Where do you say the modern versions come from?

So simple is more important than "true"... Several Proverbs would seem to apply to one taking the "simple" rather than diligent way.

For the better part of a millenium faithful Catholics went to hell have no doubts or questions that what God wanted them to have was being given to them by "The Church".

This seems to be convenient evasion. I think it is one of you guys who likes to accuse us of emotionalism. Yet we have posted simple, straightforward, verifiable facts that contradict your claims and all you have yet to do is backslap one another.

If I am wrong, I invite you to reason with me and show me where. Show me if I am wrong about the Church of England persecuting our Baptist forebearers. Show me one shred of evidence as to why I should believe the KJV translators to be directly inspired in any sense that any faithful translator isn't.

 

The KJV only had about a dozen manuscripts to consider. The newer translations around 5000.

 

My faith both in the Bible translations I use and every doctrine I believe is derived from scripture. No variant can change the clear teachings of fundamental doctrines or especially the doctrine of the Bible that I believe in.

You appeal to blind faith. My appeal is to biblically founded faith.

Based on what other than your personal bias and human wisdom?

What specific "aspects" are you referring to? Understandability? Doctrinal soundness? Faithfulness to the underlying text?

You brought it up... now I am challenging you to go deeper than the surface. Will you?

 

Wow! I do not understand this claim that one group of translators was more inspired than another. I can see any number of reasons to chose one version over another, but this is a claim that I cannot fathom.

It has never crossed my mind that the NASB or ESV that I use on a regular basis might be corrupted or contradictory because they aren't.

 

deacon jd:Don't you wish that the team of translators mentioned above had been a little more than "influenced" by God.

Every translator of every valid version was equally influenced by God. No one can show otherwise.

That is a vast difference between the MV bibles and the AV Bible.

Yes...about 400 years.

The translators of the AV were more than just influenced by God they were inspired to do a great work for God and that work has stood the test of time.

They were no more "inspired" than were Tyndale, Coverdale, or the translators who came later. Again, not a quark of evidence to show otherwise.


Brother AV Bunyan isn't it great to have faith in the Word of God. I do not have to question whether my version has been corrupted by the error and hidden agendas of man because there are no contradictions found within the pages of Gods holy Word in the KJV.

ISN'T THERE?

Was Jehoiachin age 8 or 18 when he began to reign? How does one correctly get the English "God forbid" from the Greek "me ginomai"? We can make a whole page of others, but that's not what this thread's about.

 

Actually, ya have a PERSONAL PREFERENCE, influenced by some purveyors of guesswork such as the Wilkinson-Ray-Ruckman-Fuller Riplinger "party line".

 

I disagree. A born again believer who ascribes to a biblically fundamental statement of faith... like the one signed by the NASB translators... would probably be more influenced by God than an unsaved scholar.

I actually know that there are good explanations for these "apparent" contradictions. The thing that very distinctly shows the dishonesty of the KJVO position is that they reject the very same types of explanations or even better ones to explain "apparent" contradictions in MV's. They use dishonest scales of judgment by employing a double standard.

 

I don't mean to be dense here, but how does this show that the KJV is more inspired than other versions?

 

Yet a primary objection of KJVO's is that MV's are the products of liberals, right? It isn't true but that is what you guys claim.

FTR, I never said anything about God using sinless penman. I said that the Bible qualifies the men. It does. It qualifies Apostles and Prophets. That's all.

Do you say any different? Your attempt at diversion was crafty... but not valid in the least.

Further, is there any evidence that God ever inspired someone who wasn't saved? As a follow up to that, do you believe that someone who insists that baptism is salvific or that the eucharist is a sacrifice is saved?

You might want to research the beliefs and teachings of the men responsible for the KJV translation before answering these questions... especially the supervisor Archbishop Andrewes.

 

It doesn't. He's trying to create a diversion to change the subject without having answered the point I made.

Another evidence that the KJVO belief won't stand the scrutiny of a diligent student.

 

AVBunyan:I've never said I can take facts and prove to you folks the KJV is inspired and without error.

That's because ya CAN'T.


I take this stand by faith.

Faith in WHAT? BIBLICAL faith consists of SUBSTANCE & EVIDENCE.(Hebrews 11:1 in your KJV) and the KJVO myth has NEITHER.

I can compare the KJV to any modern version and the modern version is far inferior beside a KJV in every aspect.

By what standards?

Just because "it aint the KJV" won't cut it.

BTW - Thanks to all who participated. I thought since I started the thread I should throw out I believe to be so.

You're welcome, although I doubt if ya appreciated any of the answers save those of Deacon JD.

Based upon what research I’ve down it appears the source of the modern versions is as follows: (Nothing you haven't seen before)

1. The scriptures were circulating about Asia Minor and were blessed of God.

So far, so good. And yes, I heard it some 25 years ago.

2. Some heathen philosophers in Alexandria Egypt (and most likely lost) headed up by Origen (who was very liberal in his theology – just read his life) got a hold of the scriptures to “modify” them a bit based upon how they viewed God, Christ, blood atonement, 2nd coming, etc. Origen’s twisted philosophy is well represented in the modern versions. BVTW - if the above folks would have done their work in Jerusalem it would have been any difference - I don't use Egypt as a type of the world to find faultl with hthe modern versions.

Actually, Origen made just one variation of the many found in the various mss. And we DON'T know what texts origen used.

3. This liberal translation ended up in Constantine’s new church.

As did some others. Wheredya think the Byzantine mss came from? In Constantine's day, the city was called Byzantium. Later it was called Constintinople. Now, it's Istanbul, Turkey.

4. Copies of these “bibles” went through Rome, Spain, and France, etc.

And who knows where else? And what about the "correct" versions? who knows who all had aholda THEM?

5. These copies were the basis of the French Roman Catholic Douay Rheims

Again, howdya KNOW? All I've seen so far are unproven statements, otherwise known as GUESSWORK.

6. From there they (Vaticanus/Siniaticus) ended up in the hands of two liberal English theologians Wescott & Hort and became the foundation for the English Revised Version of 1881.

Right so far...except ya have NO idea about the origins if Si/Vat.

7. From there the ERV crossed the Atlantic and was the foundation of the ASV 1901.

About half-right.

8. Finally, these Egyptian-based texts became the basis for the modern versions read by most of Christianity today (RSV, NASV, NIV, Good News, NWT, NEB, etc.)

Now, you're off-trail. those mss are considered among the ECLECTIC mix of texts used bu the later translators. You have no good reason why those texts shouldn't be in the mix. Reckon it never occurred to you that God preserved them for a REASON & allowed versions of His word to be made from them.

Now, before ya blame it on the devil...If GOD wanted something preserved, it IS preserved, despite the devil's best efforts to destroy it...and if GOD wanted it destroyed, it was destroyed despite the devil's every effort to destroy it.

Summary – The modern versions are not updated King James Bibles (as most “people on the street” believe). The modern versions are not based upon the manuscripts that the KKJV are based on.

So what? God saw fit to allow us to use them, didn't He? To say otherwise is to say God can't take care of His own word & that the devil has beaten Him by corrupting it.


All modern versions are based upon Vaticanus/Siniaticus which may very well have been two of the surviving manuscripts that came from Origen’s hexapla.

Wrong.

Again, those 2 mss are parta the ECLECTIC MIX used by modern translators.

Now, I’m sure many here will disagree.

Absolutely.

Where did some of us get this from? We got this from reading the well-documented works of: Dean Burgon, Dr. Edward F. Hills, Dr. David F. Reagan, Otis Fuller, Donald Clark, J. J. Ray, Dr. Dave Reese, and many others.

All but Burgon are members are members of the entirely-wrong Wilkinson-Ray-Ruckman-Fuller "party-line" of KJVO authors, all of who depended upon the SAVENTH DAY ADVENTIST official Wilkinson's work at least in large part. If ya wanna believe the writings of a KNOWN CULT OFFICIAL, be my guest.


Many textual critical “experts” might read their works but have often failed to study and run down the footnotes and references they cite as evidence.

OTOH, many of us have traced the sources of virtually all their statements regarding the KJVO myth & found them to be figments of the authors' imaginations, I.E. GUESSWORK....or else simply have proven them WRONG.

And you CANNOT JUSTIFY YOUR MYTH since it has NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT.


Oh, BTW, Dr. Ruckman. And for those of you who reject Dr. Ruckman’s research and conclusions I dare you to read the 2nd chapter of his book, “The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship” called “Much Learning Doth Make Thee Mad.” In the chapter Dr. Ruckman cites just some of what he has read in the past 40 years to document his findings – and I can almost guarantee nobody on this board has read all of those works and many of you here most likely never heard of most of the works Dr. Ruckman has read and studied.

So he's been wrong for over 40 years...well, so was Khomeini. And there's little by Rucky that I haven't read....including Mark Of The Beast in which he says that the Antichrist will be a ten-foot-tall alien w/huge black lips who'll land a mile-wide spaceship on the Mount of Olives & dispense "the mark" with a kiss from those lips. HAVE YOU READ THAT ONE? it's readily available from his bookstore site.

And you actually expect US to believe anything that sci-fi writer puts out? YEEAAHH...RIIGGHHTT!

Are you saying the above men’s research and conclusions are wrong? Can you prove the above men and their works wrong?

Been there-seen it-done that on this very board more than once. And so have many others, including mosta those who've replied in this thread.

Folks – I don’t panic that many do to hold to the KJV only position. I do not blow a gasket when people question some of the words in a KJV, I really don’t.

Kewl...Wouldn't do ya no good to us who *KNOW* the KJVO myth is false.


Many great men that God have used inn the past had some issues with a King James Bible and I still love and admire those men. But I stand amazed that so many fail to see or refuse to admit the source for the new versions they read are from heathen philosophers who doubted and questioned the very fundamentals of the faith you folks profess to hold to.

What we question is the source of such statements.


There corrupt doctrine is very obvious and can be found sprinkled throughout in the modern versions – subtle but there… “Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field”. Why would folks defend such works is beyond me.

Very simple...We have found that virtually EVERY statement defending the KJVO myth is wrong at best; deliberate lies at worst. Again, the major prob with the KJVO myth is that it has NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT; indeed Scripture slants away from it, as it's very evident that JESUS HIMSELF read aloud from ANOTHER VERSION of Isaiah besides the Ben Chayyim Text from which the KJV's OT is translated. He placed His stamp of approval upon it by calling it SCRIPTURE. Apparently JESUS-THE WORD-isn't limited to one version, but if YOU wannabee, kewl...if ya don't try to persuade others into believing it. From what ya shoulda learned here, ya should know it's a LIE.

REMEMBER...it's the KJVOs who have been trying for over 70 years to introduce an ASCRIPTURAL doctrine into the long-established pantheon of SCRIPTURAL ones, with NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE whatsoever. And we believe the modern versions came from the same source as the older ones did...FROM GOD. After all, the KJV was once the most modern English version on earth, as was the Geneva before it.

Ya'll have a nice turkey day - actually I meant have a thankful day on a true Christian holiday, Thanksgiving :wavey:

God bless

You, too!

 

Just because something is on the internet, the television or the radio doesn't mean it's true! And especially suspect is anything written by Peter Ruckman! He alone has spread more errors and misrepresentations than the internet, television and radio combined!

:thumbs: :tonofbricks: :BangHead:

 

Did you expect anything different?

 

AVBunyan:Moses was a murderer and God used him.

David was an adulterer and then a murderer and God used him

Any ole' bush will do when God is in it.

GOd bless

Where were Moe & Dave's HEARTS? Had either of them rejected GOD?

 

Peter Ruckman...Will Kinney...SOME SCHOLERZZ ! ! ! ! !

That's about like asking Brigham Young about marital fidelity...

 

IOW's you won't answer, right?

I am not a novice. I have seen alot of that non-sense and that is precisely what it is. When engaged one on one as I am attempting to do with you, folks that promote such slanders against God's Word will evade... like you are attempting to do.

They'll claim superior faith... as you have attempted to do.

They'll attack their questioner... as hopefully you won't do.

Just give one and be reasonable and fairminded enough to allow the same kind of answer you would give if defending some unclear point from the KJV.

OK. Then use your memory to reference me to some concrete proof that one of these three versions is doctrinally corrupt: WEB, NKJV, NASB.

If I answer directly will you be honest enough to take your blinders off?

That is exactly what I am challenging you to do.

In this short space, I have given you both historical and biblical proof that the KJV is not specially inspired in its verbage. You haven't answered. Now as an apparent evasion you are asking me to go chase rabbits.

I don't want you injured so I won't push you further other than to challenge that you don't do any other lengthy posts until you do answer this challenge.

BTW, I actually started out KJVO as many did here. I had to leave prejudice behind to take an honest look at what KJVO claims were and why they weren't biblically supported or supported by the facts of history.

I have read various things by Gipp, Cloud, Riplinger, Ruckman, Marres, and others. I have read and responded to numerous things regurgitated from these authorities with direct historical facts and scripture.

If they have come up with something new or if you find some argument overwhelmingly convincing then just say so.

With all due respect, you'll have to do much better than a man of Ruckman's infamous character and temperment. I have also read his personal salvation testimony. Have you?

Notably, you have cited men... and very modern men at that. I have cited scripture and even contemporaries of the KJV translators as well as historical facts from that time. You can't even point to the translators themselves since they implicitly denied special inspiration and explicitly said that their scholarship/translation was open to criticism and improvement.

The thing that turned me away from KJVOnlyism wasn't a lack of faith in the trustworthiness of the KJV. It was repeated instances of KJVO's failing to account for inconvenient facts. They instead went into Clintonian spin or alternately went into the Hillary attack dog mode in which there was a vast conspiracy seeking to undermine them.

I can make a direct comparison between my rejection of evolution and my rejection of KJVOnlyism. Both offer explanations the stretch credibility to the breaking point to preserve predetermined conclusions.