RE: The KJV Only Debate

RE: The KJV Only Debate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Bible

Message

harmonmsp -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/1/2006 1:54:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rabstark quote: ORIGINAL: Saved34 "GOD was manifest in the flesh" is a world of difference from "HE appeared in a body" The Greek here is "hos" which is "he", not "theos" which is "God". Not a fan of the NIV at all, but in this case, their translation is actually more accurate than the KJV's. This is correct. However translating it 'God' is not incorrect since 'hos' is a relative pronoun, and it refers back to its antecedent. All it does is make the translation a little awkward, but neither is really better than the other because they both mean the exact same thing.

phyl2 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/1/2006 9:53:15 PM)
Actually, to be accurate, the KJV is based on a text which has the "theos" reading, it is not a matter of translation. It's a matter of a transcription error. At some point, manuscript copyists started abbreviating certain words, especially having to do with God. "theos" is abbreviated down to two letters, theta and sigma. The theta looks like an O with a horizontal line through it. The word would also have a line over the top of it. The word for "he" is omicron sigma - the omicron looks like an O. It is easy to see how a copyist could mistake one for the other. The question is, which reading is original? KJVOists believe that "theos" is the original reading because, well, its in the KJV. Some scholars believe there are other reasons to believe that "theos" is the original reading. But many scholars believe there are more reasons, which are just as viable, that "he" is the original reading. In this case, it is obvious from the context of the passage, who is being referred to, even with the "he" reading.

Saved34 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/1/2006 9:58:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rabstark quote: ORIGINAL: Saved34 "GOD was manifest in the flesh" is a world of difference from "HE appeared in a body" The Greek here is "hos" which is "he", not "theos" which is "God". Not a fan of the NIV at all, but in this case, their translation is actually more accurate than the KJV's. According to who? My Strongs concordance says the greek is "Theos". I realize the NIV is a very popular translation,but I personally don't trust it. I'm KJVO and proud of it.

harmonmsp -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/1/2006 11:32:40 PM)
Saved, If you would be so kind, let me show you why I can't side with your argument. quote: Saved34: According to who? My Strongs concordance says the greek is "Theos". Strong has nothing to do with it. The question is one of MSS evidence and weight. Strong sided with the Majority text because, well, when he penned the original there was no other translation and the earlier texts had not yet surfaced. Others who followed him simply ... followed him. Unless you're prepared to give an argument for the Majority Text, I don't know why I should pay attention. quote: I realize the NIV is a very popular translation,but I personally don't trust it. Purely subjective. quote: I'm KJVO Automatically biased and contentious. quote: and proud of it. Speaks for itself.

Saved34 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/2/2006 10:33:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: harmonmsp Saved, If you would be so kind, let me show you why I can't side with your argument. quote: Saved34: According to who? My Strongs concordance says the greek is "Theos". Strong has nothing to do with it. The question is one of MSS evidence and weight. Strong sided with the Majority text because, well, when he penned the original there was no other translation and the earlier texts had not yet surfaced. Others who followed him simply ... followed him. Unless you're prepared to give an argument for the Majority Text, I don't know why I should pay attention. quote: I realize the NIV is a very popular translation,but I personally don't trust it. Purely subjective. quote: I'm KJVO Automatically biased and contentious. quote: and proud of it. Speaks for itself. Sorry if I gave the impression that I was trying to get you to "side with me" brother/sister . I was simply giving my own personal opinion. As far as the MSS or the "Original Greek" there is no such thing. When people correct the KJV instead of saying the "Original says this", they should say "the corrupt Wescott and Hort, or the Corrupt Alexandrian , or the Corrupt Vaticanus MSS read this". Fact remains that no one actually has "The Original Greek manuscripts". They have Manuscripts produced by Known False teachers like Wescott and Hort and Origen and other Gnostics who's whole purpose was to destroy the fundamentals of the faith, and promote their heresies in the Church. I (personally) stand firm on the KJV as the premiere english TRANSLATION(with a loving nod to the great Geneva bible). God is not the author of confusion, and a great many of these so called better translations were not AUTHORIZED by him.We do not need 300+ english translations. It's a trick of the enemy to discredit God's word,And It's a total disrespect to the Sovreignty of God. It's the Cool thing now for people (even the average joe smoe on the street) to CORRECT the KJV using "the original greek". The NIV calls Joseph "Father of Jesus" that alone is enough for me to not trust it. God bless you if you study the NIV , I'll stick with the KJV.

harmonmsp -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/2/2006 6:40:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Saved34 Sorry if I gave the impression that I was trying to get you to "side with me" brother/sister . I was simply giving my own personal opinion. I apologize for misinterpreting the sentiment. [:)] quote: As far as the MSS or the "Original Greek" there is no such thing. When people correct the KJV instead of saying the "Original says this", they should say "the corrupt Wescott and Hort, or the Corrupt Alexandrian , or the Corrupt Vaticanus MSS read this". Again, strictly opinion. You're not even arguing the ideology behind the discovery of older texts, you're simply writing them off because you are already biased against them. I would find it somewhat of a proud and ignorant thing to do if I were to engage in such a practice. quote: Fact remains that no one actually has "The Original Greek manuscripts". True enough, but there have been considerable archaeological discoveries within the last two centuries that might help us get closer to them, and why would anyone interested in the truth of a matter want to deny that kind of opportunity? quote: They have Manuscripts produced by Known False teachers like Wescott and Hort and Origen and other Gnostics who's whole purpose was to destroy the fundamentals of the faith, and promote their heresies in the Church. Oh, sir, please don't say such things. Church history is a good interest of mine and I would not want to lump Origen in with the Gnostics. I am willing to venture a guess and say that you simply don't like him because he was able to read the Bible allegorically, not literally all the time. Origen was not a Gnostic, and I am not sure where you get the idea that Wescott and Hort were so ... can I have that evidence, please? In any event, critical evaluation of historio-archaeological evidence is the same whether it is early MSS or pottery from B.C. Mesopotamia. If you have flaws in the technique used, that's a different story, but no one can 'destroy' what is indestructable. quote: God is not the author of confusion, and a great many of these so called better translations were not AUTHORIZED by him.We do not need 300+ english translations. I agree that God is not a confuser, and even that we don't need 300+ translations. But where in the world have you gotten this idea of "authorization" for something other than the original languages? Certainly you don't equate King James I of England with God Almighty! quote: It's a trick of the enemy to discredit God's word, In any form (ahem) ... quote: And It's a total disrespect to the Sovreignty of God. Ah, but shouldn't we be trusting God's sovereignty when it comes to having these translations exist for God's purposes? Who are we to say that God is not working through all of this, that you or I have to be his 'enforcer'? quote: God bless you if you study the NIV , I'll stick with the KJV. This is so loaded with venom that you're simply 'blessing' me in vain. What you're really saying is 'I would rather not fellowship with you if you're going to use that version' and that is disheartening; certainly not a blessing. If you want to continue the discussion, I'd be glad to, but I would rather drop it if the conversation is just going to get nasty and disrespectful.

phyl2 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/2/2006 7:49:08 PM)
quote: As far as the MSS or the "Original Greek" there is no such thing. When people correct the KJV instead of saying the "Original says this", they should say "the corrupt Wescott and Hort, or the Corrupt Alexandrian , or the Corrupt Vaticanus MSS read this". We don't have the original manuscripts of the various writings of the Old and New Testaments, but we do have plenty of manuscript evidence. However, when people "correct" (really, explain) the KJV and refer to "the original says this", they are not referring to the original manuscript, they are usually referring to a translational issue, not a textual one. It has nothing to do with Wescott and Hort or the Alexandrian manuscripts, it has to do with weaker translation choices. quote: Fact remains that no one actually has "The Original Greek manuscripts". They have Manuscripts produced by Known False teachers like Wescott and Hort and Origen and other Gnostics who's whole purpose was to destroy the fundamentals of the faith, and promote their heresies in the Church. Be careful about proclaiming someone to be a false teacher or gnostic. The Bible commands us not to give false witness: "Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. Exodus 23:1" The truth of the matter is, Origen was NOT a gnostic. In fact, in his lifetime he was known to be a good teacher against that false teaching, to the point that he got in trouble with some church officials because individual church leaders would ask him to come and refute the gnostic false teaching, rather than asking the higher church officials to come and do so. It is a sad fact that Mr. Wescott and Mr. Hort have been maligned in this century by some KJVO authors who have been less than honest. They have purposely misquoted Wescott and Hort's writings to make them appear to say something that they definitely did not say. Mr. Wescott and Mr. Hort's writings are now out of print, and their books are hard to find, but, anyone who is able to get access to their books and look up those quotes will find that what I said is true. quote: I (personally) stand firm on the KJV as the premiere english TRANSLATION(with a loving nod to the great Geneva bible). God is not the author of confusion, and a great many of these so called better translations were not AUTHORIZED by him.We do not need 300+ english translations. A great many of the English translations were made because the translators or the people who backed these translations felt the call of God on their lives to make these translations. quote: It's a trick of the enemy to discredit God's word,And It's a total disrespect to the Sovreignty of God. It's the Cool thing now for people (even the average joe smoe on the street) to CORRECT the KJV using "the original greek". The NIV calls Joseph "Father of Jesus" that alone is enough for me to not trust it. God bless you if you study the NIV , I'll stick with the KJV. I'm interested in Bible translations, so I read as much as I can on the subject. For every translation that I have been able to read the background, those involved have had the utmost respect and honor for God's word, and for His Sovereignty. It is the KJVO authors who show disrespect for God's word by proclaiming every translation other than the KJV to be a corruption made for evil purposes. The NIV calls Joseph "Father of Jesus" because Luke referred to Joseph as the father of Jesus (in more than one place, but the KJVO's only argue one of them). The fact is, Joseph WAS Jesus' father - just not biologically. God did not need Joseph to be a part of Mary and Jesus' lives, yet when Joseph considered putting her away privately, God told him to stay with her. Every adoptive father and adopted child knows that it is not necessary to be the "seed implanter" to be the father.

Saved34 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/2/2006 9:53:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: harmonmsp quote: ORIGINAL: Saved34 Sorry if I gave the impression that I was trying to get you to "side with me" brother/sister . I was simply giving my own personal opinion. I apologize for misinterpreting the sentiment. [:)] quote: As far as the MSS or the "Original Greek" there is no such thing. When people correct the KJV instead of saying the "Original says this", they should say "the corrupt Wescott and Hort, or the Corrupt Alexandrian , or the Corrupt Vaticanus MSS read this". Again, strictly opinion. You're not even arguing the ideology behind the discovery of older texts, you're simply writing them off because you are already biased against them. I would find it somewhat of a proud and ignorant thing to do if I were to engage in such a practice. quote: Fact remains that no one actually has "The Original Greek manuscripts". True enough, but there have been considerable archaeological discoveries within the last two centuries that might help us get closer to them, and why would anyone interested in the truth of a matter want to deny that kind of opportunity? quote: They have Manuscripts produced by Known False teachers like Wescott and Hort and Origen and other Gnostics who's whole purpose was to destroy the fundamentals of the faith, and promote their heresies in the Church. Oh, sir, please don't say such things. Church history is a good interest of mine and I would not want to lump Origen in with the Gnostics. I am willing to venture a guess and say that you simply don't like him because he was able to read the Bible allegorically, not literally all the time. Origen was not a Gnostic, and I am not sure where you get the idea that Wescott and Hort were so ... can I have that evidence, please? In any event, critical evaluation of historio-archaeological evidence is the same whether it is early MSS or pottery from B.C. Mesopotamia. If you have flaws in the technique used, that's a different story, but no one can 'destroy' what is indestructable. quote: God is not the author of confusion, and a great many of these so called better translations were not AUTHORIZED by him.We do not need 300+ english translations. I agree that God is not a confuser, and even that we don't need 300+ translations. But where in the world have you gotten this idea of "authorization" for something other than the original languages? Certainly you don't equate King James I of England with God Almighty! quote: It's a trick of the enemy to discredit God's word, In any form (ahem) ... quote: And It's a total disrespect to the Sovreignty of God. Ah, but shouldn't we be trusting God's sovereignty when it comes to having these translations exist for God's purposes? Who are we to say that God is not working through all of this, that you or I have to be his 'enforcer'? quote: God bless you if you study the NIV , I'll stick with the KJV. This is so loaded with venom that you're simply 'blessing' me in vain. What you're really saying is 'I would rather not fellowship with you if you're going to use that version' and that is disheartening; certainly not a blessing. If you want to continue the discussion, I'd be glad to, but I would rather drop it if the conversation is just going to get nasty and disrespectful. lol, alright brother, I admit that last line was a little swipe. But I did really mean the "God bless you" part. [8D] Seriously, I know there are God fearing Jesus loving believers who read the NIV and many other translations. I'm just one of the few who believes the AV is the superior translation. Sorry for the disrespect.

Saved34 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/2/2006 11:38:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: phyl2 quote: As far as the MSS or the "Original Greek" there is no such thing. When people correct the KJV instead of saying the "Original says this", they should say "the corrupt Wescott and Hort, or the Corrupt Alexandrian , or the Corrupt Vaticanus MSS read this". We don't have the original manuscripts of the various writings of the Old and New Testaments, but we do have plenty of manuscript evidence. However, when people "correct" (really, explain) the KJV and refer to "the original says this", they are not referring to the original manuscript, they are usually referring to a translational issue, not a textual one. It has nothing to do with Wescott and Hort or the Alexandrian manuscripts, it has to do with weaker translation choices. quote: Fact remains that no one actually has "The Original Greek manuscripts". They have Manuscripts produced by Known False teachers like Wescott and Hort and Origen and other Gnostics who's whole purpose was to destroy the fundamentals of the faith, and promote their heresies in the Church. Be careful about proclaiming someone to be a false teacher or gnostic. The Bible commands us not to give false witness: "Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. Exodus 23:1" The truth of the matter is, Origen was NOT a gnostic. In fact, in his lifetime he was known to be a good teacher against that false teaching, to the point that he got in trouble with some church officials because individual church leaders would ask him to come and refute the gnostic false teaching, rather than asking the higher church officials to come and do so. It is a sad fact that Mr. Wescott and Mr. Hort have been maligned in this century by some KJVO authors who have been less than honest. They have purposely misquoted Wescott and Hort's writings to make them appear to say something that they definitely did not say. Mr. Wescott and Mr. Hort's writings are now out of print, and their books are hard to find, but, anyone who is able to get access to their books and look up those quotes will find that what I said is true. quote: I (personally) stand firm on the KJV as the premiere english TRANSLATION(with a loving nod to the great Geneva bible). God is not the author of confusion, and a great many of these so called better translations were not AUTHORIZED by him.We do not need 300+ english translations. A great many of the English translations were made because the translators or the people who backed these translations felt the call of God on their lives to make these translations. quote: It's a trick of the enemy to discredit God's word,And It's a total disrespect to the Sovreignty of God. It's the Cool thing now for people (even the average joe smoe on the street) to CORRECT the KJV using "the original greek". The NIV calls Joseph "Father of Jesus" that alone is enough for me to not trust it. God bless you if you study the NIV , I'll stick with the KJV. I'm interested in Bible translations, so I read as much as I can on the subject. For every translation that I have been able to read the background, those involved have had the utmost respect and honor for God's word, and for His Sovereignty. It is the KJVO authors who show disrespect for God's word by proclaiming every translation other than the KJV to be a corruption made for evil purposes. The NIV calls Joseph "Father of Jesus" because Luke referred to Joseph as the father of Jesus (in more than one place, but the KJVO's only argue one of them). The fact is, Joseph WAS Jesus' father - just not biologically. God did not need Joseph to be a part of Mary and Jesus' lives, yet when Joseph considered putting her away privately, God told him to stay with her. Every adoptive father and adopted child knows that it is not necessary to be the "seed implanter" to be the father. Just a sample of info on Origen It's commonly known that the teachings of the Jehova witness can be traced back to his teachings. And although he did combat various Gnostic groups, he himself held to plenty of wierd Gnostic teachings. "Origen regarded the death of Christ as a sacrifice PARALLELING it with OTHER cases of self sacrifice for the GENERAL GOOD " [&:] He also believed in the preexsistence of human souls IE REINCARNATION. A great many sites and publications attest to this. A little info on Westcott and Hort It's commonly known that they were members of the Occult and they both believed in the Marion(Praying to Mary) theology presented by the Roman Catholic Church. Now unless you"re a devout Roman Catholic or you support the ecumenical movement, this should raise some serious flags. Again, I have plenty more info on these 2 gentlemen. They were intent on discrediting the KJV.

phyl2 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/3/2006 1:44:20 AM)
quote: Just a sample of info on Origen It's commonly known that the teachings of the Jehova witness can be traced back to his teachings. And although he did combat various Gnostic groups, he himself held to plenty of wierd Gnostic teachings. While it's true that Origen did not believe exactly 100% what most Christians today believe, those places where he differs are places where the theology had not yet been fully defined during his lifetime, for example the teaching of the Trinity that is accepted today had not yet be defined during his lifetime. Other things he is said to have believed simply isn't true. For instance your claim: quote: "Origen regarded the death of Christ as a sacrifice PARALLELING it with OTHER cases of self sacrifice for the GENERAL GOOD " He also believed in the preexsistence of human souls IE REINCARNATION. A great many sites and publications attest to this. Your resource itself refutes this claim! quote: The book Reincarnation in Christianity, by the theosophist Geddes MacGregor (1978) asserted that Origen believed in reincarnation. MacGregor is convinced that Origen believed in and taught about reincarnation but that his texts written about the subject have been destroyed. He admits that there is no extant proof for that position. The allegation was also repeated by Shirley MacLaine in her book Out On a Limb. This cannot be confirmed from the existent writings of Origen. He was cognizant of the concept of reincarnation (metensomatosis "re-embodiment" in his words) from Greek philosophy, but he repeatedly states that this concept is no part of the Christian teaching or scripture. He writes in his Comment on the Gospel of Matthew: "In this place [when Jesus said Elijah was come and referred to John the Baptist] it does not appear to me that by Elijah the soul is spoken of, lest I fall into the doctrine of transmigration, which is foreign to the Church of God, and not handed down by the apostles, nor anywhere set forth in the scriptures" (ibid., 13:1:46�53). You may find 100's of resources that make these claims about Origen, but they are not true. As I have said before, there are some KJVO authors who are dishonest in the way they portray certain people, even to deliberately misquoting them in order to make them say something they did not say. (It appears that New Agers do the same thing, notice that MacGregor even admits there is absolutely no proof for his claims for Origen's belief in reincarnation!) Another problem with understanding what Origen believed is that there was a group of people who claimed to be his followers, and their beliefs were attributed to him. But, if you carefully read the article you linked, these people lived 300 years after he died! Some of the allegations made against Origen are because there was a man, named Rufinius who translated some of Origen's writings rather loosely in order to incorporate his own (Rufinius) beliefs. He forged other writings. quote: A little info on Westcott and Hort It's commonly known that they were members of the Occult and they both believed in the Marion(Praying to Mary) theology presented by the Roman Catholic Church. Now unless you"re a devout Roman Catholic or you support the ecumenical movement, this should raise some serious flags. These claims have been proven to be untrue. Wescott and Hort were NOT members of the Occult. This claim is based on the fact that in college they were involved in a group called the Ghostly Guild. But, what the accusers don't tell you is that this group existed to discredit and debunk occultic activity. I wish I had time to find the full quotes in context which show what Wescott and Hort truly thought of praying to Mary and Roman Catholicism. I know a person who has started putting together a site which documents the misquotes and the accurate full quotes in context. He is not finished yet, but here is the site he is working on The truth about Wescott and Hort

manwe -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/3/2006 8:59:15 AM)
That website pretty much shuts down accusations against WH don't it??

DaveW -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/3/2006 12:28:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Saved34 My Strongs concordance says the greek is "Theos". I realize the NIV is a very popular translation,but I personally don't trust it. I'm KJVO and proud of it. Strong's work was done with the KJV, and the underlying text for it.

DaveW -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/3/2006 12:34:04 PM)
quote: a great many of these so called better translations were not AUTHORIZED by him. ????? Who authorized the KJV? The king of England. It had to be authorized because it was a capital offence prior to 1611 to have an english version of the bible. The KJV was the first "street-legal" english version.

Saved34 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/3/2006 12:57:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaveW quote: ORIGINAL: Saved34 My Strongs concordance says the greek is "Theos". I realize the NIV is a very popular translation,but I personally don't trust it. I'm KJVO and proud of it. Strong's work was done with the KJV, and the underlying text for it. Ya don't say [8D].

Saved34 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/3/2006 1:18:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: manwe That website pretty much shuts down accusations against WH don't it?? Absolutely not. If you want, I could find endearing websites about Herbert W Armstrong and Bishop Johnson. I'm not saying whether Westcott and Hort were actually saved men, I'm saying they have massive evidence against them that they were intent on discrediting the AV. Only God Almighty know what these men were in reality, I can only go on the second hand info I've read. I have absolute 100% confidence that the AV is the FLAWLESS inerrant word of the living God, preserved in all it's majesty as if God Almighty talked with me himself. I fully realize all this business about the "Greek" says this and the "Greek" says that, is the in thing to do. Men can't even put their underwear on good, and yet their now smart enough to correct God's word? You think Paul was refering to the "Original manuscripts"when he told young Timothy to "Study to show thyself approved"?

manwe -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/3/2006 1:27:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Saved34 I have absolute 100% confidence that the AV is the FLAWLESS inerrant word of the living God, preserved in all it's majesty as if God Almighty talked with me himself. I fully realize all this business about the "Greek" says this and the "Greek" says that, is the in thing to do. Which edition? The 1611 or one of the numerous other updated editions? In your opinion does knowledge of the biblical languages matter or is the "AV" sufficient such that knowledge of the biblical languages is no longer necessary? Do the biblical languages enhance or detract from effective Bible study? If so, how? In not, what are the benefits of knowing the biblical languages? Thanks

laura... -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/3/2006 1:28:59 PM)
quote: You think Paul was refering to the "Original manuscripts"when he told young Timothy to "Study to show thyself approved"? Do you think Paul was referring to the AV?

caur -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/3/2006 2:42:32 PM)
If you are interested in reading more about Textus Receptus, the KJV and the other translations in relationship to the original manuscripts and about Bible scholardom in general, Bibletexts.com is an excellent site for anyone that reads and studies the Bible. The site also gives book reviews for the different translations and paraphrases, giving the original texts used for each one. Great site! Check it out. http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm

Dona Nobis Pacem -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/3/2006 5:51:57 PM)
quote: I have absolute 100% confidence that the AV is the FLAWLESS inerrant word of the living God, preserved in all it's majesty as if God Almighty talked with me himself. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion but if you believe this you must not know much about the KJV then. It is far from flawless. DNP

manwe -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/3/2006 6:35:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dona Nobis Pacem quote: I have absolute 100% confidence that the AV is the FLAWLESS inerrant word of the living God, preserved in all it's majesty as if God Almighty talked with me himself. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion but if you believe this you must not know much about the KJV then. It is far from flawless. DNP as are all other translations. All translations (going from the primary language to another) have strengths and weaknesses, even the KJV or so-called "authorized" version. The issue might be is there one that might be more consistant throughout? personally I find it a tight race between the NRSV - ESV - NASU to be in a tight race for the most consistant. Again, IMO.

Saved34 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/3/2006 6:46:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: laura... quote: You think Paul was refering to the "Original manuscripts"when he told young Timothy to "Study to show thyself approved"? Do you think Paul was referring to the AV? [8D] Yep! (joke)

Saved34 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/3/2006 7:08:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: manwe quote: ORIGINAL: Saved34 I have absolute 100% confidence that the AV is the FLAWLESS inerrant word of the living God, preserved in all it's majesty as if God Almighty talked with me himself. I fully realize all this business about the "Greek" says this and the "Greek" says that, is the in thing to do. Which edition? The 1611 or one of the numerous other updated editions? In your opinion does knowledge of the biblical languages matter or is the "AV" sufficient such that knowledge of the biblical languages is no longer necessary? Do the biblical languages enhance or detract from effective Bible study? If so, how? In not, what are the benefits of knowing the biblical languages? Thanks In my opinion, knowledge of the original languages does NOT matter, BUT it can be somewhat beneficial if used correctly. My gripe is with the crowd that feel the need to CORRECT the AV. But no, one does not have to be a greek shcolar to understand the Holy Bible. Our Lord brought the infinite wisdom of God Almighty down to man in simple down to earth laymans terms. He used simple words like bread and light and gave analogies that the simple farmers could understand. Some of the most respected men in Christendom corrected the AV. In fact, one of my ALL time favorite teachers ,J Vernon Mcgee did it constantly. That still does not make it right. I'm not scared one bit to trust in the Old KJ Bible. The men who translated it took unprecedented care in their work and delivered THE PREMIERE english Bible. I've studied the history of nearly all of the other translations and they simply have too many issues and flaws in some important doctrinal areas for me to trust them. The problem with those other translations (especially the NIV) is that they butcher so many passages and present too many errors . In fact, I've read that the NIV has taken out over 64000 words! And in many passages they flat out strip away the BLOOD ATONEMENT! And deny the VIRGIN BIRTH! I realize some of you bible scholars can catch those errors but a great many people can't.

Ezra -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/3/2006 10:32:42 PM)
quote: I'm not scared one bit to trust in the Old KJ Bible. The men who translated it took unprecedented care in their work and delivered THE PREMIERE english Bible. I've studied the history of nearly all of the other translations and they simply have too many issues and flaws in some important doctrinal areas for me to trust them. Saved34: I use the KJV exclusively and make no apology for it whatsover. It's high time more Christians took you stand on the "Old KJV Bible". It has proven its worth over the centuries, and it has become not only a spiritual anchor but a literary classic. It is indeed the Word of God in English, and generations of Christains can attest to that. As for all the other modern versions since 1881, they are all fundamentally flawed, no matter how you dress them up. The reason is simple. When a translation makes a handful of corrupt manucripts it's authority, then all you have is a corrupted form of God's Word.

harmonmsp -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/4/2006 12:42:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Saved34 But no, one does not have to be a greek shcolar to understand the Holy Bible. Our Lord brought the infinite wisdom of God Almighty down to man in simple down to earth laymans terms. If it was really so intently simple, why did Jesus speak in parables and tell only the disciples that 'to you has been given the secret of the Kingdom of God'? (Mk.4) quote: Some of the most respected men in Christendom corrected the AV. In fact, one of my ALL time favorite teachers ,J Vernon Mcgee did it constantly. That still does not make it right. No one's arguing from personality or personal preference, we're arguing from MSS evidence. This 'refutation' is completely irrelevant. You still haven't answered any questions directly regarding the nature of the MSS evidence, but you insist upon using exactly what is disputed to prove your point. quote: I'm not scared one bit to trust in the Old KJ Bible. No one would dare say that you cannot; God will lead you where he will when you're submissive and paying attention. quote: The men who translated it took unprecedented care in their work For that time, yes. Are you saying that the translators of at least some other versions do not do the same? quote: and delivered THE PREMIERE english Bible. Again, for their time. They even admitted that they did not produce a perfect translation and looked forward to the time when a better one could be produced, as they so stated in the preface of their work. quote: I've studied the history of nearly all of the other translations and they simply have too many issues and flaws in some important doctrinal areas for me to trust them. Then perhaps you'd like to know that King James I was an ardent Catholic sympathizer, just dying to get back at the Scottish Presbyterians and English Puritans in any way possible? But what am I saying, surely you knew that the KJV of 1611 originally had the apocryphal literature in it ... something no full Protestant would have agreed to. Check the history on your own translation before you label every other one as inadequate to your own liking. quote: The problem with those other translations (especially the NIV) is that they butcher so many passages and present too many errors. This is the kind of statement that only exists to bash and not to prove. You present a conclusion without any evidence. In fact, I'll bet that now you'll either rattle off 100 so-called examples that cannot all be adequately addressed, or you will say nothing to avoid having to deal with backing up your own judgments. quote: In fact, I've read that the NIV has taken out over 64000 words! And in many passages they flat out strip away the BLOOD ATONEMENT! And deny the VIRGIN BIRTH! I realize some of you bible scholars can catch those errors but a great many people can't. See that quoted word in bold there? That proves that you only go on secondary sources. Tell you what, when you yourself show a little evidence of being able to handle the original languages well in translation, I'll listen to your claims. But just so you know, I was raised in faith on the NIV after being born-again in college, no other version, and I never denied either the atonement or the virgin birth. As a matter of fact, no born-again NIV-using Christian I have known at least somewhat well has ever done so either. "By their fruits you shall know them", hmm?

phyl2 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/4/2006 4:05:31 AM)
Manwe: quote: That website pretty much shuts down accusations against WH don't it?? It should, but I haven't met a KJVO yet who would even listen to, or read, that evidence. I was very saddened to see, on another board, a KJVO who made several statements about how important the truth is, but when he was presented with the evidence of the full quotes in their context, he refused to even look. I quoted some verses, from the KJV, which had God's commands against bearing false witness, and I pleaded with him to look carefully and prayerfully at the evidence that was presented so that he could be careful to not disobey God's commands. He ignored my pleas and did not respond on that board, but, I saw that he has been to other boards where he continues to give the false witness of those mangled quotes. It breaks my heart to see so many sincere Christians deliberately close their eyes like this. If such a Christian wants to remain KJVO, that doesn't bother me so much. I know that it is possible for sincere Christians to study the available textual evidence and come to a different conclusion than I did. But, to deliberately close one's eyes to the irrefuteable proof that those quotes have been twisted and manipulated, and to continue to bear false witness about these men, and others, that really grieves me because it brings dishonor to God. DaveW: quote: Who authorized the KJV? The king of England. It had to be authorized because it was a capital offence prior to 1611 to have an english version of the bible. The KJV was the first "street-legal" english version. Not quite accurate. The KJV was the third English version to be authorized. I believe the Bishop's Bible was the 2nd, but I don't remember right now which one was the first. Saved34: quote: Absolutely not. If you want, I could find endearing websites about Herbert W Armstrong and Bishop Johnson. Oh sure, you could find endearing websites about just about anybody. But, do those websites present the truth. The man who created the website I linked to is presenting the truth. I believe he has even scanned pages of the books by Wescott and Hort where the quotes are and has posted them in some discussion boards which have the capacity to show those files. I have not participated on those boards, but I have been in discussions with others who also have access to those books, and they have provided the same full, in context, quotes. And, this was years before this man started working on this website, so those others did not get the quotes from him. I have participated on a message board where he is a participant for 7 years, and I have seen no reason to doubt his integrity. Any claims he has made that I have had the ability to check out and confirm by other resources has been true. quote: I'm not saying whether Westcott and Hort were actually saved men, I'm saying they have massive evidence against them that they were intent on discrediting the AV. Only God Almighty know what these men were in reality, I can only go on the second hand info I've read. Sure, they have massive evidence aganst them. There are people out there who are intent on discrediting them. So, is the massive evidence against them true? I am not denying that believed the KJV to be a version with non-original readings, and they wanted to present a Bible that had as close to the original readings as possible. But, they came to this conclusion after years of prayerful study. You said you can only go on the second hand info you've read. But, now you've been presented with a resource that gives you full, in context, quotes. Will you carefully go through that website? I'm not asking you to give up your KJVO beliefs. I'm just asking you to guard against bearing false witness. quote: I fully realize all this business about the "Greek" says this and the "Greek" says that, is the in thing to do. Of course I can't see into the heart of every Bible scholar and preacher, but I know that when I go to the Greek or Hebrew, it is not because it is "the in thing to do", it is because I want to better understand what God said. quote: Men can't even put their underwear on good, and yet their now smart enough to correct God's word? You think Paul was refering to the "Original manuscripts"when he told young Timothy to "Study to show thyself approved"? They aren't correcting God's word. As I said before, when they go to the original Greek, they are dealing with translational issues, not textual ones. And, even when they are dealing with the textual issues, it is still not "correcting" God's word. They are simply trying to present what God originally said. And, you mentioned Paul writing to Timothy. After much prayer and study, I learned that Paul quoted Old Testament verses from both Hebrew and Greek Old Testaments. He was well aware that these two versions differed in much the same way Bible versions differ now. But when he wrote to Timothy, he did not tell Timothy to be sure he had the "old, time-honored correct inerrant Hebrew scriptures." He DID tell Timothy that ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI