For Brian Tegart: KJOS Who Equate the KJV to God

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author Comment

Kristi

For Brian Tegart: KJOS Who Equate the KJV to God

Lead

[-]

Posts: 3769

(06/21/2002 09:45:05)

Registered User

Tags : None

I don't know how trustworthy codex_z is as a source (he's a known troll at the Yahoo clubs and has even posted here), but I found this post at robycop's club, while researching old posts people have done. I remember you were asking for examples of this kind of thing some time ago.

Here it is:

Message 4124 of 6840 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ]
From: codex_z
Date: Tue Oct 31, 2000 7:20 am
Subject: Rex sez KJV is God

Rextext on K v MV:

"We don't worship the paper and leather - the words are written in ink!

The fact is, worshipping is not the issue, authority is. The written scriptures are the highest authority - even higher than Jesus Christ or God the Father.

Blasphemy you say? (only because you have no authority) Actually both Jesus Christ and God the Father submitted themselves to the written word. God magnified His word above His name and said it was more sure than His voice.
Again and again the Lord did things "according to the
scripture" (which KJVOs have and you don't)."

[end of Rex's comments]

He finally admits who his God really is! The "book" is
greater than Jesus and GOD THE FATHER Himself! This is
"BLASPHEMY"! Thou shalt not put other gods before me! I don't think GOD liked his comment! FATHER forgive them for they know not what they do! LORD have mercy on their error!

original deep elem preacher Re: For Brian Tegart: KJOS Who Equate the KJV to God #1 [-]

Posts: 759

(06/21/2002 10:32:21)

>>The "book" is greater than Jesus and GOD THE FATHER Himself! This is "BLASPHEMY"!

But God is really the one to blame for the misunderstanding, for it is He who inspired David to claim

...for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. (Psalm 138:2)

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."
-- II Corinthians 11:4

Kristi Ps. 138:2 Magnifying God's Word #2 [-]

Posts: 3769

(06/21/2002 10:59:53)

Registered User

Somehow, I just don't think that the King James Only interpretation is the correct one for that verse. When I asked Gary Hudson what he made of this claim, he responded (this is also on his website):

this webpage

Jamie66 Re: Ps. 138:2 Magnifying God's Word #3 [-]

Posts: 12

(06/23/2002 03:56:21)

Quote:

How can even the Ruckmanites suggest that the
KJV, which reveals God's name to us, is itself to be exalted "above" its own revelation?

Gary Hudson

Let's be fair, now. They don't "suggest" it: they read it, in the bible. The verse does not say the "KJV" is exalted "above its own revelation". That is changing the words, and arguing against what the verse does not say. That's cheap. We don't need to stoop to such dirty tactics.

Let's stick to the text. Since Gary Hudson failed to stick to the text, let's dump him, on this "Ps 138" issue, and see if we can approach it honestly, which he obviously didn't.

"For thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name..."

Quote:

Ps. 138:2 is accurately translated in the NASB as "according to thy name." God's Word and God's name are
equally holy, and both...

Here, Gary departs from his NKJV, the bible he recommends. The NKJV agrees with the KJV reading here. So Gary dumps his own NKJV, when he doesn't like its reading? That's not very consistent. That's not setting a very good example, for our babes in Chrsit: if you don't like the reading in your favorite bible, just look for another reading, in another bible, translated from an entirely different Greek text. And if you don't like its reading, just grab another bible...

So, our argument here, is that the KJV text itself is wrong? But don't we tell the KJO's that we don't have a problem with their King James Bible, just with their King James Onlyism?

But, when they show us verses we don't like, and that we can't refute, suddenly it's, "the verse is accurately translated in the NASB..." So, some verses are "accurately translated" in this bible, and others are "accurately translated" in that bible, and still others...?

That's hypocrisy...!

Now we are attacking the text of their bible, which is exactly what they do to us. Further, where did Hudson prove that the NASB's reading is superior to the King James reading? Can he prove it? Based on what? The two readings come from two different Greek texts. Is one Greek text superior to the other? But Hudson's NKJV supposedly comes from the Greek text, that produced the inferior reading...

Either we are going to attact the King James, and its Greek text, or we aren't. I say, let's be consistent. We cannot fault the KJO's for their interpretation of Psalm 138:2. The verse is plain. I, for one, am not going to attack the text of their bible. If they believe what their bible says, God bless them. That is what the bible is there for: belief. Believing, and reading, and studying, and teaching, and preaching, and practicing. Now, we are attacking them, for believing what their bible said. I believe my bible, too. So do you all. Right...?

Let's give the poor KJO's a break, on this one. Let's not stoop to attacking their bible, like they do us. Come on, we're better than that, aren't we?

Mitex Re: AMEN! #4 [-]

Posts: 1124

(06/23/2002 06:03:31)

Registered User

Bro. Jamie66:

Quote:
Now we are attacking the text of their bible, which is exactly what they do to us. Further, where did Hudson prove that the NASB's reading is superior to the King James reading? Can he prove it? Based on what? The two readings come from two different Greek texts. Is one Greek text superior to the other? But Hudson's NKJV supposedly comes from the Greek text, that produced the inferior reading...

Either we are going to attact the King James, and its Greek text, or we aren't. I say, let's be consistent. We cannot fault the KJO's for their interpretation of Psalm 138:2. The verse is plain. I, for one, am not going to attack the text of their bible. If they believe what their bible says, God bless them. That is what the bible is there for: belief. Believing, and reading, and studying, and teaching, and preaching, and practicing. Now, we are attacking them, for believing what their bible said. I believe my bible, too. So do you all. Right...?

Amen! Exactly! Bro. Hudson IS attacking the AV Bible and its underlying text because he doesn't LIKE (prefer is the tradesmans term) what it says. And that my dear brother is the basic problem with all those who ATTACK the AV. And you stated correctly - They do attack the AV text!

Got your black marker out Greenbranch? Put a big black mark through that portion of Ps. 138:2 that is ATTACKED! How are you coming on marking out "unbelieved poritons of the AV Bible"? Any words left in your AV Bible?

Now notice:
Ps 138:2 AV 1769 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Ps 138:2 ASV 1901 I will worship toward thy holy temple, And give thanks unto thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: For thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Ps 138:2 BBE 1965 I will give worship before your holy Temple, praising your name for your mercy and for your unchanging faith: for you have made your word greater than all your name.

Ps 138:2 Darby 1884 I will bow down toward the temple of thy holiness, and celebrate thy name for thy loving-kindness and for thy truth; for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Ps 138:2 Jewish Publication Society Bible I will bow down toward Thy holy temple, and give thanks unto Thy name for Thy mercy and for Thy truth; for Thou hast magnified Thy word above all Thy name.

Ps 138:2 NKJV 1982 I will worship toward Your holy temple, And praise Your name For Your lovingkindness and Your truth; For You have magnified Your word above all Your name.

Ps 138:2 YLT 1898 I bow myself toward Thy holy temple, And I confess Thy name, For Thy kindness, and for Thy truth, For Thou hast made great Thy saying above all Thy name.

Ps 138:2 Webster 1833 I will worship towards thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy loving-kindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

1. Notice how the AV is ATTACKED in Ps 138:2 by Bro. Hudson even though the same reading is found in the American Standard Version 1901!!!

2. Notice how Textual Critics say they don't attack the AV, but as Bro. Jamie66 correctly pointed out -they do! On what grounds? On the grounds that they don't like what it says! They PREFER something else!

3. Notice how Textual Critics are inconsistent once again. If "all Bibles are the word of God" then comparing diligently ALL BIBLES (not just our preferred ones) the only proper conclusion would be: God has magnified his name and his word "above all things". He "has magnified his word above his name". But alas, that isn't what Textual Critics prefer. They have a general tendancy of prefering anything but the AV text!!

4. Textual Critic: "The AV IS the word of God"
Translation: "The AV IS the word of God, only up and to the point that the Textual Critic agrees with the text and doesn't prefer something else. According to Textual Critics on this board and others, "the AV ONLY CONTAINS the word of God" even though they profess that the "AV IS the word of God. The Textual Critic reserves the right to make corrections to the AV as his preference dictates" just as Jamie66 so able pointed out.

In Jesus' Name,

Brent Riggs

jeffthefinn Re: AMEN! #5 [-]

Posts: 119

(06/23/2002 07:44:12)

Sir Lancelot Brenton's LXX translation Psalm 137: 2 "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and give thanks to thy name, on account of thy mercy and thy truth; for thou hast magnified thy holy name above everything."

Charles Thompson' LXX translation Psalm 138: 2 "I will worship before Thy holy temple; and adore Thy name for Thy mercy and Thy truth; because Thou hast magnified above all Thy holy name."

Holy Transfiguration Monastery's LXX translation Psalm 137:2 "I will worship towards Thy holy temple and confess Thy name, for Thy mercy and for Thy truth; for Thou hast magnified Thy holy name above all that is."

In the LXX which was the Old Testament for the writers of the New Testament, we see there that what is magnified above all else is God's Holy Name. Word does not show up at all.
New English Translation 138:2 "I will bow down toward your holy temple, and give thanks to your name, because of your loyal love and faithfulness, for you have exalted your promise above the entire sky."
The textual note for the passage is this, "The MT reads, for you have made great over all your name your word. If retained, this must mean that God's mighty intervention, in fulfillment of his word of promise, surpassed anything he had done prior to this. However, the statement is odd and several emendations have been proposed. Some read, for you have exalted over everything your name and your word, while others suggest, for you have exalted over all the heavens your name and your word. The translation assumes an emendation of your name to your heavens (a construction that appears in Pss 8:3 and 144:5). The point is that God has been faithful to his promise and the reliability of that promise is apparent to all. For a fuller discussion of these options, see L. Allen, Psalms 101-150, 244.

It is clear the Hebrew text differs from the LXX, the translation of NET is good.
Jeff the Finn

Jeff the Finn

greenbranch Re: Ps. 138:2 Magnifying God's Word #6 [-]

Posts: 2838

(06/23/2002 23:17:16)

Registered User

Quote:
Now we are attacking the text of their bible, which is exactly what they do to us. Further, where did Hudson prove that the NASB's reading is superior to the King James reading? Can he prove it? Based on what? The two readings come from two different Greek texts. Is one Greek text superior to the other? But Hudson's NKJV supposedly comes from the Greek text, that produced the inferior reading...

One problem. It is not the Greek text that is involved. The Psalms were written in Hebrew. And, if I am correct, the NASB translates the same text that the KJV does in this verse.

If my mom were to talk about God's word and His name, she might say:

For you have magnified your word above all your name.

(She is not Quaker, so she does not use thou and thee.)

On the other hand, I would do it this way:

For you have magnified your word, above all your name.

Same words, but to me the comma shows that God does magnify His word, but He magnifies His name above all. I think that some time ago, Brianrw pointed out that under the grammatical rules in 1611, it would not have been necessary to put the comma there as we would now. (I think I am remembering correctly. If I am wrong, Brian, I am sorry - it was quite awhile ago, maybe last year.)

I have wanted to do a search of the Bible, looking for verses that confirm either interpretation of the verse, but I have not had time to do so. Right now, I can only think of verses where God's name is magnified to the highest. Verses such as "At the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow......".

I can't think of any other verses that have God's word higher than His name.

Scott McClare Re: Ps. 138:2 Magnifying God's Word #7 [-]

Posts: 3343

(06/24/2002 06:40:22)

They don't "suggest" it: they read it, in the bible. The verse does not say the "KJV" is exalted "above its own revelation".

Nonetheless, that is the conclusion that the KJV-onlyists expect us to come to: that the KJV is the perfect, preserved Word of God, in part because God has magnified his word above his name. If you don't believe me, go look up someone like Teno Groppi who uses this argument frequently.

That's not setting a very good example, for our babes in Chrsit: if you don't like the reading in your favorite bible, just look for another reading, in another bible, translated from an entirely different Greek text. And if you don't like its reading, just grab another bible...

Alright, now who's failing to stick with the text (i.e. Gary's statement). Hudson didn't say he "didn't like" the reading in the NKJV and therefore went to the NASB. He said it is more accurately translated elsewhere.

You have confused a truth claim (which was made) with a preference claim (which was not).

Furthermore, it appears as though you have fallen into the all-or-nothing trap, in which it is claimed that: either a translation of the Bible must be perfect in every detail, or it is not the Word of God in any sense. That is a false dilemma, since there are possibilities in between. Perhaps Hudson finds some fault with the NKJV but on the whole believes its strengths are sufficient to recommend it anyway, for example. Or maybe the problem with the NKJV here is that it follows a faulty KJV translation that it should have amended, but didn't. I'm not suggesting that either of these is the case; I'm simply pointing out that "completely perfect" and "not the Word of God" are not the only possibilities.

Now we are attacking the text of their bible, which is exactly what they do to us. Further, where did Hudson prove that the NASB's reading is superior to the King James reading? Can he prove it?

I don't know, have you asked? He has made an truth claim in which he has compared the rendering of Psa. 138 in the NKJV and the NASB to an external, objective standard: the thing from which they were translated. This is where most KJV-onlyists err. They pronounce judgment on the modern versions because they differ from the KJV, rather than compare both against a common standard.

Based on what? The two readings come from two different Greek texts.

Your facts are in error. We are talking about a Psalm here; that is the Old Testament and translated from the Hebrew. Both KJV/NKJV and NASB are translated from the Masoretic Text, in which there are no variants of any significance. Effectively, the KJV and the NASB Old Testament are translated from the same text.

Take care,

Scott
Power-hungry Self-serving Moderator,
Bible Versions Discussion Board
The Postfundamentalist Forum

Scott A. McClare, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
mcclare@ncf.ca * ICQ #24034503

For thinking Christians . . .
Putting the Fun back into Fundamentalism

Scott McClare Re: AMEN! #8 [-]

Posts: 3343

(06/24/2002 06:46:39)

Amen! Exactly! Bro. Hudson IS attacking the AV Bible and its underlying text because he doesn't LIKE (prefer is the tradesmans term) what it says.

So . . . you're easily swayed by empty rhetoric, to the point that you are heartily amenning Jamie's post even though he is in error and the quotation he misrepresented was right in front of you.

1. Notice how the AV is ATTACKED in Ps 138:2 by Bro. Hudson even though the same reading is found in the American Standard Version 1901!!!

I wasn't aware we Alexandrian Cultists were supposed to take the perfection of the ASV for granted. Have you considered that perhaps the ASV, being a revision of the KJV, retains the KJV reading incorrectly and it was corrected, in turn, by the New American Standard Bible? That's what "revision" means, after all.

2. Notice how Textual Critics say they don't attack the AV, but as Bro. Jamie66 correctly pointed out -they do! On what grounds? On the grounds that they don't like what it says!

We have already seen that this is an assertion of Jamie's, and not what Hudson himself said.

3. Notice how Textual Critics are inconsistent once again. If "all Bibles are the word of God" then comparing diligently ALL BIBLES (not just our preferred ones) the only proper conclusion would be: God has magnified his name and his word "above all things".

You have not shown that "ALL BIBLES" render this verse in this way, and therefore by your own argument you prove nothing.

Once again, Mitex posts a whole lot of sound and fury, proving nothing.

Take care,

Scott
Power-hungry Self-serving Moderator,
Bible Versions Discussion Board
The Postfundamentalist Forum

Scott A. McClare, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
mcclare@ncf.ca * ICQ #24034503

For thinking Christians . . .
Putting the Fun back into Fundamentalism

Bill Hoyt Re: Ps. 138:2 Magnifying God's Word #9 [-]

Posts: 181

(06/24/2002 22:43:05)

Though I promised (about 6 months ago) that I was through with 'this debate', I'd like to comment on this one, because it does not really address KJVO, just the interpretation of this verse.

First of all, here's some context:

"I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee. I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."
-- PS 138:1-2

Second, the phrase 'magnified thy word above all thy name' is *not* the same as 'magnified thy word above thy name'. What of the "all"? All is a plural, name is singular. Until we can find the plural that "all" goes with, we probably ought to not just ignore it as it seems some are doing...

Third, though David says 'thy word above all thy name', what does he worship?

"I will praise thee with my whole heart"
"I will sing praises to thee"
"and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and thy truth"

If we say that David is saying the Word is above the Name, wouldn't it make sense for David to praise 'the Word'? He doesn't, but three times prior praises either God or His name, and he praises His Name because of his attributes (lovingkindness and truth (or word)) ... that ought to be a clue that we're reading it wrong here...

An implied *and* makes sense to me here, "for thou hast magnified thy word AND above all thy name", because it gives a plural for the "all" (all things) and (more importantly), it fits in with David's actions from the preceeding section. There are probably other options, however...

Just my 2c worth...

"You keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means..." Inigo Montoya

"The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth"
-- 2Tim 2:24-25

steelmaker Re: Ps. 138:2 Magnifying God's Word #10 [-]

Posts: 2084

(06/26/2002 14:55:00)

Registered User

GB, all those who argue that the verse means God's WORD is greater than his NAME ignore common sense which says no word can be greater than its AUTHOR. The pot cannot be greater than its potter.

greenbranch Re: Ps. 138:2 Magnifying God's Word #11 [-]

Posts: 2838

(06/26/2002 20:35:19)

Registered User

GB, all those who argue that the verse means God's WORD is greater than his NAME ignore common sense which says no word can be greater than its AUTHOR. The pot cannot be greater than its potter.

I was thinking about that last night. A person's word is only as good as that person, since it is that person who will carry out or not carry out the word. If a person does not carry out his or her word, that word is not worth much. If God's word is highly exalted, it is only because of Who God is and that He always carries out His word.

Mitex Re: Ps. 138:2 and UNBELIEF #12 [-]

Posts: 1124

(06/27/2002 04:42:38)

Registered User

Steelmaker

Quote:

GB, all those who argue that the verse means God's WORD is greater than his NAME ignore common sense which says no word can be greater than its AUTHOR. The pot cannot be greater than its potter.

Greenbranch

Quote:

I was thinking about that last night. A person's word is only as good as that person, since it is that person who will carry out or not carry out the word. If a person does not carry out his or her word, that word is not worth much. If God's word is highly exalted, it is only because of Who God is and that He always carries out His word.

I'm simply amazed at you two. Both of you claim that "all versions are the word of God. Yet you both now DENY the AV to be the word of God by claiming the AV is in ERROR (knowing good and well that the word of God is without error!). Why do you claim it is in error? Because it doesn't match the original Hebrew? No, that can't be it, because it does match the Hebrew. What is the stated reason for claiming that the word of God has an error in it? You both make it very clear: "I thought" and "common sense". There it is in black in white. It isn't even "textual criticism" that decides this point for you two - but UNBELIEF! You can't "imagine" how the AV can be right, so you refuse to believe it based on what "you think"!!! Can you imagine a talking snake (Gen. 3:1)? How about a talking donkey (Nu. 22:28)? Doesn't "common sense" and a little bit of "thinking" tell you that snakes and donkeys can't talk? But alas, you are both going to tell me what? Are you both going to try and convince me that you actually BELIEVE that a snake and a donkey did talk? Really? O, come on now, you both know that "common sense" tells us that snakes and donkeys don't talk. "The Bible must surely be in error because "common sense" tells us it just can't be"! O ye of little faith!

You both claim to believe "modern versions are also the word of God". Yet, when given a list of modern versions that AGREE with the AV you both NOW reject the modern versions. Anything BUT the AV!
Notice how you both refuse to BELIEVE the readings in the:

- original Hebrew after professing to believe the original to be the word of God also.

- Webster 1833 after professing to believe ALL VERSIONS are the word of God.

- Darby 1884 after professing to believe ALL VERSIONS are the word of God.

- Young's Literal Translation 1898 after professing to believe ALL VERSIONS are the word of God.

- the ASV 1901 after professing to believe ALL VERSIO NS are the word of God.

- Bible in Basic English 1965 after professing to believe ALL VERSIONS are the word of God (there's your "street language" Bible Steelmaker!).

- NKJV 1982 after professing to believe ALL VERSIONS are the word of God.

- and the list goes on!

Who was it that said: "The differences in ALL VERSIONS are like the differences in the Gospels. They may be different but they are BOTH CORRECT". Was that you Steelmaker or was it Robycop? Now, assuming that who ever made this profession actually believed it without feigning, then the conclusion would be:

1. God's name is highly exalted above all things.
2. God's word is MAGNIFIED above his name.

Now, it was GOD who made the ass talk and according the AV Bible it is GOD who "hast magnified thy word above all thy name".

You see, when I say that I BELIEVE the AV Bible to be the word of God, my belief of the AV Bible is actually and truly - real BELIEF! When Textual Critics like yourselves SAY that they "believe the AV Bible is the word of God" it is but feigned words. They only believe it up and to those points where they agree with it. When a difficult passage comes up that defies their "common sense" and "what they think" - out goes the AV Bible!

When I say the AV Bible IS the word of God, I use the Biblical definition of "the word of God". When Textual Critics such as yourselves say "the AV Bible IS the word of God", they refuse to use the Biblical definition of "the word of God" but instead opt for the Neo-evangelical term - "the Bible CONTAINS the word of God". They of course have that right, but why not say what you mean?

In Jesus' Name,

Brent Riggs

amarillo Re: Ps. 138:2 and Punctuation Problem #13 [-]

Posts: 3645

(06/27/2002 05:54:04)

Administrator

i thot printers' errors were allowed among those who profess to believe in the jot-n-tittle inerrancy of the KJB?

surely, the restoration of a comma shdn't be a problem, as in "hast magnified thy word, above all thy name"?

Joseph Ng"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven."Ps 119:89 KJB

steelmaker Re: Ps. 138:2 and UNBELIEF #14 [-]

Posts: 2084

(06/27/2002 08:38:33)

Registered User

Mitex,your argument against common sense is entirely without merit,as you,being multilingual,know that John 3:16 has very different words in Greek,English,Spanish, & Polish. And is this verse were to be translated into English from the other 3 languages I named,each English rendering would be a little different from the others.

You know full well that there are NO two BVs that match,in any language, but you pick & choose,saying that God COULDN'T have placed His word in differing versions. Really now! Since WHEN could GOD not do ANYTHING?

And you're familiar with the preface in the AV 1611, in which the translators recognize ALL honest former attempts at translation of Scripture into English as valid, no matter how poor a translation it was. And they merely claimed that they were giving their greatest efforts to make the best translation possible within the rules set down by King James.

And we've often pointed out the discrepancies in the KJV which you attempt to explain away,but,despite what you label them,are still there for all to read. But wisdom is justified of her children,right?

And now you stoop to the level of the Ruckies & the others of the seamier side of Onlyism by casting aspersions upon the faith of those who disagree with you. This is a tactic of those who have no real evidence with which to support their claims,and it only destroys one's credibility with not just the non-Onlyists,but within the ranks of Onlyists themselves,not to mention the neutral readers. We have observed your going from reasonable to Ruckielike over the last few months.

But like every Onlyist,you've never satisfactorily answered these questions: Are the English Bible versions before 1611 valid? And where is the Scriptural support for Onlyism?

BrianT Re: Ps. 138:2 and UNBELIEF #15 [-]

Posts: 2080

(06/27/2002 08:59:13)

ezOP

> But like every Onlyist,you've never satisfactorily answered
> these questions: Are the English Bible versions before 1611
> valid? And where is the Scriptural support for Onlyism?

Another one he trips over: was the KJV the word of God before it was the "standard" (approx 1630, according to him)? Did the previous "standard" stop being the word of God? :lol

Mitex Re: Ps. 138:2 and UNBELIEF #16 [-]

Posts: 1124

(06/27/2002 10:15:36)

Registered User

Dear Steelmaker:

You carefully avoided the whole point. Do you believe Ps. 138:2 as it stands in the AV? As it stands in the ASV? Darby? YLT? Orignal Hebrew? From your comments I gather that you DON'T believe Ps. 138:2 as it stands in the AV nor any of the other versions I listed. And yet you profess that the AV IS the word of God!

It is you my dear brother who claims that the AV is the word of God, but then also claim that the AV is in error in Psalm 138:2 (and other places). This is an obvious contradiction of terms. The word of God is by definition without error. When I rebuke you for casting doubt on what you yourself profess is the word of God (the AV in this case) you change your profession by stating: "Well, what I really mean is the AV CONTAINS the word of God". You are entitled to profess anything you want, but please make up your mind. Is the AV the word of God or does it just contain the word of God?

Steelmaker:

Quote:
Mitex,your argument against common sense is entirely without merit,as you,being multilingual,know that John 3:16 has very different words in Greek,English,Spanish, & Polish. And is this verse were to be translated into English from the other 3 languages I named,each English rendering would be a little different from the others.

1. "Very different" vs "a little different"? Make up your mind Steelmaker.

2. Fact: I don't believe that John 3:16 has very different words in Greek, English, Spanish & Polish. Certainly not in the context of meaning.

3. Isn't it your argument that "all versions ARE the word of God"? If that be the case why do you DISBELIEVE the Ps. 138:2 reading in the following English versions:

- Webster 1833 after professing to believe ALL VERSIONS are the word of God.

- Darby 1884 after professing to believe ALL VERSIONS are the word of God.

- Young's Literal Translation 1898 after professing to believe ALL VERSIONS are the word of God.

- the ASV 1901 after professing to believe ALL VERSIO NS are the word of God.

- Bible in Basic English 1965 after professing to believe ALL VERSIONS are the word of God (there's your "street language" Bible Steelmaker!).

- NKJV 1982 after professing to believe ALL VERSIONS are the word of God.

- and the list goes on!

Or is it your true profession that you don't believe all versions ARE the word of God, but rather (as I stated previously) that all versions only CONTAIN the word of God? That is, certain portions of every version are rejected by you for various reasons. Those reasons, whether they be "common sense", "thinking" or "textual critical" all boil done to the fact that you DON'T BELIEVE certain portions of any version to be the word of God! And that my dear brother AMAZES me! For you PROFESS that all version ARE the word of God. Again, if all versions ARE the word of God then the only proper conclusion (comparing them diligently as you would the gospels) would be:

1. God's name is highly exalted above all things.
2. God's word is MAGNIFIED above his name.

Steelmaker:

Quote:
Are the English Bible versions before 1611 valid? And where is the Scriptural support for Onlyism?

1. "Are the English Bible versions before 1611 valid"? If by this you mean: Was the word of God in English before 1611? I've already answered this before. If an English version printed before 1611 can be proven to be the word of God then certainly it would be "valid".

Now I'll ask you one: Does there have to be a "valid English version" before 1611? I mean was there a "valid English version" before 1400? Before 100 AD? You see your argument is weak. There doesn't have to be "a valid English version before 1611". In fact the question is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the POINT OF THIS THREAD! Do you believe Ps. 138:2 as it is found in the AV English Bible which you profess IS the word of God? If not, then you DON'T BELIEVE the AV Bible! Certainly not in Ps. 138:2.

2. "And is there Scriptural support for Onlyism"? I suppose that would depend on how YOU define "onlyism".

If by "onlyism" you mean: "One can only be saved through the use of an AV Bible" - then there is no Scriptural support for that. But who really believes that? Not Ruckman, not Hyles, and not anyone I know personally.

If by "onlyism" you mean: "The word of God is ONLY found in the English AV" - then again, there is no Scriptural support for such a doctrine. And I certainly don't believe that.

If by "onlyism " you mean: "The AV IS the word of God" - then my answer is YES - see Genesis - Revelation

Your stated reason for rejecting the Ps. 138:2 reading as found in the AV English Bible (the one you profess to be the word of God) was: "common sense". It wasn't sensible to you. You can't explain how it can be. Therefore you DISBELIEVE the AV reading in Ps. 138:2 and amazingly still profess to believe the AV IS the word of God. Or did you really mean "contains the word of God"? It is not sensible nor does it follow "common sense" that donkeys and snakes can talk yet I believe both - Gen. 3:1, Nu. 22:28. Again, when you SAY you believe the AV IS the word of God you do so with "reservations". I don't. When I say, "I believe the AV IS the word of God" I mean what I say. That is the DIFFERENCE between your "belief in the AV" and my "belief in the AV".

Your diversion from the point does nothing to change these facts. Address the issue of this thread: Do you believe the reading of Ps. 138:2 as it is found in the following versions:

- AV English Bible
- original Hebrew
- Webster 1833
- Darby 1884
- Young's Literal Translation 1898
- the ASV 1901
- Bible in Basic English 1965
- NKJV 1982
- and the list goes on!

If you don't believe the Ps. 138:2 readings in the above mentioned versions, then why do you feign to believe "all versions ARE the word of God"? Isn't what you really really mean to say: "all versions CONTAIN the word of God".

Do these comments prick your conscience? Is that why you avoided the content of my previous post? You falsely accuse me of having "no real evidence which support" my claims. I claim the following:

1. Steelmaker does NOT BELIEVE Ps. 138:2 as it is found in the AV English Bible.

2. Steel maker does NOT BELIEVE Ps. 138.2 as found in the original Hebew.

3. Steelmaker does NOT BELIEVE Ps. 138:2 as found in many "modern translations" such as the ASV, Darby, YLT, NKJV, etc.

4. Steelmaker's stated claim for not believeing the above is: "common sense" tells him otherwise.

Proof? See Steelmaker's own comments in this thread.

Let the reader deside.

In Jesus' Name,

Brent Riggs

greenbranch Re: Ps. 138:2 and UNBELIEF #17 [-]

Posts: 2838

(06/27/2002 12:58:06)

Registered User

Mitex, I am not doubting God's word. I do not have unbelief. I disagree with your interpretation of that verse. As I said before, in 1611, they didn't think it necessary to put the comma there to show that God's name is magnified above all. The original Hebrew didn't have punctuation marks at all. They are used to help us interpret what is being said.

I believe the correct interpretation of the verse as it stands in the KJV is that God has magnified His word, and above all He has magnified His name. I can show other verses that confirm this interpretation. Usually, the Bible has several verses that confirm any teaching. Can you show me ANOTHER verse that says that God's word is magnified above His name?

Stevie 1689 Re: Thoughts...Ps. 138:2 #18 [-]

Posts: 59

(06/27/2002 12:59:25)

Ps 138:2 KJV I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

John 1:1 KJV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 KJV And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

(Ps 138:1-5 Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible)
"Some good interpreters understand it of Christ, the essential Word, and of his gospel, which are magnified above all the discoveries God had before made of himself to the fathers. He that magnified the law, and made that honourable, magnifies the gospel much more."

Thoughts?

Scott McClare How arrogant can one person be? #19 [-]

Posts: 3343

(06/27/2002 13:13:36)

According to Mitex, if you don't believe certain passages of Scripture as they are rendered in certain translations, then you don't believe in the Word of God.

It takes a special kind of ego to think that disbelieving in your particular theory of translation is the same as disbelieving God.

Take care,

Scott
Power-hungry Self-serving Moderator,
Bible Versions Discussion Board
The Postfundamentalist Forum

Scott A. McClare, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
mcclare@ncf.ca * ICQ #24034503

For thinking Christians . . .
Putting the Fun back into Fundamentalism

Kristi Re: Ps. 138:2 and UNBELIEF #20 [-]

Posts: 3769

(06/27/2002 13:17:28)

Registered User

The original Hebrew didn't have punctuation marks at all.

Seeing as how he doesn't believe that the NT Autographa were written in Koine Greek, I wouldn't be suprised if he doubts that the first OT writings were in Hebrew. He may just suggest that they were written in sign language. Or maybe French or java script.

;0)

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

For Brian Tegart: KJOS Who Equate the KJV to God

For Brian Tegart: KJOS Who Equate the KJV to God

Quick Reply