Companion Thread for KJV only debate

Status
Not open for further replies.

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
one on one said:
Muz said:
Well, if you'd take a moment to look at textual criticism with an unbiased eye, you'd find that there are thirteen (yes, 13) places where textual critics are unsure of the original reading (for the NT), and of those, none are significant to doctrine.

brandplucked said:
You make textual criticism sound as though there are thousands of places where things are unsure, and we can't rely upon it, and there are major problems.

There aren't. Muz, this is pure Baloney. Where on earth did you get your “13 places” figure? Are you inventing these numbers from your own vivid imagination? That is so utterly over the top, out of the ballpark ridiculous that nobody who knows a modicum of the textual differences that exist today could possibly take you seriously.

Do we go with the RSV that omits some 45 entire verses from the New Testament that are found in the NKJV, plus another 2000 to 3000 other words besides? Or how about your NIV that omits 17 entire verses plus half of another 50 verses, plus hundreds of other words from the texts used by such versions as the NKJV? Or the ESV that omits even more whole verses than the NIV but not as many as the previous RSV? And all of them often and not in the same places reject the Hebrew readings. Who are you trying to kid?

This is a poor attempt by brandplucked to set up and attack a strawman. Note that Muz stated there are 13 places where the translators were unsure of the original reading. Brandplucked responded with a statement of omitted verses and words. That these verses and words were omitted are a sign that the the translators were sure enough of their work to leave the verses out. Brandplucked attempted to equate leaving verses out with not understanding them. Sorry brandplucked, your tactic failed and you did not add information other than yet another list of differences between translations.

one on one said:
brandplucked said:
I want to thank the Theology Online members for allowing me the opportunity to defend the Book as being the inerrant, preserved and complete words of the living God.

Finally, brandplucked closes with this statement. I must say that brandplucked did a spectacularly bad job at defending the inerrancy of the KJV. I had hoped that I would learn something new about the KJV and instead all I got were the same tired old lists of differences between translations, an unsupported assertion that one is the standard by which all others must be measured and an blanket accusation that those who do not believe in KJV-only are inferior Christians of weak faith.

Brandplucked supporters on this thread (Stephen Avery and AVbunyan) were equally ineffective at providing any substantial support for their position. Indeed, Steven abandoned this thread when pressed for scriptural authority for his claim.

For all their passion about their claim of superiority, I am forced to conclude that their position is a man made position, weakly supported based on historical claims. They have presented no evidence the the KJV is superior and have in fact admitted that other bibles can bring others to a saving relationship with Christ; a position that undercuts their claim that modern version are uninspired.
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
So, I guess if God has kept his promise and preserved his Word for us, it's either in the King James Bible or scattered in bits & pieces among thousands of ancient manuscripts and among thirty or so bible versions. It's up to us to decide which words are God's and which words are man's. Pretty tough job for a man to do,
we have a tough enough time deciding what to eat for lunch each day, much less a job of this magnitude.



The One on One thread is closing May 2nd...time for Muz to get in one last parting shot.
 

AVBunyan

New member
So, I guess if God has kept his promise and preserved his Word for us, it's either in the King James Bible or scattered in bits & pieces among thousands of ancient manuscripts and among thirty or so bible versions. It's up to us to decide which words are God's and which words are man's. Pretty tough job for a man to do,
we have a tough enough time deciding what to eat for lunch each day, much less a job of this magnitude.
Great point SaulToPaul -
Below is from another forum on that the subject of multiple and conflicting authorities....

1. My final absolute final authority is God and what he said in his word.
2. My final authority is not Peter Ruckman.
3. My final authority is not in one particular translation of the Bible.
1. Great - you answered just I figured you would.
Sounds good (and God is the final authority) but if God is your final authority where do you go to get what God says? How many sources?
In his word, you say? Which word? You seem to like many different conflicting words!
When your “words” conflict then what is your basis for choosing which one is right? Does that basis (Greek-Hebrew-Lexicon-Professor, etc.) then become your final authority?
Example - When you say Easter is wrong then the Greek you are going to correct it with becomes your final authority?
Example – regarding all the other imperfections in the AV – Is whatever you use to correct them…are they now your final authority?
Example – if God says something in one version and another version God says something different (and the examples are numerous) then how do you decide what God REALY said?
Are you getting the problem here JB? Whether you want to admit it or not JB by saying God is your final authority and leaving it to that you are in a mess because according to the crowd you run with here then God speaks with forked tongue!.
You think you are fine and got all the errors and issues covered until someone like BT comes along with a new one you haven’t heard before like Psa. 23:6 – when will it end?

BTW – who taught you all these “errors” in the AV – the Lord or the devil?

2. Your accusing me of Dr. Ruckman being my final authority was a cheap shot on your part and uncalled for.

3. Then by your own admission it is in several? OR like some here it is in any valid version (gag me) or in 5,000 different Greek texts and versions? Doesn’t this become rather confusing after a while? Do you ever really know? Does the search really ever end? Poor ole' farmer Jones who doesn't have access to your thousands of soruces! :bang:

My final authority is God also and when I want to know exactly what he said I open up my King James Bible and judge everything in this universe by that standard. I judge all versions, all texts, my wife, my mom, my heart, my boss, the pope, the greatest scientists, Noah Webster, etc. by what God said and what he says today is found in a King James Bible. :first:

So – stick with your #3 until someone comes up with a new and improved version, old manuscript, new revelation, and new “error” and then you will have more sources to use to try to decide which is right. What a way to live. :hammer:
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Well, hopefully my last post cleared away all the smoke and mirrors to address the foundational issue of the debate. There simply is no basis for KJVO, either in Scripture or in logic. The doctrine of preservation put forth by the KJVO fails the Scripture and reality test.

Not much more needs be said.

Muz
 

brandplucked

New member
God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible

God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible

So, I guess if God has kept his promise and preserved his Word for us, it's either in the King James Bible or scattered in bits & pieces among thousands of ancient manuscripts and among thirty or so bible versions. It's up to us to decide which words are God's and which words are man's. Pretty tough job for a man to do,
we have a tough enough time deciding what to eat for lunch each day, much less a job of this magnitude.

Hi SaultoPaul, you are correct. Not one of these men has nor believes in an inerrant Bible or "book of the Lord". It is the Every Man For Himself Bible Version Syndrome. Every man does that which is right in his own eyes and none of them even believes his own hodge-podge personal version has got it right.

It's all just another sign of the times of rampant apostasy we live in. It's all predicted in the Scriptures none of them believes to be the inerrant words of God.

Will K
 

brandplucked

New member
God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible

God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible

Well, hopefully my last post cleared away all the smoke and mirrors to address the foundational issue of the debate. There simply is no basis for KJVO, either in Scripture or in logic. The doctrine of preservation put forth by the KJVO fails the Scripture and reality test.

Not much more needs be said.

Muz

Muz, I asked you at least twice to list for us the Scripture that you use to support your statement that God has preserved His words. You never did get around to answering this. You said you believe God has preserved His words. So why not tell us which verses you base this on?

I have lots of them. I listed them in the opening post. So, which ones would you use?

Will K
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
So, I guess if God has kept his promise and preserved his Word for us, it's either in the King James Bible or scattered in bits & pieces among thousands of ancient manuscripts and among thirty or so bible versions. It's up to us to decide which words are God's and which words are man's. Pretty tough job for a man to do,
we have a tough enough time deciding what to eat for lunch each day, much less a job of this magnitude.
It is. Brandplucked couldn't do it.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Perhaps you should just admit that your Bible is a mixture of man's words and God's words and Matthew 4:4 KJV is impossible for you to do...
My Bible, the NIV, is a wholly inspired translation. It contains all of the Words that God uses to give me a rich and abundant life. I connot admit what you ask because it is not true. God did not preserve His word once, He is constantly preserving His word for each generation.
 

Psalmist

Blessed is the man that......
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
CabinetMaker, I have used your post, edited . . .

Note that Muz stated there are 13 places where the translators were unsure of the original reading. Brandplucked responded with a statement of omitted verses and words. That these verses and words were omitted are a sign that the translators were sure enough of their work to leave the verses out.


For all their passion about their claim of superiority, I am forced to conclude that their position is a man made position, weakly supported based on historical claims. They have presented no evidence the the KJV is superior and have in fact admitted that other bibles can bring others to a saving relationship with Christ; a position that undercuts their claim that modern version are uninspired.

"Other Bibles can bring one to a saving relationship with Christ" - Yes, Amen!

:think:

The Preface to the KJV and the Translators -

"Truly, good Christian Reader, we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark." - Preface to the King James Bible

1. The Translators to the Reader

2. Changes in the King James Version

3. Preface to the King James Version 1611, part 1 of 10

Questions from "KJV Refuted" . . .

  • Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769.
  • What Bible would the KJVer’s recommend since before 1611 there was no Bible.
  • If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why wouldn’t God repeat the process in a modern language in each language and generation?
  • If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?
  • Why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate translation possibilities?
  • If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates!
  • If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it?
  • Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from "The Translators to the Reader."?



Let it be understood there is no displeasure or disrespect to anyone about the KJV or KJVer's or Non-KJVer's.
.





That's​
- 30 -​
:scripto:. . Psalmist
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Muz, I asked you at least twice to list for us the Scripture that you use to support your statement that God has preserved His words. You never did get around to answering this. You said you believe God has preserved His words. So why not tell us which verses you base this on?

I have lots of them. I listed them in the opening post. So, which ones would you use?

Will K

I didn't answer it in the debate, because that wasn't the subject of the debate. You clearly stated that you had no basis upon which to claim that the KJV was the preserved and inerrant word of God. That pretty much ended the debate right there.

And I still go back to 2 Peter 1-2. Peter is writing so that his audience can recall what He has taught after his death, when false teachers come, and include the writings of the OT and the disciples of Christ in the inspired writing of Scripture. Scripture was given, at least in part, to guard against false teachers (see 2:1), and God is intent on preserving His church (Matt 16), and that the disciples would be the rock upon which the Church would be built, then God would have the task of preserving His word for His church.

And He has done so, through scribes and scholarly preservation, both for OT and for NT. And the Word that was available to the church in any given time was sufficient for the Church to continue to be victorious.

And this view fits with the actual facts of history.

To be honest, your view of preservation places God in the awkward position of not having kept His Word for a very long time.

Muz
 

AVBunyan

New member
It is the faith of Abraham, and other men of old, in God, as well as the faith of Paul. He is exhorting the Galatians to have that same faith.
I knew it - the man couldn't find Christ in the scriptures if his salvation/life depended on it.
 

Peter A V

New member
Did you say /error free/perfect?

Did you say /error free/perfect?

# If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?
Pretty dumb question when you look at creation.
Just ask the same question.
If God supervised the creation process so that all was perfect/100% pure, why did not God extend his perfection to the choices of Adam and Eve in their wills?
*******
See preacher?
He that proves too much really proves nothing at all.
You have some real lame questions.:box: :dead:

PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:
Do you believe that?
 

Peter A V

New member
Musicman looses and finds his way out....

Musicman looses and finds his way out....

I didn't answer it in the debate, because that wasn't the subject of the debate. You clearly stated that you had no basis upon which to claim that the KJV was the preserved and inerrant word of God. That pretty much ended the debate right there.
Face it Musicman, you lost severely, you just use this as an excuse to make a hasty retreat, because you have no Biblical answer.For....
Where is the pure word of God in one volume?
You would not dare answer that one....
I could stake my salvation on that one with absolute confidence.:first:
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Face it Musicman, you lost severely, you just use this as an excuse to make a hasty retreat, because you have no Biblical answer.For....
Where is the pure word of God in one volume?
You would not dare answer that one....
I could stake my salvation on that one with absolute confidence.:first:
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:
Will you answer your own question and tell me why you believe it to be so? I mean if you say, for example, the answer is the Cambridge edition of the KJV, why is it the "pure word of God"? Giving an answer that points out how the many other translations differ with the KJV is not an answer. I could pick any version and make the same claims, so there has to be something intrinisic about a particular version that sets it apart. What is it and why?

I really would like a simple straight answer.
 

brandplucked

New member
CM's 'wholly inspired' NIV

CM's 'wholly inspired' NIV

:baby:
My Bible, the NIV, is a wholly inspired translation. It contains all of the Words that God uses to give me a rich and abundant life. I connot admit what you ask because it is not true. God did not preserve His word once, He is constantly preserving His word for each generation.

Here are two examples from the Psalms that illustrate what the NIV is doing.

In Psalm 72:5 we read: "THEY SHALL FEAR THEE as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations."

. This is the reading of the KJB, Revised Version, ASV, NASB, NKJV, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Spanish, Young's, Darby's, Geneva, and the 2001 revision of the RSV called the English Standard Version.

The NIV, however reads: "HE WILL ENDURE as long as the sun..." This is also the reading of the liberal RSV and NRSV, though the new ESV has again gone back to the KJB and Hebrew reading.. But the footnotes found in the NIV, RSV, and NRSV all tell us that the reading of HE WILL ENDURE comes from the Greek Septuagint, but that the Hebrew reads "they shall fear thee".

So why did the NIV change the clear Hebrew reading? Doesn't the Hebrew make sense? Didn't God inspire the words of the Old Testament in Hebrew and not in Greek, Syriac or Latin?

The second example is found in Psalm 73:7. There the Psalmist is speaking of the foolish and wicked who prosper in this world. He says of them: "THEIR EYES STAND OUT WITH FATNESS: they have more than heart could wish."

This is the reading of not only the KJV, NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV, but also of the RSV, NRSV and the ESV versions. However the NIV says: "FROM THEIR CALLOUS HEARTS COMES INIQUITY". Then in a footnote the NIV tells us this reading comes from the SYRIAC, but that the Hebrew says "their eyes bulge with fat."

Again, why would the "good, godly, evangelical scholars" who worked on the NIV change the text, if the Hebrew clearly makes sense and there is no doubt about what it says?

Also of note is the totally changed meaning of verse 9 where we read: "THEY SET THEIR MOUTH AGAINST THE HEAVENS, and their tongue walketh through the earth."

These wicked people speak against God, blaspheme heavenly truths and talk only of earthly interests. "They set their mouth against the heavens" is the reading or meaning of even the NASB, RSV, ASV, NRSV, RV, ESV, and NKJV. Yet the NIV actually says: "Their mouths LAY CLAIM TO HEAVEN, and their tongues take possession of the earth."

Psalm 105:21-22 "He made him lord of his house, and ruler of all his substance: TO BIND his princes at his pleasure; and to teach his senators wisdom."

"to bind his princes" -So read the Hebrew texts, as well as the RV, ASV, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Geneva Bible, NKJV, ESV, Darby, Green's MKJV, Holman Standard, and Young's. The NASB says: "to imprison", and even Wallace's NET version reads: "giving him authority to IMPRISON his officials." Then he footnotes: "Heb “to BIND his officials."

However the NIV joins the liberal RSV, NRSV and says: "TO INSTRUCT his princes as he pleased." This time the NIV doesn't tell us in their footnotes why they changed the text, but the RSV, NRSV and ESV tell us that "to instruct" comes from the so called LXX, the Syriac, and Jerome, but that the Hebrew reads "to bind". Again notice that the 2001 ESV has gone back to the Hebrew reading instead of the previous RSV rejection of the Hebrew text.

There is a distinct pattern easily seen if one studies the different bible versions. The King James Old Testament is based on the Hebrew Masoretic text and the New Testament on the traditional Greek text. When the RV and ASV came out, they significantly changed the Greek text of the New Testament but kept the Masoretic text intact. Then the liberal RSV appeared with the same corrupted Greek text of the apostates Westcott and Hort, but also with many of the same changes in the Hebrew text that now appear in the NASB and the ever worsening NIV.

Will K
 

brandplucked

New member
Verses that teach Preservation

Verses that teach Preservation

I didn't answer it in the debate, because that wasn't the subject of the debate. You clearly stated that you had no basis upon which to claim that the KJV was the preserved and inerrant word of God. That pretty much ended the debate right there.
Muz

Hi Muz. I figured you would avoid answering the question again, and you did just that. YOU are the one who said you believed God has preserved His words, and then when I asked you which verse or verses you use to support this belief, you flake out and avoid answering the question with any clear verses. Why might this be? Because if you give me some verses then they will contradict and nullify your own arguments. You would end up calling God a liar again, like you did with the Mark 4:31 mustard seed fiasco you brought up.

Muz, you never did "prove" the King James Bible is not the inspired and inerrant words of God, not even close. The only thing you proved is that you yourself do not have nor believe in any Bible that is the inspired and inerrant words of God.

You had your arguments and silly examples of John 1:18 and Mark 4:31 shot down (the only two examples you managed to bring up). It is abundantly clear that you yourself have no inerrant Bible and absolutely NO Standard by which you sit in judgment on the King James Bible or any other bible for that matter, except your own fertile imagination. And now boast of having proven that the King James Bible is not the inerrant words of God.:dizzy:


Will K
 

brandplucked

New member
CabinetMaker can't read

CabinetMaker can't read

Originally Posted by Muz
Well, if you'd take a moment to look at textual criticism with an unbiased eye, you'd find that there are thirteen (yes, 13) places where textual critics are unsure of the original reading (for the NT), and of those, none are significant to doctrine.


Muz, this is pure Baloney. Where on earth did you get your “13 places” figure? Are you inventing these numbers from your own vivid imagination? That is so utterly over the top, out of the ballpark ridiculous that nobody who knows a modicum of the textual differences that exist today could possibly take you seriously.

Do we go with the RSV that omits some 45 entire verses from the New Testament that are found in the NKJV, plus another 2000 to 3000 other words besides? Or how about your NIV that omits 17 entire verses plus half of another 50 verses, plus hundreds of other words from the texts used by such versions as the NKJV? Or the ESV that omits even more whole verses than the NIV but not as many as the previous RSV? And all of them often and not in the same places reject the Hebrew readings. Who are you trying to kid?

Cabinet Maker then says:
This is a poor attempt by brandplucked to set up and attack a strawman. Note that Muz stated there are 13 places where the translators were unsure of the original reading. Brandplucked responded with a statement of omitted verses and words. That these verses and words were omitted are a sign that the the translators were sure enough of their work to leave the verses out. Brandplucked attempted to equate leaving verses out with not understanding them. Sorry brandplucked, your tactic failed and you did not add information other than yet another list of differences between translations.

CM, you REALLY have a serious reading comprehension problem, besides totally failing to grasp what we were even talking about. Muz did NOT state "there are 13 places where THE TRANSLATORS were unsure of the original reading."

Go back and read his statement (which by the way is totally off the wall and completely in error).
Well, if you'd take a moment to look at textual criticism with an unbiased eye, you'd find that there are thirteen (yes, 13) places where textual critics are unsure of the original reading (for the NT), and of those, none are significant to doctrine.


I guess one lie leads to another with you No Bible is Inspired guys. If you mess with the Book, God will mess with your mind.




Will K
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top