Featured Which version is the Bible?

Your turn............

How about giving me a link to any outspoken, informed and unbiased person's analysis of this controversy. "Biased" and "unbiased" are easy catch words to lob back and forth over the net that divides this subject.

I have read "countless articles" of ardent MV supporters that are filled with "loaded with innuendo, logical fallacies and doublespeak"? Can you deny that with any creditable evidence that it isn't true?

Since you have such a negative view of Kinney without giving specific examples. (You many have and I haven't seen them, yet. Therefore, my statement may be in error. Please feel free to correct, if you have done so.) I'd like to point to another author. Can you refute what he has to say by giving creditable evidence that he is incorrect?

MAJESTIC LEGACY The remarkable story of the four-hundred year impact of the King James Bible.
Compiled by Dr. Phil Stringer http://www.preservedwords.com/legacy.htm

Closing sentence:

 

Let's change that last sentence to reflect truth:

The hand of God is the only possible explanation for the existence of any Bible.

Now there is a statement we can't argue about...

I think.

 

According to Will Kinney's rigorous standards and premises, does he suggest that no inspired Bible in one volume that could be held in our hands and every word believed existed before the 1611 KJV or actually until whichever year the first edition of the KJV without any errors was finally supposedly printed?

If an edition of the KJV has printing errors that omits any words, adds any words, changes any words into different words, can every word of it be believed according to Will Kinney's premises?

According to his rigourous premises, would a consistent application of them suggest in order for God not to lie today according to his premises He in effect had to lie about preservation before 1611 if they are any copying errors in the original language manuscripts of Scripture, if there are no perfect original language manuscripts, if there are any printing errors in the printed original language texts, and if the textual sources for the KJV were not perfect and inerrant and bound in one volume?

What was the one volume perfect source on earth on which the KJV was based or from which it was translated?

What one volume source for the word of God on earth did English-speaking believers have before 1611?

 

:thumbsup:

 

NNE here has EVER said that the KJV is 'ridden with errors/not trustworthy/faulty"..

What HAS been said is that it is a good transaltion, but is NOT perfect/error free, and thatwhile it is in english the word of God to us , so are the Nasb/Niv/esv also!

 

While Will Kinney do hold an extreme view, your accusation against my view is incorrect and off-base. You go to the extreme in misrepresenting and distorting my balanced, scripturally based view. You failed to provide any quotations of my own words that back up your claims. In effect, you try to put words in my mouth that I have not stated.

I do not attack the KJV as being "corrupt" or riddled with errors so your assertion is false. Where have I claimed that the KJV is "corrupt" as you claim? Disagreeing with the extreme KJV-only theory of Will Kinney and others is not attacking the KJV as you incorrectly try to suggest. That is the same extreme distortion that many KJV-only advocates will throw out against any believers that disagree with a KJV-only theory.

My view of Bible translation is the same balanced view as that held by the early English translators and the KJV translators. One main point of that view is that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages is the proper standard and authority for the making and trying of all translations.

 

Do you know ANy reputable bible researcher/texual expert that even claims the KJV is bad translation, riddled with errors and mistakes? I have read MANY on this subject, and those against KJVO would ALL support the KJV as a good translation, just not the best nor only!

 

Evidently you consider it to be normal to throw out false assertions and to distort the scripturally based view of other believers. You bear false witness your bogus false accusation that I supposedly have claimed that the KJV is "error riddled and corrupt." I have not made that claim. Do you consider it proper to throw out your accusations that you do not back up with sound documentation or evidence?

I have pointed out many times that the KJV is a good overall translation of the Scriptures just as some other translations are.

I have pointed out that the KJV is the word of God in English in the same way and in the same sense that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible are and in the same way and in the same sense that later English Bibles such as the NKJV are.

Are you suggesting that my acceptance of the view of the KJV translators that maintained that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages is the proper standard and authority for the making and trying of all translations is extreme?

I have asserted that a sound, consistent, and scriptural view of Bible translation would be true both before and after 1611.

Do you consider it to be extreme to point out that in some places another English translation such as one of the pre-1611 English Bibles or later ones has a better or more accurate rendering than the KJV?

 

What is your scriptural case for asserting that inspiration can be applied to translations by derivation? How do you explain your view when two claimed derivatively inspired translations have conflicting renderings? If two translations in the same language or in different languages are claimed to have some form of inspiration, how do you assert that one may have a incorrect rendering in a particular verse or that one is more accurate than the other in some places without implying that something that is inspired in some form has an erroneous rendering?

I think that it is more in agreement with what the Scriptures teach to say that translations have derived or acquired authority as the word of God instead of claiming "derived inspiration".


Are you trying to argue personality in seeming to attack my integrity and character with your accusations or are you trying to argue semantics instead of dealing with problems with a KJV-only theory?

 

Doc Cass has some of the most unedifying remarks on the BB. Take it from me. He knows no bounds.

 

If you spent as much time telling others about the Gospel as you do nit picking translations from various centuries and worry about if they are Inspired, innerent or whatever other classification you come up with, then lots more people would have heard about what Jesus Christ did for us.

Not one person was ever saved by your opinion of the writings of dead theologeans. God's message is clear as it has been from the beginning.

 

AMEN!!!! Some people just love to hear themselves talk, or in this case write an essay with every post. :applause:

 

And you will deny your obsession with his obsession, which is a symptom of your obsession. Three can play this silly psychoanalytic game but it doesn't get us any closer to the truth, does it?

And that's what really bothers me about this whole issue. The whole of KJVO (or NIVO, or NJVO, or _ _ _O) doctrine is built on wood, hay and stubble. How about we look at the Gold, silver, and precious stones of the many faithful translations of the Bible instead?

 

Are you attempting to show that you did not learn what the president of the Seminary you attended taught you?

Are you continuing to try to argue personality?

 

" the Bible "

When an individual says “ the Bible ” that individual is speaking

like a parrot or a deceiver. There are over 400 (Christian, Catholic, Cult)

Greek, Syrian, Latin, German, English, French, Spanish, etc., Bibles

which do not match in content, volume or doctrine.


Let me restate that in kind and gentle way.

I'm sure you are very sincere, but you don't know what your talking about.

You are simply repeating the statements of insincere amateur intellectuals.

There is no such thing as " the bible " .