Where have all the KJV defenders gone?

[tracifish]

I didn't mean you guys, bro; I meant what I call the "scientatheists".

That is, those who believe there's no God, and are Sola Gnostica - (okay, I made that term up).

Scientatheists....and sola-gnostica...if they aren't words, they ought to be.

 

[tracifish]

The problem being that she misquotes people, and much of her doccumentation is wrong. Again, I challenge anyone to read the critique of her work that I posted WRITTEN BY A KJO SCHOLAR!!!!

I have a little bit of a problem with women being pastors and teachers....and am not sure if writing is considered teaching...

 

[tracifish]

Scientatheism is religion if I've ever heard of one. LOL

 

[1stJohn47]

I have a little bit of a problem with women being pastors and teachers....and am not sure if writing is considered teaching...

I think that topic is a whole new thread!

 

[tracifish]

There is a 'Message' thread, but we can segue back on topic...

 

[tracifish]

Hello, Berean Todd.

 

[DMagoh]

Two things I dont understand about KJVO is:

Which revision of the KJV is inspired since it was revised ten times? In 1611 or in one of the years when major/minor revisions took place?—in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?


The KJV translators translated the Apocrypha and included these books in the original 1611 edition. If the KJV translation was inspired, does this mean that the Apocrypha is inspired by God also? And if so, why was the Apocrypha removed from later editions?

 

[tracifish]

So? King James was a pervert....maybe he wanted the apocrypha translated for his own sick pleasure.

That does not change the fact that the Authorized Version is an accurate translation.

Also, the apocrypha was added in later...by the roman catholic church.

 

[DMagoh]

So? King James was a pervert....maybe he wanted the apocrypha translated for his own sick pleasure.

That does not change the fact that the Authorized Version is an accurate translation.

Also, the apocrypha was added in later...by the roman catholic church.

What about the TEN revisions? Which one is inspired by God?

 

[tracifish]

...

 

[tracifish]

What about the TEN revisions? Which one is inspired by God?

Why do you want to take down the only reliable word we have? You are a baptist....don't you want to defend the Trinity, fulfilled prophecies, the doctrine of hell...the incarnation, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?

 

[LittleladyinChrist]

Hello just to say hi, I am a KJV defender. I think the reason there are not alot of posts about this lately, well I speak to soon, is that they were banned for 30 days in the Baptist Forum, things got too hot. Im not here to debate, it is a lost cause for most people on here. If people ask God with an open heart honestly wanting to know the truth without any biased perception, or willingly being ignorant, God will convinct hearts of His truth whether for or against staying with the KJV over modern translations. But you know what I believe about God and His precious Word. God Bless.

 

[arunma]

What about the TEN revisions? Which one is inspired by God?

Why do you want to take down the only reliable word we have? You are a baptist....don't you want to defend the Trinity, fulfilled prophecies, the doctrine of hell...the incarnation, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Hold on, I really think that this exchange is worthy of some attention. Traci, do you realize what you're saying here? Forget the fact that modern versions don't deny any of the doctrines you've mentioned. Forget the fact that doctrine is judged according to the Bible (whereas you suggest that the Bible should be judged according to doctrine). DMagoh has pointed out an obvious flaw in KJV-only doctrine. Your response is that he is robbing you of your belief in a single inspired version.

Question: do you see a problem with exchanging the truth for a lie that makes you feel good?


This is no different than denying that the earth is round because flat earth doctrine gives you more faith in God. Faith is good, but only if it is based in reality. Faith in a lie doesn't save anyone. If anything, faith in lies (better known as false religion) is what condemns souls to hell. What you've said here gives me very serious cause for concern.

 

[tracifish]

Hold on, I really think that this exchange is worthy of some attention. Traci, do you realize what you're saying here? Forget the fact that modern versions don't deny any of the doctrines you've mentioned. Forget the fact that doctrine is judged according to the Bible (whereas you suggest that the Bible should be judged according to doctrine). DMagoh has pointed out an obvious flaw in KJV-only doctrine. Your response is that he is robbing you of your belief in a single inspired version.

Question: do you see a problem with exchanging the truth for a lie that makes you feel good?


This is no different than denying that the earth is round because flat earth doctrine gives you more faith in God. Faith is good, but only if it is based in reality. Faith in a lie doesn't save anyone. If anything, faith in lies (better known as false religion) is what condemns souls to hell. What you've said here gives me very serious cause for concern.

I admit I don't have all the answers...but if the KJV is not a reliable translation....what is? We already know the others aren't...

 

[tracifish]

Hold on, I really think that this exchange is worthy of some attention. Traci, do you realize what you're saying here? Forget the fact that modern versions don't deny any of the doctrines you've mentioned. Forget the fact that doctrine is judged according to the Bible (whereas you suggest that the Bible should be judged according to doctrine). DMagoh has pointed out an obvious flaw in KJV-only doctrine. Your response is that he is robbing you of your belief in a single inspired version.

Question: do you see a problem with exchanging the truth for a lie that makes you feel good?


This is no different than denying that the earth is round because flat earth doctrine gives you more faith in God. Faith is good, but only if it is based in reality. Faith in a lie doesn't save anyone. If anything, faith in lies (better known as false religion) is what condemns souls to hell. What you've said here gives me very serious cause for concern.

...and what truth do you think I'm exchanging for what lie? It appears you do not believe that God has preserved the truth in any bible...

 

[tracifish]

Hold on, I really think that this exchange is worthy of some attention. Traci, do you realize what you're saying here? Forget the fact that modern versions don't deny any of the doctrines you've mentioned. Forget the fact that doctrine is judged according to the Bible (whereas you suggest that the Bible should be judged according to doctrine). DMagoh has pointed out an obvious flaw in KJV-only doctrine. Your response is that he is robbing you of your belief in a single inspired version.

Question: do you see a problem with exchanging the truth for a lie that makes you feel good?


This is no different than denying that the earth is round because flat earth doctrine gives you more faith in God. Faith is good, but only if it is based in reality. Faith in a lie doesn't save anyone. If anything, faith in lies (better known as false religion) is what condemns souls to hell. What you've said here gives me very serious cause for concern.

It appears you do not believe that God has preserved the truth in any bible...

 

[JimfromOhio]

I used to be a KJV defender years ago. I have been convicted to rely on the Holy Spirit. God do not need to be defended. He can defend Himself without our help.

 

[arunma]

I admit I don't have all the answers...but if the KJV is not a reliable translation....what is? We already know the others aren't...

The ESV is one example of a perfectly reliable translation that takes advantage of all Biblical scholarship. And the best part is, I don't need to rely on "God told me that the KJV is perfect" logic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi, DMagoh --- --- nice to meet you!

Two things I dont understand about KJVO is:

Which revision of the KJV is inspired since it was revised ten times? In 1611 or in one of the years when major/minor revisions took place?—in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?

I don't know about TEN revisions, but I have always been under the impression that the King James Bible, 5[sup]th[/sup] edition was the final cut.

When the King James Bible was finished in 1611, it was full of spelling errors. I happen to have a digitally-remastered original 1611 King James, and here's just a sample:

For there are three that beare record in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Just like a fine diamond, the Bible was completed in 1611, then polished to a high degree of clarity.

These polishings are the subsequent editions that came out afterwards.

The KJV translators translated the Apocrypha and included these books in the original 1611 edition. If the KJV translation was inspired, does this mean that the Apocrypha is inspired by God also?

I don't mean to get too technical here, but the KJV was not inspired --- it was translated.

Inspiration, per se, ended in 96 AD, and deals only with the autographs (writings in the authors' own handwriting).

There are three methods that God used to get His Word from Heaven to your bookshelf:

1. Inspiration - writing it down for the 1st time.
2. Preservation - making sure it was copied correctly.
3. Translation - changing it from one language or dialect to another.

And if so, why was the Apocrypha removed from later editions?

The Apocrypha was neither inspired, preserved, nor translated by God.

It was never quoted from in the NT, and it did not pass all the tests for canonicity. Thus it was only included as an "added bonus".

I hope this helps. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask.

 

[AV1611VET]

I used to be a KJV defender years ago. I have been convicted to rely on the Holy Spirit. God do not need to be defended. He can defend Himself without our help.