The Bible war.

[tyndale1946]

Guess that menat God never save any until 1611?

Excuse me!... Pray tell me what translation gives eternal life ancient past (before the KJV), past or present?... Brother Glen

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

 

[robycop3]

My answer to that would be, so what? To the KJVO, it is supported by both. It's like the kid down the street saying, "My Dad could beat up your Dad!" Would you feel the need to go and disprove that kid? That's his opinion and perspective of his Dad.

If I drive a Ford and you drive a Chevy, and I think all Chevys are inferior to Fords, so what; that's my opinion based on my experience with Fords. You may disagree, and that's fine. It shouldn't be an issue. I don't know any KJVO authors that go outside of their camp to make it an issue.


I've heard this claim all my life. I have been in IFB churches for the past 42 years since being saved. I served on staff at 3 different IFB churches and pastored a church for several years. At no time was there any division in any of the churches because of the Bible version issue.

I've never once confronted a modern version proponent about using their version of choice. I have, however, been confronted by people, not from our church, who have seen our SOF on a website and have called to argue about it.

My issue with the KJVO myth is that I believe God wants me to work against all false doctrines of faith/worship. Since there are a bazillion such false doctrines, I work mainly against those which seem to be most-prevalent. As an IFB, I see KJVO in front of me quite often, and I KNOW - not GUESS - that it's man-made & totally-false. Thus, I campaign against it quite a bit.

And I DO believe it's an instrument of Satan's that he uses to cast doubt upon several perfevtly-legitimate modern English Bible translations-not to mention the divisions it's caused among congregations. That's why I don't hesitate to diss the KJVO myth!

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Who, on the KJVO side of the debate, in your opinion, is a scholar specializing in textual transmission?

Again, please name a KJVO who is a recognized textual scholar.

As I mentioned above, I am not referring to Ruckman-esque KJVO types. I do not agree with them myself. I am referring to those who would have a strong defense of the KJV based on the underlying texts.

You mentioned Waite. I would also place Edward Hills in the "scholar" category. Burgon was a Traditional text man. Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad fall more firmly on the side with which I would agree. Charles Turner would also be consider an authority, in my opinion.

It is a HUGE issue. Look how it dominates almost every internet forum discussing the bible.

That what I asserted above. It is an issue mainly on these debate forums. I rarely here it mentioned in church services or conferences, except by those who would be KJVOX.

How do you determine the writer has such authority?

By reading their works and comparing them with other writers in the same field.

You say you have quoted me as an authority yet you dismiss virtually everything I post regarding textual transmission and translation.

This is simply not true. I may not agree with you 100% of the time, but we're a lot closer than you think. Now, on Reformed Theology? Not so much.

So, how do you determine which of my positions are authoritative and which are not?

The ones with which I agree are authoritative...

 

[TCassidy]

As I mentioned above, I am not referring to Ruckman-esque KJVO types.

Neither am I so why do you keep bringing him up so you can hide behind him?

I am referring to those who would have a strong defense of the KJV based on the underlying texts.

I am talking about KJVOs.

I would also place Edward Hills

Not KJVO. Supported revising the TR.

Burgon was a Traditional text man.

Not KJVO. Advocated 150 changes in the TR book of Matthew alone.

Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad

Not KJVO.

By reading their works and comparing them with other writers in the same field.

And how do you decide between two diametrically opposite positions?

The ones with which I agree are authoritative.

That that is truly sad. By only considering those who agree with you as being authoritative is why you never learn anything new.

 

[Logos1560]

As I mentioned above, I am not referring to Ruckman-esque KJVO types. I do not agree with them myself. I am referring to those who would have a strong defense of the KJV based on the underlying texts.

You mentioned Waite.

D. A. Waite can be just as extreme, inconsistent, and unreasonable in some of his accusations as Peter Ruckman, especially in his concerning the NKJV.

Peter Ruckman asserted that “when the ‘New’ KJV came out, it was discovered that it had altered the King James text in more than five hundred places to bring it back in line with the RSV” (How To Teach the ‘Original‘ Greek, p. 102).

D. A. Waite asserted that the NKJV has “more similarity to the English Revised Version (ERV) of 1881, the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901, the New American Standard Version (NASV) of 1968, or the New International Version (NIV) of 1978, than to the KJV of 1611” (NKJV Compared to KJV, p. viii; Defects in the NKJV, p. 9). Waite claimed that “the New King James Version is the most dangerous Bible version on the market today” (Defects in the NKJV, p. 8). Waite contended that “the New King James Version Old Testament text is based on a different Hebrew text than the KJV” (p. 10).

KJV-only accusations concerning the KJV are not soundly and justly based on the KJV's multiple, varying underlying texts.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Neither am I so why do you keep bringing him up so you can hide behind him?

Is it even remotely possible to have a civil conversation with you, Tom? I'm beginning to realize that it is not. I've never hidden behind Ruckman, and you know it. I am using his extreme views as a point of reference, which you already knew as well.

I am talking about KJVOs.

I am not talking about KJVOs.

Not KJVO. Supported revising the TR.

I said as much.

Not KJVO. Advocated 150 changes in the TR book of Matthew alone.

I said as much.

Not KJVO.

I said as much.

And how do you decide between two diametrically opposite positions?

With more reading and more study.

That that is truly sad. By only considering those who agree with you as being authoritative is why you never learn anything new.

Read it again, Tom. I said that's how I determine whether YOUR writings were authoritative. And, I included a "wink" which indicated to everyone but you that it was a light-hearted statement.

To say that one "never learn anything new" is careless and shamefully degrading, which has sadly become your modus operandi.

I learned something just this week regarding Job 3:5; so, your character assassination attempt has been proven wrong beyond contradiction.

 

[Yeshua1]

Excuse me!... Pray tell me what translation gives eternal life ancient past (before the KJV), past or present?... Brother Glen

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

NO translation gives eternal life to us, as that is only by Jesus Christ!

 

[Yeshua1]

My issue with the KJVO myth is that I believe God wants me to work against all false doctrines of faith/worship. Since there are a bazillion such false doctrines, I work mainly against those which seem to be most-prevalent. As an IFB, I see KJVO in front of me quite often, and I KNOW - not GUESS - that it's man-made & totally-false. Thus, I campaign against it quite a bit.

And I DO believe it's an instrument of Satan's that he uses to cast doubt upon several perfevtly-legitimate modern English Bible translations-not to mention the divisions it's caused among congregations. That's why I don't hesitate to diss the KJVO myth!

Good point, as the KJVO does want to paint all modern versions as being satanic, and makes some question if any of them are good to use!

 

[Yeshua1]

As I mentioned above, I am not referring to Ruckman-esque KJVO types. I do not agree with them myself. I am referring to those who would have a strong defense of the KJV based on the underlying texts.

You mentioned Waite. I would also place Edward Hills in the "scholar" category. Burgon was a Traditional text man. Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad fall more firmly on the side with which I would agree. Charles Turner would also be consider an authority, in my opinion.


That what I asserted above. It is an issue mainly on these debate forums. I rarely here it mentioned in church services or conferences, except by those who would be KJVOX.


By reading their works and comparing them with other writers in the same field.

This is simply not true. I may not agree with you 100% of the time, but we're a lot closer than you think. Now, on Reformed Theology? Not so much.


The ones with which I agree are authoritative...

The Majority text is not really the TR text that the KJVO so earnestly seek to defend, and Dean Burgon was not even remotely in the KJVO cmap, as he saw the real need to have the TR edited and revised, as well as the KJv!

 

[Yeshua1]

D. A. Waite can be just as extreme, inconsistent, and unreasonable in some of his accusations as Peter Ruckman, especially in his concerning the NKJV.

Peter Ruckman asserted that “when the ‘New’ KJV came out, it was discovered that it had altered the King James text in more than five hundred places to bring it back in line with the RSV” (How To Teach the ‘Original‘ Greek, p. 102).

D. A. Waite asserted that the NKJV has “more similarity to the English Revised Version (ERV) of 1881, the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901, the New American Standard Version (NASV) of 1968, or the New International Version (NIV) of 1978, than to the KJV of 1611” (NKJV Compared to KJV, p. viii; Defects in the NKJV, p. 9). Waite claimed that “the New King James Version is the most dangerous Bible version on the market today” (Defects in the NKJV, p. 8). Waite contended that “the New King James Version Old Testament text is based on a different Hebrew text than the KJV” (p. 10).

KJV-only accusations concerning the KJV are not soundly and justly based on the KJV's multiple, varying underlying texts.

The Nasb and other modern versions did not use the same source texts to translate as the Kjv did, but the Nkjv certainly did!

 

[37818]

it is not supported by either the bible, nor textual critcism, and has been used to drive a wedge between churches and people in churches!

The wedge was caused by the apostate textual criticism which gave birth to the KJV onlyism.

 

[Yeshua1]

The wedge was caused by the apostate textual criticism which gave birth to the KJV onlyism.

I would suggest reading the article entitled The Arrival of the Greek Text, at the Gospel Publishing House...

 

[37818]

NO translation gives eternal life to us, as that is only by Jesus Christ!

From where do you come to know this Jesus Christ? Jesus claimed that eternal life come form knowing the true God and knowing Him whom God had sent (John 17:3). From a translation in your language from a copy of the Greek New Testament text handed down by churches which made copies.

 

[Yeshua1]

From where do you come to know this Jesus Christ? Jesus claimed that eternal life come form knowing the true God and knowing Him whom God had sent (John 17:3). From a translation in your language from a copy of the Greek New Testament text handed down by churches which made copies.

What was the Translation used by God then before 1611 Kjv for that?

 

[tyndale1946]

NO translation gives eternal life to us, as that is only by Jesus Christ!

What you implied in your statement that no one was saved before the KJV... I'm just commenting on what you said, Salvation is only in the Word Of God!... The Word Of God is Jesus Christ... Brother Glen

 

[Yeshua1]

What you implied in your statement that no one was saved before the KJV... I'm just commenting on what you said, Salvation is only in the Word Of God!... The Word Of God is Jesus Christ... Brother Glen

No, I was addressing what some KJVO believe, as they see God ONLY able to save by using the Kjv period!

 

[tyndale1946]

No, I was addressing what some KJVO believe, as they see God ONLY able to save by using the Kjv period!

Yeah I ran into one of those on another site that thought the KJV had some magical properties that none of the others had and hopefully I set him on the right path... Jesus Christ is the only one that has the power to save!... Brother Glen

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeah I ran into one of those on another site that thought the KJV had some magical properties that none of the others had and hopefully I set him on the right path... Jesus Christ is the only one that has the power to save!... Brother Glen

Its just sad when someone places trust in anything other than Jesus to save them!

 

[TCassidy]

Is it even remotely possible to have a civil conversation with you, Tom?

Yes. All you have to do is be honest and sincere. Throwing up a screen of dust and dirt is not conducive to good discussion.

I'm beginning to realize that it is not.

Not as long as you continue to obfuscate.

I've never hidden behind Ruckman, and you know it.

Of course you have. Nobody mentioned him except you. Twice.

I am using his extreme views as a point of reference, which you already knew as well.

Except nobody mentioned his extreme views except you.

I am not talking about KJVOs.

That is not what your first post in this thread says.

You said:

I understand that you have disagreements with KJVOism, but why would you have major issues with it?

With more reading and more study.

More reading of who and what? More KJVOs who agree with you?

To say that one "never learn anything new" is careless and shamefully degrading, which has sadly become your modus operandi.

Yes, the truth is my modus operandi. And it is true you have not learned anything. You started out on this forum 16 years ago as a KJVO and are still KJVO. That is exactly 0 progress in 16 years.

I learned something just this week regarding Job 3:5; so, your character assassination attempt has been proven wrong beyond contradiction.

You learned the word "stain" was perfectly in keeping with the colloquial use of the word. But you already believed "stain" was correct because it is in the KJV. So, according to you, telling the truth is "character assassination?" Playing the victim card (again)?

The truth is you are KJVO. You can't support your KJVOism so you throw up every smoke screen imaginable. But nobody is fooled.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Yes. All you have to do is be honest and sincere. Throwing up a screen of dust and dirt is not conducive to good discussion.

Pathetic, unintelligent response. Shameful, really.

Of course you have. Nobody mentioned him except you. Twice.

By your asinine argument, that means you are hiding behind Wilbur Pickering since you’re the only one who mentioned him in this thread.

You started out on this forum 16 years ago as a KJVO and are still KJVO. That is exactly 0 progress in 16 years.

There are some on here who would say that is tremendous progress.

The truth is you are KJVO. You can't support your KJVOism so you throw up every smoke screen imaginable. But nobody is fooled.

I have no interest in fooling anybody. I am what I am and am not the least bit ashamed or embarrassed about it. Anybody who so desires can do a search here and find out exactly what I believe on the version issue. And, I have been quite able to support what I believe and why I believe it. Simply not agreeing with Tom Cassidy does not make one wrong, contrary to what you may believe.

Out of respect for you, or rather, what I once thought you were, I’ll give you the last word. Fire away!