I'll expound more on this later because it will take a while to type it out but the allegation that the KJVO issue can be traced to Wilkinson is a load of crap. Dean John Burgon refuted Westcott and Hort before Wilkinson was a tick on a dogs ear, and Wilkonson repeated what Frank Nolin wrote in a book called Inquiry Into the 7 Integrity of the Greek Vulgate in 1815.
Since folks associate KJVO with a Seventh Day Adventist, when the evidence is clear that the KJVO issue existed long before Wilkinson was alive, then I guess we can equate all modern version users to Jehovah's Witnesses since the text for their New World Translation is based on the Westcott & Hort text. We can also label them Unitarians since many of them also used the 1885 version of Westcott & Horts Revised Version.
And what about the KJV critics here that are merely repeating DA Carson, James White, Doug Kutilek and James Price? The first major publication against the KJVO didn't come out until late 70s, so can we conclude that since the KJVO is older than the opposition to it, that the KJVO wins by default! And those who are quoting anti-KJVO sources from other anti-KJVOists that merely copied other anti-KJVOists, that they are just as guilty of what they accuse KJVOists of?
I have Ruckman's Manuscript Evidence, and J.J. Rays books right in front of me, and Wilkinson's on the shelf. In Manuscript Evidence, there are 10 chapters with an appendix of notes starting on page 190-239. There are about 100 references per chapter, and I have yet to see one single quote from Wilkinson.
And when they say "we don't accept scholars" what they mean is that only someone who corrects the KJV is a proper "scholar". Nevermind that Bible critics like Custer are from the same university as Ruckman (BJU) but yet one is a "real scholar" and the other is not simply because one holds to the KJV.
I'll be back later to deal with this non-sense.
Trying To Understand KJVOnlyism
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by preacher4truth, Jun 4, 2013.
Page 2 of 7
-
-
Using not only Burgon's first name but also his title "dean"
vs.
Westcott and Hort (no names or titles)
Just sayin' -
Hello Greg,
Robycop brought evidence, and you claim you have as well. Where is it, I see nothing from you Greg? I really think you believe you've brought evidence, I really do, but it is not there brother.
Bro, I don't buy that you've searched out KJVOnlyism for some 30 years fairly. I can't and will tell you why. Well, it is for a simple reason. You yourself have shown that you will only listen to preachers of your ilk, and despise most if not all other types, up to and including ANY Calvinist pastor. This is a well known KJVO standard - separation done wrongly. This is you and how you've described yourself in another thread, something that is known about you, all others to be rejected who are not of your group, they're perceived a threat. But this only proves my point in the OP -- and is an Ruckman like stand and attitude, dismiss, avoid all others, see them as a threat to truth and discredit them.
With these facts I highly doubt you've combed the waves for 30 years in search of truth on both sides of the issue. It's more like you've accepted this issue of KJVO for 30 years and you avoid any who prove it to be a fallacy. In being in this camp many are to be avoided and this you do by your own words.
I will say this though, you are missing out on 30 some years of truth and blessings from others not in your camp that you seem to despise. Your growth in knowledge I believe has been hindered by so doing. There is much blessedness in the works of some that are allegedly and shamefully thought of by this camp as one's to be avoided. You're missing out brother Greg.
Now to your belief that the KJV is perfect and without error. You are most incorrect kind sir. It has some erroneous interpretations which can be proven. This shouldn't diminish your faith in God at all. Men make errors, and God doesn't. The originals were inspired. The KJV is not God breathed therefore it is not perfect. But thank God we still have very accurate translations today. Have you read books that show this, or, do you use the 'Double Inspiration' and 'advanced revelations' argument to hide from this well known fact?
That said, I do highly value the KJV and have used it for years. This doesn't mean I worship it and defend it with myths of perfection and with the false apologetics of KJVOnlyism. So your usage of disliking archaic terms as some sort of proof falls short Greg. I've never complained about it, and I never brought it up so you're fighting within straw man parameters only and would believe somehow you've proven the KJVO in it?
Onto your other points:
That I don't want to understand it. Incorrect. Why bring a false accusation Greg? Is this an attempt to destroy my credibility? Grant others that don't hold to your position the benefit of doubt in their motives. And I do understand it at this point -- that is that there is no proof for the KJVO stance on their Bible. Frankly the points I've seen thus far are sensationalistic myths from Ruckman with no proof or evidence from you.
That I want to draw man away from faith in the Bible. Incorrect Greg. This emotionalistic card is classically used by KJVO's. It is an unfounded accusation used to dismiss the person. Ruckman used similar tactics -- he had to, he had to destroy the credibilty of persons in order to look bullet proof. In my defense of this accusation there is not one thing I've said that takes away faith in Scripture. In your 30 some years nothing should shake your faith in that way.
That this argument is pointless &c Really? If that is true then it is also pointless to promote and write books, give seminars, preach anything that is supporting and propagating KJVOnlyism. Now that is something to ponder.
Now, can we then stick to the facts and leave out your maneuvers of sensationalism, emotionalism, dismissals and attempts to discredit &c and actually talk about real facts that prove your stance? That is the intention of the OP. Instead of going in that direction you've simply attempted to dismiss and discredit me.
Lastly, and to reiterate, you haven't brought one thing to the table to prove KJVOnlyism. With some 30 years of experience and research that you've touted there is still absolutely nothing but your own arbitrary thoughts. You should really think that over -- 30 years and you have nothing to show for it in proving your belief system.
I'm still waiting. This is why I've made this thread so I can see the evidence from the experts, and if you're 30 years in you're an expert and yet haven't offered anything substantial to prove your belief system that the KJV is perfect &c.
- Blessings -
they KNOW the Kjv itself has some mistakes in it, and that differing editions have varying renderings, but they redefine what"perfect" means! -
Oh Well....
P4T....I never claimed to be any kind of a scholar or expert on any of this and won't claim so now. I am merely a Bible Believer who knows which Bible is the right Bible. My beliefs today are the result of what I have read and accepted as true over the course of those 30+ years I mentioned. I don't profess to be smart enough nor "educated" enough to impress or convince yourself or anybody else about anything. Some HERE would consider me to be an ignorant redneck. I really don't care cause I'm not trying to impress anybody. I have a good library and I read a lot but that doesn't make me qualified to be a good debater or apologist on this issue or any other for that matter. I don't have a good very memory nor do I retain tons of facts or huge amounts of information very well in my mind as some here seem to....so...you and others here can and will probably discount anything I might say in support of the positions I take. But know this...I am not intimidated by the air of superiority that seems to exude from many here. I will readily admit that there are many others who are far better qualified and equipped to "fight the fight" than I. Also.. I am a two-finger typist and it literally takes me hours to sit and deliver some of the responses that I do make on here. I enjoy it but it is tiring.
Lastly....and then I'm gonna shut up (I bet you'll be happy about that)...I know I can't prove anything to you or anybody else here. The biggest reason I see is that you are already FIRMLY convinced that you are right and we are wrong. I don't have the credentials or the time to devote to prove you wrong. I admit that. I will however, continue to believe what I do because I have a high regard for the credentials and work of the sources (which I listed in my post) that I have followed after over the years. Your "side" insists that my Bible contains mistakes. I don't believe that. Case closed. At least for me. Have a nice day! Blessings to you too!
Bro.Greg:saint: -
Thank You...
I appreciate your presence here. I wish I was better equipped to defend the truth but at my age I'll probably never be able to learn enough to be of much use given the constraints of time. My prime pursuit now is just trying to get close to the Lord and make sure I don't waste the time I have left here like I did earlier in life. That is a big enough job all by itself.
Bro.Greg:saint: -
Gregory Perry Sr:
-
Gregory Perry Sr. said: ↑P4T....I never claimed to be any kind of a scholar or expert on any of this and won't claim so now. I am merely a Bible Believer who knows which Bible is the right Bible. My beliefs today are the result of what I have read and accepted as true over the course of those 30+ years I mentioned. I don't profess to be smart enough nor "educated" enough to impress or convince yourself or anybody else about anything. Some HERE would consider me to be an ignorant redneck. I really don't care cause I'm not trying to impress anybody. I have a good library and I read a lot but that doesn't make me qualified to be a good debater or apologist on this issue or any other for that matter. I don't have a good very memory nor do I retain tons of facts or huge amounts of information very well in my mind as some here seem to....so...you and others here can and will probably discount anything I might say in support of the positions I take. But know this...I am not intimidated by the air of superiority that seems to exude from many here. I will readily admit that there are many others who are far better qualified and equipped to "fight the fight" than I. Also.. I am a two-finger typist and it literally takes me hours to sit and deliver some of the responses that I do make on here. I enjoy it but it is tiring.
Lastly....and then I'm gonna shut up (I bet you'll be happy about that)...I know I can't prove anything to you or anybody else here. The biggest reason I see is that you are already FIRMLY convinced that you are right and we are wrong. I don't have the credentials or the time to devote to prove you wrong. I admit that. I will however, continue to believe what I do because I have a high regard for the credentials and work of the sources (which I listed in my post) that I have followed after over the years. Your "side" insists that my Bible contains mistakes. I don't believe that. Case closed. At least for me. Have a nice day! Blessings to you too!
Bro.Greg:saint:Click to expand...
Yes, my side gives evidence of the KJV having translational mistakes. This is a fact.
Bro, after that much time, you don't need 'debating skills' all you would need after that vast period of time is the ability to offer some solid evidence, quotes, proofs &c. Yet after all this time you can offer none of this whatsoever.
The thing that happens instead is a dismissal and discrediting of opponents as 'proof'.
At the same time, you in essence blame me, that 'I can debate' and you 'cannot debate' and on this premise you bow out.
I believe it is rather this; that you believe in KJVO against reason, and after many years you still cannot provide proof for your system of belief. You don't need debating skills -- you simply need solid evidence and this you cannot provide and at the same time you should be able to after more than 3 decades of studying both sides.
Furthermore, the 1611 contained apocryphal works. Since they (the translators) were under 'DI' then these too must be inspired, yet they are rejected.
The 1611 also contained marginal notes, i.e. "other mss say...." so they did not know, they were only translating, and yet the KJVO camp ridicules other versions for stating the same things, yet all is acceptable if in the KJV. That's a double standard my friend.
Also, there have been revisions of the 1611 since, thus the original 1611 failed in areas, therefore 'DI' shows it was not inspired as corrections needed to be made, and proves 'The 1611' is not the standard nor does it fall under 'DI'.
I still await evidence, and welcome it. Your accusations and discrediting of me (and others) remain unaddressed, therefore I take it you still adhere to no evidence, and at the same time you cannot make an objective answer or proof for your theories.
So far there is no evidence given by you or any other to support KJVO. There is also no answer from you on my many points.
So, do you believe in 'double inspiration' and 'advanced revelation' and use these as your proof or not?
- Blessings -
Dr. James Achs:
I'll expound more on this later because it will take a while to type it out but the allegation that the KJVO issue can be traced to Wilkinson is a load of crap.Click to expand...
And I've often stated, "the CURRENT KJVO myth". You've never chimed in about that.
The evidence is right in those three boox.
Now, there were also remarks made here-n-there prior to 1930 pointing out goofs in the KJV, but the main seemingly-pro-KJV(not "KJVO") stuff bhefore then were attacks against the British RV, completed in 1885, and, by all admissions, is a rather groddy version. That's the version Burgon assailed, and with good reason. The current KJVO myth began after some newer versions were made, with opportunist authors such as Ray and Fuller using Wilkinson's book, which was written in response to a squabble within his cult.
Dean John Burgon refuted Westcott and Hort before Wilkinson was a tick on a dogs ear, and Wilkonson repeated what Frank Nolin wrote in a book called Inquiry Into the 7 Integrity of the Greek Vulgate in 1815.Click to expand...
Since folks associate KJVO with a Seventh Day Adventist, when the evidence is clear that the KJVO issue existed long before Wilkinson was alive, then I guess we can equate all modern version users to Jehovah's Witnesses since the text for their New World Translation is based on the Westcott & Hort text. We can also label them Unitarians since many of them also used the 1885 version of Westcott & Horts Revised Version.Click to expand...
And what about the KJV critics here that are merely repeating DA Carson, James White, Doug Kutilek and James Price? The first major publication against the KJVO didn't come out until late 70s, so can we conclude that since the KJVO is older than the opposition to it, that the KJVO wins by default! And those who are quoting anti-KJVO sources from other anti-KJVOists that merely copied other anti-KJVOists, that they are just as guilty of what they accuse KJVOists of?Click to expand...
1.) Wilkinson was clearly a SDA official.
2.) Many of Wilkinson's points are simply false, an example being the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie".
3.) Ray's plagiarism of Wilkinson, without acknowledging W whatsoever, even if it was 100% legal, is a matter of FACT, and was still DISHONEST.
4.) While Fuller acknowledged W and Ray, he was careful to avoid mentioning W's cult affiliation. How DISHONEST was that?
5.) There's simply NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO! And YOU have the burden of proof to establish the veracity of your doctrine.
I have Ruckman's Manuscript Evidence, and J.J. Rays books right in front of me, and Wilkinson's on the shelf. In Manuscript Evidence, there are 10 chapters with an appendix of notes starting on page 190-239. There are about 100 references per chapter, and I have yet to see one single quote from Wilkinson.Click to expand...
And when they say "we don't accept scholars" what they mean is that only someone who corrects the KJV is a proper "scholar". Nevermind that Bible critics like Custer are from the same university as Ruckman (BJU) but yet one is a "real scholar" and the other is not simply because one holds to the KJV.Click to expand...
I'll be back later to deal with this non-sense.Click to expand... -
Baptist4life Well-Known MemberSite Supporterrobycop3 said: ↑......KJVO is nonsense.Click to expand...
-
Just Plain Honest...
Bro. Roby...I will be honest with you. You have the talent of making me ANGRY and knowing how to "push all my buttons". It has been my practice to avoid people who do that because I know it is just not possible for ANYBODY to get along with everybody. I already know that I don't have the knowledge or the patience to answer your assaults on my position and frankly I'm not going to try. The best I can say, and it won't change anybody or anything, is that I disagree with your position. You and I both equally think the other has been deceived. I already spoke to the issue of my lack of qualifications and knowledge in my posts to DrJamesAch and P4T. I'm not going to engage in further argument with you because there is no point in it. There is nothing I can say that will make any difference to you. I am tired and angry and sick of you calling my belief a myth and whatever other names you have called it. Over the years, there has been much evidence presented (here on the BB and elsewhere) in support of the belief that the KJV (and the TR from which it came) is the very Bible that God intended for the end-times church to use and much historical, documented spiritual fruit to support that contention. There has also been much evidence presented to support the contention that the CT(and the MV's that resulted from it) have been corrupted and should be avoided. I believe that with all my heart but I can't prove it to you or anyone else. I haven't always believed that but I do now. For the record, I believe Dr.JamesAch gave a perfectly adequate response to your comments about Dr.Wilkinson's book. You go right ahead and enjoy your air of superiority over me. It is obvious that by your use of the title "Mr." instead of "Bro.",you probably don't even think I am saved. So be it....some days I look in the mirror and think incredulously, how in the world could I possibly be. I'm gonna pray for the grace to forgive you....and ignore you. I'll be so glad to hear the sound of a trumpet someday...hopefully soon.
Bro.Greg:saint: -
GPS,you obviously believe that God caused the KJV to be the biggest selling translation in any language for so long. Do you also believe that God caused the NIV to be the most popular translation in any language for the past several decades?
-
Gregory Perry Sr. said: ↑Bro. Roby...I will be honest with you. You have the talent of making me ANGRY and knowing how to "push all my buttons". It has been my practice to avoid people who do that because I know it is just not possible for ANYBODY to get along with everybody. I already know that I don't have the knowledge or the patience to answer your assaults on my position and frankly I'm not going to try. The best I can say, and it won't change anybody or anything, is that I disagree with your position. You and I both equally think the other has been deceived. I already spoke to the issue of my lack of qualifications and knowledge in my posts to DrJamesAch and P4T. I'm not going to engage in further argument with you because there is no point in it. There is nothing I can say that will make any difference to you. I am tired and angry and sick of you calling my belief a myth and whatever other names you have called it. Over the years, there has been much evidence presented (here on the BB and elsewhere) in support of the belief that the KJV (and the TR from which it came) is the very Bible that God intended for the end-times church to use and much historical, documented spiritual fruit to support that contention. There has also been much evidence presented to support the contention that the CT(and the MV's that resulted from it) have been corrupted and should be avoided. I believe that with all my heart but I can't prove it to you or anyone else. I haven't always believed that but I do now. For the record, I believe Dr.JamesAch gave a perfectly adequate response to your comments about Dr.Wilkinson's book. You go right ahead and enjoy your air of superiority over me. It is obvious that by your use of the title "Mr." instead of "Bro.",you probably don't even think I am saved. So be it....some days I look in the mirror and think incredulously, how in the world could I possibly be. I'm gonna pray for the grace to forgive you....and ignore you. I'll be so glad to hear the sound of a trumpet someday...hopefully soon.
Bro.Greg:saint:Click to expand...
That and you are angry? Why? Because you cannot answer after all this time of looking at allegedly both sides. You should be GLAD to answer, yet you have not. You've had more than ample time to provide an apologetic.
In due respect, you should have an answer, and yet you do not. :tear:
You're proving exactly what I am getting at in all you say. Your rejection of anyone who disagrees with your premise is solemnly sad. More of the same: discredit all opponents.
- Blessings -
Baptist4life said: ↑So is your belief that "God created another whole race of people" without ONE BIT of Biblical support. Scripture states that Eve is "the mother of all living", but you just throw that out and make up your own stories. Cain married a sister or, since people lived hundreds of years then, a distance relative. Please enlighten the members of this forum as to your beliefs about Cain's wife. Come on, roby, tell them how you believe God created another race of people APART from Adam and Eve. Tell them how you believe Asians, blacks, Caucasians etc., came from another DIFFERENT creation of God! Or are you ashamed to admit what you believe? I guarantee it'll open some eyes and also expose your hypocrisy when calling out KJVO for not having any Scripture for that belief, when YOU have an even more, frankly DISTURBING, belief about God and His creation! As I, and others have stated on various forums all over the internet, you are considered a "nut" by most people, and best ignored.Click to expand...
-
Gregory Perry, Sr:
I never claimed to be any kind of a scholar or expert on any of this and won't claim so now.Click to expand...
I am merely a Bible Believer who knows which Bible is the right Bible.Click to expand...
My beliefs today are the result of what I have read and accepted as true over the course of those 30+ years I mentioned.Click to expand...
I don't profess to be smart enough nor "educated" enough to impress or convince yourself or anybody else about anything.Click to expand...
Some HERE would consider me to be an ignorant redneck.Click to expand...
I really don't care cause I'm not trying to impress anybody.Click to expand...
I have a good library and I read a lot but that doesn't make me qualified to be a good debater or apologist on this issue or any other for that matter. I don't have a good very memory nor do I retain tons of facts or huge amounts of information very well in my mind as some here seem to....so...Click to expand...
you and others here can and will probably discount anything I might say in support of the positions I take.Click to expand...
But know this...I am not intimidated by the air of superiority that seems to exude from many here. I will readily admit that there are many others who are far better qualified and equipped to "fight the fight" than I. Also.. I am a two-finger typist and it literally takes me hours to sit and deliver some of the responses that I do make on here. I enjoy it but it is tiring.Click to expand...
Lastly....and then I'm gonna shut up (I bet you'll be happy about that)Click to expand...
...I know I can't prove anything to you or anybody else here.Click to expand...
The biggest reason I see is that you are already FIRMLY convinced that you are right and we are wrong.Click to expand...
I don't have the credentials or the time to devote to prove you wrong.Click to expand...
I admit that. I will however, continue to believe what I do because I have a high regard for the credentials and work of the sources (which I listed in my post) that I have followed after over the years.Click to expand...
Your "side" insists that my Bible contains mistakes. I don't believe that. Case closed. At least for me. Have a nice day! Blessings to you too!Click to expand...
As I've said oft-times, Mr. Perry, one can use only the KJV without wearing that dead, stinky bird of the KJVO myth around one's neck! While the KJV may be YOUR fave version, it is NOT the ONLY valid English Bible translation out there! Whe idea that it is, is nothing but man-made codwallop, without one quark of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT. Time to actually investigate the EVIDENCE(not rumor or innuendo) for yourself! -
A few passing comments.....
preacher4truth;1992787]I see. After 30 plus years of study you are bowing out. You've not 'listed in your post' anything from any sources. That's false information and is not seen in any of your posts. All of what you've said is arbitrary.Click to expand...
At the same time, you in essence blame me, that 'I can debate' and you 'cannot debate' and on this premise you bow out.Click to expand...
So, do you believe in 'double inspiration' and 'advanced revelation' and use these as your proof or not?Click to expand...
Blessings Yourself
Bro.Greg:saint: -
Gregory Perry, Sr:
Bro. Roby...I will be honest with you. You have the talent of making me ANGRY and knowing how to "push all my buttons".Click to expand...
It has been my practice to avoid people who do that because I know it is just not possible for ANYBODY to get along with everybody. I already know that I don't have the knowledge or the patience to answer your assaults on my position and frankly I'm not going to try.Click to expand...
The best I can say, and it won't change anybody or anything, is that I disagree with your position.Click to expand...
You and I both equally think the other has been deceived.Click to expand...
I already spoke to the issue of my lack of qualifications and knowledge in my posts to DrJamesAch and P4T.Click to expand...
I'm not going to engage in further argument with you because there is no point in it.Click to expand...
There is nothing I can say that will make any difference to you.Click to expand...
I am tired and angry and sick of you calling my belief a myth and whatever other names you have called it.Click to expand...
Over the years, there has been much evidence presented (here on the BB and elsewhere) in support of the belief that the KJV (and the TR from which it came) is the very Bible that God intended for the end-times church to use and much historical, documented spiritual fruit to support that contention.Click to expand...
There has also been much evidence presented to support the contention that the CT(and the MV's that resulted from it) have been corrupted and should be avoided.Click to expand...
There's only been the game of "MAH skoller kin whup YER skoller!"
I believe that with all my heart but I can't prove it to you or anyone else.Click to expand...
I haven't always believed that but I do now.Click to expand...
For the record, I believe Dr.JamesAch gave a perfectly adequate response to your comments about Dr.Wilkinson's book.Click to expand...
You go right ahead and enjoy your air of superiority over me.Click to expand...
It is obvious that by your use of the title "Mr." instead of "Bro.",you probably don't even think I am saved.Click to expand...
So be it....some days I look in the mirror and think incredulously, how in the world could I possibly be. I'm gonna pray for the grace to forgive you....and ignore you. I'll be so glad to hear the sound of a trumpet someday...hopefully soon.Click to expand...
But I won't be ignoring you...I'll support you when you're right, pray that you see the TRUTH, but every time you make a pro-KJVO post, I'll torpedo it, God Willing. -
Wow. Is this really what it all boils down to? 'I don't know anything, and can't prove my belief system, but the bottom line is that in my ignorance I am more spiritual than you, so thus I am right and you are wrong?'
Seriously?
The claim of being an ignorant redneck is at times in some camps worn as a badge of honor. That is a shame.
Anti-academia is to some a blessed state and is a state not supported by Scripture. Therefore this alleged ignorance is nothing but pure pride. We are called upon to study, read, and rightly handle the Word of truth. This doesn't include using lame subjective proof-texting nor arbitrary reason as an apologetic.
Yet anti-academia is used as an spiritual excuse to assault any person who is deemed 'one of study', on one who has become 'theologically accurate', and then applies to one who is considered 'of modern scholarship' or 'a person of fact' and is used to discredit them.
Try telling this to the puritans who spent much time in study and who gained great insight into the truth of the Word of God, and practiced after this humility of mind, holiness and awe before Him. They were way more spiritually advanced than we are today and spent countless time in study, prayer and in gaining knowledge of God. Read their works and see how academic, wise, and knowledgeable they were. It should and will shame many.
Adhering to fact is not the opposite of faith.
Christ rose from the dead: fact. Believers adhere to this fact. But discredit those who hold to fact and the opponent feels they've won as if they've proven faith is not in substance and in the person and testimony of God and His Word. Factual evidence is deemed not being of 'faith', and as being 'unspiritual'. Ignorance is counted as being 'spiritual' when in fact Paul rebuked the elect for this.
Humility and spirituality aren't acquired due to a lack of knowledge, but are acquired in quite the opposite fashion. Ignorance is acquired by lack of study and nothing else is gained. This type of 'spiritual ignorance' and pride for being such has given the lost world much ammunition against those of faith. True spirituality comes from the practicing of both prayer and serious study, by which the person is truly humbled before God.
I still await proof from the KJVO camp. One that has studied 30+ years should be more than capable of providing adequate proof for an held position.
- Blessings -
Gregory Perry Sr. said: ↑I didn't (specifically) post "true" or "false" information because I have neither the time nor the memorized information to adequately do justice to the subject.Click to expand...
However, what I DID LIST was the names of the authors,pastors, and teachers whom I have read or listed to in support of what I believe.Click to expand...
I did NOT list, but have read some of the works or quoted remarks of many of the KJVO detractors such as Kutileck, James White, Custer, Carson, Price and others over the years.Click to expand...
I believe what I believe about the KJV in the light of the work of those mentioned...and some others I have probably forgotten.Click to expand...
Doesn't change anything...but just sayin'. I'm actually not "bowing out" of anything....I'm just posting comments about this subject according to my own "rules"...not yours. I will try to always stay within the BB rules while here.Click to expand...
Just sayin'....I'm not a good debater.Click to expand...
But I do believe what I believe with a certain level of "passion" based on what I have read and/or learned over the years.Click to expand...
I maintain the right, as a member of the BB to post what I think here (within the scope of the Board rules) just like you, Roby, and anyone else.Click to expand...
No and No...I believe in divine Preservation that maintains the integrity and perfection of God's perfect Word.Click to expand...
I believe He has accomplished that even though the men and/or women He has used to do the work may or may not even realize the extent to which God used them. It is probably good that they weren't/aren't aware of God using them to the extent that He does lest they be lifted up with the most basic sin of man.....PRIDE.Click to expand...
OTOH, we know the KJVO myth is totally a MAN-MADE thingie, as proven by its absolute lack of Scriptural support as well as its falsehood.
Blessings Yourself
Bro.Greg:saint:[/QUOTE] -
Common Sense
Robo's rebuttal to what I said about Wilkinson was merely that "it is a fact" that it's true. Circular reasoning that merely attempts to reassert the original accusation with the evidence for the accusation being that he says so, and it's true because it's a fact, and it's a fact because he said so, and he said so because it's a "PROVEN" fact. Round and round the mulberry bush.
Here's some common sense. The KJV translators had the same manuscripts available to them that Westcott and Hort did (before W&H altered the Greek texts in almost 8000 places). The KJV translators rejected the majority of them. So obviously, the KJV translators did not believe that the same mss used to underlie the current versions were accurate or truthful.
Ironically, many of the KJV translators were Calvinists, but you'll never see a Calvinist admit that who tries to associate the KJV only issue with Wilkerson and the 7DA. Furthermore, the Calvinists here that oppose the KJV based on the erroneous assumption that ANY KJVO movement was based on Wilkerson completely ignore the fact that Calvinism is based on the plagiarism of Augustine, a devout Roman Catholic that persecuted his dissenters the same way Calvin did. So what some Calvinists do is attempt to distance themselves from Calvin by claiming they are "Reformed" or "DoGs". But yet when someone raises the issue and calls it simply "CALVINISM" the Reformers and Dogs, and SoGs alike all come running to the defense of Calvinism.
If they are not Calvinists, then why do they get so defensive when anyone posts a rebuttal to any Calvinist doctrine?
Furthermore, as stated before, they attempt to bootstrap KJVOers to the 7DA Wilkinson, but ignore the fact that for some reason, the Watchtower (Jehovah's Witnesses) chose to use the Westcott & Hort text instead of the TR. The JW "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" is that EXACT same 'bible' as the NIV, NASB, ESV with only their deliberate ENGLISH alterations providing any distinction (like the addition of the definite article in John 1:1 to read 'the word as A god', or change all the references of the cross to 'torture stake', etc..).
The texts were not opposed by anyone but CATHOLICS and nobody attempted to put out a revision until the late 1800s. The scholarship only crowd assumes that they know better than the 50 scholars who were experts in their field that actually had manuscripts available to them that scholars don't have today.
The cold hard truth is that these Bible agnostics don't believe we have the word of God in ANY version in ANY language let alone the KJV. They play smoke and mirrors by claiming they believe they have the word of God, but then they tell you "it's in the original" knowing full well there are no originals, and then have the nerve to call KJVOs "dishonest".
Common sense tells you that if God promised to preserve His word, it must be somewhere. If God said faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, the word of God, not a book that CONTAINS the word of God (like a dictionary) but THE word of God, must be around. If Paul said preach the WORD, then where is it? Can I read it? Can I memorize it?
KJVO critics would have us believe that thousand of manuscripts that alter verses, disagree with each other in places that alter fundamental doctrines of the Bible are ALL THE SAME. Common sense and the law of non contradiction tell you that things that are different are not the same.
Common sense tells you that when a KJVO critic spends their time slandering the KJV while in the same breath telling you it is just as "reliable" as their MV's, but they never give their MV's the same treatment as the KJV, you're dealing with a dishonest crook. They'll spend years telling you what's wrong with the KJV, but can't tell you what's right with their MV.
Common sense tells you that when a scholar or preachers says "a better translation would be" and then pulls out another version that he has nothing he can call a Bible, and can not honestly put any confidence in the one he's got.
Common sense tells you that when a person claims that the KJVOs merely repeated their positions from previous writings and claims that as evidence of dishonesty, and his evidence of those facts is based upon what HE HIMSELF REPEATED FROM KJVO CRITICS and then admits that he's no scholar, you are dealing with a dishonest person. The Bible itself has lasted through the centuries because other believers copied and repeated what the prior manuscripts said. Can you imagine an atheist using as an argument "The Bible is not valid because the manuscripts simply repeat what older church members said". That is such a crappy argument it really doesn't even deserve a response.
Common sense tells you that when a "bible" calls Jesus "the only begotten God seated next to the Father" NASB, or calls Jesus "the only God who is at the Father's side" ESV, which has Jesus as being a separate God from the Father, and yet it's based on the same Greek texts, something is not adding up with the argument that "all modern versions are the word of God".
Common sense tells you that when a "scholar" takes a rendering out of the Byzantine family, and reclassifies to the Alexandrian family to make it appear that that KJV rendering is a minority variant, you are dealing with a crook.
For example, Westcott and Hort altered the Aleph reading of Romans 8:1 to make it agree with the KJV, and then argued that the KJV rendering was from a later 12th century ms, as well as in the minority because took it away from the older readings and then made the reader think it was part of the "best manuscripts" and then included the clause they removed 3 verses later contradicting their own rules of translation.
Another example. Nestle/Alands commentary on Acts 8:37 once had a foot note that admitted to the validity of the last half of Acts 8:37, and then later removed the footnote and put the verse in brackets without any mention of any alleged new evidence that supported his decision to remove the footnote.
Common sense tells you when a man repeats what some other KJVO critic has said, and you have the books that he claims were plagiarized, and point out that he's obviously never even read the books that he claims were based on someone elses work, you are dealing with a dishonest critic.
The best critique the KJVO critics can offer are straw man arguments based on copiest errors from a printing press malfunction and punctuation and spelling issues that have nothing to do with the text, while they ignore thousands of deliberate alterations to the Greek texts by Catholic "scholars". They totally distort history and claim it is fact (and they even use large fonts and bold letters to prove it!!) that the KJVO started with Wilkinson which is mere speculation based on similar arguments for the KJV not because any KJVO author RELIED ON Wilkinson's work or ENDORSED HIS BELIEFS.
Common sense tells you that of course the KJVO debate is recent, because there wasn't any opposition to it until Westcott & Hort put out the RV in 1885. The small handful of dissenters prior to 1881 were PRO CATHOLIC.
Common sense tells you that if the apostles and prophets understood the texts that they had for thousands of years that were never altered, that to claim "we are ever discovering new evidences to help understand the ancient texts better" is not only a misleading argument, but one that only confuses the matter of biblical inerrancy and inspiration.
I am KJVO not only because I have studied the evidence and the history, but because I also have common sense.
Page 2 of 7