Featured Are there any inspired translations today?

So Satan is the author of the confusion caused by KJV-only use of fallacies [false arguments] and KJV-only use of unjust divers measures/standards.

KJV-only authors may be trying to make lots of money. Gail Riplinger claims to have sold over 100,000 copies of her KJV-only fiction.

You fail to prove that presenting the truth about the KJV-only issue would cause any confusion.

 

May God bless you in many ways, sir, and I wish you well....
even though we disagree on this subject.

 

Baptist pastor Glenn Conjurske, a strong advocate of reading the KJV, observed: “Traditionalists, of course, proceed upon the assumption that there can be no conflict between their standards and the Scriptures, as both are of God, but in this they are as naïve as they are mistaken, and to maintain the mistake they must often close their eyes to the facts. This shutting of the eyes is indeed one of the most prominent characteristics of the modern King-James-Only movement, which constantly denies facts, invents, contorts, and misrepresents them, rewrites history, and even condemns the recognition of facts as unbelief and rationalism” (Olde Paths, Sept., 1996, pp. 195-196). Glenn Conjurske maintained that traditionalism “requires no mental exercise, no wrestling with difficulties, no facing of issues, no dealing with stubborn facts, but only a sacrifice of mind to a few pious assumptions, usually false” (Dec., 1997, p. 277).

 

Faith in premises based on fallacies would not qualify as sound biblical faith in what the Scriptures state.

Edward Carnell asserted: “Too often faith is used as an epistemological device to avoid the hard labor of straight thinking” (Introduction to Christian Apologetics, p. 65).

Glenn Conjurske noted: “It belongs to the essence of traditionalism to be obliged to circumvent either the plain statements of Scripture or the plain facts of history and so to sacrifice honesty in order to maintain what is held to be faith” (Olde Paths, Sept., 1996, p. 196). Glenn Conjurske pointed out: "We all no doubt have our own doctrinal predilections, but to allow our doctrines to dictate what we regard as facts is as dangerous as it is fraudulent, for it deprives us of one of the most effectual checks against false doctrine. Yet so these men do, and do it avowedly and apparently unashamedly, and dignify the illicit process with the name of faith" (Olde Paths, June, 1996, p. 135).

 

What a ridiculous generalization of traditionalism!

The Bible cautions us to seek the counsel of our elders.

 

Proverbs 3:5-7.
Faith and intellectualism are mutually exclusive, my friend.

"Straight thinking" outside of what the Scriptures tell us, is precisely what the Lord intends to destroy with His Gospel ( 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 ).
Logic and human reasoning are not how we as believers approach Him, nor were they ever...
Faith and belief in His words, are.

Please see Hebrews 11.

Why you keep quoting intellectuals to make your points when the Bible speaks against human wisdom, I do not know.

Believers in Jesus Christ do not sacrifice honesty...
We simply know where to find His words, and we believe them by faith ( John 8:47, John 10:27, Romans 15:4, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 ).

Honestly.

Biblical doctrines are not built on human reasoning and intellect, they are built on the word of God.
Again, believers take God's word by faith, not by intellect and faulty human reasoning.

In the end, His word changes our way of thinking and we become subject to it...
Not the other way around.

I don't think that Glenn Conjurske or Edward Carnell truly understood this, going by their writings.
They both seem to dismiss faith in God's words as being "not enough", and to me, they come off as ridiculing people who live by it.

 

very much so! Any Bible tgranslation that is faithful to the textual evidence that we have, and hold the Word of God in the Highest regard, is "Infallible", and therefore "Trustworthy" in ALL that it says. For those who do not hold to the Bible translations like the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, YLT, etc, as being "Infallible", are saying that the Bible that we have today, is "fallible", which means, "capable of errors"! This means that when we read in 2 Timothy 3:16, where Paul says, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness", this does not apply to our "translations" but only to the Original Autographs. If, as this verse says, that the 66 Books of the Holy Bible, in the Original Autographs, are "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness", then does this apply to our translations as well? How can we believe and apply this text to our Bible Versions, while holding to a "fallible" Bible, when it clearly says that the Bible is "profitable for correction", when it has "errors"? There are "copysist errors" in the translations that we have, which account for about 2% of the entire Bible. However, when comparing the textual evidence, it is possible to reduce this to under 1%. If the remainder 99% is as the Original Autographs, then this must mean that this is "infallible", which the dictionary defines as, "incapable of error, not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint, incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals" (Webster), all of which is true even in the faithful translations. If we abandon the Infallibility of the Versions of the Bible, some of which I have noted above, then we have the problem that the Christian Faith is based on unreliable, untrustworthy, and errors, that are in these Versions. Do we only accept "partial Infallibility", like when it says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1),? Or, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1)? Is what our translation says about the Creation of the universe, completely true and trustworthy, and the same about the Lord Jesus Christ as being Himself God? Or, do we say that it is possible that passages like these are "Infallible" in what they teach? Who decides which parts of the Bible are, or not, The Infallible Word of God?

 

Human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching is not a Bible doctrine. It is a tradition of men.

The wisdom from God above is without partiality and without hypocrisy (James 3:17) while human KJV-only reasoning depends upon showing partiality to one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611. KJV-only advocates show their blindness when they reject to see their faith in human KJV-only reasoning or human opinions of men. KJV-only advocates may have some faith in God, but they are blind to how they have added faith in human KJV-only reasoning to it. KJV-only advocates are men who are using their human reason and who lean on their own understanding to reach their non-scriptural KJV-only conclusions that are not stated in the Scriptures. You do not demonstrate that your reasoning concerning the KJV comes solely from the Scriptures.

The Scriptures do not teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.

 

so, how do we get our Bible translations?

 

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside
the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups, and many other such things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition (Mark 7:7-9)

Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition (Matthew 15:6b)

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Matthew 15:9)

Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? (Matthew 15:3b)

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men (Col. 2:8a)

Beware of false prophets (Matt. 7:15a)

Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth (Titus 1:14)

Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge (1 Cor. 14:29)

We ought to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29b)

Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye (Acts 4:19b)

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. (Romans 14:5)

and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17b)

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. (Galatians 5:1)

 

If anyone can claim that something is true just because he assumes or believes it to be true or has blind faith in it, then he can believe without any sound justification anything he wants to believe.

Greg Bahnsen observed: “The right to believe something does not translate it into something which is true” (Always Ready, p. 128).

If faith can be claimed as the basis for accepting blindly opinions or claims that may be contradictory to scriptural truth, how could God hold anyone accountable for mistaking His commands for their contradictions? A command of God and its contradiction cannot be both true. A doctrine of God and its contradiction cannot be both true. Therefore, it is important that believers break down the false opposition which has been sometimes set up between truth and faith.

Do those called “faith” preachers or “faith” healers illustrate how the term “faith” can be misused to try to excuse or justify teaching that is not sound and scriptural? D. A. Waite acknowledged: “The men who are in the charismatic movement believe the ‘revelations’ that they speak are also ‘inspired’” (Foes of the KJB, p. 47).

 

God INFLUENCED various translators for the last 1900 years to make translations of His word in many languages. He inspired only those whom He chose to write Scripture.

 

The Bible does speak against human KJV-only wisdom that shows partiality to one exclusive group of imperfect Church of England critics/scholars in 1611 (James 3:17).

One serious, scripturally-based objection to a modern KJV-only view is that’s view dependence on fallacies as the basis for several of its key arguments and assumptions. Use of fallacies would conflict with Bible teaching concerning truth. A fallacy is an error in the reasoning, inferring, or concluding involved in an argument [a false argument].

Important aspects of KJV-only reasoning/teaching would involve assuming some premises to be true that have not been proven to be true, and that assumption would involve use of the fallacy of begging the question. Human KJV-only reasoning cannot reach logically certain conclusions based on unproven premises and on use of fallacies. Use of the fallacy of begging the question would not be a simple, common sense, impossible-to-refute argument. Do typical KJV-only arguments attempt to assume by use of the fallacy of begging the question the point in dispute and attempt to exclude any non-KJV-only answer from the beginning? The KJV-only view’s uncertain conclusions have not been demonstrated to follow directly from premises proven to be true and scriptural.

Blind faith in unproven premises would not make those premises become true. Would the God of truth approve of the use of fallacies? Would the truth need the use of fallacies to defend it or to advocate it? Edward F. Hills asserted: “Error and falsehood, however, are not from God but from Satan, the evil one” (KJV Defended, p. 240). Does that statement indicate that the use of fallacies in KJV-only reasoning should be excused or should that use be condemned and removed? Does KJV-only reasoning compromise the truth by making use of fallacies? Along with use of the fallacy of begging the question, use of some other fallacies is also clearly evident in human KJV-only reasoning.

 

The acquired, secondary authority of Bible translations depend upon the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

The 1611 KJV is a Bible translation in the same way and sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles such as Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Geneva, Bishops' and in the same way and sense as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV.

 

You mean Inspired translations?

 

But all the versions you mention are the products of textual criticism

 

All,
This will be my final reply in this thread.

I firmly believe that when I hold the "King James" version in my hands, I hold the inspired word of God, in my own native language, in my hands.
When I hold anything that is a product of faithful and careful translating performed using the "Textus Receptus" such as the Louis Segond of 1874 or the Reina-Valera of 1909 in French and Spanish respectively, I am holding the inspired word of God in my hands.
I also firmly believe that when I hold anything that is a product of translating the "Critical Text" in my hands, I am holding something that has been mishandled by men and therefore, does not warrant my trust.

If any of you feel that people like me should be attacked, ridiculed, made to look in any way inferior to others that profess Christ as Saviour and Lord, or should be treated in any way other than respectfully, then to me you have a heart problem;
There is no excuse for treating anyone badly for any reason among Christians...

Believers do not persecute people;
Rather, we are the persecuted.

If any of you think that I'm in error, try correcting me in love instead of what I've been seeing so far in many of the threads on this site in the time that I've been here...
Which has been, in many cases, uncharitable and disreputable from my perpsective.
I for one would very much appreciate seeing actual Christian charity being practiced on this forum on many subjects, and not what has been allowed to exist thus far.

Admittedly, I have my own problems in the flesh...
I get perturbed, I sometimes reply without thinking or considering how my words may be taken by those who read them, etc.
and there is ample proof of my thoughtlessness in some of my replies.

For that I ask your forgiveness.


With that said,
May each of you be persuaded in your own minds on this subject, and may we all remember the Lord's commands in places like Romans 12, to be patient and to requite blessing for cursing and as much as lies within us to be at peace with all men.

 

Your view of the King James Version is blind trust.

 

The Church of England makers of the KJV were persecutors.

KJV translators George Abbot and Lancelot Andrewes were two of the Church of England divines who urged the burning at the stake of Bartholomew Legate in March of 1611 (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 142). George Abbot even presided over the proceedings (Ibid., p. 93). The Dictionary of National Biography pointed out that Legate and Edward Wightman were brought before the court of George Abbot and that "Abbot was from the first resolved that no mercy should be shown them" (p. 11). This reference work also pointed out that "Abbot was constantly in attendance in the high commission court and tried to enforce conformity in the church with consistent love of order" (Ibid., p. 18). Andrewes was also a member of the infamous Court of High Commission and the Court of Star Chamber (Sermons, p. xxi). William Pierce maintained that Andrewes had been “one of the agents in carrying out of Whitgift’s oppressive system and especially as a press censor” (Historical Introduction, p. 127). While he worked on the KJV, Thomas Ravis "was highly active as a hated scourge," harassing and persecuting those who would not fully submit to the Church of England (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 93). Alexander McClure also noted that the prelate Thomas Ravis was "a fierce persecutor of the Puritans" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 150). Geddes MacGregor observed that Ravis “swore to oust those whose Puritan leanings made them reluctant to conform” (Literary History, p. 200). Thomas Bilson, who helped edit and revise the final draft of the KJV, also "carried on the holy warfare" against the Puritans and insisted that they wear the surplice and hood (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 96). Thomas Smith also confirmed that Bilson "treated the Puritans with uncommon severity" (Select Memoirs, p. 322). Along with KJV translators Lancelot Andrewes, George Abbot, Thomas Ravis, co-editor Thomas Bilson, and Archbishop Richard Bancroft, other KJV translators were also members of the High Commission Court and Star Chamber that persecuted professed believers. Roland Usher's list of the commissions in the province of Canterbury included KJV translators John Bois, Arthur Lake, John Layfield, Nicolas Love, James Montague, John Overall, Sir Henry Savile, Miles Smith, and Giles Thompson (Rise and Fall of the High Commission, pp. 345-359).

In a treatise presented to King James in 1614, Leonard Busher, a Baptist, stated: "Those bishops which persuade the king and Parliament to burn, banish, and imprison for difference of religion are bloodsuckers and manslayers" (Goadby, Bye-Paths, p. 57; Underhill, Tracts, pp. 38-39). Leonard Busher also wrote: "They cannot be Christ's bishops and preachers that persuade princes and peoples to such antichristian tyranny and cruelty" (Plea, p. 27; Cramp, Baptist History, p. 293; Underhill, Tracts, p. 60). Busher added that the bishops showed clearly by their persecutions that "their doctrine is not good, and that they want [lack] the word and Spirit of God" (Cramp, p. 293). Busher noted that "persecution for religion is to force the conscience; and to force and constrain men and women's consciences to a religion against their wills, is to tyrannize over the soul, as well as over the body" (Tracts, p. 34). Busher maintained that "the bishops in forcing men and women's consciences do therein play the antichrist, as well as the popes" (Ibid., p. 35). J. Newton Brown noted that during the reign of King James that "bishops were still found who determined to persecute the Baptists even to death" (Memorials of Baptist Martyrs, p. 240). John Jeffcoat III confirmed that “the Church of England continued to persecute Protestants throughout the 1600’s” (www.Greatsite.com). Even Peter Ruckman asserted that “one trait of popish persons” was that “they would burn people at the stake if they disagreed with them doctrinally” (History of N. T. Church, II, p. 12). Should believers today follow the bad example of these saintly, "exemplary," and "spiritually qualified" translators?

Can believers completely trust these translators who were persecutors of believers?

D. A. Waite alleged that the fact of the involvement of several of the KJV translators in the persecution of separatists and believers “has not foundation in fact” and that “it is not” true (Critical Answer to Michael Sproul’s, p. 86), but he is misinformed.

 

Just what is your argument here