-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Final Authority before 1611?
- Thread starter Cix
- Start date
--------------------------------------------------
Broken down a little, it says knowledge on a given subject is based upon experience and self-evident truths, and on logical propositions resulting from those two sources.
In the case of the Scriptures, they each state certain concrete things. We have no authority to add to what they say, either by directly adding words, or adding to the clear meanings.
--------------------------------------------------
You are deceived, and continue to be deceived, because you have put the ideas, opinions, methods and beliefs of man, above that, and before that of God. You wouldn't know the clear meaning of the scripture if it came up and hit you upside the head because you place man's wisdom first, before faith in approaching the scriptures.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Broken down a little, it says knowledge on a given subject is based upon experience and self-evident truths, and on logical propositions resulting from those two sources.
In the case of the Scriptures, they each state certain concrete things. We have no authority to add to what they say, either by directly adding words, or adding to the clear meanings.
--------------------------------------------------
You are deceived, and continue to be deceived, because you have put the ideas, opinions, methods and beliefs of man, above that, and before that of God. You wouldn't know the clear meaning of the scripture if it came up and hit you upside the head because you place man's wisdom first, before faith in approaching the scriptures.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
I've read the Bible cover-to-cover many times in many versions, and there's simply NO SUPPORT for ANY version-onlyism, KJVO or otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------
Just because you have read it, doesn't necessarily mean you have understood it. It is apparent in many cases, you haven't understood it. Otherwise you would understand why you should reject the mv's.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
I've read the Bible cover-to-cover many times in many versions, and there's simply NO SUPPORT for ANY version-onlyism, KJVO or otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------
Just because you have read it, doesn't necessarily mean you have understood it. It is apparent in many cases, you haven't understood it. Otherwise you would understand why you should reject the mv's.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
1.) The KJVO myth was started in 1930 by an official of A KNOWN CULT, the SDA. This myth is ENTIRELY MAN-MADE.
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle:Wrong. The TR vs. the W/H texts has been going on since the 1800's.
Not wrong! There was no KJVO doctrine preached to the general public before 1930. Feel free to search for it.
And the textual arguments have been going on since ERASMUS' day...but mostly in universities, among scholars.
--------------------------------------------------
2.) The KJVO myth has ABSOLUTELY NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT. This alone makes everything else moot.
--------------------------------------------------
Wrong. Abundant scriptural support has been not only given, but supports the fact that the faithful will always have God's pure words. Your denial and rejection of this scripture only shows your stubborness to this truth.
No, it has NOT. And for the umpteenth time...I don't deny the SCRIPTURES...I deny your twisted interpretations of them, your additions to God's word, fueled by your fevered imagination.
--------------------------------------------------
3.) No two English BVs are alike. Thus, if Psalm 12:7 is about God's words, that's another thing that proves the KJVO myth false.
--------------------------------------------------
Wrong. Your refusal to understand the difference between technical errors regarding translation vs. textual/methods errors regarding translation, and lack of understanding and believing Psalm 12 for what it says, along with many other scriptures concerning the words of the Lord, and the history of it that is evidence of this truth, blinds you to the truth.
Again, we're presented with your fairy tale versus the actual writings of the AV translators. The AV translators wrote "them" in the text as a plural non-specific pronoun, referring to a multiple of ANYTHING...but they CLARIFIED their intent with their marginal note, "Heb. him, I. euery one of them". Those men couldn't have made their intent any plainer, but you'll prolly keep rejecting it because you know more than they did about their own work. Typical KJVO.
--------------------------------------------------
.) By comparing Luke 4:16-21 in the KJV with Isaiah 42:7 and Isaiah 61:3, we see JESUS READ ALOUD from a version of Isaiah different from that which is translated into the KJV.
--------------------------------------------------
Wrong. You also misinterpret because you approach this verse with "assumption" and a "preconcieved idea/belief first, rather than understanding plainly what is said.
I read in the KJB exactly what Jesus said. Otherwise, I wouldn't know he said it.
But did you read what He said through Isaiah? I doubt it...and if you did, you'll prolly say neither Isaiah nor the translators were right.
From the KJV:
Luke 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,
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,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book,...
Isaiah 61: The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.
Isaiah 42:7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.
I leave you to make your own comparison.
--------------------------------------------------
5.) While the KJV is an excellent translation, as are several others, it is NOT perfect, as we've proven here in several topics.
--------------------------------------------------
Wrong. The KJB is the word of God perfectly in the English language.
We've proven otherwise.You refuse to accept.
Several others are not, as it has been EVIDENCED they fall short of perfection because they alter/change/omitt/add the words of God.
Circular reasoning.
--------------------------------------------------
6.) Most KJVO arguments are absolutely STUPID! Examples: "The NIV denies the Deity of Jesus by calling Joseph His father in Luke 2:43" or the "copyrights" issue.
--------------------------------------------------
Wrong. This is your pure opinion based upon lack of understanding or admitting to the facts and truth regarding this issue.
Not when some chowderhead hollers, "The NIV denies the Deity of Christ in Luke 2:43 by calling Joseph HIS FATHER"...failing to have read just FIVE VERSES FURTHER...OR, HAVING FAILED TO READ LUKE 2:27 AND 2:41! This is EMPIRICAL PROOF of how utterly STUPID that KJVO argument is.
The NIV does deny the deity of Christ in many verses, to which is exposed against the true word of God.
Circular reasoning.
--------------------------------------------------
7.) The AV translators were NOT "inspired", "providentially led", etc. They were human as you or I. Their preface "From the translators to the Reader", found in the AV 1611, but NOT in most later editions, is VERY telling...let alone their marginal notes, again, omitted in today's KJV editions.
--------------------------------------------------
Wrong. You are attempting to not only deny the power and providence of God concerning his words, but the promises and truth God has said about them in the scriptures, and the evidence that He has given you.
The evidence He has given me...AND YOU...is that He's continually overseen His word, providing it in the language of the day, allowing imperfect men to translate his perfect word.
You also limit God in his abilities and his will and reasons. John the Baptist also, did not acknowledge, nor know that he was the prophet Elijah, yet Jesus admitted later that he was. You are limiting God and his power, which is foriegn to the christian faith all to fight against a man-made false label you have placed upon the truth, because you are not willing to admitt to/realize your doubt which is causing you to blindness and error, and condoning of them.
Again, you call water dry. it's the KJVO who tries to limit God, and heaps coals upon his/her own head by denying the validity of many versions of God's word, as they evidently don't believe God can present His word AS HE CHOOSES.
--------------------------------------------------
Here are seven basic facts for you to critique, Slambo. If you can get by even the first two, you're to be congratulated.
--------------------------------------------------
Congratulated by whom? Men, or God? Nothing will convince the stubborn man of anything, because the stubborness blinds and is a stumblingblock toward the truth.
So you're saying Slambo won't look objectively at the facts?
It will and can only be by the conviction of the Holy Spirit of God upon your heart robycop, and your desire to know the truth, at the cost of humbling yourself before God.
And the HOLY SPIRIT has shown me that KJVO is false, a man-made myth. He's enabled me to read sources of info I hadn't known existed.
Will you choose your own mind, and wisdom of the world? Or will you choose the mind and wisdom of God?
it is by GOD'S WILL, His mind, and His knowledge that I KNOW KJVO is false. It is GOD who enables me and others to PRESENT THE PROOF that KJVO is false. BUT...when I or someone else presents you with CLEAR EVIDENCE that KJVO is wrong, you simply refuse to accept it. That's why your credibility here is gone.
You come here to fight, to escape what your conscience, faith and truth is telling you, so that you can at the end of the day feel justified for this in your own eyes. You are deceiving yourself.
No, YOU are, by denying the clear, easy-to-see evidence placed before your eyes.
The "KJBO" crowd comes here to reason with you, and convince you of the truth as best as the Lord allows us, and gives us strength and understanding of it to share. The rest will be, and only can be from Him.
No, they come here hoping someone else will actually believe their bilge. Some are worse than others, but they share the common trait of being WRONG...and PROVEN wrong.
By CIRCULAR REASONING, without one scintilla of evidence, you tell us KJVO is right. By WRITTEN, EASY-TO-VERIFY PROOFS, such as what's posted above, WE PROVE it's WRONG.
Care to poll the readership?
1.) The KJVO myth was started in 1930 by an official of A KNOWN CULT, the SDA. This myth is ENTIRELY MAN-MADE.
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle:Wrong. The TR vs. the W/H texts has been going on since the 1800's.
Not wrong! There was no KJVO doctrine preached to the general public before 1930. Feel free to search for it.
And the textual arguments have been going on since ERASMUS' day...but mostly in universities, among scholars.
--------------------------------------------------
2.) The KJVO myth has ABSOLUTELY NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT. This alone makes everything else moot.
--------------------------------------------------
Wrong. Abundant scriptural support has been not only given, but supports the fact that the faithful will always have God's pure words. Your denial and rejection of this scripture only shows your stubborness to this truth.
No, it has NOT. And for the umpteenth time...I don't deny the SCRIPTURES...I deny your twisted interpretations of them, your additions to God's word, fueled by your fevered imagination.
--------------------------------------------------
3.) No two English BVs are alike. Thus, if Psalm 12:7 is about God's words, that's another thing that proves the KJVO myth false.
--------------------------------------------------
Wrong. Your refusal to understand the difference between technical errors regarding translation vs. textual/methods errors regarding translation, and lack of understanding and believing Psalm 12 for what it says, along with many other scriptures concerning the words of the Lord, and the history of it that is evidence of this truth, blinds you to the truth.
Again, we're presented with your fairy tale versus the actual writings of the AV translators. The AV translators wrote "them" in the text as a plural non-specific pronoun, referring to a multiple of ANYTHING...but they CLARIFIED their intent with their marginal note, "Heb. him, I. euery one of them". Those men couldn't have made their intent any plainer, but you'll prolly keep rejecting it because you know more than they did about their own work. Typical KJVO.
--------------------------------------------------
.) By comparing Luke 4:16-21 in the KJV with Isaiah 42:7 and Isaiah 61:3, we see JESUS READ ALOUD from a version of Isaiah different from that which is translated into the KJV.
--------------------------------------------------
Wrong. You also misinterpret because you approach this verse with "assumption" and a "preconcieved idea/belief first, rather than understanding plainly what is said.
I read in the KJB exactly what Jesus said. Otherwise, I wouldn't know he said it.
But did you read what He said through Isaiah? I doubt it...and if you did, you'll prolly say neither Isaiah nor the translators were right.
From the KJV:
Luke 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,
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,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book,...
Isaiah 61: The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.
Isaiah 42:7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.
I leave you to make your own comparison.
--------------------------------------------------
5.) While the KJV is an excellent translation, as are several others, it is NOT perfect, as we've proven here in several topics.
--------------------------------------------------
Wrong. The KJB is the word of God perfectly in the English language.
We've proven otherwise.You refuse to accept.
Several others are not, as it has been EVIDENCED they fall short of perfection because they alter/change/omitt/add the words of God.
Circular reasoning.
--------------------------------------------------
6.) Most KJVO arguments are absolutely STUPID! Examples: "The NIV denies the Deity of Jesus by calling Joseph His father in Luke 2:43" or the "copyrights" issue.
--------------------------------------------------
Wrong. This is your pure opinion based upon lack of understanding or admitting to the facts and truth regarding this issue.
Not when some chowderhead hollers, "The NIV denies the Deity of Christ in Luke 2:43 by calling Joseph HIS FATHER"...failing to have read just FIVE VERSES FURTHER...OR, HAVING FAILED TO READ LUKE 2:27 AND 2:41! This is EMPIRICAL PROOF of how utterly STUPID that KJVO argument is.
The NIV does deny the deity of Christ in many verses, to which is exposed against the true word of God.
Circular reasoning.
--------------------------------------------------
7.) The AV translators were NOT "inspired", "providentially led", etc. They were human as you or I. Their preface "From the translators to the Reader", found in the AV 1611, but NOT in most later editions, is VERY telling...let alone their marginal notes, again, omitted in today's KJV editions.
--------------------------------------------------
Wrong. You are attempting to not only deny the power and providence of God concerning his words, but the promises and truth God has said about them in the scriptures, and the evidence that He has given you.
The evidence He has given me...AND YOU...is that He's continually overseen His word, providing it in the language of the day, allowing imperfect men to translate his perfect word.
You also limit God in his abilities and his will and reasons. John the Baptist also, did not acknowledge, nor know that he was the prophet Elijah, yet Jesus admitted later that he was. You are limiting God and his power, which is foriegn to the christian faith all to fight against a man-made false label you have placed upon the truth, because you are not willing to admitt to/realize your doubt which is causing you to blindness and error, and condoning of them.
Again, you call water dry. it's the KJVO who tries to limit God, and heaps coals upon his/her own head by denying the validity of many versions of God's word, as they evidently don't believe God can present His word AS HE CHOOSES.
--------------------------------------------------
Here are seven basic facts for you to critique, Slambo. If you can get by even the first two, you're to be congratulated.
--------------------------------------------------
Congratulated by whom? Men, or God? Nothing will convince the stubborn man of anything, because the stubborness blinds and is a stumblingblock toward the truth.
So you're saying Slambo won't look objectively at the facts?
It will and can only be by the conviction of the Holy Spirit of God upon your heart robycop, and your desire to know the truth, at the cost of humbling yourself before God.
And the HOLY SPIRIT has shown me that KJVO is false, a man-made myth. He's enabled me to read sources of info I hadn't known existed.
Will you choose your own mind, and wisdom of the world? Or will you choose the mind and wisdom of God?
it is by GOD'S WILL, His mind, and His knowledge that I KNOW KJVO is false. It is GOD who enables me and others to PRESENT THE PROOF that KJVO is false. BUT...when I or someone else presents you with CLEAR EVIDENCE that KJVO is wrong, you simply refuse to accept it. That's why your credibility here is gone.
You come here to fight, to escape what your conscience, faith and truth is telling you, so that you can at the end of the day feel justified for this in your own eyes. You are deceiving yourself.
No, YOU are, by denying the clear, easy-to-see evidence placed before your eyes.
The "KJBO" crowd comes here to reason with you, and convince you of the truth as best as the Lord allows us, and gives us strength and understanding of it to share. The rest will be, and only can be from Him.
No, they come here hoping someone else will actually believe their bilge. Some are worse than others, but they share the common trait of being WRONG...and PROVEN wrong.
By CIRCULAR REASONING, without one scintilla of evidence, you tell us KJVO is right. By WRITTEN, EASY-TO-VERIFY PROOFS, such as what's posted above, WE PROVE it's WRONG.
Care to poll the readership?
--------------------------------------------------
premise: the KJV is the word of God
examination : others are not because they differ from the KJV
conclusion: therefore the KJV is the word of God
--------------------------------------------------
My comments and answers to your posts have been answered in many of my other posts, so I am not going to repeat myself again.
You got the above wrong. It is accurately and truthfully this:
premise and truth: the KJV is the word of God
examination : others are not because they ALTER the word of God.
conclusion: the modern versions are not the word of God
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
premise: the KJV is the word of God
examination : others are not because they differ from the KJV
conclusion: therefore the KJV is the word of God
--------------------------------------------------
My comments and answers to your posts have been answered in many of my other posts, so I am not going to repeat myself again.
You got the above wrong. It is accurately and truthfully this:
premise and truth: the KJV is the word of God
examination : others are not because they ALTER the word of God.
conclusion: the modern versions are not the word of God
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
The conclusion is the same as the premise. Circular. Round and round you go. If I said "The NIV is the word of God perfectly in the English language. Several others are not, as it has been EVIDENCED they fall short of perfection because they alter/change/omitt/add the words of God." that would also be a circular argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"would also be a circular argument"
No. It is not circular argument, but factual truth. Your denial of the truth makes it circular, as you argue against the truth of the fact. You are the one guilty of this. Not me.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
The conclusion is the same as the premise. Circular. Round and round you go. If I said "The NIV is the word of God perfectly in the English language. Several others are not, as it has been EVIDENCED they fall short of perfection because they alter/change/omitt/add the words of God." that would also be a circular argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"would also be a circular argument"
No. It is not circular argument, but factual truth. Your denial of the truth makes it circular, as you argue against the truth of the fact. You are the one guilty of this. Not me.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Michelle said "It is not circular argument, but factual truth. Your denial of the truth makes it circular"
You don't understand how circular arguments work. Circular arguments can be applied to something true or false. Circular doesn't mean false, just as non-circular doesn't mean true. Circular means circular.
You don't understand how circular arguments work. Circular arguments can be applied to something true or false. Circular doesn't mean false, just as non-circular doesn't mean true. Circular means circular.
--------------------------------------------------
No, the KJV doesn't say he mixed scripture with his own words - you're adding that to the story. The KJV says he read it. The KJV says what he read aloud was scripture (God's word in written form). Good try though.
--------------------------------------------------
Yes, he read the scripture to those in the synagogue. He read to them what we have before us today in our Bible. It is apparent, when rightly dividing the word of God, that Jesus combined the the two prophecies concerning him in Isaiah, into one as he read, and as the Bible shows what He SAID as Luke wrote down what came out of his mouth. You really need to start rightly dividing the word of God.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
No, the KJV doesn't say he mixed scripture with his own words - you're adding that to the story. The KJV says he read it. The KJV says what he read aloud was scripture (God's word in written form). Good try though.
--------------------------------------------------
Yes, he read the scripture to those in the synagogue. He read to them what we have before us today in our Bible. It is apparent, when rightly dividing the word of God, that Jesus combined the the two prophecies concerning him in Isaiah, into one as he read, and as the Bible shows what He SAID as Luke wrote down what came out of his mouth. You really need to start rightly dividing the word of God.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle: “For your information, most versions still use the W/H text, to which is now renamed the Majority Text.
Equally incorrect. The Majority or Byzantine text differs from the W-H text almost as much as does the TR underlying the KJV, and is far closer to the TR than any other type of text.
--------------------------------------------------
I read somewhere, and I do not recall where I read it, that the New Greek Text, or N/A text was also considered by them the majority text, hence the reason I said it was renamed that. And as C4K indicated this is what underlines all the mv's, this is what I was under the impression of and referring to. What then is the majority text, if it is not the N/A or the TR? I was under the understanding also, that the TR used to be called or referred to as the majority text, but no longer is, as the N/A is now called this. There is not three streams of texts, but two streams, one of the TR and the others of the Alexandria type.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Michelle: “For your information, most versions still use the W/H text, to which is now renamed the Majority Text.
Equally incorrect. The Majority or Byzantine text differs from the W-H text almost as much as does the TR underlying the KJV, and is far closer to the TR than any other type of text.
--------------------------------------------------
I read somewhere, and I do not recall where I read it, that the New Greek Text, or N/A text was also considered by them the majority text, hence the reason I said it was renamed that. And as C4K indicated this is what underlines all the mv's, this is what I was under the impression of and referring to. What then is the majority text, if it is not the N/A or the TR? I was under the understanding also, that the TR used to be called or referred to as the majority text, but no longer is, as the N/A is now called this. There is not three streams of texts, but two streams, one of the TR and the others of the Alexandria type.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Let's make this as simple as possible and ignore the parts that might have been imported from elsewhere in Isaiah and compare the wording of the rest of the passages:
The text Jesus read from did not have "God" in it therefore he used a different text than the KJV. Which one is correct Michelle?
The text that Jesus read from is significantly different from the KJV's Isaiah text here. "he" does not equal "LORD". In fact by Riplinger logic, this equals an assault on the name of the Lord.
"gospel" is a different word than "good tidings" with somewhat different connotations
"meek" and "poor" are different words with different meanings. Meek people withhold the exercise of power. Poor people have no power.
"bind up" and "heal" are not the same thing. Anyone can "bind up" but not just anyone can "heal"... Jesus could.
These phrases are not the same and do not necessarily even mean the same thing. Liberty means someone can go free but deliverance implies that someone is going to set you free.
Uh-oh... there is a BIG difference in wording and potential understandings here. You don't have to be in prison to be without liberty.
Bruised and bound? You have to stretch to make these words compatible at all.
Jesus definitely was not reading from the same text as used by the KJV translators to translate Isaiah.
Which one is correct Michelle the one used by Jesus or the one used by the KJV translators?
--------------------------------------------------
There was a fly in my juice the other day. I strained it out, I didn't strain at it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if the fly was caught in your throat, you would be straining at it, to get it out. In other words, you would be gagging at it if it was caught in your throat to which is what the verse is talking about. They were forcefully fighting against the truth, but could easily swallow their lie of disbelief.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
There was a fly in my juice the other day. I strained it out, I didn't strain at it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if the fly was caught in your throat, you would be straining at it, to get it out. In other words, you would be gagging at it if it was caught in your throat to which is what the verse is talking about. They were forcefully fighting against the truth, but could easily swallow their lie of disbelief.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle