...as it was told to me once: If the KJV was good enough for the Apostles, it's good enough for me! So there you have it...
Chrysostomos
Chrysostomos
- Bible Versions and History
- Textual Criticism and Manuscripts
- Scripture and Technology
- KJV-Only
- References and Tools
- Westcott and Hort
- General Theology
- Anything Goes
- Archive 1
- Archive 2
- Archive 3
- Archive 4
- Archive 5
- Archive 6
- Archive 7
- Archive 8
- Archive 9
- Bible Versions Archive
- Anything Goes Archive
- Anything Goes Archive 2
- General Theology Archive
- Definitions Archive
This anti-KJV reasoning is all messed up....
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Unregistered(d) |
This anti-KJV reasoning is all messed up.... |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 0 (06/27/2002 22:18:56) |
|
||
|
steelmaker |
Re: This anti-KJV reasoning is all messed up.... | ||
|
Posts: 2084 (06/28/2002 05:04:35) Registered User |
How 'bout, "Gimme the KJV that Paul used!"
|
||
|
CCCCP |
I | ||
|
Posts: 96 (06/30/2002 08:47:07) |
I don't think I have ever encountered someone in the version debate that was anti-KJV. Most are against the myth of onlyism, as we should be.
|
||
|
Mitex |
Anti-KJV - in preferred places! | ||
|
Posts: 1124 (06/30/2002 13:53:10) Registered User |
CCCCP
Quote: Have you never noticed that people are "anti-KJV" in: Ps. 138:2, 1 John 5:7, John 3:13, John 1:18, Acts 8:37, 1 Timothy 3:16, etc.? If you really want to know how "Anti-KJV" people really are then do the following. Go to Walmart and buy you a KJV Bible along with a big black marker. Then go through the archives on this board and others, along with your favorite Bible commentaries. When someone says: "This verse, word or phrase is in error in the AV (professed to be the word of God) mark that verse, word or phrase out with your big black marker. After you have your AV Bible pretty well marked up (and you will!) then come back and telll us how people in this debate aren't "anit-KJV". You see, these people PROFESS that the AV IS the word of God, but what they really mean to say is: The AV CONTAINS the word of God! They reserve the right to point out errors in the word of God (the AV) as they see fit. |
||
|
CCCCP |
What | ||
|
Posts: 96 (06/30/2002 14:04:42) |
No, I still don't think that makes a person anti-kjv. I have yet to meet a person who gets a big black marker and marks out his Bible. I have heard of folks who encouraged people to throw away their modern bibles.
It is your opinion that we are anti-kjv because we are anti-onlyism. You think by attacking your myth we are attacking the Bible. We are not. That is your perception brought on by the fact that your opinion is attacked, as it should be. I love the KJV, I just happen to know beyond a shadow of a doubt, because the Holy Spirit has led me to believe it, that God did not limit His word to just the KJV. If you think that is an attack on the KJV then I think maybe you have idolized the version and are in an act of sin. |
||
|
jeffthefinn |
Re: What | ||
|
Posts: 119 (06/30/2002 15:21:51) |
The fact is I love the New English Bible, yet I know at places the translation is not the best that is available. Each translation has its strengths and its weaknesses, to point out a translations weaknesses has nothing to do with being anti anything.
Jeff the Finn |
||
|
Mitex |
re: what | ||
|
Posts: 1124 (07/01/2002 04:40:27) Registered User |
cccp
Quote: 1. I suggested that you go to Walmart and buy yourself a paperback AV along with a big black marker. Then YOU (that's y-o-u-!) go through the archives on this board and other boards along with your favorite Bible commentary looking for places where the AV (which is professed to BE the word of God) is said to be in ERROR! Mark out the word, phrase or verse that is said to be in ERROR. Then you will see how many times the "word of God" (the AV) is ATTACKED! 2. I doubt you even know what "my opinion" is on this matter. The fact is when those who profess to believe the AV IS the word of God (notice they don't say: "CONTAINS the word of God" even though that is what they mean) criticise words, phrases, and verses as they are found in the AV they are ATTACKING that which they profess to be the word of God (the AV). You see those on this board and others who profess to believe that the AV IS the word of God do constantly attack: Ps. 138.2, 1 John 5.7, John 3:13, 1 Timothy 3:16, Acts 8.37, John 1:18, etc. They claim that these portions of the word of God (the AV) are NOT REALLY THE WORD OF GOD but only the "opinions", "works" and "words" of men! That my friend IS an attack on the AV which is professed to BE the word of God. 3. I have never limited the word of God to "just the AV". That shows me that you are ignorant of my position and base your comments on prejudice. What I have stated and many on this board profess the same: The AV IS the word of God in English. The difference between my BELIEF and their PROFESSION is I actually believe the AV to be the word of God in EVERY VERSE, PHRASE and WORD, whereas those who disagree with me PROFESS that the AV IS the word of God but then find fault with the word of God (the AV in this case) in: Ps. 138:2, 1 John 5:7, John 3:13, 1 Timothy 3:16, John 1:18, etc. When anyone ATTACKS the following "MYTHS": - "You can only be saved by using a AV" - - "ONLY the AV is the word of God" - then I will say: Attack away! Let er rip! Charge! However, those on the attack do not limit themselves to attacking myths. They get so worked up in their attacking frenzy that they end up casting doubt on what they profess to be the word of God - the AV. You see they profess that the AV IS the word of God but want you to DOUBT, DISBELIEVE, and DO AWAY with words, phrases, and verses found in the word of God - the AV. Their stated reasons are as follows: 1. The words, phrases and verses don't make sense as they stand in the word of God - the AV. 2. The words, phrases and verses are hard to understand as they stand in the word of God - the AV. 3. The words, phrases and verses were added to the word of God (the AV) by men and should not be believed. 4. They think that the original says something different and therefore the word of God (the AV) is to be attacked in those places. 5. They think that the wording can be phrased BETTER, so they conclude that the word of God (the AV) must be in error. The list goes on. They will use any excuse to disbelieve any word, phrase, or verse if they don't PREFER that particular word, phrase or verse for any reason - stated or otherwise. Of course they have the right to believe anything they want, but why PROFESS to believe the AV to be the word of God when they don't? Their actions speak louder than their words. I do hope you can tell the difference between "attacking a myth" and "attacking the word of God (the AV)". |
||
|
CCCCP |
Mitex | ||
|
Posts: 96 (07/01/2002 06:04:44) |
One line in your little diatribe makes me want to ask you a question. The line is this: "The fact is when those who profess to believe the AV IS the word of God (notice they don't say: "CONTAINS the word of God" even though that is what they mean) criticise words, phrases, and verses as they are found in the AV they are ATTACKING that which they profess to be the word of God (the AV)."
So here is my question, what special revelation do you have to know what people mean???? You need to check you ego at the door, while you are at it why don't you leave it at the door but bring the list of Biblical passages that support version onlyism. It's funny, you think that by pointing out that the KJV has archaic words that are hard to understand for some that is an attack!!! What a small minded person (now that is an attack!). Onlyists are so blinded by their idol worship they can't even think straight. |
||
|
Mitex |
Re: Mitex | ||
|
Posts: 1124 (07/01/2002 06:53:14) Registered User |
cccp
Quote: Thank you for the name calling! Praise the Lord Jesus! What a blessing! Glory to God! (Mt. 5:11). Funny, I didn't mention anything about archaic words! Do you believe the following underlined portions to be the word of God? Or are these underlined portions the additions of men? Ps. 138.2 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. 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. The only "archaic" words are "thou", "hast" and "thy" and they are only found in the first verse listed. You really don't have problems with "thou", "hast' and "thy" do you? Archaic words aren't the issue. Is "God was manifested in the flesh" too archaic? Is "even the Son of Man which is in heaven" too archaic? Is "the only begotten Son" too archaic? "Version onlyism" isn't the issue I addressed in my post. I addressed the fact that Textual Critics on this board and other boards constantly maintain that "the AV IS the word of God" but then deny the above mentioned underlined words, phrases and verses to be the word of God! When Textual Critics on this board and other boards say: "The AV is the word of God" they don't mean "IS" they mean: "The AV CONTAINS the word of God". I addressed the fact that you won't even take the time to do a simple excercise to prove my point: Go through the archives on this board and notice how many time words, phrases, and verses in the word of God (the AV) are DOUBTED, DISBELIEVED and REJECTED by those who profess that the AV IS the word of God. I also pointed out to you the following: Quote: You asked: "So here is my question, what special revelation do you have to know what people mean????" It doesn't take "special revelation" to know what people mean. That is of course if they speak honestly and mean what they say. Granted, many on this board don't always "mean what they say". For example, when they say: "The AV IS the word of God" they don't mean "IS the word of God" like every version on the planet defines the word of God, they mean the "AV only CONTAINS the word of God". Every version (your favorite preferred version included) defines the word of God as being inspired. Yet, those on this board maintain that "no translation is inspired" or "the AV is only inspired in those places that it matches the originals". All versions (your favorite preferred version included) teach that the word of God is WITHOUT ERROR. But those Textual Critics on this board and other boards profess that the AV IS the word of God and at the same time say that it is full of ERRORS! Notice the underlineds portions of the above listed verses. These portions are "in ERROR" and "not the word of God" according to many of the Textual Critics on this board. Here is a quote from Psm37: Quote: pub1.ezboard.com/fbibleve...ic&index=3 Hence, it doesn't take "special revelation" to figure out that when many of those on this board and other boards say: "The AV IS the word of God" they don't really mean what the say. What they really mean to say is: "The AV CONTAINS the word of God". WHY they do this might take some special revelation. I suspect they do this because they know that the Neo-Evangelical position is just that: "The Bible only CONTAINS the word of God" and they are afriad of being labeled Neo-Evangelical. But frankly, I really don't WHY they say what they say. It really does baffel me. They don't have to profess that the AV IS the word of God, but they do! Amazing! |
||
|
CCCCP |
Funny | ||
|
Posts: 96 (07/01/2002 07:19:22) |
Funny, you didn't give any scriptual support for onlyism, just asked questions in order to avoid answering. That is one of Scott's fallacies of the KJ Only camp.
|
||
|
CCCCP |
p.s. | ||
|
Posts: 96 (07/01/2002 07:20:33) |
I didn't call you any names, I described your mind.
Maybe you have a comprehension problem? |
||
|
greenbranch |
Re: re: what | ||
|
Posts: 2838 (07/01/2002 12:19:06) Registered User |
Mitex, I don't know if you have noticed that you do this, but, often you provoke what you call an attack on the "word of God - the AV". If the conversation lags, then you will bring up a variant verse and charge the modern version users with attacking the "AV" because it is not in their modern translations. In another thread, a person suggested an error in the interpretation of the verse, and you brought up the charge that we don't believe the "word of God - the AV".
You claim not to be an "Only", yet you talk very much like one. There is not a whole lot of difference between being an "Only" and being one who claims to not be an "Only", yet forbids anyone to read aloud from any other translation in his church. If it IS the word of God, as you say you claim, why do you forbid anyone to read from it in your church? The word of God should not be forbidden in any church of God! |
||
|
Mitex |
"...because it is not in their modern translations" | ||
|
Posts: 1124 (07/02/2002 05:02:32) Registered User |
Greenbranch:
Quote: 1. I do not provoke anyone to attack the word of God - the AV. 2. I don't have to bring up a "variant" you Textual Critics already have. You seem to prefer the variant that goes against the AV. Even though you profess that the AV IS the word of God. 3. Did you actually follow this thread? I didn't charge "a modern version user with attacking the 'AV' because it is not in their modern translations." I did say: Quote: I also said: Quote: I did not say that "modern version users were attacking the AV because it is not in their modern translations". Since you brought it up, is that why they attack the word of God (AV)? Now will you answer the question that Steelmaker and CCCP so tactfully avoided? Do you believe the following underlined portions to be the word of God? Or are these underlined portions the additions of men? Ps. 138.2 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. 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. |
||
|
Mitex |
"You claim not to be an 'Only'" | ||
|
Posts: 1124 (07/02/2002 05:42:16) Registered User |
Greenbranch:
Quote: 1. Please repeat your definition of "Only". There are so many DIFFERENT definitions I forget who claims what about "Onlies". 2. Are you an "Only" because you have only read your favorite versions and have NOT READ the New World Translation, the Polish versions, the Spanish versions, etc.? Does your church encourage the reading of the New World Translation? Does your church encourage the reading of the Philip's version? Does your pastor read from EVERY version or does he limit himself to only a few? Is he an "ONLY"? If you and your pastor limit yourselves (for whatever reason) to a FEW why can't I limit myself to one? Is the difference between your pastor and myself: He is an 'Only a few' and I am an 'Only one'? 3. Are you saying that I have to read from your preferred versions? I have to allow any or all versions to be read in my church? Is Bob Jones University an "ONLY" because they only allow the AV to read from their chapel pulpit? 4. I thought you backed down earlier on "demanding people read from other versions" in their churches? Isn't that the point of your question - "why do you forbid anyone to read from it in your church?" 5. You claim that the AV IS the word of God. I agree with your profession. So, if as you and I claim the AV IS the word of God, why do I have to read anything else? Isn't the word of God sufficient? Or do you think the word of God (AV) is lacking something? 6. Notice what I have said: Quote: I also said: Quote: As to salvation I have never limited myself to a certain version. I recognize that ALL VERSIONS (even those versions which some Textual Critics reject) CONTAIN the word of God, even the New World Translation. When dealing with Roman Catholics, JW's and Mormons I have preached the gospel out of THEIR Bibles. So has Peter Ruckman and Jack Hyles. So much for that definition of "ONLY". Certainly every version CONTAINS the word of God even the "meanest". However, the AV clearly IS the word of God. At least that is what both sides of this debate PROFESS. Hence, when I preach in English I preach from "only the AV". Our church uses "only the AV" in our services? Do you object? On what grounds? There are members of our church who read other versions, comentaries, and devotionals in their homes. So do I. I even read the New World Translation, the Philip's, Good New for Modern Man, and a host of others. Some of your Textual Critic friends have rejected these versions - are they "ONLIES"? Of course I don't LIMIT myself to just reading ENGLISH versions, I read the Spanish and Polish versions as well. Do you limit yourself to "ONLY ENGLISH" versions? Are you an "ONLY"? Are your English speaking friends "ONLIES" because they "only" read from English versions? When I am in Poland I preach from the word of God in Polish (the Gdansk Polish Bible) and never preach from the ENGLISH AV. When I come to the States must my church also read from the Polish Bible so that I won't be an "ONLY"? I have never been in a church where the pastor or congregation read from ALL the versions. They all limit themselves to ONLY ONE or ONLY A FEW. Are all those churches ONLIES? Why do you insist that I read from your favorite versions? Or why do you insist that I read from something beside the word of God (AV)? |
||
|
Scott McClare |
We are PRO-KJV | ||
|
Posts: 3343 (07/02/2002 05:59:29) |
We are not anti-KJV, but PRO-KJV. It is not the onlyists, but the non-onlyists who treat the KJV as it truly is: a good translation, even a great translation, but not necessarily the best translation, and definitely not a perfect translation.
Calling us "anti-KJV" because we refuse to kowtow to the myth that it is an English translation completely without error of any kind (which is demonstrably false in any case), is like calling Baptists "anti-Mary" because we don't accept the myth that Mary was immaculately conceived, perpetually a virgin, and bodily assumed into heaven after she died. Being "anti" something, and refusing to believe old wives' tales about that something, are different. Take care,
Scott Scott A. McClare, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
|
||
|
Scott McClare |
Re: What | ||
|
Posts: 3343 (07/02/2002 06:04:33) |
No, I still don't think that makes a person anti-kjv. I have yet to meet a person who gets a big black marker and marks out his Bible. I have heard of folks who encouraged people to throw away their modern bibles.
A couple of years ago I heard Joseph Chambers' program when he did a series on the New King James Version, and actually encouraged his listeners, if they had one, to drive a nail through it and return it to Thomas Nelson with a note saying "this is what you have done to Christ all over again." At the time, I was sorely tempted to purchase an inexpensive KJV, drive a nail through it, and send it to Chambers with the same note and see how he liked it. But that is the fruit of radical KJV-onlyism: the deliberate defacement or destruction of the Word of God. It is a shameful reproach on the name of the Lord Jesus. Take care,
Scott Scott A. McClare, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
|
||
|
Scott McClare |
I have a better idea | ||
|
Posts: 3343 (07/02/2002 06:07:15) |
1. I suggested that you go to Walmart and buy yourself a paperback AV along with a big black marker. Then YOU (that's y-o-u-!) go through the archives on this board and other boards along with your favorite Bible commentary looking for places where the AV (which is professed to BE the word of God) is said to be in ERROR! Mark out the word, phrase or verse that is said to be in ERROR. Then you will see how many times the "word of God" (the AV) is ATTACKED!
Better yet: Go and buy a paperback NIV along with a big black marker. Then go to any anti-NIV board on the Net and look for places where the NIV is said to be in error. Mark out the word or phrase that is said to be in error. Then you will see how many times the Word of God, the NIV, is ATTACKED by KJV zealots. Take care,
Scott Scott A. McClare, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
|
||
|
CCCCP |
Greenbranch | ||
|
Posts: 96 (07/02/2002 06:11:43) |
Here is your example straight from Mitex's post:
2. I don't have to bring up a "variant" you Textual Critics already have. You seem to prefer the variant that goes against the AV. Even though you profess that the AV IS the word of God. He makes the assumption that we attack the Word of God just because we point our variants. He has yet to prove though that the KJ is the ONLY Word of God. The pressure is on him to do so and look what he does with it.... |
||
|
CCCCP |
LOL | ||
|
Posts: 96 (07/02/2002 06:14:53) |
Greenbranch, you can spot the Only's by their constant insistance on using the NWT as an example.
Brent, admit it you are a KJ Onlyist. |
||
|
Mitex |
Re: Good idea | ||
|
Posts: 1124 (07/02/2002 07:56:11) Registered User |
Scott:
Quote: 1. I agree with one of Scott's points here. If KJV zealots are pointing out errors in the NIV then that is indeed an "ATTACK" on the NIV. Notice how Scott recognizes that -pointing out words or phrases that are said to be in error - IS an attack! Hence, when Textual Critics on this board and others point out words, phrases and verses in the AV and calls them errors they are ATTACKING the AV (which is professed to be the word of God by those attacking the AV) just as I have stated on numerous of occations. 2. Please note one major difference: "KJV zealots" do not profess that "the NIV IS the word of God". Some, "KJV zealots" will state: "the NIV CONTAINS the word of God". The points they ATTACK are those very points the "KJV zealots" feel are "NOT THE WORD OF GOD". On the other hand, Textual Critics on this board and other boards profess that the AV IS the word of God and then ATTACK the word of God (AV) by pointing out errors in it. 3. Now, IF all versions ARE the word of God then "KJV zealots" and Textual Critics should not attack any version by pointing out errors in them. Those attacking the word of God would be properly labeled UNBELIEVERS. Why? Because they DOUBT and DISBELIEVE portions of the word of God. |
||
|
CCCCP |
It is | ||
|
Posts: 96 (07/02/2002 08:00:43) |
It is not an ATTACK. It is pointing out issues in different versions. It is only an attack to those who see themselves and their views weakened.
|
||
- Bible Versions and History
- Textual Criticism and Manuscripts
- Scripture and Technology
- KJV-Only
- References and Tools
- Westcott and Hort
- General Theology
- Anything Goes
- Archive 1
- Archive 2
- Archive 3
- Archive 4
- Archive 5
- Archive 6
- Archive 7
- Archive 8
- Archive 9
- Bible Versions Archive
- Anything Goes Archive
- Anything Goes Archive 2
- General Theology Archive
- Definitions Archive
Quick Reply
|
|
