The preserved Word.

Good point. I'd never thought of it in that way, but today's KJVOs are much like the KKK and neo-Nazis - no tolerance of anything or anyone "different."

 

Yes.

OTR, I used to pastor a church in Irvington just down the road from you, and was interim in Brandenburg for a while.

 

Hey, I was *THIS CLOSE* to being absorbed into Armstrongism, but the HOLY SPIRIT intervened & caused me to see Herbie believed in "annihilationsim", the false doctrine that the wicked are completely destroyed in hell, not eternally punished-a lie I didn't believe even before I was saved. After that, I have made every effort to stick ONLY with doctrines of worship FOUND IN SCRIPTURE, and no others. And KJVO isn't even hinted at in Scripture, by the slightest implication. And its MAN-MADE SOURCE is well-known.

I rank KJVO right up there with salvation by worx, mariolatry, purgatory, indulgences, & other man-made doctrines as being totally-FALSE.

 

Careful now, it served it's purpose back in 1925 and through the years into the 50's and 60's in the battle against liberalism.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Talk About Total Arrogance

What is prideful and arrogant is to argue that God did not keep His Word perfect intact and available in one book. Talk about belittling the Character of God.

Can you imaging standing before a Holy God and you laughed and argued that there is not a preserved Bible. WOW! Now that is arrogant

I would rather stand before Him Knowing I stood for a preserved Bible and not mocked and laughed and fought against it.

What will you tell God in heaven? God I fought really hard against the Idea that you preserved your word in one book?

The optimy Pride and arrogance is to tell people God did not preserve His Word in a book you can hold in your hand.

When you die you better hope you were right that their is no preserved word. then again maby there is no God :tonofbricks:

Brought to you by DR. Ehud.

 

Who has laughed about this?
Who has belittled the character of God?
Who has argued that God hasn't preserved His word?
Who has fought against the Bible?
Who has argued against the existence of God?
Who has mocked Scripture?

God has preserved His words in all faithful translations.
BTW...leveling false accusations against fellow believers ain't nice. But you knew that, didn't you?

 

It is the inconsistent, man-made KJV-only view that implies that God did not keep His Word perfect, intact, and available in one book before 1611.
If the Scriptures teach that God said He would keep His Word perfect, intact, and available in one book after 1611, the same would be true between A. D. 100 and 1610. Can you demonstrate that the Scriptures teach your claim?

It is also the KJV-only view that seems to imply that God failed to preserve the Scriptures in the original languages and had to give them again in an English translation by Church of England scholars in 1611. Does the KJV-only view claim that God kept His Word perfect, intact, and available in one book in the 1560 Geneva Bible?

 

Well, I'm fairly well convinced that Ehud certainly should recognize "Pride and arrogance" when he...

Ed

 

Can MR. Ehud produce one scriptural word of evidence for a "preserved" copy of the scriptures other than the original manuscripts?

We can say that we have had accurate copies of the contents of those documents, but "preserved copies", I have my serious doubts.

Standing before my God, I have no fear whatever of saying that. My salvation is based on what those copies have conveyed as God's message to me. I have been faithful to them, but it does not alter what I deem to be historical fact. I am expected to be honest before men and God in all things.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I'm still waiting for an intelligent response to his statement. Carefully read again what he said:

To which robycop3 asked:

The correct question would be, "Well, then, in what other LANGUAGES is it preserved?"

Exercising a little reading comprehension goes a long way to avoiding foolish statements.

 

Now you've nailed jello to the wall!:thumbsup:

 

KJV-only author Roy Branson stated: "All versions other than the KJV 1611 come through the works of the liberal nineteenth century theologians Westcott and Hort" (KJV 1611, p. 66).

KJV-only evangelist Paul Freeman wrote: "I am opposed to all other Versions because they are corruptions of the God-given Word" (Perilous Times, April, 1997, p. 11).

KJV defender D. A. Waite claimed: "There are no good translations except the King James Bible" (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 129).

D. A. Waite declared: "If you use any other version than the King James Bible you are tampering with the Words of God" (Ibid., p. 136).

D. A. Waite wrote: "The only valid Bible is the King James Bible" (Ibid., p. 131).

How many KJV-only authors and KJV-only posters say that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the standard and greater authority for the making and evaluating of all translations including the KJV?

 

All of them, it is exactly what they are saying due to where we get the KJB.

 

Where did God say he would preserve His word?

 

It's much more prideful and arrogant to declare God has preserved His mesaage to us in just ONE English Bible translation. This incorrect teaching belittles God because it casts doubt on His willingness to promise to preserve His word and then break that promise until 1611 or whenever the "perfect" KJV was published.

I have never seen a "freedom reader" who declares God's word isn't preserved. But I've seen lots and lots of KJVOs who falsely claim God's word isn't preserved in any translation but one of the KJVs.

Then you need to abandon the false KJVO position, Ehud. The KJVO position denigrates the preserved word of God in any translation that isn't one of the KJVs. It's KJVOs who constantly "mock and laugh and fight against" God's word, unless it's in one of the KJVs. KJVOs give lip service to honoring God's word while doing everthing they can to rid the world of all modern translations of God's word..

"Freedom readers" won't have to defend their actions before God for defending the word of God against the liberalist, false KJVO position. We'll be able to say to Him, "God, I fought really hard against the false idea that You preserved Your word in only ONE Bible translation." Praise God!

"Freedom readers" absolutely believe we can hold the preserved word of God in our hands, whether the word is in one of the KJVs, the NKJV, the NASBs, the ESV, the HCSB or one of a host of other translations.

But the preserved word of God has been around for centuries, Ehud. God graciously preserved His word in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Then God graciously preserved His word through copying. Then God graciously preserved His word through the process of translation through many years until eventually God's word was preserved in English. And the preservation of God's word in English isn't a "done deal" - it's a continuing process that will go on as long as the English language is a growing, evolving language or until Christ's return.

Ehud, you like all other KJVOs, have a serious problem comprehending the difference between preserving God's word (His message to us) and preserving a particular set of words printed on a page. Ask for guidance and the Holy Spirit will deliver you from your confusion and lead you to an uderstanding of the truth.

The KJVO position is based in confusion and ignorance, Ehud. That's why God can't possibly be the source of KJVOism. Since God can't be the source of KJVOism, it has to come from elsewhere.

I would rather defend the word of God in its various translations while being displeasing to KJVOs than to denigrate the word of God and be displeasing to God. God will not hold blameless those who denigrate His word in all but one particular translation. BTW, Ehud, can you tell us which KJV is the perfect one?

 

God's word is preserved in the original manuscripts....period....We may reliable records passed along, but nowhere are we told that succeeding copies will be the "preserved" Bible.

The Bible, as we know it, wasn't even one book. It was a collection of manuscripts compiled into one book, by men, who thought it was the right thing to do for the benefit of the church and all posterity.

Cheers,

Jim

 

"Due to where we get the KJB" does not justify exclusive KJV-only claims since there are other translations including other translations in English that are based on the same original language texts.

The 1560 Geneva Bible was based on the same original language texts as the KJV, and it is available today in an original spelling 1560 edition or in a modern spelling 1599 edition. There are English translations after 1611 that were based on the same original language texts as the KJV.

 

The outcome is overuling your antithesis.

 

Salamandar, are you admitting that the KJV is not the only English translation made from the preserved Scriptures in the original languages? Are you admitting that "due to where we get the KJV" is not a valid basis for a KJV-only view?