Satan’s lie, of King James Onlyism

[franklinmonroe]

... Hopping back and forth between versions is nothing short of confusing. When I've seen preachers use verses from various versions it is simply confusing, and I often wonder how anyone can keep up. ...

Confusion may occur in some people. However, I think the 'Confusion Argument' against multiple versions is overstated. In modern terms for example, most people do not limit themselves to only one 'News' source. We generally may receive the same information via TV, radio, internet, newspaper, magazine, and live speakers. This diverse input is usually not confusing for educated adults. In scripture we have different narratives of the same event (in the Gospels, Kings-Chronicles, etc.). I have been reading several versions every day for a couple of years and I would not say that it has ever been confusing for me.

... For one thing, if you use many different versions how can you possibly memorize a section of scripture?

Obviously, one can be chosen for the purpose. However, New Testament writers did not seem concerned to quote scripture verbatim or always from the same source.

... For another, how can you remember the consistency in translating certain words?

It is somewaht unclear what you mean here. I think you are suggesting familiarity with passages.

... And on top of that, do you not trust the translation? That's what one essentially says when he looks to see how this other bible has this text rendered.

No, that is not what I am feeling when I refer to other versions. I trust the version I'm reading but I am supplimenting and expanding my understanding of the scripture by viewing synonymous renderings.

 

[sag38]

Maybe the Biblically inept might get confused.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... No one who holds to the KJV as the final authority makes the claim their is no word of God before 1611. ...

Good! Please name the English version that was the "final authority" in 1603, for example.

What is the mechanism whereby the previous "final authority" gives way to the next? How do we recognize the precise point in time when that succession has taken place? What proof is there that God has ended this process? (Please provide scripture references)

In what language was the "final authority" before English became a recognizible language? Whenever our accepted English version disagrees with any of our foreign-speaking Christian brethren's accepted version, which one would be the final "final authority"?

 

[Harold Garvey]

Not just in different times, but in different places. here's an example:

I was talking to a couple of friends from england online the other day. I said something about having biscuits and gravy for breakfast. At this both of them burst into laughter. To them, biscuits are cookies and gravy is brown and made from roast beef drippings. To me (an old Southern boy) biscuits are, well, biscuits... bread made from flour, buttermilk, and shortening, and gravy is white and made from sausage or bacon grease, flour, and milk.

Understanding cultural differences will always be a challenge in a premillenial world.

The same words but with two completely different meanings due to our cultures and locations. This same difference is even more exaggerated when there is a huge expanse of time between the original words and the present. Even if you ony went back to the last major revision of the KJV (as Ann was referring to above) the differences in usage can be astounding. Not only have some meanings died out and new ones arose, but entire words have dropped from the English language (or at least out of anything resembling common usage).

secular reasoning applied to the word of God always entraps the mind and leads to a dead end

As for translations, how many ways can you say something? Or describe something? The English language now has over a million words in it and a great many of them are adjectives (or can be used as such). I can call something red, or scarlet, or crimson, or any other name of a shade of red, and still be correct. Now compound this with words and phrases that have no direct English counterpart, or words that could have multiple meanings (Hebrew and Greek are chocked full of them) and you can see why one translation may say something one way and a different say it another.

yet any word taking into consideration the era of its use and cultural applications is easily understood and is also necessary.

Just because someone, or some group, decides that the KJV is to be their measuring stick does not mean it is mine... or God's for that matter. Had God wanted the KJV to be the measuring stick He would have had the bible authors to pen it in 1611 English. Funny thing, though, is that He didn't. God had those men write it in their own languages and in their own words.

that is not even true. The KJV is written in prose and the words are in a very particular way as to express their meaning without any misunderstanding when one considers how they were used with the words preceding and the ones after them. It's know to be the context of their use.

At best the other vrsions of today are watered down words to link up with the level of literacy for today's readers. this shortchanges them for what they should have at their disposal: an eloquent Bible.

The KJV is no different than any other honest translation... it is man's attempt to move those words of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into the language of the people of that time and place.

You just got finished telling us how different the KJV is and then try to tell us it is no different.:wavey:

You also said they used their own words, but we know no one actually spoke like that nor did anyone speak like Shakespeare's works.

The English of the KJV is what some call "high-English" meaning it is close to being perfectly understood.:wavey:

 

[RAdam]

How do you know which ones are more accurate? How does one with no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew make that distinction?

And what, oh what, did Christians do when they were too poor to own more than one bible per family? Again, I keep saying this but it is true, if you don't trust your translation, you need to throw it out, not supplement it with another. People claim to believe in the authority of scripture but don't take their translation authoritatively.

Here's a good question: if one doesn't believe the translation he/she has is accurate, why is he/she using it?

 

[Harold Garvey]

Because they may not directly state it is not evidence that it could not be a logical implication of their claims or reasoning. Are you considering an accurate definition of "the final authority?" The final authority is the ultimate authority beyond which there is no other. Do you claim that there can be two final authorites, especially two final authorities that differ or even conflict in some places?

I don't think anyone can comprehend your first sentence and you couldn't explain it either without changing a few words:wavey:

"Final authority" means there was other authorities prior.

Your "conflicts" are unfounded due to your attempt to rationalize a spiritual book.

If the KJV is supposedly "the final authority," it could be understand to imply that the final authority did not exist before 1611. According to a consistent understanding and application of the term "final authority," the claim that the KJV is the "final authority" implies that the 1535 Coverdale's Bible, the 1537 Matthew's Bible, the 1539 Great Bible, the 1560 Geneva Bible, and the 1568 Bishops' Bible could not have been "final authority" in their day since they disagree with and conflict with the KJV in at least some renderings.

Are you ignoring the known facts, valid definitions of terms, and the logical consequences and applications of the claim that the KJV is the final authority?

No. logic has no authority over the word of God, that places the words into man's hands and denies the Lord altogether. Now, if you want to keep making this arguement based upon logic and reason........

The fact that "the final authority" did exist before 1611 is a good reason for rejecting the KJV-only claim. How can it be claimed that a translation in 1611 is "the final authority" that is in effect superior to the original language texts from which it was translated and to the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision?

A "final authority" after the final authority does not even make cognitive sense, therefore try some other example. "Final" has no proceeding implication. It's like trying to score points after the buzzer.:wavey:

 

[Harold Garvey]

The only confusion is in thinking there should only be ONE WAY to render any translation. I have no problem studying a multitude of translations. Some are better (more accurate) than others in certain places.

Then your reasoning would mean there are other ways to Heaven than through Christ.:tonofbricks:

 

[Harold Garvey]

I'll just make this quick point. Whatever translation you use, I think that ought to be your exclusive bible. Why? Hopping back and forth between versions is nothing short of confusing. When I've seen preachers use verses from various versions it is simply confusing, and I often wonder how anyone can keep up. For one thing, if you use many different versions how can you possibly memorize a section of scripture? For another, how can you remember the consistency in translating certain words? And on top of that, do you not trust the translation? That's what one essentially says when he looks to see how this other bible has this text rendered.

Exactly! But then you would have churches that are "ESV" only, NIV only, etc.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Confusion may occur in some people. However, I think the 'Confusion Argument' against multiple versions is overstated. In modern terms for example, most people do not limit themselves to only one 'News' source. We generally may receive the same information via TV, radio, internet, newspaper, magazine, and live speakers. This diverse input is usually not confusing for educated adults. In scripture we have different narratives of the same event (in the Gospels, Kings-Chronicles, etc.). I have been reading several versions every day for a couple of years and I would not say that it has ever been confusing for me.

OK, so now you place the word of God on the same level of the news media :tonofbricks:

Obviously, one can be chosen for the purpose. However, New Testament writers did not seem concerned to quote scripture verbatim or always from the same source.

It is somewaht unclear what you mean here. I think you are suggesting familiarity with passages.

No, that is not what I am feeling when I refer to other versions. I trust the version I'm reading but I am supplimenting and expanding my understanding of the scripture by viewing synonymous renderings.

You qwill have to be able to quote verbatim the verses from each version or learn the ones you like best from that version to give others what you would want them to know.

The arguement goes "we want them all to understand" would best be that we stick with the most familiar when referencing the Bible. The KJV does this perfectly. New versions are an admixture of cultural differences and ever changing language patterns.

God confounded the languages so man would seek common ground to funnel down the words for all to have. satan adds multiplicity to scatter the words abroad and reverses the process God initiated.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Maybe the Biblically inept might get confused.

Offering multiplicity adds to eneptness:wavey:

 

[franklinmonroe]

OK, so now you place the word of God on the same level of the news media :tonofbricks:...

Harold, if you had placed a simple 'smilie face' at the end of this statement I would have thought you were just trying to be funny. However, it seems you must have been serious. Therefore, two possiblities can be drawn from your statement: either you are incapable of understanding my comments within the context in which they were given, or you're being completely dishonest with your accusation.

Personally, I think you may be smart enough to know that I was giving a negative example of potental 'confusion' from multiple sources and not placing "the word of God on the same level of the news media". Although, you have demonstrated difficulting grasping logical argumentation. Just two examples: first, in your reply to Trotter you illogically wrote "You just got finished telling us how different the KJV is and then try to tell us it is no different" (clearly things that are very different in many aspects can still be the same in other respects). Second, in your illogical reply to Logos1560 you stated "'Final authority' means there was other authorities prior" (when actually a 'final authority' does not neccessarily require a previous authority since any singular authority would have the distiction of being recognized as the [final] authority).

In any case, you owe an admission of responsibility and retraction.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Harold, why did you comment on my reponse to RAdam's post and NOT answer any of the questions I posed directly to you?

 

[Harold Garvey]

Harold, if you had placed a simple 'smilie face' at the end of this statement I would have thought you were just trying to be funny. However, it seems you must have been serious. Therefore, two possiblities can be drawn from your statement: either you are incapable of understanding my comments within the context in which they were given, or you're being completely dishonest with your accusation.

Personally, I think you may be smart enough to know that I was giving a negative example of potental 'confusion' from multiple sources and not placing "the word of God on the same level of the news media". Although, you have demonstrated difficulting grasping logical argumentation. Just two examples: first, in your reply to Trotter you illogically wrote "You just got finished telling us how different the KJV is and then try to tell us it is no different" (clearly things that are very different in many aspects can still be the same in other respects). Second, in your illogical reply to Logos1560 you stated "'Final authority' means there was other authorities prior" (when actually a 'final authority' does not neccessarily require a previous authority since any singular authority would have the distiction of being recognized as the [final] authority).

In any case, you owe an admission of responsibility and retraction.

I think you've misrepresented what I said.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Harold, why did you comment on my reponse to RAdam's post and NOT answer any of the questions I posed directly to you?

Maybe it is the spriit in how you ask questions.

 

[rbell]

Then your reasoning would mean there are other ways to Heaven than through Christ.:tonofbricks:

This is an intentional misrepresentation of his words, tantamount IMO to calling him a heretic. You really should apologize for this pot-shot.

 

[rbell]

God confounded the languages so man would seek common ground to funnel down the words for all to have. satan adds multiplicity to scatter the words abroad and reverses the process God initiated.

Why do you insist on consistently breaking BB rules and attacking other versions of God's Word?

Please play by the rules set forth, hmm?

 

[Harold Garvey]

This is an intentional misrepresentation of his words, tantamount IMO to calling him a heretic. You really should apologize for this pot-shot.

I see a false balance here.

When it comes to the word of God we should have a standard for our beliefs and our beliefs should be inline with the Doctrines of the Bible and be equally balanced.

Forgive me for pressing toward the mark of balance.

Your introducing the "heretic" supposition is completely uncalled for and is suspicion in action.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Why do you insist on consistently breaking BB rules and attacking other versions of God's Word?

Please play by the rules set forth, hmm?

I have not attacked any version.

The KJV is persistently attacked here. Those who are called "KJVO" are persistently misrepresented and attacked, just as your last two posts show.

Show me where i have broken the rules or close your posts with an apology.

Moderators, can you show me anywhere I have broken any rules in this forum? I will gladly retract and apologize. I expect specific examples and not anything presumed as my brother here is accusing me of doing.

 

[Mexdeaf]

And what, oh what, did Christians do when they were too poor to own more than one bible per family? Again, I keep saying this but it is true, if you don't trust your translation, you need to throw it out, not supplement it with another. People claim to believe in the authority of scripture but don't take their translation authoritatively.

Here's a good question: if one doesn't believe the translation he/she has is accurate, why is he/she using it?

Here's a better question- Why does there have to be only ONE authoritative translation?

 

[Dr. Bob]

10 page limit. Closed.

Thankfully.