Is there any evidence?

This thread has just about run its course and now it is trying to run off in various directions.

Giving a notice that it will be closed sometime after midnight EST.

 

Well, Jump and Newman, you've killed a thread. Second one for Jump. Does that make you happy? Do you fellows look me up to see where I am posting and "JUMP" in? -- Herb Evans

 

Please don't presume why threads are closed - this one has been on life support for a while and no one or two individuals are to blame for the plug being pulled.

 

Okay, chief. Still the one that I refered to was called a spitting contest by the Board monitor. Still, I needed the break anyhow, I am a Great Grandfather today. -- Herb Evans

 

I don't tend to get excited about much other than the King James Bible and the kingdom of God. I agree with everything you have to say about the bible, but I disagree with you about the kingdom of God. I would just really like to know why you think it is important that someone use the KJV? You have already stated that a Christian can experience no judgement at the JSOC for things that they do in this life. I could only presume you think someone who uses another bible isn't saved or will develop some type of horrible skin disease. I believe it is important for a Christian to know what God said and what He expects from His people, don't you? Why?

 

Congratulations!

 

James_Newman]I don't tend to get excited about much other than the King James Bible and the kingdom of God. I agree with everything you have to say about the bible, but I disagree with you about the kingdom of God. I would just really like to know why you think it is important that someone use the KJV?

Well, the thread is done now, so I guess I can give you some kind of an answer. I think it is important to do the Lord's will on anything and everything. Nevertheless, unlike you, I am serving Him because I love Him because He first loved me, not out fear of missing the kingdom or ending up in hell fire for the millenium. I venture to say that I am more separated than most of your fellow Faustites and that after living a life of sin. -- Herb Evans

You have already stated that a Christian can experience no judgement at the JSOC for things that they do in this life.

The problem with you fellows is the way that you represent me with your carefully selected phraseology. The Christian experiences the judgment of his works at the JSOC for what he has done for Christ in this life. -- Herb Evans

I could only presume you think someone who uses another bible isn't saved or will develop some type of horrible skin disease.

Whatever chastening a brother gets in this life is God's business, and I do not pretend to know all the mechanics of it. -- Herb Evans

I believe it is important for a Christian to know what God said and what He expects from His people, don't you? Why?

I do not know why you should think that I don't consider those things to be important. They are just not imortant for salvation or the kingdom. Now, you only have 6 hours to squeeze in some Faustite propaganda on this thread. Better get on with it. -- Herb Evans

 

Why do you always assume (heavy on the assuming part) that you know people (that you have never met by the way) well enough to make such statements.

How do you know that James serves His Lord out of fear of missing the kingdom? Have you ever asked him? Do you have the gift of judging motives?

Just becuase someone believes that believers are going to be held accountable even for the wood, hay and stubble doesn't mean that they only serve out of fear.

However, if I have a decision to make and I really want to do something that I know is wrong I had better do the right thing whether it is out of love for my Lord, or whether it is out of the fear of what He does.

See it's just like a father and a son. I really don't care if my three-year-old son obeys me out of his love for me or out of his fear of consequences.

And truth be known he probably rarely if ever obeys me becuase he loves me. Hopefully one day that will be the truth. It's the same way with our Father. The more we grow and mature the more we should be obeying because of love, but until we get there we better be obeying out of fear of the living God. That's what Scripture tells us.

 

Why do the scriptures that are pure, very pure, true, and inspired need any "certain corrections?" Are you suggesting that very pure, inspired scriptures need "certain corrections?" Since you seemed to maintain that the quality of inspiration and purity has been found forever in the scriptures, which scriptures or translations before 1611 had those same qualities? Would not the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision have to have the same qualities before they could be transferred from them to the KJV? If these qualities were not transferred from the pre-1611 English Bibles to the KJV, which specific printed editions of the original language texts had those qualities before 1611? If the printed editions of the original language texts before 1611 had those qualities, are you claiming that those qualities ceased to exist in those original language texts in 1611? When later editors such as Benjamin Blayney used those original language texts to make corrections in KJV editions, did those texts still have the qualities of inspiration and purity? In what year was the first KJV edition without any errors made by printers, editors, or translators first published?

 

It is KJV-only advocates who seem to keep trying to play games with the correct meanings of English words when they keep trying to claim that the KJV "was never revised."

A revision of a book does not have to have a different title or name than the title used for the first edition.

 

It is evident that the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops'). These pre-1611 English Bibles are placed as branches on the KJV-only view's tree of good Bible along with the KJV. It is evident that all the natural branches on one tree should have the same qualities.


The branches of a tree (individual translations) have no life of their own and cannot produce fruit if they are separated from the tree of God's Word in the original languages. Therefore, the tree or trunk (the preserved Scriptures in the original languages) must be the standard for judging or evaluating all the branches. A branch is not of the same importance as the trunk of the tree. A branch cannot outrank the trunk or the root. A branch cannot bear fruit of itself (John 15:4). A branch does not bear, produce, or support the trunk or the root (Rom. 11:18). Any branch cut off from the trunk cannot live by itself. How can one branch (the KJV) be the final standard beyond which there is no other for evaluating all other branches? It cannot be correctly said that one branch outranks another branch of the same tree. If one branch must be inspired, inerrant, perfect, incorruptible, or preserved, all the branches must have these same qualities or attributes. Any attribute of one natural branch must be present in the trunk and in all the other natural branches of the same tree. Otherwise, it is being claimed that contradictory and opposite qualities are part of the same tree. Otherwise, it is being claimed or implied that one natural branch belongs to a completely different species than the other natural branches of the same tree.


Perhaps now KJV-only advocates can see the major problem with making one branch (the KJV) the standard instead of using the correct standard that stands behind and beyond it--God's Word in the original languages. No branch (translation) can possibly be superior in authority to the tree. What sort of a tree has only one "perfect" branch? A good tree will be full of good branches with good fruit. The tree itself has to be good before it can bring forth good fruit on its branches. Can any one natural branch bring forth fruit that is contrary to the qualities of the fruit of the other branches of this tree? All the branches of the same tree derive their qualities from the same identical source. No tree can give to its branches what it does not possess. If the tree or root is holy, all the branches are also holy (Rom. 11:16). The holiness and other qualities of one branch is of no other nature than that of all the other branches of the same tree. The innate, inherent, ingrained qualities or essential constitution of all the natural branches of one tree are the same. Thus, God's Word indicates that whatever is affirmed of one branch must be affirmed concerning all the branches. Therefore, it would be unscriptural and contradictory to claim that one branch is holy and inspired but the other branches of the same tree are not. Is one branch superior and greater in authority than another branch? Two branches or even all the branches of the same tree that are claimed to have the same qualities as this tree are equal to each other. Two things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. Their own tree analogy confirms that there are major problems with a KJV-only view. Their own tree or stream argument proves more than they intended.

Any quality or attribute in the KJV has to have already been in the earlier English Bibles of which it is a revision. If the attribute or quality was not already present in the family tree, it could not have been passed on to the branch. If the qualities were not already present in the trunk and tree [the preserved Scriptures in the original languages], how did they supposedly get into one natural branch of that tree? If the qualities were supposedly somewhat lacking in the other branches (the pre-1611 English Bibles), how were they transferred to a later branch (the KJV)?


To avoid these major problems, will KJV-only advocates attempt to cut one branch (the KJV) off their family tree and make it independent of its underlying texts? Do exclusive "only" claims for the KJV in effect cut it off their tree? The branch must abide in the tree or vine (John 15:5). A branch cut off from its trunk and roots will wither and die (John 15:6). Branches have a mutual dependence and connection to the tree or vine. A branch or tree can not be independent of its roots. Making one exception by separating or cutting off that one branch from the other branches and from the roots will only harm that branch. If the branch could sprout new roots, the fact remains that the traits, attributes, or characteristics of the new tree would be identical to the tree from which it came. All the tree with all its branches and their fruit must be good since the tree is known by its fruit (Matt. 12:33, Matt. 7:17-18, Luke 6:43-44). Can a good tree bear corrupt fruit? Can the fig tree bear olive berries (James 3:12)? Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean (Job 14:4)? Tyndale observed: "The fruit maketh not the tree good, but the tree the fruit; and that the tree must aforehand be good, or be made good, ere it can bring forth good fruit" (Doctrinal Treatises, p. 50). Stauffer claimed: "Pure fruit can come only from a pure tree" (One Book, p. 5). Otherwise, the tree with all its branches is bad, evil, or corrupt (Matt. 12:33, Matt. 7:17). Les Garrett, a KJV-only advocate, wrote: “You cannot produce good fruit from a rotten tree” (Which Bible, p. 18). David Cloud commented: “Corruption produces corruption” (Myths, p. 297). Is the KJV-only view’s tree of Bibles a good tree or a corrupt tree? A tree is not known by only one branch. Does the KJV-only view in effect maintain that the KJV is the only good branch on its own good tree and contradict what the Scriptures state about a good tree? Does the KJV-only view’s good tree argument in effect intermingle the traits and characteristics of this one branch with the implied different traits and characteristics of the other branches? The well-intended claims of some defenders of the KJV seem to harm the KJV more than they help it.


Any claim that the KJV-only line-of-good-Bibles arguments and doctrine of preservation lead to a KJV-only view is a non sequitur argument since the conclusion does not follow from the overall evidence from all the Bibles and texts on their good line of preservation. Even the claimed textual twin translations [the Bishops’ Bible and the KJV] do not provide adequate evidence to lead to a KJV-only conclusion. Only in the absence of accurate information and facts about the earlier English Bibles and other translations on the KJV-only line can it be considered a plausible argument for a KJV-only view. One can formulate valid arguments against the KJV-only view, using the same evidence from their preserved line, that may be more persuasive and consistent than those used for it. The documented evidence concerning the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision invalidates several KJV-only assumptions and claims. In fact, this actual overall evidence shows that the-tree-of-good-Bibles argument or analogy seems to conflict with a KJV-only view instead of proving it. Evidence has been piled upon evidence that confirms this point. Does the KJV-only view fall on its own sword? The “unmatched heritage” of the KJV provides credible, valid, and strong evidence for disagreeing with the KJV-only view and its inconsistencies. The inclusion of Bibles such as the Syriac Peshitta, the Old Latin, the Gothic, Waldensian translations, Wycliffe’s, Coverdale’s, Great, and Bishops’ on the KJV-only line or stream of good Bibles is strong compelling evidence that KJV-only advocates have no valid justification for their exclusion of some other translations. Based on the KJV-only view’s own classification of certain translations as belonging to the same tree or line, a consistent application of their own argument and reasoning shows that other translations also belong to it. Actual evidence would confirm that other translations such as the 1833 Webster's, the 1842 Baptist Bible, the NKJV, the MKJV, KJ21, KJ2000, and KJ3 are branches on this same tree and can be said to be "practically identical" or "substantially the same" as the KJV according to a consistent application of the KJV-only claims or statements concerning other Bibles on their good line including the earlier English Bibles and the KJV. These revisions and translations based on the same underlying texts would have the same heritage as the KJV. KJV-only advocates are arguing against their own claimed evidence and a consistent application of their own reasoning when they exclude these later English translations from their line. If translations from the same underlying texts are arbitrarily placed on or excluded from their line, its validity as an argument for the KJV-only view ceases.

 

And as it is now 2.19 EST the thread is closed