Questions for those holding an extreme KJVO position

Ra's "preserved words"

Hi Ra. I'm glad to hear you believe God has preserved His words. So do I. Would you mind terribly telling us exactly where God preserved His words? Was it a 66 book single volume Bible or was it "out there somewhere" among all those thousands of pieces of conflicting manuscripts "in the original languages"? Could you be a little more specific please?

Thanks,

Will K

 

If the manuscripts from which the KJ was translated do not form an accurate and reliable bible, then what basis do you or I have to say that the translation which was derived from them constitutes an accurate and reliable bible.

Sooner or later one is going to have to see that translation means to move something from one state to another. The KJ translation can only be good if those texts from which it was translated are also good. If we had no reliable, accurate bible prior to 1611, I have to conclude we don't have one today, and that makes God a liar.

 

Is it "were" or "are"? Please make up your mind.

Hi T. So, is it "were" or "are" the inerrant word of God? You haven't even addressed the issue of the New Testament here. Was there or was there not a complete and 100% true preserved words of God Bible before 1611 or not? Not guesses; not ballpark approximations; not "out there somewhere in all those conflicting manuscripts", but a real Bible. Any ideas?

Will K

 

Nice-non-answer.

Repeating the question...maybe you were too busy insulting folks to see it:

Where in the KJV does it say that the KJV is THE inspired Word of God?

Please and thanks.

 

And again, I continue to state that the idea that God had to sort out all sorts of conflicting texts using the KJ translators is saying that previous to 1611 God was a liar since He must not have preserved His word.

I'd also like to point something out. A book doesn't have to be contained in a single volumn with 65 other books in order to be true scripture. When Paul finished writing Romans, it wasn't immediately placed in a book with all the other scriptures at that time. Yet, it was still divinely inspired scripture, it was still authoritatively God's word to His people, and the truths contained therein were still the same truths. The church at Rome read the same letter we now read, containing the same truths it still contains, and it was just as powerful then as today. Whether it be a faithfully copied Greek manuscript standing alone or the english translation of Romans contained within the single volumn KJ bible between Acts of the Apostles and I Corinthians, it is still scripture. God preserved it between the time when Paul wrote it and the time I last read it. What the KJ translators did was move it from Greek to English.

 

Yes there was(is). But not impeccable. As Paul, Mark, Luke, John, Matthew, Peter, James, Jude, whoever wrote Hebrew etc wrote their documents it was (is) the inspired word of God and it was in Greek! As far as the OT at the time of the writing of the NT there were transcription errors but Gods word was still preserved in both the Hebrew copied text and also in the LXX greek translated text. yet even at the writing of the NT there was debate (especially by the Jews) over which books would be the ones that "defiled the hand". So though there were transcription errors in vorlage etc they still conveyed the words of God. I hate to inform you but the Corrections of the translators for the AV 1611 are at best guestimates as to the original intent and therefore no more superior to what the NT writers had or worked from since many used the LXX as their source documents (that is the NT writers not the translators).

 

a very confused individual

Hi DHK. I am not the one who said his final authority was "the originals only" which no longer exist and no one living today has ever seen, and that "No translation is perfect". Remember, that was you; not me.

I am not the one who said "the correct Greek should be" or "A better translation is....". Again, that was you; not me.

I am among those who can hold in our hands a real and tangible Book called the King James Holy Bible and tell others that this book is the complete, inspired and 100% true preserved words of God. You do not, nor can you. Do you see how these two diametrically opposed beliefs about the inerrancy of Scripture differ from one another?

Will K

 

Ra avoided answering the question

You got it.

Now, about that little question I asked you that you avoided answering. Are you willing to say that versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman standard, etc. are NOT the true and inspired words of God when they differ in all those thousands of textual omissions and completely different meanings found in hundreds of verses, or all they all just fine the way they stand and equally the inspired and inerrant words of God?

Let's see what you really believe and if you are ready to commit to anything of substance.

Thanks,

Will K

 

finally starting to make sense

Hi Ra. You were making perfect sense up until the last sentence. Then in the last sentence you fell back into today's typical Bible agnosticism.

Will K

 

the answer that he missed

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney
Hi j. Where does the KJB or any bible out there in Biblelonia say anything about the KJV, or "the originals only", or that God would preserve His words in "the Hebrew and the Greek" or the CT, or the TR, or in the NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV, RSV, or Daffy Duck Revised Version? Short answer - nowhere.

So let me ask you a simple question. What is your view of the inspiration and infallibility of "the Bible"? Get that out of the way first with a clear statement. Then proceed to show us where your particular view is found in any Bible out there. Will you do that for us?

Thanks,

Will K

Hi r. May I suggest you sharpen those reading skills of yours and go back and read it again. In case you miss it again, I will repeat it for you here.

"Where does the KJB or any bible out there in Biblelonia say anything about the KJV...? Short answer - nowhere."

Did you catch it this time around?

Thanks,

Will K

 

You misquote me. Go back and read what I said.
I said: "My final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine is the Bible (the Word of God)." I did not mention in that statement anything about "the originals only." Why are you misrepresenting what I said. That is very deceitful.

I stated that there are mistakes in every translation, including the KJV, and that no translation can be perfect. Therefore any imperfection, unclear translation, or even mistake must be cleared up by the Greek and Hebrew. They are the final authority, not a translation. Again you misrepresent what I say. No translation is perfect. There is always meaning lost in a translation. You have never accounted for that, or even attempted to answer that problem. Why is that?

No you can't. Not if you are honest with yourself and honest with others. There are mistakes in the KJV, and in every other translation. A translation is fallible, written by sinful men, fallible men--men who make mistakes. There were 54 men, sinful men that translated the KJV. They made mistakes. Accept it.

It is not my views that are opposed and differ. You oppose yourself at each and every step. That is why you cannot use the KJV 1611. It has too many mistakes in it. It has been emended too many times. It is not perfect. But God is.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney
Hi T. So, is it "were" or "are" the inerrant word of God? You haven't even addressed the issue of the New Testament here. Was there or was there not a complete and 100% true preserved words of God Bible before 1611 or not? Not guesses; not ballpark approximations; not "out there somewhere in all those conflicting manuscripts", but a real Bible. Any ideas?

Will K

So, in plain and much fewer words: "No, there wasn't a complete and 100% true preserved words of God Bible before 1611."

Thank you for your straight forward answer.:smilewinkgrin:

Will K

 

I didn't fall back into anything. I carried your position to it's logical conclusion. Rather than reasoning with that position, or even trying to prove me wrong, you instead resort to name calling.

As far as bible versions go, my personal opinion has been stated again and again - namely that the KJ is the superior english translation. As such it is my preferred bible, the only I use. I feel confident this is the word of God rendered in english. I believe what it says, treat it authoritatively in my life, and try to hearken unto what God teaches me from it.

 

OK, yall chase the monkey all you want, but I've got to know this: If translations are not inspired, then why do we call any translation the "word of God"?

(monkey stops long enough to scratch his head pondering this thought) and POP! goes the weasel!:laugh:

The rationale behind the idea that translation did away with inspiration, lest we claim double-inspiration, leaves us with nothing more than words of men about God. Or there is no such double-inspiration and we have an inspired Bible.

To claim translations are not inspired goes against the words of God as being pure. But when the Bible is placed in the hands of men and it is left in their control, inspiration becomes a passing fancy and we no longer have His word. thus the KJV IS the inspired word of God unless you place God against His very word.

Either the words of the Lord are pure words. The pure words have been placed within a vacuum of man's languages in the original tongues. Or we DO have a complete Canon of 66 Books in the KJV.

OK, monkey, patch your head up and go back to chasing.:tonofbricks:

 

I know you are intending this sarcastically, but seriously, Will, your position is destroyed by this very simple issue.

But they existed. Was the KJV wrong then? Did it have an errors? Of course it did. You admit that, and by admitting that you are proving my point … that you have to go back to a prior authority.

How would that be a reversal. I have always maintained that the content matters. And that is the crux of my argument: You can’t show one place in the content of those 66 books that supports your view. The content matters. What God said matters. And you can’t deal with that issue. You are left giving your opinion, and we have seen that is faulty, since you don’t even understand the issues.

If Exod 20:16 is in error in the KJV (as it undeniably is if you have one particular version of it), then your whole point if wrong. You can’t just discard the KJV because it has an error, if indeed you think it has none. You can’t just pick and choose the KJV’s you want to follow and still maintain that it has no error in it.You can't just say, "Well we don't believe that KJV. We believe the other one." That doesn't work. If God is powerful enough to preserve his word from error and if he intended to do so as you claim, then printer's errors would be no problem for a God who created the world.

There are plenty of others, and this is among the easiest. Does Exod 20:16 have “not”? If it does, then the KJV is in error in that edition.

If you think I believe that or am trying to prove that, you are 100% wrong. It shows again that you are not understanding the issues. And that is serious.

 

Depends what you meant complete and 100%. Yes, Before the AV 1611 there was 100 % words of God writen on scrolls later codified in codexes. Or book format. By the last writing of the NT there entire bible as we know it was complete. AS far as all the books that are to be scriptures were in existance. When the bible was first Codified in Codexes it was complete then too. The AV1611 is no more complete when it was translated and in many ways less complete then what they had in 100AD. Thats it in so many words.

 

The scriptures were given by inspiration, we have them through preservation.

 

God’s ability was never in question. It is his actions that are in question.

Yes, but that’s another topic. Inspiration is not God “moving upon the hearts of men.” It is God revealing his Word to men.

Some do directly, and others do indirectly, and others do not at all.

My “type”? The type that reads something and wonders what it means? The type that dares to ask someone to explain something? Yes, that’s the problem here … Too many people asking other people to explain what they mean by something.

 

DHK never said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney
Hi DHK. I am not the one who said his final authority was "the originals only" which no longer exist and no one living today has ever seen, and that "No translation is perfect". Remember, that was you; not me.

DHK post # 66 - No, there is not a single translation of the Bible that I believe is the complete and inerrant word of God, totally infallible in every word, without any error whatsoever.

If I have a question about the translation I can go back to the Greek or Hebrew which I believe God has preserved his Word in.

Only the originals were inspired.

No translation of the Bible is perfect. You do not have a perfect Bible.

DHK post # 50 - There is no perfect translation. It is an impossibility.

DHK post # 73 - I must point out the deficiencies in their translation when I am there. Tactfully, the best way, is: "Better translated, it would read something like this..." Or, "The Greek word used here has more this meaning..."


DHK post # 155 (corrected spelling and grammar)
You’re right, almost all know that the originals do not exist.


So, DHK, it should be obvious to anybody that has eyes to see and can read plain English, that your beliefs about "the Bible" have clearly left us with NO complete inspired and 100% true Bible now. I'm shocked....shocked...:smilewinkgrin:

Will K

 

but are you willing to say?

Great Ra. Glad to hear the KJB is your "preferred" bible. But do you believe it is the only complete, inspired and 100% true preserved words of God, and that all others like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman etc. are NOT the complete and 100% true words of God?

Or are you still trying to please everybody and have no real backbone to your convictions after all?

Will K