1. 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!

Is the KJV of God or man?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by swordsman, Nov 22, 2003.

  1. Scott J

    Scott J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Ratings:
    +0
    Which KJVO? </font>[/QUOTE] I gave examples on page 6 of this thread about the 5th or 6th post down... you know, the one right after yours. Also, the first post on page 7.

    But more well known figures would include Jack Hyles and Peter Ruckman. Both have committed adultery, have been exposed, and have failed to publicly repent. This is about as "lax" as a "Christian" can get... especially if they are all the while "hellfire and brimstone" against the sins of others.

    Their moral life changed to be weak. </font>[/QUOTE] You haven't shown a cause-effect relationship.

    You are sort of like liberals who blame GW Bush for the recession of the past 3 years... never mind that it originated on Clinton's watch and partly because of his economic policies... never mind that his 8 year weakening of our national security contributed to 9/11 that in turn prolonged the recession and put us back into deficit spending for the long term. Nope... it is a "Bush" recession because he happened to be President when the effects were seen.

    And so I reasoned in like manner that perhaps these Christians you refer to were weak not because they had begun using MV's but because they held to the KJVO... but didn't use it.

    I don't like the NIV and I do like the KJV. But the NIV that is a daily part of a Christians life is infinitely better than the KJV that is only opened during church or special occasions.

    No, that is not good enough to reason. Their carnal life increases; their spiritual life deceases. They no longer fear their God. </font>[/QUOTE] Maybe they never did. Maybe they feared other people or strong leaders. Many people under KJVO leadership are like this. Maybe their prior "spirituality" was nothing more than external pressure without any real involvement of the Holy Spirit.

    You cannot tell me this doesn't happen. I know from experience that it does.

    The watered down modern versions changed their life to be lax Christians. </font>[/QUOTE] You haven't proven this any more than you have proven any of your KJVO assumptions. My point stands unchallenged. If these people actually read, study, and meditate on God's Word in MV's then they will grow spiritually. If they have just started carrying a different version to church that isn't used otherwise then they will continue to get worse... but it will not be because of a Bible translation. It will be because they aren't using any Bible translation nor are they allowing the Holy Spirit to change their lives.
     
  2. robycop3

    robycop3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,579
    Ratings:
    +22
    Faith:
    Baptist
     
  3. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Ratings:
    +0
    Your view and my view on them are different because you defended them and I found them. Remember what the Bible said here:

    2 Timothy 3:13 (KJV) "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." Do you agree with this passage?

    New modern versions appear each year! Worse and worse OR Better and better? According to this passage it said, "worse and worse"

    I confronted a faithful Christian (like your statement above) concerning Bible version issues. He loves to read his corrupted Bible version. I also confronted him concerning some problems in the Bible. He was reluctant to answer the FACTS because his modern version is not faithful to the manuscripts.

    If my theory is wrong, what's about a faithful christian whom I confronted? Is he aware of the difference between these modern versions and the KJV? The fact is that he did not.
     
  4. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Ratings:
    +0
    Wrong again. You rape (not just rip) the Scriptures from their contexts. II Timothy has absolutely nothing to do with Bible versions, and you should be ashamed of making such a comparison.


    They are faithful to the manuscripts. Just not the ones that you hold on to. That's the problem there.

    Who really cares if he knows about the differences or not? The Bible he uses is the Word of God, and his faithfulness is what is important, not whether he knows that the KJV is an inferior translation and the differences between the two.
     
  5. Scott J

    Scott J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Ratings:
    +0
    Regardless, you should be ashamed of yourself for discouraging another believer and causing them to doubt the reliability of the Bible. Perhaps he hasn't dug into this issue and will stop reading any Bible because of your attacks on God's Word.

    You should repent and ask this person's forgiveness.
     
  6. robycop3

    robycop3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,579
    Ratings:
    +22
    Faith:
    Baptist
    2 Timothy 3:13 (KJV) "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." Do you agree with this passage?

    Of course I do. It can be applied to KJVOs same as any other group. Dr. Ruckman and others like him are fairly recent additions to the KJVO mix. And along comes Gail Riplinger to write a book full of hooey and DELIBERATE MISQUOTES.

    New modern versions appear each year! Worse and worse OR Better and better? According to this passage it said, "worse and worse"

    And the passage says, MEN, not BVs. Once again, this can be applied to virtually every group. The years before the 1970s had never seen such corrupt writings as that of Ruckman and of Riplinger, and of Dr. Fuller. The years before 1955 had never seen any writings as corrupt as that of J.J.Ray. And the years before 1930 had never seen such hooey as that which was written by SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST big kahoona Ben Wilkinson, whose book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, was the root for the works of Ray, Fuller, and most of the other KJVO authors who followed. Yes, Onlyism has waxed worse & worse ever since it began.

    I know many faithful, fervent Christians who use modern versions. That shows your theory to be wrong. I confronted a faithful Christian (like your statement above) concerning Bible version issues.

    I am a faithful Christian. Would you like to "confront" me concerning Bible version issues, in a Christ-honoring manner? I stand ready to answer any and all questions.


    He loves to read his corrupted Bible version.
    How do you KNOW he was reading a corrupt BV? Because it aint the KJV? Is that all?

    I also confronted him concerning some problems in the Bible. He was reluctant to answer the FACTS because his modern version is not faithful to the manuscripts.

    WHICH manuscripts?

    If my theory is wrong, what's about a faithful christian whom I confronted? Is he aware of the difference between these modern versions and the KJV? The fact is that he did not.

    Can YOU prove which is right and which is wrong? Just saying, "it aint the KJV" is circular reasoning. Can you PROVE some mv has OMITTED any words? Can it be that the KJV ADDED some words? You don't know, do you? Like virtually all Onlyist rhetoric, the examples in your post are based solely upon guesswork and opinion, utterly lacking in any EVIDENCE to support them. KJVO is merely a navy without any ships.
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Ratings:
    +0
    Your view and my view on them are different because you defended them and I found them.</font>[/QUOTE]I found them too ... and defended them becuase God would defend them.

    Absolutely, I agree with it.

    Where in this passage does it say "Modern versions grow worse and worse"?? It doesn't. This is another shameful twisting of Scripture by you. God's word deserves better than this foolish handling of it to try to prove your point. You and I both know that this verse says nothing about translations.

    I doubt it very seriously. You have seen those of us here who have never shied away from answering any questions. We have presented the facts and shown you, in every case, to be wrong.

    [qutoe]If my theory is wrong, what's about a faithful christian whom I confronted? Is he aware of the difference between these modern versions and the KJV? The fact is that he did not. [/QUOTE]So what?? That proves nothing. You have shown us that you are quite unaware of even the basic truth about texts and translations. You want to pin your whole case on "facts" that are not really facts. They are distortions and perversions of the facts. I know many faithful Christians who can see right through the false teachign that you have learned and that your giving forth. The fact that you might have found one who didn't know something means nothing. We faithful Christians have dispelled every false notion that you have put forth here.
     
  8. swordsman

    swordsman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Messages:
    175
    Ratings:
    +0
    Amen, that's what I have found here in Savannah.
    Some KJVO churchs I have attended are very weak.
    ALL modern version assemblies I have checked out in Savannah, Charleston, Florence, Columbia are full of people that have no idea of what the gospel is much less living for God. Nothing but big social clubs.
     
  9. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Ratings:
    +0
    I agree with it;it goes right along with 2nd Corinthians 2:17;men guided by Satan(knowingly or not) corrupting the word of God.Your problem is the authors you listed show your postion in full bloom.


    Hey,I'll confront you!! If you would put aside all of the ad homenim nonsense;I am not easly shaken by your manner of speech;I dont mind making enemies when someone attacks the KJB;bear that in mind.


    If it hails from the same texts as Catholic "bibles"(and they do.)it is corrupt;I will even be so bold as to say that most modern "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting authorities)go beyond the level of corruption that RCC "bibles" have in them...ie:John 1:18 in the NASb and the NWT.Try and explain that one away.


    Yes.read John 16:13,Proverbs 22:17-21,and 1st Corintians 2:9-13.That is scripture(KJB);do you reject what scripture(KJB)says??? Do you call yourself a Bible believer??? Do you deny that God will guide His own in what is the truth??? If not why not??


    Yes...Just open up the pure word of God(KJB) and any of the 200+ conflicting authorities(see MAtthew 6:24 for more details on the 200+)and compare!!! Any simpleton with a 3rd grade education could see the obvious!! Can you see it?? I think you can....


    Obviously you dont.But I know...

    Who told you?? Who's opinion are you parroting?? Do you think your way of thinking is original??? Click HERE to see the thoughts of those like you..
     
  10. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Ratings:
    +0
    If it hails from the same texts as Catholic "bibles"(and they do.)it is corrupt </font>[/QUOTE]What do you do when the reading of the KJV differs from the reading of the Geneva Bible and the reading of the Geneva Bible is correct while the reading of the KJV is wrong?

    Example: Mk. 1:10, where the Geneva Bible correctly translates the Greek participle as "cloven in twaine" while the KJV incorrectly translates it as "opened."

    Obviously you dont.But I know... </font>[/QUOTE]It can be proven that the KJV has added to the word of God.

    Example: Rom. 11:4, where *every* Greek MSS reads simply "to Baal," while the KJV adds words to make it read "to the image of Baal."
     
  11. Scott J

    Scott J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Ratings:
    +0
    You are the ones who constantly twist and distort scripture. Not us. It is you that uses it to sell ideas for which it was never intended. It is you that ultimately has such a high view of your own opinion and such a low view of scripture that you reject what scripture says and the examples it gives about itself in favor of a manmade doctrine that you have predetermined to be true.
    You apparently don't mind making enemies when those attacks are figments of your vain imagination either. No one is attacking the KJV here. We are attacking, and demonstrating as false, KJVOnlyism.


    If it hails from the same texts as Catholic "bibles"(and they do.)it is corrupt;</font>[/QUOTE] Oh you mean like Revelation 22 in the KJV? You know... MV's don't come from a RCC text. It is no fault of textual critics if RCC's attempt to co-opt real Christian scholarship. But what excuse do real Christians have for using a text wholly created by an unrepentant Roman Catholic scholar?

    The only text in use today that I am aware of that carries a commission from a Pope is the TR. Erasmus could have never published without it.

    If any association with the RCC corrupts a Bible then surely one that is created by an RC is more to be rejected than one that is simply used by RC's.

    No explanation necessary for anyone who isn't so completely blinded by bias. Jesus is God. This verse declares this truth. The eternal sonship (begotten-ness) of Christ is widely acknowledged and was first formulized by Augustine... who certainly had access to this verse in its pristine form.

    Scripture is the best interpretter of scripture. The NASB could not be more clear at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 on whether Christ is God or not. If you take an NASB and a concordance, you can easily prove that Jesus is God, that God is one, and that God is eternal.


    Yes.read John 16:13,</font>[/QUOTE] Those words were spoken to those Christ commissioned as Apostles... but for the record, I have been led to the truth that KJVOnlyism is false.
    Exactly. I know that KJVOnlyism is not the words of truth because it is contrary to scripture and the godly rendering of extra-scriptural facts/history.
    The Spirit has led me and numerous others away from your false doctrine because it is contrary to that which the Spirit inspired and the historical, providentially revealed facts.
    That is also scripture (NASB)
    No. But you routinely do.

    I accept what the KJV says... I reject what you add to what it says.
    I am a Bible believer therefore I do not believe the unbiblical doctrine of KJVOnlyism. To accept KJVOnlyism is to reject the KJV or any other Bible as your final authority.
    No. However it may not always be immediate. It is a matter of sanctification. Guidance to truth is also always a matter of being submitted in a given area.

    You are not submitted on this issue. You have predetermined a conclustion and reject any evidence of any kind, no matter how indisputably true, that contradicts what your final authority (your mind) has decided.
    Any simpleton can see that the KJV is not without error, that two documents that are worded differently can communicate the same meanings, and that differences between two things does not prove that one is correct and the other incorrect.

    Obviously you dont.But I know... </font>[/QUOTE] If you say "I know" in contradiction to scriptural/factual evidence then you aren't exhibiting faith or any other godly characteristic... you are exhibiting willful self-deception.

    Who wrote these things A-A? If I attributed things to you that you didn't believe and would never say, would that be honest? The link you gave is nothing but ungodly, false propaganda intended to give a demonized portrayal of those who KJVOnlyism cannot answer biblically nor factually.
     
  12. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Ratings:
    +0
    What about today? Worse and worse? Or Better and better? What did this passage say? WORSE! Therefore there are new modern versions and more in the future. This passage is very obvious to see they wax worse and worse. Remember, these textual critics hated the TR/KJV and admitted that the TR went back to 2nd Century. It is an obvious evidence. That's why the KJV is still alive for almost 400 years. PTL.

    Only 45 of 5255 MSS! Only 1% manuscript evidence!

    I taught shortly to a faithful christian in my church concerning manuscript evidence. This person was shocked to see the chart that I showed in a class. This person used the NIV and asked me some questions. I answered them. This faithful Christian person changed from the NIV to the KJV. Praise the Lord!

    Ashamed of myself? Are they causing to doubt the reliability of the Bible? No, you are wrong because they are naive concerning the manuscript evidences. Look at me - I was like them until I found the facts about them.

    My attacks on God's Word? No, modern versions attacked themselves against God's Word almost 10, 000 times!
     
  13. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Ratings:
    +0
    I am not fan of Ruckman and Riplinger. :rolleyes:

    These men produced their corrupted Bibles.

    I will confront you concerning manuscript evidences that you rejected. I can see you still defend Catholic secrets.

    Can't I see many people holding their corrupted Bibles?

    I posted them many times. Can't you find?

    Sure! You can see the names of our Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament only here:

    NIV - 173 times!

    NASB - 210 TIMES!

    NEB - 190 times!
     
  14. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Ratings:
    +0
    Naive Christians only.

    Without men, who produced the MVs?

    Your favorite word, " Shhhhh!"

    Because they learned from wrong scholars/professors.
     
  15. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Ratings:
    +0
    Askjo said:

    I confronted a faithful Christian (like your statement above) concerning Bible version issues. He loves to read his corrupted Bible version.

    Good for him.

    And shame on you for discouraging a Christian from reading God's holy Word.

    What are you, some kind of medieval priest, denying the Word to the people? Shame, shame.
     
  16. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yeah,yeah,I know :rolleyes: Everybody on this board "loves" and "uses" the KJB;but at the same time,claim to find fault in it;what is that?? tough love?? I call it sickening!

    Those verses came from the Old Latin;you know this,you have been shown the proof,you continue to throw that tripe out in attempt to make someone believe it;you know....the ole' "if I continue to believe a lie..it will become the truth" bit..


    That is A LIE!!! Rome's fingerprints are all over MVs,via Vaticanus(Rev 17).Denying this will not make it go away....

    Who's works and Bibles translated thereof are BANNED by the RCC,as per the council of Trent,and are still banned even until this day;Like I said,you know this,stop speading the same ole' lies!!!


    Again,that is LIE no 3, Why do you continue to ape the same old LIES???


    Only in your twisted little world..


    Thats No 4...Have you no shame??!!


    Thats 5.. [​IMG]


    Only the parts that agree with the KJB...


    You know,I was always told that if a person sees a pack of dogs,and if said person picks up a rock and throws it into the pack,the one that gets hit will cry out.Well....point proven...
     
  17. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Ratings:
    +0
    You see, it is your denial and lies. However the evidence that you can't deny/lie is that Westcott and Hort were closet Catholics who produced their "new" modern version, the ERV. They devoted themselves to the Catholic.

    You see, one of 3 editors of the UBS is Catholic.

    Vaticanus Manuscript came from Rome - the home of Roman Catholic Church. W/H loved this text. That's why they produced their corrupted bible, ERV.

    No excuse!
     
  18. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Ratings:
    +0
    Please provide your evidence. [​IMG] I'd love to see it.
     
  19. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Ratings:
    +0
    This faithful Christian is aware of the doctrine of the Bible. No PLM! However he is naive about the history of the Bible and manuscript evidences. I learned that this faithful Christian who read his corrupted Bible, is a "Neutral" Christian. Remember, to be a NEUTRAL Christian is to be a lukewarm Christian.

    Rev. 3:15-16 (KJV) "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. then because thou art lukewarm , and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth."
     
  20. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Ratings:
    +0
Loading...