RE: The KJV Only Debate

RE: The KJV Only Debate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Bible

Message

jbbaab44 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/4/2006 7:50:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ezra 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. One thing you need to see is man is flawed. Man is flawed in choosing transcripts/manuscripts, writing transcripts/manuscripts, reading transcripts/manuscripts, interpreting transcripts/manuscripts, and so on. So how corrupt is the KJV? Its not inspired, it's not God breathed, it's not God's exact word. Unless you can say the KJV is infallable, Holy, and 100% acceptable in the courts of God's perfect kingdom, then it is fallable. God will not open up the KJV to judge you or me. Unless you have that much faith in man to be judged by our translation, i wouldn't be going around declaring it the final and only authority. I do agree that it is the best English translation that fallable man has of God's exact word. Believe me, i went to a college that preached it and teached it down my throat. "God's word will last forever" is not a prophetic statement of the KJV.

cjwpastor -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/4/2006 8:43:27 AM)
It is quite unbelievable to me that there are people alive today who think God is so inept that He can only speak through the KJV. Those of you who are KJVO's, could you answer something for me please? What grand claim of truth is there that only you have access to because you read the only "infallable" Word of God that myself and millions of other Christians are missing out on because they read other translations? And by this, I am not talking about one verse here or there that differs in translation. I am talking about the path to salvation and living lives changed by the Spirit of God. If your position holds ANY credibility whatsoever, one should expect to see a dynamic and unquestionable difference in discipleship and character since you claim to have the Word of God and all others are simply floundering with vain attempts to piece together half-truths. Blessings, Chad

DaveW -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/4/2006 9:50:08 AM)
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? He was refering to the Torah and Haftara scrolls in the synagogues. There was no NT at that point.

DaveW -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/4/2006 10:37:21 AM)
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. You do know of course that to the Almighty, English is a second language?? Or third??[:)] More seriously, you are aware that some of the KJV wording was political? For example, the english word "baptise" was invented by the translators of the KJV so the king would not upset Church of England clergy who were sprinkling? The Greek "bapto" and "baptizo" meant to dip, plunge, immerse. So to not criticize the church powers for not immersing, a new word was invented that no one knew the meaning of.

manwe -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/4/2006 10:50:11 AM)
Just to make sure I don't bear false witness, I think the KJV is a fine Bible, and I agree with Ezra that it is a literary classic and Holy Scripture. But I will not say, it is the only true word of God in English. The test of time does not a true Bible make. There is so much debate about the MSS, Byzantine least amount of weight and alexandrian carrying the most, but wait, maybe it is the other way around? What if we take a more eclectic approach? That is what the guys who are putting together the ISV Bible are doing. Though they favor the Alexandrian text families, they are considering the Byzantine family as well. Interesting approach. Saved, Your response on the biblical languages was telling. I told me what I suspected, that there really are those who believe the KJV is so well done there is no need to even consider the biblical languages. and that is a shame, imo.

called2valor -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/4/2006 11:06:34 AM)
Q: If one does not speak English or can't read the greek/hebrew manuscripts - what shall they do? Must they learn antiquainted English to learn God's Word? The KJVO argument is ridiculous in that it is saying this one translation in this one language in one point of time is THE translation and everything else is garbage compared to it. The AV was the "premier" translation only because it was the best for the times, that's it. I LOVE the KJV, when I quote scripture, it naturally comes out as the AV, because that was what I was first taught - HOWEVER, I would be foolish to write off every other English translation out of hand just because it wasn't the KJV. There is so much overwhelming evidence that the KJV is not 100% without error that only someone that just doesn't want to hear it will continue to hold that position like a fool sailing into a hurricane. Can someone be saved and know the Bible well enough using the KJV to spread the Good News? sure But erroneous doctrine have been formed because of misinterpretation of the language (it isn't up-to-date) and internal errors of the KJV itself and one must recognize that. KJVO really smacks of pride and we all know what pride leads to... Peace

DaveW -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/4/2006 4:10:26 PM)
quote: Your response on the biblical languages was telling. I told me what I suspected, that there really are those who believe the KJV is so well done there is no need to even consider the biblical languages. and that is a shame, imo. I had always thought the KJVO was an opinion based in ignorance of the original languages. Wrong. I have read a few KJVO sites that insist that the competing manuscripts became so confusing and corrupted that God re-inspired the scriptures in 1611 and the KJV now supersedes any earlier manuscript or translation. This is not the position of all KJVOs, but it is of some.

GoodME_II -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/4/2006 9:42:42 PM)
Are the KJV'ers trying to create a "final authority", in effect, by insisting on the exact words of the KJV to be the final rule over any disputes? This is actually a bit refreshing. An assent to a central authority - maybe its time to get busy on a Catechism as well......

GoodME_II -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/4/2006 9:44:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaveW I have read a few KJVO sites that insist that the competing manuscripts became so confusing and corrupted that God re-inspired the scriptures in 1611 and the KJV now supersedes any earlier manuscript or translation. This is not the position of all KJVOs, but it is of some. There are some out there who believe like this about a recent document of their's... They are called Latter Day Saints....

Saved34 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/4/2006 10:36:51 PM)
Again, let me be very clear, I full well know that there are genuine Christians that read other translations besides the AV. I also believe one can be saved through the message in the NIV. Scripture was no less true when satan quoted it to our Lord, it was not rightly divided, but it was still divinely inspired scripture.But the NIV fails to deliver in a great many areas of doctrine and thus cannot and should not be the Bible of choice. It's totally unacceptable to call Joseph the father of Jesus, It's totally unacceptable to leave out the Blood in Revelation 1, It's totally unacceptable to Say "He came in the flesh" instead of "God was manifest in the flesh" which is in pefect harmony of scripture. The AV is doctrinally sound where all of those other versions fall short. As far as other languages, I believe God has given each of them a premiere tranlation just like he's given us. Brother harmon, I agree 100% with you when you said it was not given to "them" to understand the parables. I was dealing with the usage of simple words, but I fully understand that the Bible is a spiritual book, and the "natural man recieveth not the things of God".

Saved34 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/4/2006 11:04:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaveW 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. You do know of course that to the Almighty, English is a second language?? Or third??[:)] More seriously, you are aware that some of the KJV wording was political? For example, the english word "baptise" was invented by the translators of the KJV so the king would not upset Church of England clergy who were sprinkling? The Greek "bapto" and "baptizo" meant to dip, plunge, immerse. So to not criticize the church powers for not immersing, a new word was invented that no one knew the meaning of. Honestly I must admit I never heard that one. I have heard that King James wanted the whole "be subject to the higher powers " passage strengthened to stop rebellion. Which all may have some twinge of truth. But I also understand the power and sovreignty of Almighty God . 1Kings 17:9 " Arise, get thee to Zarephath which belongeth to Zidon, and dwell there: behold, I HAVE COMMANDED A WIDOW WOMAN THERE TO SUSTAIN THEE" 1Kings 17:11 "...He called to her and said, Bring me ,I pray thee, a morsel of bread in thine hand" 1King 17:12 "And she said , As the Lord God liveth, I HAVE NOT A CAKE, but a handful of meal in a barrel, and a little oil in a cruse:and , behold , I am gathering two sticks, that I may go in and dress it for ME AND MY SON, that WE (her and her son) may eat it and die" We all know that she did indeed give Elijah to eat. God said HE HAD ALREADY COMMANDED HER TO DO SO. She on the other hand, seem to have absolutely no intentions of doing so, in fact, she seemed to not even know that she had been commanded by God. BUT SHE DID THE WILL OF GOD REGARDLESS. To me, this speaks volumes. As will any living human if God in his sovreign power commands him...including King James who may or maynot have even been a saved man. I believe God divinely made him give the ok to give his english speaking people his Holy word. Call me crazy, but it's what I believe , and I have no problem accepting the AV as flawless because God is ALL powerful and wiser than men. His Holy word will never be outdated.

Godhead -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/4/2006 11:32:03 PM)
Well I absolutely love the KJV of the Bible. I love the old English and it just sounds better to read, especially the Psalms. I also compare with other versions since the KJV is only a translation of the Greek and Hebrew. I think that some of these newer versions are dangerously moving away from the original meaning, because they have to be different from earlier versions. The CEV Blah! But the NKJV, NIV are good. I will always have personal affection for The GNB. I was given one by my grandma, who is the most godliest Christian I have ever met! She prayed every day for me and seven years after she gave it to me, I started to read it, starting from Genesis and worked my way through. By the end of it my life was changed forever! So the Good news Bible is an excellent one for starters. Why I started reading it is hard to explain except that God answered my Grandmothers prayer. She is a dangerous women when she prays. God answered her prayer in His own time. So anyway, I think that the KJV is the most accurate, in the sense that it was basically, well based on the first English translation. As the newer ones come out they are moving more and more away from the proper meaning. I really don�t think that we need any more English translations, and they are only produced to make money. I am not a KJV only person then but it is my main Bible.

Ezra -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/5/2006 12:20:46 AM)
quote: I do agree that it is the best English translation that fallable man has of God's exact word. Excellent. And that is precisely the position of those who hold to the KJV in spite of all the calumny against it. However, because man is fallible, God provided a safeguard in that the entire mass of manscripts from the 2nd to the 14th century would testify to one "Traditional Text" of the Bible regardless of where it was found or how old it was. Actually Dean Burgon -- one of the most astute and learned textual scholars -- postulated "Seven Notes of Truth" to ensure that man's fallibilty would not mar the infallibility of God's Word. quote: It is quite unbelievable to me that there are people alive today who think God is so inept that He can only speak through the KJV. This is what is known as a strawman argument. No one who adheres to the KJV limits God in any such way. It is the wiles of the Devil that one is concerned about, and one of those wiles is to make Christians believe that they had an inferior and inadequate Bible for almost 1900 years. The fact is that modern versions have brought more confusion than clarity to Christians. quote: For example, the english word "baptise" was invented by the translators of the KJV so the king would not upset Church of England clergy who were sprinkling? Regardless of the motives for the use of the transliteration instead of a translation, the fact is that baptize can mean BOTH immerse and wash. The path of wisdom was to simply transliterate it and let the Holy Spirit teach us the truth. quote: I had always thought the KJVO was an opinion based in ignorance of the original languages. Wrong. Actually denigrating the AV was based on both ignorance and pride. Ignorance on the part of those who were unaware of the subterfuge of scholars in promoting corrupt manuscripts. Pride on the part of scholars who believed that God had not preserved His own inerrant word over the millenia and was waiting for these scholars to "discover" the "oldest and the best" manuscripts (read as oldest and worst). quote: Q: If one does not speak English or can't read the greek/hebrew manuscripts - what shall they do? Must they learn antiquainted English to learn God's Word? This is another strawman argument that has been adequately addressed many times. We are speaking about ENGLISH translations of the Bible. When it comes to other languages, any translation based upon the Traditional Hebrew and Greek texts is equivalent to the KJV. Contact the Trinitarian Bible Society if you have a genuine concern about this issue, since they have been printing Bibles in numerous languages which are all equivalent to the KJV, and the TBS is exclusively KJV. quote: Are the KJV'ers trying to create a "final authority", in effect, by insisting on the exact words of the KJV to be the final rule over any disputes? Actually, if you will carefully research the evidence, for centuries, the KJV was indeed THE final authority for English-speaking Christians who were not Catholic. So it has possessed the field for almost 400 years, and possession is 9/10ths of the law. Furthermore, when you look at the modern translations, not one of them achieved the place of authority as did the KJV, inspite of all the hoopla and promotion by publishers. As a matter of fact, the so-called "new" this and "new" that exist are being constantly revised and "updated", thus giving the lie to the word "new", and showing discerning Christians what a total sham the whole idea of modern versions really is. Pulbishers profit while Christians get confused. After all does something which is "new and improved" need further improvement? What a sham and what a shame! Let's be very clear. It was firstly the attack on the KJV and the TR by the so-called scholars that precipitated this division among Christians into KJVO and non-KJVO. The fact is that every pastor, evangelist and teacher had a moral obligation to carefully scrutinize the claims of naturalistic and humanistic scholars, but they gnerally failed to do so (except for a few rare exceptions like Burgon, Hoskier, Hills, and Waite and those who also carefully examined the evidence). The majority of Christians swallowed (hook, line and sinker) the lie that one ancient and very corrupt manuscript is worth 1,000 uncorrupted manuscripts. Today's evangelical seminaries are teaching the same humanistic higher and lower criticism to their students that was thoroughly discredited by discerning conservative Christian scholars decades ago. Today we have tremendous animosity against Christians who reject modern bible versions because it goes against the herd mentality. There can be no fence-straddling in this matter. Either Westcott and Hort were right, and God left His Church without the true Bible for 1900 years (and the attack against the KJV is really an attack against all Protestant Reformation Bibles). Or Westcott and Hort were dead wrong, and so are all the translations and critical texts which follow them. Just one significant portion of Scripture becomes the watershed or dividing line. Either the Last Twelve Verses of Mark are genuine Scripture (in which case Codex B and it's allies are false witnesses) or those twelve precious verses are spurious, and the Traditional Text and all Reformation Bibles are false. Take your pick. For those who may not be aware, those last twelve verses are to be found in absolutely every manuscript, version (translation), Lectionary, and the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The only places where it is absent and where the evidence for it's excision is clear to the naked eye is Codex Vaticanus (Codex B) and Codex Sinaiticus (Codex Aleph). If Codices B and Aleph are in serious error at this point, and bear false witness, then why should they be trusted at any point? As Dean Burgon stated in The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (page 9): quote: If Tischendorf and Tregelles [predecessors of Westcott & Hort, who were their disciples] are wrong in this particular, it follows of necessity that doubt is thrown over the whole of their critical method. The case is a crucial one. Every page of their's incurs suspicion, if their deliberate verdict in this instance shall prove to be mistaken. Dean Burgon went on to prove that they were mistaken, but that did not stop Westcott and Hort or Nestle and Aland from continuing to worship Codex B and it's allies.

Friarbob -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/5/2006 12:41:27 PM)
I want to state up front I am a KJV preferred but not KJVO. there has been too much division in the the body of Christ over this issue. When I read the bible I use 2 translations, the KJV and the NKJV. I read the KJV until I run into some words I don't understand, Then I check to see how that word is translated in the NKJV. As time has gone by I have found that I have to check the NKJV less frequently because I now know the definition of most archaic old english words. The main reason I prefer the KJV is because my Strong's Ehaustive Concordance is cross referenced with the KJV.

harmonmsp -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/6/2006 12:29:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Friarbob I read the KJV until I run into some words I don't understand, Then I check to see how that word is translated in the NKJV. As time has gone by I have found that I have to check the NKJV less frequently because I now know the definition of most archaic old english words. The main reason I prefer the KJV is because my Strong's Ehaustive Concordance is cross referenced with the KJV. Friar, While I in no way would want to keep you from a version that has become endearing to you for your faith in our Saviour, I do want you to know that there exist newer Strong's Concordances, adapted to fit each Hebrew or Greek word with the English words used to translate them -- for example in the NIV. If this is the only reason you have been unwilling to venture to at least reading another more modern translation, I would give it a whirl and test it out so that way at least you know what other translations have been made available and the quality a few of them may or may not give your faith.

phyl2 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/6/2006 2:15:40 AM)
quote: It is the wiles of the Devil that one is concerned about, and one of those wiles is to make Christians believe that they had an inferior and inadequate Bible for almost 1900 years. Except, that is not what Christians believe. Most Christians who use modern versions do not believe that God limited His word to only one version. But, some KJVOs actually teach that Christians had an inferior Bible for 1600 years! They teach that the Bible was not in its final pure form until the KJV. Others do not teach this, specifically, but, in their insistence on word for word exactness, the end result is the same for the text of the KJV did no exist until the KJV translators put it together. quote: The fact is that modern versions have brought more confusion than clarity to Christians. Not from what I've seen. I've been in churches and Bible study groups my whole life, where a number of different translations were used, and I have never seen any confusion caused by the presence of different translations. On the other hand, I have seen quite a lot of confusion caused by some people misunderstanding the 17th century meanings of some of the KJV's words. quote: Furthermore, when you look at the modern translations, not one of them achieved the place of authority as did the KJV, inspite of all the hoopla and promotion by publishers. I disagree. The NIV, NASB, NLT, and NRSV all are believed to be the infallible word of God - the same authority as the KJV. While it is true that none of them has spent time as "the only" word of God, that is only because we have no state religion here with a government official who has the power to outlaw all other English translations. quote: Pulbishers profit while Christians get confused. I've read that publishers do not really make much profit from selling Bible translations. But, many of them use at least some of the profit to fund translation into other languages which previously did not have God's word in their language. And, those translators benefit from learning from the English translations - it aids them in their translation work. quote: There can be no fence-straddling in this matter. Either Westcott and Hort were right, and God left His Church without the true Bible for 1900 years (and the attack against the KJV is really an attack against all Protestant Reformation Bibles). Or Westcott and Hort were dead wrong, and so are all the translations and critical texts which follow them. It isn't an "either/or" situation. The Church has had the true Bible since it was written, even though each manuscript differs from every other manuscript, and each version also differs. That's just the way it is, and has been since before the New Testament era, when there were at least two different Hebrew version, and a somewhat different Greek translation. And, Wescott and Hort's work was not an attack on the KJV (although they did believe it was "corrupted" - but they use a different meaning for the word "corrupted"). They were simply doing textual criticism, a process that had been done since the early centuries of the Church, including the editors of the TR editions and the KJV translators themselves. quote: For those who may not be aware, those last twelve verses are to be found in absolutely every manuscript, version (translation), Lectionary, and the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The only places where it is absent and where the evidence for it's excision is clear to the naked eye is Codex Vaticanus (Codex B) and Codex Sinaiticus (Codex Aleph). If Codices B and Aleph are in serious error at this point, and bear false witness, then why should they be trusted at any point? No, not quite "absolutely every manuscript and translation. There are now in existence at least 3 other Greek manuscripts, plus manuscripts in 5 ancient translations. Not only that, there are a number of manuscripts which have margin notes or some other indication that those verses are not found in all manuscripts. Plus, we have ancient testimony from 2 - 3 early Christian writers that traveled extensively to search for the evidence, who report that many manuscripts had the verses, but many manuscripts did not. Because there were so many manuscripts without the passage as well as with, they were unable to come to a definitive conclusion. That's why there are so many manuscripts with the margin notes. I beleive the wisest thing to do is to include the passage but with the explanation that it is not found in a number of the ancient manuscripts. That way, the reader can go to the Holy Spirit for guidance concerning this passage. If the Holy Spirit can teach concerning the meaning of "baptise", the Holy Spirit can also teach concerning the ending of Mark.

harmonmsp -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/6/2006 11:49:36 AM)
phyl2, Excellent response.

Friarbob -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/6/2006 12:54:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: harmonmsp quote: ORIGINAL: Friarbob I read the KJV until I run into some words I don't understand, Then I check to see how that word is translated in the NKJV. As time has gone by I have found that I have to check the NKJV less frequently because I now know the definition of most archaic old english words. The main reason I prefer the KJV is because my Strong's Ehaustive Concordance is cross referenced with the KJV. Friar, While I in no way would want to keep you from a version that has become endearing to you for your faith in our Saviour, I do want you to know that there exist newer Strong's Concordances, adapted to fit each Hebrew or Greek word with the English words used to translate them -- for example in the NIV. If this is the only reason you have been unwilling to venture to at least reading another more modern translation, I would give it a whirl and test it out so that way at least you know what other translations have been made available and the quality a few of them may or may not give your faith. I guess I should have said this in my first post. Although The KJV is my favorite translation because it is the one I used since I was 16 years old back in 1963, I also enjoy reading along wth the NKJV, theNIV and the NASB. so in order of prefence I read the following translations on a regular basis: 1. KJV 2. NKJV 3. NIV 4. NASB My pastor says that for serious study we should compare a minimun of 4 different translations and these are the 4 that he recommends.

PeterAV -> The Pure Holy Bible (4/6/2006 7:50:55 PM)
[quote Is it the only true Bible? Yes. quote: Is it the most accurate tanslation? Yes [quote How is the Byzantine text of any real value? It accords with all honest endeavours of manuscript evidence. The Alexandrains are built upon the backs of heretics like Origen,Jerome,Eusebius,Westcott,Hort,Nestles,etc. quote: What about the Textus Receptus, Wescott and Hort, Nestle-Aland? Those that worked at preserving the pure Holy Bible,gave their lives for it. The Alexandrian side were the murderers. quote: Why are other modern translations invalid or inaccurate? They use corrupted manuscripts and are forced to be "substantially diferent" because of copyright laws.Plus they play the game of pick and choose. quote: What about all the KJV updates? The only updates are in font and spelling finalization,and typo errors from the printers. PeterAV Holy Bible There is only one.

harmonmsp -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/6/2006 10:16:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Friarbob My pastor says that for serious study we should compare a minimun of 4 different translations and these are the 4 that he recommends. Quite so, not bad advice at all! I have a parallel NT with eight major translations (including the KJV) that my grandparents gave me for study, and I love it.

harmonmsp -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/6/2006 10:21:29 PM)
PeterAV, I think I should let you know, your post doesn't even justify a decent response. It sounds like you haven't read any of the previous material of the past two weeks, and you just want to sound off. You certainly won't convince your opponents that way.

PeterAV -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/6/2006 10:22:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Daylights_56 Are there a lot of KJVO members on this forum? I have talked with a few but I get the sense that most on here have several different bibles they read from.....Anyways I am not familar with the KJVO debate and am interested in hearing what people have to say in defending their stances. God Bless Yes,there are a few.Yes we use other Bibles,but we do not believe them. We believe only the parts that agree with the pure Holy Bible. We simply bel;ieve God's word.We believe what God said in his word about his word. Psalm 12:6,7 Psalm 119:140 They are pure preserved words. You can use any Bible you wish to,but don't for a minute think that it is the final authority if it is not the Holy Bible,namely the AV. Can't say that for the other perversions. PeterAV Holy Bible There is only one.

PeterAV -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/6/2006 10:52:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 1love1God1way And may I add 1 Holy Bible quote: The KJV did not come directly from the original texts. They were translated from one language to another. Then from that new one, translated back, and from this third one translated into the KJV. Ouch,Where did you get this misinformation from? http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1 Just read the heading of the Holy Bible Tittle Page. It is too expensive to get the whole original=$400,000.00 But I do have one sheet,from Judges XX & XXI. quote: I don't see how any bible can be considered the only true Bible, especially one that is a translation of what was actually originally written. If we follow this logic, the only true Bible is the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts (the originals, not the copies that were made). These are the only ones that have what the author said perfectly. Error! Every time scriptures is mentioned in the Holy Bible,it never refers to them thar "Originals".But it always refers to copies or faithful translations. Did Jesus speak Greek?Nope.It was Hebrew & Aramaic.=Translation Did Timothy have the originals?Nope.It was a faithful copy. And notice that The Holy Ghost inspired Paul to put down the words IS inspired & not WAS inspired. Interesting,don't ya think? Then,How about Moses and Pharaoh speaking Egyptian?=translation. Then there is the one of Jeremiah,well the original was destroyed=no originals. Originals is a myth.It is agame that the scholar likes to play,so he can be the final ariture.They love to play the game of "I PREFER." O and by the way,there are no originals.So these are NOT the final authority,and do NOT have exactly what the author said perfectly. And even if it is,which one.there is way more than one Greek,and one Hebrew.And they all differ. quote: And still then, the Bible, although infallible, is not inerrant. So is there really any true Bible? This is where I do not see things as you do.You obviously do not believe that there really is an inerrant Bible on this planet. I DO. I simply believe what God said in his word.I believe what God said in his word about his word. Every word of God is PURE: Do you believe that?Apparently not.You have believed the words and opinions of men instead.I think you can see that. PeterAV Holy Bilbe There is only one.

PeterAV -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/6/2006 11:01:51 PM)
quote: The OT was translated from Hebrew basically. But I am not familiar with the manuscripts they used. Larry They used the Masoretic Texts.There is no argument in Christianity over this issue.It is mainly about the New Tesament Greek. But lately,the Modern versions have started to use the corrupted manuscripts of the Dead Sea cult.There by tainting even the OT. Plus with the copyright issue,they end up with many eroneous readings and some are even opposites,and nonsense. PeterAV Holy Bible There is only one.

harmonmsp -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/6/2006 11:20:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeterAV But lately,the Modern versions have started to use the corrupted manuscripts of the Dead Sea cult.There by tainting even the OT. Plus with the copyright issue,they end up with many eroneous readings and some are even opposites,and nonsense. OK, now you've got me. Where did you get the idea that the Dead Sea Scrolls are not only erroneous, but also that they are used with such great regularity in translation so as to cause error? And I'm sorry but 'opposite' readings? What is that? Have you even seen a pre-1500AD Greek MSS?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI