Answer to your questions....

You are going aroudn in circles because your arguments do not make sense and because your position is not true. You keep having to revert to the same old unsubstantiated arguments. Can you not see that??

In my daily life. I find great encouragement for my fear of the Lord from read the NASB and the NIV. Each day, God teaches me and encourages me through his word. I am glad that he does that.

 

Jim Jones, David Koresh, Mormons, JW's, Heaven's Gate cult - Do they ring a bell? They all used the KJV and obviously didn't understand it.

 

We read it, we just don't believe it because you offer no scriptural proof. Which verse says anything close to "Thou English speakers shouldest only readeth the KJV."

 

Hi Michelle, Thank you for breaking the questions up. It is easier to discuss them when they are in seperate posts. I am going to respond some and maybe ask you some more questions. I hope you don't mind, I consider this site as an open discussion to share views among Christians and I intend to malice when I disagree with a statement you make. I hope you understand that. If I cross the line, please, let me know.
Thanks, Phillip

As to this post, I must say I agree with a lot of your statements regarding the historical past and the way Bibles were kept. Do you feel that the Bible was maintained in the Vulgate?

I must disagree with you; however, that every single word of the KJV is "inspired". I still maintain, the writer's were "inspired" and I'm not saying that the Holy Spirit did not aid some translators of some versions, but why does the KJV have to be the one that keeps the Word of God and the KJV only?

 

Now, let me ask you a question. You say that the 1611 must have been the "preserved Word of God" if this is so, why did it contain the apocrypha and NOT differentiate it as scripture? Unless you can show me a document or old Bible from 1611 vintage that says or even implies the apocrypha is not scripture, I have to say that the 1611 that I own (printed in 1612) and the photographs of original 1611 Bibles show absolutely no sign that the apocrypha (which is not really the apocrypha) was not considered scriptural. There are king James versions printed today with that same apocrypha in it. I can hold it in my hand, much like you hold your KJV; who said you had the Word of God and I don't have the Word of God? Your pastor? Your Sunday School class? Maybe, but I don't see any Biblical evidence of it and I don't see any Biblical evidence that God was going to preserve his Word in the King James version which is NOT that old.

Now, lets talk manuscripts. What real evidence, besides remarks that the "alexandrian manuscripts" and others are more or less accurate than the manuscripts used in the King James Bible. The King James scholars did NOT translate the Bible directly---they referenced the Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible and also relied heavily on the Vulgate....now, explain to me again how manuscripts found in Catholic churches are corrupt?

Finally, you mention the Westcott and Hort methods. They used modern textual criticism (or modern for their time) and guess what....so did the translators of the King James when they made their comparisons with translations like the Vulgate. THey also did the same thing when they took 13 seperate pieces of manuscripts of the Revelation of Jesus Christ--all of which different to some degree and had conferences together to determine which ones they wanted to use and which to throw out. This is no different than the method of Westcott and Hort. Now I realize your answer will be the Anglicans did it "prayfully" or whatever, the Anglicans who translated the KJV were doing their job, just like Westcott and Hort and I think you might be surprised at their beliefs and the way they lived, these were not Baptists....

 

In all humbleness, this is probably your weakest argument. Just because it says something in one manuscript and not in another does NOT mean the second manuscript left it out. No matter WHAT it says. This is a good example of a possible addition to the Bible by a well meaning scribe who wanted to make his point stronger. Yes, the scribes who kept the sacred scriptures worked hard at their beliefs and if they felt they could add a line to strengthen a thought, it was not beyond some well meaning scribes to do this.

You may think you believe this by "faith", but where is your evidence that your faith is right vs. my faith. Just because something strengthens or says something that you have always believed, does NOT have anything to do with the FACT that it may not have existed in the originals.

Take the NIV for example. You can argue, moan, groan, whatever that it is not God's word, but I can tell you, if you will sit down and read through it, you will leave with the very same gospel that you got from your KJV. In fact, you might even see a LOT of things you don't in the KJV because we simply do not use a language that is 300 years old today. There are many, many words in the KJV that I bet you cannot even tell me their true meaning because the language has changed. It looks like something, but it means something else. This is the reason for the need for modern versions. Have they gone overboard with modern versions, yes, probably, but that does not mean that the main-stream versions are no less the Word of God than the KJV that you hold in your hand. Yes, the KJV IS the Word of God, it was especially good for the people who lived in the 1700's and early 1800's, then as language changed, it became evident that it is now time to translate the Bible into our language, not the archaic, language used in the KJV.

Personally, I grew up with a King James and I can probably understand it much better than most people who did not get the opportunity to grow up with it. For example: New Christians. But, if I were to try to get my 16 year old daughter to read it, she WON'T. Not because she can't read or doesn't do what I say, but because she has so much difficulty understanding the old English that she rapidly looses interest. I even loose interest if I have to read the KJV for long periods of time because it is just plain "hard" because I'm having to constantly retranslate words in my head. I can pick up an ESV (one of my favorites) and read it for hours and get a LOT more out of it than I would by trying to put the time into a KJV. And I do read my KJV a lot, but usually can only do one long chapter at a time.

I know this is a faith issue for you, but you know what? God said he preserved his words and he says that in every single main-line translation.

If you will read the footnotes in the NIV you will find that it is absolutely full of information stating which verses are found in which manuscripts, etc. They try to hide nothing. They lay it out for you to study. They will say, for instance: that these verses are found not found in some old manuscripts, but are found in the Vulgate, or Septuagint, etc.

This is why we tried so hard to point out that the quotes in the New Testament of the Old Testament do NOT match and therefore the Words cannot be inspired to the translational level. If they were, there would be an exact match between the New Testament quotes of the Old Testament.

Maybe I did ask you this question, but let me say it again: Do you believe a person can be lead to the Lord with an NIV? If so, then how could it be: I quote from Luke the same scriptures I have posted on the responses to people who watch the Passion (the movie):
Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
Luke 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

 

A) In answer to the first question, about the English Language. I agree with the scholars that it is definitely not "Old English" per se, but it is an older language than that used in modern times.

Many, many words have been listed throughout this forum that do not mean the same as they meant in the 1700's. Therefore, today, we get the "wrong" understanding when we read it.

Try going into a restaurant and saying: "Thou shalt bringeth thus a chalice of water." and see how they laugh at you. This is probably a poor example, there have been better examples posted. But, the reason it is a poor example is exactly my point; I am not well versed in the less modern English of the KJV and therefore, I cannot write it well.

The response of others may be that if you read it you can understand it. Well, somewhat. I read tons of material every single day and I can understand things much better than I write. I have grown up with the KJV and I can still tell you that even with the Holy Spirits help, I spend a lot of time trying to comprehend the archaic words.

Now a lot of people will say that the Holy Spirit can fill them in on these words. He can, no doubt, He has that power. But, in rebuttal to the first sentence, I could say that I could also pick up a Greek New Testament without understanding Greek and the Holy Spirit could tell me what it says. This is unlikely to happen because; to have that kind of faith goes beyond what most of us humans are capable of in our sinful nature.

I will try to find Dr. Bob's list of words. He posted a list that he gives to his College Students that come right out of the KJV and, it is my understanding, that they get most of them wrong, most of the time. This is a clear example that the words have indeed changed. I do not have the time right at this moment to give you a list of words out of the KJV, but I will try to in the future.

For example, Paul's letters are often very difficult to understand because of his run-on sentences, and zeal for the Lord's work. In the KJV, some are very difficult to struggle through. Others are easier. An MV can clarify many of these difficult passages, leaving much more time for reading the word, than translating it.

B) In answer to "leaving out Words" or actual verses. It is well known, that most of the word comparisons used in the KJV only literature are bogus because the MV uses a different word or phrase that means exactly the same thing. Taken into context by reading all of the verses in a Chapter or passage, you will find the MVs match the KJV very closely on every single doctrinal issue.

The few verses that have been left out, are not always left out, but they appear with a notation that many of the "oldest manuscripts" simply do not contain these verses. It is entirely possible and it has been pretty well deduced that well meaning scribes may have added things to help clarify the sentence, paragraph, or book that they were copying. Even many KJVs have notations at the bottom or in the margins that "many older manuscripts lack the following "words or verses"". This can be proven by the fact that we have multitudes of manuscripts, all of them disagreeing on certain words and sometimes complete sentences. This does not mean the KJV is not complete and inerrant, it simply means that a scribe has tried to clarify an area and it was brought forward--having not been in the original manuscript. No meaning is changed. There has been no proof given of this whatsoever. Unless you would like to provide some specifics that we can discuss....?

Now, here is the point that is really important. None of these make ANY doctrinal difference in the Bible no matter WHAT people want to say. I have personally read many translations (NASB, NIV, ESV, N.T. of Holman) including the KJV through, several times and I can attest from personal experience in reading them that the doctrine of most of the well-accepted MV's are just as sound and strong as that of the KJV. Many of them, much plainer and clearer, simply because the language is not archaic. A good parallel Bible will show anybody that the Word of God is maintained very well.

The problem is, you cannot use the KJV as your standard. Who said to use it as a standard. If you do, which one the 1611, the 1769, a later one, one in between.....?

Let me give you an example. It has been well known that the translators of the KJV had thirteen different manuscripts to piece together to come up with a complete copy of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. In making their translation, they used something similar to what we call today as "textual criticism" to determine which ones to use. No different (maybe not as sophisticated, but it worked) than modern translators viewing their manuscripts. (I won't get into the "so-called" corruption of manuscripts in the MV's at this time, I can cover that later.)

The translators literally pieced sentences together from manuscripts that did not match.

Much of the King James came from the Bishop's Bible and the Geneva Bible and even the Vulgate (Latin) was compared in making the KJV. Compare a Geneva to a 1611 Bible, you will find that even the verses and chapters are the same.

If you say that the translators were inspired. Then we have another issue to deal with. What man decided to take out the Apocrypha? It IS part of the KJV1611. I have an original printed Bible of the 1611 version and I will tell you that the apocrypha is treated just exactly like the inspired scriptures in that book. It was not explained or noted anywhere that it was different. It just has the name Apocrypha at the beginning, where the Old Testament says "Old Testament". You can download a front page from a scanned 1611 Bible from my website by typing --http://www.baptist-church.org/example.pdf --

This is a PDF file and you will need an Adobe Reader (which you probably already have if you are on the net a lot.)

In that file you will get the front page of the first book of the Old Testament, Apocrypha and New Testament. The only thing that changes is the title of what is coming next. There are NO statements anywhere in the book that says or indicates that the Apocrypha is NOT considered scripture.

How do you explain the missing Apocrypha from the original KJ. If the translator's were inspired, then they got something wrong. So, if the translators weren't inspired, then the "revisors" that came later had to be inspired and the 1769 (or a possible later version) of the KJV is correct. Which one? If every single word has to be the same, then we have a major problem.

How can you explain to me the changes (additions and corrections) in the KJV since 1611? What Bible was the standard from 400 AD to 1611 AD?


C)I do not exactly understand your last question. Are you asking me of a "specific" scripture verse or chapter, or are you asking me whether He has convicted me of the KJV or NASB?

In answer to the first, I believe that all of God's Word is important and that it is maintained in MOST of the MV's. Not any particular verse or chapter.

That also answers the second question. It is my belief that God has worked in my heart just as powerfully, if not more powerfully, when I read a version that I understand much better than a KJV. I'm NOT SAYING THE KJV IS NOT AS GOOD. I JUST DO NOT READ AND UNDERSTAND THAT PARTICULAR VERSION OF ENGLISH AS WELL.

I do NOT expect anybody to take my word that the Lord told me this. I suggest that they study the subject much further. I too, went through a KJVO phase for a long time, but when presented with the facts, I found it to be a false-hood.

Finally, I really wish you would answer the questions in one single place. There may be answers in all of these posts, but they are so scattered with personal opinion that I would like to cut to the chase and get right down to your beliefs on those questions. This is the problem I have had. Most KJVo believers will go into a long and stirring emotional-testimony that is void of any scriptural reference, let alone factual.

I have watched you post and you apparently can type and put your words on paper very quickly, so I do not think it would be too much to ask for one post with the questions all answered in one place. Simple....

Thanks
Phillip

 

As we've said before, there's a much-better case to be made for the LATER mss writers having ADDED material, rather than the older mss writers having OMITTED material.

From where did the writers of the later mss get the material that the older ones supposedly omitted? If GOD would've directly given it to them, they would've said so, as Paul did for many of his additions to Scripture.

 

Michelle:Yes I do, by the fact it is in the KJV.

While I read your whole post, let's get back to basics: CAN YOU PROVE that verse wasn't ADDED to the KJV's sources? yes, I know it sounds good, and enhances the overall theme of the preceeding verses, but the question of AUTHENTICITY arises. I, for one, do NOT believe man has any authority to ADD to Scripture any more than he has authority to subtract from it. There has been many an English scholar who over the centuries who's believed he/she could improve on what God had chosen to become Scripture, and has attempted to do so. Can we truthfully say that no such Scripture-improver wannabees ever lived in older days before English became a distinct language, and sat down & wrote a "doctored" ms that found its way into the main stream? I sure can't totally deny it.

But I CAN be sure that God has provided His word for us AS HE CHOSE, in total disregard of prattling little men who tell us God cannot do it "this way".

 

Michelle:I have noticed this from many on these posts, that they do not read all of what is said and take all of it into consideration, but focus only on one aspect,

A little leaven can pervade a big bowl of dough.When discussing, we may focus on that one aspect which MUST be true for all the rest of the points of a particular post to be true. For example, I ask the KJVOer to provide any evidence that the KJVO doctrine has any truth to it, and he/she simply won't provide a straight answer. There's no use going on until he/she reacher first base safely.

and do not care not one iota about understanding anything, but only to win the debate. This is very sad indeed. I am sorry for you, that you must refuse to see the truth, when it is staring you right in the face, just to win the debate.

If the debate had been "won" by anyone, it wouldn't still be going on after all this time. And the evidence staring one in the face is quite clearly AGAINST the KJVO myth. Some of that evidence is:
1.) The absolute lack of Scriptural proof for KJVO. In fact, Scripture is indirectly AGAINST Onlyism(any one version) as we've shown through comparing Isaiah 42:7-8 & Isaiah 61:1-3 with what JESUS HIMSELF read aloud in Luke 4:16-21-and in several other comparisons of OT Scripture with NT Scriptural quotes of that OT Scripture.

You agree that the highest written authority we have is Scripture, right? Therefore, any doctrine ABOUT Scripture MUST BE SUPPORTED by Scripture, right? Why? Anything written about Scripture is subordinate to Scripture itself, since no other writings are equal to Scripture. Therefore KJVO is a FALSE DOCTRINE because it's a doctrine ABOUT Scripture that has NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT. The evidence against KJVO cannot be any more empirical, but let's go on...

2.) The MAN-MADE ORIGINS of the current KJVO myth are well-documented, and there are many people alive today who've lived through it all. Plainly, it began with SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST big shot Ben Wilkinson's 1930 book, "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated". Whether Wilkinson was trying to start a doctrine or not, I don't know, but I DO know that authors following him such as J.J.Ray & Dr. D.O.Fuller borrowed heavily from OABV & added material from their own imaginations, & that still-later authors expanded upon their works, and, with the help of the modern hype machine, were able to sell their stuff much more widely, until quite a few people actually started to BELIEVE their studd, w/o bothering to check its veracity. These are plain, indisputable facts, not guesswork or imagination. The books all exist, their fans exist, the proofs against their assertions exist.

3.) Not ONE English BV is like any other. The proof is self-evident.

These are just three basic proofs AGAINST KJVOism(or any other Onlyism, for that matter.) If you can get past those, Michelle, you might have the beginning of a foundation for a pro-KJVO argument, If not, KJVO remains a myth.

 

Michelle,
Why would we have the privilege of being a group of people that gets one of the "perfect" copies of the Bible? We speak English, one form or another, why are we so special?

If this were the case, is there a perfect version in every language on Earth?

God did not do things based on the percentage of people. When God picked the Jews as a chosen race, they were in the minority. When Jesus came to Earth Jews were in the minority. If God always picked a big group then he would have picked the Romans for Jesus' earthly family. He didn't He picked a minority.

I know this is difficult to follow, but my point is, English is a a wide-spread language. I understand it is probably number two in the world. Why do you think God would pick the English language in which to preserve his only Word. Why could it not be found in Spanish, or even some small country with its own language with only a million people? Why are we so lucky and an African country is not as lucky?

Obviously, God has NOT provided the Bible to every language and dialect, because new translations are being produced all the time for missionaries to provide to provide to unreached people groups? Just like the one you said you lived near or with.

I guess this all can be summarized into one question, where in Scripture (the final authority) does God say His Word will be preserved in ENGLISH?, but not in another foreign language?

 

In answer to your specific question:

What about the Catholics and the Apocrypha?

What about the book of Mormon?

What about Islam?

Those people believe and teach false documents with as much passion as most Christians.