-
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!
Questions From A KJV-Onlyist
- Thread starter Baptist in Richmond
- Start date
Let's not forget that Jesus Himself spent time in Egypt. Using the logic of KJVO's, does that mean that He was corrupted as well?
Matthew 2:15 in the KJV says:
And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
This passage refers to Hosea 11:1, which says:
When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
If I use the KJVO method of deduction, I can say that since God called His Son Jesus, The Word, out of Egypt, then He also called His written Word out of Egypt: Alexandria. I guess that would mean that the Byzantine texts cannot possibly be the true Word of God.
Shawn
Matthew 2:15 in the KJV says:
And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
This passage refers to Hosea 11:1, which says:
When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
If I use the KJVO method of deduction, I can say that since God called His Son Jesus, The Word, out of Egypt, then He also called His written Word out of Egypt: Alexandria. I guess that would mean that the Byzantine texts cannot possibly be the true Word of God.
Shawn
quote:
Originally posted by robycop3:
[QB] Pastor Lacy, there's not the slightest bit of evidence suggesting God's had to "restore" His word.
Perhaps not direct evidence, but he does seem undaunted by the destruction of the original tablets of the 10 commandments and the destruction of Jeremiah's autographs. The other example in my article when the word was lost (II Kings 22) after a period of apostasy, then found during a time of seeking, repentance, and revival, speaks (to me) of how God handles his written revelation to man.
God quickly re-wrote the 10 commandments, AND re-dictated His prophecies to Jeremiah, ADDING to what He'd previously told Jerry.
And no one who's had Junior-High World History can deny the corruption and apostasy that filled Europe during medieval times and earlier. The RCC was in charge of both church & state in many lands, and we need not discuss their suppression of the Scriptures. By your criterion of God's word being largely "kept under wraps" for awhile, we could point to the Reformation, beginning 1517, as the time of God's word "coming back out"-in GERMAN.
NONE of the English BVs made after that time are alike. However, the KJVO claims a special inspiration for the AV 1611 without the slightest proof that such inspiration, if it happened, is exclusive for the AV.
quote:
If this were so, then we could argue that part of this restoration was the rescue of Sinaiticus from the trash can.
In no way do I mean this sarcastically, but isn't that what most MVers believe?
Actually, some KJVOs made a federal case of the trash can years ago, without considering the alternative I mentioned here.
Sinaiticus should be given a fair look, as should anything else that calls itself inspired. Ultimately though, I think the KJV bears all the marks of inspired scripture, far and beyond anything else extant.
You're entitled to your opinion. However, the same can be said for virtually every other valid English BV.
quote:
He did NOT retire in 1611.
Of course not. If time goes long enough, and we get wicked enough that he judges us by taking away our "prophets", our "revelation", He will raise it up again in the language of the next group of humble seekers.
Actually, the England of C.1560-1603 was as corrupt as that nation had ever been. Murder, robbery, conspiracy was rife, with cabals within cabals. And while KJ kept England out of the 30 Years War that began in 1618, he and many other British wielded quite a bit of influence with the belligerents, & many a British "soldier of fortune" participated. There's nothing in the history of England during this time to suggest it was a nation of "humble seekers". Instead, it was governed by the quasi-Catholics of the Anglican Church, with the approval of most of the population.(Their punishment began in the 1770s when their empire began to crumble.)
PS. It is a privilege to debate you. Thank you for your frank, reasonable arguments.
Unlke many a KJVO, I will respond readily to any legit question asked of me. But bear in mind that like anyone else here who works for a living, I'm sometimes "chronologically-challenged".
I don't get that nearly often enough. With worthy opponents like you, I might just hang around. (Whether that's a good thing or not, I won't presume to say.)
Far as I'm concerned, it's been a good thing so far, as you actually try to defend the KJVO myth instead of posting a lotta spin.
Perhaps you'd like to try to deal with some of the roadblocks to the veracity of the KJVO doctrine, the facts that keep it a myth. First and foremost is the total lack of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for any Onlyism at all, either direct or by implication. In fact, when we compare Luke 4:16-21 with Isaiah 42:7 & Isaiah 61:1-3, and compare Acts 8:30-33 with Isaiah 53:6-8, & by comparing many other quotes from the OT found in the NT, we see that JESUS HIMSELF, nor His apostles, were limited to one version. Thus, Scripture indirectly supports the use of MULTIPLE versions.
Since Scripture is our highest written authority, any doctrine ABOUT Scripture MUST BE SUPPORTED somewhere in Scripture in order to be valid. The total lack of any such support, empirical or implied, renders the KJVO myth wrong.
Originally posted by robycop3:
[QB] Pastor Lacy, there's not the slightest bit of evidence suggesting God's had to "restore" His word.
Perhaps not direct evidence, but he does seem undaunted by the destruction of the original tablets of the 10 commandments and the destruction of Jeremiah's autographs. The other example in my article when the word was lost (II Kings 22) after a period of apostasy, then found during a time of seeking, repentance, and revival, speaks (to me) of how God handles his written revelation to man.
God quickly re-wrote the 10 commandments, AND re-dictated His prophecies to Jeremiah, ADDING to what He'd previously told Jerry.
And no one who's had Junior-High World History can deny the corruption and apostasy that filled Europe during medieval times and earlier. The RCC was in charge of both church & state in many lands, and we need not discuss their suppression of the Scriptures. By your criterion of God's word being largely "kept under wraps" for awhile, we could point to the Reformation, beginning 1517, as the time of God's word "coming back out"-in GERMAN.
NONE of the English BVs made after that time are alike. However, the KJVO claims a special inspiration for the AV 1611 without the slightest proof that such inspiration, if it happened, is exclusive for the AV.
quote:
If this were so, then we could argue that part of this restoration was the rescue of Sinaiticus from the trash can.
In no way do I mean this sarcastically, but isn't that what most MVers believe?
Actually, some KJVOs made a federal case of the trash can years ago, without considering the alternative I mentioned here.
Sinaiticus should be given a fair look, as should anything else that calls itself inspired. Ultimately though, I think the KJV bears all the marks of inspired scripture, far and beyond anything else extant.
You're entitled to your opinion. However, the same can be said for virtually every other valid English BV.
quote:
He did NOT retire in 1611.
Of course not. If time goes long enough, and we get wicked enough that he judges us by taking away our "prophets", our "revelation", He will raise it up again in the language of the next group of humble seekers.
Actually, the England of C.1560-1603 was as corrupt as that nation had ever been. Murder, robbery, conspiracy was rife, with cabals within cabals. And while KJ kept England out of the 30 Years War that began in 1618, he and many other British wielded quite a bit of influence with the belligerents, & many a British "soldier of fortune" participated. There's nothing in the history of England during this time to suggest it was a nation of "humble seekers". Instead, it was governed by the quasi-Catholics of the Anglican Church, with the approval of most of the population.(Their punishment began in the 1770s when their empire began to crumble.)
PS. It is a privilege to debate you. Thank you for your frank, reasonable arguments.
Unlke many a KJVO, I will respond readily to any legit question asked of me. But bear in mind that like anyone else here who works for a living, I'm sometimes "chronologically-challenged".
I don't get that nearly often enough. With worthy opponents like you, I might just hang around. (Whether that's a good thing or not, I won't presume to say.)
Far as I'm concerned, it's been a good thing so far, as you actually try to defend the KJVO myth instead of posting a lotta spin.
Perhaps you'd like to try to deal with some of the roadblocks to the veracity of the KJVO doctrine, the facts that keep it a myth. First and foremost is the total lack of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for any Onlyism at all, either direct or by implication. In fact, when we compare Luke 4:16-21 with Isaiah 42:7 & Isaiah 61:1-3, and compare Acts 8:30-33 with Isaiah 53:6-8, & by comparing many other quotes from the OT found in the NT, we see that JESUS HIMSELF, nor His apostles, were limited to one version. Thus, Scripture indirectly supports the use of MULTIPLE versions.
Since Scripture is our highest written authority, any doctrine ABOUT Scripture MUST BE SUPPORTED somewhere in Scripture in order to be valid. The total lack of any such support, empirical or implied, renders the KJVO myth wrong.
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!
--------------------------------------------------
Since Scripture is our highest written authority, any doctrine ABOUT Scripture MUST BE SUPPORTED somewhere in Scripture in order to be valid. The total lack of any such support, empirical or implied, renders the KJVO myth wrong.
--------------------------------------------------
Apparently this isn't true for the mvo's who only believe the message or saying is important, and not the written words of scripture. They have nothing sound and accurate to rely upon.
The mvo's don't seem to believe that Jesus Christ was the Only Begotten Son of God, for their authority doesn't say so. They only believe that Jesus Christ was the One and Only Son of God. They also don't believe that Jesus Christ was the firstborn son of Mary, but only the son of Mary. And that Joeseph was his father, rather than God the Father through the Holy Spirit. I wonder where many mvo's here recieve this important information concerning our Saviour, and why they do not question those versions that do not include these important truths? Hmm, could it be that their knowledge and use of the KJV has given them this understanding? Could it be that the Geneva Bible gives this understanding? Could it be the RECIEVED TEXT Bibles give one this understanding? Where is your final authority. Are these things the truth or were they added? If they were added, why then do you not reject the version that has added them? If they were not added, why then do you continue to approve of those that deleted them? And why do they keep changing?
Where is your fear of the Lord?
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
Since Scripture is our highest written authority, any doctrine ABOUT Scripture MUST BE SUPPORTED somewhere in Scripture in order to be valid. The total lack of any such support, empirical or implied, renders the KJVO myth wrong.
--------------------------------------------------
Apparently this isn't true for the mvo's who only believe the message or saying is important, and not the written words of scripture. They have nothing sound and accurate to rely upon.
The mvo's don't seem to believe that Jesus Christ was the Only Begotten Son of God, for their authority doesn't say so. They only believe that Jesus Christ was the One and Only Son of God. They also don't believe that Jesus Christ was the firstborn son of Mary, but only the son of Mary. And that Joeseph was his father, rather than God the Father through the Holy Spirit. I wonder where many mvo's here recieve this important information concerning our Saviour, and why they do not question those versions that do not include these important truths? Hmm, could it be that their knowledge and use of the KJV has given them this understanding? Could it be that the Geneva Bible gives this understanding? Could it be the RECIEVED TEXT Bibles give one this understanding? Where is your final authority. Are these things the truth or were they added? If they were added, why then do you not reject the version that has added them? If they were not added, why then do you continue to approve of those that deleted them? And why do they keep changing?
Where is your fear of the Lord?
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Lacy Evans
New Member
Ahh thank the reegeanal Gru-eek says he cayme OUTTA E-JUPT. He deedn't staey thay-er.
Redneck Lacy
Lacy Evans
New Member
Robycop said:
Lacy
My only point there was that the originals were not absolutely necessary and definitely not sanctified to the degree that the MV position holds.
The cart cannot pull the horse. In 2 Chr 34, when Josiah began to respond to the light he had, THEN the book was discovered. They were experiencing an awakening of sorts in vs.1-2, but by vs. 32, 33 the real revival hit. It seems men have to respond to the light available (My position-the TR) before the Book (My-position-KJV) will be found. Then apostasy really begins to be weeded out and over the next years the Book, properly obeyed, will begin to bear fruit abundantly
It seems to me that the German TR Bibles were definitely a stage in the purification of scripture. I believe we should point to the Reformation as a beginning. Plenty of fruit there.
I believe it, only because of the absolute tenacity the KJV displayed over time, and of course the fact that it rocked the world like no other book since 1st century scripture.
Lacy
Michelle:Apparently this isn't true for the mvo's who only believe the message or saying is important, and not the written words of scripture. They have nothing sound and accurate to rely upon.
ON THE CONTRARY:
We have a LOT more to rely on! We KNOW God didn't retire in 1611. We KNOW He still provides His word in the languages He causes us to use.
BTW, I don't think there's any "MVOs" here. I believe every valid version of the Bible, KJV, pre-KJV or post-KJV.
The mvo's don't seem to believe that Jesus Christ was the Only Begotten Son of God, for their authority doesn't say so.
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[ 3:16 Or his only begotten Son] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."(From my NIV purchased in 2001)
John 3:16 "For God so [Rom 5:8; Eph 2:4; 2 Thess 2:16; 1 John 4:10; Rev 1:5] loved the world, that He [Rom 8:32; 1 John 4:9] gave His [John 1:18; 3:18; 1 John 4:9] only begotten Son, that whoever [John 3:36; 6:40; 11:25f] believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."
(From my latest NASB, purchased 1999)
The NKJV reads same as the KJV, but in modern language.
They only believe that Jesus Christ was the One and Only Son of God.
He IS. WE are "ADOPTED".
They also don't believe that Jesus Christ was the firstborn son of Mary, but only the son of Mary. And that Joeseph was his father, rather than God the Father through the Holy Spirit.
THIS one ranks very high on the "All-Time Most Stupid KJVO Assertions Hall Of Shame" list. Here's the whole garbage pile in a compacter:
Luke 2:43, KJV "And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it."
Luke 2:43, NIV "After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it."
This is the verse that some idiot used to say the NIV denied the Deity of Jesus. I believe I can safely call him/her an idiot because he/she failed to read just five verses further in the KJV:
Luke 2:48, KJV "And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing."
THE KJV DOES THE EXACT SAME THING AS THAT IDIOT ACCUSED THE NIV OF DOING!!!!!!!
Michelle, I hope you see just how ignorant this assertion was. Now, what can I say about those who believed that stupidity without checking it out for themselves? MUCHO, but I won't. They, and their wisdom speak for themselves.
I wonder where many mvo's here recieve this important information concerning our Saviour, and why they do not question those versions that do not include these important truths? Hmm, could it be that their knowledge and use of the KJV has given them this understanding? Could it be that the Geneva Bible gives this understanding? Could it be the RECIEVED TEXT Bibles give one this understanding? Where is your final authority. Are these things the truth or were they added? If they were added, why then do you not reject the version that has added them? If they were not added, why then do you continue to approve of those that deleted them?
For once, I'll answer a question WITH a question: Do you believe EVERY WORD in the KJV?
MAT 27:9, KJV "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;"
The prophecy referenced is found in Zechariah 11:11-13. There's nothing like it in Jeremiah.(I believe we have a consensus saying Jeremy is the Greek form of Jeremiah.)
And why do they keep changing?
For error correction, for the realizing of a more precise translation, for the opinions of different translators.
Don't think so? The Geneva Bible translators, which included the most eminent Scriptural scholars of the day, such men as Myles Coverdale, John Foxe( of Foxe's Martyrs fame)& John Whittingham, to name some, (You may check their credentials thru your friendly neighborhood search engine) had pretty well the same sources as did the AV translators. BY WHOSE AUTHORITY (besides that of KJ) did they alter the Geneva Bible? (such as changing Ps. 12:7 to read "them" instead of the GB's "him")
Where is your fear of the Lord?
Evidently not where YOURS may be, as you seek to limit Him to just your fave version of His word. I fear and respect Him enough to know He can do ANYTHING, & that there are NO RESTRICTIONS on how He may provide His word, AS HE CHOOSES.
ON THE CONTRARY:
We have a LOT more to rely on! We KNOW God didn't retire in 1611. We KNOW He still provides His word in the languages He causes us to use.
BTW, I don't think there's any "MVOs" here. I believe every valid version of the Bible, KJV, pre-KJV or post-KJV.
The mvo's don't seem to believe that Jesus Christ was the Only Begotten Son of God, for their authority doesn't say so.
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[ 3:16 Or his only begotten Son] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."(From my NIV purchased in 2001)
John 3:16 "For God so [Rom 5:8; Eph 2:4; 2 Thess 2:16; 1 John 4:10; Rev 1:5] loved the world, that He [Rom 8:32; 1 John 4:9] gave His [John 1:18; 3:18; 1 John 4:9] only begotten Son, that whoever [John 3:36; 6:40; 11:25f] believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."
(From my latest NASB, purchased 1999)
The NKJV reads same as the KJV, but in modern language.
They only believe that Jesus Christ was the One and Only Son of God.
He IS. WE are "ADOPTED".
They also don't believe that Jesus Christ was the firstborn son of Mary, but only the son of Mary. And that Joeseph was his father, rather than God the Father through the Holy Spirit.
THIS one ranks very high on the "All-Time Most Stupid KJVO Assertions Hall Of Shame" list. Here's the whole garbage pile in a compacter:
Luke 2:43, KJV "And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it."
Luke 2:43, NIV "After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it."
This is the verse that some idiot used to say the NIV denied the Deity of Jesus. I believe I can safely call him/her an idiot because he/she failed to read just five verses further in the KJV:
Luke 2:48, KJV "And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing."
THE KJV DOES THE EXACT SAME THING AS THAT IDIOT ACCUSED THE NIV OF DOING!!!!!!!
Michelle, I hope you see just how ignorant this assertion was. Now, what can I say about those who believed that stupidity without checking it out for themselves? MUCHO, but I won't. They, and their wisdom speak for themselves.
I wonder where many mvo's here recieve this important information concerning our Saviour, and why they do not question those versions that do not include these important truths? Hmm, could it be that their knowledge and use of the KJV has given them this understanding? Could it be that the Geneva Bible gives this understanding? Could it be the RECIEVED TEXT Bibles give one this understanding? Where is your final authority. Are these things the truth or were they added? If they were added, why then do you not reject the version that has added them? If they were not added, why then do you continue to approve of those that deleted them?
For once, I'll answer a question WITH a question: Do you believe EVERY WORD in the KJV?
MAT 27:9, KJV "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;"
The prophecy referenced is found in Zechariah 11:11-13. There's nothing like it in Jeremiah.(I believe we have a consensus saying Jeremy is the Greek form of Jeremiah.)
And why do they keep changing?
For error correction, for the realizing of a more precise translation, for the opinions of different translators.
Don't think so? The Geneva Bible translators, which included the most eminent Scriptural scholars of the day, such men as Myles Coverdale, John Foxe( of Foxe's Martyrs fame)& John Whittingham, to name some, (You may check their credentials thru your friendly neighborhood search engine) had pretty well the same sources as did the AV translators. BY WHOSE AUTHORITY (besides that of KJ) did they alter the Geneva Bible? (such as changing Ps. 12:7 to read "them" instead of the GB's "him")
Where is your fear of the Lord?
Evidently not where YOURS may be, as you seek to limit Him to just your fave version of His word. I fear and respect Him enough to know He can do ANYTHING, & that there are NO RESTRICTIONS on how He may provide His word, AS HE CHOOSES.
And so did the ma-an-uscripts. In both cases Egypt is the place they were preserved from which they came out to accomplish something; also like the nation of Israel.
I believe it, only because of the absolute tenacity the KJV displayed over time, and of course the fact that it rocked the world like no other book since 1st century scripture.
1st century scripture is something different from the KJV? Very good.
Lacy Evans
New Member
Robycop3 said:
Lacy
PS OUCH!
While I wouldn't spend alot of time debating Luke 2, (Father/Joseph?) I will say this: A Biblical nararative referring to Joseph as Christ's "father" is different than a Biblical narative quoting Mary as refering to Joseph as Christ's father.
Lacy
PS OUCH!
Luke 2:40-42(KJV)
40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
So, what does parents (note plural) mean. Perhaps both father and mother. And it is a direct Biblical narative.
Besides, you can be someone's father without being the biological father - ever hear of adoption?
40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
So, what does parents (note plural) mean. Perhaps both father and mother. And it is a direct Biblical narative.
Besides, you can be someone's father without being the biological father - ever hear of adoption?
Trotter
<img src =/6412.jpg>
Well, gee, if we were able to effectively ban every translation of the Bible but one, it too would would show "absolute tenacity" and "rock the world" with four hundred years of usage behind it. Duhhh!
It just kills me to hear someone crowing about the fruit that the KJV has. Of course it does! It was the only legal Bible you could print, and was enforced as the only Bible to be used by the public! After a few decades of that, it was the only Bible people knew or owned. And with four hundred years of being used as the sole source for the masses' Bible, it had better have produced something.
It used to just produce fruit of the kingdom. But, since the early twentieth century, it has also been producing nuts
.In Christ,
Trotter
It is funny how people do not seem to get the fact that "Authorized Version" came from being the ONLY AUTHORIZED VERSION THE KING ALLOWS YOU TO PRINT AND ONLY IF YOU HAVE "AUTHORIZATION" TO PRINT THAT AUTHORIZED VERSION.
Today we call it a copyright; however, with one BIG difference--the King expanded it to eliminate all other Bibles because HE wanted HIS Bible to be the only one printed.
By the way, which Bible are we talking about the KJV1611 complete with apocrypha or the KJV1769 Oxford or the Cambridge? Which one has rocked the world for 400 years? Obviously it had to be the 1611 version since it is the ONLY one that has been around for 400 years, so therefore it MUST contain the apocrypha, too.
Today we call it a copyright; however, with one BIG difference--the King expanded it to eliminate all other Bibles because HE wanted HIS Bible to be the only one printed.
By the way, which Bible are we talking about the KJV1611 complete with apocrypha or the KJV1769 Oxford or the Cambridge? Which one has rocked the world for 400 years? Obviously it had to be the 1611 version since it is the ONLY one that has been around for 400 years, so therefore it MUST contain the apocrypha, too.
Lacy Evans
New Member
Can't argue with that.
Lacy
Lacy Evans
New Member
Now that's one of the best ideas I've seen on the BB in a while. That would put us about 2350-2400 AD! What a revival!
Lacy