• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
345
USA
✟3,201.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Post number 11, especially the second and third paragraphs, give a more carefully prepared explanation of why the translation of the Bible was authorized by the King of England and why it does matter that it is the Authorized Version.

My sketchy historical account in post 18 fits in with paragraphs 2 and 3 of post 11
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avid
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,056
56
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,940,328.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
A new and better translation than the Geneva Bible was needed because it was compiled in largely Calvinistic dominated Geneva (where it got it's name from) and some of the translation was considered to be corrupt do to Calvinistic influence. The footnotes were strongly Calvinistic implying that the Calvinistic interpretation of verses footnoted was the correct interpretation. The Puritans were not happy with it and quickly replaced it with the King James Bible after the AV was complete.

And there's the truth. It's not a bad translation (as you've already admitted). It's those pesky Calvinists.
 
Upvote 0

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
345
USA
✟3,201.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
You miss the point. But you KJVO types usually do. They at LARGELY in agreement. The same arguments you use to say that we should use the KJV are the same ones that say we should use the Geneva. Unless, that is, you are using extra-biblical reasoning like quoting mere men such as Tyndale and Bunyan.

Please don't prejudice me with the slanderous term "you KJVO types". I am being reasonable and responding accurately to your comments. I'm asking you to read my replies as well as I am reading yours. You are missing the point that "largely in agreement" is not in agreement. You are ignoring my assertion that the changes of modern versions are vast and doctrinally erroneous and my explanations as to why these facts are true. By denigrating me to a "KJVO type", it seems to justify your refusal to look at the facts I am presenting. If the summation of your argument is "you KJVO types" followed by a list of false accusations which ignore my many explanations of why the Geneva Bible was left behind and replaced by the King James Bible.

I won't be able to conduct a conversation with you if this is the kind of response I am going to face when I try to be reasonable with you.

Your tone in calling me a "KJVO type" is extremely degrading and is the same mindset used in racist attacks against ethnic groups. I can assure you that I am a man, and not a "KJVO type" who is "LARGELY in agreement" with you in matters of morality, faith, and personal conduct. We are not yet in agreement regarding the veracity of preservation of scripture and God's hand in giving His Word to us in our own language. I hope we will come into agreement on that, but we don't have to. My beloved mentor was not in agreement with me on the King James Bible, but he was a gentle man who, though he knew where I stood on the King James Bible, would never insult me by lowering me into a group prejudiced against calling me a "KJVO type" I am a man. I am not a "KJVO type".

Thank you, sir, for your patience. If you wish to discuss this issue farther with me, please acknowledge the points I have given in previous posts in these areas:

1) The vast amount of differences between modern versions and the KJV due to usage of minority text manuscripts and motivations (beliefs and ambitions) of the editors and publisher

2) Why the King James Bible replaced the Geneva Bible

3) The proofs of God's hand in bringing about the commissioning of the King of England to assemble the best and most highly educated group of translators possible to compile the Authorized Version of the English Bible.

4) The biblical doctrine of the preservation of scripture through copies throughout the generations

If being a "KJVO" type means being one who examines historical records and compare available data in an objective way and looks at what the Bible says about preservation of scripture and takes it as God's Word, fine; but I think you meant it as an ethnic insult against my beliefs for which you put me in the ethnic group of being "KJVO type", and that is akin to racism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avid
Upvote 0

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
345
USA
✟3,201.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
And there's the truth. It's not a bad translation (as you've already admitted). It's those pesky Calvinists.

The Calvinistic influence on the Geneva Bible and it's influence being in large part the reason it fell by the wayside and the reason that the Authorized Version was called for is history. I'm simply stating historical facts. You are the one calling Calvinists "pesky".
Calvinists are men like you and me. I do not categorize them as "pesky", . Some of them are my friends. I am a Baptist. I am a born again Christian. I am far from "typical", though it may be easier to deal with me by typesetting me rather than objectively examining the arguments I am setting forth.

Some of my friends are Lutherans. Some of them are Catholics. Some are even Jehovah's Witnesses and you be sure I am trying to get them to see how they can be saved from Hell.

In future posts, I may bring out some of the historical record of some of the actions of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the Catholic Church which are neglected in popular historical accounts. That's only history and does not change my friendship with people in groups named after those leaders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avid
Upvote 0

MoreCoffee

Repentance works.
Jan 8, 2011
29,860
2,841
Near the flying spaghetti monster
✟65,348.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
In the thread pertaining to the poll for the "KJV Only", I began to engage in a good discussion with Tall73 about the "preservation" of the scriptures. I would, with Tall73's permission, like to continue this discussion.

I would like to make a few brief comments:

1) It is my opinion (whatever that is worth), that a discussion of this nature must begin, and maintain a particular level of professionalism.

2) We (the members of this forum), must always remember that we are ambassadors for Christ, hence, it is His testimony we harm, when we fail to represent Him in a positive way.

3) Each of us are indeed a product of our education, at least to some degree; and since we do not all share the same education, there is bound to be disagreement. May we disagree gracefully.

4) Finally, may we all consider what we may learn one from another, that all might be edified. I am a firm believer in the preservation of the Holy Scriptures, I hope we can discuss this issue in a way that honors our Heavenly Father.

Jack

For a long time the holy scriptures were preserved in times of persecution when pagan Roman authorities sought to make christians deny their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. During those times the holy scriptures were passed from one congregation to another in hand written copies that were made without the benefit of expensive materials or professional copyists. These are preserved only in a few places with dry climates or in caves or other places where natural processes have allowed them to remain in decipherable condition. Of course these ancient manuscripts were written in Greek and some in Latin but none in English because English was not yet in existence - in the first five of six centuries of the Christian era the people of Britania spoke Latin or one of several Celtic languages then in use in the British isles.

After the rise of Constantine to the imperial throne in the Roman empire Christianity became an accepted religion and the copying and preservation of the holy scriptures came out into the open. With toleration came better funding for the making of copies of holy scripture and that meant better materials (such as vellum) and professional copyists. One more thing to note, the scriptures were in the Greek and Latin languages (mainly Greek). At about this time the issue of which books were canonical arose. In the west the decision was to have the books of the LXX, as listed in the canons of the third synod of Carthage (in 397 AD), and the 27 books of the new testament declared as canonical scripture. Soon afterwards (around 405 AD) saint Jerome produced a Latin translation based on the ancient Latin translations of the new testament, the Hebrew old testament in use at that time by Rabbinic Jewry, and the LXX in Greek. His translation eventually became the official bible in the west (this happened in the 16th century). Between the 5th century and the 16th century Jerome's Vulgate gained wide acceptance.

Thus the holy scriptures were preserved in the west by means of church copies and translations. In the east the the copies were in Greek using the LXX for the old testament and copies of the 27 books of the new testament in Greek. The eastern church decided a canon around the same time as the west and it contained the same books with one extra psalm (psalm 151) and several extra books in the histories and wisdom writings of the old testament. The extra books were The prayer of Manasseh, 3 & 4 Ezra, 3 & 4 Maccabees. 4 Ezra and 4 Maccabees are accepted in the Slavonic Orthodox churches but not in the Greek Orthodox church.

In the ancient churches of Ethiopia and the Sudan the number of books in the canon varies. Some accept over 80 books in their wider canon.

The Catholic Church has a 73 book canon for holy scripture. The books accepted by Catholics which are not included in most English bible translations serving churches of the various Protestant traditions are these:
  • Judith
  • Tobit
  • Baruch
  • Wisdom
  • Sirach
  • 1 Maccabees
  • 2 Maccabees
  • some parts of Esther
  • some parts of Danial
The 66 book canon in use among Protestants is regarded by Protestant traditions as being the universally accepted books of holy scripture. Of course the canon as defined by the Catholic church was also made up of the universally accepted books until the rise of Protestantism (the Orthodox bible has extra books but contains all the books in the Catholic bible).

Nowadays bibles are printed in vast quantities and their preservation is the work of major publishing houses, museums, and churches each working for their own purposes but all serving, in their own ways, the purpose of the preservation of the holy scriptures.
 
Upvote 0

Boidae

Senior Veteran
Aug 18, 2010
4,920
420
Central Florida
✟28,515.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
Please don't prejudice me with the slanderous term "you KJVO types". I am being reasonable and responding accurately to your comments. I'm asking you to read my replies as well as I am reading yours. You are missing the point that "largely in agreement" is not in agreement. You are ignoring my assertion that the changes of modern versions are vast and doctrinally erroneous and my explanations as to why these facts are true. By denigrating me to a "KJVO type", it seems to justify your refusal to look at the facts I am presenting. If the summation of your argument is "you KJVO types" followed by a list of false accusations which ignore my many explanations of why the Geneva Bible was left behind and replaced by the King James Bible.

I won't be able to conduct a conversation with you if this is the kind of response I am going to face when I try to be reasonable with you.

Your tone in calling me a "KJVO type" is extremely degrading and is the same mindset used in racist attacks against ethnic groups. I can assure you that I am a man, and not a "KJVO type" who is "LARGELY in agreement" with you in matters of morality, faith, and personal conduct. We are not yet in agreement regarding the veracity of preservation of scripture and God's hand in giving His Word to us in our own language. I hope we will come into agreement on that, but we don't have to. My beloved mentor was not in agreement with me on the King James Bible, but he was a gentle man who, though he knew where I stood on the King James Bible, would never insult me by lowering me into a group prejudiced against calling me a "KJVO type" I am a man. I am not a "KJVO type".

Thank you, sir, for your patience. If you wish to discuss this issue farther with me, please acknowledge the points I have given in previous posts in these areas:

1) The vast amount of differences between modern versions and the KJV due to usage of minority text manuscripts and motivations (beliefs and ambitions) of the editors and publisher

2) Why the King James Bible replaced the Geneva Bible

3) The proofs of God's hand in bringing about the commissioning of the King of England to assemble the best and most highly educated group of translators possible to compile the Authorized Version of the English Bible.

4) The biblical doctrine of the preservation of scripture through copies throughout the generations

If being a "KJVO" type means being one who examines historical records and compare available data in an objective way and looks at what the Bible says about preservation of scripture and takes it as God's Word, fine; but I think you meant it as an ethnic insult against my beliefs for which you put me in the ethnic group of being "KJVO type", and that is akin to racism.

I believe Hammster was using the term KJVO the same way the majority of us do. It essentially means that You will not use another version and will only use the KJV, hence King James Version Only or KJVO.

I honestly do not think he was using it like a racial slur.

BTW, I have not always been a Lutheran. I was raised Catholic, left the Catholic church in my teens when I rebelled. Came back to God when I met my wife who showed me the love of Jesus and took a chance on someone who was not following after God. One church service in a church that we were attending I felt the pull to raise my hand and accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior. A year later I was water immersed in a surprise baptism as I wasn't supposed to be baptized that day, but the pastor of my wife's church could not keep me out of the water. So he baptized me in the name of the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit.

We have been in and out of churches trying to find one that we both could agree on. My wife really enjoys the Pentecostal scene, but they scare me. I tried going back to the Catholic church, but didn't stay as my wife wouldn't step foot into a Catholic church (she too was raised Catholic). We tried a non-denominational Independent Southern leaning Baptist church for a little while, but I just wasn't happy there either. There was another non-denom church that we both enjoyed, but it was twenty-five miles away one-way and just too far as we're not exactly well off and actually are considered well below poverty in income.

So my wife attended a Lutheran service one Sunday and told me that I need to go the following week. I did and absolutely fell in love with it. She had attended the Baptist leaning non-denom church maybe a week or two later as I didn't go to church that morning and the sermon spoke to her about following me wherever I go as long as it's not against God. So she has been going with me to the Lutheran church ever since. She too loves it and loves the people there. The people there have completely embraced us and even threw a baby shower for us back in February. Unfortunately we could not attend as we were actually in the hospital after the birth of our second child.

I haven't been to church since the beginning of February since I take the night shift with our son and by the time I get to bed it's usually around 6am. Bible study is at 8:45a and service at 10:00am. I am fast asleep by those times. Thankfully, the shepherd leader has stopped by and given us communion and the pastor has been by a couple times as well to check in on us. When our son starts to sleep through the night we will start to attend regularly once more.

This Lutheran church is also looking at us starting a marriage group as we're the youngest married couple there and they are hoping that we can bring in more young couples.

I have never been part of a church like this Lutheran church. They check in on you, they hold baby showers for you, they do so much that you can only feel the love of Jesus radiating from them.

So there you have it. That is my salvation story. Yes, I decided to tell it as you did ask. I am also going to ask for your forgiveness as I was a bit testy last night. I was working off of about 2 hours of sleep in the past 48 by that point.
 
Upvote 0

Boidae

Senior Veteran
Aug 18, 2010
4,920
420
Central Florida
✟28,515.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
For a long time the holy scriptures were preserved in times of persecution when pagan Roman authorities sought to make christians deny their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. During those times the holy scriptures were passed from one congregation to another in hand written copies that were made without the benefit of expensive materials or professional copyists. These are preserved only in a few places with dry climates or in caves or other places where natural processes have allowed them to remain in decipherable condition. Of course these ancient manuscripts were written in Greek and some in Latin but none in English because English was not yet in existence - in the first five of six centuries of the Christian era the people of Britania spoke Latin or one of several Celtic languages then in use in the British isles.

After the rise of Constantine to the imperial throne in the Roman empire Christianity became an accepted religion and the copying and preservation of the holy scriptures came out into the open. With toleration came better funding for the making of copies of holy scripture and that meant better materials (such as vellum) and professional copyists. One more thing to note, the scriptures were in the Greek and Latin languages (mainly Greek). At about this time the issue of which books were canonical arose. In the west the decision was to have the books of the LXX, as listed in the canons of the third synod of Carthage (in 397 AD), and the 27 books of the new testament declared as canonical scripture. Soon afterwards (around 405 AD) saint Jerome produced a Latin translation based on the ancient Latin translations of the new testament, the Hebrew old testament in use at that time by Rabbinic Jewry, and the LXX in Greek. His translation eventually became the official bible in the west (this happened in the 16th century). Between the 5th century and the 16th century Jerome's Vulgate gained wide acceptance.

Thus the holy scriptures were preserved in the west by means of church copies and translations. In the east the the copies were in Greek using the LXX for the old testament and copies of the 27 books of the new testament in Greek. The eastern church decided a canon around the same time as the west and it contained the same books with one extra psalm (psalm 151) and several extra books in the histories and wisdom writings of the old testament. The extra books were The prayer of Manasseh, 3 & 4 Ezra, 3 & 4 Maccabees. 4 Ezra and 4 Maccabees are accepted in the Slavonic Orthodox churches but not in the Greek Orthodox church.

In the ancient churches of Ethiopia and the Sudan the number of books in the canon varies. Some accept over 80 books in their wider canon.

The Catholic Church has a 73 book canon for holy scripture. The books accepted by Catholics which are not included in most English bible translations serving churches of the various Protestant traditions are these:
  • Judith
  • Tobit
  • Baruch
  • Wisdom
  • Sirach
  • 1 Maccabees
  • 2 Maccabees
  • some parts of Esther
  • some parts of Danial
The 66 book canon in use among Protestants is regarded by Protestant traditions as being the universally accepted books of holy scripture. Of course the canon as defined by the Catholic church was also made up of the universally accepted books until the rise of Protestantism (the Orthodox bible has extra books but contains all the books in the Catholic bible).

Nowadays bibles are printed in vast quantities and their preservation is the work of major publishing houses, museums, and churches each working for their own purposes but all serving, in their own ways, the purpose of the preservation of the holy scriptures.

Nice to see you again Coffee!

A couple weeks ago I purchased along with my Lutheran Study Bible (ESV) a Apocrypha with Lutheran study notes (ESV).

I am looking forward to reading the Apocrypha as it, at least from what I have read, fills in much of the gap between Malachi and Matthew.
 
Upvote 0

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
345
USA
✟3,201.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
I believe Hammster was using the term KJVO the same way the majority of us do. It essentially means that You will not use another version and will only use the KJV, hence King James Version Only or KJVO.

I honestly do not think he was using it like a racial slur.

BTW, I have not always been a Lutheran. I was raised Catholic, left the Catholic church in my teens when I rebelled. Came back to God when I met my wife who showed me the love of Jesus and took a chance on someone who was not following after God. One church service in a church that we were attending I felt the pull to raise my hand and accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior. A year later I was water immersed in a surprise baptism as I wasn't supposed to be baptized that day, but the pastor of my wife's church could not keep me out of the water. So he baptized me in the name of the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit.

We have been in and out of churches trying to find one that we both could agree on. My wife really enjoys the Pentecostal scene, but they scare me. I tried going back to the Catholic church, but didn't stay as my wife wouldn't step foot into a Catholic church (she too was raised Catholic). We tried a non-denominational Independent Southern leaning Baptist church for a little while, but I just wasn't happy there either. There was another non-denom church that we both enjoyed, but it was twenty-five miles away one-way and just too far as we're not exactly well off and actually are considered well below poverty in income.

So my wife attended a Lutheran service one Sunday and told me that I need to go the following week. I did and absolutely fell in love with it. She had attended the Baptist leaning non-denom church maybe a week or two later as I didn't go to church that morning and the sermon spoke to her about following me wherever I go as long as it's not against God. So she has been going with me to the Lutheran church ever since. She too loves it and loves the people there. The people there have completely embraced us and even threw a baby shower for us back in February. Unfortunately we could not attend as we were actually in the hospital after the birth of our second child.

I haven't been to church since the beginning of February since I take the night shift with our son and by the time I get to bed it's usually around 6am. Bible study is at 8:45a and service at 10:00am. I am fast asleep by those times. Thankfully, the shepherd leader has stopped by and given us communion and the pastor has been by a couple times as well to check in on us. When our son starts to sleep through the night we will start to attend regularly once more.

This Lutheran church is also looking at us starting a marriage group as we're the youngest married couple there and they are hoping that we can bring in more young couples.

I have never been part of a church like this Lutheran church. They check in on you, they hold baby showers for you, they do so much that you can only feel the love of Jesus radiating from them.

So there you have it. That is my salvation story. Yes, I decided to tell it as you did ask. I am also going to ask for your forgiveness as I was a bit testy last night. I was working off of about 2 hours of sleep in the past 48 by that point.

Thank you for sharing, that's a good salvation testimony and well worth repeating to many more than myself. God gave you a special jewel with His testimony of working in your life. "Blessed are they that keep His testimonies"....I forget the chapter and verse reference due to my cognitive decline which I really hate to use as an excuse for forgetting things...hate to admit I'm getting old, I still feel like a kid at heart and I sure know how to act up like a spoiled brat sometimes. I'm truly glad to hear you are saved as I believe you are by the clear testimony you gave. I will see you in heaven.
I don't see in the Bible where it says we are going to paradise.
I meant no offense in earlier discussions, I am simply passionate about my beliefs and enjoy the challenges of opposing viewpoints. I hope the best for people who are reading things I write the same as I hope the best for you. Jesus is the best. Being saved is the best. Knowing you have eternal life and your sins are forgiven and heaven is your home is the best. Knowing God's love, knowing He loves you, is the best. I want the best for everybody, I just don't know how to get them to see what is best and admittedly behave badly at times trying to make a point.

I really like debating with atheists. They become extremely nasty when confronted with Biblical truth. The truth seems extremely nasty to people who resist it. That's why you might thing I'm being harsh or nasty when I debate for KJVO. Really, I'm only trying to be truthful. When I say somebody is proud in the issue, I don't mean that as a character assassination. I am proud in some things I should not be proud in and it will take time, maybe death, before the Lord breaks me of it....especially in the ways pride gets the best of me and I don't realize how repulsive my pride is while I'm enjoying myself.


I didn't have time to respond to your entire post, wanted to give this response as it might be my last post on this site. In heaven, all will be friends and I look at everybody I meet as a potential friend even if they are my enemy.

I truly appreciate you sharing your salvation testimony. I read through the entire post quickly and will read it more carefully later, Lord permitting. Getting sleepy now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avid
Upvote 0

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
345
USA
✟3,201.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
I believe Hammster was using the term KJVO the same way the majority of us do. It essentially means that You will not use another version and will only use the KJV, hence King James Version Only or KJVO.

I honestly do not think he was using it like a racial slur.

BTW, I have not always been a Lutheran. I was raised Catholic, left the Catholic church in my teens when I rebelled. Came back to God when I met my wife who showed me the love of Jesus and took a chance on someone who was not following after God. One church service in a church that we were attending I felt the pull to raise my hand and accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior. A year later I was water immersed in a surprise baptism as I wasn't supposed to be baptized that day, but the pastor of my wife's church could not keep me out of the water. So he baptized me in the name of the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit.

We have been in and out of churches trying to find one that we both could agree on. My wife really enjoys the Pentecostal scene, but they scare me. I tried going back to the Catholic church, but didn't stay as my wife wouldn't step foot into a Catholic church (she too was raised Catholic). We tried a non-denominational Independent Southern leaning Baptist church for a little while, but I just wasn't happy there either. There was another non-denom church that we both enjoyed, but it was twenty-five miles away one-way and just too far as we're not exactly well off and actually are considered well below poverty in income.

So my wife attended a Lutheran service one Sunday and told me that I need to go the following week. I did and absolutely fell in love with it. She had attended the Baptist leaning non-denom church maybe a week or two later as I didn't go to church that morning and the sermon spoke to her about following me wherever I go as long as it's not against God. So she has been going with me to the Lutheran church ever since. She too loves it and loves the people there. The people there have completely embraced us and even threw a baby shower for us back in February. Unfortunately we could not attend as we were actually in the hospital after the birth of our second child.

I haven't been to church since the beginning of February since I take the night shift with our son and by the time I get to bed it's usually around 6am. Bible study is at 8:45a and service at 10:00am. I am fast asleep by those times. Thankfully, the shepherd leader has stopped by and given us communion and the pastor has been by a couple times as well to check in on us. When our son starts to sleep through the night we will start to attend regularly once more.

This Lutheran church is also looking at us starting a marriage group as we're the youngest married couple there and they are hoping that we can bring in more young couples.

I have never been part of a church like this Lutheran church. They check in on you, they hold baby showers for you, they do so much that you can only feel the love of Jesus radiating from them.

So there you have it. That is my salvation story. Yes, I decided to tell it as you did ask. I am also going to ask for your forgiveness as I was a bit testy last night. I was working off of about 2 hours of sleep in the past 48 by that point.



Sounds like you found a good Lutheran church. There are some Lutheran churches I could be quite comfortable in even though they are not KJVO. One of the churches I was in, non-denominational but pretty close to Baptist, was in close fellowship with a nearby Lutheran church and we had a lot of interaction in activities with them.

Thanks again for sharing your testimony and the rest. It's easy to forget the person behind the posts is human. I didn't mean to be harsh with you, I really was trying to get a friendly personal response like this. I'm known for presenting myself in a way that I really don't want to be seen as. Sometimes I can never get past the bad impression I can give. Good night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avid
Upvote 0

Boidae

Senior Veteran
Aug 18, 2010
4,920
420
Central Florida
✟28,515.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
Thank you for sharing, that's a good salvation testimony and well worth repeating to many more than myself. God gave you a special jewel with His testimony of working in your life. "Blessed are they that keep His testimonies"....I forget the chapter and verse reference due to my cognitive decline which I really hate to use as an excuse for forgetting things...hate to admit I'm getting old, I still feel like a kid at heart and I sure know how to act up like a spoiled brat sometimes. I'm truly glad to hear you are saved as I believe you are by the clear testimony you gave. I will see you in heaven.
I don't see in the Bible where it says we are going to paradise.
I meant no offense in earlier discussions, I am simply passionate about my beliefs and enjoy the challenges of opposing viewpoints. I hope the best for people who are reading things I write the same as I hope the best for you. Jesus is the best. Being saved is the best. Knowing you have eternal life and your sins are forgiven and heaven is your home is the best. Knowing God's love, knowing He loves you, is the best. I want the best for everybody, I just don't know how to get them to see what is best and admittedly behave badly at times trying to make a point.

I really like debating with atheists. They become extremely nasty when confronted with Biblical truth. The truth seems extremely nasty to people who resist it. That's why you might thing I'm being harsh or nasty when I debate for KJVO. Really, I'm only trying to be truthful. When I say somebody is proud in the issue, I don't mean that as a character assassination. I am proud in some things I should not be proud in and it will take time, maybe death, before the Lord breaks me of it....especially in the ways pride gets the best of me and I don't realize how repulsive my pride is while I'm enjoying myself.


I didn't have time to respond to your entire post, wanted to give this response as it might be my last post on this site. In heaven, all will be friends and I look at everybody I meet as a potential friend even if they are my enemy.

I truly appreciate you sharing your salvation testimony. I read through the entire post quickly and will read it more carefully later, Lord permitting. Getting sleepy now.

Thank you.

I use paradise and heaven interchangeably. As for where it is in the Bible, look at Luke 23:43 when he is speaking to the thief on the cross. The King James also says Paradise.
 
Upvote 0

MoreCoffee

Repentance works.
Jan 8, 2011
29,860
2,841
Near the flying spaghetti monster
✟65,348.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Nice to see you again Coffee!

A couple weeks ago I purchased along with my Lutheran Study Bible (ESV) a Apocrypha with Lutheran study notes (ESV).

I am looking forward to reading the Apocrypha as it, at least from what I have read, fills in much of the gap between Malachi and Matthew.

Is this thread really about the KJV and its preservation?
 
Upvote 0

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
345
USA
✟3,201.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
And there's the truth. It's not a bad translation (as you've already admitted). It's those pesky Calvinists.

The Geneva Bible had some issues. It wasn't bad like modern versions are bad, but it had some bad translations in it, mostly due to Calvinistic influences. That's why it could not be used even if all the footnotes were removed. The King James Authorized Bible surpassed it in every way, and the Authorized Bible has been used by God to bring millions to salvation and has changed and shaped continents. I will post some comparisons from the Geneva Bible later along with discussion of why the translation used in the referenced passage was wrong.

The Geneva Bible has been on the shelf gathering dust for four hundred years because that's where it belongs as a historical artifact. The events leading up to the Authorized Version of the English Bible and how and why is replaced and left all previous versions on the shelf is history. When that historical record is looked at, if you can't see it was God's hand which deliberately brought us the King James Bible......well, I don't know what to say. When a man Is burned at the stake praying as he is engulfed in flames for the King's eyes to be opened to support his work in translating the Bible for which he died, and the King's heart being turned by God to commission the completion of the work pushed to the forefront of history by the martyrdom of great men of God as Tyndale and Rogers were......right now I don't know what else to say except I'm tired and hope I don't get kicked off the site for saying it was childish to call me a "KJVO type" as if that's some kind of hated ethnic group.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avid
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,056
56
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,940,328.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Please don't prejudice me with the slanderous term "you KJVO types". I am being reasonable and responding accurately to your comments. I'm asking you to read my replies as well as I am reading yours. You are missing the point that "largely in agreement" is not in agreement. You are ignoring my assertion that the changes of modern versions are vast and doctrinally erroneous and my explanations as to why these facts are true. By denigrating me to a "KJVO type", it seems to justify your refusal to look at the facts I am presenting. If the summation of your argument is "you KJVO types" followed by a list of false accusations which ignore my many explanations of why the Geneva Bible was left behind and replaced by the King James Bible.

I won't be able to conduct a conversation with you if this is the kind of response I am going to face when I try to be reasonable with you.

Your tone in calling me a "KJVO type" is extremely degrading and is the same mindset used in racist attacks against ethnic groups. I can assure you that I am a man, and not a "KJVO type" who is "LARGELY in agreement" with you in matters of morality, faith, and personal conduct. We are not yet in agreement regarding the veracity of preservation of scripture and God's hand in giving His Word to us in our own language. I hope we will come into agreement on that, but we don't have to. My beloved mentor was not in agreement with me on the King James Bible, but he was a gentle man who, though he knew where I stood on the King James Bible, would never insult me by lowering me into a group prejudiced against calling me a "KJVO type" I am a man. I am not a "KJVO type".

Thank you, sir, for your patience. If you wish to discuss this issue farther with me, please acknowledge the points I have given in previous posts in these areas:

1) The vast amount of differences between modern versions and the KJV due to usage of minority text manuscripts and motivations (beliefs and ambitions) of the editors and publisher
And you've admitted that there was prejudice against the Geneva. So the same argument can be used against the KJV. And minority manuscripts is not bad if the manuscripts are older and can provide a better translation.
2) Why the King James Bible replaced the Geneva Bible
None of which is biblical.
3) The proofs of God's hand in bringing about the commissioning of the King of England to assemble the best and most highly educated group of translators possible to compile the Authorized Version of the English Bible.
You've offered no proof. You've offered your opinion, though.
4) The biblical doctrine of the preservation of scripture through copies throughout the generations
Which can be applied to the Geneva.
If being a "KJVO" type means being one who examines historical records and compare available data in an objective way and looks at what the Bible says about preservation of scripture and takes it as God's Word, fine; but I think you meant it as an ethnic insult against my beliefs for which you put me in the ethnic group of being "KJVO type", and that is akin to racism.

Lol. Not an ethnic insult. Just an observation.
 
Upvote 0

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
345
USA
✟3,201.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
And you've admitted that there was prejudice against the Geneva. So the same argument can be used against the KJV. And minority manuscripts is not bad if the manuscripts are older and can provide a better translation.
None of which is biblical.
You've offered no proof. You've offered your opinion, though.
Which can be applied to the Geneva.


Lol. Not an ethnic insult. Just an observation.

The prejudice against the KJV is yours, and that is why you are not acknowledging logical and historical supports for it being the Word of God entirely correct in English, and the only correct version ever in English. Because of your prejudice in the discussion, I think it's a waste of time to refer you back to my previous posts or to offer any further supports elaborating on those posts. My guess is that you will treat further supports the same as you are treating previously posted supports, with complete prejudice against the King James Bible being the entirely correct preserved Word of God in English.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avid
Upvote 0

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
345
USA
✟3,201.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
And you've admitted that there was prejudice against the Geneva. So the same argument can be used against the KJV. And minority manuscripts is not bad if the manuscripts are older and can provide a better translation.
None of which is biblical.
You've offered no proof. You've offered your opinion, though.
Which can be applied to the Geneva.


Lol. Not an ethnic insult. Just an observation.



How can the minority manuscripts provide a better translation when there are no original writings, and only copies passed down from the prophets, and you have no standard for comparison if you reject the doctrine of preservation of scripture? What are you translating? Are you translating copies of copies which have been altered by error and/or by purpose? The idea that the minority text can provide a better translation is how modern versions are sold by appealing to a person's intellectual pride being gifted by God to criticize the translation of His Word and arrive at whichever translation seems best for the individual who is criticizing the translation. Again, in this matter, you are neglecting to look at the historical record of the minority text and why those texts were rejected by church leaders long before the Geneva Bible was translated in keeping with the majority text which was the only group of manuscripts viewed as reliable until Wescott and Hort were promoted as sholars to who should be respected for their education rather than rejected because of their ungodly lifestyles and unbiblical beliefs.


I have offered pleny of proof and you have rejected it without examining it.
You can easily find historical evidence of everything I am saying, and you can easily find factual supports. I could easily do it for you, but why should I? I paid to learn it in college before the internet was invented. You can get all the information in less then one tenth of the time I put into it in college, with less than one tenth of the effort. You simply insist that whatever you think is the best translation is better (and the minority texts are equally valid with the majority texts ) than what the most carefully assembled group of the most highly educated men in the world thought was the best translation (while they rejected as had been rejected for centuries prior, the minority texts which were considered to be corrupt, meaning changed, altered, fraudulent and not preserved scripture). The only problem is the fruit of your translation is very little in comparison of the fruit of the translation authorized by the King of England in millions of converts, millions of changed lives, and changed countries and continents. Not to minimize the fact that some people actually do get saved through seeing there need for forgiveness and God's provision of payment for their sins by His own blood in Jesus Christ when they find saving faith by reading a modern version. It does happen sometimes as in the case of my Lutheran friend who I am happy to see has returned to conversation with a wonderful testimony of his conversion and full assurance that his sins are forgiven and he will be welcomed into heaven immediately when his time in his current dying body is over.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Avid
Upvote 0

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
345
USA
✟3,201.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Thank you.

I use paradise and heaven interchangeably. As for where it is in the Bible, look at Luke 23:43 when he is speaking to the thief on the cross. The King James also says Paradise.

That was before the Lord ascended to heaven where he presented His blood in the holiest of holies at the throne of God.

Remember, after he rose from the grave, he told the disciples not to touch him because He had not yet completed this task. I believe the scripture is clear that before the atoning work of Christ was complete, and His life's blood presented to God the Father personally by God the Son, Paradise was home for those who have heaven as their home now. It was a different place than heaven. We are not going to paradise, paradise has been taken to heaven (I think that's a safe way of saying it)

I reject using paradise and heaven interchangeably today because I think it is biblically incorrect to do so. Much less importantly than the Biblical doctrinal guideline, to use paradise and heaven interchangeably blurs the distinction between real faith from God which is Biblically explained and supported and false religious practice such as that of Jehovah's Witnesses who use paradise as heaven, degrading heaven to paradise on Earth. Individual words used have huge influence on establishing sound doctrine or deteriorating and rejecting sound doctrine to replace it with religious practices that can't get anybody to heaven.

The NIV is very much if not completely in line with the Jehovah's Witnesses fake translation of the Bible which supports heaven as being paradise on Earth to be inherited as reward for good behavior and hard work as a Jehovah's Witness.

This is why the doctrine of the preservation of scripture is important. God does not allow His Word to be changed. Changes have been made in copies of the scriptures and those changes were discerned by godly men and rejected throughout history. We have copies of those falsified writings which are pawned off as scripture in the minority texts on which are based all modern versions, all versions which came after the King James Bible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avid
Upvote 0

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
345
USA
✟3,201.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
As it seems my fellow KJV supporters have left me here to debate with moderators by myself, I think I've said more than enough in support of the Biblical doctrine of preservation and the evidence that the only correct translation of the Word of God in English is the King James Bible. Because I am the only one in this thread standing in my position, and because most of the detailed supporting posts I have placed here are being mostly ignored, I think I'm finished here. I hope to see you all in heaven and I wish you all the best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avid
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,056
56
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,940,328.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
The prejudice against the KJV is yours, and that is why you are not acknowledging logical and historical supports for it being the Word of God entirely correct in English, and the only correct version ever in English. Because of your prejudice in the discussion, I think it's a waste of time to refer you back to my previous posts or to offer any further supports elaborating on those posts. My guess is that you will treat further supports the same as you are treating previously posted supports, with complete prejudice against the King James Bible being the entirely correct preserved Word of God in English.

I have no prejudice against the KJV. Never had. It's a good translation. Not great. But good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JM
Upvote 0