slandering the Word of God

I must agree. There's a HUGE difference between using only the KJV, and being KJVO.

 

I agree, the KJVO believe that God inspired, preserved and protected His Word and gave it to us in perfect form. The "KJV prefered" believe(along with the rest of the MV crowd) that God was not able to give us a perfect, inerrent Word and so we have to listen to the self-proclaimed "Scholars" to tell us which bibles to use and not to use.
In Christ,
KJVBibleThumper

 

As usual, KJVBT is casting aspersions based on his bias alone. Nobody tells me which Bible to use, adn I beleive God has the ability to preserve His Word for EVERY generation, not just the early 17th century generation.

I asked him months ago exaclty which KJV edition was perfect,and never got an answer.

 

Think you need to get your facts straight on what KJV preferred believe, KJVBT! Uh, could you please tell us who here has acclaimed themselves "self proclaimed scholars"? In other words, KJVBT, put up (post proof) or close your pie hole!

 

KJVBT:I agree, the KJVO believe that God inspired, preserved and protected His Word and gave it to us in perfect form.

Then please explain the PROVEN ERRORS in the KJV, & if you can do that, please tell us WHICH ONE of the many editions is perfect, and why. If you have a perfect edition, any other edition that changes so much as one letter of one word is LESS than perfect.

REMEMBER...THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE EDITION PERFECT!!

 

Oh, but Robycop3 and Bob, these are "printers errors" and "spelling changes" ONLY that were made between the versions.

Besides, notice that I still haven't received a true answer to what was the perfect Bible in 1605?

In reality, if they answer it properly and name a Bible (which a string of Bibles were named all based on the TR -- and that is okay) then they must admit there is not such a thing as letter perfect translation.

 

Yet, that belief is not supported by scripture itself. No where is there any scriptural support for the idea that scripture is preserved via one sole translation. Neither is there scriptural support for the idea that a sole translation has authority over any other translation. The KJVO doctrine is false doctrine and complete myth.

Not so. Non-KJVO's simply reject that false doctrine that a single translation is required for preservation.

KJVO's, as well as all who are single-translation-onlyist, add to scripture. Non-single-translation-onlyists don't. It's that pain and simple.

 

I don't add to Scripture. I believe only one Book.
Most of you Multiple choicers, are they who add to Scripture. You start with say...NASB, then add NIV, then add NKJV then add YLT then add HCSB then add KJ2000 then add asv1901 then add RSV then ad infinitum!


In HIS service;
Jim

 

av1611jim,

Your assertion is flawed. You don't "believe" in only one bible, you "believe" in only one translation. If I "believed" in only the NIV, KJVO's would tell me I have a false bible. If I "believed" in only the NKJV, KJVO's would tell me I have a false bible. KJVO's require a "belief" only in their translation. That's not scripturally supportable. Hence, to require that as a doctrine for all Christians, as KJVO's do, is adding to the doctrine of scripture.

 

AV1611 Jim: I don't add to Scripture. I believe only one Book.
Most of you Multiple choicers, are they who add to Scripture. You start with say...NASB, then add NIV, then add NKJV then add YLT then add HCSB then add KJ2000 then add asv1901 then add RSV then ad infinitum!

An ACTUAL analogy would be starting with a steel ball, then adding a copper ball, a lead ball, a silver ball, etc. We'd have several metal balls, and the only thing added would be the NUMBER of balls, not anything added to the balls themselves.

Each version of Scripture I have stands alone. I don't have a NAKJ, an AV 1972, or a King George version.

 

Hmm, that sounds like something that has happened before...
Wyclif Bible, Tyndale Bible, Matthew-Tyndale Bible, Coverdale Bible, Geneva Bible, Great Bible, Bishop's Bible, AV1611, AV1617, 1769KJV, 1853KJV, etc...

History keeps repeating itself. A Bible for each generation. Funny how that works.

HankD

[ December 21, 2004, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

C'mon Hank.
Wycliffe to Tyndale is a bit more than an "each generation" jump, and you know that.

You keep posting comments from the Av translators as if that proves your assertion. Now if I am correct, I believe you are a KJV preferred. Is that right?

If so, then quoting the Translators doesn't help you. I will show you why. Although they indeed DID make the comment you posted they also said this about the legendary LXX:

"...that the Seventy were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice touching the Greek Translations of the Old Testament."

This is why they did not follow it. They clearly saw it as the flawed mess that it is. The modern versions which rely so heavily upon it's many spurious readings are doing a disservice to Christianity. This is why, (I believe) folks will quote what parts of the Translators notes support their own peculiar view rather than letting the entire document (The Notes to the Reader) speak for the men themselves.

You will also note, (If you are the kind of man I think you are) that in the context of the statement you provided, the Translators were not talking exclusively about English translations but on a more broad sense of all the available translations in the extant languages of the day, i.e... "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see."

Many other things I might bring to the fore, my friend and brother, but let this suffice for now.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

My statement is still true, each generatuion has a Bible, even more than one in some generations especially ours. To be sure they (KJV translators) probably would put thumbs down on many of our MVs.

Yes, because of the underlying Traditional Texts.

Whrere they are correct I quote them where they are not correct in my estimation I don't. This is what we all do, as many here do with Dr. Ruckman's pronouncements.

You are correct and I admitted it. We all do it.

Yes, of course including the Vulgate (and even the Apocrypha, which is another issue).

If you have access to a RCC Douay-Rheims NT (published about 30 years before the AV) you will see that they borrowed heavily from it word-for-word along with other less than glamorous translations. These were the "meanest" (which BTW they declared the Word of God) of which they spoke.

HankD

 

And which verses are "advanced revelation" and which are not.

HankD

 

I'm still waiting for a scholar to tell me which edition is the word for word, letter for letter, settled in heaven Word of God.

 

You might be waiting a long time, Bro Roger.

 

Hank said, "If you have access to a RCC Douay-Rheims NT (published about 30 years before the AV) you will see that they borrowed heavily from it word-for-word along with other less than glamorous translations. These were the "meanest" (which BTW they declared the Word of God) of which they spoke."
--------------------------------------------------
Why should it be that they borrowed from those translations, rather than they translated from the texts those translations used where they were correct? Again, I refer you to the quote I posted.(the second one.)

Just a different way to look at the same result. For example; just because the Rheims may have "In the beginning God created..." does not mean the AV translators borrowed from IT but rather that the text the Rheimswas taken from was correct AT THAT PLACE. See? (BTW I do not have access to the Rheims. It is not on my software.) I am in agreement with you on more places than it may appear from my objections. Some may not believe it, but that is their problem.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Actually, Jim, your logic is applicable to later versions also. The fact that there are umpteen editions of the Textus Receptus might give you pause before you declare the KJV perfect. How do we know WHICH EDITION of either the TR or the KJV is the "perfect" one?