus saith the LORD?

Yes, and I clearly and honestly admitted that!

 

Doeth James saith differently?

 

As long as KJVO's proport that only legitimate English translation for all people is the KJV, the lies will not stop. So long as KJVO's blanket non-KJVO's as being doctrinally weaker than KJVO's the lies will not stop.

 

It depends what lies you are talking about.

Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Since every man is a liar, and only God is true, your answer is no.

This thread is supposed to be about "Thus saith the Lord," intimating the authority of the Lord, and man's response to it. When a preacher stands in front of his pulpit and preaches dogmatically against abortion, against the sins of this world, against all forms of ungodliness, and he is using Scripture to do so, then he is saying "Thus saith the Lord," whether it be directly or indirectly. He is saying what the Lord wants him to say. The version of the Bible has nothing to do with it.

I prefer the KJV. I believe it is the most accurate translation. However, there was a young man that came to me one day and felt that the Lord would have him tell me of Jesus Christ and his power to save. I had been a Catholic for 20 years. He didn't use a KJV Bible. He used "The Good News For Modern Man." It is probably the worst possible paraphrase that he could have used--one that omits the blood 19 times. Did that make a difference to me--one that was totally ignorant of what the Bible said? No. He was still able to show me the plan of salvation. "Thus saith the Lord" you are a sinner in need of a Saviour. In spite of the translation used, I got saved that night.
Or, would you say that was impossible because the KJV wasn't used and I am still unsaved??

Thus saith the Lord refers to the authority of God behind the message, and it doesn't always have to come from the KJV. It comes from the preaching of the Word of God, as it is Biblically expounded to the people. The Word of God is expounded to people all over this world. There are 3,000 languages in this world. Only 322 of them have Bibles. Only 10% of the world speaks English. Yet some here are so arrogant to believe that God would preserve an inspired Bible in only one language of the world for just 10% of the world's population, and let the rest of the world be damned. Your God is a very cruel and capricious God.
DHK

 

Amen, DHK!!!

 

I agree with you DHK. I do not think I can argue with the fact that God does indeed use the MV's.
I another thread some fellow had the audacity to imply that since I used Scripturally based tracts that God would not, nay, could not use them to lead folks to Jesus. All I could say was 'Oh well".
It has been MY experience that MV churches ,(in general) are weaker and more worldly than KJB churches. But then again, I do not have the all encompassing experience nor privilege to have visited EVERY Baptist church in the western world, nor the 10's of thousands of other non-denominational whatever you call 'ems. There may be very strong soul winning churches who use the version of the month clubs newest pick. I just have NEVER seen it. OTH I have seen the strength, Biblical literacy, and soul mindedness of KJB churches and I believe the contrast to be apparent.
JMO
In His service;
Jim

 

As long as KJVO's proport that only legitimate English translation for all people is the KJV, the lies will not stop. So long as KJVO's blanket non-KJVO's as being doctrinally weaker than KJVO's the lies will not stop. </font>[/QUOTE]I guess you are coreect because mv lovers will obviously continue to spread their lies, as long as Bible believers continue to take a stand for truth and have a Godly standard instead of a self pelasing one.

 

Actually you have stumbled on to something. KJVO is a self-pleasing standard. It doesn't come from the Bible but it allows you to claim spiritual superiority.

KJVOnlyism didn't come from God's Word. It was made up by deceivers and used to gain emotional control over people who were fearful of real liberalism and modernism.

 

"my bible can whup yer bible" na-ner-na-ner-na-ner.
C'mon.This is precisely why the western world has gone to the outhouse for its truth. Folks like you who are calling each other liars and worse; INSTEAD OF proclaiming to a lost and dying world, "THUS SAITH THE LORD".
I say 'you' in the context of ALL OF YOU who are doing this. Both MV'ers and KJB'ers.
My soul!!! It makes me sick. You can imagine what Jesus thinks of it.
I admit, I have been caught up in it at times. In my zeal to defend my convictions, I end up bringing a reproach upon HE WHO DIED FOR ME. Forgive me please.
But to go on for days, weeks, MONTHS on end with the same old mantra? Shame on you all.
Debate is one thing, and it can get nasty. But really, should it be ONCE NAMED AMONG THE SAINTS??? Divisions, backbiting, etc...?
Shame, shame, shame.
Whatever happened to civility? Whatever happened to, "let your words be with grace seasoned with salt?"
Sad. Sad day indeed. Do you all think you are accomplishing anything for the Kingdom of Christ?
HUH?
Tell me, please, how does this work to edify the church? How does this even remotely resemble, "And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also".?
This thread began with, whatever happened to thus saith the Lord and has quickly (post #5) degenerated into, "my bible can whup yer bible".
Shame. Shows you very plainly what happened. Folks just QUIT BELIEVING GOD. By just looking at this thread, it would appear that folks just quit believing there IS a God who judges the hearts, at all.
In His service;
Jim

 

The only one claim a person like that can make is one he will not--arrogance.

A relationship with Jesus is not something anyone can boast about. But so called standards one can. But that boasting is focusing on self.

 

I don't think you can. But we do have the word of God to go by. That is not at issue here. The problem is the false claims that the MVs are not the word of God. Nothing could be further from the truth. When someone says that an MV is not the word of God, they are teaching falsely and ruining the faith of others. God said a millstone should be hung around the necks of those kind of people and they should be thrown into the sea.

No, I did not say that. I too believe that the KJV is sufficient. What is wrong is the claim that the the KJV alone is the word of God in English. THat is a blatantly false teaching.

I know because it is a faithful translation of the original langauge texts that God has preserved for 2000 years. THat is an easy determination to make.

The problem is that the KJVO people have no auhtority from Scripture for their position. They resort to empty philosophy and vain arguments that all come from the mind of man. God has never one time said that only one version is the word of God. Therefore, we should not say that.

 

Surely you do not believe that your opinion speaks for all churches, do you?? I know of a great many solid Baptist churches that use MVs. I know of a great many KJVO churches with very poor standards.

 

I know because it is a faithful translation of the original langauge texts that God has preserved for 2000 years. THat is an easy determination to make.

The problem is that the KJVO people have no auhtority from Scripture for their position. They resort to empty philosophy and vain arguments that all come from the mind of man. God has never one time said that only one version is the word of God. Therefore, we should not say that. </font>[/QUOTE]If it is so easy to determine what scripture really says, why are there so many different bibles? Surely if they all say the same thing, there would be no need for them. They do not all say the same thing, because not all translators agree on what is the best wording, and what text is closest to the original, etc...

The KJV argument is that if God ever promised to preserve His word, He did it in the KJV. The MV argument is that He did it through multitudes of manuscripts. The KJV position has as much if not more scriptural backing as the MV position. If God did not promise to preserve His word, then the word is lost, and we are all in the dark.

You say God has never said there was only one version of His word. Well he never said there was more than one. But Jesus was the Word made flesh, and I'm pretty sure there was only one of Him. There are times in the bible when one true prophet stands in contrast to multiple prophets who prophesy lies.

I took the following from an article entitled "The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism" by A.E. Housman

These 'advantages' of physical science, in reality are the DEFINITION of science.

Scientific Method:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

If there is no way to objectively verify a hypothesis, it remains such. Textual criticism is a PHILOSOPHY, not a science. Can you show from scripture that this is how God intended to preserve His word? If not, then it must be a philosophy of man.

1Tim 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

 

Christ is to Christians as the Original Autographs are to copies and translations... only the copies and translations are a much more faithful representation of the originals than any Christian is of Christ.

No one I know approaches being like Christ over 99%.

 

Thats very good Scott, now you have implied that you can determine within 99% accuracy what God really said using this system of textual criticism. But you cannot prove that assertion. There is no 'scientific' basis behind the methods used to decide what God really said in the originals. The fact is, these methods are based on assumptions and worldly wisdom, that may sound good in theory, but cannot be proven, and could easily be just plain wrong. The assumption that an older manuscript is better than a majority reading from later mss is one example. You could not prove that assertion without having the originals in your hand to verify what they said. When scholars say we have 'the original greek', what they really have is a reconstruction of what they feel best represents the original greek. How anyone could come up with a number like 99% is beyond me.

 

There aren't so many different Bibles. There are different translations of the Bible.

But language changes. Some people understand some things in a different wording. We practice this all the time in daily speech.

But those aren't real disputes about the word of God itself. That argument is often brought up and it just shows how uninformed some people are about the real issues involved.

So we should believe this just because you said it? God never identified the KJV as the word of God. You could just as easily pick the NASB, NIV, or Geneva Bible and have equal evidence from God. The KJVO position has no backing whatsoever from God. The MV position does. We have evidence that people used Bibles other than the KJV. We have evidence that wordings that differ are indeed the authoritative word of God. The MV position can be (and has been) made very easily from Scripture. There is not on iota of biblical evidence for KJVO.

Well no, not at all. If God did not promise to preserve it, he still may have preserved it. What you should have said is that is God did not preserve his word, then the word is lost. The promise is irrelevant on this particular issue. But the issue itself is irrelevant, since we all agree that God did preserve his word.

[/qb]But the evidence from Scripture very clearly shows the MV position. Not one person is Scripture quoted from the KJV. That means the KJV is not hte only word of God. The OT quotations in the KJV do not match. That shows that God did not have only one version. There was an original language version (where our translations are made from ) and there was a version that the NT authors quoted from, and they are clearly not indentical.

Yes there are. But that is irrelevant.

No, not really. There are recognized and sustainable principles of textual transmission.

We already did, long ago.

You highlighted the wrong part. Never was the KJVO position more aptly described.

1Tim 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Your attacks on God's word are profane and vain babblings. You are destroying people's faith in God's word by constantly attacking it.

 

There aren't so many different Bibles. There are different translations of the Bible.
</font>[/QUOTE]Semantics

But language changes. Some people understand some things in a different wording. We practice this all the time in daily speech.
</font>[/QUOTE]Just because a language changes, that does not mean we need to write a new version of the bible. Should we now produce an 'ebonics' bible for the inner city kids who are not being taught to read and write proper English? Or should we hold fast the form of sound words, as the bible tells us. It is not difficult to get an older dictionary and find out what any one of the words in a King James bible mean if you are not familiar with them. In fact, I encourage one to do so.

But those aren't real disputes about the word of God itself. That argument is often brought up and it just shows how uninformed some people are about the real issues involved.
</font>[/QUOTE]If they arent disputes about the word of God, then who do you think wrote the bible? You can call me uninformed, but please inform me after doing so. What are the real issues involved?

So we should believe this just because you said it? God never identified the KJV as the word of God. You could just as easily pick the NASB, NIV, or Geneva Bible and have equal evidence from God. The KJVO position has no backing whatsoever from God. The MV position does. We have evidence that people used Bibles other than the KJV. We have evidence that wordings that differ are indeed the authoritative word of God. The MV position can be (and has been) made very easily from Scripture. There is not on iota of biblical evidence for KJVO.
</font>[/QUOTE]Once again, if it is so easy, please do it.

Well no, not at all. If God did not promise to preserve it, he still may have preserved it. What you should have said is that is God did not preserve his word, then the word is lost. The promise is irrelevant on this particular issue. But the issue itself is irrelevant, since we all agree that God did preserve his word.

But the evidence from Scripture very clearly shows the MV position. Not one person is Scripture quoted from the KJV. That means the KJV is not hte only word of God. The OT quotations in the KJV do not match. That shows that God did not have only one version. There was an original language version (where our translations are made from ) and there was a version that the NT authors quoted from, and they are clearly not indentical.
</font>[/QUOTE]You say this as if I believe Jesus was holding a KJV in the temple when he taught. I'm not arguing that there was no original language version of the scriptures. I'm contesting your assertion that you know how to put it together from the pieces that we have left. Show me in the bible that the scriptures that the NT authors quoted from were put together using textual criticism and that is God's preferred method of preserving His word. Where does it show in the bible, a scribe getting out all his available extant mss and piecing together what God said? God always delivers His word to His people. They don't have to go looking for it.

Yes there are. But that is irrelevant.

No, not really. There are recognized and sustainable principles of textual transmission.
</font>[/QUOTE]Recognized and sustainable principals? Recognized by who? And sustainable by what? By MAN's wisdom. MAN came up with a system for identifying God's word and he sustains it with his own understanding. This is contrary to everything the bible teaches us about God and how he deals with His people. This system makes MAN the final authority over what God said. You cannot argue this fact. You can dance around it and try to perform mental gymnastics to get over it, but its still there.

We already did, long ago.

You highlighted the wrong part. Never was the KJVO position more aptly described.

1Tim 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Your attacks on God's word are profane and vain babblings. You are destroying people's faith in God's word by constantly attacking it. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I am not attacking God's word, and you know that. I am not destroying faith in God's word. The King James bible gave the word of God to the common man, and the world was blessed for it. Now the MV movement has attacked the word of God and destroyed peoples faith in God's word. You think I'm nuts? Why is it that I hear the same arguments you use to defend the modern versions, from the average carnal Christian on the street who thinks that God's word is unimportant and that as long as they have Jesus in their heart, they know that they are in good standing, regardless of whatever sins they might be committing?? The creation of a bible industry has done nothing to strengthen the church, friend. Open your eyes and look around you.

 

Nope. I am saying when you forget about non-consequential things concerning word order, redundancy, or obvious spelling/copying mistakes, we can be 99% certain of the words God actually spoke. And since even the real variants don't amount to a change in revealed truth, we can be 100% certain that we have God's Word as He intended for us to have it.

Don't need to. It has already been proven by people with the knowledge and access to compare the manuscript evidence.

The people you have decided to put all this "faith" in used a form of "textual criticism." Both the KJV translators and Erasmus made determinations on variants. They did so with much less information than modern scholars have.

The KJV translators sometimes chose to go against the TR. Erasmus chose followed the Latin Vulgate instead of the Greek in some places.

Not with 100% certainty... but it is alot better than guessing or following Romish tradition.

The fact is that the TR is the product of Catholic scholarship, copying, and, to some extent, tradition.

No. But you can prove the rule of thumb by experimentation.

BTW, I tend to favor the Majority Text over the CT or TR.

And that is the best you can say as well.

You take the number of actual words that agree. You subtract differences due to redundancy, obvious errors in copying or spelling, and inconsequential word order differences then divide by the total.

 

You have proven Pastor Larry's point for him. The MV movement has not attacked the Word of God. It has attempted to put it into the language of 21st century English speakers.

Was that supposed to be a rhetorical question?

I am thinking of someone I knew very well. The wife of our former pastor. She was KJVO. Her son was KJVO. They both attempted to excuse his behavior... even to the point of trying to blame someone else for his having burglarized a store.

This same woman discouraged several of the spiritually immature Christian ladies in the church with her harsh, condescending attitude which included KJVO issues. Some stopped coming or came less frequently. Two men in need of discipleship left the church because of her hateful attitude. My wife was hurt several times while trying to make peace between this woman and other ladies in the church.

An unsaved man and his newly saved wife and their children stopped coming to church because of problems created by this KJVO pastor's wife.

Before you say, "So what?" Our church only ran about 40 on Sunday morning.

So you don't think the church is strengthened when Christians read, understand, and apply the NIV...NASB...NKJV...ESV...etc?

If not, it is you who should open your eyes.