Holy Bible / There is only one.

Super Gnat · Mar 15, 2006

PeterAV said:
*******

For the Greek thinking person that speaks and reasons in Greek,yes,the TR would be his true Bible,but the AV is the final authority for many Greek speaking folks.

For the English it is,of course,the AV 1611 updated with the spelling fonts and changes that is our pure Holy Bible.

All other nations must translate with these two to have an accurate Bible in their own language.
But the AV is the final authority for mankind till the LORD comes,it[English] is the usable world language for the end times.

Holy Bible
There is only one.
PeterAV

I don't understand why someone speaking an entirely different language would base their translation of the Bible on the AV at all. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to translate directly from the TR to their own language?

And what do you think about updating the AV to conform with the way words are used in the English language in the present day? I'm not talking about altering the meaning, of course; I'm talking about altering some of the words so that they convey the meaning they are supposed to convey in present day English.

ParsonJefferson · Mar 15, 2006

PeterAV said:
A Degree is needed to understand the BIble???

First of all, you might do well to STOP putting words in my mouth. I did NOT say that you need a Degree to understand the Bible. HOWEVER... to make the claims you are making, concerning Biblical authenticity - and to make the ABSOLUTE claims you are making that the AV is the ONLY "inspired" translation, you had BETTER have something that evidences some objective education!

Concerning Matthew 5:22, you wrote...

It omits what you omitted,namely.
..without a cause,... get the picture now?

You're doing your best to split hairs, and make a mountain out of a molehill. For you to claim that Jesus is in danger of judgment is borderline blasphemy. Further, this "point" is closely akin to having a great debate as to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's a moot point.

About the "hundreds of errors in the NIV" that you claimed - and I questioned... You completely avoided answering that. And I'll repeat, you have NOT found literally hundreds of errors in the NIV. That's silly.

Your explanation against that question was this...

To get a masters degree in Systematic theolgy from any reputable Institute one would need to read at least six diferent sytematic theologies and do a write up.
If that is the case,then in that alone,i have the equivilent study time of several masters degrees.
I have talked with many a doctor in my time,and believe you me,I am not totally ignorant of the matter.But this is all besides the point.

Here's the problem. In order to earn the advanced degrees, you are forced to read and digest a wide variety of scholarship - not just writings that agree with what you already believe. This sort of thinking reminds me of two people whom I know very closely...
1. One man claims that it is utter blasphemy to say, "body broken" in any way that is connected with Communion or Jesus. He is so firmly entrenched in his "educated opinion" that he has left EVERY church he has ever attended, and he's left angry. Ironically, his view is 100% contrary to a very dear friend of mine who is not only a Greek scholar, but a Greek professor.
2. One woman claims that the Dispensational Premillennialist View of the end times is the ONLY one that can possibly be correct. When I've asked her what authors she has read, she has read ONLY authors that agree with her view. She had never even HEARD of most credible prophetic authors.

Both these people are widely read. Both of them have made the mistake of ONLY reading things they agree with. Graduate-level education FORCES you to NOT do that. THAT is why it is of value.

Now I want to ask you a few questions:
1. Is anybody that does NOT use "KJV only" going to hell?

Yes,millions,maybe billions.But those that believe in Jesus,even though they have never seen a King James Bible are saved.There must be the spiritual seed of truth.And there are a certain amount of KJV truth in the modern versions to get folks saved.Just like a tract.

So you're actually saying that anybody who reads anything other than KJV is going to hell? Are you actually claiming that somebody who reads RSV or NIV is going straight to hell? Do you REALLY believe that?

2. If KJV is the ONLY inspired and true English translation, what did English-speaking people do BEFORE the KJV was translated?
*******
You have not read history?Come now.You know the list,don't play ignorant with me.They all followed the same Greek family of Manuscripts,namely the TR.They were the word of God for then.But now we have the pure words purified seven times.

You're right. I am NOT ignorant of history.
But again I ask the question you've not answered. Did the English-speaking people, who read the Geneva Bible before KJV was translated, go to hell when they died? Did the Pilgrims, who originally came to America, go to hell because they used the Geneva Bible instead of KJV? What about those who read The Bishop's Bible instead of KJV? Did they go to hell too? After all, the KJV WAS available at that time, and many people CHOSE NOT to use it.

3. Do you believe that the KJV translator(s) had access to "original manuscripts" that later translators did NOT have access to? If so, what were those manuscripts and how can you prove that?
*******
Yes,they did have access to several manuscripts that we do not have,including some of the earlier translators.But I have no way of knowing of if it were indeed the "originals",I highly doubt that.But they were coppies of the pure line.There are quotes from some translators that they had several manuscripts for certain verses which now we do not have.If you really want,I can find a couple for you.

You have absolutely no basis for that contradictory answer you gave. You're basically saying that God gave special powers and privileges to the KJV translators, then made those same powers and privileges impossible for following translators.
The KJV translators did NOT have access to "originals" that nobody has access to today. In fact, more recent discoveries (Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.) have actually clarified some of the very minor inconsistencies present in the KJV.

4. Is it "honest" of the KJV translators to NOT note that John 7:53-8:11 was NOT in many of the earliest manuscripts? Can you explain why the KJV translators went ahead and included that passage, despite the fact that many of the earliest manuscripts do NOT have it?

And you just previously asked asked if they had manuscripts that are no longer extant today.So what is this?HMMM double speak?Come on now,obviously they beleived they had enough evidence as to the trueness of the text to include it.Of course they were not dishonest.

Again, why would the KJV translators simply refuse to note, in the margins, that MANY (most) of the earliest manuscripts did NOT have this passage?
I am FULLY aware of why most of the early manuscripts did not include the passate. I believe that it is right to have this passage in John. But I believe that either the KJV translators were not aware of its absence in MOST of the earliest manuscripts, or they simply chose to include it anyway - without footnoting it.

This is simply the "tip of the iceberg". But the bottom line is this: I believe it is extremely narrow-minded and rigid to INSIST that the KJV is the ONLY English translation God wants us to read.

Right across the street from my office is a small "Baptist Temple". They openly proclaim that they are the ONLY people who will be in heaven. They openly condemn every other church in town as a non-Christian church, and all other church members as non-Christians. If you want to join their church, you will have to be immersed into THEIR church - even if you already are an immersed believer. They also insist that KJV is the ONLY inspired translation because - as their pastor states it - the Word of God NEVER changes!

What's interesting is that I do NOT read of Jesus ever behaving that way. I DO, however, read of the Pharisees behaving in that manner. I sincerely hope that that is NOT your approach to the Bible, and to people.

eldermike · Mar 15, 2006

PeterAV said:
You are entittled to your own opinions.That is fair enouph.
But there is a big distinction between the written word and the living Word.
The written word is always small "w"
The living Word is always capital"W"
The living Word of course is Jesus.
The written word is his heart to us.
It is as good as his word.For it is his word.
His word is spirit and life.

In all of this we agree.
But I do disagree with you in the theory that I am idolizing the AV.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
All I am doing is bringing up the point that the church at large is headed into apostacy by using compromized new versions based upon heretical manuscripts,of which the church rejected long ago.
How can putting the true word of God where it ought to be,be idolatry?
Unless there is a type of loathing on your part for the pure word of God.I don't think that is the case though.

I take it,from your responses that you do not believe that there is any such thing as the pure word of God in a book that is preserved,and very pure.Am I right?

Holy Bible
There is only one.
PeterAV

No, I actually do hold that the 66 book bible is the pure word of God. But I also know that most people do not live more than a part of one percent of what they know of scripture. I could actually live just fine with a few pages from Romans taken from the message. Knowing God is not a letter issue. The Truth is actually simple and a matter of faith. I don't struggle with faith, I lost that battle a long time ago. I am still working on Christ saving me while I was yet a sinner. If I get that down, I'll move on. My favorite place to be is with a new believer, they know nothing and until we get them civilized and reading daily they just go up to total strangers and tell them what God did for them.

I don't like this issue, it's a non issue in my book but that just might be our different ministries at work.

prodromos · Mar 15, 2006

PeterAV said:
New age name jargon
Omit hell 22 times and replaces it with the new age term hades.
Omits the Bible term devil ~~81 times and replaces it with the corrupted new age term demon.~~

For supposedly "new" age terms, they are surprisingly old, seeing as they are the actual Greek words found in the TR

John

Prawnik · Mar 16, 2006

PeterAV's argument on "errors" in non-KJV translations seems to be "if they disagree with the KJV, then they are errors".

Says who? That argument can be reduced to: "My side is right and if you disagree, you are wrong because my side is right." Occasionally, we get to "non-KJV translations may suggest beliefs at variance with my (KJV) beliefs, therefore these translations must be wrong."

If you disagree, you disagree with God, but nobody has shown me any reason to believe that the KJV is the inerrant Word of God. I could do just as well by stating that the "New Age Bible" is the inspired and inerrant Word of God and that the KJV is blasphemy insofar as it contradicts the "New Age Bible."

Same argument, different players.

Combatchuc11 · Mar 16, 2006

Trying to control ideas is just peoples' way of trying to control people. The church tried that with many famous scientists back in the dark ages, despite the fact that they were speaking the truth, all because they were afraid of losing their power over the people. Nowadays, some people try to claim that only their wording of the bible is accurate (despite scientific evidence) so that they can attempt to maintain their throne of power. Basically, it's all about exaltation of themselves over Christ. According to this deification of the KJV contained within this thread, anybody who reads a bible other than the KJV are going straight to Hell. By logical progression, everybody that doesn't speak English (who has the chance to learn english) is going straight to hell, because they have the choice to learn english and read the "pure word of God" however by choosing to read the bible in their own language they're obviously shunning the "true word of God" in favor of their own "heretical texts." Jesus preached against these type of people and this type of teaching.
Luke 11:52 (KJV)
Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
Luke 11:52 (NKJV)
“Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.”

Anybody who understands why Jesus saved us and not just the fact that He saved will understand that redemption is not held in rules, or languages, or races. Jesus came and abolished a law. Men have tried to reestablish it, for men love power. They try to instate laws to cancel grace by imposing their will above God's will. God's will is that we be saved.
2 Peter 3:9 (KJV)
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The claim repentance upon something you see as important, but I claim repentance based upon the blood of Jesus Christ. You have tried to raise an idol, but we know that idols lie down and are smashed before the convenants of God. (1 Sam 5:4)

BBAS 64 · Mar 17, 2006

Good Day , All

It is just amazing how things seem to be timely. I must tell you I attend a Baptist church, in which the pastor is a strong KJVO type. Last sunday during Sunday school he pulled out Gail Ripplinger's book. I must tell you it was a very good exchange we had. It left me with ssome questiuons that I have to resolve for him, and he has many more to resolve for me.

Thursday night on James White's internet broad cast he commented on a book that was written by a Dr. Stauffer who is a KJVO. I have provided this link to that show and would urge you to listen.

http://www.aomin.org/dl20.ram

James refers to a web site that contains some of the book that he is commenting on so that you can follow along:

http://www.mccowenmills.com/Default.aspx?tabid=169

The book to which Stauffer refers by James White is here:

https://aomin.org/bookstore/shop.html?shop=books

Peace to u,

Bill

JVD · Mar 17, 2006

The logic of KJV advocates is interesting.

Basically, you have to say that God inspired the bible several times. First when the original authors wrote it. Second, when it was translated from the original languages into the TR (it was not all originally greek) and third when it went to English from the TR.

That is absolutely the only conclusion possible. It is not possible to translate from one language to another and expect to get the exact meaning correct. You have make some judgement calls. Languages just cannot be translated word by word. They have to be translated meaning by meaning.

So you have to know the exact meaning in one language (that is a judgement call since you aren't talking directly to the original author), and then you have to try to put that exact meaning into another language. So to say the "AV" is the only true bible is to say the translators were just as inspired as the original authors. Most KJVO people do believe that.

Then pity the poor people who don't speak english or greek. They have to find an inspired person to translate into their language from the "AV". It's not enough just to translate the bible from KJV to Ingalic for example, anyone who knows both languages can do that...you have to be inspired just as much as was the prophet Isaiah.

The further you go with this kind of logic, the more absurd it gets.

NacDan · Mar 18, 2006

The King James Version was good enough for Jesus and His Apostles, it's good enough for me...and btw...I also know that Jesus only likes 4 part southern gospel music.

Danny

Perrard · Mar 18, 2006

I didn't realize that Jesus had a copy of the KJV when he was preaching. Did it already contain the New Testament as well?

WAB · Mar 18, 2006

ParsonJefferson said:
I'll throw in my 2 cents' worth here...

Personally, I primarily read the NIV translation. It is also the primary translation we use in our church. I appreciate the fact that it is accurate, is honest (including footnotes explaining some "contested" passages), and that it reads well.

I also have no problem with KJV, nor those who read it. In fact, I don't think you can find an English translation that helps the books of Poetry "sing".

I do believe that it is unnecessarily divisive to claim that KJV is the "only" correct English translation. I also believe it's inappropriate to say that KJV is the only "inspired" English translation, since that would clearly be implying that there was NO "inspired" Word of God before the KJV was translated.

In a day and age when most people either don't read the Bible at all, or take the Liberal view that questions its very core and essence, I cannot for the life of me figure out why Christians choose to fight over this issue.

Notes re Acts 12:4.…
Many (especially in the KJV Only camp) claim that in the KJV of 1611 (and later revisions), the translators were correct in their insertion of “Easter” in place of “Passover” or “Pesach” or “Pascha” in Acts 12:4.

To counter these claims, which include stating that only later or “modern” versions of the Bible changed from using “Easter” to the most common “Passover” one need only look at Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance to find that the literal translation is: “pascha. pas’khah; of Chald. or. … the Passover (the meal, the day, the festival or the special sacrifices connected with it):”

Also, it is really a stretch to claim that only the “modern versions” of the Bible have changed from “Easter” to Passover. For example, the Latin Vulgate has: “post pascha” and this version, (although admittedly faulty in other areas) was finished in 405 A.D.

Noah Webster’s version (and yes, of the Bible) was done in 1833.
Young’s Literal in 1862. Darby’s translation in 1890. The ASV in 1901.

All of these older Bibles have “Passover”.
In addition, all of the following versions have “Passover” in Acts 12:4.… the BBE;
the NASB; the RSV; the NRSV; Wuest’s Expanded Translation; the CCNT;
the NIV: the NKJV; the ESV; and there are others.

As stated elsewhere, I love and use the KJV almost daily, mainly because of the majestic language used. Daily use now is restricted to the NKJV reference Bible w/ wide margins for the insertion of notes, but refer often to the versions mentioned above.

This is not to say that there are not aberrations in any of the versions mentioned. There are. Only the original autographs were absolutely without error of any kind.

But…
None of the copyist errors, nor translation errors, have corrupted ANY of the foundational doctrines of the Word Of God, for said errors are miniscule when a comparison using immediate and general context is followed. You can trust His Word!
Written by: W.A.B.

Edit to add... I forgot to say that Parson's comments were correct, and to the point.

Combatchuc11 · Mar 18, 2006

WAB said:
Notes re Acts 12:4.
Many (especially in the KJV Only camp) claim that in the KJV of 1611 (and later revisions), the translators were correct in their insertion of Easter in place of Passover or Pesach or Pascha in Acts 12:4.

LOL

TreeOfLife · Mar 18, 2006

Perrard said:
I didn't realize that Jesus had a copy of the KJV when he was preaching. Did it already contain the New Testament as well?

Yes of course. And the notated four part harmonies of the songs as well. Hit one bad note and ...........BAM!!!!!!..........straight to hell I tell you!

PeterAV · Mar 22, 2006

ParsonJefferson,
You said;

Here's the problem. In order to earn the advanced degrees, you are forced to read and digest a wide variety of scholarship - not just writings that agree with what you already believe. This sort of thinking reminds me of two people whom I know very closely...
1. One man claims that it is utter blasphemy to say, "body broken" in any way that is connected with Communion or Jesus. He is so firmly entrenched in his "educated opinion" that he has left EVERY church he has ever attended, and he's left angry. Ironically, his view is 100% contrary to a very dear friend of mine who is not only a Greek scholar, but a Greek professor.
2. One woman claims that the Dispensational Premillennialist View of the end times is the ONLY one that can possibly be correct. When I've asked her what authors she has read, she has read ONLY authors that agree with her view. She had never even HEARD of most credible prophetic authors.

Both these people are widely read. Both of them have made the mistake of ONLY reading things they agree with. Graduate-level education FORCES you to NOT do that. THAT is why it is of value.

*******
I agreee with you completely in this.
Maybe I should have made myself more understandable in this area.

I have some ten feet of Systematic Theology Books that I have read.Plus I purposely got at least a few from every perspective I could find.

Amill
Premill
Postmill
pre trib
Mid trib
Post trib
Baptist,Pebtecostal
You name it.
I have read lots.
And that is just one area,
Then there is the Church History sets.
Also Afew feet of word studies of every author that yoiu could think of.
Plus any big name in Church history that made a biblical impact,I made sure to get so that I could hear from them first hand instead of some other person's smear or over cheerleading,depending on the person's personal preferences.
So I have read some comentaries that are quite a few volumes,And I always made sure to read the opposer as well.

So yes,I agree that one does need to read both sides,or at least read enough to know the issue well.

My last study sessions have been with Bible translations.
I have sdudied them for years.
I know many of the arguments on both sides first hand and by memory.

Thanks for your reply,
PeterAV
Holy Bible
There is only one.

PeterAV · Mar 23, 2006

Quote

Now I want to ask you a few questions:
1. Is anybody that does NOT use "KJV only" going to hell?

Yes,millions,maybe billions.But those that believe in Jesus,even though they have never seen a King James Bible are saved.There must be the spiritual seed of truth.And there are a certain amount of KJV truth in the modern versions to get folks saved.Just like a tract.

So you're actually saying that anybody who reads anything other than KJV is going to hell? Are you actually claiming that somebody who reads RSV or NIV is going straight to hell? Do you REALLY believe that?

*******
Nope,I did not say that.And every person that reads this thread will agree with me.
You can read any Bible you may choose.I am not against that.But don't for one minute think that those versions are the pure Holy Bible,as in the Fimal Authority.

Only the AV is that.
The modern versions have rejected the Majority of the manuscrips and have gone over to the corrupted Minority texts ,Namely two or three out of thousands.

And these main two have been pumped out by heretics.
Namely Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.They can't even agree any two verses in a row.

But if you take the AV and the manuscripts that it came from,of the family line,you will find such agreableness throughout and throughout history.

Why even the corrupted manuscripts HAD to agree with the real Holy Bible in many places to pass off as legit.
So you get these fragments like P66 and so forth that have to agree with the AV readings at least 50% of the time.

You missread my post,is obvious.I told you that the NIV and others have AV readings in them.So there is enough truth to get people saved,just like in a tract.
But don't think for one moment that they are the final authority and pure,with all the alulterations in them.
You can read them if you wish to,just know that they are not to be completely trusted.
Try Mark 1:2 and see the error in many of the new versions there.

PeterAV · Mar 23, 2006

About the "hundreds of errors in the NIV" that you claimed - and I questioned... You completely avoided answering that. And I'll repeat, you have NOT found literally hundreds of errors in the NIV. That's silly.

*******
I was hoping someone would finally say that.Ok,Here goes,but you ain't gonna like it.It is not just the NIV either,it is all modern versions that do not follow the TRs and the Masoretic texts.

I will start you off with a small sampling.I guarantee that some of these are from "small to damaging to doctrine",some for no good reason but for copyright sake and following corrupted manuscripts.

This tiny list is what I call the bell weather test to see if you have a corrupted Bible that agrees with both the JW's Bible and the Catholic Bibles because they are founded upon the same corrupted manuscripts.
*******
These changes do not make the Holy Bible easier to understand as they say they do.They attack the fundamentals of the faith,and omit important truth.

Check it out prayerfully!

Luke 2:33 in this verse they hide the fact that Joseph was not his real father,an un-neccessary change.

James 5:16 changing the word "faults" to "sins",trying to promote certain sectarian doctrines.

Acts 20:28 tell me what is missing there- but it is in the trustworthy AV.

Mark 10:24 now that one is a laugher.Don't need to be a Greek Scholar for this one.What a lie.In fact,one can prove all these errors without ever knowing a lick of Greek.Even though I do, and have even made mine own Dictionary.

Next
Matt.12:6 Changing "one greater=someone" to "something"?ouch!Ah but people like to make excuses,and I can see the folks already start to defend their favorite versions right now.

Matt.12:42 My,my,the same error again?And some versions that have the error in the first verse don't have it in this one but change the wording yet again.

John 3:13 Now this one is a doctrine that is illiminated.Namely, the omnipresence of Christ.
Why follow heretics that only believed he was a man.
Why follow heretics that would try to improve on God's "errors"?

John 1:18 The NASB changes "only begotten Son" to "only begotten God",so now we have two god's.I wonder what ancient hersy this one is?

2 Tim.3:3 missing words,anyone?Or how about changed words!"..of those that are good" to "good".

2 Tim.3:16 just read it and compare with the real Holy Bible.There is no reason for any change.

Rom.9:5
*******
Now this is the short list of my short list.

I have many many many more,hundreds and hundreds of many versions that I have checked.Such blunders ought not to go un-noticed.

After you check this list,I will give you another,then another,and yet another.I have so many,that I could just as well post the errors every post instead of trying to state my case and let the errors speak for themselves.

Believe you me,I did not pick my best ones either.Just grabbed the first few on the list,is all.

PeterAV
Holy Bible
There is only one.

PeterAV · Mar 26, 2006

Combatchuc11 said:
LOL

*******
Laugh all you want,it does not change the truth of the matter.
The truth is,that Eatser was the norm for the translation of the Greek term Pasche.[Before the AV]
Let's look at the first mention in the New Testament at passover.

Matthew26:2
Wycliff just basically transliterated it and put down-
paske

Tyndale-1534 he put in-ester

Cramner-1539 he put in-Easter

Geneva-1557 has-Easter

Rheims-1582 put-Pasche

The Holy Bible has-Passeouer

In fact Tyndale put for the Passover,"ester",or the "ester lambe".Luther did the very same,for his German.

Even in the AV translator's very letter to the Readers,they say that we should not be so rigid in thinking that one word MUST always be translated only one way.Must it always be leap and never jump?etc.

So even if this were the case,that they decided to keep the original English wording there,does not make it an error.

Some think that they purposed to change every time "easter" had been mentioned and put in its place every time "Passover".
I doubt of this thing.The translators were living in a time when the occult was at its zenith,particularily Alchemy and the hermetica.
You can see it in its own artwork by C.Boel the Copper engraver on the tittle page.[check the pelican mother making her chest to bleed,so that the young can eat thereof]Also you can see Alchemy on many of the chapter headings.Also they mention the Philosopher's stone and other things in their letter to the Readers.

I believe that they left Easter in this one place for good reason.Herod was of the line that came from around the Dead Sea.Idumaean blood.

Well that area has had dealings with the Babylonic worship folks for close to 1000 years by this time.
Judges 2:13
Gen.14:1-6
2 Kings 24:2

So this is why many Holy Bible supporters believe that Herod was waiting for a pagan celebration,that happened AFTER passover.Astarte and the queen of heaven any other name that joined with the similar Babylonian worship.
This is why Luke made sure to mention the "days of unleavened bread" so we could make a distinction.

Plus it would be too early for Easter as a christian celebration;I see it as being very soon after the resurection,unless Luke was talking from the viewpoint of his day that he wrote it,[of which I doubt].This would show that the day of Passover,had now become an official christian celebration,howbeit a celebration with a further revelation of our LORD.

PeterAV
Holy Bible
There is only one.

timbrown · Mar 26, 2006

As I've heard someone else mention (I can't remember who), what does it tell us about God if we didn't have an accurate Bible until the KJV? If we had a corrupt Scripture, what does that say about the growth of the church? Was it based on error?

I've heard this debate over and over again. We have at least one local church here that is "KJV Only".

I occasionally read the KJV. I mostly use the NIV. I really like the NASB. But I RELY on the original Greek when it comes to splitting hairs. If I have a question about the meaning of a word or verse, I go there, not necessarily to an alternate translation.

When I study, I DON'T use the NLT or "The Message". I get frustrated when I see people switch versions and quote versions selectively because a particular translation or paraphrase supports their particular theological preference at that time.

I guess I'm just frustrated with this. Sorry to rant, but the devil just loves to create division over things. Our world is falling apart, and people are dying without Christ every day.

And I know from experience that many unsaved see things like this and go "aha! See? You can't even agree amongst yourselves!".

If you like the KJV, read it! But I believe in a God who was able to speak his Word accurately before 1611.

Again, sorry for the rant. My intent is not to offend or hurt. But I've seen enough of this stuff.

Tim

TexasSky · Mar 26, 2006

Though I love the KJ, it is neither "pure" nor "perserved". It is based on a version of the text that was actually considered "less accurate" and it has not "outlasted" hundreds and hundreds of others either.

PeterAV · Mar 26, 2006

timbrown said:
As I've heard someone else mention (I can't remember who), what does it tell us about God if we didn't have an accurate Bible until the KJV? If we had a corrupt Scripture, what does that say about the growth of the church? Was it based on error?

I've heard this debate over and over again. We have at least one local church here that is "KJV Only".

I occasionally read the KJV. I mostly use the NIV. I really like the NASB. But I RELY on the original Greek when it comes to splitting hairs. If I have a question about the meaning of a word or verse, I go there, not necessarily to an alternate translation.

When I study, I DON'T use the NLT or "The Message". I get frustrated when I see people switch versions and quote versions selectively because a particular translation or paraphrase supports their particular theological preference at that time.

I guess I'm just frustrated with this. Sorry to rant, but the devil just loves to create division over things. Our world is falling apart, and people are dying without Christ every day.

And I know from experience that many unsaved see things like this and go "aha! See? You can't even agree amongst yourselves!".

If you like the KJV, read it! But I believe in a God who was able to speak his Word accurately before 1611.

Again, sorry for the rant. My intent is not to offend or hurt. But I've seen enough of this stuff.

Tim

As I've heard someone else mention (I can't remember who), what does it tell us about God if we didn't have an accurate Bible until the KJV? If we had a corrupt Scripture, what does that say about the growth of the church? Was it based on error?

*******
Those are not my beliefs.Just because we cannot find any pure errorless manuscripts from before the AV,does not mean they did not exist.

I believe that the pure Bible was around,before 1611,in the Old Latin,not Jerome's.Plus you can see many old versions that agree with the AV,Gothic,Old Syriac,Old Latin,Peshitta,etc.

I think the thing is,is that you and I look at the preservation of Scriptures diferently.I believe the AV as being the pure preserved text of God that we can hold in our hands, one book.

You do not believe this.You do not believe that there is any such pure word of God found in one book.

I believe God,and take him at his word.I believe what God has said in his word about his word.Your side would like to be the final umpire in the thing,to be free to choose the readings in any version of manuscript,and not allow God's word to be the final authority.
This is what it is ALL about.

Final authority.

If your side believes in the inspired "originals" and there is NONE remaining of those actual "originals". Then you folks should at least allow our side to have the same argument.

I find it wierd that your side can find no 100% pure inspired Holy Bible,but we claim to have that in the AV.
Yet because there is no existing evidence of those manuscripts in a book,namely the actual identical readings,complete that agree with the AV,you think you have a valid point.But we can say the very same to you.

I think you can see that?

I've heard this debate over and over again. We have at least one local church here that is "KJV Only".

*******
Yip,me too!There is an AV church 1/2 block from my house.

I occasionally read the KJV. I mostly use the NIV. I really like the NASB. But I RELY on the original Greek when it comes to splitting hairs. If I have a question about the meaning of a word or verse, I go there, not necessarily to an alternate translation.

*******
You have them thar "original"?Wow,Please send me a copy.Actually there is no such thang as the original Greek.There are many Greek editions of the New Testament.I have a few myself.So which one is the "original"?
A-hem..there are no "originals" left anymore.I like how you use the AV,and that you mostly use the NIV,you really like the NASB,but you really rely on the original Greek.

I hope this does not mean that you don't believe that a translation can be perfect,you don't believe that,now,do you?

When I study, I DON'T use the NLT or "The Message". I get frustrated when I see people switch versions and quote versions selectively because a particular translation or paraphrase supports their particular theological preference at that time.

*******
I hear you,big time.That is just playing the game of pick and choose.This makes the person above the very words of God. But then again,why do you confess to using multi versions?Does this not show preference?

I guess I'm just frustrated with this. Sorry to rant, but the devil just loves to create division over things. Our world is falling apart, and people are dying without Christ every day.

*******
Now that is a funny one,if it wasn't so serious.To say that the people that still believe that the Holy Bible is the pure Holy Bible,are a bunck of kooks,but the people that no longer believe that any book on this earth is the very word of God is now the accepted norm?Well that just smacks of apostacy.
Why is it that people believe their fake Bibles when it come to that point.Namely,watch out for those that cause divisions.They only partially use a quote from the Bible to make their points.
My Bible reads in Rom.16:17
Now I beseech you,brethren,mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned;and avoid them.
I am not being divisive,as in purposeful antagonism or gain for filthy lucre.I allow you folks to have the Bible of you choice,but to be warned that those modern Bibles are not built upon the sure foundation.

And I know from experience that many unsaved see things like this and go "aha! See? You can't even agree amongst yourselves!".

*******
Yes,one can get all kinds of characters on both sides of the issue is true.But the fundamental thing still remains.

1]We believe in a pure Holy Bible that we can put in our hands each day and read,study,memorize,preach and teach with.In other words,we believe that God has preserved his words in the AV.

2]The other side believes that there is no pure Holy Bible that you can see,touch or read.That they improved on the work of God's word by using the tainted manuscripts pumped out by heretics,unbelievers,and the like.That one day they will have an almost perfect Bible,improving upon what God was unable to do acording to his pure word.
Psalm 12:6,7 119:140...

If you like the KJV, read it! But I believe in a God who was able to speak his Word accurately before 1611.

*******
I agree completly.But Word,should read word.
W= Jesus the living Word
w=the word of God

Again, sorry for the rant. My intent is not to offend or hurt. But I've seen enough of this stuff.
Tim

*******
That is quite all-right,but it is hard not to offend,even when agreeing with everything the other person may offer.But as much as possible...peace...
Yes,I have seen enough too,however, that is why I speak up.And that is why you spoke up too.God bless you as you go for the Lord,and reach the lost and encourage the saved.
Therefore to him that knoweth to do good,and doeth it not,to him it is sin.James 4:17

PeterAV
Holy Bible
There is only one.

Holy Bible / There is only one.

Take my hand, precious Lord, and lead me home

just LOVES the flagrantly biased moderating here

Pray

Senior Veteran

Pit Bull Terrier

Active Member

Contributor

JVD

Guest

Theology never comforted anyone in pain.

Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

A son of God!

PeterAV

Guest

PeterAV

Guest

PeterAV

Guest

PeterAV

Guest

Active Member

Senior Veteran

PeterAV

Guest

Similar threads