Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When the Bible Becomes an Idol: Problems with the KJV-Only Doctrine
http://www.atlantaapologist.org/kjv.html ^

Posted on 08/07/2003 8:34:50 AM PDT by fishtank

When the Bible Becomes an Idol: Problems with the KJV-Only Doctrine When the Bible Becomes an Idol: Problems with the KJV-Only Doctrine by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

This outline was covered in a lecture of the same topic at the March 1998 ACAP meeting.

1. The KJV originally contained the Apocrypha. Thus, the Bible that KJV-Only advocates use omits thousands of verses originally contained in the KJV (just over 5,700) – far more than the few verses found in the KJV but omitted in the NASB, NIV, and other modern translations (such as 1 John 5:7). It is true that the Apocrypha was widely regarded by Protestants in 1611 not to have the status of full canonicity. However, in the original 1611 edition no disclaimer was included in this regard (one was added in later editions). Furthermore, if the Apocrypha were to be included today, KJV-only advocates would vehemently object to its inclusion – a sure sign that its inclusion in the 1611 edition is a significant difference.

2. Even excluding the Apocrypha, the KJV of 1611 differed slightly from editions of the KJV in common use today.. We are not referring here to spelling changes and the like, or to misprints in later, single editions. Usually the changes are improvements – for example, Matthew 26:36 now properly reads "Then cometh Jesus," where the original KJV read "Then cometh Judas." Not all the changes are for the better, though – for example, Matthew 23:34 in the KJV originally read "strain out a gnat," which is correct, while subsequent editions of the KJV to this day have "strain at a gnat." These facts prove that the extreme KJV-Only belief that even the slightest deviation from the wording of the KJV results in a false Bible is completely unrealistic. Please note that we are not claiming that the differences are vast or troubling from our perspective. We are simply pointing out that the position that the wording of the 1611 KJV is inviolable logically requires that modern editions of the KJV not be used.

3. The translators of the KJV did not believe in the KJV-Only doctrine. a. They asserted that "the very meanest [i.e., most common or rude] translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession . . . containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." In other words, any translation of the Bible by Christian scholars is the word of God. b. They understood their work as a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek text, contrary to some extreme KJV-Only advocates who maintain that the original Hebrew and Greek text is nonexistent and irrelevant. c. The KJV originally included marginal notes containing alternate renderings – making it clear that the wording of the KJV is not above correction or improvement. They admitted that there were Hebrew words that appeared only once in the whole Old Testament whose precise meaning was a matter of conjecture or debate. d. They also included variant readings – an extremely important point that contradicts the KJV-Only doctrine that the slightest variation from the KJV text results in an unreliable or false Bible. In at least one instance they placed half a verse in italics because they were unsure whether it was original (1 John 2:23b). e. They acknowledged that they exercised liberty in rendering the same Greek or Hebrew word in a variety of ways for stylistic purposes, again proving that they did not regard their wording as the only possible or acceptable rendering of the Bible. f. They took as a guiding principle the belief that the Bible should be translated into the "vulgar," or common, language of the people – implying that as the English language changes new translations may be needed. g. They asserted that there was value in having a variety of translations of the Scriptures.

4. The KJV Bible itself does not teach the KJV-Only Doctrine. a. No verse of the KJV indicates that there can be only one translation in any language. Much less does any verse of the KJV teach (as some KJV-Only advocates maintain) that there can be only one language version of the Bible at a time and that the only Bible in the world today is the KJV. b. The KJV does clearly teach that God's word is pure and that God promised to preserve his word. But in no verse does the KJV indicate that this preservation would occur without variant readings or renderings. To say that God's word is "pure" is not the same thing as saying that there can be no variations from one version of the Bible to another. It is, rather, simply to say that what God has said is absolutely reliable. But we must still determine precisely what God said. Did he say what is in the Apocrypha? Did he say 1 John 5:7? The purity of God's word is an axiom, but it does not automatically answer these questions. c. The KJV does teach that no one should add to or subtract from God's word. This does place a serious responsibility on the textual scholar and the translator; but it does not tell us which English version is correct about disputed verses such as 1 John 5:7.

5. The KJV-Only doctrine contradicts the evidence of the KJV Bible itself. a. If the KJV-Only doctrine were true, we would expect that quotations from the Old Testament (OT) appearing in the New Testament (NT) would be worded exactly the same. But this is usually not the case in the KJV. Granted, God might legitimately inspire the NT authors to reword certain OT verses. But this explanation does not cover all the evidence. b. The fact is that the vast majority of OT quotations in the NT differ at least slightly. Why would God inspire NT authors to reword OT statements routinely if there is only one legitimate wording for each OT verse? c. In some cases in the NT the OT quotation is presented as what a person in NT times actually read, or could read, in his copy of the OT. For example, several times Jesus asked the Jews if they had never read a particular OT text – and then quoted it in a form that differs from the KJV (Matt. 19:4-5 [Gen. 1:27; 2:24]; Matt. 21:16 [Ps. 8:2]; Matt. 21:42 and Mark 12:10 [Ps. 118:22-23]; Matt. 22:32 and Mark 12:26 [Ex. 3:6]). If the Bible is properly worded in only one way and any variant is a corruption of the Bible, then Jesus was asking them if they had read something which, according to KJV-Only reasoning, they could not have read. Elsewhere we are told that a person read an OT text, where the KJV of that OT text differs from what appears in the NT quotation (Luke 4:17-19 [Isa. 61:1-2]; 10:26-28 [Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18]; Acts 8:32-33 [Isa. 53:7-8]). These facts prove that the OT text which the Nazareth synagogue, Jesus himself, the rich young ruler, and the Ethiopian ruler had differed in wording from the OT in the KJV.

6. The KJV-Only doctrine is not the historic belief of the Christian faith. In the history of Christianity only two other versions of the Bible have ever been treated as the Bible, and even in these two cases not to the exclusion of other language versions. But those two versions were the Greek Septuagint (OT) and the Latin Vulgate, both of which (especially the latter) are typically rejected by KJV-Only advocates as perversions of the Bible. The Vulgate was treated as the only valid Bible for centuries by the Roman Catholic church in order to maintain uniformity in Bible reading and interpretation. Yet KJV-only advocates commonly regard the Septuagint and the Vulgate texts as false versions or "perversions" of the Bible. To be consistent, then, they must maintain that for over half of church history (over a thousand years) there was no Bible available to anyone outside a tiny number of scholars (if to anyone at all). In Protestantism the belief that the Bible may exist in multiple versions even in the same language has freed the Bible from the monopolistic control of the clergy or the theologians. The KJV-Only doctrine is a reactionary movement, limited almost exclusively to a segment of American fundamentalists (with much smaller followings in other English-speaking countries).

7. The KJV-Only doctrine does not fit the facts about the transmission of the Bible. a. According to at least some versions of the KJV-Only doctrine, God preserved the Bible against any and all deviations, so that the true Bible has always been the same. But there is no evidence that this has happened. In fact the Bible and portions of it have been freely copied, re-copied, and translated with great freedom in the first five centuries of the church and in the last five centuries (so far). This resulted in many variations and deviations from the original text. b. The copies of the first 1500 years or so of church history were all produced by hand, and no two extant manuscripts are completely alike. It is unrealistic to expect that before the printing press an absolutely unchanging text would be preserved by anyone – and the evidence from the extant manuscripts proves that in fact it did not happen. c. In the case of the New Testament, the distinctive Greek text tradition on which the KJV was based, known as the Byzantine text, does not appear to have existed in the early church. The best evidence we have so far suggests that the Alexandrian text tradition is the earliest. This claim is vigorously rejected by KJV-only advocates, and the arguments pro and con are many and the issue too complicated for most non-scholars to follow and appreciate. However, a simple observation can here be made even here. For the KJV-only doctrine to be correct, in every place where the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts differ, the Byzantine must always be right. To base one's doctrine on such an unprovable and dubious assumption is not wise.

8. One need not adhere to the KJV-only doctrine to respect the KJV as God's word. Many evangelical Christians greatly revere the KJV, read it, quote from it, believe it, and seek to live by it, who do not subscribe to the KJV-only doctrine.

9. One need not adhere to the KJV-only doctrine to express criticisms of other translations. Many evangelicals who do not hold to the KJV-only doctrine have specific criticisms of other translations. For example, many evangelicals are critical of gender-inclusive translations such as the NRSV. Many evangelicals have pointed out weaknesses or problems in the NIV. Sober criticism of other translations assumes a humble perspective that recognizes that no translator or translators have produced a perfect translation and that translators who make mistakes are not necessarily corrupting God's word.

10. Advocacy of the KJV-only doctrine is no guarantee of doctrinal truth or interpretive accuracy. A variety of Christian sects of American origin embrace the KJV in more or less exclusivistic fashion. a. Arguably the "Ruckmanites," a fundamentalist Baptistic movement that looks to Peter Ruckman as its primary spokesperson, is a distinct subgroup of American fundamentalism with almost cultish characteristics. Their basic theology seems sound enough, but it is overlaid with such extremism and legalism in its view of the Bible as to undermine its evangelical view of salvation. b. Mormonism uses the KJV as its official Bible, even though Joseph Smith produced an "inspired" revision of the Bible (which some Mormons also use). The Mormons have a strong commitment to the KJV because it was the Bible of the early LDS prophets, the Book of Mormon quotes (indeed, plagiarizes) whole chapters from the KJV, and Mormons have found it convenient to use the KJV in evangelizing especially in English-speaking countries. c. Many Oneness Pentecostals hold to a form of the KJV-only doctrine, especially on a popular level among pastors and laity. In their case they find it convenient to stick with the KJV because in certain places its wording is more compatible with the way the Oneness doctrine is articulated than modern translations (e.g., Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 3:16). Oneness Pentecostals often object to arguments based on the Greek or Hebrew as vain attempts to improve on the Bible.

11. The KJV-only doctrine requires that we have some sort of faith in the KJV translators. KJV-only advocates constantly complain that if we don't have one sure Bible, the KJV, then we have to trust what scholars say about the text and its translation. But they are placing their faith solely in the KJV translators. A genuinely Protestant approach to the Bible requires that we not trust any one translator or translation team. Lay Christians can compare different translations to help get at the truth about any passage – or at least to become aware of possible disputes over the meaning of the passage.

12. Advocates of the KJV-only doctrine all too commonly exhibit a spiteful and disrespectful attitude toward other Christians. Advocates of a hard-line KJV-only position commonly label all other translations (even the NKJV) "per-versions" of the Bible. They typically accuse anyone defending these other translations of lying, denying God's word, calling God a liar, and having no faith. While there are gracious, charitable advocates of the KJV-only doctrine, in general its advocates have earned a reputation for vicious name-calling, condescension, and arrogance. To quote the original 1611 edition of the KJV, these people "strain out a gnat and swallow a camel." While zealous to defend the KJV, they betray its teachings by failing to exhibit love toward fellow believers in Jesus Christ. All too often they imply that to be saved one must not only believe in Christ, but must also adhere to the KJV as the only Bible. A doctrine that fosters such bad fruit must be bad. There is nothing wrong with loving the KJV and believing it to be the best translation of the Bible. There is something very wrong with condemning other Christians for not sharing that opinion.

Bibliography 1. Fundamentalist KJV-Only (and Related) Works

Burgon, John W. The Revision Revised. Paradise: Conservative Classics, 1977 reprint [1883]. Fuller, Daniel O., ed. Which Bible? Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International, 1978. Hodges, Zane C., and A. L. Farstad, eds. The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text. 2d ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985. Pickering, W. N. The Identity of the New Testament Text. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1977. 2. Evangelical Works Critiquing the KJV-Only Position

Carson, D. A. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979. White, James R. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995. 3. On Mormonism and the Bible

Barlow, Philip L. Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-Day Saints in American Religion. Religion in America series. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.


TOPICS: Apologetics; General Discusssion; History; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 851-866 next last

1 posted on 08/07/2003 8:34:50 AM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fishtank
interesting. thanks.
2 posted on 08/07/2003 8:59:06 AM PDT by el_chupacabra (AMDG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; CARepubGal; CCWoody; drstevej; snerkel; Jean Chauvin; Wrigley
FYI.

self bump for read later.

3 posted on 08/07/2003 9:02:15 AM PDT by Wrigley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: el_chupacabra
"11. The KJV-only doctrine requires that we have some sort of faith in the KJV translators. KJV-only advocates constantly complain that if we don't have one sure Bible, the KJV, then we have to trust what scholars say about the text and its translation. But they are placing their faith solely in the KJV translators. A genuinely Protestant approach to the Bible requires that we not trust any one translator or translation team. Lay Christians can compare different translations to help get at the truth about any passage – or at least to become aware of possible disputes over the meaning of the passage."

Reminds me of another infallibility doctrine.............

4 posted on 08/07/2003 9:03:00 AM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
Reminds me of another infallibility doctrine.............

It's the keys, man! The keys! (and the bound and loose stuff a course!) And you know it's only in matters of faith and morals, not personal opinions, right???

Anyhow, good article, thanks for posting it.

5 posted on 08/07/2003 9:05:27 AM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
Hi Colleen, I don't agree with papal infallibility, but I do think it is more intellectualy defendable than KJV-onlyism.
6 posted on 08/07/2003 9:11:55 AM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
SPOTREP
7 posted on 08/07/2003 9:16:21 AM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
The meaning of that acronym is on Litekeeper's FR page.....................
8 posted on 08/07/2003 9:20:23 AM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
Not scriptually defendable, mind you, but intellectually.
9 posted on 08/07/2003 9:21:02 AM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: el_chupacabra
Did Christ, the Apostles and the Old Testament prophets speak and write in Shakespearean (i.e., King James dialect) English? Rather, was it perhaps Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, or perhaps even a little Latin and other tongues of the Middle East of thousands of years ago? If one is going to insist on scriptural purity, then one must learn to read the original languages (even through no original texts exist, nearly contemporaneous copies of many scriptures in the same languages continue to exist). The KJV-only assertion is more an indication of ignorance and intellectual distortion than any theological sound doctrine
10 posted on 08/07/2003 9:47:55 AM PDT by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog
was this response intended for me? if so, I don't know why.

11 posted on 08/07/2003 10:05:18 AM PDT by el_chupacabra (AMDG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
I just knew this article wasn't posted by fortheDeclaration.
12 posted on 08/07/2003 10:12:32 AM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
Below is posted something I posted sometime ago on another thread. It provides a brief explaination on what the differences between the King James and other bibles in use today. Hoefully this will shed a little light.

A friend once told me that it was the Roman Catholic Church that preserved the Bible, and gave us the current Bibles we use today. He stated "who knows what was actually supposed to be in the Bible as we don’t know what is hidden away in their vaults". This question really intrigued me, and made me wonder myself. I had to do a little research but I pieced together the following (from various web sites, everything from the Vatican web site to several different denominational web sites). This turns out to be a multi-piece answer:

Prior to the King James Bible of 1611, there was not a “Bible” as we know it. There were the Antiochian manuscripts, which consisted of some 5000 Greek, Hebrew and Old Latin manuscripts. In addition to this, there is the Codex Vaticanus (aka Vatican Manuscript). This codex matches (somewhat) with two other sources known as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus.

The Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus are known as the Minority Texts and originated from Alexandra, Egypt. The 5000+ Antiochian Manuscripts are known as the Majority texts, originating from Antioch, Syria.

The two most prominent of these, Vaticanus, which is sole property of the Roman Catholic Church, and Sinaiticus, are both known to be overwhelmed with errors. It is said that Sinaiticus has been corrected and altered by as many as ten different writers. In Vaticanus is found the evidence of very sloppy workmanship. Time and again words and whole phrases are repeated twice in succession or completely omitted, while the entire manuscript has had the text mutilated by some person or persons who ran over every letter with a pen making exact identification of many of the characters impossible.

Both manuscripts contain uninspired, anti-scriptural books which are not found in any Bible today.

The only place where these error laden, unreliable manuscripts excel is in the quality of the materials used on them. They have good bindings and fine animal skin pages. Their physical appearance, contrary to their worthless texts, are really rather attractive. But then we have all heard the saying, "You can't judge a book by its cover." The covers are beautiful but their texts are reprehensible.

All Bibles today use these three (yes, three!) Minority Manuscripts. The only exception is the Authorized King James Bible, which uses the 5000 greek Antiochian manuscripts Majority texts.

I myself have a personal affection for the King James Bible, so of course I will have a bias, but all my sources agree, if you want to read a Bible that is not influenced by the Vatican, then the King James Bible is it. The only reason the Apocrypha are included in the original 1611 edition is because Martin Luther (who had died a hundred plus years earlier) had voiced that while these were not inspired scripture, they were of good historical reading (later printings eventually removed the Apocrypha from the King James, though you can still order them with it included). The Vatican itself was so against the King James Bible, that in 1605, they attempted to have King James killed (one of Guy Fawkes objectives), hoping to stop the research and printing of the Bible, even hoping to put the Pope or a puppet of the Popes on the English throne.

13 posted on 08/07/2003 10:49:06 AM PDT by The Bard (http://www.reflectupon.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Bard
Prior to the King James Bible of 1611, there was not a “Bible” as we know it.

Sorry, but that's simply not true. The Geneva Bible pre-dated the KJV by 50 years, which by the way was also translated from the Majority Texts.

14 posted on 08/07/2003 12:19:11 PM PDT by Frumanchu (mene mene tekel upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu
Prior to the King James Bible of 1611, there was not a “Bible” as we know it.

Hey! Wait a sec! I thought Catholics forbid people to read the Bible until the Protestants did their own translation??? Now I find out that no Bible existed before 1611??? What's up with that?

15 posted on 08/07/2003 12:33:04 PM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu; The Bard
sorry! #15 is for the bard.

I can't figure out how the books contained in the Bible were codified by the Council of Carthage in 397 AD when the Bible didn't exist??? What were people using before 1611?

16 posted on 08/07/2003 12:35:31 PM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
What were people using before 1611?

The Geneva Bible, of course.

17 posted on 08/07/2003 12:49:31 PM PDT by A. Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
In my humble opinion, when denominations ordain ministers who have never gone to seminary, the result is "KJV Only" churches and movements.

At "real" seminaries, the history of the development of the Bible is taught.

I don't use the KJV because I find that there are too many archiac words not in use today and it distracts from my understanding of a passage. I don't mind the "thys and thous. I mostly use the New King James version.

When I do research, I use the internet. I go to BibleGateway.com and look at several versions, always including the King James.

18 posted on 08/07/2003 1:16:34 PM PDT by A. Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Patriot
OK, but what were people using before the 1550s? Like, where did all those chained up phone book Bible stories come from if the bible didn't exist before then?
19 posted on 08/07/2003 1:16:41 PM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
Probably the Latin Vulgate was used.
20 posted on 08/07/2003 1:20:00 PM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: A. Patriot
...the history of the development of the Bible...

Whaa? This topic is getting stranger and stranger!! Seems like the Bible was codified in the 390s and "development" shoulda stopped by and at that time. And what exactly is "the history of the development of the Bible" anyway?

21 posted on 08/07/2003 1:20:49 PM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
Well ya, that much even I figured. But a poster says the bible didn't exist before, 1. the KJV and then, 2. the Geneva version. Those poor schmucks who used the "wrong" or even non-existent Bible from 397 until 1557!
22 posted on 08/07/2003 1:23:48 PM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu
Prior to the King James Bible of 1611, there was not a “Bible” as we know it.

Sorry, but that's simply not true. The Geneva Bible pre-dated the KJV by 50 years, which by the way was also translated from the Majority Texts.

I would argue somewhat on this. From what I've been finding, the Geneva Bible dates 1599, so while it did predate the King James, it was not by 50 years.

Second, I still stand my my statement. As I have never done an indept study on the Geneva Bible, I may not have all my facts correct. From what I have read, it was the first to start using the the Chapter/verse numbering, so cross referencing it with a King James (or other bibles) might be easy enough. It included up to 300,000 additional words of Commentary (increasing the size by up to 1/3). While it would be a wonderful study tool, these comentary were in the margins, not in the form of footnotes or study helps at the back of the book.

I don't know if modern copies of the Geneva Bible has put this into a modern format for readers, but for me to pick up one of the original Geneva Bibles and compare it to my Bible today, it would be "different". Not to say that it wouldn't be a wonderful study tool (as my interest has been tweaked into getting a copy), but I believe it would have a different feel from bibles in use today. I have a copy of a 1611 King James. While some of the spelling is different, when compared to a King James of today, it is still a word for word match (scripturally).

Of course I may be wrong, and if so, will gladly admit it and will update my notes. I try to make sure that my research is as accurate as possible. I would have to agree that it appears there was nothing closer to our modern day bibles than the Geneva Bible, and in regards to it using majority texts shows that it was not a "puppet" bible that the Catholic church wanted put out, Of course, from what I have studied, the Catholic church in general was against anyone having a bible during those times. That has somewhat changed today.

BTW, I don't know if you are aware of this website, but check it out: http://www.tribulationforces.com/bible.shtml. In additionto the King JAmes online, they have an online version of the 1599 Geneva Bible. It is not the full Geneva Bible, but it does contain the specific verses of each book of the Bible in which a margin note applied.

23 posted on 08/07/2003 1:26:27 PM PDT by The Bard (http://www.reflectupon.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
OK, but what were people using before the 1550s? Like, where did all those chained up phone book Bible stories come from if the bible didn't exist before then?

The Tyndale Bible

24 posted on 08/07/2003 1:39:45 PM PDT by A. Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
Whaa? This topic is getting stranger and stranger!! Seems like the Bible was codified in the 390s and "development" shoulda stopped by and at that time. And what exactly is "the history of the development of the Bible" anyway?

Sorry, bad use of terms. What I meant was that the history of how the present day Bible has come down to us is taught. (ie: the different versions, especially the English language versions)

We all know that nothing should have been added or taken away from the original texts.

When you say "codified" do you mean "put into chapter and verse"? Or do you men "cannonized"?

25 posted on 08/07/2003 1:46:58 PM PDT by A. Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
Beyond the Ruckmanite cult and the LDS Church, there are two distinct groups of KJV advocates. The hard core group, mostly represented in Independent Baptist circles, with representative advocates like Gail Riplinger and institutions like Anderson-Hyles College in Indiana, believe that the KJV is itself as divinely inspired and as perfect as were the original autographs.

The soft core group, which has advocates among independent Baptists, some Holiness and Pentecostal believers, and very conservative Presbyterians, especially in the Reconstructionist camp, cast doubt upon the accuracy of the modern scholarly texts, as they combine doubtful manuscripts of Alexandrian origin, or from the Vatican archives, with the "purer" Antiochian text from which the Textus Receptus was derived. To them, non-English translations such as Luther's German Bible and the Spanish Reina-Valera, and even the New King James version, are good translations because they are based on "good" (Textus Recptus) manuscripts.

The hard core group is extra-Biblical in believing that the KJV translators were uniquely divinely inspired. The soft core group has premises that are more intellectually defensible. It is worthy to note that study Bibles associated with the most conservative theologians, such as John MacArthur (Calvinist and dispensational), R.C. Sproul (Reformed), and W.A. Criswell (conservative Southern Baptist) used the NKJV text.

26 posted on 08/07/2003 2:29:03 PM PDT by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
Bill Gothard is either KJV only or very close to it.
27 posted on 08/07/2003 3:05:50 PM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Wrigley
Aw, come on, ping ftd. Please? I'd love to hear his comments on this :>)

Note: I would, but I ain't speaking to him:>(
28 posted on 08/07/2003 3:21:10 PM PDT by irishtenor (My God is omnipotent, sorry about yours. *** Swarming Calvinists Unite!***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor; fortheDeclaration
I'm kind or surprised that he hasn't popped up yet.

But, your wish is my command.

fyi ping ftd
29 posted on 08/07/2003 3:24:45 PM PDT by Wrigley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: The Bard
As I recall, the 1599 Geneva was the second or third revision (read 'easier to read'). Whether by 12 years or 50, it still doesn't change the fact that your statement was false :)
30 posted on 08/07/2003 6:20:54 PM PDT by Frumanchu (mene mene tekel upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu
Adding, the first English translation was complete in 1382 by John Wycliffe.
31 posted on 08/07/2003 7:14:50 PM PDT by snerkel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor
LOL!
32 posted on 08/07/2003 7:17:09 PM PDT by Gamecock (U=Psa 65:4, Rom 8:28-30 , 1 Thess 5:9, Rom 9:16, Daniel 4:35)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor
LOL!
33 posted on 08/07/2003 7:17:09 PM PDT by Gamecock (U=Psa 65:4, Rom 8:28-30 , 1 Thess 5:9, Rom 9:16, Daniel 4:35)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Wrigley
fyi ping ftd

Aw, man, this was a nice. gentle and scholarly conversation we have going here....why'd ya wanna go and mess it up? :o)

34 posted on 08/07/2003 8:35:28 PM PDT by nobdysfool (Let God be true, and every man a liar...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: All
The issue of Biblical Translation Fundamentalism is essential to our faith. At it's base is the question of what you as an individual believe. Perhaps more important academically, the issue raises the invariable question of what individual ministers believe it is that they minister, and from whence comes their authority so to do. This is today mostly a non-issue because the unfortunate majority of ministers of the so-called "gospel" are actually preaching their own gospel of socio-political advocacy and would actually do better to move into that line of work, preferably after gaining some credentials, and stop impersonating priests. The simple and incontrovertible fact is that the AV1611 is the only true Bible, by this we refer to the one and only Holy Bible authorized for the Church of England by His Majesty King James the VI, and I, for which he was almost exploded in the gunpowder plot credit to the satanic devices of Roman Popery. Our premises in this simple scientific question must be straightforward; given that there does exist a God, and given that the same God has somewhere in time communicated anything with mankind, would there exist today a record of it? For every true Christian the answer is resoundingly affirmative. I do not believe in a God that would give us His Holy Word as a rule and guide for our living and faith only to let it fall into the corruption of a thousand translated copyrighted rags derived on the confidence of popery. The simple facts are these, and you will not learn this in any seminary in the world although it is a common sense deduction; any minister who does not acknowledge the AV1611 has no authority on which to preach save that of his contrived priesthood, furthermore any minister who uses an English Translation other that the AV1611 is a de facto servant of H.H. the Pontiff, Self Proclaimed Vicar of Christ on earth. If you who disregard the AV1611 as antiquated would ask your master the Pontifex Maximus where the word of God is, he would point to himself, because he cannot err, according to his own decree in the nineteenth century, when speaking ex cathedra. Not only is the pontiff sole propreitor of the word of God for all Romanists, but he technically is God for all Romanists. Why do modern Christians need the real God when they have there master in Rome. Make no mistake, if the AV1611 is the only version translated without the use of the Vaticanus manuscripts, which no one outside the Vatican hierarchy has ever laid eyes on but only been furnished with copies, then it is certainly the only version free of the vile touch of Satan. Every modern so-called Protestant Christian must ask himself; is the Vatican the place that I will put my trust for the true word of God?
35 posted on 08/07/2003 10:20:34 PM PDT by Ryan Bailey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
Ping for later read. You seem to misunderstand the issue of the scripts and have vastly oversimplefied the issue.
36 posted on 08/08/2003 12:43:28 AM PDT by Bellflower (a Dem by any other name smells the same)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ryan Bailey
What planet are you from? Your planet seems to have an institution called the Roman Catholic Church that bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Roman Catholic Church on this planet.
37 posted on 08/08/2003 3:21:17 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Ryan Bailey
OMG, where did you copy this from? I especially like this howler:

"Make no mistake, if the AV1611 is the only version translated without the use of the Vaticanus manuscripts, which no one outside the Vatican hierarchy has ever laid eyes on but only been furnished with copies, then it is certainly the only version free of the vile touch of Satan."

The Church lady could not have done better!

Oh-you're serious? Never mind...

38 posted on 08/08/2003 5:51:50 AM PDT by jboot (Faith is not a work; swarming, however, is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Ryan Bailey; Wrigley; Revelation 911; Alex Murphy
***Every modern so-called Protestant Christian must ask himself; is the Vatican the place that I will put my trust for the true word of God?***

Just wait til Pope Piel I is elevated... a Calvinist dispensationalist who prefers the greek and hebrew text over the 1611-KJV.

BTW, I am on vacation right now and there is some mixed bathing going on here and I have not organized a protest.
39 posted on 08/08/2003 6:28:41 AM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jboot
Well, now...isn't that SPECIAL???
40 posted on 08/08/2003 6:45:30 AM PDT by nobdysfool (Let God be true, and every man a liar...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Ryan Bailey; drstevej; CARepubGal; Alex Murphy; xzins; Wrigley
The simple and incontrovertible fact is that the AV1611 is the only true Bible, by this we refer to the one and only Holy Bible authorized for the Church of England by His Majesty King James the VI, and I, for which he was almost exploded in the gunpowder plot credit to the satanic devices of Roman Popery.

Ryan - would that be inclusive of the Apocrypha or exclusive

41 posted on 08/08/2003 6:45:59 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
"there is some mixed bathing going on here"

I presume you mean swimming wearing swim suits.

Commuting to Tokyo and back on the train today, and going about my business in Akasaka, I probably saw more partially exposed lingerie than an ordinary Walmart has on their racks. Seems to be the fashion to "peek-a-boo" the bra and panties these days. Been seeing the occasional translucent-to-the-crotch skirt, too.

Ah, me...all that temptation, and me ugly enough to scare a buzzard off a day-old carcass.

In a way, it's kind of depressing that I can remain faithful to my wife with no effort at all. It's hard to work up a good head of sanctimony when you couldn't stray if you wanted to.
42 posted on 08/08/2003 6:48:24 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dsc
In a way, it's kind of depressing that I can remain faithful to my wife with no effort at all. It's hard to work up a good head of sanctimony when you couldn't stray if you wanted to.

Be thankful for small blessings...I'm single, and sometimes see way more than I should, or want to...Jesus said we would have trials, but why does there have to be so many like this?

43 posted on 08/08/2003 6:55:02 AM PDT by nobdysfool (Let God be true, and every man a liar...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: dsc; drstevej
It's hard to work up a good head of sanctimony when you couldn't stray if you wanted to.

...a prisoner in your own body - I know thy curse -

Im so fat that when I jump in the pool - the water jumps out

Im so hairy it looks like Ive got Don King in a headlock

Im so ugly the starving dogs I scared off the meat wagon, vomited, ate it, and vomited again......and then ate grass and vomited again

44 posted on 08/08/2003 6:58:49 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
Dude, that's not good!

My problem is I'm too average. Don't have any money, don't have any land, don't look like a movie star, so they won't take my hand....seems like they're always holding out for a better deal.

45 posted on 08/08/2003 7:05:58 AM PDT by nobdysfool (Let God be true, and every man a liar...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ryan Bailey
I left Rome and never did convert to the KJV, but to Jesus Christ only.
46 posted on 08/08/2003 7:17:55 AM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
Pope Piel (to be) is doing mixed bathing while Bishop Vicki Gene is doing
whatever, let's not go there now.
47 posted on 08/08/2003 7:19:32 AM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Comment #48 Removed by Moderator

To: nobdysfool
My problem is I'm too average. Don't have any money, don't have any land, don't look like a movie star, so they won't take my hand....seems like they're always holding out for a better deal.

- hey I dont feel so bad now LOL - I have $ & land and look like a cross between Lyle Alzado (before he died) and Dom Deluise -LOL - trouble is that when they find out Im owed rent money by various supermodels, they run away, fearing my standards are too rich and demanding

49 posted on 08/08/2003 7:29:18 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
I'm just lucky that "fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down" doesn't translate into Japanese.

I went to have a suit made (true story) and the guy said the bolts of cloth they used weren't wide enough to cut one for me.

Now I just go to the sporting goods store and have them sew two tents together.

The other day someone tried to have me arrested for a terrorist act...showing my face in public.

My computer monitor quit working. I took it to the shop. The guy said it was an apparent suicide.
50 posted on 08/08/2003 7:31:53 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 851-866 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson