Posted on 08/25/2003 11:28:40 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration
King James, not God, was the one that "authorized" this edition of the Bible. This is not meant in anyway to lessen the authority of the Scriptures as the inerrant, infallible Word of God. But to say that this is the last one that God authorized is absolutely wrong.
The Biblical Position on the King James Version Controversey
Until then, the King James is the final authority and the standard in which are others are to be evaluated.
Bull.
The Church of England authorized the AV. Yeah, that's right: a church founded so a lecherous king could get a divorce. Yeah, the one that just decided that gay priests are a good idea.
Riiiiight.... I'm gonna trust them to make the "perfect Bible."
The Church of Enland only authorized the Bible for reading in the Churches.
It got its name the Authorized 1611 due to the authority it obtained in all the Christian churches.
What you don't want to do is obey any Bible, that is why you never state which Bible is your final authority.
Funny, how NIV and NASB users do not seem to love their bibles like the King James believers do theirs?
Maybe its because we know our is pure (Psa.119:140)
As for the apostasy in the churches, do you know one major denomination that is not going apostate? (Rev.3)
The Church of England long ago gave up their King James Bibles for the modern versions, hence the rise in apostasy!
Also, did I ping you on this?
So, when the anti-King James crowd starts ranting and raving about my posts, remember it is you that is coming on the threads with your violent reaction to the truth.
Frankly, that is crap.
I have said it before: I accept any (reasonable) translation, but only the Greek and Hebrew are the authoritative.
That's a far cry from having no Bible be my authority.
Funny, how NIV and NASB users do not seem to love their bibles like the King James believers do theirs?
That, too, is crap. I love the Bible very much... ask anyone who has much contact with me.
The Church of England long ago gave up their King James Bibles for the modern versions, hence the rise in apostasy!
I may be public-school educated, but I can point out the gaping logical fallacy here: post hoc ergo propter hoc. That is, "after that, therefore because of it." Just because something happens after the introduction of new versions (the CoE goes apostate) does not prove that the new versions were repsonsible.
Also, did I ping you on this?
No, but I am not going to let you and your rabble go by unchallanged. A KJV-onlyist like you deceived me when I was in High School -- may God judge me if I allow you to do it to someone else.
Alright, which Greek and Hebrew?
Do you read the Bible in both languages?
So when you deal with the English, which translation do you think in and appeal to as the final authority.
TR people say that the King James is the best translation and they follow it, what say ye?
That's a far cry from having no Bible be my authority.
It is not, since you have to have a Bible in English, one that you can think in.
Funny, how NIV and NASB users do not seem to love their bibles like the King James believers do theirs? That, too, is crap. I love the Bible very much... ask anyone who has much contact with me.
Well, which one is it?
Which Bible do you love?
Why is that so hard to answer?
Do you love the TR/Ben Chayim textual Bible put out by the TBS do you love the Critical text, which Bible do you love?
The Church of England long ago gave up their King James Bibles for the modern versions, hence the rise in apostasy! I may be public-school educated, but I can point out the gaping logical fallacy here: post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Oh, brother!
That is, "after that, therefore because of it." Just because something happens after the introduction of new versions (the CoE goes apostate) does not prove that the new versions were repsonsible.
It was you that made the connection between the King James and the Church of England.
I only pointed out that the Church of England has long given up their King James for the New Versions, thus, their apostasy cannot be assoicated with it, as you were attempting to do with your comments on them.
Since all the churches are going into apostasy (not the Church of England) maybe the rejection of the King James is the common link that begins the downward spiral!
As if their doctrinal position today had anything to do with what they believed in 1611!
Also, did I ping you on this? No, but I am not going to let you and your rabble go by unchallanged. A KJV-onlyist like you deceived me when I was in High School -- may God judge me if I allow you to do it to someone else.
Well, that is exactly how I feel about you guys who claim to have a Bible but cannot produce one.
One of the finest, and far more literal than the KJV, is the New American Standard.
BTW - some compare the NASB translation with the KJV translation, pointing out differences in the NASB, and thus write off the NASB. This is the wrong comparison. The comparison has to be done at the original language level. There are emendations in the KJV that are not justified in the text, and the NASB handles them differently.
Recently, fragments have been found, and dated to the mid first century, that refute those passages where the Newbible trust attempted to claim inaccuracy in the received texts. Isn't it interesting that the fragments found just happened to be those passages where changes were attempted? The Lord is at work protecting his word.
| KJVOnlyism in a Nut Shell: "You do not need Greek to understand what God has given you in English!" ~ ftD |
You have the KJV and TR. Those are backed by the "thousands of manuscripts with 99.6% consistency." The "best manuscripts" that the newbible trust referrs to are just two manuscripts: Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus (aleph, and B)
The material to which I referred was recently posted by Con X-Poser in post # 109 of this thread, did you miss it?
The real issue is do you believe that God has kept his promise to preserve his word, or not? There are some here who clearly do not believe that he has kept his promise. They insist that "only the original autographs" (which obviously do not exist) were inspired. The scriptures do not support the "original autographs" position, but the newbible trust still keeps screaming, and stamping their figurative feet here.
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.