1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Where do you say the modern versions come from?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by AVBunyan, Nov 20, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Back to your OP, Mr. Bunyan....

    What EVIDENCE do ya have to show that, among all the common English versions, old and new...that the newer versions are corrupt? And JUST HOW canya prove they're not from GOD? Can GOD not rule His own word? Can He not keep it non-corrupt? Where in Scripture is He limited to just one version? How canya prove a doctrine ABOUT Scripture WITHOUT ANY SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT?

    All ya can do is GUESS. And, seeing whut WHOSE tripe you've believed(Ruckman, Kinney, the whole crooked KJVO "party line" it makes it all the easier to dismiss your assertions as false.

    The MVs came from GOD just as much as the OVs did. You CANNOT prove otherwise.

    BTW, I see no commentary about Ruckman's Mark Of The Beast. If you can read THAT sci-fi & still believe a word he writes...well...

    And have you read his Bible Babel? If so, I hope ya didn't miss his lie about the KJV's being re-inspired, for which he presents absolutely NO EVIDENCE!

    You're not gonna get any support here by citing RUCKMAN(or Will Kinney) as the source.
     
    #61 robycop3, Nov 22, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2006
  2. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is a worthy point. Though I am KJV/NKJV prefered, the KJV translators were not the sort which God had chosen in the past in the work of the inspiration of the Scripture in terms of doctrine and practice.

    A fact which seems OK for KJVO folks to apply to the MV translators but not the AV men.

    At the time these men practiced pado-baptism, celebrated the "mass" and believed in the AngloCatholic version of the Real Presence in the bread and wine. Also they had their own version of baptismal regeneration and even today in the Articles of Religion (which have changed over the years, there are 39 today but started out as 7 I believe under Henry the 8th) they make this confusing statement "they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church". So the reception of Baptism "grafts" us into the Church?

    While in the current modern version of the Articles of Religion today they say that the Apocrypha is non canonical but that it is good for "example of life and instruction in manners" quoting from the AV preface Saint Jerome:
    The fact is that they (to this very day) do not condemn them as containing and supporting romish heresies. Non-canonical IMO is not enough to say.

    They included the Apocrypha in their first Edition with not word one (that I could find) within its pages (either in a facsimile or a full photographic reproduction online) stating plainly that it contains erroneous practices taught as good. Cross-referenced it with "other" Scripture and making them part of the daily "Scripture" reading calendar.

    What would happen today if a Sunday School teacher pulled out one of these 1611 AV Bibles and began teaching "prayers for the dead" from the Apocrypha because it is good "for example of life and instruction of manners"?

    In addition as has been previously stated they did indeed persecute Baptists and other dissenting groups, starving them in dungeons, whipping them and at least two poor fellows were even burned at the stake, and yes even John Bunyan was imprisoned 12 years for his obedience to "God rather than men" preaching the Gospel without a proper Church of England license.

    It seems then that to be fair and honest folks ought to quit with the morality and/or doctrine and/or practice issue of the MV translators because the AV men had aired enough dirty laundry of their own.

    OR let the KJVO equally condemn the AV men.

    Proverbs 20:10 Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD. ​



    HankD​
     
  3. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I didn't realize that was Kinney's site.

    He's been here before... His greatest authorities for what he claims are experience and Will Kinney's desire for something to be true.

    He spins and spins and spins... all the while doing nothing more than distracting the gullible or willingly deceived from pursuing the truth.
     
  4. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0

    I do not think I have ever brought up the translators of the modern versions as an issue.

    I never put trust in the KJ translators themselves but the God behind the men.

    God bless
     
  5. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why don't some of you read the works I mentioned if you are sincere about finding truth. Throw your prejudeces aside and study Dr. EF Hills, Burgon and Dr. Ruckman regarding the origen of the modern versions.

    Some of you are quick to condemn these men's works. Where are your research papers? All I've seen from some of you are short posts on forums.

    Question - are the modeern versions based upon manuscripts that originated from Origen's works in Alexandria or not?

    This is ithe point of my thread here.

    Also Scott regarding your opinion of bro. Will - I completely disagree.
    Untill you have put 1/8 as much work regarding your research out for public viewing as bro. Will has I believe you should show more reservation in regards to such statements.

    God bless
     
    #65 AVBunyan, Nov 22, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2006
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Glad you changed your claim AVB that Dr Ruckman does not believe in the inspiration of the KJV - there is evidence aplenty that he does.

    I appreciate you editing your claim.


    Let is stick with AVBunyon's request to answe the question.

    "...are the modeern versions based upon manuscripts that originated from Origen's works in Alexandria or not?"

    Lets leave the KJVO debate aside here
     
    #66 NaasPreacher (C4K), Nov 22, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2006
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have read books by Edward F. Hills, Dean Burgon, D. A. Waite, F. H. A. Scrivener, David Sorenson, Douglas Stauffer, Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, Lloyd Streeter, Laurence Vance, David Cloud, Mickey Carter, Roy Branson, David Daniels, and others. I have read over 100 books and booklets by KJV-only authors. I have carefully checked out the claims of the KJV-only view including the claims concerning the origin of the modern versions. I have also examined and compared the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision.

    I am the author of a 540 page book entitled THE UNBOUND SCRIPTURES: A REVIEW OF KJV-ONLY CLAIMS AND PUBLICATIONS. My book has a bibliography of over 1,000 sources. I am also the author of two booklets: TODAY'S KJV AND 1611 COMPARED AND MORE and COULD THE 1611 KJV HAVE BEEN BETTER.

    Perhaps you are mistaken in your assumption that others who post here have not examined the actual evidence.
     
  8. Linda64

    Linda64 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see that you read the works of Dr. Peter Ruckman. I have read some of what he has written and I don't believe he should be put in the same category as Dr. E F Hills and Dean Burgon. Dr. Ruckman has a foul mouth and is very mean spirited to anyone who does not believe the same as he does, about the KJV. Here are some excerpts from David Cloud's website (David Cloud has written many excellent books on Bible translations and is a staunch defender of the KJV/TR)

     
  9. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Last warning - this is not going to be a Ruckman thread or anything else - lets address the topic.
     
  10. LeBuick

    LeBuick New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    1
    Moses refused to be called the son of Pharoh who was king of Egypt.

    David was the Kind chosen by God.

    They were both murderer's who God inspired and used.

    I read several books by Martin Luther King.

    I heard some blues by BB King.

    This evening I ate at Burger King.

    You seeing the inspired commonality here or do I need to go on? It's all about the King.
     
  11. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,469
    Likes Received:
    1,228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There is manuscript evidence that dates BEFORE Origen that refutes that claim.

    Rob
     
    #71 Deacon, Nov 22, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2006
  12. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    AVBunyan: //Plus I just don't have the time
    and my last lengthy post fried my wrist. //

    You have tryed massive doses of B6, yes?
    It works wonders for me and 60% of those
    who try it. (the other 40% are doomed to
    a life of pain & operations). Be sure if
    you use more than 50 times the minimum
    daily requirement of B6 to also supplement
    your other B vitimans as well.

    I was amazed that one can do this B6 thing
    for under $3 per month.
     
  13. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You also failed once again to give even a hint of a reason as to why we should trust that God was specially behind those particular men and not the men who translated later versions.

    You keep crafting evasions to issues you don't want to address directly. You seem to be a honest person but that behavior isn't honest at all.
     
  14. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the tip Ed - has a minor operation last October to decompress some nerves in my right foraram and still smarting from it - long recovery. But after what our forefathers in the faith have suffered my wrist is a small thing, amen?

    God bless
     
  15. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have read arguments from the first and the last. The second is a poor authority for you to cite since he was neither KJVO or TRO. In fact, he asserted that both were in need of revision. I doubt very seriously that he would have called the LITV or NKJV a corruption. He probably wouldn't have considered all of the majority text efforts corrupt either. He simply didn't think the WH approach to criticism was valid.

    The problem there is that you want to send us on the rabbit trail of reading these various authors whose arguments we've seen repeatedly while you evade answering our "short posts". I have presented you with some very simple, "short" objections that if you cannot adequately answer utterly destroy your conclusion that the KJV inspired or is exclusively God's Word in English.

    Yes and no... but that is NOT where they came from. They came from God in every respect that the KJV did- by His gracious Providence.

    The MV's based on the critical texts are based on all of the known witnesses to the biblical texts to one extent or another. You may argue with the premise that older necessarily deserves as much weight as CT proponents suggest... and would find allies here including myself and Hank. However, even the MV's based on the CT are not wholly dependent on the Alexandrian texts nor do they slavishly follow them at every variant.

    Believe what you will. I have engaged him numerous times on this very board. He is a spinmeister. Catch him in his spin and he evades. Persistently steer back to the point and he turns attack dog. It doesn't take very much time to find that he equates skepticism of his assumptions with an affront to the "truth".

    He uses lengthy speeches very well written at times. He uses much truth with unfounded assumptions sprinkled in... in the end, he bases his conclusions on the assumptions that you bought along side the true things he said. This is very much a tactic used by Satan.

    AVB, rather than following the pattern of Mr Kinney, why don't you just give direct answers to direct questions?
     
  16. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott - I am trying to be as up front and as honest as I can and yo u still question my behavior.

    I've said before and will say again - I do not profess to know it all nor can I prove it all. I take my stand by faith like I do my salvation.

    BTW - Can you prove to me by facts that Christ died for your sins?

    Why not answer my question below- that is simple enough for now.

    Question - are the modeern versions based upon manuscripts that originated from Origen's works in Alexandria or not?

    And C4K - Regarding Dr. Ruckman's view - I always understood him to hold to preservation - I heard him say this in person - now he may have changed but I am going by what I heard him say some time ago. Many assume or believe he believes the KJV is inspired but it may be a misunderstanding or he may have changed his stance since I heard him.

    Again floks - not trying too decieve or misrepresent here.

    God bless
     
    #76 AVBunyan, Nov 22, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2006
  17. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    I seek to be general - I do not know the background of all here - my apology for not choosing my words better.

    BTW - Thanks C4K - You are right - I never meant for this thread to be a KJVO defence or a defence of Dr. Ruckman. These 2 issues were brought up by others I believe. Dr. Ruckman's character is not the issue here - I cited these men for they take the view that the modern versions originated from Oigen's works.

    This thread has gone on for over 7 pages and the real issue has not really been discussed much as far as I can tell.

    If the mv's came from where I stated earlier then I believe the mv's are basically on real shakey ground and this needs to be addressed by some folks.

    God bless
     
    #77 AVBunyan, Nov 22, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2006
  18. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have not noticed a response to this valid request. For example, where is your evidence that the NKJV, the Modern KJV, the KJ21 are not based on the same underlying original language texts as the KJV?
     
  19. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That's because you aren't answering direct, substanative objections to the beliefs you've stated. The truth does not contradict the truth. So when you claim something and I provide a directly contradictory fact... either I am wrong or what you said is wrong.

    When you say the KJV translators were specially inspired and I say that scripture gives qualifications for being inspired and that they don't meet those qualifications... one of us is wrong. Yet rather than responding to such points, you evade and keep stating them over in different ways.

    I hope that the faith that your salvation depends on is supported by scripture and is not contradictory to known, concrete facts... because your faith in KJVOnlyism is not supported by scripture (and some of the "proofs" you and others offer are contradicted by scripture) and it is contradictory to the cold, hard facts of history.

    Yes praise God I can. Scripture tells me this over and over and over. Not just once... not just a hint or a suggestion... I don't have to massage and bend what the Bible says to support my preconceived notion... the Bible tells me that Jesus died for my sins!

    Conversely, there is not a single scripture anywhere that supports a single version-only stance. Only by twisting and contorting scripture has anyone even come close.

    I did. Did you miss it?

    I for one haven't taken you that way. You have evaded though rather than tackling tough objections head on. And, while you have chided me for being closed-minded, it is you that have given direct evidence that you are unwilling to accept the facts as they lay if they contradict your KJVO beliefs.

    Not trying to be offensive, just speaking plainly.
     
  20. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    BTW, in case you really did miss it, faithful MV's come from the same place as the KJV- God's gracious providence.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...