Hey Town Crier, I would like to initiate some discussion on some of the ideas you've presented.
Hi Roads...sure thing- I would be interested in discussion..However, I must insist on one thing first. We both present a basic synopsis of what the Gospel is using what scriptures we feel are appropriate and then base our discussion off of that-and that we stick strictly to the scriptures rather than using the teachings/opinions of other people. The reason for this is that my purpose is to show why the newer versions muddy the gospel, produce a lack of faith(unbelief), and they also are a major cause of division in American Christianity.
So let's start there...what is your belief as to what grace is -since that is how we are saved- according to what the KJV/ Textus receptus/ Masoretic Text says...(you may want to start a separate thread and ask that we are the only ones that can comment- (but others can view)...for the sake of it not being hijacked by other posters. Or just start here whatever you prefer....
Grace and Peace,
TC
Answers To Kjv Exclusive Theology
- Thread starter Brewdaddy
- Start date
I appreciate the Masoretic text and Textus Receptus, too.
There is really very little textual variation with the Hebrew. But I don't think the Masoretic vowel pointing is inspired.
Re. the Greek Received Text, it's useful to figure what it is, before people try to ascribe to it all sorts of qualities that might not be warranted.
It is the name given to a series of printed texts between Erasmus's 1516 text and Beza's 1602. It is hard to argue that the Holy Spirit, ex nihilo intervened in 1516 right up to 1602. He graciously preserved the Word, yes, indeed. The processs of preservation was in the totality of textual evidence, written and printed. But a printed text needs a prior referent: this is why it's irrational to say that a printed edition is identical to the autographs: the original documents.
Blessings.
There is really very little textual variation with the Hebrew. But I don't think the Masoretic vowel pointing is inspired.
Re. the Greek Received Text, it's useful to figure what it is, before people try to ascribe to it all sorts of qualities that might not be warranted.
It is the name given to a series of printed texts between Erasmus's 1516 text and Beza's 1602. It is hard to argue that the Holy Spirit, ex nihilo intervened in 1516 right up to 1602. He graciously preserved the Word, yes, indeed. The processs of preservation was in the totality of textual evidence, written and printed. But a printed text needs a prior referent: this is why it's irrational to say that a printed edition is identical to the autographs: the original documents.
Blessings.
I can totally understand why that's a reasonable idea, but it's got a bit too much of a "showdown-at-high-noon" type feel to it for me... I've gone that way on this forum before, and it was definitely the wrong approach.
I guess that we "stick to the scriptures" is the central point of my position... that we can't "stick to the scriptures" without multiple translations if we want the most accurate understanding possible, simply because of the nature of translation.
Well, you know, if you're not Republican, it's 'showdown at high noon'...
Or if you're not KJV Only, it's 'showdown at high noon'...
Or if you're not against the Canadian government, it's 'showdown at high noon'...
Or if your wife wears capri pants to the prayer meeting, it's 'showdown at high noon'...
Or if your daughter has double pierced ears, it's 'showdown at high noon'...
(And so it goes...a matter of mindset.)
Or if you're not KJV Only, it's 'showdown at high noon'...
Or if you're not against the Canadian government, it's 'showdown at high noon'...
Or if your wife wears capri pants to the prayer meeting, it's 'showdown at high noon'...
Or if your daughter has double pierced ears, it's 'showdown at high noon'...
(And so it goes...a matter of mindset.)
In my experience with the KJV only crowd is that they use only the KJV and nothing else including any commentaries or writings from other Christians.
Has that been your experience as well or is it a local happening????
Sounds genuine.
Like: 'there are only 66 books in my library'. etc.
(But the mindset does not stop there; 'because' they are KJV Only, then this proves you can't let your adult daughter paint her nails blue, or some other illogical extrapolation...)
Does that mean I have to change my nail color???
Once the legal mindset gets a grip on people, any illogically projected intrusion is fair game. The school you send your kids to; the way the preacher's wife cuts her hair; whether your insurance company has executives who are known Democrats; whether your aunt staying over Christmas smokes in the church parking lot; whether your daughter at college dares to read a New King James Version in private;...
There are no limits whatsoever.
Blessings.
BUT,............do I have to change my nail color?????
Of course not! but don't be surprised with what people of a legalistic mindset come up with next. KJV Only is irrational. (I love the King James myself and use it, but KJV Only is something else entirely.)
Blessings.
It's amazing to read some of the justifications for KJV-only. EX: The word "savior." It only has SIX letters, whereas the KJV adds that letter U between the O and the R (which is still a quite common usage for the British way of spelling such words).
That extra letter makes the word have SEVEN letters.
So what, you say. W-E-L-L, it's common knowledge among those that are into Biblical numerology that the number 6 usually signifies man-centered, something less than perfect. OTOH, the number 7 is the number of perfection or God-centered. Hence, since the KJV renders the title of Jesus Christ with 7 letters, it must, of necessity be THE PERFECT version!
And don't bother pointing out such questionable word usages as "Easter" instead of "Passover" in Acts 12:4; or the neuter reflexive pronoun "itself" instead of the masculine reflexive pronoun "himself" when referring to the Holy Spirit in Romans 8:16; or the KJV's rendering of "Jesus" instead of "Joshua" in Hebrews 4:8.
As most all of those who've posted in this thread, I enjoy the KJV and use it regularly. I'm just not married to it.
That extra letter makes the word have SEVEN letters.
So what, you say. W-E-L-L, it's common knowledge among those that are into Biblical numerology that the number 6 usually signifies man-centered, something less than perfect. OTOH, the number 7 is the number of perfection or God-centered. Hence, since the KJV renders the title of Jesus Christ with 7 letters, it must, of necessity be THE PERFECT version!
And don't bother pointing out such questionable word usages as "Easter" instead of "Passover" in Acts 12:4; or the neuter reflexive pronoun "itself" instead of the masculine reflexive pronoun "himself" when referring to the Holy Spirit in Romans 8:16; or the KJV's rendering of "Jesus" instead of "Joshua" in Hebrews 4:8.
As most all of those who've posted in this thread, I enjoy the KJV and use it regularly. I'm just not married to it.
Yes, I too am thoroughly favorable to and appreciative of, the King James.
But the King James Only mindset is something else...
Blessings.
Hi roads..
Not a 'showdown at high noon' at all...I just simply want to know what you believe first.... Then I can have some understanding as to how you approach the word of God. All I was looking for is a few lines of what you believe and what scriptures you use to justify that belief. I don't care what version you use...In fact, if you use other versions to show your doctrinal belief, that will probably help me make my case...So how about it- just a small 'this is what I believe' and a few scriptures along with it.( and then I will do the same)...Then we can discuss the merits of KJV verses the other versions... to see if there is indeed a difference.
If so, I would ask that other people viewing the post please do not 'interrupt' our discussion until after we agree that we have completed it( or perhaps we can start a new thread and ask administrators to give us a special access?)
Far be it for me to interrupt, but would not your agenda be better served by recourse to the PM facility??
Hi Calvin,
I hadn't thought of that because I was kind of hoping others would read along as we posted and then at the end give their feedback. But roads has already initiated it and so we are sharing gospels at the moment. Thanks for the idea though
God Bless...
TC
I will be enjoying the conversation, as long as it remains public, but then, what would one expect from one that seeks to teach and to learn about the scriptures?
I have done King James only to death Until I am sick of it. Its rather same boat as athiesm and evolution, just the same old being thrown out and repeated constantly without any real discussion"we are right you are wrong". I have been through all the lists and objections on that dial a ministry site, and most of them are a joke.
I know in the past that one King James Onlyist spent days and tens of thousands of words trying to defend that proof that older versions are evil and corrupt because they use the word Satrap. Most people would think, thats nuts to carry on like that.
Here is the offending verse and the reason why. http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html
So the objection to this translation is that it is not "clear" enough.. seriously? Well I am not going to get into debate about the word, only to say that Satrap is a more precise word to mean Governor of Persian province.
The attack of this translation has to take place, as the translation is different to that of the King James, so how can you say this translation is a wicked translation? Well here we see the only crime is that its a more difficult word to understand.
Which I then ask the question, has God really decided to dumb the Bible down? If you believe the above statement and accept that this translation is perfect direct from God without fault, then it has to be Yes, the King James is a dumbed down version of the older texts.
I know in the past that one King James Onlyist spent days and tens of thousands of words trying to defend that proof that older versions are evil and corrupt because they use the word Satrap. Most people would think, thats nuts to carry on like that.
Here is the offending verse and the reason why. http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html
Ezra 8:36: The KJV reads, "And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants. . ." The "much clearer" NKJV reads, "And they delivered the king's orders to the king's satraps. . ." Who in the world thinks "satraps" is "much clearer" than lieutenants? The NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV - they do! They put in the same "much clearer" word!
So the objection to this translation is that it is not "clear" enough.. seriously? Well I am not going to get into debate about the word, only to say that Satrap is a more precise word to mean Governor of Persian province.
The attack of this translation has to take place, as the translation is different to that of the King James, so how can you say this translation is a wicked translation? Well here we see the only crime is that its a more difficult word to understand.
Which I then ask the question, has God really decided to dumb the Bible down? If you believe the above statement and accept that this translation is perfect direct from God without fault, then it has to be Yes, the King James is a dumbed down version of the older texts.
Older texts?...Show me some uncial's from 100-200 A.D that have these 'older text' writings. The 'older texts' you speak of came from the Alexandrians- who believe essentially what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe.
Stephen disputed with the Alexandrians and they could not gainsay his teachings...wonder why?
Act 6:9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.
Act 6:10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.
It all comes down to that last bit...they could not resist the wisdom and SPIRIT by which he spake!
Do a little 'spiritual research' on the origins of the 'critical text' and a couple guys named Wescott and Hort- then decide which 'spirit' may have raised up these newer 'easier to read' versions of scripture for the last days falling away...
TC
Stephen disputed with the Alexandrians and they could not gainsay his teachings...wonder why?
Act 6:9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.
Act 6:10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.
It all comes down to that last bit...they could not resist the wisdom and SPIRIT by which he spake!
Do a little 'spiritual research' on the origins of the 'critical text' and a couple guys named Wescott and Hort- then decide which 'spirit' may have raised up these newer 'easier to read' versions of scripture for the last days falling away...
TC
TC, I have to say that you are misusing the Scriptures in an effort to promote a personal prejudice.
Whatever our personal choice of the various translations, we should be able to study in harmony and respect of each other.
The fact that Luke refers to a synagogue should show us straightaway that it is unconverted Jews that are being discussed, not fellow Christians. The next obvious point to observe is that these 'Jews' were zealous for Judaism. When they saw an opportunity to slander Stephen over the status of Moses and the law versus the law of Grace, they acted. Their behavior does not suggest that the scriptures they used were inferior to any others, but their attitude and their understanding was decidedly off.
Can you not see that a person or group of persons who misuse Scripture does not render that Scripture wrong?
It was their lack of understanding that made them wrong. Their scriptures were not wrong.
It was their lack of acceptance of Christ Jesus that made them wrong. Their scriptures were not wrong.
Neither were their scriptures in question in the above quoted text.
Please TC, you seem to be 'clutching at straws'. How is this going to be helpful to anyone?
Whatever our personal choice of the various translations, we should be able to study in harmony and respect of each other.
The fact that Luke refers to a synagogue should show us straightaway that it is unconverted Jews that are being discussed, not fellow Christians. The next obvious point to observe is that these 'Jews' were zealous for Judaism. When they saw an opportunity to slander Stephen over the status of Moses and the law versus the law of Grace, they acted. Their behavior does not suggest that the scriptures they used were inferior to any others, but their attitude and their understanding was decidedly off.
Can you not see that a person or group of persons who misuse Scripture does not render that Scripture wrong?
It was their lack of understanding that made them wrong. Their scriptures were not wrong.
It was their lack of acceptance of Christ Jesus that made them wrong. Their scriptures were not wrong.
Neither were their scriptures in question in the above quoted text.
Please TC, you seem to be 'clutching at straws'. How is this going to be helpful to anyone?