SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : News and Current Events : For some Christians, King James is the only Bible

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

What I am saying is that by your logic and line of argumentation, no one will be able to arrive at a conviction on ANYTHING.

Thank the Lord for the witness of the Holy Spirit!

Everyone can read this thread for themselves.

 2011/4/4 1:11
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779


 Re:

Anonymous777,

The logic behind my reasoning is that if we don't know with absolute certainty that something is true, we shouldn't declare it as such.

In other words, I am urging caution.

We should be very careful about making allegations -- and never just accept and repeat the allegations that we hear or read. If we feel the need to utter or write allegations about translators, translations, source texts, text critics, manuscript experts, etc... -- it should only be after extensive research.

We should always verify the claims of individuals, books and websites that are making such far-reaching claims. Otherwise, we should remain silent (at least, about proclaiming those specific allegations) until we have done as much.

This is why I asked those ten questions earlier...for which I am still waiting for some answers.

As I pointed out, it seems that there are two underlying theses being presented here. The first is that the KJV is "perfect and preserved" down to the last "jot and tittle." A second, which sometimes seems to supplant the first in focus, is that all (or most) other versions are "corrupt"
(or worse).

The weight of this topic is so pressingly important that these allegations should NOT be proclaimed as "truth" until we are absolutely certain about the matter. Hopefully, our "absolute certainty" doesn't come cheap...or after being convinced by hearsay, rumor or even presentations that have gone unverified.

By the way, there are a lot of false doctrines out there propagated by people who blamed their beliefs on the "witness of the Holy Spirit." The greatest witness of the Holy Spirit is, of course, the Word of God.

Still, I think that we need to be EXTREMELY CAREFUL if we choose to blame the Holy Spirit for each and every one of our specific views. After all, the Bereans weren't noble characters for some ability to simply "rely on the witness of the Holy Spirit." They TESTED what Paul the Apostle preached.

It is important that we don't accuse the Holy Spirit of giving us "witness" to something that ends up being incorrect. What a dreadful thing to discover that we inadvertently (even with good intentions) bore false witness against the Holy Spirit! I know that no one would ever want to do that...but it has happened. Sometimes, we may even think that "God showed us" something that we simply and suddenly "figured out" (or think we did).

I have known people who told me that the Lord "showed" them some interesting things (one even insisted that dental floss is part of some conspiracy to make money for dentists and dental floss companies). There have been people who told me that they listened to Christian rock and roll music because of the "witness of the Holy Spirit." Then, I have heard the exact opposite too. More often, you hear two opposing sides on doctrinal controversies claim that "the Lord showed them" the "truth." So, who was lying about "the witness of the Holy Spirit?"

So, we do need to be careful about attributing our views to the witness of the Holy Spirit if we aren't absolutely certain that it really is the Holy Spirit that bore witness to our views.

I would appreciate someone addressing those ten questions that I posted earlier (in their own words). I think that this would help us focus upon the original premise and claim about the KJV. The claim of a "perfect and preserved" KJV (down to the last "jot and tittle") is the underlying thesis, whereas the status and reliability of other versions, source texts, and translators is a secondary discussion and premise.


_________________
Christopher

 2011/4/4 2:21Profile









 let it go

Chris, this is not only to you, you wrote:

Quote:
I would appreciate someone addressing those ten questions that I posted earlier (in their own words).



Brethern, just let it go, ya'll going in circles, the whole exercise just smacks of pride, and it really is looking quite foolish and silly.

and what if..by this vain exercise, you stumble just ONE saint?...is that worth it?

and please, nobody answer that question with the standard, "I'm just standing for the truth".

Moderators...come on, dont you think its time to take this old dog behind the barn, and put it out of its misery?

Jesus went to the Cross, for more than this...amen?

neil

 2011/4/4 9:45









 Re: let it go

Neil, your logic can be used to shutdown many threads.

Is that a good thing to start?

You don't have to read this, you know.

I have received IMs from Saints saying they have learned a lot.

777

If the Moderators shutdown everything you did not like, and gave you that kind of power of censure, what kind of place would this be?

 2011/4/4 9:57









 Re:

The 10 questions are being worked on.

Please be patient.

 2011/4/4 10:06









 Re:

This thread must live on! (and on and on and on...)
It is so illuminating that I do not need daylight in my home.

 2011/4/4 10:15









 Re:

Quote:
Neil, your logic can be used to shutdown many threads.




as you go by a number, 777, i dont your name, but rest assured this is not the first KJV battle on this forum, and they always end bad.

nor are you the first poster, to "stand for the truth", in your KJV only posture...most of them are gone, not because of their KJV only stance, but because they didnt play nice with the other kids.

as far as some censorious attitude you think i might have, i have put my life on the line, and would happily die, to preserve the right of every American's 1st amendment right of free speech. secular or saint.

as far as reading this palaber, i skim it, because you all are just saying the same things, same talking points over and over.

do what you want, i would wager that the majority of your 100 plus posts have been expended on this thread, i can tell you this in all clarity, from reading your stuff, i would neither want a conversation with you on ANY of the Deep Things of God, nor would be desirous of fellowshipping with you in any real sense, which is sad, because this forum has been a blessing to me, in meeting some dear saints.

but go wild, have your fun, have no consideration if you stumble anybody.

 2011/4/4 11:08









 Re:

Neil, in your skimming, did you see where we answered your question about the Canon?

KJV does not use the Roman controlled manuscripts.

I don't really plan on leaving unless the Lord tells me to. I did not come here to talk about the KJV. It was a topic that SI started.

Quote:
i would neither want a conversation with you on ANY of the Deep Things of God, nor would be desirous of fellowshipping with you in any real sense



Ok, well, I guess you have served notice to everyone in this forum to stay away from me. That my friend, is a public censure and short of getting this thread closed down, you still managed to censure me.

If I had not read some of your past posts and anger at other people, I would not understand where you are coming from. I am comforted in that I am not the only one that has been censured by you and probably will not be the last.

Sorry, I am not worthy of your fellowship.

Peacefully,
777

 2011/4/4 11:45
White_Stone
Member



Joined: 2008/10/25
Posts: 1196
North Central Florida

 Re:

Chris,

Quote:
By the way, there are a lot of false doctrines out there propagated by people who blamed their beliefs on the "witness of the Holy Spirit." The greatest witness of the Holy Spirit is, of course, the Word of God.



Which you have done your best to convince me, as I read it in the KJV, is not reliable. I asked you to direct me to that 'jot & tittle perfect' written Word, to which I, as a common person, may have access and you did not choose to do so. You have done your best to make the KJV appear to be the Bible of the unlearned.

I ask you, how can I approach the witness of the Holy Spirit you speak of, if God has not provided me access to His Perfect Holy Word?

Quote:
So, we do need to be careful about attributing our views to the witness of the Holy Spirit if we aren't absolutely certain that it really is the Holy Spirit that bore witness to our views.



There is meat in this statement.

As for your 10 questions:

The Bible is my proof.

30+ years of answered prayers and guidance walking the minefields of this Earth are my proof.

I would not be alive, were it not for His many interventions and mercies. I could not be posting here but by His Grace. The ability to see his Hand in events in our daily lives have left my husband & I with no doubt of His guidance. He cares enough about little things in our lives, such as giving us fencing for a dog - which we did not even know we were to be getting, how much more does He care about our soul and our relationship with Him.

I believe the Word I read in the KJV is His Word and we feed upon it daily.

Looking forward to the day I receive the promised
white stone


_________________
Janice

 2011/4/4 13:26Profile









 Re: For some Christians, King James is the only Bible




Good afternoon Chris,

Thank you for your courteous replies to my posts.


I have been trying to get some perspective on the circumlocution in this thread and have been searching it for quotes from you, to try to reflect back to you and comment upon what you are saying. This is not to be unduly contentious on my part, nor to justify a KJV-only stance, but rather to indicate to you where I believe your thesis is flawed, even though it has much merit with regard to going to original documents if possible.

Quotes are not in chronological order. I believe they are representative of the reasoning you have presented, bearing in mind you have also said, 'In fact, I haven't really told you exactly WHAT my views are on this matter. I have said that I simply understand the various arguments.'

Before the other quotes, I want to remind you that you have referred to the DIFFERENCES in manuscripts as ‘errors’, more than once, using this as a key plank of why no translation could be deemed 'perfect' (by you).

This has the effect of leaving the reader - with the Holy Spirit's help - trying to decide which of the biblical texts can be trusted at any time - whether ancient or modern translation - even including the Hebrew and Greek which we do have available.

Consequently, you present yourself as one who believes only the parts of the Bible which you personally have verified from outside sources (although you do not state this).

I realise that to discover anything in any version which doesn’t seem to match up with doctrine, or seems to misrepresent what we have read in a different version - especially if God spoke to us from a previous reading – is an identical challenge. The modernisation of the language of a translation, (to anyone who was familiar with the KJV before the NIV or NASB existed – and this is something I ask you to accept as a prompt to further Bible study), does obfuscate some themes which run more clearly through the language of the KJV. This is not to say the KJV has used word-for-word in every case; it has not, and it requires further Bible study, to discover the themes running through the original languages and modes of thought. To what extent these have been translated into modern English, I don’t make a claim to know. Nevertheless, I don't feel the need to check up on God (as it appears you do), to the extent that you recommend.

Associated with your 'opinion' that others have reached their 'opinion' after only -

Quote:
a limited amount of research and study

, is the notion that THE way to reach a change of opinion, or a more correct opinion, is to consult men. This has bemused me considerably, on two counts.

The first is, that you have stated over and over how important it is to you, to contact people whose opinion you wish to consult for the basis of your opinions, and yet you don't seem to have made any contact with other posters in this thread, to put your mind at ease on this matter privately - some of whom may have given as much time to the task as the Holy Spirit guided them to do.

The second is the overarching emphasis you put on extra-biblical witnesses (I will add to this point lower down), while stating:
Quote:
we do need to be careful about attributing our views to the witness of the Holy Spirit if we aren't absolutely certain that it really is the Holy Spirit that bore witness to our views.

The Holy Spirit cannot bear witness to 'our views'. According to Jesus, He can bear witness only to Christ and His things. (John 16:13 - 15). It’s up to us to change - our views into line with His.

To anonymous777 you have said:
Quote:
I didn't tell you to accept anything. I just questioned the validity of YOUR statements. YOU are the one accusing translators, translations and sources. YOU are the only who make very specific claims about the KJV. I simply have called into question the information and judgment that you loudly proclaim.

Quote:
If you and anyone else are going to make such specific claims, you should welcome a "test" to see if what you are claiming is true.

It may not be given to you to make such claims, but you don’t really ‘know’ they are not true. Rather, your research methods led you to different conclusions, and these other opinions call into question the ‘validity’ of your own researching. Why should this be a problem? Don’t you relish the opportunity to have your thesis tested? Doesn’t your question cut both ways, brother?
Quote:
If someone hasn't read any of his [Erasmus] works, how can they make such assertions about the man?

Well, in English Literature, the idea that you can know anything about an author through what he has written, (apart from an autobiography, perhaps), is a bit of a taboo, so if anyone reading anyone is going to reach a ‘valid’ conclusion about the integrity of an author’s heart and workmanship with God’s word, it is going to be by testing it against scripture, mainly, with the help of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, you are showing unwarranted faith in human nature, unless you omitted to share that you always submit such findings to the Lord for final authority to accept them? (Please forgive my questions. I think I picked up the style from listening to sermons!)
Quote:
As for being "closed minded:" Is it simply because I don't accept your claims (or the opinions/claims of the KJV-only preachers that you have posted)? Or is it that I have asked you to research/test/verify all of the things that you have so loudly proclaimed?

’I don't accept your claims…’ This is fine. But on what basis do you have authority to demand that others accept your direction? To whom does it matter if we don’t agree with you, if it doesn’t matter to us?
Quote:
Still, I think that we need to be EXTREMELY CAREFUL if we choose to blame the Holy Spirit for each and every one of our specific views. After all, the Bereans weren't noble characters for some ability to simply "rely on the witness of the Holy Spirit." They TESTED what Paul the Apostle preached.

I think ‘blame the Holy Spirit' is a little strong.
Quote:
After all, the Bereans were considered more noble than other believers because they didn't immediately believe what Paul the Apostle preached --

This is not exactly what Luke records.

Acts 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming [thither] went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that THEY RECEIVED THE WORD WITH ALL READINESS OF MIND, and SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES DAILY, whether those things were so.’

This strongly implies that they had had that inner recognition of truth when they heard it, which Paul mentions in Romans and Corinthians.

Furthermore, they did not search in extra-biblical sources.

Dr Phil Goble, who spent thirty years translating the Orthodox Jewish Bible from the original Old Testament (not sure about the New which he uses), for a modern readership amongst Orthodox Jews, has this to say in regard to researching outside scripture to verify scripture. (This is an extract from his talk entitled Empty Tomb, which is available online in both audio and transcript. He is speaking to Jews in NYC, I believe.)

'... Begging your pardon but, please, what is wrong with your rationality? Are you in a cult? Have you received a spirit? Are your eyes glazed over? Stop being brain-washed and think. (If you are being brain-washed, don’t be so acquiescent; your brain-washers won’t be around to help you when you awake to the voice of Moshiach Ben Dovid. So sit down and think and use the brain G-d gave you. Your hatred of Moshiach is irrational. Why don’t you hate your sin and repent? Moshiach is not your enemy, I don’t care what any ignoramus did in his Name. Your enemy is the person looking at you in the mirror who will have himself or herself to blame for all eternity for his or her cavalier dismissal of the testimony of the Hebrew Bible. How dare you go to extra- Biblical sources to augur out who is the Moshiach! What witchcraft!)'


Chris, you put so much store on your own research, in this way having what appears to be a great advantage over those who cannot contact the translators of the KJV any more, nor (because of the Counter-Reformation), read the manuscripts available in the 1400s, that it appears as if you place undue value on current ‘experts’.

You have referred to Erasmus using a Latin Vulgate, as if this is problematic. I don't see the problem, as Erasmus was trying to correct the Roman Vulgate (was he not?) and he did indeed find that which required correction, when compared with Jerome's and the Greek. Yes?

The other thing I wondered, is your apparent rejection of the Byzantine manuscript group, partly because it was in Medieval Greek, making it appear to be less old. If so,I don’t understand how someone who is willing to go to these lengths to defend translations in the latest English, would be concerned about Greek text having been updated for its readership. It makes no sense.

Overall, what you have shared places your faith squarely in your personal intellectual ability to research to a high standard of personal satisfaction, your access to the very people who finalised the texts you examine, and your sense of who to believe. Put another way, you believe a scientific approach is more valid than a spiritual approach.

Before you tell me this is not what you believe, and it’s not what you’ve said, it is, nevertheless, what you have communicated, and it’s one of the reasons, added to verses such as Hebrews 4:12, and Romans 10:17, that you may not have received the responses which would have delighted you. I have even wondered if you truly believe only the gospels, (because of what you’ve quoted from John 1).

I have heard of new converts in foreign countries being left with the New Testament to support their young faith. When missionaries returned, they had been reading. What they wanted to know was not, 'how do we know this book is true?' but, 'where is the book which came before this one?'

Oughtn’t it to be simple enough for babes? Matthew 21:16




Thank you for your patience and perseverence.

 2011/4/4 13:34





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy