Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
No, as long as it's faithfully translated and derived from the original language manuscripts.
HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Brother HankD -- Preach it!
-
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!
Non-KJBO lies
- Thread starter RaptureReady
- Start date
HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Brother HankD -- Preach it!
Trotter
<img src =/6412.jpg>
Man! Here we are on the fifth page and Lacy is still asking the same question? (Luv ya, Lacy, my brother!)
So what if every translation is not exactly perfect? So what? No translation can ever be perfect, because languages do not translate exactly!
So what if a translation does not use the TR? So what? The TR is a compilation of differing manuscripts, just like the rest of them differ from each other! Does that make all manuscripts not to be the word of God?
So what if you think 'A' is perfect, and another thinks 'B' is perfect, and I don't think either is? So what? So long as God uses 'A', 'B', or something else, what will it matter in eternity?
The whole KJVO arguement is rather stupid once you get down to it. How?
First, one man chose certain manuscripts to compile the TR. Never mind who or what he was. He was one man, using his human judgement, based on his personal values and learned opinions.
Second, the TR went through several revisions prior to its use by the KJ translation committee.
Third, the TR was not the only source text used, but it is the one touted by the KJVO as the "only" manuscript.
Fourth, even the KJV translators admitted that they were fallible, and prone to error, and that their effort was not perfect.
Fifth, the KJV translators said that even the "meanest" (worst) translation is the word of God.
Sixth, the KJV translators denied that they were opperating under "inspiration."
Seventh, the KJV was different from any bible prior to its publication.
Eighth, the KJV has undergone several revisions/corrections since its publication.
Ninth, the KJV is different from any other bible published since 1611, except for its own revisions/corrections, which are still different.
Tenth, The KJV is in Elisabethan English, which would exclude anyone who does not speak English, or can understand the differences that 400 years can make to our language.
I admit, these are but a few off the top of my head, but they are anough to back this question:
WHAT MAKES ANYONE THINK THAT THE KING JAMES VERSION IS PERFECT AND INSPIRED?
The King James Version is but a translations just like any other bible in English, albeit a much loved translation. But to elevate to a position that it does not become is moving into idolatry.
In Christ,
Trotter
So what if every translation is not exactly perfect? So what? No translation can ever be perfect, because languages do not translate exactly!
So what if a translation does not use the TR? So what? The TR is a compilation of differing manuscripts, just like the rest of them differ from each other! Does that make all manuscripts not to be the word of God?
So what if you think 'A' is perfect, and another thinks 'B' is perfect, and I don't think either is? So what? So long as God uses 'A', 'B', or something else, what will it matter in eternity?
The whole KJVO arguement is rather stupid once you get down to it. How?
First, one man chose certain manuscripts to compile the TR. Never mind who or what he was. He was one man, using his human judgement, based on his personal values and learned opinions.
Second, the TR went through several revisions prior to its use by the KJ translation committee.
Third, the TR was not the only source text used, but it is the one touted by the KJVO as the "only" manuscript.
Fourth, even the KJV translators admitted that they were fallible, and prone to error, and that their effort was not perfect.
Fifth, the KJV translators said that even the "meanest" (worst) translation is the word of God.
Sixth, the KJV translators denied that they were opperating under "inspiration."
Seventh, the KJV was different from any bible prior to its publication.
Eighth, the KJV has undergone several revisions/corrections since its publication.
Ninth, the KJV is different from any other bible published since 1611, except for its own revisions/corrections, which are still different.
Tenth, The KJV is in Elisabethan English, which would exclude anyone who does not speak English, or can understand the differences that 400 years can make to our language.
I admit, these are but a few off the top of my head, but they are anough to back this question:
WHAT MAKES ANYONE THINK THAT THE KING JAMES VERSION IS PERFECT AND INSPIRED?
The King James Version is but a translations just like any other bible in English, albeit a much loved translation. But to elevate to a position that it does not become is moving into idolatry.
In Christ,
Trotter
Why do they think the KJV is perfect and only Bible?
They have been taught that or have accepted that teaching from strong pastors (like Hyles) or books (like Pete and Gail).
When Hyles switched from kicking out KJVO folks from his church and school to stating that no one could be saved unless it was thru the KJV, hundreds/thousands of others immediately jumped on the wagon or feared ostracism from the "elite".
New doctrinal revisions (like redefining inspiration or adding KJVonly to saying it is a fundamental of the faith!) result.
Thankfully, those with this thinking are a small sect within Baptists and, if they continue in this error, we pray they will have the integrity of the SDA who were Baptist but changed their name.
They have been taught that or have accepted that teaching from strong pastors (like Hyles) or books (like Pete and Gail).
When Hyles switched from kicking out KJVO folks from his church and school to stating that no one could be saved unless it was thru the KJV, hundreds/thousands of others immediately jumped on the wagon or feared ostracism from the "elite".
New doctrinal revisions (like redefining inspiration or adding KJVonly to saying it is a fundamental of the faith!) result.
Thankfully, those with this thinking are a small sect within Baptists and, if they continue in this error, we pray they will have the integrity of the SDA who were Baptist but changed their name.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Here is the funniest KJV boo-boo of all.
It is in my Sunday School lesson for
tomorrow:
2 Kings 19:35 (KJV1769):
And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they1 arose early in the morning, behold, they2 were all dead corpses.
Of course, it is only funny if you
resolve the first "they1" as "the Assyrians"
and the second "they2" as "the Assyrians"
so it reads:
2 Kings 19:35 (Ed's cut1):
And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when the Assyrians arose early in the morning, behold, the Assyrians were all dead corpses.
One wonders why the stress on "early"
morning? Does it really matter if the
dead sleep in or arise early.
In fact, "they1" refers to the Citizens of
Jerusalem which was about to be attacked.
Correctly, "they2" refers to the Assyrians
host.
2 Kings 19:35 (Ed's cut2):
And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when the citizens of
Jerusalem arose early in the morning,
behold, the Assyrians were all dead corpses.
BTW, not all the Assyrians attackers
were dead the next morning, for their
leader left:
2 Kings 9:36 (HSCB):
36 So Sennacherib king of Assyria broke camp
and left. He returned [home] and lived
in Nineveh.
But I love to praise Jesus in 17th Century talk:
Praise Iesus, the Sonne of God
It is in my Sunday School lesson for
tomorrow:
2 Kings 19:35 (KJV1769):
And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they1 arose early in the morning, behold, they2 were all dead corpses.
Of course, it is only funny if you
resolve the first "they1" as "the Assyrians"
and the second "they2" as "the Assyrians"
so it reads:
2 Kings 19:35 (Ed's cut1):
And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when the Assyrians arose early in the morning, behold, the Assyrians were all dead corpses.
One wonders why the stress on "early"
morning? Does it really matter if the
dead sleep in or arise early.
In fact, "they1" refers to the Citizens of
Jerusalem which was about to be attacked.
Correctly, "they2" refers to the Assyrians
host.
2 Kings 19:35 (Ed's cut2):
And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when the citizens of
Jerusalem arose early in the morning,
behold, the Assyrians were all dead corpses.
BTW, not all the Assyrians attackers
were dead the next morning, for their
leader left:
2 Kings 9:36 (HSCB):
36 So Sennacherib king of Assyria broke camp
and left. He returned [home] and lived
in Nineveh.
But I love to praise Jesus in 17th Century talk:
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
</font>[/QUOTE]I know that "lie straight
from hell" is a modern phrase people say.
There is no Biblical basis for the saying.
The saying contradicts good doctrine.
In fact, such statements are GOING straight
to Hell. Also common and quite R.Catholic,
is that Satan is the chief executive of Hell,
he is not, he is to be the chief prisioner
there.
Also, your lead-in statement has the
same problem you inject into Psalm 12.
You think the second "that" in "that that"
refers to "God did not preserve his word
prefectly for us today."
But it is just as likely that the second "that"
refers to "Some people may wish you
to believe ... "
tee heee - you call what you are trying
to show a lie. tee hee
I'm writing this real slow so you can understand
better:
I teach God did preserve His written word for us
today (and for any reader anythime in history
or in the future). I also teach
a minor point, Psalm 12 does NOT prove
God preserves His written word for all ages.
I wrote the above post showing the humor when
we assign the wrong meaning to the pronouns.
But this wrong assigining of resolution
to Psalm 12:7 seems to be the keystone of the
KJVO heresy.
BTW, I might mention to those whose English
is 250 years old, now days we capatilize
the pronouns referring to God or the blessed
Trinity. See, capital "H" "He" shows more
honor and respect to Jesus than does little "h"
"he". I know the KJB doesn't do this, but
we live in 2004 in the 21st century (2001-2100)
not in 1769.
Should I call Rapture Ready (the poster) "he"
or "she"?
May God grant all His best blessings unto
Sibling Rapture Ready, their family, land
their ministry even this very Lord's Day.
Amen.
RaptureReady
New Member
No, as long as it's faithfully translated and derived from the original language manuscripts.
HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Brother HankD -- Preach it!
Ed, do you know? Hey, I do, they are lost, so how can you go back to those "original" manuscripts? You guys talk about the "originals" like they exists today, show me one that contradicts the KJB and I will shut up.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
HankD: " ... the original language manuscripts."
Rapture Ready: //Hank, where is those "original"
lanaguage manuscripts? Please tell us//
You totally missed what HandD said by misusing
the English language. You are an excellent example
of the principle: more doctrinces are in error
because of the misunderstanding of the Bible
than the minstranslation of the Bible.
YOu, Sir, have totally misunderstod what HankD said.
Hank said //original language manuscripts//
he did not say: //"original"
lanaguage manuscripts.
"Original" modifies "language" in what HankD said.
"Original" modifies "manuscripts" in what Rapture Ready said.
Come on guys, talk about the same thing, please.
But I love to praise Jesus in 17th Century talk:
Praise Iesus, the Christ
Rapture Ready: //Hank, where is those "original"
lanaguage manuscripts? Please tell us//
You totally missed what HandD said by misusing
the English language. You are an excellent example
of the principle: more doctrinces are in error
because of the misunderstanding of the Bible
than the minstranslation of the Bible.
YOu, Sir, have totally misunderstod what HankD said.
Hank said //original language manuscripts//
he did not say: //"original"
lanaguage manuscripts.
"Original" modifies "language" in what HankD said.
"Original" modifies "manuscripts" in what Rapture Ready said.
Come on guys, talk about the same thing, please.
But I love to praise Jesus in 17th Century talk:
RaptureReady
New Member
<personal attack snipped>Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Here is the funniest KJV boo-boo of all.
It is in my Sunday School lesson for
tomorrow:
2 Kings 19:35 (KJV1769):
And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they1 arose early in the morning, behold, they2 were all dead corpses.
Of course, it is only funny if you
resolve the first "they1" as "the Assyrians"
and the second "they2" as "the Assyrians"
so it reads:
2 Kings 19:35 (Ed's cut1):
And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when the Assyrians arose early in the morning, behold, the Assyrians were all dead corpses.
One wonders why the stress on "early"
morning? Does it really matter if the
dead sleep in or arise early.
In fact, "they1" refers to the Citizens of
Jerusalem which was about to be attacked.
Correctly, "they2" refers to the Assyrians
host.
2 Kings 19:35 (Ed's cut2):
And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when the citizens of
Jerusalem arose early in the morning,
behold, the Assyrians were all dead corpses.
BTW, not all the Assyrians attackers
were dead the next morning, for their
leader left:
2 Kings 9:36 (HSCB):
36 So Sennacherib king of Assyria broke camp
and left. He returned [home] and lived
in Nineveh.
But I love to praise Jesus in 17th Century talk:
Praise Iesus, the Sonne of God
[ August 09, 2004, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
RaptureReady
New Member
What? So you can just pick and chose to make it fit your opinion and ideas? If he wanted to modify the lanaguage, he would have left off manuscripts, if he was talking about the lanaguage.Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
HankD: " ... the original language manuscripts."
Rapture Ready: //Hank, where is those "original"
lanaguage manuscripts? Please tell us//
You totally missed what HandD said by misusing
the English language. You are an excellent example
of the principle: more doctrinces are in error
because of the misunderstanding of the Bible
than the minstranslation of the Bible.
YOu, Sir, have totally misunderstod what HankD said.
Hank said //original language manuscripts//
he did not say: //"original"
lanaguage manuscripts.
"Original" modifies "language" in what HankD said.
"Original" modifies "manuscripts" in what Rapture Ready said.
Come on guys, talk about the same thing, please.
But I love to praise Jesus in 17th Century talk:
Praise Iesus, the Christ
As Brother Ed said RR, you misread my post concerning the phrase "original language manuscripts".
They are lost just as the KJV archetype mss is lost.
The original language manuscript that the KJV translators used is/was the TR or a composite of the three TR's of the day (over 99% agreement) plus some of their own unique readings fron the Vulgate and other little known translations and some from ? who knows where?
These original language documents can be purchased at the Trinitarian Bible society.
HankD
RaptureReady
New Member
Every translation that I've read and studied contain imperfections. It is inhierent in the translation process from any one language to any other language, especially between languages that do not use syntax in the same manner.
No. </font>[/QUOTE]So basically your saying that God is not capabale enough or did not provide us a perfect Bible, right?
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Here we go again.
So which version is perfect?
Is it perfect for all people in the world?
Is it perfect for every version of English?
Can one get saved using a "imperfect" Bible?
So which version is perfect?
Is it perfect for all people in the world?
Is it perfect for every version of English?
Can one get saved using a "imperfect" Bible?
RaptureReady
New Member
If you don't want to go here again C4K, there are plenty of other forums to post in.
No, no one here is questioning the capabilities of God.
God is entirely capable of providing a defect free Bible in any language He chooses.
But has He?
Many say the KJV is that Bible, but can't tell us which of the different Editions/Revisions (things which are different are not the same) is the one "pure" Word of God.
In addition there are certain claims made for this elusive Bible (as to edition/revision) which are unacceptable to fundamental and/or orthodox Christianity, namely "re-"inspiration" and "advanced revelation" of a translation and the doctrine that God "slammed the door" of revelation shut in the year 1611 (as opposed to 90AD).
God is also capable of making us perfectly sinless or even transporting us directly into heaven the moment we are saved.
But does He?
HankD
Hank wrote:
Michelle is a great example of this. When pressed last week to identify which edition of the KJV is that "perfect" Bible, she went on the offensive- charging those who were asking the question of looking for a fight & of merely being argumentative- and then stating that she had already previously answered the question, and that in fact the answer was "evident". Of course, she has never answered (and cannot answer) the question.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
How about some answers RR?Originally posted by RaptureReady:
If you don't want to go here again C4K, there are plenty of other forums to post in.
--------------------------------------------------
That's a loaded question. I disagree with your definition of "a perfect Bible". God promised to preserve his word. He did not promise a perfect tralsnation. Version-onlyists lack this basic scriptural understanding.
--------------------------------------------------
That is not what God has said concerning his words. Furthermore, if you rely upon an imperfect Bible, your walk will be imperfect. Our Lord commands us to be perfcct, as also our Father in Heaven is perfct. Your belief is unbiblical, and not supported with scripture.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
That's a loaded question. I disagree with your definition of "a perfect Bible". God promised to preserve his word. He did not promise a perfect tralsnation. Version-onlyists lack this basic scriptural understanding.
--------------------------------------------------
That is not what God has said concerning his words. Furthermore, if you rely upon an imperfect Bible, your walk will be imperfect. Our Lord commands us to be perfcct, as also our Father in Heaven is perfct. Your belief is unbiblical, and not supported with scripture.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle