Posted on 06/27/2017 4:25:56 PM PDT by Pilgrim's Progress
We are going to go through this book in a very slow fashion - no hurry.
This subject is completely a matter of faith. Those that reject or do not possess a particular preference for the King James Bible are welcome to visit and participate - but this is not an argument thread. I am not responsible to convince anyone against his or her will.
Either you have faith in a God that is able to preserve His Word or you do not - but you are not going to convince us to reject our faith that the King James Bible is the ONLY Bible that God is blessing for the English Speaking people. And He has been doing it for the past 406 years
If you want on or off the PING list please Freepmail me, thanks.
Boy, that was certainly a long-winded way of reiterating what you've already made perfectly clear. You truly believe that since God's word is filled with error, it can't possibly apply to you.
Again like I said, you are the one who thinks they can pull the wool over God's eyes on judgement day.
Deuteronomy 18:18-19
I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
The Holy Spirit leads us into all truth. - John 16:13
I have no problem with the English of the KJB and words that are hard to understand are usually defined for us in the passage itself.
There are passages in the KJV that are clearly understood; others not so much. This has to do with the fact that the KJV reflects 1611 thought. This is not to say the KJV is a bad translation. As I said, it's what I read primarily. We need to be intellectually honest and understand that we're reading a translation suited for the English language of 1611, which is different from 21st century American English.
There are no originals anywhere except perhaps in heaven where they are being watched over - but we do have a God that promised to preserve his word unto ALL generations.
The original, original is a person, who we know as Jesus, the Word of God. Regarding original manuscripts, you are right in saying there are no originals. However, the early churches carefully maintained copies of originals, which ultimately became canon, ie., became the NT.
Yes, I do use faith in the KJB as a “test of fellowship.”
If by this, you are saying that you limit your Christian fellowship to Christians who limit themselves to the KJV, then I'm sad for you. Christian fellowship should be based on the lordship of a person, namely Jesus and our belief that He is Messiah as confirmed through his life, death and resurrection. He is our personal Savior and the Savior of the world. This is what binds us together, not our conviction about the KJV.
Hey, why not start your own thread and simply call it the Anti-King James study.
My stated intention is not to argue - but to present the book by Dr. Grady.
If you disagree with the stated purpose of the thread . . . please leave.
>>>If by this, you are saying that you limit your Christian fellowship to Christians who limit themselves to the KJV<<<
You read correctly . . .
I totally reject the ungodly dual of Westcott and Hort. Even a most basic knowledge of who they are and what they believed should cause one to reject their notion of the “better texts.”
And those “better texts” came out of a trash barrel at Sinai - so you can keep them . . . and to your own crowd.
Luke 2:41 (KJB)
“Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.”
Context, context, context
K.J.B.
“Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it” (Luke 2:41-43).
A.S.V.
“And his parents went every year to Jerusalem at the feast of the passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up after the custom of the feast; and when they had fulfilled the days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem: and his parents knew it not” (Luke 2:41-43).
The KJB clarifies the ‘legal’ notion by showing that Mary is Jesus’ mother while the ASV changes the ‘familial’ to parents.
Agreed, and if the reader had read Luke 1, there would be no confusion that the use of parents of Jesus in Luke 2 refers to the legal notion, not familial. It appear to me you are looking for controversies that are not there.
Luke 2:48-49 (KJB) (my emphasis in bold)
And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
Luke 2:48-49 (ASV) (my emphasis in bold)
And when they saw him, they were astonished; and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I sought thee sorrowing.And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? knew ye not that I must be in my Father’s house?
Clearly both show that Jesus is the Son of God.
It is not necessarily incorrect to say that Joseph and Mary were the parents of the Lord (Luke 2:41). However, it is wrong when God desires to point out that Joseph’s relationship to the Lord differs from Mary’s relationship to Him.
Mary was in error when she stated “thy father and I sought thee . . .” (Luke 2:49) - quite not the infallible woman that a certain Roman church teaches.
The 12-year old Jesus immediately corrects her (not the first time): “I must be in my Father’s house” - clearly Joseph is NOT Jesus’ father in the sense that Mary is His mother.
I do not have to hunt very hard for controversies that Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort gladly provided.
It would appear that the ‘virgin birth’ is not very high on your list for fundamentals of the faith.
Extraordinarily weak. Paul didn't have Bible translations in mind when he said that, and you have no warrant to declare something that goes against your personal preferences as "philosophy and vain deceit" on your say-so.
King James onlyists are probably the most intellectually dishonest people who claim to be "Christians."
And Westcott and Hort are honest men? Really?
That's the problem with KJV onlyism, particularly the more pernicious varieties, like Ruckmanism (of which Grady is a proponent). "Believing the King James Bible" becomes an essential element of the Gospel itself, and ironically the so-called "Bible-believers" place themselves under the anathema of Galatians 1:8-9.
While they weren't fundamentalist Baptists, they weren't "Satan-worshipers," to use your dishonest and loaded phrase, or anything close. I never saw a KJV-only critique of Westcott and Hort that didn't brazenly lie about them.
Perhaps your evaluation of them is different, but I doubt you do anything other than recycle other KJV-only falsehoods.
My ‘evaluation’ of them is based upon the testimony of Westcott’s son . . . My dad was a “spiritualist” and founded the “ghost Society.”
Sounds like an open affinity with Satan to me?
Do you reject the notion that the manuscripts recovered from St. Catherine’s monastery were full of scribal errors and thus rejections?
Do some homework. All these new versions are ‘translated’ and financed by someone. many of them NOT Christian. Many strip words/passages so as to remove Jesus’ Divinity or name , using ‘him’ or ‘he’ in its place. The coming man of lawlessness will proclaim himself ‘god’ and will need a ‘bible’ to show ‘correct’ scripture. Just saying.
KJV - Keeping Jesus Visible.
All English bibles were translated and financed by someone including the KJV.
You may not believe this but there are people who are incapable of understanding certain passages of the KJV because they are written in 1611 English. Translations like the NIV, American Standard and others help those who just don't understand words and text like:
Moreover, the portray (Ezek. 4:1) bloody flux (Acts 28:8) botch (Deut. 28:27) his ossifrage (Lev. 11:13) while the pommels (2 Chron. 4:12) pygarg (Deut. 14:5) his victual (Ex. 12:39). Waxed rich (Rev. 18:3) caused a tender eyed (Gen. 29:17) unicorn (Numbers 23:22) to spikenard (Mark 14:3) the sabaoth (Rom. 9:29) the same time a cankerworm (Joel 1:4) cheek teeth (Joel 1:6) the exactors (Isa. 60:17). But that’s not all! The crisping pins (Isa. 3:22) fell out of the chamois (Dt. 14:5) fray (Jer. 7:33) engines (Ezek. 26:9) and succour (Heb. 2:18) the malefactor (John 18:30) into the lily work (1 Kings 7:19)! For those who think this is but succothbenoth (2 Kings 17:30), vain janglings (1 Tim. 1:6) and superfluity of naughtiness (James 1:21), winefat (Isa. 63:2) and wist (Joshua 8:14) will unstopped (Isa. 35:5). Trow (Luke 17:9) the wreathen (Ex. 28:14) and gay clothing (James 2:3) over the clift (Ex. 33:32) and churl (Isa. 32:5) the checker work (1 Kings 7:17) down the firepans (2 Kings 25:15) and on hungerbitten (Job 18:12) hoar frost (Ex. 16:14). The latchet (Mark 1:7) to the lowering (Mt. 16:3) has occurrent (1 Kings 5:4) and even munition (Isa. 29:7). The mortar (Num. 11:8) pavement (Esther 1:6) is below the almug (1 Kings 10:12) and pressfat (Hag. 2:16) the sheaf (Gen. 37:7).
Let's look at the origins of the NIV. The following comes from https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/ :
The New International Version (NIV) is a completely original translation of the Bible developed by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.
The initial vision for the project was provided by a single individual – an engineer working with General Electric in Seattle by the name of Howard Long. Long was a lifelong devotee of the King James Version, but when he shared it with his friends he was distressed to find that it just didn’t connect. Long saw the need for a translation that captured the truths he loved in the language that his contemporaries spoke.
For 10 years, Long and a growing group of like-minded supporters drove this idea. The passion of one man became the passion of a church, and ultimately the passion of a whole group of denominations. And finally, in 1965, after several years of preparatory study, a trans-denominational and international group of scholars met in Palos Heights, Illinois, and agreed to begin work on the project – determining to not simply adapt an existing English version of the Bible but to start from scratch with the best available manuscripts in the original languages. Their conclusion was endorsed by a large number of church leaders who met in Chicago in 1966.
A self-governing body of fifteen biblical scholars, the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) was formed and charged with responsibility for the version, and in 1968 the New York Bible Society (which subsequently became the International Bible Society and then Biblica) generously undertook the financial sponsorship of the project. The translation of each book was assigned to translation teams, each made up of two lead translators, two translation consultants, and a stylistic consultant where necessary. The initial translations produced by these teams were carefully scrutinized and revised by intermediate editorial committees of five biblical scholars to check them against the source texts and assess them for comprehensibility. Each edited text was then submitted to a general committee of eight to twelve members before being distributed to selected outside critics and to all members of the CBT in preparation for a final review. Samples of the translation were tested for clarity and ease of reading with pastors, students, scholars, and lay people across the full breadth of the intended audience. Perhaps no other translation has undergone a more thorough process of review and revision. From the very start, the NIV sought to bring modern Bible readers as close as possible to the experience of the very first Bible readers: providing the best possible blend of transparency to the original documents and comprehension of the original meaning in every verse. With this clarity of focus, however, came the realization that the work of translating the NIV would never be truly complete. As new discoveries were made about the biblical world and its languages, and as the norms of English usage developed and changed over time, the NIV would also need to change to hold true to its original vision.
And so in the original NIV charter, provision was made not just to issue periodic updates to the text but also to create a mechanism for constant monitoring of changes in biblical scholarship and English usage. The CBT was charged to meet every year to review, maintain, and strengthen the NIV’s ability to accurately and faithfully render God’s unchanging Word in modern English.
The 2011 update to the NIV is the latest fruit of this process. By working with input from pastors and Bible scholars, by grappling with the latest discoveries about biblical languages and the biblical world, and by using cutting-edge research on English usage, the Committee on Bible Translation has updated the text to ensure that the New International Version of the Bible remains faithful to Howard Long’s original inspiration.
I just don't see anything nefarious about the NIV translation or its translators!!
Understood. Homework can be hard, kinda like math.
Well, then, let's just evaluate your "evaluation," shall we?
Here is what Arthur Westcott writes about his father's involvement in the "Ghostlie Guild":
[Westcott] devoted himself with ardour, during his last year at Cambridge, to two new societies. One of these was the "Ghostlie Guild" and the other the "Choral Society." The "Ghostlie Guild" . . . was established for the investigation of all supernatural appearances and effect. Westcott took a leading part in their proceedings, and their inquiry circular was originally drawn up by him. He also received a number of communications in response. Outsiders, failing to appreciate the fact that these investigators were in earnest and only seeking the truth, called them the "Cock and Bull Club." (Arthur Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. 1 [London: Macmillan, 1901], 117, emphasis added)
Contrary to the KJV-only claim, the purpose of the Ghostlie Guild was not to engage in occultism, but to investigate supernatural claims with the intent of determining whether they were true. Even if they turned out to be bunk, Westcott believed there might be some scientific value to the investigation (Ibid., 118).
Does this make Westcott an occultist? Obviously not. There is obviously a major categorical difference between investigating ghost stories, and calling the ghosts up oneself.
Second, Arthur Westcott does not in fact call his father a "spiritualist." Remarking on his father's waning interest in the subject, he says it was "not altogether, I believe, from want of faith in what, for lack of a better name, one must call Spiritualism" (Ibid., 119). He is using the term in a non-standard way: not the religious craze that gave rise to "psychics" and seances, but clearly a broader belief in supernatural events. Moreover, he says the real reason B. F. Westcott gave up his involvement was simply that "he was seriously convinved that such investigations led to no good."
The elder Westcott himself said, some years later:
Many years ago I had occasion to investigate "spiritualistic" phenomena with some care, and I came to a clear conclusion. . . . It appears to me that in this, as in all spiritual questions, Holy Scripture is our supreme guide. I observe, then, that while spiritual ministries are constantly recorded in the Bible, there is not the faintest encouragement to seek them. The case, indeed, is far otherwise. I cannot, therefore, but regard every voluntary approach to beings such as those who are supposed to hold communication with men through mediums as unlawful and perilous. I find in the fact of the Incarnation all that man (so far as I can see) requires for life and hope. (B. F. Westcott, "The Response to The Appeal," Borderland, Vol. 1 no. 1 [July 1893], 11 [source]).
In other words, far from being some sort of committed occultist, Westcott makes two key Christian affirmations: of the sufficiency of Scripture for all spiritual questions, and the sufficiency of Christ for hope beyond the grave.
Additionally, that same Web page notes that Westcott was invited by his friend Edward Benson to join the Ghostlie Guild, so the claim that Westcott "founded" the club is also inaccurate.
So now we know how well you've done your homework. Obviously you have spent no time reading primary sources, and have merely regurgitated false quote-mined claims from Ruckmanites. Amazingly, this is the most substantive claim made against Westcott and Hort, and yet it is easily shown to be a complete fiction.
Why must I have faith that if God is able to preserve his Word, he must have done so in the KJV? Faith means taking someone at his word, and yet we have no word from God that this is so. Which means your faith in KJV-onlyism is a blind one.
We’ll eventually get to a fuller discussion of Westcott and Hort . . . plenty of other truths about our subject will be discussed on the way.
For a thread that stated no arguments . . . there sure are plenty.
Satan started all that with his, “Yea, hath God said?” in the garden and continues it through to our current day.
As was mentioned earlier - if Satan has attacked every thing good in this world, why should we somehow think that the Bible is ‘exempt’ from being counterfeited?
That is the premise for our study - How can a book that God has blessed for over 400 years, been used mightly in two great awakenings and the Cumberland Valley revival - used by every major English and American evangelist to the salvation of millions, not to mention the great work of missionaries and pastors - all using the King James Bible - be anything less that THE BOOK THAT GOD HAS CHOSEN FOR THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING WORLD?
It is . . . and the proof goes much further than simple childlike faith. We have seen the pudding!
But feel free to call me a Ruckmanite if you wish - I’m just a Bible believer.
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.