Satan’s lie, of King James Onlyism

Confusion may occur in some people. However, I think the 'Confusion Argument' against multiple versions is overstated. In modern terms for example, most people do not limit themselves to only one 'News' source. We generally may receive the same information via TV, radio, internet, newspaper, magazine, and live speakers. This diverse input is usually not confusing for educated adults. In scripture we have different narratives of the same event (in the Gospels, Kings-Chronicles, etc.). I have been reading several versions every day for a couple of years and I would not say that it has ever been confusing for me.

Obviously, one can be chosen for the purpose. However, New Testament writers did not seem concerned to quote scripture verbatim or always from the same source.

It is somewaht unclear what you mean here. I think you are suggesting familiarity with passages.

No, that is not what I am feeling when I refer to other versions. I trust the version I'm reading but I am supplimenting and expanding my understanding of the scripture by viewing synonymous renderings.

 

Maybe the Biblically inept might get confused.

 

Good! Please name the English version that was the "final authority" in 1603, for example.

What is the mechanism whereby the previous "final authority" gives way to the next? How do we recognize the precise point in time when that succession has taken place? What proof is there that God has ended this process? (Please provide scripture references)

In what language was the "final authority" before English became a recognizible language? Whenever our accepted English version disagrees with any of our foreign-speaking Christian brethren's accepted version, which one would be the final "final authority"?

 

Understanding cultural differences will always be a challenge in a premillenial world.

secular reasoning applied to the word of God always entraps the mind and leads to a dead end

yet any word taking into consideration the era of its use and cultural applications is easily understood and is also necessary.

that is not even true. The KJV is written in prose and the words are in a very particular way as to express their meaning without any misunderstanding when one considers how they were used with the words preceding and the ones after them. It's know to be the context of their use.

At best the other vrsions of today are watered down words to link up with the level of literacy for today's readers. this shortchanges them for what they should have at their disposal: an eloquent Bible.

You just got finished telling us how different the KJV is and then try to tell us it is no different.:wavey:

You also said they used their own words, but we know no one actually spoke like that nor did anyone speak like Shakespeare's works.

The English of the KJV is what some call "high-English" meaning it is close to being perfectly understood.:wavey:

 

And what, oh what, did Christians do when they were too poor to own more than one bible per family? Again, I keep saying this but it is true, if you don't trust your translation, you need to throw it out, not supplement it with another. People claim to believe in the authority of scripture but don't take their translation authoritatively.

Here's a good question: if one doesn't believe the translation he/she has is accurate, why is he/she using it?

 

I don't think anyone can comprehend your first sentence and you couldn't explain it either without changing a few words:wavey:

"Final authority" means there was other authorities prior.

Your "conflicts" are unfounded due to your attempt to rationalize a spiritual book.

No. logic has no authority over the word of God, that places the words into man's hands and denies the Lord altogether. Now, if you want to keep making this arguement based upon logic and reason........

A "final authority" after the final authority does not even make cognitive sense, therefore try some other example. "Final" has no proceeding implication. It's like trying to score points after the buzzer.:wavey:

 

Then your reasoning would mean there are other ways to Heaven than through Christ.:tonofbricks:

 

Exactly! But then you would have churches that are "ESV" only, NIV only, etc.

 

OK, so now you place the word of God on the same level of the news media :tonofbricks:

You qwill have to be able to quote verbatim the verses from each version or learn the ones you like best from that version to give others what you would want them to know.

The arguement goes "we want them all to understand" would best be that we stick with the most familiar when referencing the Bible. The KJV does this perfectly. New versions are an admixture of cultural differences and ever changing language patterns.

God confounded the languages so man would seek common ground to funnel down the words for all to have. satan adds multiplicity to scatter the words abroad and reverses the process God initiated.

 

Offering multiplicity adds to eneptness:wavey:

 

Harold, if you had placed a simple 'smilie face' at the end of this statement I would have thought you were just trying to be funny. However, it seems you must have been serious. Therefore, two possiblities can be drawn from your statement: either you are incapable of understanding my comments within the context in which they were given, or you're being completely dishonest with your accusation.

Personally, I think you may be smart enough to know that I was giving a negative example of potental 'confusion' from multiple sources and not placing "the word of God on the same level of the news media". Although, you have demonstrated difficulting grasping logical argumentation. Just two examples: first, in your reply to Trotter you illogically wrote "You just got finished telling us how different the KJV is and then try to tell us it is no different" (clearly things that are very different in many aspects can still be the same in other respects). Second, in your illogical reply to Logos1560 you stated "'Final authority' means there was other authorities prior" (when actually a 'final authority' does not neccessarily require a previous authority since any singular authority would have the distiction of being recognized as the [final] authority).

In any case, you owe an admission of responsibility and retraction.

 

Harold, why did you comment on my reponse to RAdam's post and NOT answer any of the questions I posed directly to you?

 

I think you've misrepresented what I said.

 

Maybe it is the spriit in how you ask questions.

 

This is an intentional misrepresentation of his words, tantamount IMO to calling him a heretic. You really should apologize for this pot-shot.

 

Why do you insist on consistently breaking BB rules and attacking other versions of God's Word?

Please play by the rules set forth, hmm?

 

I see a false balance here.

When it comes to the word of God we should have a standard for our beliefs and our beliefs should be inline with the Doctrines of the Bible and be equally balanced.

Forgive me for pressing toward the mark of balance.

Your introducing the "heretic" supposition is completely uncalled for and is suspicion in action.

 

I have not attacked any version.

The KJV is persistently attacked here. Those who are called "KJVO" are persistently misrepresented and attacked, just as your last two posts show.

Show me where i have broken the rules or close your posts with an apology.

Moderators, can you show me anywhere I have broken any rules in this forum? I will gladly retract and apologize. I expect specific examples and not anything presumed as my brother here is accusing me of doing.

 

Here's a better question- Why does there have to be only ONE authoritative translation?