How I KNOW the KJB is the Word of God!!!!!

I haven't taken time to read all ten pages as most of it will be nosense, someone trying to defend their posisition regardless od the truth. So if someone else has already said what I am about to say, repetition is a good learning tool.

I serve the God who created all that is, he keeps everything in order, aand always will.

This same God promised to preserve his Word, thus we will have the true Word of God until the return of Christ. God KEEPS His promises.

The problem then arises what is truth. Well did Jesus enter this world from a virgin womb? Is He the Son of God? Did He die and raise again? Did He promise to save all those who repent and trust Him?

In which Bible do we find these truths? Can God give us the true Word today? Of course He can.. Yes, there are other languages that have a true Bible. The King James isn't the only Bible, but it is the preserved Word of God in the English language.

Those who truly know Christ in salvation can read this Bible and know the mind of God, trhe reason so many have a problem with this Book is because they have been enlightened but don't know the Author. Am I saying someone isn't saved? Well why do some so viciously attack the truth?

Before I was saved I made an attempt to read the Bible and it made no sense to me, after salvation the KJV became an open book and was very plain.

So in conclusion, maybe your god didn't preserve his word but mine did.

Praise God that we can know the truth and the Truth sets us free.

John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. 14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. 15All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you.

Ernie

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul, then I am sticking with it till I die! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would be careful using them kind of words around here, some of these folks might give you the rope. Ha Ha

 

&gt;&gt;I can not use other versions because I believe strongly in Rev. 22:18, 19. &gt;&gt;

That statement seems to present a problem: The 1611 KJV (actual year of 1611) included the Apocrypha.

Therefore the Apocrypha is also the Word of God according to Revelation 22:18-19 because in the year 1611 it was inbetween the covers of every KJV Bible printed.

The words used are "of this Book".

So every 1769 version or any version which excludes the Apocrypha would come under the edict of the punishment of Revelation 22:18-19.

HankD

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The problem then arises what is truth. Well did Jesus enter this world from a virgin womb? Is He the Son of God? Did He die and raise again? Did He promise to save all those who repent and trust Him?

In which Bible do we find these truths?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I found it in the NASB, NIV, and NKJV. It is also in the RSV, the NRSV.

 

Thank you Pastor Larry, your reply illustrates exactly why I replied to Thomas, to clarify, because while being technically correct, he wrote in a fashion that could easily mislead. I didn't wish him to be mis-understood.

Chick

 

Sorry, had to respond using Philliptoo, but I am Phillip on another computer. I forgot my password -- you are right I'm pretty ignorant.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Phillip:
1. What English Bible was used from the end of the canon until 1611?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No English bible was used from the close of the canon untill 1611. Modern English did not exist until around 1500 AD. Prior to that Middle English dominated from about 1100-1500. Prior to Middle English, Old English dominated from about 500-1100. Prior to 500 no Anglo-Saxon language as we know it existed at all. The question is based on ignorance of the English language!
quote:
***************************************
First, I wish to say that you are very handy at passing out insults with your attempt to show your brilliance. Since you have no respect in this reguard, I will mention the old saying: "if you can't do...teach". I hope this didn't hurt your feelings any more than telling me how ****** I am. First of all, your statement itself is inaccurate for several reasons that I won't even bother to discuss at this point. I could pick it all to pieces relating to your dates and the Bibles which did exist at that time because many of your statements here and below are in conflict. Especially, when considering your first sentence above.
****************************************
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What Bible did Jesus read? (Uh, oh I answered that one.) But, if he did read it why did it contain the apocrypha? (I will make it clear he did not quote from any of those books.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only record in the bible of Jesus reading from a sacred text was when he was in the temple teaching. He read of the Hebrew text. The Hebrew text never contained the Apocrypha. Jesus did not have to read a bible. Jesus spoke the words of God first hand. About 3800 times in the OT we see the words "Thus saith the Lord" or words to the effect. The prophets always gave credit to God for His words. But when Jesus spoke He said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you!" He spoke the words of God in the first person! (This, by the way, is strong evidence for the deity of Christ!)
quote:
---------------------------------------------
*******************************************
Again, you are too smart for your position. Jesus quoted old-testament scripture quite often at other times. Do I really have to look them all up to prove you wrong?
Jesus quoted scripture from the Septuagint even though we know it came directly from God. The answer to this question might be: Why does the Septuagint have the apocrypha?

********************************************
-----------------------------------
3. So, a Bible translated into any other language must be wrong because ALL translations require adjustments to sentence construction to make them coherent in the native tongue and the KJV cannot be translated word for word? Does this mean the Chinese are out of luck?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, it means that you have very little understand of the translational issues of grammar and syntax. There is no such thing as a "word for word" translation from one language to another, and this is especially true when translating a Synthetic language such as Greek into an Analytical language such as English.
quote:
--------------------------------------------
****************************************
That was my point, you are preaching to the choir, but also arguing with yourself.
------------------------------------
4. There were twelve texts placed together to make up the book of Revelations in the KJV; sections from different ones were used where they differed--was this divine intervention in 1611?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. It was the practice of textual criticism just as is being practiced by every bible translator today.
quote:
---------------------------------------------
*****************************************
BINGO: Don't you understand "tongue-in-cheek" statements Mr. Professor?
*****************************************

-----------------------------------
5. Why can I not read my 1614 King James pages because I can't even understand the words? (Yes, they are printed clearly and maintain their readability)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because you lack either good reading skills or a thorough classical education?
quote:
---------------------------------------------
*******************************************
Actually, I can read it quite well---my point was (boy, here we go again) that it is NOT the same document as we pass around today as the KJV or Authorized Text--there are MANY changes.
*******************************************
-----------------------------------
6. What about the New King James Version, supposedly using the Byzantine text--is this an untruth or is it true--just the translators were not inspired?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See my answer just above this post dealing with this issue.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Why was much of the KJV taken from the Bishop's Bible which was the forerunner of the KJV? Was it inspired?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Bishop's Bible was to be the basis of the KJV, but remember, the Bishop's Bible was mostly Tyndale. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! We can also find phrases from the Geneva and the Rheims bibles in the KJV. The translators tell us they used the "former translations" in their work. What is the issue here? Straw man?
quote:
---------------------------------------------
*****************************************
I thought there were no Modern English before 1500? Oops, there I go again. We obviously have used "middle English" in the King James. . . . and I thought all along the Byzantine Texts were the basis behind the KJV, I was wrong again.
*****************************************
-----------------------------------
8 Finally, and I ask this TWICE because I would like to hear an answer from somebody--WHAT BIBLE WAS USED BEFORE THE KING JAMES TRANSLATION BY ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE AND WHAT ABOUT A RUSSIAN BIBLE--IS IT INSPIRED?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The pre-KJV bibles were the Wycliff of 1380, Tyndale of 1526, Cranmer of 1539, Great Bible of 1540, Geneva of 1557, Bishop's of 1568, Rheims of 1582, and a few other minor editions.
********************************************
MY POINT EXACTLY. SO, IF WHICH OF THESE BIBLES ARE THE WORD OF GOD WITHOUT ERROR?
********************************************
As to the Russian language, the Russian Synodal version has been around for a long time and is a very good bible.

nullnullnull

First of all I seriously doubt you are a professor and if you are you are out of your realm. My statements were "tongue-in-cheek", yours were hateful--therefore do you hate your brother? Finally, I bet you can't read my 1614 KJV Mr. brains in action.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddiscover:
If the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul, then I am sticking with it till I die!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HAHAHA!!!!! I LOVE IT. Said as well as the little ole lady who said that God spoke with Thee's and Thou's.

 

Quote from Mr. Professor:
Well, you got that part right! It always amazes me how someone who thinks of himself as well educated can have so little understanding of the English language. "From the close of the canon until 1611" is an inclusive phrase. No English version existed "from the close of the canon until 1611" inclusively. 5th grade English.

******************************************
I get it-- you are an ENGLISH teacher. I used to work for one. She was more worried about the commas on my memos than the fact I was asking for a million dollar purchase order.
You are a bitter little man (at least in my mind--based on your responses). You look down on people and you are arrogant and egotistical, BUT you are NOT the smartest man on THIS subject. Sorry to be so strong, but I'm responding in kind.
Well, I probably missed out on a lot of good education in English because I slept through teachers who were like you!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:


This seems pretty demeaning ... especially for someone who excoriated RobertLynn for it in another thread. There is no excuse for it here. Ransom understood your phrase in its common usage, the same way that Chick did and probably others. I know you do not particularly like me but I feel compelled to speak up here. Genteel behavior demands more than this.

When going to the doctor for a test and he says, "Do not eat for 12 hours before the test," he is using it in the sense of between. He does not mean that you can't have a 12 hour gorging session. He means you are to have no food for the duration of those twelve hours.

When you say that there was no English Bible in use from 102-1611 you are technically correct but easily misunderstood. There were English Bibles in use during that time period. Taken at face value, your writing contradicted itself and took another post or two to clarify it.

The essence of good writing is to be as clear as possible, not to obfuscate and then accuse someone else of not understanding the language.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AMEN Brother:
I wish to appologize to the board and to you for my comments concerning Mr. Cassidy, but as a fellow Christian I felt as if I were arguing with a Professor I met in the Mormon group FARMS who HAD to be right regardless of how mundane the statement. (You probably know who I am talking about.) If Mr. Cassidy represents our college professors -- I think it is time to take a hard look at our colleges. I thank you for standing up against this type of response and I hope to never reach the boiling point simply because somebody calls me ignorant again.
My whole point is and always will be: We do NOT have the original documents and we do NOT know which copies were maintained with the most accuracy. Just because a document comes from Alexandria does not mean that the Christians were not as careful in their process. It seems as if the Pharisees would do a better job of copying the New Testament? What DOES scare me is somebody calling a new translation as having been created by Satan. If I read and understand the New Testament and the grace of Jesus Christ I cannot see how these translations can be of evil origins. They have mistakes as ALL translations do and will have. God preserves his story of his Son's sacrifice to us and THAT appears to be well preserved in the NIV, NASB and KJV. It also seems funny how the KJVO crowd seems to think that because we might read the NIV we hate the KJV. I feel this idea is to simply mask the real argument.
All I told Bro. Cassidy was that I could not read my 1614 version of the KJV. It is extremely difficult, even my pastor agrees. My whole point was that even the KJV has changed since its conception. For that, I am called Ignorant in English and not very well educated.
Again, I appologize to you and the board and I thank you for standing up for the "ignorant person's" rights. You will have a star in your crown for helping out the man in the ditch.

 

All the arguments that have been raised have been raised 15 times! Is anyone reading and pondering what the other side is saying? I'm speaking primarily to the KJVonlyers. While I admire your loyalty to the beloved KJV, and you have every right to it, there is a mountain of evidence that it is not the "chosen translation" by God. The varied arguments for such a position are absolutely silly. I believe the following statement epitomizes the futility of the KJVonly position: "If the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul, then I am sticking with it till I die!"

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Wells:
All the arguments that have been raised have been raised 15 times! Is anyone reading and pondering what the other side is saying? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right, John. Proverbs says:

Proverbs 26:4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes.

There is a time for refutation of foolishness. There is also a time to walk away and leave a fool to his own beliefs. I think this thread has passed that point.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Philliptoo:
First of all, your statement itself is inaccurate for several reasons that I won't even bother to discuss at this point. I could pick it all to pieces relating to your dates and the Bibles which did exist at that time because many of your statements here and below are in conflict. Especially, when considering your first sentence above.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually my statement, if understood in the context of your question is correct. No English bible was in continuous use from the close of the canon in about 102 AD until the advent of the KJV in 1611 for English as we know it did not come into usage until about 1500. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jesus quoted old-testament scripture quite often at other times.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Once again I direct you back to your own question. You did not ask what bible Jesus quoted you asked what bible Jesus read. Jesus didn't need to read any bible, He had perfect knowledge of the word of God. And I pointed out the only instance in the bible which says Jesus actually read from a bible and that was the Hebrew Torah. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That was my point, you are preaching to the choir, but also arguing with yourself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, I was pointing out the logical fallacy of your question. It is based on a false understanding of textual transmission. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually, I can read it quite well---<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My mistake. I assumed you were telling the truth. I will not make that assumption again. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I thought there were no Modern English before 1500?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Once again I direct you to your own question. No English version was in use from 102 until 1611. There were several, which I enumerated for you, that were in use beginning in 1382 and continuing to the version of 1611. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>MY POINT EXACTLY. SO, IF WHICH OF THESE BIBLES ARE THE WORD OF GOD WITHOUT ERROR?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You would have to first tell me what you mean by "without error." I don't think any translation is completely without error in the sense of typos, printers errors, ect. My KJV has several. If you mean "inerrant" then yes, they were "without error of fact."

[Final paragraphs snipped due to hateful content, slander, and general unchristian content.]

[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

Mr. Cassidy,
I doubt if this will make any difference.
I am surprised that a pastor would respond as you have. If I understand correctly, you are a pastor. Do you put off being a pastor when on this topic?

You probably won't understand, but the way you attempt to defend the KJV only "doctrine" is what keeps many from even considering the merits of the KJV only "doctrine".

A question:
Is the KJV only position an essential or non-essential doctrine? That is, is it the same as the Virgin birth of Christ, the sinless nature of Jesus, and other core and essential doctrines of the Christian faith?

Or, is it a preferential doctrine? A non-essential doctrine?

From the way you argue for it, it would appear that it is an essential doctrine, that one should or must believe it to attain salvation.

I consider it an interesting topic. I will never be a KJV only advocate. And one of the reasons is because of the behavior of those who are advocates. You are not the only one of the KJV only advocates who demonstrates this kind of behavior.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bro Shaun:


That is the biggest lie I have read yet. It may mention it once or twice, but they all take out references to the virgin birth, cleansing blood, sinless sacrafice, resurection, etc. If it takes it out ONCE, it has tainted the Word of God and is not worthy to be used.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since you are leaving you will likely not be able to answer this but perhaps someone else will show one place where the things you reference have been taken out of a modern version. Remember, in order to prove "taken out" you must first prove they were in there to begin with. Unless you have come up with the originals, it is probable that you have no clue.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:


Since you are leaving you will likely not be able to answer this but perhaps someone else will show one place where the things you reference have been taken out of a modern version. Remember, in order to prove "taken out" you must first prove they were in there to begin with. Unless you have come up with the originals, it is probable that you have no clue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


If we can't have a Bible without the originals then we are a most miserable lot, where then is Truth?

Unless a person is willing to accept the fact that God could and did preserve His Word so He could communicate with us, all discussion is futile.
One must accept by FAITH that there is only one truth, and that God gave us that truth.

How confusing to have several perversions, none of which agree, this is one of Satan's masterpieces...to divide by confusion.

Any honest saved person with a desire to know the truth arrives at the same conclusion....the KJV is the living Word of God. This book leads us from confusion..prayerful study of this book transforms lives as no other book does..

Isn't it strange that those who cling to the new perversions also want to cling to the world system of life. i.e. Hollywood movies, easy believism, immodest dress standards, etc. While on the other hand those who are so "******" to cling to the KJV want to get as far worldly practces as they can. Those who have a love for God's Word want to do all to please God not themselves. It is also the "legalists" who support the KJV..ah, "legalists" who want to maintain high Godly standards.

Why are those who are against standards also those who are anti KJV.

This isn't a pe rsonal attack on anyone just an observation.

I am not here to win an argument, just to make a few observations. Those who oppose the KJV are not interested in Truth, but only in being right.

Ernie

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by qwerty:
&lt;ad hominem snipped&gt; Is the KJV only position an essential or non-essential doctrine? &lt;additional ad hominem snipped&gt;<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Two points. 1. I am not KJV only. 2. Superiority of the KJV is not a doctrine. Doctrine is something that can be taught from scripture. The scriptures do not say the KJV is superior, or the Byzantine text-form is superior, or even in what language the autographs were inspired.

The issue is not doctrine, but scholarly discussion of textual transmission from the time of the close of the canon in about 102 AD until today. That discussion is based on MSS evidence and the testimony of history.