Our Authorized Bible Vindicated

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
steelmaker	Re: THE REAL EYE OPENER	#21	[-]
Posts: 2084 (03/23/2003 00:01:56) Registered User More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Let us remember that Wilkinson was a big shot in the SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS, a known cult. Aside from all his errors shown in the links gconan posted, do you REALLY wanna believe any material from such a person? Kinda like confidently eating a meal prepared by Lucrezia Borgia,eh?
Bill R K	SDA's influence	#22	[-]
Posts: 876 (03/24/2003 13:22:33) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	It is nothing short of arrogance on your part to attempt to discredit our implicit trust of the KJV as some SDA doctrine. For example, the modern creationist movement (young earth creationism) has its direct origin in G. M. Price, a Seventh Day Adventist whose "Principles in Geology" is the foundation for the much later and much touted "The Genesis Flood" by Whitcomb and Morris. The only principles in modern creationism not found in Price's near turn of the century work are the nonsense ones (such as the helium ice canopy, et. al.). SDAs are directly responsible for much in American culture, including practically all breakfast cereals, the reason for which has to do with their abstinence from meats. The fact that SDAs influenced the US population enormously doesn't mean they are right or wrong, and it certainly doesn't discredit our faith in the KJV, but it does demonstrate arrogance on your part when you accuse us of SDA influence, implying you are not infuenced by such "cultic" doctrines. There exists to this day among us an inherent assumption that the standard English Bible is correct, which assumption btw, is what causes anyone to trust Christ. But the overwhelming respect given now-a-days to "scientists" and "scholars" causes many to hesitate to declare an assumption that goes against prevailing scholastic opinion. SDAs are not burdened with such insecurities, so they have been historically among the first to decry against modern science falsely so called. The recourse to such an argument as this (that KJVO = SDA doctrine) demonstrates your unwillingness to consider the real root of the controversy. Those who correct the standard English Bible do so according to their OPINION, their BIAS, and their CONCEIT. Those of us who defend the standard English Bible do so because we trust it MORE than your opinions. If you do not deal with that issue, it is because you can't. No wonder you resort to such tactics.
steelmaker	Easy to prove me wrong...IF...	#23	[-]
Posts: 2084 (03/24/2003 16:29:04) Registered User More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	It is nothing short of arrogance on your part to attempt to discredit our implicit trust of the KJV as some SDA doctrine. It was MADE by an SDA-there's NO DENYING that! For example, the modern creationist movement (young earth creationism) has its direct origin in G. M. Price, a Seventh Day Adventist whose "Principles in Geology" is the foundation for the much later and much touted "The Genesis Flood" by Whitcomb and Morris. The only principles in modern creationism not found in Price's near turn of the century work are the nonsense ones (such as the helium ice canopy, et. al.). Another doctrine phony as a $3 bill. There is indisputable evidence of the earth's great age. For example, the Appalachian Mountains, now not much higher than foothills & largely covered with soil, were once as high as the present-day Rocky Mountains. If these mountains were washed down in just a few thousand years, there'd be the scars of a great cataclysm. Same with the Devil's Tower of "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" fame. It is the shell of a volcanic caldera. If the mountain which once surrounded it had been removed quickly, there would've been pieces of it scattered throughout the area-and if the force would've been sufficient to have carried off the pieces of the mountain, then the "tower" would've been destroyed also. I could post PAGES of other such evidence against the YE theory, but this is a BV discussion group. SDAs are directly responsible for much in American culture, including practically all breakfast cereals, the reason for which has to do with their abstinence from meats. The fact that SDAs influenced the US population enormously doesn't mean they are right or wrong, and it certainly doesn't discredit our faith in the KJV, but it does demonstrate arrogance on your part when you accuse us of SDA influence, implying you are not infuenced by such "cultic" doctrines. I headed this post, "Easy to prove me wrong...IF..." for a reason. Now, here's the "IF"...Please refer us to a book published before 1930 which contains all the KJVO subdoctrines, catchphrases and buzzwords found in Wilkinson's book, and are still used today. I have read two of dean Burgon's works, and they DO NOT contain all that "stuff". There exists to this day among us an inherent assumption that the standard English Bible is correct, which assumption btw, is what causes anyone to trust Christ. By "standard English Bible". do you mean the KJV? Is so, by WHOSE "standards" do YOU declare it to be "the standard"? English has been in existence MUCH LONGER than has the KJV, so are you in effect saying the English had no Bible before 1611? Many an historian has stated that the GENEVA BIBLE was the "standard" Bible of the English until C.1644. BY WHOSE AUTHORITY was it replaced as the standard? King James? Archbishop Bancroft? But the overwhelming respect given now-a-days to "scientists" and "scholars" causes many to hesitate to declare an assumption that goes against prevailing scholastic opinion. SDAs are not burdened with such insecurities, so they have been historically among the first to decry against modern science falsely so called. Yep-if it doesn't agree with the wit & wisdom of ELLEN GOULD WHITE, their guru. The recourse to such an argument as this (that KJVO = SDA doctrine) demonstrates your unwillingness to consider the real root of the controversy. Not really. When modern English BVs began appearing, some misguided individuals begat the goofy idea that the KJV was IT, and couldn't be replaced-totally ignoring the fact that the KJV had replaced a perfectly-valid Bible, the Geneva version. Wilkinson was one such person, and his book provided the material for others to build their nonsense around, and the proof is in the pudding. Anyone who's ever read "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" has seen the truth himself. Those who correct the standard English Bible do so according to their OPINION, their BIAS, and their CONCEIT. Then I guess, that when there's a difference in the KJV's rendering of certain words or phrases and in the MSS from which it was made, then the mss are wrong, and their writers were opiniated, biased, & conceited, as are those of this generation who can read those mss. Those of us who defend the standard English Bible do so because we trust it MORE than your opinions. Well,I should hope so, because I'm just a man. And BTW, I,TOO, trust the KJV. BUT...my trust isn't limited to just the one 400-yr-old version. We non-Onlyists don't try to limit God and put words in His mouth by saying the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation. If you do not deal with that issue, it is because you can't. No wonder you resort to such tactics. If you read around the various discussion boards,and the archives of THIS board, you'll see I've been dealing successfully with this issue for YEARS now. It is the ONLYIST who presents us with a doctrine for which he has no sustaining evidence and it is we who thereby reject that doctrine as man-made and false. It is the ONLYIST who must constantly scratch & claw trying to find ANYTHING to lend any credence to his myth while it is WE who simply continue to reject the Onlyist myth as false.
steelmaker	Re: SDA	#24	[-]
Posts: 2084 (03/24/2003 16:31:49) Registered User More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Joseph, you may have already read this, but just in case... members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/unlearnd.htm
steelmaker	Re: KJVO = simple faith	#25	[-]
Posts: 2084 (03/24/2003 16:35:40) Registered User More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	But simple faith in the accuracy and perfection of the English Bible did indeed predate this controversy. And WE who reject the KJVO myth have that same simple faith-in God's presenting His word AS HE CHOOSES, not limited by how MEN think He oughtta do it.
amarillo	Re: SDA	#26	[-]
Posts: 3645 (03/24/2003 20:28:00) Administrator More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	yes, indeed. thank God for men like Kutilek who post vital info that fells the devil, as Luther might put it. Joseph Ng "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Ps 119:89 KJB
greenbranch	Re: SDA's influence	#27	[-]
Posts: 2838 (03/25/2003 00:41:00) Registered User More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	*Quote:* Those who correct the standard English Bible do so according to their OPINION, their BIAS, and their CONCEIT. Those of us who defend the standard English Bible do so because we trust it MORE than your opinions. If you do not deal with that issue, it is because you can't. No wonder you resort to such tactics. You say that we equate KJVO with the SDA cult and don't deal with the KJVO simple faith because we can't. I am fully aware of the KJVO faith in their Bible. I don't see why you say I have to deal with it. I understand that you believe it is correct because of tradition, the history of its transmission, and that God was at work in the standardization process which pretty much ended with the KJV translators. I believe that there are certain aspects of that faith that are misplaced. (I hope you understand what I am saying here.) It seems to me that some place their faith more on tradition and form than in the God who gave them the Bible. Some say that the length of time that the KJV (or the Received Text or the traditional text) has been in use confirms that it is correct, and they can't tolerate anyone who questions that. But, this is the same arguement that Catholics use, the tradition of their beliefs, the length of time they have been held confirm their veracity. You could even say the same of the Jews. They have held their beliefs for thousands of years. We would not have the KJV if people had not questioned these traditional beliefs. Traditional beliefs need to be questioned, just because we have always believed a certain way doesn't make it true. How long have the Catholics believed in purgatory and praying for and to the dead? I bet it is a lot longer than the KJV has been around. How long did Jewish Christians believe in circumcision before it was decided that the Gentiles should not be burdened with it? A lot longer than the Received Text has been around! You do not like that some draw connections between the cultic SDA and the KJVO belief, yet you draw similar connections: *Quote:* Those who correct the standard English Bible do so according to their OPINION, their BIAS, and their CONCEIT. You insist that this is true and refuse to deal with the fact that it is possible that we might have a simple faith in the critical text and that the so-called "corrections" are made based on evidence and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not on opinion, bias, and conceit. *Quote:* Those of us who defend the standard English Bible do so because we trust it MORE than your opinions. Fine. In fact, I don't want you to trust my opinions. I don't put my trust in your opinions either! I put my trust in God, who I believe has shown me that He has not restricted His word to one translation or one standardized text. I think it was Hills who claimed that if we couldn't trust in the KJV we couldn't trust in the Bible at all because we don't know what kind of variants someone will find in some new manuscript discovery. I have faith that no matter what manuscript discoveries have yet to be found, God's word will still be true. No point of doctrine will be changed.
Bill R K	Dealing with the issue	#28	[-]
Posts: 876 (03/25/2003 08:59:24) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sorry Greenbranch, I was not accusing you of not dealing with the issue, but the fellow who keeps sidestepping it to pretend KJV believers descended from SDAism. The fact that some extremist KJVO arguments originated with SDAs does not mean the faith to resist the slaughtering of the received text did. We could probably show dozens of testimonies to prove the controversy was already raging, long before Wilkinson, but because those who resisted the apostasy had not come to the same conclusions as modern extreme KJVOs they will not allow us to consider them our forerunners. But it means nothing to me. I know "whence" I inherited my faith. I object to your accusation that I draw similar connections with you as steelmaker did with me, pretending my faith sprouts from a "cult." In what way can my quote, "Those who correct the standard English Bible do so according to their OPINION, their BIAS, and their CONCEIT," be correlated with accusation of cultic origin? It is as plain as a counterfeit three dollar bill that accusing the standard Bible of error is bald conceit, and evidence touted to support the conceit is often nothing more than one opinion against another, and said opinion is decidedly biased against the received text. You, personally, have been circumspect with your opinions, but not others. You say I "refuse to deal with the fact that it is possible that we might have a simple faith in the critical text and that the so-called "corrections" are made based on evidence and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not on opinion, bias, and conceit." In fact, I do not refuse to deal with that fact. I have met several who have a relatively simple faith in the "critical text", and I allow that you might also be of that mold. Remember, Greenbranch, I am not a Ruckmanite, as much as I respect the man's opinion, and appreciate his stand of faith. Members of my immediate family, missionaries supported by my home church, and countless Christian friends and supporters of mine, do not believe the received text like I do, but assume, possibly much like you, that God has only recently provided us believers with his almost restored word. Many of them are disturbed by some of the changes, especially those that enervate important doctrinal texts (1 Tim. 3.16), yet they retain the modern assumption just the same. If that is your position, I have no quarrel with you. My quarrel is with those who cast doubt on the KJV under the guise of knowledge, when their pretense is nothing more than conceit, and biased opinion. When a pastor disturbed my faith in the KJV by openly declaring it contained an unsubstantiated word ("this word is not found in the Greek"), he was LYING. It was too complicated to explain the truth to a young man who questioned his doctrine, so he just lied, hiding behind his reputation. I had no answer for him at the time. But I do now. Seminary and Bible institute professors do the same, they destroy the faith of young men and women who want to serve God, who assume that they can learn how by studying under one of these grim reapers. Seldom are they taught how strong the evidence is in FAVOR of the standard English Bible, they are fed the line from the get-go that all the evidence is against it. Just like in secular schools that teach the evidence FOR evolution (consisting entirely of natural selection and homology), without a peep about the abundant, voluminous evidence against it as an origin of anything at all. It is only because of men like Burgon and Ruckman that the favorable evidence has been presented at all, and through them the conceit of the detractors has been exposed. Reading them has strengthened my faith, faith I had before I read anything about the issue, through guidance I received from my father, which faith he had before he read anything about the issue. It is faith that has nothing to do with SDA doctrine, so I know, even if no one else does, that steelmaker is full of beans. Your faith is that "No point of doctrine will be changed." Well, sister, I deal with Jehovah's Witnesses regularly (almost weekly) who are immersed in textual criticism, and make a great deal of the corruptions in the received text, and the errors in the standard translations. They regularly cite dozens of different versions to prove my Bible is wrong when I show them a verse that disagrees with their doctrine. Your doctrine was FORMED and/or ESTABLISHED under the old standard Bibles, from the vulgates to the received texts to the standard European translations. The New World Translation enervates 90 percent of the texts which undergird the deity of Christ, the doctrine of Hell, and the preeminence of the Jews in Bible prophecy. I know they did not originate modern textual criticism, but they no doubt have a strengthened hand under its shadow. So, from my point of view, the doctrine has already been assaulted.
greenbranch	Re: Dealing with the issue	#29	[-]
Posts: 2838 (03/25/2003 16:22:52) Registered User More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	*Quote:* Sorry Greenbranch, I was not accusing you of not dealing with the issue, but the fellow who keeps sidestepping it to pretend KJV believers descended from SDAism. Ok, I know the specific post was not made in response to me, but you HAVE said before that I also was not dealing with an issue that you wanted us to deal with. Does this mean that I finally have responded in such a way that you see that I am dealing (or at least trying) the issue? *Quote:* I object to your accusation that I draw similar connections with you as steelmaker did with me, pretending my faith sprouts from a "cult." In what way can my quote, "Those who correct the standard English Bible do so according to their OPINION, their BIAS, and their CONCEIT," be correlated with accusation of cultic origin? Both are an accusation against the purity of a person's beliefs. Some assume that people get their KJVO beliefs because of some cultic influence, others assume that people get their mv beliefs because of apostasy or "being puffed up with their own knowlege". (someone else's words, not yours) That is how they can be correlated. *Quote:* It is as plain as a counterfeit three dollar bill that accusing the standard Bible of error is bald conceit, and evidence touted to support the conceit is often nothing more than one opinion against another, and said opinion is decidedly biased against the received text. You, personally, have been circumspect with your opinions, but not others. The KJV translators essentially accused the previous English translations of error (at least by KJVO definition) every time they chose a different textual variant from what was used by previous translators. I still don't see how that is not bald conceit on the part of the KJV translators when it is considered bald conceit on the part of modern translators. *Quote:* Members of my immediate family, missionaries supported by my home church, and countless Christian friends and supporters of mine, do not believe the received text like I do, but assume, possibly much like you, that God has only recently provided us believers with his almost restored word. I think that that might again be your characterization of their beliefs, rather than just what they believe. For instance, I do not believe that God only recently provided us with His almost restored word. I believe His word has always been with us and has been seen through the Alexandrian, AND the Western, AND the Byzantine text. I believe they are all God's word, in spite of the fact that there are textual variants contained within them. People can use just the received text, or just the critical text and be lacking nothing concerning God's word. *Quote:* My quarrel is with those who cast doubt on the KJV under the guise of knowledge, when their pretense is nothing more than conceit, and biased opinion. When a pastor disturbed my faith in the KJV by openly declaring it contained an unsubstantiated word ("this word is not found in the Greek" , he was LYING. But, as far as I am concerned, the KJVOs do the same thing when they claim modern translations are perversions, and were inspired by Satan. That pastor should not have lied, but KJVOs also lie and disturb the faith of others, and I believe it often is also due to conceit and biased opinion. I realize that you have thoroughly studied the issue, but many others have not. (But, it is true that the KJV does include words that are not in the Greek. All translations do.) *Quote:* Well, sister, I deal with Jehovah's Witnesses regularly (almost weekly) who are immersed in textual criticism, and make a great deal of the corruptions in the received text, and the errors in the standard translations. They regularly cite dozens of different versions to prove my Bible is wrong when I show them a verse that disagrees with their doctrine. Your doctrine was FORMED and/or ESTABLISHED under the old standard Bibles, from the vulgates to the received texts to the standard European translations. Their doctrine was also formed and/or established under the old standard Bibles. My understanding is that they have twisted what the Bible says, not based their doctrine on the text of the critical text, and I have heard of many involved in witnessing to both the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormon's who have found that they have been better able to use modern translations rather than the KJV in witnessing to these groups.
mycountach	Standard English Bible	#30	[-]
Posts: 1233 (03/25/2003 16:38:40) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	>Those of us who defend the standard English Bible do so >because we trust it MORE than your opinions. Nice theory, except that the KJV is not the standard English bible. The NIV is the standard. Once upon a time the KJV was the standard, but then again, once upon a time the Geneva was the standard.
mycountach	Standard English Bible	#31	[-]
Posts: 1233 (03/25/2003 16:47:03) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	>It is only because of men like Burgon and Ruckman that >the favorable evidence has been presented at all. Amazing. You appeal to one man who thought the KJV had many errors and wasn't afraid to point them out. And another man who through an avalanche of invective declares that the KJV is more correct than the underlying texts. Now why could it be that I don't find this very convincing?
steelmaker	Re: Dealing with the issue	#32	[-]
Posts: 2084 (04/07/2003 10:14:50) Registered User More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Let's deal with what I DID say,and have said for years: that many of the catchphrases, chants, mantras, and buzzwords of the modern Onlyist movement were first seen in "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated". (Proof? READ THE BOOKS!!Read Wilkinson, Ray, Fuller, Hills, Riplinger, Hyles, Waite, Ruckman, Grady, & Watkins, to name a few, as I have-and compare their writings with HISTORY as well as with each other.) And I've also said for years that the Onlyist has no PROOF-either Scriptural or historical-to substantiate his myth. Therefore, all he/she has is faith. We non-Onlyists also have faith-in JESUS CHRIST as Savior, and that He has the power and authority to present His word to us in ANY FORM HE CHOOSES. I'm not a scholar; therefore I don't become lost in the small nuances of the issue. During my football days I was a fullback who cut right to the heart of the defense, and I do the same with the versions issue, keeping it simple. For example, I ask the simple question, "If KJVO is legit, where's the SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR IT?"-and I receive a whole boatload of answers that are anything but straight. I ask the Onlyist that if Psalm 12:6-7 are about God's preserving His word, then WHY ARE THERE NO TWO ENGLISH BVS BEFORE 1611 ALIKE? And all I get for answers are such ridiculous stuff as, "God purified His word SEVEN TIMES, as Psalms says, culminating in the AV 1611!" To which I reply, "Ya mean, God didn't GET IT RIGHT the FIRST time?" And this is but a SAMPLE of the questions I've asked and NOT received a straight answer from any Onlyist. The long-time members here can verify that. Therefore I have MANY reasons to reject the Onlyism myth, while the Onlyist has NO EXCUSE to keep believing it. The Onlyist, in trying to give credence to their myth, flops like a fish upon land, flipping to the right, then, flopping to the left in a vain search for some "water" to sustain the Onlyist "carp". The "TEXTUAL CRITICISM" problem is merely a game of "MY scholar can whup YOUR scholar". It's no closer to being resolved now than it was 100 years ago. Something the Onlyists haven't considered(or are deliberately ignoring) is the FACT that God chose NOT TO PRESERVE the Autographa. Does God WANT this conflict, or was He TELLING US SOMETHING that has been overlooked? The comparison between Isaiah 61:1-3 in the KJV OT and what JESUS READ ALOUD in Luke 4:16-21 should provide a hint. Therefore I conclude that KJVO is a man-made crock.
sdonahue	Our Authorised Bible Vindicated	#33	[-]
Posts: 148 (04/07/2003 10:44:40) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I've only seen it in hardcopy. It's available at Potomac Adventist Bookstore in Silver Spring, Maryland; I'm sure that all of the SDA bookstore chain would have it.
Bill R K	Straight answers	#34	[-]
Posts: 876 (04/08/2003 11:35:57) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Your "I'm tired of it" complex might be a motivation to walk away, but it doesn't excuse your apparent disdain for sincere faith. My faith has nothing to do with SDA, yet you call it everything from "carp" to "crock", and then pretend you are a victim of squirrelly KJVOs. I do not disdain your "faith", and I assume you are sincere, and intelligent, and have reasons for your position. I actually want to understand them. I don't agree with all the onlyists out there either, and have received my share of insults from them (I am a heretic in many of their minds), but I sincerely try to see through the smoke and understand where they are coming from. I've had a number of profitable conversations with people of both sides, but none so far with you. You see, I'm not interested in "catchphrases" or "buzzwords." You do not appear interested in what makes me tick, which is why you resort to the "cult association" ruse. What, did some KJVO use it on you, so you are justified? OK, steelmaker, all I know about you is your swooping generalizations, and palpable contempt for my opinion. I explained my QUARREL, which you did not address, yet it got directly to the point, fullback. If you are only interested in addressing "mantras" of others, I'll leave you alone, but you haven't yet received a curved or crooked answer from me. KJVOs aren't the only ones who dodge direct questions. I'll give you an example. I wrote: But simple faith in the accuracy and perfection of the English Bible did indeed predate this controversy. You replied: And WE who reject the KJVO myth have that same simple faith-in God's presenting His word AS HE CHOOSES, not limited by how MEN think He oughtta do it. Notice my point was faith in the KJV before WH, just like my onlyism explained concisely in the post you replied to, no curves, just straight dealing from the top of the deck. I think it is an onlyism almost identical to the opinion held by millions since the KJV took over the market. You didn't respond to my definition, you retorted with an indefinite one-liner that left me with no information except you think I follow a myth of your definition. This, coupled with the insistent, dishonest association of MY FAITH with SDAism, because of some buzzwords you've heard, but never from me, lead me to suspect you are not interested in any real dialogue at all. Which makes me wonder why you post. If I had so little interest in your opinion I wouldn't answer you. If you don't understand my faith in the KJV, it is because you don't want to understand.
thecastlebookroom	Re: Our Authorized Bible Vindicated/ WELCOME TO THE BOARD	#35	[-]
Posts: 6 (04/09/2003 12:03:59) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	edited to move to another thread!
mycountach	Authoritative tradition	#36	[-]
Posts: 1233 (04/09/2003 15:03:52) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	>Notice my point was faith in the KJV before WH. simple >faith in the accuracy and perfection of the English Bible >did indeed predate this controversy. Do you have any proof that anybody pre-WH believed that the KJV was ALWAYS correct, over and against every other translation and version?
Bill R K	PROOF? Sure, why not, again, a million times.	#37	[-]
Posts: 876 (04/10/2003 05:50:59) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	www.grochow.2a.pl/~ch17027/historic.htm Mycountach, your question seems sincere, but I hesitate to answer you openly, because I've seen too often my words, intended to explain, and assuming a desire on your part to understand where I'm coming from, used as ammunition only. If your desire is to dissect my reply and scorn it piecemeal, I will not reply again. Notice that we've said it and said it again, (the above web page was posted in this very thread before), yet then you ask for proof. It's kind of like the Pharisees asking for a sign from Jesus just after he healed a multitude of sick folk. You don't have to agree, but how long before you folks accept the FACT that faith in the STANDARD Bible is the initial assumption of all Christians, since the beginning? Salvation, trust in Christ as a saviour, starts with an assumption that some promise, written in our vulgar language, without dissection, without research into variants, and without corrections or "better renderings," is TRUE, exactly like it is written in our language. We KJVOs take that assumption (FAITH) and carry it to it's logical conclusion. The standard reading is correct, till proven otherwise, no matter what some opinionated, hayseed intellectual thinks about it. To break it down: 1. When all Bibles agree, they are ALL correct. (Do you agree with this? Amazingly, many of you cannot even take this baby step of faith. You assume all presently existing readings are open to question according to any new discovery that might come along). 2. When Bibles disagree, the mainstream, standard reading is correct (as opposed to some particular opinion of any several groups. You depend upon this assumption immensely, on much more than the question of canon). 3. When the text of the Bible is in turmoil, and therefore a current standard reading is presently undeterminable, the most recent standard is assumed correct until proven otherwise. (Criteria for proof of error is a large part of the present debate, but I can say once a Bible becomes the standard in any language, the threshhold for proving error becomes formidable). 4. When historically no reading emerges as standard, or when historical standards conflict (as legitimately argued about traditional variants such as 1 John 5.7), other criteria must be applied, including: a. Direct lineal dependence (English speaking Christianity has depended upon the KJV more than the Vulgate, and upon the Vulgate more than the Peshitta, etc... this applies the logic that a standardized textual decision made in the past by our direct spiritual forebears and subsequently accepted universally among us, is directly authoritative to us). b. Fruit (the KJV has produced more fruit than the Wycliff, Geneva, etc., and more than the constant "improvements" made by a continual line of Bible correctors, including many, many pastors throughout the generations.) Like I said, you don't have to agree, you can continue to think your particular preference might be correct in any certain place and that consequently the standard reading must be wrong. But our FAITH that God has preserved his accurate, authoritative, and APPROVED word in the standard reading is logical, scriptural, historical, and almost universal even today until some poor dupe starts trusting a Bible institute professor more than the book that brought him to Christ.
mycountach	Authoritative tradition	#38	[-]
Posts: 1233 (04/10/2003 07:50:58) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Bill, I don't want to tear you to pieces, but I'm a logical guy and I need to break apart an argument to get to the core of it, to see if it's true. I think Clement of Alexandria said that if your faith can't stand up to scrutiny, abandon your faith because its been proved untrue. You talk about "simple faith", but you've just written out about 7 rather complex, subjective steps to guide one to the "standard reading". I'd feel more objective collating manuscripts than trying to figure out which version had how much fruit and how much influence over me. But back to "standard readings". The background I've come from, is I've belonged to Church of Christ, Baptist, several pentacostal, Assemblies of God, Anglican, some "no-name" churches in my life. In that time I suppose I've interacted with maybe 1000 christians. From memory all of these people used the NIV with the exception of two people who used the NASB, two people who used the KJV, maybe one or two who used the Good News, one who uses the NKJV and "The Message", and maybe a few other miscellaneous. My first bible was a Good News. My first bible after becoming a Christian was an NIV, and I now use a NASB. You admit that standards change. The first English bible, the Wycliffe was based on the Vulgate (which is closer to the Nestle text than to the TR). Then apparently the standard changed to the Geneva at some point (which is based on one of the various TRs), and then the KJV. As far as I can see, the standard today (if there be such a thing) would be the NIV. Maybe things look different in your part of the world, but in my part of the world, the KJV is a non-runner. So what am I supposed to do according to your step-by-step process? You say that "When Bibles disagree, the mainstream, standard reading is correct". If I am to follow your suggestion here, can that be anything other than the NIV? If so, why? You say "When the text of the Bible is in turmoil, and therefore a current standard reading is presently undeterminable, the most recent standard is assumed correct until proven otherwise." Should this, for me, be anything other than the NIV? If so why? >Direct lineal dependence (English speaking Christianity >has depended upon the KJV more than the Vulgate, and >upon the Vulgate more than the Peshitta, etc... Certainly, English speaking countries, between 17th C and 19th C depended more upon the KJV. But between the 4th C and the 16th C the English speaking world has depended on the Vulgate. And in the 20th and 21st C, it has depended on the Nestle Greek text and bibles derived from that. Even if protestantism trumps everything else, why does the KJV trump the Geneva (which in places, agrees with the modern versions against the KJV)? You would say, well the Geneva went out of favour. Well as far as I can see, the KJV is completely out of favour. Maybe not where you are, but I can only know about my experience that nobody to speak of uses the KJV any more. "b. Fruit (the KJV has produced more fruit than the Wycliff, Geneva, etc., and more than the constant "improvements" made by a continual line of Bible correctors, including many, many pastors throughout the generations.)" "Bible correctors" eh? :-). Has the KJV produced more fruit? I simply am not convinced that this is so. In the year 1700 England had a population of five million. Let's take a pot-shot and say there were ten million English speakers all-up. Today there would be about five-hundred million English speakers. The NIV has a 35% market share. That means that if in 1700's England, every single person was a regenerate Christian (a highly unlikely assumption), only about 5% of the English speaking population would need to be regenerate Christians for the NIV's fruit to exceed that of the KJV in its hey-day. If 50% of people were Christians in the year 1700, then only 3% or so modern English speakers would need to be regenerate in order to exceed the KJV's "fruit". If we grouped all Nestle-derived bibles together it would be a 2/3 share in the USA (in other parts of the English world I reckon it would be way higher), then we only need a 1% Christian population to exceed the KJV "fruit". And personally I have a great deal of doubt that the percentage of Chrstians in the 18th C was significantly higher than today, despite the higher level of church attendance. And that doesn't count all the Koreans using similar texts. Like the Full Gospel Korean church with 700,000 members that uses a UBS text, and all the other modern translations going to hundreds of languages hitherto not having a translation at all, but now having a UBS translation. So in conclusion, even if I accepted this "standard reading" theory, I don't see how it leads to the KJV. But I don't really accept the theory, because historically, the KJV is an anomoly in Christianity. "Normality" in Christianity has always been a number of different versions, from the multitude of old latin versions, the multitude of pre-KJV versions, the several Syriac versions. And if I accepted that a "standard language" version trumps all else, it would still leave unanswered how an English speaker can have agreement and fellowship with a non-English speaker with a different set of "standard readings". And if this English and non-English speaker can have fellowship despite differing standard readings, why not two English speakers with different versions?
mycountach	Old KJV-Onlyers	#39	[-]
Posts: 1233 (04/10/2003 08:05:41) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Oh yes, I give you credit for finding some quotes that indicate that some elevated the KJV over the originals pre-1900. I find it interesting that all the quotes occur between 1860 and 1890, when of course all the debate was raging about the newer editions of the New Testament. It is to be expected I guess that the KJV, after having a good run, would not be abandoned easily. However, I can give you similar quotes from when the KJV was introduced, with people saying that the KJV was a perversion, and that it "corrupted the bible in more than 300 places", and people threatening to burn them and so forth from the early 1600s. This was because of course, the Geneva had also had a very good run. If we listened to this kind of talk, the KJV would never had been used. Should we listen to this kind of talk now?
steelmaker	Re: Old KJV-Onlyers	#40	[-]
Posts: 2084 (04/10/2003 10:16:22) Registered User More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	If we listened to this kind of talk, the KJV would never had been used. Should we listen to this kind of talk now? It's called a DOUBLE STANDARD, the only way an Onlyist can defend his/her myth.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Our Authorized Bible Vindicated