KJV only debate

[Gold Dragon]

full circle

back to starting point: back to the starting point, usually after passing through various stages
​

Which would be 1885 right??

Anyone feel like guessing when Tyndale's New Testament was published?

He's trying to suggest that the Archbishop of Cantebury had a fetish for circles and Tyndale's NT and synchonized his declaration that the Deuterocanonicals were to be excluded from the KJV with the 360th anniversary of Tyndale's NT.

 

[@@Paul@@]

He's trying to suggest that the Archbishop of Cantebury had a fetish for circles and Tyndale's NT and synchonized his declaration that the Deuterocanonicals were to be excluded from the KJV with the 360th anniversary of Tyndale's NT.

LOL... i never said the "Archbishop of Cantebury".

 

[Gold Dragon]

LOL... i never said the "Archbishop of Cantebury".

 

[ZiSunka]

So WE, i.e. the believers, are to decide what is canonical?

Who else would? Should we let unbelievers decide???

Weren't the people who decided Believers??

 

[SumTinWong]

Good point lambs Love.

 

[Dikaioo]

Remember in the Old Testament it was the tribe of Levi that kept holy writ. Even so today, we as Christians (who are priests unto God, Rev. 1:6) are to keep the scriptures. It is not the responsibility of a religious sect or group, but for Christians.

 

[verismo]

Who else would? Should we let unbelievers decide???

Weren't the people who decided Believers??

YES!! They were believers.

But not the LAITY! It was the Church officials, the Men of God. If it were up to just every believer to decide the canon of Scripture, we might all have different Bibles. I might not think that Revelation is necessary, so I just decide, since I am a believer with the Holy Spirit that it is not canonical Scripture, so it's out. And someone might add the Gospel of Thomas in!

No, the Holy Spirit that wrote the Scriptures also guided its Church to compile its canon. Not leave it up to the individual believer. We didn't decide the canon: we inherited the canon, and since the Scripture itself doesn't speak to the canon within itself, we accept the canon that has been passed down to us, a canon that was decided on my the Church.

 

[Dikaioo]

YES!! They were believers.

But not the LAITY! It was the Church officials, the Men of God. If it were up to just every believer to decide the canon of Scripture, we might all have different Bibles. I might not think that Revelation is necessary, so I just decide, since I am a believer with the Holy Spirit that it is not canonical Scripture, so it's out. And someone might add the Gospel of Thomas in!

No, the Holy Spirit that wrote the Scriptures also guided its Church to compile its canon. Not leave it up to the individual believer. We didn't decide the canon: we inherited the canon, and since the Scripture itself doesn't speak to the canon within itself, we accept the canon that has been passed down to us, a canon that was decided on my the Church.

Good point!

On a side note, who's picture is that in your avatar?

 

[verismo]

Good point!

On a side note, who's picture is that in your avatar?

Thank you!

It is me.

heh heh, just kiddnig.

It is G.K. Chesterton.

 

[Lynn73]

I am KJV only. I believe it is on God's authority and that He has blessed this Bible.

I'm KJV only also. I found this site one time about it and thought it explained the reasoning for KJV only real well.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/another.htm

 

[Dikaioo]

I'm KJV only also. I found this site one time about it and thought it explained the reasoning for KJV only real well.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/another.htm

That's not really a good site to get credible information. For example, on that site it says,

The Preface to the New American Standard Bible, published in 1963, states that, "In most instances the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament was followed." Dr. Frank Logsdon, former pastor of Moody Memorial Church, along with Dewey Lockman (The Lockman Foundation), laid the groundwork for this modern version. After its publication, questions by friends caused Dr. Logsdon to examine the translation closely. The following is his renunciation of every attachment to the NASB. This renunciation takes on added meaning since the NIV and NASB used the Nestle/Aland Text in the revision process and many changes are common to both.

(emphasis mine)

No, Logsdon didn't lay the groundwork, nor help in doing so. He was at about 1 or 2 of the several meetings that were held regarding the NASB. He never helped to translate it nor did he really make a contribution, he was just an "on looker" so to speak.

www.aomin.org has a lot of interesting debates (real audio), articles, etc.

 

[Dikaioo]

Let's compare Jude 25 in the KJV and NASB. Let's turn the table and ask, which version "omits" something?


KJV Jude 1:25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

NASB Jude 1:25 to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

 

[Lynn73]

I also will say that most in my church use the NIV and I have no desire to look for another church because of it. There are a few of us that stick with the KJV, though. When they read the NIV out loud I just follow in my KJV.

 

[@@Paul@@]

Let's compare Jude 25 in the KJV and NASB. Let's turn the table and ask, which version "omits" something?

KJV Jude 1:25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

NASB Jude 1:25 to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

which one adds something?

 

[Dikaioo]

"through Jesus Christ our Lord" is in the NASB, isn't in the KJV

I use the KJV, I love it, I just don't think a translation is inspired or perfect. I hold the KJV in my hand and I can confidently say, this is the Word of God

 

[@@Paul@@]

"through Jesus Christ our Lord" is in the NASB, isn't in the KJV

I use the KJV, I love it, I just don't think a translation is inspired or perfect. I hold the KJV in my hand and I can confidently say, this is the Word of God

Neither is "before all time"

I think the bible i have is as perfect as i need it to be...

 

[ZiSunka]

YES!! They were believers.

But not the LAITY! It was the Church officials, the Men of God. If it were up to just every believer to decide the canon of Scripture, we might all have different Bibles. I might not think that Revelation is necessary, so I just decide, since I am a believer with the Holy Spirit that it is not canonical Scripture, so it's out. And someone might add the Gospel of Thomas in!

No, the Holy Spirit that wrote the Scriptures also guided its Church to compile its canon. Not leave it up to the individual believer. We didn't decide the canon: we inherited the canon, and since the Scripture itself doesn't speak to the canon within itself, we accept the canon that has been passed down to us, a canon that was decided on my the Church.

Your church officials, not ours. Our church officials decided on a different canon of scripture that didn't include books of doubtful or outside origin. I'm fine with that. The earliest NTs didn't have the "middle testament" either, so who and when was it decided to put them in? Just because someone decided to add them in at some point doesn't mean they belong there or have to stay there forever.

 

[Dikaioo]

Yes, the Apocryphal writings aren't canonical. The KJV translators knew this as well, that's why they put them in the middle of the 1611 and translated them as historical and not theopneustos or that is, inspired by God. This is the reason why the Puritans for quite some time wouldnt' use the KJV as it had the Apocryphal writings in it.

 

[@@Paul@@]

Just out of curiosity.... Who decided the contents of the canon?

 

[verismo]

Your church officials, not ours. Our church officials decided on a different canon of scripture that didn't include books of doubtful or outside origin. I'm fine with that. The earliest NTs didn't have the "middle testament" either, so who and when was it decided to put them in? Just because someone decided to add them in at some point doesn't mean they belong there or have to stay there forever.

My officials? Your officials? Outside origin? New Testament with middle testament?? Added in? What are you talking about?