When did it become sin...

Our Lord NEVER said, "A better rendering would be"....nor did He ever say "an unfortunate rendering in our Authozied Masoretic Version"...nor did His Aposltes ever say such things. They never spoke like Modern Scholars and pretend scholars.

As far as the list of authors you cited Mez, how many of their books have you read from cover to cover? Which ones?

 

Arminius, you incorrectly use the term "Bible Believer". I am hardly KJVO, but I AM a Bible Believer, as are ALL Christians. Where else did any Christian find out about God and Jesus? If it was from spoken words, that was only the penultimate source. The ULTIMATE source was from His chosen form of mosta His communication with modern man, HIS WRITTEN WORD. And NOWHERE in that written word can KJVO br found.

Were there any Bible Believers before 1611? Did the AV men hafta write their own Bible in order to have one?

Yet another "Casey At The Bat" by a KJVO advocate.

 

No, they certainly didn't. But they, unlike some folks today, realized that God's word can be preserved without perfectly preserving a particular set of words. This is evidenced by the fact that NT quotes of OT passages often disagree in the specific wording while the meaning still comes through loud and clear.

 

If a Pastor prays and is biblically knowledgable, how can you say he is sinning when he speaks what God has given him to speak? Opinions vary in every single human being. My Pastor is KJVO and backs it with study and prayer. I thank God for all the Bible lessons I have had during his 7 years as our Pastor, the end of his 40 year preaching career. He is old school, powerful, and there aren't many more like him still alive. An expository preacher par excellance.

If the version of the Bible you use is missing verses or words have been altered to change their meaning, it is something you should pray about and listen for God's guidance on.

And if you would like me to pray with you, I will be happy to. Our God is great God - nothing is impossible for Him.

Debbie Mc (cancer survivor and born again believer)

 

Then obviously you don't have a problemwith belittling God's word when it is in versions other than the KJV.

Neither does the Bible in any version say that God preserved His word on only one particular English Bible translation.

Oh, there are many Bible believers here, Arminius. Most of us believe that God has the power to preserve His word in various English Bible translatons. You use the term "Bible believer" as if only someone who believes the KJVO myth believes the Bible, and you're absolutely wrong about that.

Now that ugly "Bible correctors" thing appears. So how is it that the KJV use of unicorn in Numbers 23:22 is a better word selection than wild ox which appears in such versions as the English Revised Version (1885) and the American Standard Version (1901), as well as in the New American Standard Bible and the Holman Christian Standard Bible? According to Strong's the word unicorn really IS a poor choice for the original Hebrew r@'em (see Strong's 07214} while wild ox is a much better choice. Isn't it wrong to refer to a mythological animal rather than using the name of something that is a much better description and that is the name of an animal that really existed? Unicorn is much more wrong and irrelevant than wild ox in this instance. And there are many more similar examples where the wording in the KJV is more wrong and irrelevant than the wording found in some of the MVs. Your reasoning is faulty here, Arminius, because it is based on the preconceived and erroneous misconception that the KJV cannot possibly be wrong in any way.

 

Our Lord never had to say "A better rendering would be..." because His scriptures was not a translation. He most likely could read from the original language, that is the Hebrew holy scriptures, known as the Tanakh. It is the damaging act of translation that affords the opportunity to expound upon nuances of meaning that may be obscured, unfamilar, or even lost. If a speaker today preached in Hebrew and the listening audience understood the Hebrew, he would have little reason to explain the words. BTW, Jesus would not have read from the actual Masoretic Text, which came much later.

But also He and His disciples seemed to have quoted from a Septuagint (versions of the 'old testament' translated into Greek). They were almost certainly multi-lingual. Thank you for pointing out the very fact the He did not correct the rendering of the Septuagint where it is clearly different from the Jewish traditional text. This is a significant indication that Jesus Christ himself accepted that genuine translational differences are still equally authoritative words.

 

Amen to that, tinytim! And those Greek and Hebrew manuscripts were somebody's trusted Bible once! (Actually, probably several believers' Bible over a long time.)

 

I don't doubt that you view your pastor in a favorable light, Debbie. But if he stands in the pulpit and calls modern versions "perversions" as some do, then he is not speaking what God has given him. God would never have anyone speak against his word, Debbie. Such things come from another source because God cannot stand against himself and beause he is not the author of confusion.

So if the Bible version I use doesn't contain the things added to the manuscripts underlying some other Bible versions, then the Bible I use is wrong? What happened to it being wrong to add to God's word, Debbie? If the Bible you use has such added verses or words, you really need to pray about it. The more literal MVs are faithful to their underlying texts just as the KJV is faithful to its underlying texts. And since we no longer have the original autographs it is impossible to say which manuscripts or manuscript families are more accurate to the originals. (BTW, the Bible version I use most frequently is the NKJV.)

 

Is it your position that a Pastor cannot err while behind the pulpit? It has not been my experience: I have witnessed Pastors err on factual issues and doctrinal issues, but still be a good man and effectual servant.

 

Yes this forum is full of proclaimed "Bible believers" who say they believe that various translations that contradict each other in thousands of places are "God's Word", whatever that means. It all comes down to WHICH ONE is God's Word? If you say "all of them" I have to question your sincerity or ability to think rationally because those who profess something that is contradictory and IMPOSSIBLE need to be viewed as such.

Mexdeaf sayd KJO is of the Devil. HEY! I think that is forbidden talk here is it not? If I say the new versions are PERVERSIONS BASED ON WESTCOTT AND HORT'S CORRUPT VATICANUS AND SINAITICUS, is that not allowed? So how can some attack and LIE ABOUT those who believe the KJV best reflects the preservation of God's Word in the English language? The Devil questions what God said, sows confusion about what God actually said, and comes to STEAL THE WORD. Gee, I wonder which group reflects those characteristcs--the pioneers of Modern Criticism, or TR-KJV people

Somone said any "valid version" in English is God's Word. Really? And WHO PRAY TELL, determines what is "valid". And what is meant by "valid"? How subjective.

It matters not whether the defenders of the KJV position are correct on EVERYTHING they have ever said. If you write as prolifically as Riplinger and Rcukman have---sooner of later they will make mistakes, misinterpret their opponents, go too far, etc. These things do not necessarily undermine their overall position, nor the MANY FACTS they do provide, facts which are never found in the Critical Text crowd. And the reason is obvious--when all the truth is known, it argues decisively against the Westcott and Hort text and the reasons for abandoning the KJV. And when it is further found that the Critical text scholars have not been honest in presenting what is known, and that many of the beliefs of Modern Textual Criticism came directly from Apostate Germans and Englishmen, and from Rome, that sure does put things in its true light. It is right to be suspicious of Westcott and Hort, their theories and text, and those backing it because the pioneers of these things were not Christians, but enemies of God's Word and Christianty. All one has to do is study the lives and beliefs of all the major players who develpoed Modern Textual Criticism to see these were wolves within the Protestant communites and universities. And they have done the damage they sought to do.

I do believe that appeal to Greek and hebrew can help amplify things and bring out facts about a word and its use in history that is interesting, but what I have seen and read in 24 years is mostly someone NOT LIKING what the AV says, so they CHANGE it by appelaing to the Greek and Hebrew in a most ignorant, unscholarly way. They have an ax to grind, but want to LOOK LEGIT when they do it. That IS sin my friends. To the few who DON'T do that, blessings upon them.

 

Keith, your form of argument above is a total fallacy known as BEGGING THE QUESTION, where presuppositions are brought to an argument that need to be proved.

You ASSUME the correctness of the very point argued--whether in fact the new versions are in fact God's PURE Words, or per...whatever is allowed. If you are wrong, then your whole point collapses, and the above pastor IS SPEAKING by the Spirit of truth, not the spirit of error.

I can just as easliy say you are speaking from beneath and not above because you are wrong. Now if that is my argument, it is no argument because NO PROOF has been given, it is mere assertion. You merely assert your position, and you assume something you need to prove. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT MODERN VERSIONS ARE GOD'S PURE WORDS, but they are...what CAN I say? They may contain A LOT of God's Word, but they have also been messed with, altered, changed, deleted, and some of the readings do affect doctrine, and they sure seem to differ with the TR on important doctrines like the Diety of Christ, the Trinity, the precious blood of Christ, etc.

I hope you can see that the way you argue is totally fallacious.

 

Yes, this forum has some proclaimed "Bible believers" who say they believe that one archaic version that has errors in it and changes in thousands of places is "perfect and superior", whatever that means. It all comes down to WHICH ONES are God's Word? If you say "just one of them" I have to question your sincerity or ability to think rationally because those who profess something that is contradictory and IMPOSSIBLE need to be viewed as such.

You just did.

It matters not whether the defenders of the MV position are correct on EVERYTHING they have ever said. If you write as prolifically as Westcott and Hort have---sooner of later they will make mistakes, misinterpret their opponents, go too far, etc. These things do not necessarily undermine their overall position, nor the MANY FACTS they do provide, facts which are never found in the KJVO crowd. And the reason is obvious--when all the truth is known, it argues decisively against the TR text and the reasons for abandoning good English translations. And when it is further found that the KJVO scholars have not been honest...

see how easy this is?

 

So Arminius, you believe the New Age term "Unicorn" should be in the KJV?
Explain how that term is more correct.

And no one is attacking the KJV... It is God's word.
But the doctrine of onlyism, in any version, is a divisive tool that Satan has used to destroy churches throughout all ages!

 

When someone starts believing thier pastor cannot make any mistakes, watch out.. .Trouble soon starts.

 

Yes I do see "how easy" it is for someone to take the valid things I said, apply it to their erroneous position and then pretend they just did the same as I. Yes I see that. I also see how easy it is to ignore FACTS like the one about how all the pioneers of Modern Textual Criticism were unregenerate infidels who sought to overthrow the authority of the Bible in our churches. Yes I do know "how easy" it is for those of your position to not want to talk about THAT.

Whether the KJV has archaic words in it is irrelevant--the archaic ones are RIGHTLY TRANSLATED and based on the right text. All that is needed is marginal notes or modernizing of them. The new versions are no such thing, but rather are Westcott and Hort's coup d'etat of the TR and the KJV. Up dating is one thing, but REPLACING with something vastly different is not that, although that is what Hort called his work, LYING ABOUT IT to the Protestant world. I do not trust liars, and Westcott and Hort did lie to the general public, and some on their committee, who were sworn to secrecy, broke their vows due to the guilt they felt and the duplicity of the effort. A bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit. The true sowers of discord and division were Westcott and Hort, and all those who have followed them and their erronoues text and dogma.

Division is caused by those who depart from a once held position. The fact is the KJV was THE TEXT of the English speaking peoples for HUNDREDS OF YEARS till Wetcott and Hort showed up. They sowed the discord, as well as those who follow THEM. Those who defend the once-held position against the attacks and errors of those who caused the division and confusion are not causing division, but defending truth. Hort call;ed the Textus Receptus "vile and viallanous". So who is the sower of discord? And what has been the fruit of following the new versions instead of the KJV. The Biblical illiteracy and the carnality that has followed the rejection of the KJV for these new versions is epidemic and never been seen before in the 1500 years England has had the gospel in its Isles, as well as here in the USA. What a coincidence, that with the advent of these new versions, we have steadily gone down the tubes in every way, and now we have the Seeker Sensitive and Purpose Driven model of utter carnality and reproach to Jesus Christ leading the way. What a coincidence that all apostate Protestant churches, and all these apostate evangleical promoters all use the new versions, all reject the KJV, along with Rome. What a coincidence.

 

Arminius:Yes this forum is full of proclaimed "Bible believers" who say they believe that various translations that contradict each other in thousands of places are "God's Word", whatever that means.

I betcha YOUR Bible gives Jehoiachin's age as eighteen in Kings when he began to reign, and eight in Chronicles when he began to reign. Now, is that contradictory or what. The error isn't in the translation; it's in the HEBREW. Thus, the "contradictory mss" argument is practically useless, as you don't know which is right & which is wrong. You only know they DIFFER.

We also have the example of the Four gospels differing in many places in the Greek, & not just in the translations.


It all comes down to WHICH ONE is God's Word? If you say "all of them" I have to question your sincerity or ability to think rationally because those who profess something that is contradictory and IMPOSSIBLE need to be viewed as such.

If YOU say, "Only ONE, & this is it", I must ask "BY WHAT AUTHORITY do ya make yer choice?" methinks yer 'authority' is yer own opinion & GUESSWORK.

Mexdeaf sayd KJO is of the Devil. HEY! I think that is forbidden talk here is it not? If I say the new versions are PERVERSIONS BASED ON WESTCOTT AND HORT'S CORRUPT VATICANUS AND SINAITICUS, is that not allowed?

The difference is PROOF. The W/H thingie is hearsay, while KJVO is certainly not of GOD. That leaves only ONE other source. however, such estreme examples as you've listed above are indeed verboten here, & I expect a moderator to do some editing shortly.

So how can some attack and LIE ABOUT those who believe the KJV best reflects the preservation of God's Word in the English language?

Now, you're trying to change course, from "only" to "best". However, "best" isn't true either, as the KJV isn't in OUR English.


The Devil questions what God said, sows confusion about what God actually said, and comes to STEAL THE WORD. Gee, I wonder which group reflects those characteristcs--the pioneers of Modern Criticism, or TR-KJV people

Actually, it would be the KJVOs tho try to hawk a doctrine ABOUT Scripture, that's NOT FOUND in Scripture in any shape, way, or form.

Somone said any "valid version" in English is God's Word. Really? And WHO PRAY TELL, determines what is "valid". And what is meant by "valid"? How subjective.

It's valid if it follows its sources. The validity of the sources is, however another question that's been hashed about for over 120 years.

It matters not whether the defenders of the KJV position are correct on EVERYTHING they have ever said.

But of course not. They've been accurate on very little.


If you write as prolifically as Riplinger and Rcukman have---sooner of later they will make mistakes, misinterpret their opponents, go too far, etc.

In their cases, it was SOONER...soon as their first writings.


These things do not necessarily undermine their overall position, nor the MANY FACTS they do provide, facts which are never found in the Critical Text crowd.

Their "facts" are OPINION AND GUESSWORK.

And the reason is obvious--when all the truth is known, it argues decisively against the Westcott and Hort text and the reasons for abandoning the KJV.

"Wisdom" is justified of her children.


And when it is further found that the Critical text scholars have not been honest in presenting what is known, and that many of the beliefs of Modern Textual Criticism came directly from Apostate Germans and Englishmen, and from Rome, that sure does put things in its true light.

Know what "Bah! Humbug!" means? it means the KJVOs, being unable to sustain their ascriptural doctrine, resort to all sortsa inventions to try to bring their doctrine into the realm of Christianity through the doggie door. Thus, we have such goofy ideas as "God's words were purified seven times", "Psalm 12:6-7 is proof text for the preservation of God's word", "Gimme da KJV dat Paul used", etc.


It is right to be suspicious of Westcott and Hort, their theories and text, and those backing it because the pioneers of these things were not Christians, but enemies of God's Word and Christianty. All one has to do is study the lives and beliefs of all the major players who develpoed Modern Textual Criticism to see these were wolves within the Protestant communites and universities. And they have done the damage they sought to do.

The lives of W/H have been discussed here more than once, and when comparing the writings of such as Riplinger & Ruckman against W&H's ACTUAL WRITINGS, the Ripruck crowd falls far short.

Regardless of what W/H actually did, or believed, we see Ripruck resorted to misquotes of their writings in order to slur them. Now, YOU may go ahead & trust someone who'd resort to such dishonesty, But I choose NOT to.

I do believe that appeal to Greek and hebrew can help amplify things and bring out facts about a word and its use in history that is interesting, but what I have seen and read in 24 years is mostly someone NOT LIKING what the AV says, so they CHANGE it by appelaing to the Greek and Hebrew in a most ignorant, unscholarly way. They have an ax to grind, but want to LOOK LEGIT when they do it. That IS sin my friends. To the few who DON'T do that, blessings upon them.

What's wrong with pointing out inaccuracies? The KJVOs are constantly doing it with other versions! What we have here is yet another example of the GREAT KJVO DOUBLE STANDARD! So ya didn't like Mexdeaf's statement? Well, given as how KJVO is NOT even HINTED AT in the KJV itself, seeing as how we've PROVEN the dishonesty of several KJVO authors, seeing as how KJVO causes true churches to split, ends friendships, & even divides families, it simely CANNOT be from GOD. Now, WHAT OTHER SOURCE(S) does that leave?

 

I respectfully disagree, tiny tim. Onlyism, as you call it, is the result of prayer and study and education. It is a choice, just as accepting salvation is a choice. Why criticize or ridicule someone because they CHOOSE a certain fundamental belief? I don't criticize or ridicule foot-washers, even though I don't practice it. I believe that they are doing what the Spirit led them to do. My walk with God is MY walk with God, and to believe that the King James is the most accurate and most reliable and the easiest to read....is my choice, based on years of observation, prayer and study.

I pray every day for the Laodicean lukewarm practices to go away....and that the Christians in these last days will band together and lead as many to the Lord as possible before the end comes.

Get back to basics!!! Win people to Christ!

Debbie Mc