The Bible war.

Excuse me!... Pray tell me what translation gives eternal life ancient past (before the KJV), past or present?... Brother Glen

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

 

My issue with the KJVO myth is that I believe God wants me to work against all false doctrines of faith/worship. Since there are a bazillion such false doctrines, I work mainly against those which seem to be most-prevalent. As an IFB, I see KJVO in front of me quite often, and I KNOW - not GUESS - that it's man-made & totally-false. Thus, I campaign against it quite a bit.

And I DO believe it's an instrument of Satan's that he uses to cast doubt upon several perfevtly-legitimate modern English Bible translations-not to mention the divisions it's caused among congregations. That's why I don't hesitate to diss the KJVO myth!

 

As I mentioned above, I am not referring to Ruckman-esque KJVO types. I do not agree with them myself. I am referring to those who would have a strong defense of the KJV based on the underlying texts.

You mentioned Waite. I would also place Edward Hills in the "scholar" category. Burgon was a Traditional text man. Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad fall more firmly on the side with which I would agree. Charles Turner would also be consider an authority, in my opinion.

That what I asserted above. It is an issue mainly on these debate forums. I rarely here it mentioned in church services or conferences, except by those who would be KJVOX.

By reading their works and comparing them with other writers in the same field.

This is simply not true. I may not agree with you 100% of the time, but we're a lot closer than you think. Now, on Reformed Theology? Not so much.

The ones with which I agree are authoritative...

 

D. A. Waite can be just as extreme, inconsistent, and unreasonable in some of his accusations as Peter Ruckman, especially in his concerning the NKJV.

Peter Ruckman asserted that “when the ‘New’ KJV came out, it was discovered that it had altered the King James text in more than five hundred places to bring it back in line with the RSV” (How To Teach the ‘Original‘ Greek, p. 102).

D. A. Waite asserted that the NKJV has “more similarity to the English Revised Version (ERV) of 1881, the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901, the New American Standard Version (NASV) of 1968, or the New International Version (NIV) of 1978, than to the KJV of 1611” (NKJV Compared to KJV, p. viii; Defects in the NKJV, p. 9). Waite claimed that “the New King James Version is the most dangerous Bible version on the market today” (Defects in the NKJV, p. 8). Waite contended that “the New King James Version Old Testament text is based on a different Hebrew text than the KJV” (p. 10).

KJV-only accusations concerning the KJV are not soundly and justly based on the KJV's multiple, varying underlying texts.

 

Is it even remotely possible to have a civil conversation with you, Tom? I'm beginning to realize that it is not. I've never hidden behind Ruckman, and you know it. I am using his extreme views as a point of reference, which you already knew as well.

I am not talking about KJVOs.

I said as much.

I said as much.

I said as much.

With more reading and more study.

Read it again, Tom. I said that's how I determine whether YOUR writings were authoritative. And, I included a "wink" which indicated to everyone but you that it was a light-hearted statement.

To say that one "never learn anything new" is careless and shamefully degrading, which has sadly become your modus operandi.

I learned something just this week regarding Job 3:5; so, your character assassination attempt has been proven wrong beyond contradiction.

 

NO translation gives eternal life to us, as that is only by Jesus Christ!

 

Good point, as the KJVO does want to paint all modern versions as being satanic, and makes some question if any of them are good to use!

 

The Majority text is not really the TR text that the KJVO so earnestly seek to defend, and Dean Burgon was not even remotely in the KJVO cmap, as he saw the real need to have the TR edited and revised, as well as the KJv!

 

The Nasb and other modern versions did not use the same source texts to translate as the Kjv did, but the Nkjv certainly did!

 

I would suggest reading the article entitled The Arrival of the Greek Text, at the Gospel Publishing House...

 

What was the Translation used by God then before 1611 Kjv for that?

 

What you implied in your statement that no one was saved before the KJV... I'm just commenting on what you said, Salvation is only in the Word Of God!... The Word Of God is Jesus Christ... Brother Glen

 

No, I was addressing what some KJVO believe, as they see God ONLY able to save by using the Kjv period!

 

Yeah I ran into one of those on another site that thought the KJV had some magical properties that none of the others had and hopefully I set him on the right path... Jesus Christ is the only one that has the power to save!... Brother Glen

 

Its just sad when someone places trust in anything other than Jesus to save them!

 

Pathetic, unintelligent response. Shameful, really.

By your asinine argument, that means you are hiding behind Wilbur Pickering since you’re the only one who mentioned him in this thread.

There are some on here who would say that is tremendous progress.

I have no interest in fooling anybody. I am what I am and am not the least bit ashamed or embarrassed about it. Anybody who so desires can do a search here and find out exactly what I believe on the version issue. And, I have been quite able to support what I believe and why I believe it. Simply not agreeing with Tom Cassidy does not make one wrong, contrary to what you may believe.

Out of respect for you, or rather, what I once thought you were, I’ll give you the last word. Fire away!