KJV Debate

[petrek]

Athanasius

"It seems to me that you are playing word games with "inerrant" and "infallible." I mention "inerrant" in a specific context that was clear and you substitute the word "infallible" and suggest that inerrancy refers to the planets. Perhaps you should define clearly and concisely what you mean by infallible."

"Once again, please define what you mean by "infallible.""

Infallible-not capable of error.

My apologies Athanasius, you were using inerrant in the synonomous sense with infallible. Inerrancy tends to be used to reference the non-existant autographs and thus my unneeded correction where you used inerrant in place of infallible. (I believe infallible is a stronger word than inerrant, and with the deceptive use of the word inerrant when people refer to scripture, I use infallible so as there is no confusion as to what is meant. I meant no ill will, I was only trying to clarify what was meant as you seem to agree with JohnnyReb and he holds to the Chicago Statement on Inerrany wherein it is stated that inerrancy only refers to the original autographs which no longer exist)


"Let me aske you a very direct question: is it your belief that I, by critiiquing the KJV, am simply a mouthpiece of Satan in this thread?"

I am not the one to judge your heart in this matter (that is for God to do), I believe you are sincere in trying to understand this most serious and at times very confusing of issues, and as a friend of mine says when I ask a direct question in regards to my personal understanding of an issue- if the shoe fits wear it. Granted, that's not the answer you or I hope to hear in response to our inquiries but it is (edit) the Truth, only God is capable of judging the thoughts and intents of one's heart.

Dave

 

[Josephus]

Pick your version, the majority of texts certaibly will allow the spirit to work into the hearts of men. As far as innerent or infallible is concerned, I personally have adifficult time in accepting either term for any version. If you take all original manuscripts of the NT works and line them up, there is not a single word that agrees in the entire NT. As far as literal translations are concerned, the NASB is regarded by most exegites as the most literal translation...

Translation Information

 

[PlatinumGold]

Petrek

you say again and again the value of WORDS, what about punctuation?

Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

this is how it stands in the KJV.

it would be just as valid (because you don't find punctuation in the Greek to have said.

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee today, Shalt thou be with me in paradise.

do the 2 have different meanings, obviously so, but the choice would depend on the readers predisposition to a certain belief.

 

[Athanasius]

petrek:

OK, to you "infallible" means "incapable of error." Then please refer to spendthrift's 8:49 a.m. post.

How can something, by your own words, be "not absolutely perfect" and "incapable of error" at the same time?

 

[petrek]

"Petrek

you say again and again the value of WORDS, what about punctuation?

Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

this is how it stands in the KJV.

it would be just as valid (because you don't find punctuation in the Greek to have said.

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee today, Shalt thou be with me in paradise.

do the 2 have different meanings, obviously so, but the choice would depend on the readers predisposition to a certain belief."

Platinum Gold, Providential preservation.

because Greek has no punctuation, the verse would be rendered 'And Jesus said unto him verily I say unto thee today shalt thou be with me in paridise.'

Dave

PS Athanasius, fear not. I have been mulling over my future response to that the last couple of days, I did make reference to it earlier, both to you and JohnnyReb.

 

[Polgara]

Did some more reading on this, and now my brain hurts.

Let me see if I have it straight?

1. There is no dissagreement on the Old Testament (except from JohnnyReb)

2. The quesiton on the New Testament has to do with WHICH greek text to use. The KJV guys used what they had, and a few hundred years later we found some more stuff, and figured that older is better.

Question:

What about the New King James Version. It is translated from the same text as the Old King James Version? Petrek, is a newer trans from the same Greek good enough?

Why is older better? It seems that Petrek's jot and tittle thing would favor the KJV, because the stuff found under a Pyramid is less likely to be what God preserved that what was out to be used (and therefore destroyed). Unless JohnnyReb is right and jot and tittle only refers to the OT, which would be why there is no big debate over the Old Testament. ....brain....hurts.....

Sarah <== can't think of anything cute

 

[petrek]

" Wednesday April 10, 2002 12:47 AM (NEW!)

Did some more reading on this, and now my brain hurts.

Let me see if I have it straight?

1. There is no dissagreement on the Old Testament (except from JohnnyReb)

2. The quesiton on the New Testament has to do with WHICH greek text to use. The KJV guys used what they had, and a few hundred years later we found some more stuff, and figured that older is better.

Question:

What about the New King James Version. It is translated from the same text as the Old King James Version? Petrek, is a newer trans from the same Greek good enough?

Why is older better? It seems that Petrek's jot and tittle thing would favor the KJV, because the stuff found under a Pyramid is less likely to be what God preserved that what was out to be used (and therefore destroyed). Unless JohnnyReb is right and jot and tittle only refers to the OT, which would be why there is no big debate over the Old Testament. ....brain....hurts.....

Sarah <== can't think of anything cute"

Sarah, relax , your concerns will be answered in due time. For any of us to think we can resolve the various issues involved in a matter of a week or two, when men have devoted their entire lives to these issues is unrealistic.

There are a few articles on the subject here.

Dave

 

[Spendthrift]

i actually find this whole debate quite intriguing.

i had no idea that there were such strong opinions against various translations of the Bible.

Dave - i read through most of the link to way of life (skimmed parts) and didnt really find much but a rant against evangelicals (neo-evangelicals) and any versions of the Bible thats not KJV. the author quoted a lot of people saying how horrible the neo-evangelical movement was, but none of the quotes adequately explained why it was so bad. the quotes merely make claims that it was leading people astray, running the middle ground, and caught up with worldly intellectualism. i never saw examples to back up any of these claims, only the claims themselves (unless i missed it). so without justification for the claims, i cannot agree with the author.

spendthrift <--- still mulling everything over

 

[petrek]

Spendthrift, I only glanced at a few of the articles on the KJV version which further explain the confusion associated with it, which I thought would be helpful to Sarah who is trying to grasp the issues involved. I did read the article on Billy Graham, and I recall him quoting Billy Graham, and with those quotes backing up his claims.

Dave

 

[petrek]

Here then is the reply:

statement a) I believe the Bible is inerrant.

statement b) I believe the Bible is inerrant.

It is obvious then, that the two statements are completely different. Statement A is True, while statement B is in error. Some would say statement A is perfect, while yet others would say statement B is perfect. Most assuredly, however, both statements are exactly the same.

 

[Spendthrift]

Dave, the above post lost me. what were you replying to?

if you could please clarify the above post i would appreciate it. i missed whatever you were trying to say.

thanx

 

[Mikelh]

This is a good, thoughtful debate, and no arrows...yet. There are many reliable sources on both sides of the debate.

Have any of you shared the Gospel of Jesus Christ today?

The amazing thing about God's grace is there is no version! The Gospel of Christ saves in ANY language!

Let's applaud the Holy Spirit for His power to bring us to the cross.


Michael

 

[Polgara]

It is obvious then, that the two statements are completely different. Statement A is True, while statement B is in error. Some would say statement A is perfect, while yet others would say statement B is perfect. Most assuredly, however, both statements are exactly the same.

Sarah <== wee bit confused

 

[Josephus]

<< Protestant translators sometimes did not have access to all of the Received Greek Official Text, and being familiar with the Vulgate, they sometimes put words into their translations based upon the Latin which were never there in the original Greek. Schaff points out that in about 80 places in the New Testament, the KJV adopts Latin readings not found in the Greek. Erasmus had a corrupt, incomplete text of Revelation to work from, and hence this book has many errors in the KJV. >>



From an Article Defending the KJV

reading the definition of inerrant once again?

 

[Spendthrift]

josephus - fascinating article

im curious about the authors source(s) for the corrections, omissions, ect. is it from his own scholarship or corrections made by others?

 

[Mikelh]

<<

<< Protestant translators sometimes did not have access to all of the Received Greek Official Text, and being familiar with the Vulgate, they sometimes put words into their translations based upon the Latin which were never there in the original Greek. Schaff points out that in about 80 places in the New Testament, the KJV adopts Latin readings not found in the Greek. Erasmus had a corrupt, incomplete text of Revelation to work from, and hence this book has many errors in the KJV. >>



From an Article Defending the KJV

reading the definition of inerrant once again? >>



Thank you for such a good link.

Michael

 

[sandorski]

This is an interesting topic to be sure, but my opinion of this is similar to my opinion of Creationism, pre/mid/post rapture doctrine, and many other "important issues", they are a waste of time and can never be resolved.

Paul, speaking on the issue of eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols, gave a good solution to these types of disagreements. If your conscience can't allow you to read anything but the KJV, then read the KJV. If your conscience has no issue with other versions, choose whatever version works for you. Don't let what your conscience dictates to you to be the final word on what everyone else should do as well, it is their to help you, not to divulge some Truth to those whom disagree with you.

Too often, these issues are born out of some unspoken "Holiness" or "Righteousness" competition, common among young Christians. In time, and only in time, one comes to the realization that even after salvation, there is *no* Holiness/Righteousness from one's own efforts or beliefs. Like someone once said to me, "It's Jesus!", without the Grace that has been bestowed by His sacrifice there is nothing that can be construed as worthiness. All our efforts from birth to salvation to our deaths are the same, meaningless.

 

[Mikelh]

<< Too often, these issues are born out of some unspoken "Holiness" or "Righteousness" competition, common among young Christians. In time, and only in time, one comes to the realization that even after salvation, there is *no* Holiness/Righteousness from one's own efforts or beliefs. Like someone once said to me, "It's Jesus!", without the Grace that has been bestowed by His sacrifice there is nothing that can be construed as worthiness. All our efforts from birth to salvation to our deaths are the same, meaningless. >>



AMEN!

It's better for us to get on with the work that we have been called to do, "make disciples", "preach the gospel, teaching them to obey all things that Christ has taught us". In my own words.

Anybody can carry a bible of any translation, living it is the challenge!

Michael

 

[petrek]

"Anybody can carry a bible of any translation, living it is the challenge!"

And so you live according to a certain set of words, and when you get tired of those words you pick up other words, and maybe the next time you'll make your own words, so that you can live the way you want, not the way God wants. So I have to ask you in all seriousness, What exactly are you living? What's your doctrine, your reproof, your correction, and your instruction? Having an unmarried woman give birth is not a miracle, having a virgin give birth is, the virgin birth of Christ lives and dies depending on the version used.

Dave

 

[Spendthrift]

"the virgin birth of Christ lives and dies depending on the version used"

matt 1:23 - ASV, RSV, KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, LITV, and Youngs Literal Translation all refer to mary as a virgin

luke 1:27 - again ASV, RSV, KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, LITV, and Youngs Literal Translation all refer to mary as a virgin and not as an unmarried woman

isaiah 7:14 - this time ASV, KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, LITV, and Youngs Literal Translation all refer to a virgin concieving. however, the RSV says a young woman will concieve.

Dave - i can understand if you have issues with the RSV, however it would seem that ASV, KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, LITV, and Youngs Literal Translation are all equally acceptable and that "the virgin birth of Christ" is well represented in any of these 7 versions. i think your claim that the KJV is the only acceptable option, is not supported in this instance.

 

[PlatinumGold]

<< And so you live according to a certain set of words, and when you get tired of those words you pick up other words, and maybe the next time you'll make your own words, so that you can live the way you want, not the way God wants. So I have to ask you in all seriousness, What exactly are you living? What's your doctrine, your reproof, your correction, and your instruction? >>



GOD

 

[Mikelh]

<< "Anybody can carry a bible of any translation, living it is the challenge!"

And so you live according to a certain set of words, and when you get tired of those words you pick up other words, and maybe the next time you'll make your own words, so that you can live the way you want, not the way God wants. So I have to ask you in all seriousness, What exactly are you living? What's your doctrine, your reproof, your correction, and your instruction? Having an unmarried woman give birth is not a miracle, having a virgin give birth is, the virgin birth of Christ lives and dies depending on the version used.

Dave >>



Dave,

With all due respect, I've been a student of the Bible for over 10 years. I've used at least 3 to study from, including KJV. I have NEVER been persuaded to believe to the contrary about:

the virgin birth
the God-Man, Christ
His death, burial, and resurrection.

In fact, I've not been taught anything wrong from the Word of God in other translations. Why? I'm indwelled by the Holy Spirit, He is my teacher.

What exactly shall we live? A life pleasing to Christ!

"So that you may walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please [Him] in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God." Colossians 1:10 NASB



Dave, are you implying that men of God who use other translations are misleading the flock? That's a dangerous indictment!! Men like John MacArthur Jr.? Joe Stowell, Moody Bible Institute? Warren Weirsbe? Billy Graham?????? Truth for Life's Alistair Begg? There are plenty of men blessed by God, and they're using a different translation than the KJV.

Michael

 

[petrek]

"Dave,

With all due respect, I've been a student of the Bible for over 10 years. I've used at least 3 to study from, including KJV. I have NEVER been persuaded to believe to the contrary about:

the virgin birth
the God-Man, Christ
His death, burial, and resurrection."

Have you considered the fact that you believe those doctrines to be True, and that say, if you were to read the RSV where it says "unmarried woman" rather than "virgin" you convert the meaning to the one you know to be True. Whereas someone of unbelief (or someone who has heard strong arguments backed by a corrupted version of "the word of God" against the virgin birth) would not, and upon reading in "God's inerrant word" about an "unmarried woman" giving birth to the Messiah as a sign, that that would undoubtably lead them to deny the Doctrine of the virgin birth.


"In fact, I've not been taught anything wrong from the Word of God in other translations. Why? I'm indwelled by the Holy Spirit, He is my teacher."

Can you tell the difference between the Holy Spirit, and an angel of light, and if so how?


"What exactly shall we live? A life pleasing to Christ!"

Which Christ?


"Dave, are you implying that men of God who use other translations are misleading the flock?"

What else would I be implying by saying that all versions other than the KJV are corrupt, being that they contain the words and thoughts of corruptable/fallible men, rather than the words of an incorruptable/infallible Creator.

Sincerely
Dave

 

[petrek]

""the virgin birth of Christ lives and dies depending on the version used"

matt 1:23 - ASV, RSV, KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, LITV, and Youngs Literal Translation all refer to mary as a virgin

luke 1:27 - again ASV, RSV, KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, LITV, and Youngs Literal Translation all refer to mary as a virgin and not as an unmarried woman

isaiah 7:14 - this time ASV, KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, LITV, and Youngs Literal Translation all refer to a virgin concieving. however, the RSV says a young woman will concieve.

Dave - i can understand if you have issues with the RSV, however it would seem that ASV, KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, LITV, and Youngs Literal Translation are all equally acceptable and that "the virgin birth of Christ" is well represented in any of these 7 versions. i think your claim that the KJV is the only acceptable option, is not supported in this instance."

The problem however, is this. The RSV has, I'm confident in saying, been endorsed by Godly men as trustworthy. The RSV as you well point out denies one of the basic Christian Doctrines, namely the virgin birth. So, why then would Godly men claim that a Bible which denies the virgin birth of Christ in favor of Christ being the child of an unmarried woman, is trustworthy, unless of course, as noted in my initial post, that the purpose of the Westcott and Hort revision was to decieve Godly men into spreading lies, and preparing the way for the Antichrist (who will be a man, yet will be worshipped as Christ).

If God is not the author of confusion, why then is there confusion for some. Maybe not for yourself, but most definitely for others on this issue. Was Christ the child of an unmarried woman as He says in His word, or was Christ the Messiah, born of a virgin, as He says in His word.

Dave

 

[Mikelh]

<< Can you tell the difference between the Holy Spirit, and an angel of light, and if so how? >>



Easily. He is righteous in all things, He brings my heart to repentance, not rebellion. He leads me through troubled times with truth and encouragement, He gives me assurance that He is God. And on and on.



<< Which Christ? >>



The crucified Christ, the Son of the Living God, the One who carried my sins to the cross, the One who makes my burdens light, the One Who will raise me up when I'm down, the One Who is sinless, the God-Man, the second person of the Trinity. The way, the truth and the life! And on and on.

I have never read or used the RSV. Perhaps the RSV is your target? Not the NASB or NKJV.

This will be my final post on this thread. There is much to do besides debate this issue. I will end by pleading with you, "please do not worship a bible translation". I've watched KJV only folks end up in adultery. Did the KJV mislead them? NO! Please don't imply that Christians are misled by the Word of God in other translations. It's there sinful nature and rebellious hearts that mislead them.

Sincerely,

Michael