[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Author Topic: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism  (Read 39463 times)

brandplucked

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #75 on: November 09, 2004, 06:31:06 AM »
Hi John, I started reading your post and only got part way to where I had to address something.

You said:"Psalms 12
6  The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

The word preserve means to keep, and is used in Psalm 119 in a similar manner. The idea is that the person keeps the law by hearing and obeying.
Ps 119:69 
The proud have forged a lie against me: but I will keep thy precepts with my whole heart.
Ps 119:115  
Depart from me, ye evildoers: for I will keep the commandments of my God.
When Psalm 12 says "...thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever" it means that we shall keep the words of the LORD (to do them). It is not speaking about writing down the words of the LORD and perserving them in a mason jar.  ... We perserve or keep the words of the LORD within us and then we obey it. Do you see the difference?"

Sorry John, but I disagree entirely.  The word to keep means to hold onto something, to not let it go, or to preserve something.  Ps. 12 is not talking about US obeying God, but it speaks of God preserving His words.

You go on to say: "OK, let's look at it differently. If it were talking about perserving God's word in some perfect written form, where is this perfect form?  Do you say "the KJB". But read the verse again, "from this generation for ever". There must be a whole series of "perfect" translations in every language throughout history, all prior to the KJV, to preserve it from that generation (during the psalmists day) unto our day.  What are these perfect translations?"

John, there is nothing at all in this verse or any other Bible verse that says God promised to give every nation a perfect Bible.  The O.T. was committed to the Jews.  I think a good possibility of where God kept the New Testament was in the Old Latin (not the Vulgate) and among the Waldensians in their Latinized language until the time of the Reformation.  Then God words passed over into the English of the King James Bible.

First of all, you misunderstand what the word "preserve" means, and then you assume God had to give every nation a perfect Bible.  Not true.  He promised to preserve His words here on this earth somewhere.  I believe He did.  Your view is that God's true words are "out there somewhere" but we don't know which ones are His and which ones are not.

This is like saying God's words are in Webster's dictionary.  Well, true, but which ones and in what order?


Will Kinney 

brandplucked

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #76 on: November 09, 2004, 07:04:52 AM »
Hi Tony, part of what I said before was incorrect.  The word Sabbath is not always plural, and you are correct in this.  However, what I was mainly pointing out is that Young translates Matthew 12:1 as a plural -sabbaths- and this is wrong.  It clearly is a one day event when the disciples picked the ears of corn.  Just read it and see.

Young often translated the plural as sabbaths when the context is clearly only one day and not many.  See also Mark 1:21 and following.  This event happened only one time on one particular day,  Christ went into the synagougue on the sabbath and there was a man with an unclean spirit, which Christ proceeded to cast out.  This was not an event that occured every Sabbath day week after week.

It seems that your Greek grammar has derailed your common sense.  Most Bible versions translate it the same way as in the KJB.  So, are all these other guys who know far more about Greek than you ever will just stupid and only you and Young are right?  The same Young who wrote in Ps. 78 that God was deceived.


See the same thing with a plural that can only mean a singular sabbath day in Luke 4:16.

At least you have come out and admitted you don't think there is any perfect Bible on the face of this earth, except of course that mystical one that exists in your own mind, and is I'm quite sure even different from Youngs in many instances.


"In those days there was no king in Israel:  every man did that which was right in his own eyes."  Judges 21:25


brandplucked

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #77 on: November 09, 2004, 07:19:23 AM »
Tony (I think) has made a big deal out of the singular and plurals in Greek.  Usually they do have importance, but often they do not.  Check the following examples.

Look at the context.  Even good ol' Young translated many of these as singulars, even though they are plural in the Greek.   The same thing happens in Hebrew with great frequency.  Sometimes we just have to use some common sense.


There are many Greek words that are plural in form yet are correctly rendered as a singular in English.  In fact, right here in Matthew 14:6 the word "birthday" is in the plural, yet all the versions render it as a singular - even Youngs.

Other examples of plural nouns being translated as a singular are: heaven - Mat. 6:11; Sabbath day - Mat.12:1, 11; water - Mat. 14:29; bread - Mat. 16:7; a marriage - Mat. 22:2; heart - Mat. 18:35 (NKJV, NIV, NASB); fruit - (NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV);  a fever - Acts 28:8; my will - Acts 13:22; blood - John 1:13; time - 1 Tim. 2:6; door - James5:9; conversation (conduct); godliness - 2 Peter 3:11;  and incense - Rev. 8:3, just to name a very few of the many examples that could be given.

Will Kinney

Candle

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
  • Gender: Female
  • Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #78 on: November 09, 2004, 07:52:42 AM »
Hi every one,When I was new in the Lord I got carried about by every whim of doctrine and every Bible version was at my disposal.Igot so confused and didn't know which way to turn.It got really bad. We were going to a pentecostal church at the time and most people there used all these other versions . It seemed that when they wanted to make a certain point that met their need they went to these other versions. I started to question these versions  because they were worded differently and at times seemed to mean something else other than what the kjv was saying.During the last week that we were in this church , I prayed every day to God I said, God theres something wrong and I cried out for wisdom. One day I was on the computer and by accident this site came up The mountain retreat, it changed my life dramatically; God had answered my pray.From then on I've been studying the word of God .I ended up getting rid of all these other versions and other doctrines of men and use just the kjv and I find that God has led me into alot of truthes.Although I don't seem to be that smart or know as much as some on this forum . I thank God every day for his grace, mercy and salvation.For he is the most holy God. I find theres more bickering on this forum than should be. We should find what god says in his word about this and listen to him.  Your friend in Christ, Muriel
Psalms119:105  Thy word is a lamp unto my feet,and a light unto my path. John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.John8:36 If the son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

Genrev

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #79 on: November 09, 2004, 08:13:55 AM »

Although I don't seem to be that smart or know as much as some on this forum . I thank God every day for his grace, mercy and salvation.For he is the most holy God. I find theres more bickering on this forum than should be. We should find what god says in his word about this and listen to him.  Your friend in Christ, Muriel


Dear Muriel,

Smartness has nothing to do with it.  We all know I'm not very smart, especially about Hebrew and Greek words.

But so what?  Understanding the Bible has nothing to do with how smart one is, or how well they can go look up Greek words in concordances to see if the King James Bible has been properly translated.  Yes, we need to study the word of God, but our understanding of it comes by the grace of God through the word of God by the Holy Spirit.  It is a gift of God.


You are right about the bickering.  We do need to see what the word of God tells us about that.  The trouble is, most people on this forum don't seem to know where the word of God is. Therefore, if they looked it up in what they say is the best translation, the King James Bible, they wouldn't know whether to believe it or not because there might be an error in translation.

What to do?


Thanks, Muriel.


Blessings,
Minna

Sue Landow

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 547
  • Gender: Female
  • Distributing to the saints & given to Hospitality.
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #80 on: November 09, 2004, 08:38:39 AM »

What a wild and unsubstantiated presumption! People in this forum believe the way they do because of their belief in the "authority" of the inerrant word of God, not because of any man, any church, any group, parallel bibles, the Pope, tea leaves or any misguided belief that the KJV of the Bible is a perfect translation. The issue here is what does the word of God "actually" say

Tony,
  It seems that you are catching flack from every point on the compass. From the faithful, and from the unfaithful. From the KJ Only crowd, and from the anti KJOnly crowd. From the pro Parallel bible Christians, and from the anti Parallel bible Christians.  From the pro Reformed, and from the anti Reformed. Probably that's a pretty good sign that you're on the right track when you tell the truth to all groups. God bless you, I don't know that I could hold up under the constant barrage of criticism and distortion of your views.

As for the question at hand. I don't have a problem with KJ Only people until they wander into the field of claiming perfection of this one translation. That's when I part ways with them. As you said, if it was the only perfect translation, then those people who have the bible text translated into Egyptian, Spanish, Chinese, Russian would all be out of luck in having a perfect translation. It amazes me that so many people cannot understand this simple fact. Namely, that the KJV cannot be the only perfect translation. So that's my little addition to this subject.


"And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened". Luke 13:20-21

John

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 535
  • Gender: Male
  • A man with God is always in the majority-John Knox
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #81 on: November 09, 2004, 03:27:24 PM »
Quote
Sorry John, but I disagree entirely.  The word to keep means to hold onto something, to not let it go, or to preserve something.  Ps. 12 is not talking about US obeying God, but it speaks of God preserving His words.

You say the Hebrew word translated as 'preserve' mean to "hold onto something, to not let it go" but it doesn't mean to keep it?  If the word of God is kept then it is remembered and obeyed. When we "hold onto something" we remember it and do it. See Strong's:

naw-tsar'
A primitive root; to guard, in a good sense (to protect, maintain, obey, etc.)

We protect the words of God in our heart, we obey the words of God when we "keep" God's commandments, we preserve them by remembering to do them. You cannot take these verses out of context and force God to say "The words of the LORD are pure words ...Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shat preserve them in a book from this generation for ever".

Psalms 12:6-7
6  The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

God's words are preserved or kept by people who obey them, from the generation then to the generation today. God's words will not pass away -- but the KJV will. Whatever God has said to do He will do, the Psalmist says correctly: "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD...". God will keep His words ... in a book? .... no, He keeps them by doing what He says He will do.

We already saw that if God preserved His word in a perfect book it would not be "from this generation for ever" -- there was no perfect book then nor is there today. Nor would verse 7 allow a perfect book, if it did exist, to survive for ever -- however, the word of God (not in a book) does survive forever.


Quote
It seems that your Greek grammar has derailed your common sense.  Most Bible versions translate it the same way as in the KJB.   


That is because most Bible versions, including the KJB, translate Sabbaths as week and are in error. The KJB is not correct because it agrees with most other wrong renderings of these verses under discussion.

Quote
So, are all these other guys who know far more about Greek than you ever will just stupid and only you and Young are right?


Young's Literal Version is correct. The King James Bible is wrong. Most other version are wrong. So what are you going to do now? Game over for your KJV-Only position. Like I said, time to leave the fantasy world and join us in reality.


Quote
But how can we believe in the "authority" of the inerrant Word of God and how can we know what the word of God actually says if we don't believe it exists anywhere now? 

I just don't get the reasoning behind this belief.   How can one reverence the King James as the best translation, say that they believe in the "authority" of the inerrant Word of God, but at the same time say we don't have it anywhere, and thus shed doubt upon it?


Here's a story: A child's fantasy is that they can fly. The child desires it to be so. He eventually comes to believe that it is true. One day someone forces the child to prove it, and lo and behold, he falls flat on his face -- he can't fly. Now what do you do? Joining the rest of us earth-bound mortals would be my suggestion.

The KJV can't fly, it is not the perfect, inspired, inerrant, revealed will of God on earth (neither is the Pope by the way). If we one day discover this truth we may be shocked, but, the truth is always preferable to fantasy. Now what do you do? Join the rest of us who use translations with care. As you study you will discover certain errors, such as week should be translated Sabbaths   or that "so" in John 3:16 doesn't mean "so much" but "in this manner" God loved the world. Bit by bit we weed through the major errors and bit by bit we correct them. You will never eliminate all errors -- but the more we learn the more we are sure to find and the more confident we are at handling the word of God.

Do these errors mean we cannot trust the KJV? Well, you cannot trust with complete blind confidence any translation. Usually someone doing a word study or Bible study will bring to light poorly translated words -- they probably discovered the problem through the work of others -- you know, we learn about them as we explore, study, read, and compare. I don't know an easier way. However, it is rewarding to discover truths -- even those accidentally or purposefully hidden by a poor translation.

Quote
And were the scholars who translated the Hebrew and Greek meanings into English in the concordances (Strong, Young, etc.) any more knowledgeable than the King James translators?  How are we to know which of these translations to believe when there are so many different opinions?  Why are they used as the final authority in Bible study? 


Recall that an English translation is based on the Greek. If the Greek is wrong the translation will be wrong. This is why there is so much heated debate about which NT Greek text is best. In my opinion, and you can study as well as I, the Textus Receptus is the superior Greek (no not perfect).

Here's an example of what I mean by learning as we study the text. In the KJV we have these verses:


1Jo 5:7  For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.
1Jo 5:8  And there are three that bear witness on the earth: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three are into the one.


Now, they appear in the KJV and most modern Bibles. The problem is these verses are corrupted and wrong. 1 John 5:8 should read:

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three are into the one.


Is it confusing that the KJV and other translations have this verse?  Yes, it is. But we are, with study, able to slice through the confusion and resolve it. Just as we do when we harmonize Scripture to come to truth -- it takes work and study and time ... but we have no choice if we want to be faithful to what God has said.

Erasmus translated the first edition his English translation (1516) with the shorter rendering that is attested in nearly all Greek manuscripts. However, the Catholic church, of which Erasmus was a member, was distressed that 1John 5:7 did not agree with the Latin Vulgate, which contained the longer reading. Since up to that time the Roman Church used the Latin Vulgate, they were upset when Erasmus' version did not agree. Of course Erasmus knew that the longer reading was not trustworthy and not found in the Greek. A summary of what happened is given here:

About 1520, Erasmus was being attacked by critics for not including the spurious words of 1 John 5:7. His reply to the critics came in the form of a challenge. He stated that if he could find just one Greek manuscript with the words in question in it then he would include it in his translation. So a Franciscan friar, Froy, produced a contrived Greek Testament with the spurious words inserted into it. Erasmus, due to Trinitarian pressure at the time, kept his word and inserted the words into his translation. However he added a long footnote, indicating he knew that the source document in question had been produced to confound him in his work

In other words, the Roman Catholic church 'created' a manuscript copy with the longer reading of 1John 5:7-8 translated into Greek from Latin. It was a forgery and Erasmus knew it. Now Erasmus was forced by his own words to include it, which he did in his third edition of the New Testament. The KJV translators relied on the Greek NT of Theodore Beza (1598) which was based on Erasmus' third and subsequent editions. You will probably find the longer version of 1John 5:7 in you KJV Bible without comment: But it doesn't belong there. Young's literal, Green's Literal and a few others either remove it or put the erroneous word in italics.

Hopefully that was not too confusing. The point I'm making is that we have to do our homework. We must be students of the Book.


Quote
I think a good possibility of where God kept the New Testament was in the Old Latin (not the Vulgate) and among the Waldensians in their Latinized language until the time of the Reformation.  Then God words passed over into the English of the King James Bible.

The Old Latin (pre Vulgate) translations were a mass of confusion. Here's a commentary on the Old Latin:

But which Latin version? That is indeed the problem -- for, in the period before the Vulgate, there were dozens, perhaps hundreds. Jerome, in his preface to the Vulgate gospels, commented that there were "as many [translations] as there are manuscripts." Augustine complained that anyone who had the slightest hint of Greek and Latin might undertake a translation. They seem to have been right; of our dozens of non-Vulgate Latin manuscripts, no two seem to represent exactly the same translation.

...number of Old Latin translations was very large. And the quality was very low. What is more, they were a diverse lot; it must have been hard to preach when one didn't even know what the week's scripture said!

What more need be said? The Old Latin translations were an inferior mess. The KJV was not based on these works, though Erasmus used the Vulgate (Latin) to translate back into the Greek (in the last portions of Revelation).

There is no legacy of unadulterated pure Bibles spanning through the New Testament -- therefore the idea that God preserved His word in various perfectly written texts throughout history is unfounded and self-serving to the KJV-Only position. But further, as we stated about Psalm 12 -- no Bible meets the requirements of being preserved from "this generation for ever", if Bibles were preserved "for ever" we should have quite a large assembly of perfect Bibles in every language. Of course, there is no such collection of Bibles.

And we should know by now that the errors in the KJV declare it to be a work of fallible men, despite the assertions to the contrary.

2Ti 2:15  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.


john
Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!

brandplucked

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #82 on: November 09, 2004, 04:42:04 PM »
Hi Sue, you posted: "As for the question at hand. I don't have a problem with KJOnly people until they wander into the field of claiming perfection of this one translation. That's when I part ways with them. As you said, if it was the only perfect translation, then those people who have the bible text translated into Egyptian, Spanish, Chinese, Russian would all be out of luck in having a perfect translation. It amazes me that so many people cannot understand this simple fact. Namely, that the KJV cannot be the only perfect translation. So that's my little addition to this subject."

Sue, God never promised to give every nation His word.  If He did, then He lied.  There are many of what you Christians call "reliable versions" (whatever that means).  God can and does use them to bring His people to faith in Christ.  We do not deny this.

If you hold to what the Bible says about itself, then God must have preserved His wordS somewhere.  The question is where did He do this.

It seems obvious to me and others that most of the Christians here do not believe that any Book or any Bible version or any single Hebrew or single Greek text anywhere on this earth is today the complete, inerrant, inspired words of the living God.

Some like Tony try to redefine words to fit their agenda.  "words" doesn't really mean individual words, but rather "decrees" or "purposes".  See how this works?

If any of you stand up and say "The Bible is the inspired words of God", then what on earth are you referring to?  Which bible?  Which texts?  Which meanings? 

Each of you ends up creating your own mystical bible version which in turn differs from everybody else's.

I don't know how exactly God has preserved His words throughout history.  I have some pretty good educated guesses, but I don't know for sure and neither does anyone else.  So we either take the view that God did not lie and He has given us His inspired words (not just the general ideas or the overall message), or we adopt the views of many here who claim there is no such thing as an inspired, inerrant Bible on this earth and that we are then free to each follow his own preferences and opinions which differ from everybody else.

Each individual then become the Final Authority and all bets are off as to what God really said.

Will Kinney



brandplucked

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #83 on: November 09, 2004, 05:08:19 PM »
John, reading through your post it is obvious that you do not have nor believe in any Bible as the complete, inerrant, inspired words of God.  Simply put, you have no Bible that can truely be called The word of God.

You didn't even use the context of Young's blunders regarding sabbathS to defend your ideas, which in the context of the Scriptures I pointed out, are absurd in the extreme.

You don't believe the TR is perfect.  No translation is perfect and no Bible is perfect.  The only final authority you have is that individual, peculiar, mystical bible version that exists in your own mind.  Just so people are aware of where you are coming from.


You are gosssly misinformed about 1 John 5:7 and are repeating lies that even men like Metzger later retracted.  By the way, this verse is in the TR you refer to, but again, according to your own understanding you reject this reading as being spurious.   Well, thanks for settling this matter for us which has puzzled and divided Christians for so long.

Now, here is some explanation on the meaning of the word "keep".

John>>>>You say the Hebrew word translated as 'preserve' mean to "hold onto something, to not let it go" but it doesn't mean to keep it?  If the word of God is kept then it is remembered and obeyed. When we "hold onto something" we remember it and do it. See Strong's:
naw-tsar'
A primitive root; to guard, in a good sense (to protect, maintain, obey, etc.)
We protect the words of God in our heart, we obey the words of God when we "keep" God's commandments, we preserve them by remembering to do them. You cannot take these verses out of context and force God to say "The words of the LORD are pure words ...Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shat preserve them in a book from this generation for ever".
Psalms 12:6-7
6  The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

---------------------------

John, you are very mistaken.  The word "preserve" NEVER meand "to obey", at least not in the true Holy Bible.  The word used in Psalms 12 is a different word, but it means "to preserve" and to keep, but it never means "to obey".  By the way, Psalms 12:7 is totally different in the NASB and the NiV is different than them both.  "Thou shalt preserve THEM from this generation for ever."  If you are defending the KJB reading, then you have another example of a singular being translated as a plural.  Are you going to "correct" this too?

"To Keep" vs "to Obey"

King James Bible - "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we KEEP his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and KEEPETH NOT his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but WHOSO KEEPETH HIS WORD, in him verily is the love of God perfected." 1 John 2:3-5

NIV - "We know that we have come to know him if we OBEY his commands. The man who says, "I know him," but does NOT DO what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone OBEYS his word, God's love is truly made complete in him."

What do the phrases "keep my commandments" and "keepeth His word" mean? I am convinced that many Christians misunderstand the meaning, and some modern versions, like the NIV, NRSV, TNIV, perpetuate the error.

This may come as a shock to many but the word TO KEEP in both Hebrew and Greek does NOT mean "to obey" or "to do"!!!. The Hebrew word Shamar # 8104 is translated in the KJB, ASV, NKJV, NASB as "to keep, to observe, to take heed to, to preserve, to be a watchman, and to regard." The Greek word teereo # 5083 likewise in these versions is translated as "to keep, to guard, to watch, to preserve, to reserve, and to hold fast." If you are playing basketball in the park and take out your wallet and keys and ask a friend to keep them for you, obviously you want him to hang on to them and not lose them.

The NIV was the first "bible" to give these words new meanings. The NIV translates the O.T. word Shamar as "to obey" 29 times and as "to do" 5 times. It also translates the N.T. word tereeo as "to obey" 21 times and "to do" 3 times. I believe this is due, not only to Satan's hand at work to promote a works oriented religion, but also to much careless preaching. Legalism is natural to the human heart. Few Bible students take the time to actually look up a word in the Bible itself, not a commentary, to see exactly how the Holy Ghost uses this particular word.

Here are a few examples of how the word Shamar is used. Try to fit "to do" or "to obey" into the text and see if they fit. "Am I my brother's KEEPER?" (Gen.2:15). "The Lord bless thee and KEEP thee" (Num. 6:24). "KEEP me as the apple of the eye" (Ps. 17:8). "O KEEP my soul and deliver me" (Ps. 25:20). "PRESERVE me, O God." (Ps. 16:1). "I have set WATCHMEN upon thy walls, O Jerusalem." (Isa. 62:6)

Try to fit "to do" or "to obey" into these New Testament examples. "thou hast KEPT the good wine until now" (John 2:10). "Holy Father, KEEP through thine own name those whom thou hast given me...I have KEPT them in thy name...KEEP them from evil" (John 17:11-12,15) "Peter therefore was KEPT in prison." (Acts 12:5)

A good way to get the sense of a word is to compare it with the contrasting or opposite words used with it. "a time TO KEEP and a time TO CAST AWAY" (Ecc. 3:6). "They that FORSAKE the law praise the wicked, but such as KEEP the law contend with them" (Pro. 28:4). Speaking of wisdom God says: "FORSAKE her not and she will PRESERVE thee" (Pro. 4:6 - same word as "to keep"). "My son, ATTEND TO my words, INCLINE THINE EAR unto my sayings; Let them NOT DEPART from thine eyes; KEEP them in the midst of thine heart" (Pro. 4:20-21). "Only TAKE HEED TO (same word) thyself, and KEEP thy soul diligently, lest thou FORGET the things which thine eyes have seen and lest they DEPART from thy heart all the days of thy life..." (Deut. 4:9)

Notice too the distinction drawn between TO DO and TO KEEP in Deuteronomy 4:6. This passage contains four separate things the Israelites were to do. "And Moses called all Israel and said unto them, HEAR, of Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day that ye may LEARN them, and KEEP, and DO them." They were to hear, to learn, to keep, and to do. The same concept is seen in may passages but one more may help to illustrate. "Ye shall therefore KEEP my statutes and my judgements which I speak in your ears this day that ye may LEARN them, and KEEP, and DO them."

When the Bible speaks of us KEEPING the commandments of the word of the Lord, God is telling us not to forsake, let go of, forget or turn away from them, but rather to guard, preserve, hold on to and cling to them. By God's grace we hopefully will not only keep them but also do and obey them; but, to KEEP and to OBEY are two distinct and separate concepts.

This difference between to keep and to obey is often illustrated for us in God's true words. Let's look for a moment at the life of king David. In 1 Kings 11 we are told: "And it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods...for Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammorites...Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and THOU HAST NOT KEPT My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend thy kingdom from thee and will give it to thy servant" (1 Kings 11:4,5,11) Howbeit I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand; but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant's sake, whom I chose, BECAUSE HE KEPT my commandments and my statutes." (1 Kings 11:34)

In 1 Kings 14:8 God, through His prophet Ahijah, rebukes king Jeroboam. "...and thou hast not been as my servant David, WHO KEPT MY COMMANDMENTS, and who followed me with all his heart, to do right in mine eyes; but hast done evil above all that were before thee: for thou hast gone and made thee other gods, and molten images, to provoke me to anger, and hast cast me behind thy back."

The principal sin of Solomon and Jeroboam was turning to other gods - apostasy and idolatry. God says David KEPT His commandments, yet David certainly disobeyed the commandments of God by comitting adultery and murder. But king David never turned away from Jehovah as being the only true God of his life. He held onto God's revelation of Himself in His word and never forsook Him to follow another religion or other gods.

Now, let's look again at 1 John 2:3-5. "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we KEEP his commandmants. He that saith, I know him, and KEEPETH NOT his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but WHOSO KEEPETH HIS WORD, in him verily is the love of God perfected."

The NIV has changed the sense entirely. "We know that we have come to know him if we OBEY his commands. The man who says, 'I know him' but DOES NOT DO what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if any man OBEYS his word, God's love is truly made complete in him." If the NIV is the correct interpretation, then I do not know of anyone that is a Christian. Don't give me that old line about "a pattern of obedience". Do you sin in thought, word or deed at least once a day? Or how about once an hour? Is this not then a pattern of sinning?

The commandments, or the Biblical teachings, are the words of God. In 1 John 3:23 we are told: "And this is the commandment, that we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment." This same chapter tells us "Little children, it is the last time; and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists...they went out from us, but they were not of us...who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son...Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning..." (the original teaching concerning the Person and the work of Christ; don't leave that truth for a new or false religion) "These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you."

The epistle of First John speaks of two different kinds of sin. "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death; I do not say that he shall pray for it." 1 John 5:16.

Here is a BROTHER who is sinning a sin not unto death. He is a brother in Christ who continues in some kind of sin, (it is a present continuous tense), a garden variety sin to which we are all prone. But 5:16 also mentions a sin that is unto death, for which he is not to pray. I believe this sin is that of forsaking the doctrine that Jesus is the Christ, denying it, and following the false religion of antichrist. The prophet Jeremiah was likewise told not to pray for those who, having been warned repeatedly, turned to other gods. See Jeremiah 7:16 and 11:14.

New Age teaching and Eastern Religions such as Hinduism are very similar to each other. They teach that Christ is a divine spirit or consciousness within us all. They teach that soon we will all become this Christ Consciousness. No! This is not true at all. The Bible tells us that JESUS IS THE CHRIST; there is no other. He died and shed His blood for the sins of His people. There is no other Saviour. If anyone denies this truth, the apostle John does not say that they should pray for this sin unto death.

The true Christian can never sin in this way of continuing to deny that Jesus is the Christ. "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" 1 John 3:9. The seed mentioned here is most likely the word of God - "the seed is the word of God" (Luke 8:11); "being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God..." 1 Peter 1:23.

Notice too how the word TO KEEP is used in 1 John 5:18: "We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God KEEPETH himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." When it says that he that is born of God sinneth not, it cannot be consistent with the rest of Scripture and our own experience to say that this refers to ANY SIN AT ALL. This would contradict 1 John 1:8 where it says: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." This verse then, in the context of the whole epistle, refers to the sin unto death - that is, to deny that Jesus is the Christ.

To sum up the argument: He that KEEPETH His commandments, and KEEPETH His word is the Christian who holds onto, guards, preserves and retains the doctrine of Christ and does not forsake it to follow the antichrist religion. "Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father." 1 John 2:24.

In light of what the phrase "keepeth my commandments" really means, it adds a new dimension to the Bible version controversy. Most of the modern versions are based on a very different Greek text that omits some 5000 words, including many entire verses, from the New Testament and they often depart from the Hebrew texts in the Old Testament. With this in mind, consider the words of our Lord Jesus Christ when He says: "He that hath my COMMANDMENTS and KEEPETH them, he it is that loveth me...He that loveth me not KEEPETH NOT MY SAYINGS: and THE WORD which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's that sent me." John 14:21,24. Commandments = my sayings = the Father's word. "I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them me; AND THEY HAVE KEPT THY WORD...For I have given unto them THE WORDS which thou gavest me; and they have received them" John 17:6-8 - Keep them, preserve them, hold them fast, and do not let them go, depart or disappear. If we love our Lord and Saviour, we will have a high regard for His words and not treat them lightly or allow them to be taken from us.

I firmly believe the King James Holy Bible is always correct. We may not understand all that is revealed in its pages, but I firmly believe that God has providentially guided in such a way as to preserve His pure, complete, inspired and infallible words in the English language of the Authorized King James Bible.

Will Kinney

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #84 on: November 10, 2004, 03:13:06 AM »
>>>
Tony,
  It seems that you are catching flack from every point on the compass.
<<<

Well, if you dance to the music, you have to pay the piper. ;)

If you're willing to stand up for the truth, then you are going to take flack for it. That's a given. And it's why so many churches today never stand up for the truth. Their philosophy, "who needs the aggravation." Of course, this was not the way of the Apostles and Prophets who died because they dared to stand for truth. My philosophy is, "take up your cross and follow Me," is not a suggestion. Considering what the martyrs paid, a little animosity is a small price to pay for truth.


Quote
>>>
As for the question at hand. I don't have a problem with KJOnly people until they wander into the field of claiming perfection of this one translation. That's when I part ways with them.
<<<

In my view, that's when everyone should part ways with them. Because what they have effectively denied is that the KJV is a Translation "of the Bible." Thus they have made it the only perfect Bible itself, not the "translation" of it. They have made the translation that which is perfectly authoritative, infallible and inerrant in every jot and tittle. And that is "obviously" wrong to any Bible student who is honest with themselves.

But don't worry about me, worry about those who don't accept truth. They are the ones who need our prayers.

God Bless,

nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #85 on: November 10, 2004, 03:15:33 AM »
>>>
Sue, God never promised to give every nation His word.  If He did, then He lied.  There are many of what you Christians call "reliable versions" (whatever that means).  God can and does use them to bring His people to faith in Christ.  We do not deny this.
<<<

 That's the most ridiculous statement that you've made to date. You're effectively claiming that only English speaking people can have the inerrant word of God in their KJV. That's just unbelievable. Moreover, this idea is ludicrous because it means that all other Bibles before the KJV were not the perfect word of God. i.e., the word didn't get perfect until 1611. That's also ridiculous. The King James version of the bible made its debut in 1611. So what about the Bible before then? Was it perfect to? If (as you so boldly claim) the Lord preserved His Bible (in the manner you claim), then where was it preserved before the KJV? Answer please! OK, I'll answer for you. It was preserved in the same copies that are here today for us to examine. The same copies from which the KJV was translated.

2nd Timothy 3:16
  • "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Would that be the "scriptures" from which the KJV and others was taken? Indeed it is.  John Wycliffe did the first English translation of the New Testament around 1380. Then William Tyndale in 1530, and revised in 1534 made another English translation. The point being, where was your "Preserved" Bible during all these years before the KJ Version? What you are saying is completely without any logical or Biblical validation. For "IF" the KJV was not in existence, then to any "rational thinking" Christian person, the Holy Bible existed (was preserved of God) in the manuscripts from which the KJ Bible was derived! That is an undeniable fact, which if you deny, you are dabbling in absurdity.


Quote
>>>
If you hold to what the Bible says about itself, then God must have preserved His wordS somewhere.  The question is where did He do this.
<<<

I just told you (as have many others), but unfortunately, you're not listening to anything but the sound of your own voice. You are weighed and found wanting.

Proverbs 16:11
  • "A just weight and balance are the LORD'S: all the weights of the bag are his work."


Quote
>>>
It seems obvious to me and others that most of the Christians here do not believe that any Book or any Bible version or any single Hebrew or single Greek text anywhere on this earth is today the complete, inerrant, inspired words of the living God.
<<<

As far as I can tell, out of all the Christians here, you're really the only one here espousing this nonsense (I submit to any correction). Where are all these "others" you speak of? Even if there were a great groundswell of support for your position (which there is not), that wouldn't make it right or justified. I mean practically the whole nation of Israel, with the entire Old Testament at their disposal, and scholars working around the clock, still don't believe in Christ. The point is, truth is not by committee and a just balance is not by consensus.

Proverbs 12:17
  • "He that speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false witness deceit."

So do not falsely accuse the Christians here. For most of the Christians here DO believe that the Hebrew and Greek text is the complete, inerrant, and divinely inspired words of the living God. As do I. Your distortions only show how desperate you have become. Try and stick to the truth, shall we?


Quote
>>>
Some like Tony try to redefine words to fit their agenda.
<<<

Ahhhhhh. You mean like redefining the word [sabbaton] as Sabbath? ...Oops, that's is the word Sabbath, isn't it. That's the way it's usually defined isn't it? How silly of me to define it "exactly" as it is inspired written of God. You did say you believe in the complete, inerrant, and divinely inspired words of the living God, didn't you? Perhaps you "meant" to say, not until 1611, when the KJV came into being. 

2nd Timothy 3:16-17
  • "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
  • That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."


Long before the KJV came about, men were reading the perfect word of God for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. Which means it was preserved outside of the KJV.


Quote
>>>
 "words" doesn't really mean individual words, but rather "decrees" or "purposes".  See how this works?
<<<

Unfortunately, I think many see how you work. There are few people here that are going to buy into your dog and pony show. It takes more than smoke and mirrors to deceive the faithful or elect. Here, the word Sabbath "is" the word Sabbath, the word Chosen "is" the word chosen, and the word of God, "has been" preserved faithfully, and long before the KJ Version was just a gleam in king James eye.


Quote
>>>
we either take the view that God did not lie and He has given us His inspired words (not just the general ideas or the overall message), or we adopt the views of many here who claim there is no such thing as an inspired, inerrant Bible on this earth and that we are then free to each follow his own preferences and opinions which differ from everybody else.
<<<

Oh we know that God did not lie. It's man who is vain, sly, fraudulent, deceitful, and dishonest in his pretentiousness and self will. He's been that way almost from the beginning. That's why he won't receive truth. There is no real fear of God before his eyes, because he keeps his eyes on himself.

Psalms 36:2-4
  • "For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful.
  • The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good.
  • He deviseth mischief upon his bed; he setteth himself in a way that is not good; he abhorreth not evil."

No, God did not lie. It is man that is full of himself and refuses to receive the truth in love. It is man that distorts reality in the deceitfulness of his own heart. God has given us His inspired words, and His words are not our words. His ways are not your ways, nor are they my ways. No one here claims there is no such thing as an inspired, inerrant Bible on this earth. That's your witness and rhetoric, not the "truth."


Quote
>>>
Each individual then become the Final Authority and all bets are off as to what God really said.
<<<

Well now you're written your own epilogue. For it is in "truth," you, who has made himself the final authority on who were the perfect translators. It is you who have irrationally put forth the thesis that the KJ "translation" is actually more authoritative than it's seminal manuscripts. But a summary "test" of that idea proves it to be baseless. The idea of "a copy" (KJV)  being perfect, so that Christians need not go to the source manuscript to determine what is inerrant, is ridiculous.

1st Thessalonians 5:21
  • "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

So that instead faithful Christians going to the "source" manuscripts for absolute truth, in your belief system we are not to accept the source [sabbaton], but go to the "copy of the source" (KJV) as that which is really the perfect?  I'm sorry, but in a word, that is, Ludicrous! And it doesn't take a Ph.D. to see that it is either. It is a completely "convoluted" rationale that not only has no foundation in reality, but is not hermeneutically sound, and isn't even logical on a (as you say) common sense level or basis. So you lose out on all counts. The truth is not customizable to your specifications, it is out there for anyone who takes the time to receive it.

3rd John 1:3-4
  • "For I rejoiced greatly, when the brethren came and testified of the truth that is in thee, even as thou walkest in the truth.
  • I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth."

Truth inspires change. We already know that by reason of many, the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. But this is summed up in an example. If I were to write a book in German, and it's "translated" from my written copy into a French "version," which one is the more perfect from the author?

..Case Closed!

It's not even debatable. It's silly to even have to discuss a copy being made into a different language being the perfect, and the words from the actual source (like [sabbaton] Sabbaths for week, or [katecho] restraineth for letteth) should not be considered because of a misplaced idea that a KJV translation is "perfect."  God is the author, not King James.

nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #86 on: November 10, 2004, 03:22:38 AM »
>>>
I find theres more bickering on this forum than should be. We should find what god says in his word about this and listen to him.  Your friend in Christ, Muriel
<<<

Well, man/woman are prideful beings. Therefore, he/she doesn't take correction very well. That's to be expected, though not condoned. We can only hope that in the end, people will take it in the Spirit that it is given. In a "perfect" world, all Christians accept the truth when they hear it. But like the KJV of the Bible, this is not a perfect world.

But I couldn't agree with you more when you say, "We should find what God says in his word about this, and listen to him." On that I say, Amen!

nosce te ipsum"
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #87 on: November 10, 2004, 03:41:43 AM »
>>>
Hi Tony, part of what I said before was incorrect.  The word Sabbath is not always plural, and you are correct in this.  However, what I was mainly pointing out is that Young translates Matthew 12:1 as a plural -sabbaths- and this is wrong.  It clearly is a one day event when the disciples picked the ears of corn.  Just read it and see.
<<<

Matthew 12:1
  • "At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat."

I disagree. I think (correction, I Know) that it clearly "says" in the original manuscripts that Jesus went on the "Sabbaths" through the corn. i.e., that was his normal routine that was done on the Sabbaths. To walk through the corn fields. There is no reason from the original text to translate this word [sabbaton](plural sabbaths) to "mean" (though it doesn't say) "a day." It LITERALLY reads, "Jesus went on the Sabbaths through the corn." Perfectly understandable and consistent with other uses of the word in scripture.


Quote
>>>
Young often translated the plural as sabbaths when the context is clearly only one day and not many. 
<<<

But that's merely your opinion, "based" on the fact that you "think" the KJ Version of the Bible is the one and only perfect Bible. It's not based on the actual original text inspired written by God.. Every jot and tittle is perfect. The context is "not" clearly only one day if the word is plural. That is your (and the translators) assumption. And as I've said before, assumptions are the mother of errors.


Quote
>>>
Mark 1:21 and following.  This event happened only one time on one particular day,
<<<

That may be how it "appears" to one unskilled, or more likely unwilling, to accept the actual Biblical Greek, however the text Literally reads:

"And they went into Capernaum, and straightway on the Sabbaths (plural) he entered into the synagogue, and taught."

In other words, again, it was His habit to enter the synagogues on the Sabbaths and to teach. Just as it was clearly also Paul's habit of doing. There is "nothing unusual" about that. That was their normal routine. And there in the synagogue he met a man with an unclean spirit. Simple. It doesn't need interpretation, it just needs to be read the way it is written. The point here is, translators are not justified by anything in this context, to take this plural word, and because they might not understand how it fits, "change" it into a singular word, and "add" the word Day, totally changing how it was inspired to read.


Quote
>>>
it seems that your Greek grammar has derailed your common sense.  Most Bible versions translate it the same way as in the KJB. 
<<<

Greek Grammar? What does that even mean? While you rely on your so-called common sense, I will rely on the authority of the Word of God in faithfully following what God has stated. Did common sense tell you the KJV is a perfect translation? You're sure it was "common," but was there any sense it it? We should have the "uncommon" sense that comes when we lean not unto our own understanding, but to the authority and inerrancy of scripture. It's biblical sense that is proof to us that the KJV is not a perfect translation, and that God says Sabbath and Sabbaths for the same reason he says seeds and seed, which is Christ.

"Common" sense in the worldly sense, would tell people that when God says "heart" he's talking about an endocrine gland. "Biblical" sense would tell the Christian that God isn't talking about a gland at all. So we have to be wary of man's common sense, and define terms by our faith in the authority of the inerrant word of God, using uncommon sense.

As far as most Bible versions translating it the same way as in the KJV, you've spent weeks telling us how unfaithful these other Versions are. Now you're holding them up as proof of correctness?  )Say_what(

Inconsistency is the hallmark of error. Frankly, as I've been saying here all along, the whole point is that translations are not the final authority of what is correct or incorrect. The unadulterated divinely inspired biblical copies that they come from are. i.e., the KJ "Version" isn't perfect, the Holy Scriptures from which the KJV came is. That is what you do not seem to understand.


Quote
>>>
So, are all these other guys who know far more about Greek than you ever will just stupid and only you and Young are right? 
<<<

..ahhhh, do you mean all these Greek experts that almost unanimously agree the KJV is not a perfect translation? I'm sure you'd also think they are stupid when they declare that your ideas about the perfect KJV are "Totally Ridiculous!"  So, what does that say about them? It either says that you are wrong, and they are not stupid. Or you are right, and they are stupid in not realizing that the KJV is perfect.

The Scribes and the Pharisees were all very learned men, great scholars, "experts" as well, having great knowledge and "common" sense, but no Biblical or uncommon sense. As saith the prophet, "There is nothing new under the sun." I guess I am not as enamored by "experts" as you are. That is, "when it suits your purpose." How enamored of them are you when they say KJ Onlyism is ridiculous?


Quote
>>>
At least you have come out and admitted you don't think there is any perfect Bible on the face of this earth, except of course that mystical one that exists in your own mind, and is I'm quite sure even different from Youngs in many instances.
<<<

I have admitted no such thing. What I have tried to do is explain that there is no perfect "Translation" of the Bible. That's why faithful Christians, when doing serious studies of the scriptures, will always check the "translation" against the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn. IF the KJV were truly a perfect translation, there would be no need to ever do that. We'd just compare it with itself and be done with it. But then how would we know that angel and messenger are the exact same word in Scripture, etc., etc.? We know better because we have Un-common sense. For the world is full of non-evangelistic, lazy, content, professing Christians.

nosce te ipsum"
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"


Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #88 on: November 10, 2004, 03:48:14 AM »
>>>
Tony (I think) has made a big deal out of the singular and plurals in Greek. 
<<<

No, actually "tony" has "corrected" your inaccurate statement that the Sabbath is always plural. The big deal was made by you as you continue to try to deny the undeniable. When God inspired Sabbths to be written both as singular and plural, depending upon what He was talking about, He made a big deal of it. For the record, "Tony" didn't write the Holy canon and make Sabbaths in one place plural and in another singular. God inspired it written that way. Surely God is not capricious in moving men to write this way, even authoring both ways in the very same verse to show difference. To say "this makes no difference to the word" is foolish.


Quote
>>>
Usually they do have importance, but often they do not. 
<<<

Usually they have importance? ..but not when they contradict your man-made idea of a "Perfect" Translation? Would that fall into the category of "common" sense.


Quote
>>>
Even good ol' Young translated many of these as singulars, even though they are plural in the Greek.   
<<<

And who here said Youngs was a perfect translation? Not one soul. To my knowledge, You (perhaps one other) are the only persons posting who make such untenable claims as there being a perfect translation of the Bible. Note I said translation "of" the Bible.


Quote
>>>
Sometimes we just have to use some common sense.
<<<

Jude 1:3
  • "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

Common sense is contending for the faith, not fables about a certain translation being more accurate than the scriptures from which it was translated. That is "blatantly" absurd! But it is exactly what you are contending when you call the "translation" the perfect which cannot be in error, and the original variation unimportant.


Quote
>>>
Other examples
<<<

Your examples are self-serving. And as you've already admitted yourself:

Your Quote:
"Usually they do have importance, but often they do not"

Thus, even you yourself RELUCTANTLY admit that God was not acting capriciously in assigning plural and singular to words. Thus you testify against yourself.

nosce te ipsum"
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

Genrev

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #89 on: November 10, 2004, 04:44:34 AM »


I have admitted no such thing. What I have tried to do is explain that there is no perfect "Translation" of the Bible. That's why faithful Christians, when doing serious studies of the scriptures, will always check the "translation" against the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn. IF the KJV were truly a perfect translation, there would be no need to ever do that. We'd just compare it with itself and be done with it. We know better because we have Un-common sense. For the world is full of non-evangelistic, lazy, content, professing Christians.


You (and mostly everybody else here) believe that we need to check the "translation" against  "the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn" before accepting it as being correct.  Am I understanding this right?  If so, then how did believers check their "translation" before Strong and Young compiled their concordances and before other scholars published their works regarding "the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn,"  being that "the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn" wasn't in the hands of the common people? 

Was there some way that they had to check everything before then, or did they simply accept by faith that they had the word of God in their hands?   If they had no way to check their "translation," does this mean that they never had "Un-common sense" and never came to the knowledge of the truth, as apparently those who believe this way on this forum think that they have?

Also, why do Strong's, Youngs, and others not always agree with one another if they are all supposed to be based on "the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn"?   How is one to know which of these, if any, is correctly rendered from "the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn"?   And are being capable of deciding which one is correct, and having "Un-common sense," as you call it,  prerequisites for being a faithful Christian?

And also, where exactly can one go nowadays to obtain a copy of "the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn," being that these concordances and things do not agree with one another, (and, of course we all know that they are interpretations of meanings of Hebrew and Greek words written by men in the first place of "the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn")?

And you said, "IF the KJV were truly a perfect translation, there would be no need to ever do that. We'd just compare it with itself and be done with it." 

My, Oh My...how many times have I read where you wrote that we should compare Scripture with Scripture?   But now I guess that since you say the King James isn't perfect that what you meant is that we should compare "the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn" to ""the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn."  OK...show me where "the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn" is, and I'll do that.

And lastly, are you saying that anyone who has ever lived that has claimed to be a Christian, but who has not gone back to check their "translation" against "the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn,"  wherever it is, has no "Un-common sense" and is actually a "non-evangelistic, lazy, content, professing Christian"?

Minna

 


[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]