Author Topic: KJV Onlyism  (Read 10079 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline EDEN2004

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Manna: 20
  • Gender: Male
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #35 on: Tue Jul 03, 2012 - 19:17:16 »
Ccfromsc you're a newbie so I'm gonna take it easy on ya. rofl


::preachit:: KJV!

Wow! It is about to get how and heavy. OK for those KJV Onliers that just patted themselves on the back.... Which KJV are you using?

Which KJV Bible was God’s perfectly preserved translation in English? The one in 1611 or one of the revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or the last one in 1850? Please specify which one.


Of course I read the one that was tried in a furnace of earth and purified 7 times. You know, the one that my bible tells me are His words.

Quote
KJV - Psa_12:6  The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

The one that was started in 1604 and finished in 1611. The one that took 7 "times" until it finally became the pure words of the Lord. The same one that the Lord said he would preserve forever. Sorry, if you don't read the KJV, you probably have no idea what those verses mean. It is very symbolic.

Did you know that most of the bible is written in symbolic language.... in parables.
Did you know that if Holy Spirit doesn't show you what the symbols mean you can't decipher the parables meaning.
Did you know that the Holy Spirit can't reveal the symbols to you if the symbols aren't available to you.
Did you know that the KJV contains those symbols?
Did you know that most if not all of the newer translations changed the symbolic words to different words?
Did you know that when they did that the equation is broken.

Check out the symbolism in this passage.
Quote
NIV
Psa_12:6 And the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver purified in a crucible, like gold[c] refined seven times.
Psa 12:7 You, Lord, will keep the needy safe and will protect us forever from the wicked,

What symbolic equation can we derive from this?

Words of the Lord are = ?? This passage doesn't say. Oh well, we will just go with the flow.

The words of the Lord are like silver purified in a crucible. What is a crucible?
The words of the Lord are like gold refined 7 times.
 
I searched the NIV for "crucible", it is used 3 times with the same context everytime. So I Googled the definition. I really don't like using google to help me find out the meaning of biblical words. Here is the definition:

cru·ci·ble/ˈkro͞osəbəl/Noun: 1.A ceramic or metal container in which metals or other substances may be melted or subjected to very high temperatures.
2.A place or occasion of severe test or trial: "the crucible of combat".

I really can't say that crucible really adds anything, other than to reinforce the fact that gold and silver are just that... gold and silver.

OK, so what can we glean from this?
The words of the Lord are flawless, they are like refined silver and gold. And the Lord will keep the needy safe and will protect us forever from the wicked.
I don't understand, that really means nothing. I thought there was deep spiritual meaning in that passage. Oh OK, wait a minute, I know why I can't get anything out of this.... I'm using the wrong bible. ::doh::

Let's do the same exercise using the KJV.

Quote
KJV - Psa_12:6  The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

What symbolic equation can we derive from this?
Words of the Lord = Silver.
The silver was put in an earthen furnace? Wait a minute, I've heard something similar to that before...Oh yeah, we are earthen vessels. (Sorry NIV'ers, you probably didn't know that)

Quote
2Co 4:6  For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
2Co 4:7  But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
Wow, check this out! Did you catch that? "The knowledge of the glory of God (the Bible) is in us! That was exciting, but let's regroup.

Words of the Lord = Silver.
Earthen Vessel = A born again believer.
The silver stayed in the furnace of earth until 7 "times" passed over it. I just so happen to know what "times" are.

Quote
Neh_10:34  And we cast the lots among the priests, the Levites, and the people, for the wood offering, to bring it into the house of our God, after the houses of our fathers, at times appointed year by year, to burn upon the altar of the LORD our God, as it is written in the law:

Regroup again.
Words of the Lord = Silver.
Earthen Vessel = A born again believer.
The silver was in the furnace of earth for 7 years.

OK, what can we glean from this?

The words of Lord (silver) were put into an earthen vessel. But the earthen vessel corrupted the silver. So the earthen vessel containing the silver was put into the furnace for 7 years. At the end of the 7 years the silver became the pure words of the Lord. Not only did the pure words come out, but God also promised to keep them and preserve them forever....Amen.

Did you notice that an essential doctrine was removed in the NIV. The doctrine that God would preserve his word forever!


Now that I broke the "ice"......
Do you believe in "Unicorns?" Do you believe in "satyrs?" A "cockatrice?" Cause they are mentioned in the KJV!

Yes I do believe in all of those... If I didn't, I would throw my bible away and become an atheist.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #35 on: Tue Jul 03, 2012 - 19:17:16 »

Offline ccfromsc

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
  • Manna: 1
  • Gender: Male
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #36 on: Tue Jul 03, 2012 - 20:10:47 »
 ::reading::

Obvious you avoided the question:
Which KJV Bible was God’s perfectly preserved translation in English? The one in 1611 or one of the revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or the last one in 1850? Please specify which one.
 
Do you even know the differences between them?
Also there is a difference between the Oxford KJV and the Cambridge version that is printed today... do you even know which one you have?

You do realize that a "satyr" is a greek mythology creature... half man and half goat (or horse)? The KJV gives a bad translation there. Also with the unicorn and cockatrice.

One more note: do you have the apocrypha in your KJV? If not it is definitely NOT a 1611!!

Offline kjb1769

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 201
  • Manna: 7
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #37 on: Tue Jul 03, 2012 - 21:01:32 »
ccfromsc Which KJV Bible was God’s perfectly preserved translation in English?

Could you please expound on the implication your making about "God's perfectly preserved translation in English" what are you implying?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #37 on: Tue Jul 03, 2012 - 21:01:32 »

Offline EDEN2004

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Manna: 20
  • Gender: Male
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #38 on: Wed Jul 04, 2012 - 00:01:55 »
::reading::

Obvious you avoided the question:
Which KJV Bible was God’s perfectly preserved translation in English? The one in 1611 or one of the revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or the last one in 1850? Please specify which one.
 
Do you even know the differences between them?
Also there is a difference between the Oxford KJV and the Cambridge version that is printed today... do you even know which one you have?




I told you which bible I have:
Quote
The one that was started in 1604 and finished in 1611. The one that took 7 "times" until it finally became the pure words of the Lord. The same one that the Lord said he would preserve forever.

I have the same King James Version that everyone else in the world has today, 1769 I suppose. The KJV of 1611, 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, and 1769 are all the same! Fixing typo errors, updating spellings and removing the apocrypha had absolutely no effect on the meaning of the KJV. The apocrypha although included in the bible was never considered to be inspired nor a part of the scripture except by catholics. Please, if you have any proof that the scripture has changed meaning in any of the revisions let me know.

    Here are the only changes that I could find from 1611 version to 1769 version:

    • 1 Corinthi­ans 12:28 — “helpes in gouern­mets

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #38 on: Wed Jul 04, 2012 - 00:01:55 »

HRoberson

  • Guest
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #39 on: Wed Jul 04, 2012 - 14:38:10 »
If it had typos, then it wasn't the pure word of God; who's to say there aren't other errors?

If the Spirit was inspiring the KJ writers, you would have thought their work would have been flawless.

If the original KJ had the apocrypha, and it was the pure inspired word of God, why don't you use it?

Or was the inclusion of the apocrypha one big typo?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #39 on: Wed Jul 04, 2012 - 14:38:10 »



Offline EDEN2004

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Manna: 20
  • Gender: Male
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #40 on: Wed Jul 04, 2012 - 14:45:17 »
If it had typos, then it wasn't the pure word of God; who's to say there aren't other errors?

If the Spirit was inspiring the KJ writers, you would have thought their work would have been flawless.

If the original KJ had the apocrypha, and it was the pure inspired word of God, why don't you use it?

Or was the inclusion of the apocrypha one big typo?

So HRoberson are you saying that the pure words of God don't exist? If they do exist, where are they?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #40 on: Wed Jul 04, 2012 - 14:45:17 »

HRoberson

  • Guest
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #41 on: Wed Jul 04, 2012 - 15:32:08 »
If it had typos, then it wasn't the pure word of God; who's to say there aren't other errors?

If the Spirit was inspiring the KJ writers, you would have thought their work would have been flawless.

If the original KJ had the apocrypha, and it was the pure inspired word of God, why don't you use it?

Or was the inclusion of the apocrypha one big typo?

So HRoberson are you saying that the pure words of God don't exist? If they do exist, where are they?
I'm just observing that by your own admission, you don't really know what to believe. You claim that the KJ is the pure, unadulterated word of God, but you admit that it had errors; and you admit to not using the apocrypha which was included in the original KJ.

So, perhaps you could tell me where they exist.

This time, be a bit more consistent in your reasoning.

Offline kjb1769

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 201
  • Manna: 7
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #42 on: Wed Jul 04, 2012 - 16:28:38 »
In the 1611 King James Bible the Apocrypha is clearly marked on every page as Apocrypha.

There have been no textual changes from 1611 until today none nada zip.

All corrections of printing errors were made by 1850. The text was not changed. The printers errors were.

Oh yes let's not forget the Gothic type was replaced by Roman type.


Offline EDEN2004

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Manna: 20
  • Gender: Male
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #43 on: Wed Jul 04, 2012 - 16:39:39 »
If it had typos, then it wasn't the pure word of God; who's to say there aren't other errors?

If the Spirit was inspiring the KJ writers, you would have thought their work would have been flawless.

If the original KJ had the apocrypha, and it was the pure inspired word of God, why don't you use it?

Or was the inclusion of the apocrypha one big typo?

So HRoberson are you saying that the pure words of God don't exist? If they do exist, where are they?
I'm just observing that by your own admission, you don't really know what to believe. You claim that the KJ is the pure, unadulterated word of God, but you admit that it had errors; and you admit to not using the apocrypha which was included in the original KJ.

So, perhaps you could tell me where they exist.

This time, be a bit more consistent in your reasoning.

OK, I will try to be a bit more consistant in my reasoning.
OK, I will try to be a bit more consistent in my reasoning.
OK, I will attempt to be more consistent in my reasoning.
OK, my reasoning will be a bit more consistent this time because I will try harder.

I just gave you the true words of my reply to your post.
Which one of my statements are not the true words of my reply?

One more time... THE APOCRAPHA WAS NEVER A PART OF THE WORDS OF THE LORD! That is so simple to understand. Maps and commentary were in the 1611 edition also, if they are removed, does that mean the words of the Lord have been corrupted.


Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #43 on: Wed Jul 04, 2012 - 16:39:39 »

Faith.Man

  • Guest
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #44 on: Wed Jul 04, 2012 - 17:29:23 »
Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth.
Gen 1:2  And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4  And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse.
Gen 1:5  And God called the light, Day, and the darknesse he called Night: and the euening and the morning were the first day.
Gen 1:6  And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters: and let it diuide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7  And God made the firmament; and diuided the waters, which were vnder the firmament, from the waters, which were aboue the firmament: and it was so.
Gen 1:8  And God called the firmament, Heauen: and the euening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:9  And God said, Let the waters vnder the heauen be gathered together vnto one place, and let the dry land appeare: and it was so.
Gen 1:10  And God called the drie land, Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called hee, Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:11  And God said, Let the Earth bring foorth grasse, the herbe yeelding seed, and the fruit tree, yeelding fruit after his kinde, whose seed is in it selfe, vpon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:12  And the earth brought foorth grasse, and herbe yeelding seed after his kinde, and the tree yeelding fruit, whose seed was in it selfe, after his kinde: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13  And the euening and the morning were the third day.
Gen 1:14  And God said, Let there bee lights in the firmament of the heauen, to diuide the day from the night: and let them be for signes and for seasons, and for dayes and yeeres.
Gen 1:15  And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heauen, to giue light vpon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16  And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the starres also.
Gen 1:17  And God set them in the firmament of the heauen, to giue light vpon the earth:
Gen 1:18  And to rule ouer the day, and ouer the night, and to diuide the light from the darkenesse: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19  And the euening and the morning were the fourth day.
Gen 1:20  And God said, Let the waters bring foorth aboundantly the mouing creature that hath life, and foule that may flie aboue the earth in the open firmament of heauen.
Gen 1:21  And God created great whales, and euery liuing creature that moueth, which the waters brought forth aboundantly after their kinde, and euery winged foule after his kinde: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22  And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitfull, and multiply, and fill the waters in the Seas, and let foule multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:23  And the euening and the morning were the fift day.
Gen 1:24  And God said, Let the earth bring forth the liuing creature after his kinde, cattell, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kinde: and it was so.
Gen 1:25  And God made the beast of the earth after his kinde, and cattell after their kinde, and euery thing that creepeth vpon the earth, after his kinde: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:26  And God said, Let vs make man in our Image, after our likenesse: and let them haue dominion ouer the fish of the sea, and ouer the foule of the aire, and ouer the cattell, and ouer all the earth, and ouer euery creeping thing that creepeth vpon the earth.
Gen 1:27  So God created man in his owne Image, in the Image of God created hee him; male and female created hee them.
Gen 1:28  And God blessed them, and God said vnto them, Be fruitfull, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and haue dominion ouer the fish of the sea, and ouer the foule of the aire, and ouer euery liuing thing that mooueth vpon the earth.
Gen 1:29  And God said, Behold, I haue giuen you euery herbe bearing seede, which is vpon the face of all the earth, and euery tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yeelding seed, to you it shall be for meat:
Gen 1:30  And to euery beast of the earth, and to euery foule of the aire, and to euery thing that creepeth vpon the earth, wherein there is life, I haue giuen euery greene herbe for meat: and it was so.
Gen 1:31  And God saw euery thing that hee had made: and behold, it was very good. And the euening and the morning were the sixth day.


This is how the KJV-1611 reads.  If your KJV does not read like this, you're not reading the KJV of 1611.

HRoberson

  • Guest
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #45 on: Wed Jul 04, 2012 - 19:11:21 »
If it had typos, then it wasn't the pure word of God; who's to say there aren't other errors?

If the Spirit was inspiring the KJ writers, you would have thought their work would have been flawless.

If the original KJ had the apocrypha, and it was the pure inspired word of God, why don't you use it?

Or was the inclusion of the apocrypha one big typo?

So HRoberson are you saying that the pure words of God don't exist? If they do exist, where are they?
I'm just observing that by your own admission, you don't really know what to believe. You claim that the KJ is the pure, unadulterated word of God, but you admit that it had errors; and you admit to not using the apocrypha which was included in the original KJ.

So, perhaps you could tell me where they exist.

This time, be a bit more consistent in your reasoning.

OK, I will try to be a bit more consistant in my reasoning.
OK, I will try to be a bit more consistent in my reasoning.
OK, I will attempt to be more consistent in my reasoning.
OK, my reasoning will be a bit more consistent this time because I will try harder.

I just gave you the true words of my reply to your post.
Which one of my statements are not the true words of my reply?

One more time... THE APOCRAPHA WAS NEVER A PART OF THE WORDS OF THE LORD! That is so simple to understand. Maps and commentary were in the 1611 edition also, if they are removed, does that mean the words of the Lord have been corrupted.


Excuse me, but if the Spirit inspired the translators, and the Apocrypha was included in that inspiration, why isn't it included now? How do you know that the Apocrypha isn't the word of God if your purported 1611 Spirit-inspired text included it?
The 1611 version had marginal notes and variant readings in the margins. Why, do you suppose, that would be the case if the Spirit inspired the very text? What is the purpose of the marginal notations?

HRoberson

  • Guest
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #46 on: Wed Jul 04, 2012 - 19:46:32 »
Are KJO folks verbal plenary inspirationists?

If not, what sort of inspirationalists are they?

Offline kjb1769

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 201
  • Manna: 7
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #47 on: Wed Jul 04, 2012 - 19:52:47 »
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. -2 Peter 1:21

HRoberson

  • Guest
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #48 on: Wed Jul 04, 2012 - 20:43:01 »
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. -2 Peter 1:21
Right; so are you verbal plenary or some other sort?

Offline EDEN2004

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Manna: 20
  • Gender: Male
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #49 on: Wed Jul 04, 2012 - 23:01:52 »
If it had typos, then it wasn't the pure word of God; who's to say there aren't other errors?

If the Spirit was inspiring the KJ writers, you would have thought their work would have been flawless.

If the original KJ had the apocrypha, and it was the pure inspired word of God, why don't you use it?

Or was the inclusion of the apocrypha one big typo?

So HRoberson are you saying that the pure words of God don't exist? If they do exist, where are they?
I'm just observing that by your own admission, you don't really know what to believe. You claim that the KJ is the pure, unadulterated word of God, but you admit that it had errors; and you admit to not using the apocrypha which was included in the original KJ.

So, perhaps you could tell me where they exist.

This time, be a bit more consistent in your reasoning.

OK, I will try to be a bit more consistant in my reasoning.
OK, I will try to be a bit more consistent in my reasoning.
OK, I will attempt to be more consistent in my reasoning.
OK, my reasoning will be a bit more consistent this time because I will try harder.

I just gave you the true words of my reply to your post.
Which one of my statements are not the true words of my reply?

One more time... THE APOCRAPHA WAS NEVER A PART OF THE WORDS OF THE LORD! That is so simple to understand. Maps and commentary were in the 1611 edition also, if they are removed, does that mean the words of the Lord have been corrupted.


Excuse me, but if the Spirit inspired the translators, and the Apocrypha was included in that inspiration, why isn't it included now? How do you know that the Apocrypha isn't the word of God if your purported 1611 Spirit-inspired text included it?
The 1611 version had marginal notes and variant readings in the margins. Why, do you suppose, that would be the case if the Spirit inspired the very text? What is the purpose of the marginal notations?

Let's cut to the chase! You don't want to believe the inerrant word of God exists today because that ties you down to a moral and doctrinal standard. You don't want that standard because when a standard exists, it prevents you from creating your own god. Let's see how this works.

Let's say you are reading the book of Acts and you come across Acts 12:4  "And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." Keep in mind now you don't believe the pure words of the Lord exist today. You reason in your mind "Obvious translation error...Easter is a pagan holiday and Luke knew this. Those KJV translators really blew this one".

So you go to the concordance to see what the orginal greek says. It say's "pascha - Of Chaldee origin (compare [H6453]); the Passover (the meal, the day, the festival or the special sacrifices connected with it): - Easter, Passover". Even though Strong's says both Easter and Passover, you choose Passover because it can't possibly be Easter. You check to see what other bible versions say. Lo and behold they all say Passover. Well you already knew Passover was the correct translation and the NIV just backed you up. Done deal, the KJV translators got it wrong... Reinforcing your idea that the pure words of the Lord don't exist today.

So what just happened? You ran across a verse in the KJV that didn't line up with your preconcieved ideas, so you changed it. You changed the word of God because you didn't lagree with what it said. You in effect created your own personalized words of the Lord. Can you see the error that is guarenteed to manifest when the STANDARD doesn't exist.

Instead of doubting the bible, why don't you dig a lttle deeper. By doubting the pure words of the Lord, here is what you missed.

Act 12:3  And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) Act 12:4  And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

They took Peter in the days of unleavened Bread... The feast of unleavened Bread takes place after Passover. Passover had already happened. ::doh::
Easter however was still a few days away. God even put parenthesis around it to draw your attention to it. Can you believe it... the KJV translators actually knew what they were doing! Maybe they were inspired.

Always remember this and believe God when he says it:

Psa 12:6  The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Offline kjb1769

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 201
  • Manna: 7
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #50 on: Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 05:25:12 »
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. -2 Peter 1:21
Right; so are you verbal plenary or some other sort?

Right you mean you agree with 2 Peter 1:21 also?

And if you don't, please why not?

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14343
  • Manna: 190
  • Gender: Male
  • My grandson Arturus
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #51 on: Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 05:29:48 »
Are KJO folks verbal plenary inspirationists?
You might want to explain that term.  Not everyone is familiar with theological terminology.

Offline EDEN2004

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Manna: 20
  • Gender: Male
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #52 on: Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 05:47:57 »
Are KJO folks verbal plenary inspirationists?
You might want to explain that term.  Not everyone is familiar with theological terminology.

DaveW it pretty much goes without saying, we are plenary inspirationalist. Everything in heaven and earth is under the sovereign control of of God wouldn't you agree. What is your point of view of the KJV Dave?

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14343
  • Manna: 190
  • Gender: Male
  • My grandson Arturus
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #53 on: Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 06:28:25 »
You did not explain what "plenary inspiration" is nor how it differs from other forms of inspiration.

As to my view of the KJV, it was a good translation for its day but the language has changed in the last 400 years (and will continue to change) which is fine but requires new translations every few decades.

I take no translation as authoritative or "inspired" in any way shape or form.  ONLY the original autographs were inspired.

That said, I do not take the Masoretic text of the Hebrew scriptures as "original." The Masorites own notes explain their changes in the text they notated at several points. They took the least messianic of all the various competing manuscripts and added vowel points, at times making it even LESS messianic. They then set out to destroy all other competing manuscript families, including the Proto-Septuagint (the Hebrew text used to produce the Greek version) and the Samaritan Torah. (they were unsuccessful in the latter case)   Fragments of the Proto-Septuagint were found among the Dead Sea scrolls.

I find no scriptural support for the proposal that God "re-inspired" His word in 1611.
« Last Edit: Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 06:40:12 by DaveW »

Offline kjb1769

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 201
  • Manna: 7
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #54 on: Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 07:35:12 »
I understand now that ccfromsc, & HRoberson must be insinuating that people whom believe the King James Bible is the preserved word of God must all believe that God inspired the translators that translated the Textus Receptus into English in the 1600's.

Let me post again
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. -2 Peter 1:21

I believe that 2 Peter 1:21 means exactly what is says.

I do not believe that any "modern translation" from the Alexandrian line of text can be a translation of the complete inspired word of God.

The Antiochian line of text is what the translators used to translate the King James Bible.

So that leaves you to decide what line of manuscripts are the true word of God.

Unless another bible has just come out recently the only 2 English translation available today from the Antichain line of text are the King James Bible and the Geneva.


Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14343
  • Manna: 190
  • Gender: Male
  • My grandson Arturus
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #55 on: Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 08:16:30 »
And you can give chapter and verse saying that one family of manuscripts is better than another? 

If not, it is just someone's opinion.

Offline Mere Nick

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12788
  • Manna: 315
  • Gender: Male
  • Reckon you could make me some biscuits?
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #56 on: Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 10:37:23 »
Of all the translations out there I'd have have to say that the KJV is one of 'em.

Offline DCR

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11300
  • Manna: 432
  • Gender: Male
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #57 on: Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 11:07:00 »
The position some folks take on this issue is astounding.

Lord help those Christians who lived before 1611 or who read and speak a language other than English (the majority of the world), where the KJV isn't and wasn't ever an option or even in the picture for them.  ::shrug::

Offline EDEN2004

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Manna: 20
  • Gender: Male
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #58 on: Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 11:23:03 »
The position some folks take on this issue is astounding.

Lord help those who lived before 1611 or who read and speak a language other than English (the majority of the world), where the KJV isn't and wasn't ever even an option or in the picture for them.

The Lord did help them DCR, they had the inerrant word of God too. The bible tells us so.

Est 1:20  And when the king's decree which he shall make shall be published throughout all his empire, (for it is great,) all the wives shall give to their husbands honour, both to great and small.
Est 1:21  And the saying pleased the king and the princes; and the king did according to the word of Memucan:
Est 1:22  For he sent letters into all the king's provinces, into every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language, that every man should bear rule in his own house, and that it should be published according to the language of every people.

What is the bible?  It's a multi-level book that tells earthly wives and spiritual wives ( the church) how to give honor to their eathly husbands and their spiritual husband (Jesus). The only one's that haven't had the word of God are the one's that reject it.

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14343
  • Manna: 190
  • Gender: Male
  • My grandson Arturus
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #59 on: Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 11:52:33 »
The book of Esther says NOTHING about whether christians in the 1500s had God's word or not.  You are over-spiritualizing and have stretched an intrepretaion way past the breaking point.

Offline EDEN2004

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Manna: 20
  • Gender: Male
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #60 on: Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 11:53:27 »
You did not explain what "plenary inspiration" is nor how it differs from other forms of inspiration.

As to my view of the KJV, it was a good translation for its day but the language has changed in the last 400 years (and will continue to change) which is fine but requires new translations every few decades.

I take no translation as authoritative or "inspired" in any way shape or form.  ONLY the original autographs were inspired.

That said, I do not take the Masoretic text of the Hebrew scriptures as "original." The Masorites own notes explain their changes in the text they notated at several points. They took the least messianic of all the various competing manuscripts and added vowel points, at times making it even LESS messianic. They then set out to destroy all other competing manuscript families, including the Proto-Septuagint (the Hebrew text used to produce the Greek version) and the Samaritan Torah. (they were unsuccessful in the latter case)   Fragments of the Proto-Septuagint were found among the Dead Sea scrolls.

I find no scriptural support for the proposal that God "re-inspired" His word in 1611.

Dave here is my definition.

Verbal Plenary Inspiration

ver·bal/ˈvərbəl/Adjective: Relating to or in the form of words
ple·na·ry/ˈplenərē/Adjective: Unqualified; absolute.
n·spi·ra·tion/ˌinspəˈrāSHən/Noun: 1.The process of being mentally stimulated to do or feel something, esp. to do something creative: "flashes of inspiration".
 
Words that are unqualified... absolute... mentally stimulated by the Lord. The idea is that every single word in the Bible is there because God wanted it there. In my opinion even the chapter and verse structure.

----------

You say "I take no translation as authoritative or "inspired" in any way shape or form.  ONLY the original autographs were inspired."

You have carte blanche to believe anything you want. If it seems right in your mind, then it is right. You have no standards by which to measure your opinions.  The bible warns us about what seems right to us.

Pro 14:12  There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. 
 
----------
 
You say "I find no scriptural support for the proposal that God "re-inspired" His word in 1611."

But Dave we do know that God promised to preserve his words forever. In my opion the KJV contains the preserved words of the Lord. If not, where are they?

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14343
  • Manna: 190
  • Gender: Male
  • My grandson Arturus
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #61 on: Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 12:41:39 »
You say "I find no scriptural support for the proposal that God "re-inspired" His word in 1611."

But Dave we do know that God promised to preserve his words forever. In my opion the KJV contains the preserved words of the Lord. If not, where are they?

That is easy - and right from your precious KJV:

Ps 119. 89 For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled  in heaven.
« Last Edit: Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 16:17:21 by DaveW »

Offline kjb1769

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 201
  • Manna: 7
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #62 on: Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 16:25:57 »
And you can give chapter and verse saying that one family of manuscripts is better than another? 

If not, it is just someone's opinion.

No DaveW. I wish I could give you a chapter and verse that said only the manuscripts used by the ____________ translators are the inspired word of God.

Since you stated that you believe only the original autographs are the inspired word of God.

In Luke 4:17 was Jesus reading from the original autograph the only inspired word's of God?
Or was it a copy?

Which opinion are you trusting the salvation of your never dying soul to?

Offline EDEN2004

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Manna: 20
  • Gender: Male
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #63 on: Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 19:36:28 »
You say "I find no scriptural support for the proposal that God "re-inspired" His word in 1611."

But Dave we do know that God promised to preserve his words forever. In my opion the KJV contains the preserved words of the Lord. If not, where are they?

That is easy - and right from your precious KJV:

Ps 119. 89 For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled  in heaven.

Sorry Dave you're grasping for straws.

settled
Verb:   
Resolve or reach an agreement about (an argument or problem).

End (a legal dispute) by mutual agreement: "the matter was settled out of court"; "he sued for libel and then settled out of court".


Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14343
  • Manna: 190
  • Gender: Male
  • My grandson Arturus
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #64 on: Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 19:57:10 »

In Luke 4:17 was Jesus reading from the original autograph the only inspired word's of God?
Or was it a copy?
He may have been quoting from memory.  After all, HE wrote it to begin with.

Quote
Which opinion are you trusting the salvation of your never dying soul to?
I do not trust my salvation to a translation.

I trust it to the leading of the Holy Spirit. (who will never violate His word)

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14343
  • Manna: 190
  • Gender: Male
  • My grandson Arturus
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #65 on: Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 19:59:38 »
Sorry Dave you're grasping for straws.

settled
Verb:   
Resolve or reach an agreement about (an argument or problem).

End (a legal dispute) by mutual agreement: "the matter was settled out of court"; "he sued for libel and then settled out of court".
English definitions??  REALLY??

Settled:

Strongs H5324    נצב  nâtsab

A primitive root; to station, in various applications (literally or figuratively): - appointed, deputy, erect, establish, X Huzzah [by mistake for a proper name], lay, officer, pillar, present, rear up, set (over, up), settle, sharpen, stablish, (make to) stand (-ing, still, up, upright), best state.

Offline EDEN2004

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Manna: 20
  • Gender: Male
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #66 on: Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 20:52:10 »
Sorry Dave you're grasping for straws.

settled
Verb:   
Resolve or reach an agreement about (an argument or problem).

End (a legal dispute) by mutual agreement: "the matter was settled out of court"; "he sued for libel and then settled out of court".
English definitions??  REALLY??

Settled:

Strongs H5324    נצב  nâtsab

A primitive root; to station, in various applications (literally or figuratively): - appointed, deputy, erect, establish, X Huzzah [by mistake for a proper name], lay, officer, pillar, present, rear up, set (over, up), settle, sharpen, stablish, (make to) stand (-ing, still, up, upright), best state.


A primitive root; to station, in various applications (literally or figuratively): - appointed, deputy, erect, establish, X Huzzah [by mistake for a proper name], lay, officer, pillar, present, rear up, set (over, up), settle, sharpen, stablish, (make to) stand (-ing, still, up, upright), best state.

We have a large assortment of definitions to choose from.
You like station better, I like establish better. (I also know what settled means... you do too, you just wont admit it)

Anyway, God certainly needs them more than we do. He probably wrote them down and put them in a safe place in case he ever forgot what he said. I mean what possible benefit would there be in having the words of God in our possession.

This is becoming a pointless conversation, if you come up with some real evidence let me know.

Offline kjb1769

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 201
  • Manna: 7
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #67 on: Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 20:53:37 »


As to my view of the KJV, it was a good translation for its day but the language has changed in the last 400 years (and will continue to change) which is fine but requires new translations every few decades.

Why do you consider the King James Bible good for "its day" and not today?

Since the English language of "today" has changed in the last 400 years and that requires a new translation
(your opinion) why not use the same manuscripts that the King James translators used?

Thanks

Offline KNOWLEDGE BOMB

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1327
  • Manna: 21
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #68 on: Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 23:05:16 »
The KJV was the only version to tell you: might still be the only one!

Study To show yourself Approved to God
(1Ti 2:15) so that you can rightly divide the word...

So it Tells us to Study the word of God

And you bibles tell you what?

Be diligent?
Do your best?


None of which tells you that to show yourself approved to God is to study the word!

Even the second part so you can rightly divide the word...
Which shows dividing the word Between Correct and Incorrect interpretations.

What's your say?

Handling truth or teaching truth

but it doesn't say dividing the truth (from Lies)


Would someone (1) like to see how their bible stacks up to a KJV?


It's not hard to show which is correct.....
 




Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14343
  • Manna: 190
  • Gender: Male
  • My grandson Arturus
Re: KJV Onlyism
« Reply #69 on: Fri Jul 06, 2012 - 05:42:11 »
Quote from: DaveW
As to my view of the KJV, it was a good translation for its day but the language has changed in the last 400 years (and will continue to change) which is fine but requires new translations every few decades.
Why do you consider the King James Bible good for "its day" and not today?

Since the English language of "today" has changed in the last 400 years and that requires a new translation
(your opinion) why not use the same manuscripts that the King James translators used?

Thanks
Fair questions.

The answer to the 2nd question also covers the first. 

Archeology has unearthed older and better manuscripts than were available in the late 1500s.  But I suspect that even older (and probably in Aramaic instead of Greek) manuscripts have yet to be found and eventually will be. That is for the NT.

As to the OT, (3/4 of the bible) the KJV uses the Masoretic text, as does EVERY OTHER major version out there in almost every language.  I seriously hope that one day soon the Proto-Septuagint  manuscript will be found and used for an english translation.  Since most of the Greek text quotes from the OT are almost word for word from the LXX, and we know that most of the Jews in and around Jerusalem REFUSED to take on the language of the occupying invaders, they would NOT be quoting much of anything in either Latin or Greek. They would have been speaking and reading Aramaic. Scripture quotes would have been in Hebrew. (the NT quotes were too different from the Aramaic Peshitas for them to have come from that source)

But what if the ProtoSeptuagint and a first century or early 2nd century Aramaic collection of the entire NT were to be unearthed tomorrow. Since the differences in all the NT  manuscript families do not really affect any major doctrinal points, It is very doubtful that a discovery of this magnitude would not have any major effect on doctrine either.  But it would help put things into a better perspective and perhaps discourage some of the wild tangents some people like to ride off on.