Battle Royale XIV discussion thread
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
The paradigm of God's Word ? Yes
In researching your claim, I can't find the actual quote. What I did find were numerous quotes from KJVO's claiming something close to what you quoted is in the introduction of that bible, but each KJVO site has different quotes that are allegedly in that bible.
Also, that bible has the Apocrypha in it, and it has the Dr. William Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, and Dr. Smith's "English Translations of the Bible" HERE
Here are some excerpts from Dr. Smith's "English Translations of the Bible" in which Dr. Smith speaks of the KJV and a new revision:
"The translation of the N.T. is from a text confessedly imperfect.... It is clear, on principle, that no revision ought to ignore the results of the textual criticism of the last hundred years......The self-imposed law of fairness which led the A.V. translators to admit as many English words as possible to the honor of representing one in the Hebrew or Greek text has, as might be expected, marred the perfection of their work.......The use of Italics in printing the A.V. is at least open to some risks. At first they seem an honest confession on the part of the translators of what is or is not in the original. On the other hand, they tempt to a loose translation..... What has been said will serve to show at once to what extent a new revision is required.....
Does the above sound like King James Onlyism?
You want us to believe that a King James Bible that contained the above quotes from Dr. Smith was published by King James Onlyists?
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Answer #2 (He will try to wiggle out of this one too)
Excerpts from the Presbyterian Encyclopaedia - 1884 - under the section of English Bible - contr. W. Adams D.D.
"Nothing which diligence, circumspection, scholarship, love of truth, and prayer, could avail was wanting to perfect this version of the Word of God. It is what it professes to be, a translation not a paraphrase; each word and expression corresponding to the original. What has, by some, been deemed a defect, is in fact a great excellence in our translation; it preserves, as far as possible, the very idiom of the original, the peculiarities of Oriental diction; thus proving that the men who made it understood what was the best style of translation - that which a transparent glass is not seen itself but shows every thing which is beyond it."
"But so it happened, in the kind providence of God, that the received version was made just in that auspicious moment of peace mind and union among Protestants, which has secured its adoption by all as the common standard. None have charged it with partiality, as favoring this or that sect, for the good reason that these sects and partialities did not then exist."
I am agnostic as to Tet's claims. If anyone can answer his challenge, then it would still not cut ice with me. But I really can't see how this answers that challenge. The writer is obviously a bit OTT in terms of his praise, but there is no way this amounts to KJVOnlyism. There is nothing here of 100% inerrancy and nothing of exclusivity either.
And besides, you would still have to answer the question 'which version is he talking about in line 2?'
Claiming and/or believing the KJB is the best translation is not the same as King James Onlyism.
King James Onlyism claims the KJB is inerrant, and all other translations have errors.
Like I said, King James Onlyism didn't exist until SDA Ben Wilkinson invented it in 1930.
Wilkinson invented KJVO because the modern translations threatened his SDA proof texts (i.e. Acts 13:42)
heir and other Hyper-Dispensationalists cling to KJVO because modern translations threaten their Hyper-Dispensationalism proof texts (i.e. Galatians 2:7)
They can't
Will Kinney tried, but couldn't.
What it proves is that no one was KJVO for over 300 years after the first KJB was printed.
It wasn't until an SDA wrote a book in 1930 that King James Onlyism came into existence.
King James Onlyism stems from Seventh Day Adventism.
Of course he can. Why is he pushing this point. There has to be some sort of MAD reason.
25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
How do you answer those that question the NT and the obvious contradictions between the red letters, the 12 and what Paul taught? Do you really try and tell them it is the same and they just don't understand? Or do you point out the truth of one thing is for one group, and another thing is for the other group?
(1 Thess 1:5 KJV) For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.
Tico
New member
This happened repeatedly as God confirmed Paul's unique message of grace and his unique apostleship.
Acts 14:3 Therefore they stayed there a long time, speaking boldly in the Lord, who was bearing witness to the word of His grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands.
2 Cor. 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds.
It was necessary because:
Gal. 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
May I politely suggest that you all discuss MAD in another thread. There are plenty to choose from.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
Its a nice suggestion, but did you realize tet is here?
:IA: DARBY!!!!!!
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Answer #3 (more silliness will be proposed for this one)
Excerpts from The Revision Revised, a critique of the Revised Version
John William Burgon
"It is clear therefore that Caprice, not Necessity, — an itching impatience to introduce changes into the A.V., not the discovery of ‘plain and clear errors,’ — has determined the great bulk
of the alterations which molest us in every part of the present unlearned and tasteless performance."
"Shame, — yes, shame on the learning which comes abroad only to perplex the weak, and to unsettle the doubting, and to mislead the blind! Shame, — yes, shame on that two-thirds majority of well-intentioned but most incompetent men who, finding themselves (in an
evil hour) appointed to correct ‘plain and clear errors’ in the English ‘Authorized Version,’ occupied themselves instead with falsifying the inspired Greek Text in countless places, and branding with suspicion some of the most precious utterances of the SPIRIT! Shame, —
yes, shame upon them! "
"But what makes this so very serious a matter is that, because HOLY SCRIPTURE is the Book experimented upon, the loftiest interests that can be named become imperilled; and it will constantly happen that what is not perhaps in itself a very serious mistake may yet inflict irreparable injury."
"Its effect will be to open men's eyes, as nothing else could possibly have done, to the dangers which beset the Revision of Scripture. It will teach faithful hearts to cling the closer to the priceless treasure which was bequeathed to them by the piety and wisdom of their fathers. It will dispel for ever the dream of those who have secretly imagined that a more exact Version, undertaken with the boasted helps of this nineteenth century of ours, would bring to light something which has been hitherto unfairly kept concealed or else misrepresented."
It was heir and STP that brought up MAD, not me.
Here:
And Here:
I never mentioned MAD until these two brought it up. Go back and look at every post I made in this thread, I never brought it up until STP and heir did.
heir thinks all non-KJB bibles are perverted because Gal 2:7 in the KJV allegedly proves her two gospel theory.
I showed that KJVO was invented by an SDA, and like SDA's do, Hyper-Dispensationalists have used KJVO to advocate their Hyper-Dispensationalism.
Once again, you fail to show King James Onlyism before 1930.
That's 3 times now.
So far, you and Will are 0 for 5
And, not only have you failed, most of the articles the two of you linked actually favored a new bible version.
Go back and look at the date and time of my post, then go back and look at the date and time of heir's post.
heir's post about two gospels and Gal 2:7 is BEFORE my post.
I responded to her post. She brought it up, not me.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Her post is in regards to the KJB, and how other versions distort the verse.
You know this.
You could not resist a Bullinger cheap shot.
Isn't that true? Fess up.