How I KNOW the KJB is the Word of God!!!!!

ddavis said:

No way, hogwash, GENTELMEN it still all comes down to who we are willing to believe and I will stick with the KJV 1611. It's personal opinion because of the way we were taught and the way we believe. I can't change your minds and you can't change mine.

But it doesn't come down to what we are "willing to believe," does it? You're not some kind of postmodernist who thinks there is no truth, just persuasion, are you?

Millions are being decieved by false Bibles! You have to speak out! You have the responsibility!

Sorry, if you give up by saying that we won't change each other's minds, you are not doing your job. How I wish you were hot or cold!

[ August 31, 2001: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

No, Thomas, I change my mind. Please let this nonsense go on...don't close the thread. Sometimes that best thing that can be done by those with rediculous arguments is to let them demonstrate their folly for all to see...

Chick

 

scott, there is no misunderstanding as to where I stand when it comes to the lost and which Bible I will tell them about. But to those liberal professors out there, I can't change their minds that's up to the Holy Spirit. Don't assume to know me just because of typing on a web page.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bro Shaun:


I was born into a Jehovahs Witness home and raised as a JW for 12 yrs. In studying the differences between the NIV and KJB I have noticed that the verses the NIV deletes are the exact same as the NWT (the JW "bible") deletes. The NIV is nothing more than the JW bible with modern language. The newer NIVs are even taking out the footnotes you all claim make it superior.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all let me clarify a mistake in your reponse. I did NOT say that the NIV is superior. In fact, I think it is one of the weaker translations; however, the KJV is also a translation with translational errors. I am not going to argue with your statement about the JW bible being the NIV bible. There may be simularities because MOST ALL new translations including the NASB use manuscripts that have been exhaustively reviewed and compared. If there are minor changes, they are because "older" manuscripts simply were not edited by well meaning Christian copywriters in later centuries. You keep making bullet statements, but you don't answer my questions: What Bible was used before 1611? Why is there so much difference between the KJV of the 1600's and now? What Bible did Jesus use? Does this mean a Chinese Bible is not "inspired" and should not be used and the Chinese will have to learn English to benefit from this "inspired" KJV version? WHY would the KJV be any more "inspired" than a newer translation even with minor differences? Don't give me the "king" story -- that is a long stretch and I can't buy that.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddavis:
Ransom, If the KJV-onlyist are spiritual immature, then why is it that you guys need a easier version to read. No matter what version you read it is still a translation, NOBODY HAS ANY OF THE ORIGINALS THAT I KNOW OF. I stay with the KJV because "I" beleive it is the one for the english speaking people, I also understand that in every translation you loose a little of the original meaning because it is a translation. Phillip said they have come up with new manusripts, OH NO, God let the beleivers for the last 400 years beleive they had the truth, does that mean they weren't saved because the didn't have the newer manuscripts? I don't think so. Like it's been said, if aint broke don't fix it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Whoa Mr. Ddavis, don't try to twist my meaning around. Yes, it is true--ask any Bible scholar about older manuscripts which have been found, but surprisingly you will find there is mostly agreement between the new and the old (Yes, God said he will preserve his Word). The new manuscripts have added and left out a few phrases, but the doctrine of Christ and Grace has not changed one bit between the newer and the old manuscripts.
Actually, your statement that people before this time were not saved (and I know this was tongue in cheek statement on your part) was totally out of line and unfair basically because of the answer I gave you in the first paragraph. As I have said many times before, I have original 17th copies of the King James and I bet you cannot even read them. The language used has changed so much and it was not even the spoken language at the time- it was a language used for religious writings. Today many, many of the words have entirely different meanings--making the KJV difficult to read for most people unless they grew up reading the KJV. For instance, my daughter had a lot of trouble understanding the KJV, but reads her Bible every day since she got a newer translation. There is NOTHING at all wrong about a newer translation which brings in older manuscripts and uses much more modern English. When did God say the KJV is the ONLY word of God? AND, like I said before, what Bible did English people have BEFORE 1611. In your own reasoning those people must not be saved! Much of the KJV was taken from the Bishops Bible and not necessarily translated directly from the original Hebrew or Greek. Why did the KJV translators have to pick among twelve different manuscripts for Revelations and how do we know they picked the right selections? I know your answer "God told them". But, there are very sincere Christians who have worked on newer translations also. Many of the issues, such as corrupted Alexandrian documents, etc. remind me of a sheet of paper passed around when I was a kid called the Rules for Taking over America written by the communists. It turned out to be a fraud written by people who didn't like communists. (I don't either, but I don't stoop to false stories.) By the way, what Bible did Jesus read? Was it 100% accurate? If it was, then why did it contain the apocrypha? Just food for thought.

[ September 03, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bro Shaun:


Is it now? Have you ever looked? It is the truth, if you don't believe me, buy a NWT and check. You can get one at your local Kingdom Hall, but they do sell them in the christian book stores, it is called the NIV.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yet another example of lack of knowledge. Sorry--have you ever thought the JW Bible may be partially accurate? Just because their doctrine is different does not mean their Bible is a total sham.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddavis:
scott, then you are telling me that out of all those manuscripts, you only know which are protected and which aren't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No. I never said anything of the sort. In fact, I would assert that since none of the existing manuscripts can be proven as perfect copies of the originals then none of them have protection in the sense that you imply. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No way, hogwash, GENTELMEN it still all comes down to who we are willing to believe and I will stick with the KJV 1611.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No. Actually, it comes down to an assessment of the facts and having beliefs that are consistent with those facts. The belief that either the KJV or the TR are somehow perfectly preserved is wholly inconsistent with biblical and historical facts.

[ September 04, 2001: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Hey, fellas aren't you doing the same thing you burned me at the stack for. It's still just YOUR opinion on what you've read and studied, as to what YOU beleive. I think that is what I said. aaayyyy Just Yes or No. You defend your liberal views and I my conservetive views, then when Lord comes He can take care of it. I have really enjoyed the converstaion and different views. Lord Bless p.s. no I have'nt given up, and still stand on what I BELEIVE to be right and true for one day we'll get to read the perfect and plain word of God. I think we can agree on that.

 

Bro Shaun said:

But, you will have to prove it.

Sorry, I have to prove nothing. It is you who has made a charge of heresy against the NIV, so it is you who has the burden of proof.

Here is just a sampling.

Sorry, I don't take one, maybe two verses as a "sampling" of anything. It certainly doesn't prove that the NIV and the NWT are identical in every meaningful respect, as you are claiming. It proves nothing except that they are identical in one single respect.

I told you your comparison was superficial.

1John 5:7

1 John 5:7-8 has been a disputed verse for centuries, even before there was ever a KJV. Erasmus refused to include it in his Greek text until he was pressured to do so. Luther did not include it in his Bible (which KJV advocates often cite as a "good" translation).

That is fairly strong proof that the Holy Trinity exists.

And not one, I am led to understand, that was cited very often by the church fathers such as Athanasius, who would have had a significant vested interest in doing so in his controversy with the Arians.

I have a ton. Heres a hint, look at John 1:1.

*snigger* John 1:1 proves MY point.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God. (NIV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God. (KJV).

In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. (NWT, emphasis mine)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John 1:1 in the NIV is word-for-word identical with the KJV. They agree over and against the NWT on their Christology.

You couldn't be more wrong. Sorry.

[ September 04, 2001: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddavis:
Hey, fellas aren't you doing the same thing you burned me at the stack for. It's still just YOUR opinion on what you've read and studied, as to what YOU beleive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good try but no. A fact is a fact, not an opinion. Either the evidence supports the idea that the KJV is equivalent to the originals or it doesn't...it doesn't. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I think that is what I said. aaayyyy Just Yes or No. You defend your liberal views and I my conservetive views, then when Lord comes He can take care of it...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Our views are what orthodox, Bible believing Christians have believed since the early church fathers. Your views are a recent aberration.

Our views are indeed conservative. There are a number labels that could be applied to KJVOnlyism but conservative is not a legitimate one.

 

A lot of dialog. The basis being that the KJV only position has something solid behind it.

So, let's ask those who hold to the KJV position this question:

When did the KJV only position originate? What person originated the KJV position? If you are a KJV adherent, do you know who you are a disciple of? Did the "truth" of the KJV position come by Divine revelation? Or did it happen by spontaneous combustion?

I have researched some of the background and origination of the KJV position, and looked at some of the leading proponents.

It does pay to know whose company you are keeping.

 

qwerty askes: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When did the KJV only position originate?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The origins of the KJV only position is unknown. But the claims that it originated with a 7th day Adventist is untrue. W.B. Riley, writing in his excellent book "The Menace of Modernism" (New York: Christian Alliance, 1917), the Modernist believes the Bible's "inspiration exists only in its ability to inspire...its interpretation is a matter of mental conscience." Dr. Riley goes on to say there were a group of men whom he describes as the "old conception," who believed the Authorized Version or King James Bible was inerrant. He states on page 11, "On this point we are inclined to think that, even unto comparatively recent years, such a theory has been entertained." He then ascribes this belief to ignorance, and says, "I think it would be accepted without fear of successful controversy that such fogies in Biblical knowledge are few, and their funerals are nigh at hand." So then, it seems clear to me that Dr. Riley believed there were still a few of the "old conception" men in his day that still believed in an inerrant AV, that they were mostly old men, and were soon to pass away. If these men were old men when Riley wrote his book, they must have dated to at least the latter part of the 19th century. Well over one hundred years ago, a group of "old conception" men existed who still believed in the inerrancy of the AV. This appears to indicate the "King James Only" position is not of recent origin. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What person originated the KJV position?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>See above. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you are a KJV adherent, do you know who you are a disciple of?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, I am a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Did the "truth" of the KJV position come by Divine revelation?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No. By over 25 years of study of textual criticism I came to the position that I believe the Byzantine text-form is superior to the Alexandrian text-form. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Or did it happen by spontaneous combustion?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Spontaneous conbustion destroys things by fire, it does not give us anything. For me, the superiority of the KJV came after long and hard study of the issues of textual criticism and manuscript evidence coupled with the historical evidence for the primacy of the Byzantine text-form and the most probable reasons for the rise of the Alexandrian text-form and the most probable reasons for its gradual demise beginning about 350 AD.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bro Shaun:

Fine. If you could make the same argument about the KJB, then do it. But, you will have to prove it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Titus 2:13
NWT-...our great God and of the savior of us, Christ Jesus. (Two separate persons- one God, one savior)
KJV-...the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ. (Two separate persons- one God, one savior)
NIVNASB- ...of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. (One person- both God and Savior)

II Peter 1:1
NWT- ...of our God and (the) savior Jesus Christ. (Two separate persons)
KJV- ...of God and our savior Jesus Christ. (Two separate persons- even more clearly than the NWT)
NIV/NASB-...of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ... (One person)

The MV's are obviously superior for demonstrating the deity of Jesus in these two passages as well as John 1:18. Unlike I John 5:7-8, the authenticity of the two passages above is not disputed, only how to properly translate them.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you can prove that they are different (which you cannot), give scripture. I have a ton. Heres a hint, look at John 1:1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am not aware of any Bible that mistranslates this verse or John 8:58 like the NWT. Where are you getting your information?

By the way, Young's Literal Translation renders Mat. 14:27 differently than other versions (including the KJV). It uses the phrase "I am" instead of "it is I" to translate 'ego eimi'. (Maybe some of the Greek experts can say why this isn't more common).

Imagine the scene: Jesus is demonstrating His divine authority over the elements by walking on the stormy sea. His disciples cry out for fear. He responds- Be courageous. I AM. Be not afraid..... by your logic, all of the other translators must be conspiring to undermine the deity of Christ by not translating this passage in the most helpful way.

[ September 04, 2001: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Scott, I do beleive the JKV is God's Word, But I understand it's a translation. Something I guess you don't.
A fact to you is something that you have studied and read from someone esle just like the rest of us. Why? Becase you weren't there. So you base your "opinion" off of what YOU call fact. And what about your bibling beleiving views, thats my point to all of this, it's your views, just like it's mine.

 

OK Davis you need some help, it seems you are getting crucified even in trying to make amends. This is a subject that will always be a big debate. I will never change my position and here is why, these verses bear repeating.

Rev. 22 18, 19
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall ADD unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall TAKE AWAY from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Verses taken out of the NIV, NASV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NCV, and the LIV.

Matt 17:21, Matt 18:11, Matt 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Mark 16:9-20, Luke 23:17, John 5:4, acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, Acts 28:29, Rom 16:24.

Just to name a few. There are so many more. I think this is exactly what Revelation 22:18, 19 are talking about. TAKE AWAY and ADD TO. I don't believe that God allowed the English speaking people to have a translation and then 400 years later God says, "Oops, I forgot to add some things I will allow new transcripts to be found". NOT. God is perfect and his word is perfect. The King James is a translation and it was translated by man, but I believe it is the closest to the Word of God that the English speaking people can get. I think it is heresy to say it is not easy to understand, that is an excuse. People have become lazy and LIBERAL. They want an easy book to read. No thank you I want to read the Word of God. I don't need to read a butchered book that has taken out several Scriptures.
And by the way I looked in my dictionary and guess what, the words, Thee, Thou are in there if you need the definition maybe you should look in your Websters. Although my 4 year old knows what they mean without looking.

Also for further information you may want to look at these web pages.
http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html
http://www.av1611.org/biblevs.html

PS: Thank you Thomas Cassidy, I was beginning to think that ddavis an I were the only people that still used the (English) Word of God.


[ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: toolman ]

 

Thomas,

I have also engaged in years of study, and, just to share my conclusions, (which by the way are the conclusions of the vast majority of scholarship today) that the Byzantine mss. are actually inferior in most ways to the papyrii and early Uncials. I realize that we disagree in conclusions based on our research, and the chances of me convincing you to change are probably about the same as you convincing me to change. However, I hold no animus to you, and hope that those on this board who have not studied the mss at all will realize that civility and brotherly love should reign on this issue as it is extremely technical with wide differences of opinion.

Chick

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rev. 22 18, 19
For I tesitfy unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall ADD unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall TAKE AWAY from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, things which are written in this book, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do these verses apply to the last 6 verses of Revelation where there are almost 20 Greek words in the TR and hence KJV that have NO Greek manuscript support? There are nine such errors in these two verses alone.

This problem occurred because Erasmus back translated these verses from the Latin Vulgate because he had no Greek manuscript of those verses. They are clear errors in the Greek text underlying the KJV and those with English equivalents made their way into the KJV. In other words, you of necessity must believe that God added to his word in the early 1500s because there is no evidence that these readings ever existed before that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Verses taken out of the NIV, NASV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NCV, and the LIV.

Matt 17:21, Matt 18:11, Matt 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Mark 16:9-20, Luke 23:17, John 5:4, acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, Acts 28:29, Rom 16:24.

Just to name a few. There are so many more. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the evidence points to the fact that many of these verses were added to the TR through the years. The MVs did not delete anything. Any so called deletion has adequate textual support as a look at Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament will show.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't believe that God allowed the English speaking people to have a translation and then 400 years later God says, "Oops, I forgot to add some things I will allow new transcripts to be found". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This doesn't make a lot of sense. You seem to have to say that God allowed his word to take one form for 7-800 years and then caused words and verses to be added to it in the 7-15th century. In other words, a good case (though not perfect) can be made that the TR and MajT contain words and verses that the early church never had.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And by the way I looked in my dictionary and guess what, the words, Thee, Thou are in there if you need the definition maybe you should look in your Websters. Although my 4 year old knows what they mean without looking.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I looked in my NASB95 and found I didn't need a dictionary for them. In the first century, God used the common language of the people. All through church history God used the common language ... that is up until the 20th century where suddenly some want to tell us that God uses an out-dated language. It is no wonder that some people think God does not matter in the 21st century. If he did, surely he would speak our language.

[ September 04, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

[ September 04, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Toolman

I noticed that you did not even properly transmit Rev 22:18-19 here. You misspelled a word and added a complete phrase. Why do you suppose God did not protect his word and keep you from making such an egregious error?

You have added to the word of God. Do you think God has added all these plagues to you?

If God did not keep you from adding to the Word here, what makes you think that he kept anyone else from throughout the centuries of church history?

Did his promise to preserve his word not get to you?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Then you don't know a thing about Tennessee Temple. It is very liberal now and uses and version out there, but it was started by Dr. Lee Roberson and had very high standards from the beginning and only used the KJB.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sigh. I have been reading this and wondering a great many things. I am not confused about my Bible.

Unfortunately, I am confused about a few of you.

But, just wanted to let you know, I went to TTU for 3 years in the 1970s. I heard Dr. Roberson preach sometimes more than 3 times a week. I also got to hear Dr. Rice, Dr. Hyles, on and on, great preachers all. And, I might add, every single one of them, were opinionated to the inth degree.

For instance, Dr. Roberson had a closet full of double-breasted blue serge suits. He did that so he would not waste 5 minutes in the morning trying to decide what to wear that day.

He wouldn't try to quote you a verse for blue serge suits, he would just give you a very personal, and good reason for having a closet full of them.

I love the KJV, I also love the NASB, I also love the NIV. But firstly, I love JESUS. And I believe that THAT is the fruit my Lord wants me to exhibit above all else, HIS LOVE.

Dr. Roberson was and is a very busy man. He would not have time to engage in these hair-splitting debates over a not-very-profitable subject.

He would be telling someone about Jesus.

He still attends Highland Park Baptist. He still speaks on WDYN occasionally. He is still there by affiliation. You can contact them at WDYN.com if you ever want to listen to their live webcast.

While the prevailing version on campus at that time was KJV, it certainly was not the only version used. Many instructors, including a (Dr. Martin?) I believe, used the NASB without fail in their classes.

While there was some debate as to the efficacy of various English translations and their underlying manuscripts, the timbre with which it was approached did not in any way imitate the hostility I have witnessed here.

This is my first post, and it may be my last. That's fine. I think I would rather be telling somebody how to accept Jesus, though.

While the house was burning to the ground, we were arranging ALL the pictures on the wall.

Rescue the perishing, care for the dying.

That's the mission. Let's do it.