Update on "Why I am KJVO" 7/20/01

Grady is a known purveyor of bunk. His main purpose is selling boox, truth be dipped.

Have you ever stopped to consider there's NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO? That's a problem few KJVOs will admit, and one they cannot get around.

Have you ever stopped to consider the KJV DOES have errors such as "the love of money is *THE* root of *ALL* evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10? And we've recently discussed the error of "Easter" in Acts 12:4. Rather than repeat those discussions ad nauseum, lemme refer you to the archives of this board.

And men didn't die for the KJV...the AV translators worked under the auspices of the KING OF ENGLAND, not exactly a weak ruler incapable of protecting them. But earlier translators such as Wycliffe and Coverdale worked at peril of their lives, while Tyndale and Rogers DID give their lives for the Bible in English.

KJVO is simply untrue.

 

What about those of us who do not speak English? Does that mean that my Spanish Bible is not the Word of God since God only preserved through the KJV translators. BTW when I preach in English I use the KJV (which I love).

 

First off, no translation is perfect. It is impossible to completely translate every nuance of meaning from one language to another. We can get the gist of it, and we can, through in-depth study, pick up the rest most of the time. Sometimes the meaning will still elude us because we are fallible beings.

Secondly, the vast majority of the Bible is not in question. No one is trying to undermine our confidence in the text. However, there are instances in which the manuscripts have significant differences. In those instances, we must attempt to figure out which one is correct. Yes, we can make errors in this regard, but that is our fault, not God's. When a text is not in question, we can consider it to be an accurate reflection of the autographs, and, as such, we can trust it fully.

Thirdly, I'm not willing to operate under your assumptions because I find the thought offensive that God would leave the vast majority of his children without a "perfect" translation until 1611 (and then only for English speakers), if it were his intention to provide a perfect translation. For me, I simply say that if God were so concerned about the preservation of the texts, why did he wait until 1611 when he could have simply preserved the autographs?

 

//Any way, the fact that the KJV translators chary picked from the available TR and added "God forbid" created a bit of a problem for me. Either there is no word of God for us today and all we have are errant translations of errant copies OR God did preserve his word through the KJV Translators.//

Logical error detect.
These are NOT the only two choices.
Such a logical error is called:
"False Dichotomy"

'Dicho-' is a Greek prefix meaning 'two'.
'-tomy' is a Greek suffix meaning 'to cut'.
So 'dichotomy means 'to cut into two parts'.

When one's logic comes to such a
false dichotomy, one need to inspect one's
Axiom. You have a false axiom in your
set of 'obvious truths'.

Here is my Axiom:

God Has Preserved His inerrant and
perfect Written Word in multiple versions, translations,
and editions.

I suggest your error Axiom is
"God has preserved His inerrant
and perfect Written Word in one and
only one translation, version, and edition."

If you like, I'd be glad to share about a
dozen of my writings were the KJV1769
Edition has a word that is misunderstood
leading to (sometimes humorous,sometimes
minor) doctrinal errors. This is NOT due to the fact that
there are Modern Versions, but due to the
fact that words in the same language have
different meanings in 1769 than they
do in 1920 (when the current 'Fundamentals
of Christianity' /also known as 'Fundamentalism'/
were denoted in writing.

BTW, I do consider hyper-KJVOism to be a
Liberal theology steeped with modernism

 

You mention the TR.. but what about the Masoretic text...the text underlying the KJV OT....

What are you going to do with the fact that Jesus didn't read from it?
He used another version... probably the LXX

So are you going to use a version Jesus didn't use?

 

1) I trust that the text in front of me is correct unless there is textual evidence to the contrary. My faith is not contingent on a perfect translation but a perfect God.

2) Regarding immersion, the meaning of baptizo itself indicates immersion. Even the Roman Catholic church admits this, but they believe that the Church has the authority to allow other methods. In addition, I am aware of no textual variants that would cause me to wonder about the baptismal texts.

Your argument essentially says that if there is any doubt about the textual validity of any one rendering in the Bible, then you can't trust any of it. I find that notion unacceptable. If I found an old Bible with some missing pages, I might not be able to tell you what the missing pages say, but I'd certainly be able to tell you about the rest. When the text is clear, I have 100% confidence in it. When the text is unclear, we must remain diligent to try to determine what is the best reading.

Despite what some KJVO polemic states, the use of textual criticism simply does not affect doctrine. It is not as if I am wondering about whether or not Jesus is the Son of God. That is abundantly clear. And the whole of scripture declares that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, no matter one's opinion on the textual issues of 1 John 5:7.

 

I also believe in the Baptist Distinctive Doctrine:

The Competency of the Believer.

I conducted
a poll that proves by the folks in
this Versions Forum of the BB (Baptist Board) that:

A group of similar minded people can agree
on what is and what is not an inerrant Bible.

Here are some versions rejected:

1. New World Translation (so called SDA Bible)
2. The Message

Here are some versions accepted:

1. KJV1769
2. KJV1611
3. NIV
4. nKJV
5. HCSB

BTW, both the nKJV and the HCSB are based
on the Majority Texts NOT the Critical Texts.
This despite both versions being damned along
with the NIV, ASB, etc. as being based on modern
Greek Texts -- in fact, there is a difference.
Said difference is frequently avoided by
"Black & White"-ists who throw out the the nKJV
and HCSB baby along with the NIV & other
MV bathwater.

My other Axiom:

If there seems to be a discrepancy between two
translations or within one translation - God
DID NOT make a mistake.

Coming from that Axiom is this truth:

Chances are the
preceiver of the discrepancy has made a mistake
and it should and (by the Doctrine of Soul
Compentcy) will correct the error.

The purpose of this Versions Forum is
NOT to damn the Bible of others. The purpose
of this Versions is for Baptist Christians to compare
understandings so that each Competent Baptist
can figure out what the real meanings of any
particular scripture might me.

I also note it a lot more likely that with good translations
like the KJVs made from the TRs,
it is more likely that a misunderstanding of the
(for example) 18th Century /1701-1800/ meaning
of a word has been made than that a translator error
has been made.

 

The NWT is not the SDA Bible. It is the Jehovah's Witnesses' "translation."

 

Nobody before you promoted me to a high exhaulted position
over my humble Axiom.
I suppose there is a first time for everything? Since I retired
I think it wouldn't be wise for me to get a big head as I
can't afford new, larger hats for each season.

 

You are correct. My bad. I should have looked inside my book.

BTW, Bro. StefanM, I really don't appreciate people who quote
the NIV without having a copy of it. Some people damn
the NIV so bad they won't touch one. But they fail to properly
quote the book they get the alleged NIV.

BTW, God requires me to check every scripture I read on
Bulletin Boards (bbs) in the original book. So it helps if
people who quote the Bible cite which Bible they got
it from. Thank you for your help.

 

Greetings Larry,

Since you have taken this new position on secondary preservation, could you explain to me if God preserved I John 5v12 perfectly in 1611 or some later edition of the King James?

1611 - Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life.

Later editions - He that hath the Son hath life: and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

Which version of the verse is the perfectly preserved word of God?

 

Larry:So you would agree with: "there is no word of God for us today and all we have are errant translations of errant copies " ?

No; I agree with "no translation of God's word is 100% perfect; all are God's perfect word translated by imperfect men" & "variety of translations is profitable for the Finding Out of the Sense of the Scriptures".

"And men didn't die for the KJV...the AV translators worked under the auspices of the KING OF ENGLAND, not exactly a weak ruler incapable of protecting them. But earlier translators such as Wycliffe and Coverdale worked at peril of their lives, while Tyndale and Rogers DID give their lives for the Bible in English."

Are you sure about that?

As sure as one can be, for one who wasn't there at the time. The story of the making of the KJV, as well as that of the martyrdom of some previous English Bible translators is well-known.


PS: I hold no allegiance to Grady. I do my best to follow the truth where it takes me.

Well, it aint to be found in GRADY'S hooey.


PPS: It's bad form to accuse someone of being a purveyor of bunk and not offer proof. I suppose you do have proof and have confronted him on it?

I've taken time to read his book & watch a coupla videos, in order to "know thy enemy". How about YOU? His book, and his lectures speak for themselves about bunk and false dichotomy.

I can give you one brief example of grady's bunk, which I hope you've noticed in his materials...he fefers to us freedom readers as "Nicolaitans". This shows he doesn't even know what a nic is...quite a gross error for a "learned" man!

If you place your trust in such a man for "knowledge", you're heading for a real problem!

 

I mentioned two very obvious errors: "Easter" in Acts 12;4, & "the love of money is *THE* root of *ALL* evil" in 1 tim. 6:10. How many goofs does it take for something to not be "error-free"?

 

I don´t understand Larry. You said that God prserved His Word through the KJV translators and then you also say that God prserved His Word in Spanish. So are you admitting that there really is more than one translation in which God prserved His Word?

If so, why can not more than one English translation be the preserved Word of God?

And to answer your question. My Spanish Bible does not say "a virgin shall concieve and bear a Son." But rather "He aquí la virgen concebirá, y dará a luz un Hijo... Its Spanish not English. (OK sarcasm is done now.:smilewinkgrin: :saint: )

In all seriousness it says the same thing.