SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Is their proof of the kjv text before 400 A.D?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 Next Page )
PosterThread
Koheleth
Member



Joined: 2005/11/10
Posts: 530
NC

 Re:

Waltern,

Thanks for your reply.

From what I understand, your points have been posted again and again and again on this forum. Already from reading this one post, your position on the KJV is very clear. No need to post more.

I guess I have one question for you that I would like you to answer. Do you respect the other people here on SermonIndex, including the moderators?

 2008/11/2 13:28Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

We might have boxed you in here a bit Waltern, asking you to cease or at least restrain on the one hand ... But I do not think it is with the aim of silencing your opinion, just the volume of repeatable, in your words 'cut and paste' items.

But it does seem a good time to bring this back to the fore;

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=10811&forum=36]Preface to the King James Version 1611[/url]

Secondly,

Quote:
The Bible's we leave behind at the Rapture must be the very Preserved Word of God, promised to us by God Himself, throughout His Word. They must be the King James. We won't need to leave a Greek Lexicon, or Hebrew Lexicon ...



Hold up the truth truck there. The one item that I cannot get past is this idea that the original languages, both Greek and Hebrew, which is what the very scriptures were [i]originally[/i] written in are to be either discounted or somehow surpassed by any version. Unless one [i]is[/i] a master at these languages then there is no basis whatsoever for a "Only" stance, it is a completely illogical and fallacious argument, it is simply conjecture and opinion.

There is nothing in scripture that ever even suggests that preservation was to occur during any era and that is a great piece of hyperbole to just stress how ridiculous this whole argument is.

And to really top this all off, it is beating a very dead dog when your audience here is primarily a KJV preferred one to begin with, there is little point to screaming that the sky is falling when it remains very much intact.

Besides, even the authors of the KJV disagree with you.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2008/11/2 15:34Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
What can anyone say to what waltern just wrote?



I would say that having the KJV as the only accepted version is no guarantee of revival. In the circles I am in we are almost KJV only and we need revival.

I would also point out that Jeromes Latin Vulgate of 405 AD was the "AV" or "KJV" of the Universal Church for hundreds of years. In fact, the translation was so good that all others were outlawed. Over time Latin died out as a language until only scholars and religious folk could read the text. This is what basically caused "the Dark Ages." The Bible was no longer in the language of the people And the consequences were disastrous.

How many people today actually understand some of the archaic language of the KJV? How much understanding is lost simply because words are used that we do not commonly understand. What typically happens to these words? They go ignored and we are cut short of our understanding. So the point is, we need and will [i]always[/i] need a bible in the language of the people that is accurate and understandable.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2008/11/2 16:52Profile
bible1985
Member



Joined: 2008/8/13
Posts: 354


 Re:

Good comment robert. I go to a bible study where their is a division between the bible version issue. Our leader uses another version and my friends use the kjv. Many times they get in arguments. I personally get upset that they attack the group leader like that. This man travels from illionois to indiana for bible study. He runs 2 bible studies himself, then on sunday he comes from downtown chicago to lowell indiana for church. Very dedicated christian, but this whole ruckman stance against other versions is rude, ridiculous, and the holy spirit has no part in it. Peter ruckman might have knowledge but his words our hateful and he sees others as heretics or cults who use other versions, he has got my friends to like him and speak like this. I use the kjv and believe it is possibly better then the rest. The archaic language you have to take in consideration because their our 100's of words we don't even know in the revised king james, so i see no problem in making version in easier language as long as it means the same thing.

 2008/11/3 14:56Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Just for the record. I have preferred the KJV for over 50 years. Currently I use the NKJV for preaching simply because we have so many people in our church who do not have English as a first language and to expect them to learn a form of stilted 17th century English is just not reasonable.

If waltern actually wants to know my position you can find it in a series I did with a brother of similar opinion her in the UK. It is called [url=http://wiki.biblebase.com/index.php?title=The_Bible:_Inspiration_and_Interpretation]Which Bible?[/url] and will give you my reasons for preferring the KJV to all other versions.

However, as has been said, I have greater confidence in the Byzantine Text (AKA Majority Text) than in the Received Text. One of the unusual strengths of the NKJV is that it will actually tell you where the Majority Text and the the Nestle and United Bible Society text are different.

When my preaching days are over I expect to return to the KJV!! ;-)


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/11/5 14:44Profile









 Re: Which Version


To Repentcanada:

I for one love the walk of Andrew Murray. What a mighty man of God, what an example for us.

On November 1, 1888, seven years after Westcott & Hort published their “Revised New Testament” Andrew Murray, in the introduction of his new book “The Two Covenants” had this to say about "God’s Word" in comparison to the newer versions that were becoming available then:

[b]"INTRODUCTION
It is often said that the great aim of the preacher ought to be to translate Scripture truth from its Jewish form into the language and the thought of the nineteenth century, and so to make it intelligible and acceptable to our ordinary Christians. It is to be feared that the experiment will do more harm than good. In the course of the translation the force of the original is lost. The scholar who trusts to translations will never become a master of the language he wants to learn. A race of Christians will be raised up, to whom the language of God's Word, and with that the God who spoke it, will be strange. In the Scripture words not a little of Scripture truth will be lost. For the true Christian life nothing is so healthful and invigorating as to have each man come and study for himself the very words in which the Holy Ghost has spoken." [/b]

As a Protestant Christian of the Reformation, Andrew Murray knew and understood that there was only one Word of God, passed down by the true Church, since the beginning. God had preserved His Word by keeping it safe in the true Church.

Rome, and the Latin Vulgate were full of error, and Rome is not the true church, and the Latin Vulgate is not the Word of God, it is the work of Gnostics.

Is anyone aware that [b]The year after Erasmus published his work (which later became know as the Textus Receptus) Luther used the Textus Receptus (TR) [the work of Erasmus] for the basis of a German translation of the New Testament. Shortly thereafter, God – using Luther and his translation, brought about the Reformation.[/b] (From An Introduction To The Textual Criticism Of The New Testament by A.T. Robinson and Which Version is the Bible by Floyd Nolen Jones).

Sincerely,

Walter


Quote:

repentcanada wrote:
What can anyone say to what waltern just wrote?

That is truth, heavy truth.

 2008/11/5 23:18
HomeFree89
Member



Joined: 2007/1/21
Posts: 797
Indiana

 Re:

Waltern,

What is the "true church"? How do you define it? Is it those who only use the KJV?


_________________
Jordan

 2008/11/6 16:26Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
"INTRODUCTION It is often said that the great aim of the preacher ought to be to translate Scripture truth from its Jewish form into the language and the thought of the nineteenth century, and so to make it intelligible and acceptable to our ordinary Christians. It is to be feared that the experiment will do more harm than good. In the course of the translation the force of the original is lost. The scholar who trusts to translations will never become a master of the language he wants to learn. A race of Christians will be raised up, to whom the language of God's Word, and with that the God who spoke it, will be strange. In the Scripture words not a little of Scripture truth will be lost. For the true Christian life nothing is so healthful and invigorating as to have each man come and study for himself the very words in which the Holy Ghost has spoken."


This is an interesting quotation from Andrew Murray in which he advocates that 'scholars' do not become dependent upon 'translation' but should become familiar with 'the very words in which the Holy Ghost has spoken'.

It is sound advice but not an endorsement of a King James only position.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/11/10 7:15Profile









 Re:

Homefree89, I see the true church as first those who have been born again by the hearing of the gospel with faith. Paul explains this in Galations.
From there we have in this current age so many trans of bible to deal with that it is natural to ask which trans is best. I have rested, after many years, on a King James "preffered" stance. Mainly because the version does not change. The other versions will change evry so years becuase of copyright laws etc.

I give liberty to others who rest on a difrent trans but the most important thing is Has a person been born again? this is the true church.

 2008/11/10 7:27
HomeFree89
Member



Joined: 2007/1/21
Posts: 797
Indiana

 Re:

Hi Thingsabove,

I agree with you on the "true church". The reason I asked Waltern to clarify is because I realize my view of the "true church" and his may be totally different. He appears to equate the "true church" with those saints who only use the KJV and TR, which I don't agree with. However, I wanted some clarification on it from him.


_________________
Jordan

 2008/11/10 14:16Profile





©2002-2021 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy