Answers To Kjv Exclusive Theology

[The Town Crier]

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?

Hi Calvin..

"clutching at straws"...Not at all-the point I am trying to make here is that the 'new translations' of the Bible currently in circulation were traced back to the Alexandrians and they are different. The bulk of your new 'bibles' use the 'critical text' and the Wescott Hort Greek New Testament writings which differ from the Textus Receptus. When you compare the newer translations with the KJV, they have an entirely different doctrine written into them! The Alexandrians believed similar to what the 'Jehovah's Witnesses' believe and the newer versions of the Bible support that belief system. Go do your homework on this and then lets chat some more...

TC

 

[th1bill]

Hi Calvin..

"clutching at straws"...Not at all-the point I am trying to make here is that the 'new translations' of the Bible currently in circulation were traced back to the Alexandrians and they are different. The bulk of your new 'bibles' use the 'critical text' and the Wescott Hort Greek New Testament writings which differ from the Textus Receptus. When you compare the newer translations with the KJV, they have an entirely different doctrine written into them! The Alexandrians believed similar to what the 'Jehovah's Witnesses' believe and the newer versions of the Bible support that belief system. Go do your homework on this and then lets chat some more...

TC

TC,
That's not, at all, true. I teach the Grumpy Old Men's Class and it is a well known fact that men, my age and older, prefer the KJV. Also, I was saved, reading and studying the KJV but the KJ is a thought for thought translation and I and many Pastors, Preachers and Teachers prefer a Bible as close to a word for word translation as is possible and as a result, we prefer the NASB, one of the, very, Bible you, maliciously slander.

On top of it being as close as is possible to the word for word, one need not research the difference in the usage of every single word from the 17th Century until today... and brother, the word kill, in the Ten Commandments is a great example. Today's usage requires the Hebrew word translated Kill, in that verse, to be translated as murder. Over and over, from Genesis one, it is required for one to learn to regress and to learn to speak 17th Century English to understand what God has said.

 

[calvin]

Why not tabulate your concerns TC.
For example The JWs believe that Jesus was just one of several gods. This is supported by the xyz translation.
The JWs believe that the 144,000 are going to live exclusively in heaven while all the plebs will live on a refurbished Earth...this is supported by the abc translation, and so on.

In that way, readers can properly evaluate and discuss what your concerns are.
How can you be sure that the textus receptus is correct where it differs from the Alexandrian texts?....in every particular instances?
I'm not arguing in favor of one over the other, just not wanting to bag any text just on the basis that it was used by a 'ratbag' group.
Consider Jim Jones and the 'people's temple' would you round up every copy of whatever version of the Bible that person used and burn them just because J Jones esq. was a nut case?
Then too, look at David Koresh. Here is a recap of what he taught:


The teachings of David Koresh caused the beliefs of the Branch Davidian cult to withdraw even further from the realm of orthodoxy. The following doctrines came from Koresh:

1 — The King James Version (KJV) is the only true and uncorrupted translation of the Bible.35

2 — Koresh is the only one who can interpret Scripture.36

3 — Koresh is the antitypical Davidtaken from http://www.equip.org/articles/the-branch-davidians/
And the rest of the Wako adventure is history.

My point TC, is that the use of any given text by 'less than good' people does not stain the texts themselves.
Are we justified in thinking that Kjv only persons are all as aberrant as David Koresh? No, of course not. Each individual must be appraised by their own fruit. We need to trust that the Holy Spirit will guide each person who inquires into all necessary truth, for without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the scriptures are beyond the grasp of the unregenerate soul.
How right with the Lord are you?...were you made right by the translation you use, or were you made right by the shed blood of the Lamb of God?

 

[The Town Crier]

Why not tabulate your concerns TC.
For example The JWs believe that Jesus was just one of several gods. This is supported by the xyz translation.
The JWs believe that the 144,000 are going to live exclusively in heaven while all the plebs will live on a refurbished Earth...this is supported by the abc translation, and so on.

In that way, readers can properly evaluate and discuss what your concerns are.
How can you be sure that the textus receptus is correct where it differs from the Alexandrian texts?....in every particular instances?
I'm not arguing in favor of one over the other, just not wanting to bag any text just on the basis that it was used by a 'ratbag' group.
Consider Jim Jones and the 'people's temple' would you round up every copy of whatever version of the Bible that person used and burn them just because J Jones esq. was a nut case?
Then too, look at David Koresh. Here is a recap of what he taught:


The teachings of David Koresh caused the beliefs of the Branch Davidian cult to withdraw even further from the realm of orthodoxy. The following doctrines came from Koresh:

1 — The King James Version (KJV) is the only true and uncorrupted translation of the Bible.35

2 — Koresh is the only one who can interpret Scripture.36

3 — Koresh is the antitypical Davidtaken from http://www.equip.org/articles/the-branch-davidians/
And the rest of the Wako adventure is history.

My point TC, is that the use of any given text by 'less than good' people does not stain the texts themselves.
Are we justified in thinking that Kjv only persons are all as aberrant as David Koresh? No, of course not. Each individual must be appraised by their own fruit. We need to trust that the Holy Spirit will guide each person who inquires into all necessary truth, for without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the scriptures are beyond the grasp of the unregenerate soul.
How right with the Lord are you?...were you made right by the translation you use, or were you made right by the shed blood of the Lamb of God?

Jesus said my blood is drink and unless you drink you have no life in you...Take of the water of life freely. His words are the water of life my friend. That is why we are born again by them and how the Holy Spirit washes us and regenerates our hearts and minds. When you muddy His word or pollute it as was done by the 'critical text' you no longer have a pure word. I never said KJV... I said received text VS Critical text. That is the difference between the KJV and the newer versions. Anyone can take what is good and turn it bad- hence David Koresh. Only God can take what is bad and make it good...

Again- go do your homework on the 'Critical Text' and you will see how badly it corrupts God's word. We will take just one instance...The trinity is removed from the NIV...

First KJV: 1 John 5: 7-8

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.


Now read the NIV- completely removed

7 For there are three that testify:8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.




Again in 1 Timothy 3:16

KJV
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.


the NIV

16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:

He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,[d]
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.


Again in 1 John 3;16

Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

NIV

16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.


In the Greek -those three places where 'God' is used the word is 'Theos' Why would the three places that God is named that refer to the oneness of Christ and God be removed in the NIV? Again- do your homework on Wescott and Hort and their alternative Greek Manuscript. It does not have the same gospel message as the Textus Receptus! The writers of the 'other' Greek new testament (Wescott and Hort) did not believe Jesus was God made flesh so they 'attempted' to change it. They believed in the teachings of the Catholic Church! Hence their writings fit that doctrine rather well...Go do your homework on where these newer versions came from folks...

TC