What use is an English Bible Version for those who can't read English?

The Ruckman group and the Gipp group believe that, but other group defending the KJV disagrees with them.

 

"I believe that the King James Bible has been preserved in the English language word-for-word. I have to believe that. I must have the words of God..."

Yak yak yak... that's what this is all about alright.

 

Both -- of KJV and of KJV onlyism. I read their books negating the KJV and the KJV onlyists.

 

This is patently false regarding both. James White is a colleague and I won't stand for false witness to be borne of him. Anyone who has read his books knows better. He uses the KJV when witnessing to KJVOs and Mormons.

Either prove these outlandish claims with hard evidence or apologize for lying.

 

For English-speaking people, the KJV is the preserved Word of God. For French-speaking people, the Olivetan Bible is the preserved Word of God, and so on.

 

Askjo writes:
>>For English-speaking people, the KJV is the preserved Word of God.

This statement is absolutely false.

Until you can do what nobody else has done thus far, and prove with Scripture that KJV-Onlyism is sound Biblical doctrine, I maintain that this statement is not Scriptural.

 

Askjo writes:
>>Both -- of KJV and of KJV onlyism. I read their
>>books negating the KJV and the KJV onlyists.

Once again, this statement is not true. You have made the accusation - the burden of proof lies with you. TomVols is right: supply the evidence or make a public apology.

 

Show us in either of these where the Word, by its own words, is The Word.. Your words are incompetent in this matter.

And the Olivetan Bible is accounted as the "basis" for the Geneva Bible, which [the King James] Bible replaced. So you're saying the same basis for the Word was replaced by the Word, or was one of these Words not the Word to begin with?

[edited to remove derisive remark about a Bible version]

[ May 28, 2003, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]

 

So what is the preserved Word of God for those bilingual in French and English? Both of the above? If so, how are they to reconcile cases of verbal incongruance?

Haruo

 

This is patently false regarding both. James White is a colleague and I won't stand for false witness to be borne of him. Anyone who has read his books knows better. He uses the KJV when witnessing to KJVOs and Mormons.

Either prove these outlandish claims with hard evidence or apologize for lying. </font>[/QUOTE]Get an excellent book, "Foes of the King James Bible Refuted" by Dr. D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D.

 

No, I do not accuse or lie because you or TomVols are not on the side where I stand. You are on other side where I do not stand. Both oppose each other. What are these sides?

 

So what is the preserved Word of God for those bilingual in French and English? Both of the above? If so, how are they to reconcile cases of verbal incongruance?

Haruo </font>[/QUOTE]French is NOT English! ASL is NOT English! If I speak French without knowing English, do you require me to read the *English* KJV?

 

No. A thousand times no. King James Only (at least in my definition) applies to English translations only. In other words, we reject all modern versions from 1881 to present. These we believe have been polluted by the Westcott and Hort textual theory.

 

If asserting that the KJV is the preserved Word of God for English-speaking people is an unscriptural statement then you should be able to show scriptural proof that the assertion is unscriptural.

In other words, please prove (by using scripture alone) that the KJV is not the preserved Word of God for English-speaking people!

 

That makes no sense. In other words, translating the Bible to Swahili in 2003 is perfectly appropriate, but translating it into English in 2003 is not? There's no biblical support for this belief whatsoever.

 

In other words, please prove (by using scripture alone) that the KJV is not the preserved Word of God for English-speaking people!

In other words, KJVO's can make an assertion without proving it, but non-KJVO's don't? If KJVO's make the assertion, then they need to back it up with scripture. But they can't.

 

Pioneer writes:
&gt;&gt;If asserting that the KJV is the preserved Word
&gt;&gt;of God for English-speaking people is an
&gt;&gt;unscriptural statement then you should be able
&gt;&gt;to show scriptural proof that the assertion is
&gt;&gt;unscriptural.

Let me try this again:
There is NO SCRIPTURAL PROOF that supports the assertion that King James Onlyism is the only source for the Word of God. In other words, there is NO BIBLICAL PASSAGE that supports this as sound Biblical doctrine.

The proponents of KJV-Onlyism have condemned all other translations of the Word of God, yet can never give any Scriptural basis for their accusations. If it cannot be proven with any Biblical Passage, then the belief is unscriptural.

Until anyone furnishes any Scripture that supports the argument, then the case has not made a case for KJV-Onlyism.

 

Askjo writes:
&gt;&gt;No, I do not accuse or lie because you or
&gt;&gt;TomVols are not on the side where I stand. You
&gt;&gt;are on other side where I do not stand. Both
&gt;&gt;oppose each other. What are these sides?

I cannot believe you actually said this. You have just said that you are not lying because TomVols and I "are not on the side" where you stand. You are stating that a lie is not a lie if one believes it to be true.

 

What do you do if an "accurate" Bible translation in French or German or Spanish disagrees with the
"accurate" KJV? How do you decide which one is "most accurate?" </font>[/QUOTE]To negate concerning many *accurate* foreign Bibles and the KJV is not necessary because God provided His preserved Words in all foreign Bible translations. </font>[/QUOTE]You are missing my point. What do you do if "God's preserved word in English" disagrees with "God's preserved word in Spanish?" For example, Mk. 1:2 in the KJV reads,

"As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee." (Mk. 1:2, KJV)

Yet the same verse in the Spanish Riena-Valera, considered by some to be "God's preserved word in Spanish," reads,

"Como está escrito EN ISAIAS EL PROFETA: He aquí yo envío á mi mensajero delante de tu faz, Que apareje tu camino delante de ti." (Mk. 1:2, Reina-Valera)

So the "preserved word of God" in English reads, "in the prophets," while the "preserved word of God" in Spanish reads, "in Isaiah the prophet." Which of these two different "preserved words of God" is correct? And how do you know this?

[ May 29, 2003, 07:39 AM: Message edited by: Archangel7 ]