ptomwebster
Senior Member
- Jul 10, 2011
- 1,484
- 45
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
So you are saying we should forget about evangelism and trying to reach those that a lost in sin. Do you have any children?
Upvote
0
If the KJV is inerrant, what about other languages that dont have the KJV?
- Thread starter yogosans14
- Start date
So you are saying we should forget about evangelism and trying to reach those that a lost in sin. Do you have any children?
cubanito
Well-Known Member
- Nov 16, 2005
- 2,680
- 222
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Ditto above, whatever disagreements we have, let us try not to be disagreeable. I admit I at times fail this advice, but let's all try to follow it. I am NOT in agreement with Jack Koonz, but he has presented his case with respect.
JR
JR
Upvote
0
There are those people who simply don't trust any translation other than the KJV and therefore either use only the KJV or always keep a KJV around to double check their other translation. And then are KJVO lunatics who say unless you use the KJV you're going to hell. There is a clear distinction between the two that has to be made.
The first category, quite frankly, is probably the majority of Christians who speak English [and who aren't little kids or teenagers]. The second, is a small cabal of internet trolls.
The first will recognize that although they believe the KJV is the best translation due to being based on the TR, etc. that you DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE A PERFECT BIBLE TO BE SAVED. The second will refuse to acknowledge that point.
The first category, quite frankly, is probably the majority of Christians who speak English [and who aren't little kids or teenagers]. The second, is a small cabal of internet trolls.
The first will recognize that although they believe the KJV is the best translation due to being based on the TR, etc. that you DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE A PERFECT BIBLE TO BE SAVED. The second will refuse to acknowledge that point.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
J
Jack Koons
Guest
Hello David,
Please allow me to state that there are in fact more "KJV ONLY" positions than you present. I know this because you have not given my position. (While my position, [at least the major points] is covered on Page 1, Post 9, I will add the following for further clarification.)
I do not believe (as some clearly do), that it is not possible to be saved using a 'modern version'. The reason for this believe (of mine), is that while modern versions have a complexity of errors, for a multitude of reasons, they have maintained two things: 1) the basic story-line of the Bible; and 2) enough retention of verses containing major biblical doctrines, such as salvation, for a person to be both saved, and have basic biblical knowledge. Depending on the particular translation, would determine the amount of "doctrinally supportive" scripture that has been 'removed' or otherwise 'edited'. Dr. D. A. Waite said it quite well while debating Dr. J. White on the KJV ONLY issue: Dr. Waite (I am paraphrasing) stated that, while an airplane designed to fly on 4 engines, can indeed fly on 3, or even possibly 2 engines; pilot and passengers alike, feel much more at ease when all 4 engines are functioning properly, as designed!
Jack
Upvote
0
Aside from the airplane analogy there is another reason that a perfect Bible is not necessary for salvation. The early church didn't have the New Testament. Obviously those who lived before Paul's conversion didn't have Paul's epistles. And when Paul was still persecuting the church, many Christians (not apostles, just regular folk) running for their lives from Saul of Tarsus carried the gospel with them, preaching it along the way, and finally arriving in Antioch where they (regular folk, not apostles) established the first Gentile church long before either Paul was converted or Peter saw the vision of the cloth let down from heaven. They didn't need the Pauline epistles, and didn't need a perfect New Testament. The gospel really isn't so complicated that we have an absolute need of all these things. When people act like it is, they are in fact diminishing the gospel in favor of a caste of special interpreters.
Upvote
0
J
Jack Koons
Guest
David,
I agree with you that the gospel (in and of itself) is not complicated. God made it simple, so that no one would have 'difficulty' understanding it. Soteriology (the doctrine of salvation), on the other hand, is quite complex. Volumes have been written to explain its many facets; and yet there are people with Ph. D's that have opposing views. This is but one of the many doctrines of the scripture, how valuable then are these holy writs, which were sent from the very breath of God? Hence, He gives us by the pen of Paul, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Tim 2:15 God gave us the rest of His Word that we might know Him, and how to become like Him. Salvation is not the end my friends, nay, it is but the beginning. Were it not that God knows (for He dwelleth in the eternal state), we need the entire Canon, He simply would not have given it.
To address the point that the early church did not have the NT; what the early church had that we do not, was the Apostles themselves. Apostles that had first hand knowledge of Jesus Christ, God then chose to breath into them His very Words, to be written, and through His own appointing, and preservation; to be given, and used by His saints through the ages. God has in His sovereignty, chosen to progressively reveal Himself to mankind, from Garden of Eden, until this very day.
In the Garden He gave the knowledge of good and evil. Then He gave limited human government after the flood. He revealed His faithfulness to Abraham in a promise, which He fulfilled. He gave His Law to Moses, through which He would be glorified, had the nation of Israel obeyed that law. He came in the flesh, and gave His life a ransom for mankind. Finally, He gave His words to chosen ones, to be used in the churches, for the edification of the saints.
It is therefore, our privilege, and duty to obey 2 Tim 2:15, that we might bring glory to Him.
Jack
Upvote
0
The very word God did not exist before 1617, neither did the words Jesus, Lord, and countless others. They were all added to the original scriptures when translated into English, being manufactured within the stratagem* referred to as Old English. Germany was the first to be exposed to this so called "Anglo-Saxon" tongue, first developed after it's (Germany's) Christianisation in the late 7th century. The very language the KJV was printed in was created for means of manipulating the uneducated, specifically soon to be isolated Americans, exported across the globe. *Stratagem- "language" using numerology created in 1617 as a military weapon.
Neither of which the letter J exist. How could "Jesus Christ" be named such by "Mary" when the letter J did not exist in her language?
Why did He not once ever give His name? If it is of the importance the KJ Bible claims, why would He withhold it?
Upvote
0
That must come as quite a shock to those who penned the Geneva Bible in 1560 and other English translations before that.
Upvote
0
"Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past" -Orwell
You've been told that this Bible existed in 1560, and by whom? he who controls the past. He who simply revises the past, at the flip of switch to all search engines, to fit the present agenda.
I find it disheartening that you chose only to select what you believed to be the weakest aspect of the weakest charge, to address. While actually avoiding discussion of the most important issue, you merely give the appearance of debunking all charges.
Also known as the "straw-man", and number 4 of theTwenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
J
Jack Koons
Guest
Please consider the following:
John 1:1 WYC - In the beginning was the word, and the - Bible Gateway
John 1:1
Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
1[bless and do not curse]In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word. [In the beginning was the word, that is, God's Son, and the word was at God, and God was the word.]
John Wycliffe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following excerpt was taken from the above site:
"Wycliffe was also an early advocate for translation of the Bible into the common language. He completed his translation directly from the Vulgate into vernacular English in the year 1382, now known as Wycliffe's Bible.[4] It is probable that he personally translated the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and it is possible he translated the entire New Testament, while his associates translated the Old Testament.[5] Wycliffe's Bible appears to have been completed by 1384,[5] with additional updated versions being done by Wycliffe's assistant John Purvey and others in 1388 and 1395.[6]"
The following footnotes support the above material:
"4. Steinmetz, Sol (2008), Semantic Antics, New York: Random House Reference, ISBN[bless and do not curse]0-375-42612-4
5. Kenyon, Sir Frederic G. (1909), "English Versions", in James Hastings, A Dictionary of the Bible, "Exactly how much of it was done by Wyclif's own hand is uncertain."
6. Catholic Encyclopedia Versions of the Bible"
I believe that this link to a brief study of the English language, constitutes the understanding that English was NOT this "stratagem", to which it is stated to [be] have been. There is no way military leaders in either the fifth, or seventh centuries could know with any certainty what would develop 1000 years later.
History of the English Language | EnglishClub
It is always a good thing to do a little research on a subject, before making this kind of statement.
I must actually agree with Standingtall here; what a shock they must have endured!?
Jack
John 1:1 WYC - In the beginning was the word, and the - Bible Gateway
John 1:1
Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
1[bless and do not curse]In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word. [In the beginning was the word, that is, God's Son, and the word was at God, and God was the word.]
John Wycliffe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following excerpt was taken from the above site:
"Wycliffe was also an early advocate for translation of the Bible into the common language. He completed his translation directly from the Vulgate into vernacular English in the year 1382, now known as Wycliffe's Bible.[4] It is probable that he personally translated the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and it is possible he translated the entire New Testament, while his associates translated the Old Testament.[5] Wycliffe's Bible appears to have been completed by 1384,[5] with additional updated versions being done by Wycliffe's assistant John Purvey and others in 1388 and 1395.[6]"
The following footnotes support the above material:
"4. Steinmetz, Sol (2008), Semantic Antics, New York: Random House Reference, ISBN[bless and do not curse]0-375-42612-4
5. Kenyon, Sir Frederic G. (1909), "English Versions", in James Hastings, A Dictionary of the Bible, "Exactly how much of it was done by Wyclif's own hand is uncertain."
6. Catholic Encyclopedia Versions of the Bible"
I believe that this link to a brief study of the English language, constitutes the understanding that English was NOT this "stratagem", to which it is stated to [be] have been. There is no way military leaders in either the fifth, or seventh centuries could know with any certainty what would develop 1000 years later.
History of the English Language | EnglishClub
It is always a good thing to do a little research on a subject, before making this kind of statement.
I must actually agree with Standingtall here; what a shock they must have endured!?
Jack
Upvote
0
An immortal military leader would. The "prince of this world" would. Your denial of the existence of the language you're writing in, which is in fact a stratagem is ironic but irrelevant to its truth. Rejecting it as truth is your right. I have done what I was sent to do, and those who reject this truth will be "without an excuse".
Upvote
0
Well OK then. Alice will soon be along to take you to the tea party. The Mad Hatter requests your presence.
As for me, I have not interest in getting into a discussion with a conspiracy theorist.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
