Which is more common?

Sorry I'm a little behind (and I meticulously avoid these KJVo discussions).

But don't you think the particular "fundamentals" are a reflection of the reactionary foundation of fundamentalism. It began as a reaction against liberal theology--and these were particularly "hot" issues of the day.

Tim

 

If they waited for these doctrines to be attacked before reacting it sounds like they reacted about 100 years too late.

 

Ack, sorry Jason, for my part I'll just drop it. :smiley of shame:

 

I agree, which is what I have said for a very long time ...

 

God didn't say to be KJVO. He never said he would preserve his word in only one translation. You have added to God's word with that.

Every single quote of Scripture by the NT authors shows that a version other than the KJV was the preserved and authoritative word of God. Therefore, there are proof verses all over the place. You deny that 2 Tim 3:16 in the NASB is true; you deny that it is true in all other versions. That is a denial of biblical truth. The NASB is the preserved and inspired word of God, just as the KJV is. We have been through this many times in the BVT forum, showing how KJVO is an addition to doctrine and how it contradicts Scripture and how Scripture teaches against it.

We have showed this on many occasions.

You are. There are more than 5000 Greek manuscripts, no two of which match completely. All of them are different. Therefore, it is clear that God did not preserve it perfectly. He did preserve it. And that is what we should expect from Scripture. Remember we have shown you in Luke 4 that a version other than the KJV was used by Christ and that version was different than the Isaianic original, and Christ said it was Scripture. There is clear proof that perfect preservation is not a promise of God. (REmember you asked for Scripture; now start aligning your belief with it.)

I hope you will. And if you do, you will abandon your KJVOnlyism. I believe that God preserved his word jsut like he said he would. I enjoy it everyday in the NIV and the NASB. I also enjoy several days a week in the Greek text and Hebrew text. It is a testimony that God has done what he said he would do.

 

tim: You're right - God said it, I believe it. Pretty simple.

pastor larry: God didn't say to be KJVO. He never said he would preserve his word in only one translation. You have added to God's word with that.

God never said He would preserve His word in ANY translation. You have added to God's word with that.

tim: Earlier you stated the KJVO position contradicts the doctrine of inspiration. That's patently false. Produce one scripture from the Bible that I, a KJVO, would deny concerning inspiration. If you can't, understand that proves your doctrine of inspiration is extra-biblical, i.e. man-made.

pastor larry: Every single quote of Scripture by the NT authors shows that a version other than the KJV was the preserved and authoritative word of God.

You err in this. All that proves is that those particular verses are inspired. Jude quotes non-canonical literature. Are those extra-canonical books inspired too? The teaching that these quotes prove the inspiration of the versions they were likely taken from is nothing more than your own man-made doctrine. Please don't teach your personal opinions as the revealed doctrine of God.

You deny that 2 Tim 3:16 in the NASB is true; you deny that it is true in all other versions.

I haven't even READ all other versions, let alone passed judgment on their handling of this particular verse.

That is a denial of biblical truth.

Which truth have I denied again? List the particular verse I have denied. Of course, I, a KJVO, 100% affirm 2Tim 3:16.

The NASB is the preserved and inspired word of God, just as the KJV is.

I should just take your word for this? Prove it from scripture, don't expect me to accept your opinions as absolute truth, I'm just not buying it.

tim: I don't see that listed among the "fundamentals". I hold the bible was inspired, is inerrant, and is preserved. In any event I don't really care if I'm outside of anyone's "doctrine of bibliology", show me the specific scriptures I've denied.

pastor larry: We have showed this on many occasions.

Please list just one.

Where does God's word state that it will become corrupted and imperfect? In fact it seems to claim the exact opposite. Who's doing the adding here?

pastor larry: You are. There are more than 5000 Greek manuscripts, no two of which match completely. All of them are different.

Verse reference? I take God's promises over how things look to men. Given how loose people can be with history (including historians and other scholars) I don't simply accept this.

Therefore, it is clear that God did not preserve it perfectly.

Yes, it's also clear the universe is billions of years old, we all evolved from goo, Jesus didn't rise from the dead, and in fact that all miracles are impossible.

I'll take clear promises of God any day over how things 'look' to men.

He did preserve it. And that is what we should expect from Scripture. Remember we have shown you in Luke 4 that a version other than the KJV was used by Christ and that version was different than the Isaianic original, and Christ said it was Scripture. There is clear proof that perfect preservation is not a promise of God.

Christ endorsed that particular quotation, as do I. You err in claiming biblical sanction for taking it any farther than that.

(REmember you asked for Scripture; now start aligning your belief with it.)

Unfortunately, there's been no scripture. Just logical fallacy and man-made doctrines presented as God's own truth.

 

God said he would preserve his word. We have that word in numerous translations. That is the pattern of Scripture. It is not adding to God's word.

So you deny that Jesus had the word of God in his hands when he picked up that scroll and read from it???

No, Jude was inspired. But Christ was not reading from an extra canonical work. He was reading from the canon.

I didn't give a personal opinion. I showed from Scripture that Christ was reading from God's word and it wasn't the KJV. There is no opinion in that. Your KJV teaches the same thing.

I have shown this already Tim ... many many times.

Pick up a NASB and read 2 Tim 3:16. It testifies about itself that it is the word of God. It shows from faithfulness to the text that it is the word of God. I don't expect you to buy my opinions. I expect you to conform your belief to the word of God.

Already did ... more than one.

[qutoe]Verse reference? I take God's promises over how things look to men. Given how loose people can be with history (including historians and other scholars) I don't simply accept this.[/quote]For what??? For the fact that there are over 5000 manuscripts???? Surely you jest. That is a fact of history. You can look it up in many different places. I take God's promises as well. If you don't accept that there are over 5000 manuscripts then you are worse off than we imagined.

No, it isn't clear that the universe is billions of years old, or any of these other things. The truth is that you can lay your eyes on more than 5000 manuscripts. That is undeniable fulfillment of God's promise to preserve his word. No other ancient document has anywhere near that amount of testimony. God did just what he said.

And that particular section shows that the KJV is not inspired, or that things that are different can both be inspired. Even if you grant this (which is extremely inadequate) you still lost because it shows one of the flaws in your thinking.

We will have to remember that you denied Luke, Isaiah, and 2 Tim to be Scripture. What will you do next???

 

tim: Christ endorsed that particular quotation, as do I. You err in claiming biblical sanction for taking it any farther than that.

pastor larry: And that particular section shows that the KJV is not inspired, or that things that are different can both be inspired.

Yes, two versions of a verse of Scripture can be inspired when God says so.

Those last four words are very important.

Jesus can with authority declare a loose translation/paraphrase to be Scripture. Kenneth Taylor can't. Eugene Patterson can't. I can't. And you can't either!

If you choose to do so, that is only your opinion. Don't raise your opinions to the level of God's teaching.

Even if you grant this (which is extremely inadequate) you still lost because it shows one of the flaws in your thinking.

Please point out the flaw.

 

tim: Unfortunately, there's been no scripture. Just logical fallacy and man-made doctrines presented as God's own truth.

pastor larry: We will have to remember that you denied Luke, Isaiah, and 2 Tim to be Scripture. What will you do next???

Looks like I'll have take on each of these baseless claims one by one. Of course, I 100% affirm these verses, along with all other Scripture. But for now I need to get some work done. So, till later

 

For a KJVO-er to quote this verse to point to preservation in the KJV only would contradict the KJVO stance. Jots and Tittles are items in Hebrew grammar. They are absent in all non-Hebrew translations, including the KJV.

 

tim: You err in this. All that proves is that those particular verses are inspired.

pastor larry: So you deny that Jesus had the word of God in his hands when he picked up that scroll and read from it???

I affirm what the Bible affirms:

Luk 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
Luk 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

The bible calls this scroll "the book of the prophet Esaias", and so it was. It was scripture.


Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luk 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
Luk 4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

Note we know nothing whatsoever about the rest of the contents of this scroll, other than this small quotation, which we know verbatim.

Luk 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Further confimation that this quotation is scripture.


So we know:

1) The scroll read in the synagogue was scripture
2) An exact quotation from a small part of the scroll, which of course is scripture
3) That this specific quotation differs from the masoretic text

This is what we know from the Bible itself. Of course, I affirm all of these.

But here are your man-made additions that you wrongly teach as God's own doctrine:

1) the rest of this scroll differs from the masoretic text (at least, you appear to be assuming this, if not let me know)
2) Jesus can declare differing versions of scriptures to be inspired, so I can too

Both of these are you own pet theories, with no basis whatsoever in the word of God.
If the Lord Jesus appeared to us today and said "Tim, the septuagint and The Message in their entirety are inspired Scripture" of course I would submit. Who wouldn't? But you saying it doesn't make it true.

Clearly, I have not denied one iota of scripture.

 

For a KJVO-er to quote this verse to point to preservation in the KJV only would contradict the KJVO stance. Jots and Tittles are items in Hebrew grammar. They are absent in all non-Hebrew translations, including the KJV. </font>[/QUOTE]Jesus referred to iotas(i's), which ironically enough do appear in English but not in Hebrew.
Since He's obviously not being literal here (or perhaps He's referring to the Septuagint? lol) I take it to mean that not the least bit will pass from the law, no, not even least letter of it. In that sense I apply it to both the Greek and Hebrew (I take 'law' to refer to more than just the torah). Or even, that nothing will pass from he law, no, not even the least bit of it which could perhaps be applied to faithful translations.

I think the promises of preservation most clearly apply to the Greek and Hebrew. I think the KJV is a faithful and accurate translation, without error, which God in his providence has provided for all English speaking people.

 

Tim,
I am glad you actually do understand the problem with the whole KJVO issue. Even if it is subconsciously.

My NASB and NIV have the same verses that declare them to be scripture as my KJV, The verses in and of themselves prove the accuracy of scripture, not the accuracy of any one English translation.

There is no evidence, Biblical, Historical, or otherwise that any specific English version or translation is THE preserved text. That is mere speculation and opinion.

I agree with Pastor Larry, that the overwhelming manuscript support for our modern English versions is proof that God has preserved his Word.

 

tim: Unfortunately, there's been no scripture. Just logical fallacy and man-made doctrines presented as God's own truth.

superdave: Tim, I am glad you actually do understand the problem with the whole KJVO issue. Even if it is subconsciously.

Please give me some credit, superdave My point is that MV proponents seem to imagine they haven't added anything with their opinions on this issue, that everything they believe is 100% taken from the bible, unquestionably orthodox, and God's own truth. But the bible says nothing at all about the reliability of any translation, with the exception of the OT quotes scatted through the NT. These are the only instances where we can saw with any certainty that both the originals and the translations thereof are the very words of God, inspired in and of themselves. Beyond that, biblically speaking, we're in the realm of personal opinion.

My NASB and NIV have the same verses that declare them to be scripture as my KJV, The verses in and of themselves prove the accuracy of scripture, not the accuracy of any one English translation.

If I pasted those scriptures into the phone book does that transform them info the word of God? Of course not

There is no evidence, Biblical, Historical, or otherwise that any specific English version or translation is THE preserved text. That is mere speculation and opinion.

It is opinion, but there is evidence. The KJV was THE English Bible for hundreds of years, mightily used of God. IMO this shows God's approval of this version. The underlying texts are those used by Bible believers for centuries and have been protected from corruption by God's promise.

I agree with Pastor Larry, that the overwhelming manuscript support for our modern English versions is proof that God has preserved his Word.

In the Majority Text . MV's supporters tend to not call attention to the fact that their non-bible based opinions on how textual criticism ought to be practiced basicially throw out almost all of the preserved manuscripts from consideration.

 

If I pasted those scriptures into the phone book does that transform them info the word of God? Of course not

I goofed, "them info" should be "it into". I wouldn't want anyone use this as a lame excuse to accuse me of not believing those verses

 

God has provided many translations in many languages, including, but not limited to, the KJV. To make the jump from preservation to KJVO is not in the realm of biblical support.