Jump to content
Online Baptist

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, robycop3 said:

Wouldn't have been necessary had I given him a version in contemporary English, which he was still learning.

And yet, overall it was to his profit - that cannot be denied. He profited in learning about the passage from God's Word, and he profited from learning more about the English language.

And he did so AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE ARCHAIC LANGUAGE.

 

By the way, each of the versions that you have noted still contain certain archaic language, so your use of that argument against the KJV is actually irrelevant.

Are you aware that the majority of changes made to the KJV in the production of the NKJV were done not for any translation or doctrinal issue, but simply to avoid the copyright implications? 

Copyright requires a % difference for something to be considered a "new work", and as such a number of changes were made for the sole purpose of avoiding the copyright issue.

Were they good changes or bad changes? one thing is certain - they were not made for any genuine reason that had any readability, doctrinal, or translational basis, but only for the sake of avoiding the copyright implications.

How does that make it better? Change for the sake of making changes - just in order to make it different...…………..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This argument is a "Straw Man" and meant to deflect answering a genuine opinion from someone else that views the subject differently.  I've studied the qualifications and credits of the original

The KJVO myth is man-made & false. Just as God caused the KJV to be made to present His word in the then-current English style, He has caused newer translations to be made to reflect the changes H

Actually, I find that much of a modern English use is dumbed down and oversimplified. We don’t use nearly the breadth of language available to us in classic English.  I have no desire to use a Bible w

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I found it funny that the NKJV took out so-called archaic words in some passages - BUT then used the exact same archaic word in a different spot. It’s exactly what Dave said above: enough changes made to make sure they conformed to the copyright laws, not changes made to make the text easier to understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators
13 minutes ago, Jerry said:

I found it funny that the NKJV took out so-called archaic words in some passages - BUT then used the exact same archaic word in a different spot. It’s exactly what Dave said above: enough changes made to make sure they conformed to the copyright laws, not changes made to make the text easier to understand.

Not trying to derail this thread, but is this Jerry, a blast from the past here on OB? 😁 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DaveW said:

And yet, overall it was to his profit - that cannot be denied. He profited in learning about the passage from God's Word, and he profited from learning more about the English language.

And he did so AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE ARCHAIC LANGUAGE.

 

By the way, each of the versions that you have noted still contain certain archaic language, so your use of that argument against the KJV is actually irrelevant.

Are you aware that the majority of changes made to the KJV in the production of the NKJV were done not for any translation or doctrinal issue, but simply to avoid the copyright implications? 

Copyright requires a % difference for something to be considered a "new work", and as such a number of changes were made for the sole purpose of avoiding the copyright issue.

Were they good changes or bad changes? one thing is certain - they were not made for any genuine reason that had any readability, doctrinal, or translational basis, but only for the sake of avoiding the copyright implications.

How does that make it better? Change for the sake of making changes - just in order to make it different...…………..

  It's for the better because it's mostly in contemporary language, & corrects some KJV goofs, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4

 

  And in Britain, the KJV is copyrighted. Its holders are the Universities of Oxford & Cambridge, Ayers & Spottiswoode Co. & Harper Collins.

In the USA, most KJV editions are partially copyrighted, with virtually all having their extratextual material, illustrations, etc. copyrighted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Copywriting the supplemental material or even the particular format of a Bible edition is not the same thing as copywriting the text. Anyone anywhere in the world is free to copy, print, use and distribute the King James Bible text.

Like I say on my website: All Scripture quotations on this site are from the King James Bible. 
Used by permission of the Author.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Ridiculous answer that avoids the point.

The point is that the NKJV text itself is owned by a corporation, but the only way they could do that was to make sufficient changes from the KJV to then own the copyright for the NKJV SO THEY COULD PROFIT FROM IT.

The changes they made are in the majority to satisfy the copyright requirements for them to own the rights NOT FOR ANY LINGUISTIC, TRANSLATIONAL, DOCTRINAL, OR EASE OF UNDERSTANDING PURPOSES.

FOR PROFIT.

FOR MONEY.

FOR CASH.

NOT FOR ANY GOOD THEOLOGICAL REASON.

NOT FOR UNDERSTANDABILITY.

NOT FOR ANY TRANSLATIONAL REASON.

How about then answer the ACTUAL points, rather than sidestepping them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DaveW said:

YOU decide which of the DIFFERENT - sometimes vastly different - renderings is correct according to WHAT YOU THINK is right...… You become the authority as it is based upon your decisions.

Just because you refuse to see that you are placing yourself in authority over God's Word does not make it less so.

I had the situation once when I was talking to a friend that I pointed out to him that he should choose one Bible for his family so that he could say to his children that they had one single authority.

He understood it when I said to him that if he picked and chose a different version for each situation, what he was doing was showing his children that if he didn't like what one bible said, he could choose another THAT SUITED HIM. That shows his children that the standard was not solid but changed according to circumstance.

Multiple versions means that YOU BECOME THE JUDGE OVER THE WORD of God.

YOU choose the one that SUITS YOU in any given situation.

YOU change the Word of God (by choosing what suits you) according to WHAT YOU WANT.

One single version that you make yourself accountable to means that YOU CHANGE to SUIT THE WORD OF GOD.

Which one of those is right? Should I change the Word of God, or should I let the Word of God change me?

 

And remember, at this point I am only arguing for a solid and firm foundation instead of a moveable and changing one, NOT what that foundation should be.

That is another matter.

Oh yeah - if you were an advanced member in a practical rather than a technical sense you have known that.

The quoting thing is always a little bit hard - I think everyone realises it was not out of intent to deceive in some way.

  A preacher chooses what parts of God's word he's gonna preach from, on a given Sunday, and more than one preacher uses a different version  for each service.

Using multiple translations gives one a bettwe overview of Scripture. And it's a gimme that some translators are better than others, and some editors who put the translators' work into sentences are better than others. But I believe God gives different insights to each of them.

 Being confined to just one translations limits one to the  work of just one team of Bible-makers.  that's equivalent to a radio station playing only the works of one artist.

  I don't believe there's any set rule on this. But I DO know GOD is not limited to just one translation in any language, and I see nothing wrong with using any or all the various tools God has provided for us. But if you feel YOU should use only one translation, fine. I feel differently, as I'm a different person from you.

    My disagreement  isn't so much  with one's being "One-Version-Only" as it is when such a person tells another that HIS pet version is the ONLY valid version. That's simply a lie.

9 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Ridiculous answer that avoids the point.

The point is that the NKJV text itself is owned by a corporation, but the only way they could do that was to make sufficient changes from the KJV to then own the copyright for the NKJV SO THEY COULD PROFIT FROM IT.

The changes they made are in the majority to satisfy the copyright requirements for them to own the rights NOT FOR ANY LINGUISTIC, TRANSLATIONAL, DOCTRINAL, OR EASE OF UNDERSTANDING PURPOSES.

FOR PROFIT.

FOR MONEY.

FOR CASH.

NOT FOR ANY GOOD THEOLOGICAL REASON.

NOT FOR UNDERSTANDABILITY.

NOT FOR ANY TRANSLATIONAL REASON.

How about then answer the ACTUAL points, rather than sidestepping them?

   I bet that almost anyone who prints copies of the KJV does it to make money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I AM a proponent of the King James translation in opposition to the "modern translations," because of the difference in textual SOURCE for those translations.  However, for the sake of factual accuracy, I am compelled to provide a corrective.

33 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

 And in Britain, the KJV is copyrighted. Its holders are the Universities of Oxford & Cambridge, Ayers & Spottiswoode Co. & Harper Collins.

That is a factually accurate statement.

18 minutes ago, Jerry said:

Anyone anywhere in the world is free to copy, print, use and distribute the King James Bible text.

That is a factually inaccurate statement.  It would be more accurate to say -- Anyone anywhere in the world, EXCEPT IN THOSE PLACES WHEREIN BRITISH LAW GOVERNS, is free to copy, print, use and distribute the King James Bible text.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
12 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

Using multiple translations gives one a bettwe overview of Scripture. And it's a gimme that some translators are better than others, and some editors who put the translators' work into sentences are better than others. But I believe God gives different insights to each of them.

The great problem that I have with the position expressed above is that it completely misses two important facts:

1.  That the King James translation and the "modern translations" are translated from two DIFFERENT textual SOURCES.  (Even so, I would contend that the debate is NOT even really a translational debate, as much as it is a TEXTUAL debate.)

2.  That the Biblical DOCTRINE OF PRESERVATION should inform our decision concerning which textual SOURCE to accept.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Okay.

Where is the scriptural support for that?[/quote]

  First, sorry I didn't answer your questions earlier.

The answer is, in Acts 2, where the HOLY SPIRIT caused all present to hear Peter's words in his/her own language. I believe God still superintends His word in  whatever languages it's presented in today. Also in 1 Cor. 14:11.

Where is the scriptural support for that?

 In all the places where God says He preserves His word.

Where is the scriptural support for that?

Same as above.

Well...It answered it, but all that I gathered from it was that you gave unconvincing answers as to what

you believe.

KJVOs leave me unconvinced.

O Ok. I c. Talk 2 u l8rz.

10-4, Back Door

 

2 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

The great problem that I have with the position expressed above is that it completely misses two important facts:

1.  That the King James translation and the "modern translations" are translated from two DIFFERENT textual SOURCES.  (Even so, I would contend that the debate is NOT even really a translational debate, as much as it is a TEXTUAL debate.)

2.  That the Biblical DOCTRINE OF PRESERVATION should inform our decision concerning which textual SOURCE to accept.

  Well, Sir, as none of us were present when any of those ancient Scriptural mss. were made, & we don't know who made most of them where or when, nor know what source(s) they used, I just accept all of them as habing been preserved by GOD for our use. Even if I knew their languages forward & backward, I don't believe I have any right to criticize any of them any more than I have a right to criticize the work of Shakespeare, whose language I DO know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
37 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

I bet that almost anyone who prints copies of the KJV does it to make money.

And once again you are missing the point and presenting something sideways.

The whole point of the NKJV is to own the copyright.... ANYONE who uses the NKJV to print a Bible must pay the owners of that copyright.

Plenty of people print KJV Bibles without making money, some without even covering their costs.

EVERY other Bible version (as far as I know) has a requirement to pay the copyright holders a reproduction fee.

THAT is why the NKJV was really produced - to gain rights to the reproduction fees. No matter what printer prints it, the NKJV copyright holder makes money.

And by the way Brother Markle, the UK copyright is regarding the veracity of the KJV text, meaning it cannot be changed and still called the KJV. It can be freely reproduced without payment to the UK copyright holders, as long as the text is preserved.

Not chasing money there......

Edited by DaveW
Phone spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
44 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

The great problem that I have with the position expressed above is that it completely misses two important facts:

1.  That the King James translation and the "modern translations" are translated from two DIFFERENT textual SOURCES.  (Even so, I would contend that the debate is NOT even really a translational debate, as much as it is a TEXTUAL debate.)

2.  That the Biblical DOCTRINE OF PRESERVATION should inform our decision concerning which textual SOURCE to accept.

42 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

Well, Sir, as none of us were present when any of those ancient Scriptural mss. were made, & we don't know who made most of them where or when, nor know what source(s) they used, I just accept all of them as habing been preserved by GOD for our use. Even if I knew their languages forward & backward, I don't believe I have any right to criticize any of them any more than I have a right to criticize the work of Shakespeare, whose language I DO know.

And that response reveals the foundational reason that you are open to multiple, various translations without any distinction in source or quality.  Your doctrine of preservation appears basically to be the following:

1.  God promised to preserve His Word.
2.  ALL of the textual manuscripts of God's Word available to us today are the means by which God fulfilled His promise of preservation.
3.  Since these textual manuscripts of God's Word contain multiple variations and differences, God must have intended ALL of these variations and differences to exist for us.
4.  Even so, the best way for us to understand ALL of the variations and differences that God intended for us is to use multiple translations whereby we can encounter these differences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
46 minutes ago, DaveW said:

And by the way Brother Markle, the UK copyright is regarding the veracity of the KJV text, meaning it cannot be changed and still called the KJV. It can be freely reproduced without payment to the UK copyright holders, as long as the text is preserved.

Again, for the sake of factual accuracy:

Rights in The Authorized Version of the Bible (King James Bible) in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown and administered by the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press. The reproduction by any means of the text of the King James Version is permitted to a maximum of five hundred (500) verses for liturgical and non-commercial educational use, provided that the verses quoted neither amount to a complete book of the Bible nor represent 25 per cent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted, subject to the following acknowledgement being included:

Scripture quotations from The Authorized (King James) Version. Rights in the Authorized Version in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown. Reproduced by permission of the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press

When quotations from the KJV text are used in materials not being made available for sale, such as church bulletins, orders of service, posters, presentation materials, or similar media, a complete copyright notice is not required but the initials KJV must appear at the end of the quotation.

Rights or permission requests (including but not limited to reproduction in commercial publications) that exceed the above guidelines must be directed to the Permissions Department, Cambridge University Press, University Printing House, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS, UK (https://www.cambridge.org/about-us/rights-permissions) and approved in writing.

Information acquired from the following site: https://www.cambridge.org/ad/bibles/about/rights-and-permissions

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

And that response reveals the foundational reason that you are open to multiple, various translations without any distinction in source or quality.  Your doctrine of preservation appears basically to be the following:

1.  God promised to preserve His Word.
2.  ALL of the textual manuscripts of God's Word available to us today are the means by which God fulfilled His promise of preservation.
3.  Since these textual manuscripts of God's Word contain multiple variations and differences, God must have intended ALL of these variations and differences to exist for us.
4.  Even so, the best way for us to understand ALL of the variations and differences that God intended for us is to use multiple translations whereby we can encounter these differences.

 Well, Sir, what's wrong with such a view? After all, JESUS HIMSELF often quoted Old testament Scripture in somewhat-different wording from what was written, differently-enough that mere language differences didn't cover it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DaveW said:

And once again you are missing the point and presenting something sideways.

The whole point of the NKJV is to own the copyright.... ANYONE who uses the NKJV to print a Bible must pay the owners of that copyright.

Plenty of people print KJV Bibles without making money, some without even covering their costs.

EVERY other Bible version (as far as I know) has a requirement to pay the copyright holders a reproduction fee.

THAT is why the NKJV was really produced - to gain rights to the reproduction fees. No matter what printer prints it, the NKJV copyright holder makes money.

And by the way Brother Markle, the UK copyright is regarding the veracity of the KJV text, meaning it cannot be changed and still called the KJV. It can be freely reproduced without payment to the UK copyright holders, as long as the text is preserved.

Not chasing money there......

  In the USA, a person may copy a percentage of a copyrighted work without violating the copyright, and that percentage is larger if the copied material is applied to the intended use of that work. Thus, a preacher may legally copy a fairly-large percentage of a copyrighted Bible version to present it and/or preach from it.  I've never heard of any preacher in the USA being cited for copyright violation for using any part of a given copyrighted Bibee version.

    I believe the key is copying & using it FOR PROFIT.. I'm guessing the law in Australia or Britain is the same. And I don't know what the percentage figures are for one to legally reproduce the text of any copyrighted work to display or present it.

 

 

13 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

The great problem that I have with the position expressed above is that it completely misses two important facts:

1.  That the King James translation and the "modern translations" are translated from two DIFFERENT textual SOURCES.  (Even so, I would contend that the debate is NOT even really a translational debate, as much as it is a TEXTUAL debate.)

2.  That the Biblical DOCTRINE OF PRESERVATION should inform our decision concerning which textual SOURCE to accept.

 I see your points, but let me ask why we can credit God for preserving Manuscript "A", but not Manuscript "B" if both mss. are ancient & we don't know who wrote them when, or what their sources were.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

AND YET AGAIN you miss the point - is this deliberate, because it sure looks like it.

The Actual work of producing the NKJV was for the purposes of making a new version capable of being copyrighted. This means that any publisher who produces a copy of the NKJV MUST PAY a royalty to the copyright holder.

For this to be possible, a certain % of changes had to be done.

A number of the changes made in the production of the NKJV were made for no other purpose than to allow them to gain the property rights of copyright, and thereby gain the royalty stream from a "new translation". Not for any translational reason. Not for any theological reason. Not for any reason other than to make money.

THIS MEANS that many of the changes from the KJV to the NKJV were not made for any good reason.

They made a new version so they could make money off it...…….

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DaveW said:

AND YET AGAIN you miss the point - is this deliberate, because it sure looks like it.

The Actual work of producing the NKJV was for the purposes of making a new version capable of being copyrighted. This means that any publisher who produces a copy of the NKJV MUST PAY a royalty to the copyright holder.

For this to be possible, a certain % of changes had to be done.

A number of the changes made in the production of the NKJV were made for no other purpose than to allow them to gain the property rights of copyright, and thereby gain the royalty stream from a "new translation". Not for any translational reason. Not for any theological reason. Not for any reason other than to make money.

THIS MEANS that many of the changes from the KJV to the NKJV were not made for any good reason.

They made a new version so they could make money off it...…….

  Again, just about any printer/publisher who makes copies of the Bible, any version, does so for profit. Those people have to eat, same as we do.

  And the NKJV has more than just a few changes. Almost all its language is in contemporary style.

  If those companies didn't make $$ from printing/selling KJV copies, they wouldn't keep printing them, simple as THAT. You don't see too many printers making ASVs, RVs, Wycliffe's Bibles, etc. now, do you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

You are deliberately refusing to see the point - it is not about publishing, but about royalties from a "NEW' version.

This is actually the main reason for so many different versions and the ongoing stream of "new" versions - each new version has a copyright that is held almost exclusively by corporations, who receive royalties from the reproduction of the version that they "OWN" - that is why it is important to understand the difference between the copyright on the KJV and almost all other versions.

The NKJV's changes were made mostly to facilitate the copyrighting of a "new" versions.

Thomas Nelson owns the copyright to the NKJV, and every publisher who produces a copy, ASIDE FROM THEIR OWN production costs, must pay a royalty to Thomas Nelson.

This is the primary reason why there are so many different versions - nothing to do with "better translation" etc, but as a moneymaking scam.

But I am giving up on this because you apparently are unable - or more likely unwilling - to understand the point. You constantly misrepresent the matter and answer points that are not relevant.

 

And you are wrong - there are several printers that produce KJV Bible as a ministry and make no money on the process - they lose money, supported by the gifts of Christians, so that they can provide Bibles to people who don't have them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DaveW said:

You are deliberately refusing to see the point - it is not about publishing, but about royalties from a "NEW' version.

This is actually the main reason for so many different versions and the ongoing stream of "new" versions - each new version has a copyright that is held almost exclusively by corporations, who receive royalties from the reproduction of the version that they "OWN" - that is why it is important to understand the difference between the copyright on the KJV and almost all other versions.

The NKJV's changes were made mostly to facilitate the copyrighting of a "new" versions.

Thomas Nelson owns the copyright to the NKJV, and every publisher who produces a copy, ASIDE FROM THEIR OWN production costs, must pay a royalty to Thomas Nelson.

This is the primary reason why there are so many different versions - nothing to do with "better translation" etc, but as a moneymaking scam.

But I am giving up on this because you apparently are unable - or more likely unwilling - to understand the point. You constantly misrepresent the matter and answer points that are not relevant.

 

And you are wrong - there are several printers that produce KJV Bible as a ministry and make no money on the process - they lose money, supported by the gifts of Christians, so that they can provide Bibles to people who don't have them.

  It's a practice that's been going on for centuries, & it involved the KJV before the current newer versions were made. And it STILL DOES with some KJV editions.

Even though the KJV TEXT may be copied/sold by anyone outside the UK, the publishers insert copyrighted extratextual material, such as concordances, "study helps", etc. and make money selling those editions.

 I have a "table" model KJV, 14" by 12" with an illustrated leather cover, presented to me by my Steelworkers' local,  when my mom died, from the "Heritage Bible Shop", which then sold for $36.00 USA, equivalent to about $!110 USA now. It has several copyrights, for the illustrated cover, concordance, illustrations within the pages, & a section on an historian's accounts of what he believed became of each apostle after Jesus departed. Now, no one can tell me that edition wasn't made for profit!

 

  A little aside - I'm happy to have  a copyrighted Cambridge Edition KJV, as I know I have a GENUINE copy, not altered in any way from what the University of Cambridge prints & sells. In fact, I feel the same for every copyrighted Bible version I own. The only copyrights in my Hendrickson Publishing Co. repro AV 1611 is for typesetting, etc. as that edition is physically smaller than an original AV 1611, & is in Roman, rather than in Gothic font.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
17 hours ago, robycop3 said:

robycop3 responded to me, but this quote-thing isn't working so well since his quote didn't work so well, so I'm just filling in something here. Here was his answer to my question...

Where is the scriptural support for that?[/quote]

  First, sorry I didn't answer your questions earlier.

The answer is, in Acts 2, where the HOLY SPIRIT caused all present to hear Peter's words in his/her own language. I believe God still superintends His word in  whatever languages it's presented in today. Also in 1 Cor. 14:11.

I'll be honest; in that, I thought you were avoiding my questions. After you responded, my first thought was that you didn't respond sooner, because you had to look up something to justify your personal beliefs. 

You are free to believe what you want, and I can't prove if you're right in your own mind or not. What I can respond to is the scriptural support you provided. You do realize that you are using a "hearing" miracle to justify your "written...also known as...translation" beliefs??? 

Here...let me try something...

18 hours ago, robycop3 said:

  A preacher chooses multiple translations better than others.  But I believe God gives just one radio station.

  I believe GOD is limited.

But if you use only one person, it is to make money.

Are those your words?

Let me answer for you...

Yes they are. I used the exact words that you used.

Did I leave anything out...or possibly make it say what I wanted it to say...or something totally different than what you actually said?

Hmmmm....

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I'll be honest; in that, I thought you were avoiding my questions. After you responded, my first thought was that you didn't respond sooner, because you had to look up something to justify your personal beliefs. 

You are free to believe what you want, and I can't prove if you're right in your own mind or not. What I can respond to is the scriptural support you provided. You do realize that you are using a "hearing" miracle to justify your "written...also known as...translation" beliefs??? 

Here...let me try something...

Are those your words?

Let me answer for you...

Yes they are. I used the exact words that you used.

Did I leave anything out...or possibly make it say what I wanted it to say...or something totally different than what you actually said?

Hmmmm....

  Hmmmm...You must be KJVO, & a fan of Gail Riplinger's., as she often tinkers with a quote in the same manner.

Actually, I see your sarcasm. it's actually a little humorous. But I understand. When one has no REAL answer, one often resorts to humor, sarcasm, or outright ad-hominem. In over 40 years of working against false doctrines, I've seen it all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, robycop3 said:

  Hmmmm...You must be KJVO, & a fan of Gail Riplinger's., as she often tinkers with a quote in the same manner.

Actually, I see your sarcasm. it's actually a little humorous. But I understand. When one has no REAL answer, one often resorts to humor, sarcasm, or outright ad-hominem. In over 40 years of working against false doctrines, I've seen it all.

You can't see that I've actually been trying to help you. The only sarcasm that I purposely committed was my use of text-spelling in a previous answer to you...and even that was meant to help you.

Can you see that in your last response to me, you did the exact thing that you accused me of?

1. You accused me of being King James Only...which is a put-down coming from you since we all know your position on the issue.

2. You tried to shame me by saying that I must be a fan of Gail Riplinger, and then you likened me unto her. That was another put-down attempt. However, I must say...you're apparently much more familiar with her than I am.

3. You then attempted to insult my intelligence by insinuating that I had no "REAL" answer. 

You apparently didn't appreciate me misquoting you, because you responded with personal attacks against me. Here's another one for you...these are your words...

1 hour ago, robycop3 said:

 Actually, I see KJVO & Gail Riplinger's the REAL answer.

Now imagine how God must view it when he is misquoted...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎3‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 12:04 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

The great problem that I have with the position expressed above is that it completely misses two important facts:

1.  That the King James translation and the "modern translations" are translated from two DIFFERENT textual SOURCES.  (Even so, I would contend that the debate is NOT even really a translational debate, as much as it is a TEXTUAL debate.)

2.  That the Biblical DOCTRINE OF PRESERVATION should inform our decision concerning which textual SOURCE to accept.

11 hours ago, robycop3 said:

 I see your points, but let me ask why we can credit God for preserving Manuscript "A", but not Manuscript "B" if both mss. are ancient & we don't know who wrote them when, or what their sources were.

The answer to you question requires a study concerning the Biblical doctrine of preservation.  In that study the following questions would be answered --

1.  Did the Lord God promise to preserve His Word?
2.  If He did, in what manner did He promise to preserve His Word?
3.  If He did, to what extent did He promise to preserve His Word?
4.  If He did, for whom did He promise to preserve His Word?
5.  If He did, for how long did He promise to preserve His Word?

As a corollary to these questions, the following questions would also need to be answered --

1.  What is our Lord God's viewpoint concerning manmade alterations to His Word?
2.  Does our adversary the devil pursue efforts to alter the truth of God's Holy Word? 

Having done this study, and thereby having Biblically answered these questions, I have a Biblical foundation upon which to make appropriate decisions about which textual source is good and which is bad.  As such, I also have a Biblical foundation upon which to make appropriate decisions about which translation from a given textual source is good and which is bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

The answer to you question requires a study concerning the Biblical doctrine of preservation.  In that study the following questions would be answered --

1.  Did the Lord God promise to preserve His Word?
2.  If He did, in what manner did He promise to preserve His Word?
3.  If He did, to what extent did He promise to preserve His Word?
4.  If He did, for whom did He promise to preserve His Word?
5.  If He did, for how long did He promise to preserve His Word?

As a corollary to these questions, the following questions would also need to be answered --

1.  What is our Lord God's viewpoint concerning manmade alterations to His Word?
2.  Does our adversary the devil pursue efforts to alter the truth of God's Holy Word? 

Having done this study, and thereby having Biblically answered these questions, I have a Biblical foundation upon which to make appropriate decisions about which textual source is good and which is bad.  As such, I also have a Biblical foundation upon which to make appropriate decisions about which translation from a given textual source is good and which is bad.

  I believe it's plain that God said He'd preserve His word for all time. And He forbade men to subtract from or add to it. And I believe that prohibition includes deliberately-bad private interpretations. And I believe Satan attempts to cast doubt on God's word, which is why he created the KJVO myth, to attempt to smear newer English Bible translations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Lady Administrators

Except that those newer translations DO subtract from God's Word. The devil does indeed attempt to cast doubt on God's Word. He has since before the fall of man. He didn't create any  myth regarding the KJV...other than the myth that the modern versions are "better."

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

You can't see that I've actually been trying to help you. The only sarcasm that I purposely committed was my use of text-spelling in a previous answer to you...and even that was meant to help you.

Can you see that in your last response to me, you did the exact thing that you accused me of?

1. You accused me of being King James Only...which is a put-down coming from you since we all know your position on the issue.

2. You tried to shame me by saying that I must be a fan of Gail Riplinger, and then you likened me unto her. That was another put-down attempt. However, I must say...you're apparently much more familiar with her than I am.

3. You then attempted to insult my intelligence by insinuating that I had no "REAL" answer. 

You apparently didn't appreciate me misquoting you, because you responded with personal attacks against me. Here's another one for you...these are your words...

Now imagine how God must view it when he is misquoted...

 Sorry if it came across as an insult,  but there are some facts about God's actions that, while not plainly stated in Scripture, are clearly implied.in it. An example is the "translations" issue. As God created and maintains all languages,  I believe it's implied that He places His word in each of them.

 As for Riplinger, yes, I've read 2 of her boox, so as to "know the enemy". Her material is about as reliable as a Paul Manafort affidavit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

How is it in any way profitable for any version to either remove verses or even if they leave the verses in they add a note that says something like "not found in the better manuscripts"?

And by the way, they have ABSOLUTELY no basis for claiming a verse is not found in the better manuscripts, because they have no basis for claiming they are better.

All it does is casts doubt on the Word of God.

Genesis 3

 1  Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 hours ago, robycop3 said:

 Sorry if it came across as an insult,  but there are some facts about God's actions that, while not plainly stated in Scripture, are clearly implied.in it. An example is the "translations" issue. As God created and maintains all languages,  I believe it's implied that He places His word in each of them.

 As for Riplinger, yes, I've read 2 of her boox, so as to "know the enemy". Her material is about as reliable as a Paul Manafort affidavit.

I wasn't insulted whatsoever.

3 hours ago, DaveW said:

How is it in any way profitable for any version to either remove verses or even if they leave the verses in they add a note that says something like "not found in the better manuscripts"?

And by the way, they have ABSOLUTELY no basis for claiming a verse is not found in the better manuscripts, because they have no basis for claiming they are better.

All it does is casts doubt on the Word of God.

Genesis 3

 1  Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

I thought the basis was that they are supposedly based on "older" manuscripts...aka...older is better.

I'd much rather attempt to drive from Georgia to California in my wife's 2010 Jeep Compass than my 1998 Ford Escort ZX2. Older doesn't automatically mean better. 🤔

Our son is 8; I'm 52. He can get around a lot better than I can...

Last year, we replaced our roof, heat and air system, and water heater...because the older ones were no longer any good...

Earlier this year, we had to replace our stove...the old one wasn't any good any longer...

A couple of centuries ago, they used to bleed people in an attempt to get rid of health problems...I'll take today's newer health knowledge...

London used to have their sewage running down the sides of their streets...I'll take today's newer sanitary sewage systems...

Mark 16 doesn't belong in newer Bible versions that are based on those older...aka...better manuscripts...

Doctrine is different in newer Bible versions that are based on those older...aka...better manuscripts...

robycop3 says that he has been battling against false doctrine for the last 40 years...

Hmmmmmm...now that's interesting.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
20 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

The answer to you question requires a study concerning the Biblical doctrine of preservation.  In that study the following questions would be answered --

1.  Did the Lord God promise to preserve His Word?
2.  If He did, in what manner did He promise to preserve His Word?
3.  If He did, to what extent did He promise to preserve His Word?
4.  If He did, for whom did He promise to preserve His Word?
5.  If He did, for how long did He promise to preserve His Word?

As a corollary to these questions, the following questions would also need to be answered --

1.  What is our Lord God's viewpoint concerning manmade alterations to His Word?
2.  Does our adversary the devil pursue efforts to alter the truth of God's Holy Word? 

Having done this study, and thereby having Biblically answered these questions, I have a Biblical foundation upon which to make appropriate decisions about which textual source is good and which is bad.  As such, I also have a Biblical foundation upon which to make appropriate decisions about which translation from a given textual source is good and which is bad.

8 hours ago, robycop3 said:

  I believe it's plain that God said He'd preserve His word for all time. And He forbade men to subtract from or add to it. And I believe that prohibition includes deliberately-bad private interpretations. And I believe Satan attempts to cast doubt on God's word, which is why he created the KJVO myth, to attempt to smear newer English Bible translations.

As you have given answer above to my questions concerning the doctrine of preservation, allow me to do the same:

1.  Did the Lord God promise to preserve His Word?  Most certainly.
2.  If He did, in what manner did He promise to preserve His Word?  In a "jot and tittle" manner.
3.  If He did, to what extent did He promise to preserve His Word?  To a generational extent, that is -- for each generation.
4.  If He did, for whom did He promise to preserve His Word?  For the sake of His people.
5.  If He did, for how long did He promise to preserve His Word?  Till heaven and earth should pass away.

Concerning the corollary questions:

1.  What is our Lord God's viewpoint concerning manmade alterations to His Word?  He is VERY STRONGLY against it.
2.  Does our adversary the devil pursue efforts to alter the truth of God's Holy Word?  Most certainly.

With these answers, I expect the following:

1.  The Lord our God has and will make certain to preserve manuscripts (not necessarily originals) that contain the precise wording of His Word in the original languages.
2.  These preserved manuscripts and copies thereof will be passed down generationally, first through the children of Israel for the Old Testament Scriptures and through the true church of the Lord for the addition of the New Testament Scriptures.
3.  The devil has and will work to motivate various manmade alterations and corruptions unto the precise wording of God's Word, thus we should expect to encounter both pure Scriptural manuscripts and corrupt Scriptural manuscripts in competition with one another.  (Note: This viewpoint would be defeated if we find that the Lord our God has promised to PREVENT the existence of any alterations or corruptions to the Scriptural manuscripts of His Word.)

Even so, I am compelled to following conclusions:

1.  Not ALL Scriptural manuscripts can be trusted as the truth, for some of them contain corruption by the work of our adversary the devil.
2.  Since not ALL Scriptural manuscripts can be trusted, I must discern which are valid and which are corrupt.
3.  Any individual who claims that ALL manuscripts are valid simply misunderstands the reality of the devil's work of corruption in this matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  Well, Sir, by the same token the KJV has been supplanted by newer, better translations that are in OUR language style & vernacular.

   And, BTW, I'm not necessarily in the "older is better" manuscript crowd. But neither am i in the "more material = better ms." crowd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

As you have given answer above to my questions concerning the doctrine of preservation, allow me to do the same:

1.  Did the Lord God promise to preserve His Word?  Most certainly.
2.  If He did, in what manner did He promise to preserve His Word?  In a "jot and tittle" manner.
3.  If He did, to what extent did He promise to preserve His Word?  To a generational extent, that is -- for each generation.
4.  If He did, for whom did He promise to preserve His Word?  For the sake of His people.
5.  If He did, for how long did He promise to preserve His Word?  Till heaven and earth should pass away.

Concerning the corollary questions:

1.  What is our Lord God's viewpoint concerning manmade alterations to His Word?  He is VERY STRONGLY against it.
2.  Does our adversary the devil pursue efforts to alter the truth of God's Holy Word?  Most certainly.

With these answers, I expect the following:

1.  The Lord our God has and will make certain to preserve manuscripts (not necessarily originals) that contain the precise wording of His Word in the original languages.
2.  These preserved manuscripts and copies thereof will be passed down generationally, first through the children of Israel for the Old Testament Scriptures and through the true church of the Lord for the addition of the New Testament Scriptures.
3.  The devil has and will work to motivate various manmade alterations and corruptions unto the precise wording of God's Word, thus we should expect to encounter both pure Scriptural manuscripts and corrupt Scriptural manuscripts in competition with one another.  (Note: This viewpoint would be defeated if we find that the Lord our God has promised to PREVENT the existence of any alterations or corruptions to the Scriptural manuscripts of His Word.)

Even so, I am compelled to following conclusions:

1.  Not ALL Scriptural manuscripts can be trusted as the truth, for some of them contain corruption by the work of our adversary the devil.
2.  Since not ALL Scriptural manuscripts can be trusted, I must discern which are valid and which are corrupt.
3.  Any individual who claims that ALL manuscripts are valid simply misunderstands the reality of the devil's work of corruption in this matter.

  But now, WHO among men decides which mss. are completely valid & which ones are corrupt, when confronted by a trunk full of ancient Scriptural mss?

 

  I believe JESUS gave us good reason to not automatically dismiss a Scriptural ms. based upon where it was found, or material being seemingly added or omitted, without SOUND, POSITIVE evidence of corruption.

   Jesus' prime example is in Luke 4:16-21 when He read aloud in the synagogue in Nazareth from a vorlage copy of Isaiah. What He read does not match Isaiah 42:7 nor 61:1-3 all that closely, but he called it "this Scripture", which ends any valid argument against it. And in several other quotes of OT Scriptures, Jesus did not follow what's in the Ben Chayyim text used to make the Old Testament in most Bible translations. And again, there's simply no questioning Scripture as presented by Jesus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
16 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

Except that those newer translations DO subtract from God's Word. The devil does indeed attempt to cast doubt on God's Word. He has since before the fall of man. He didn't create any  myth regarding the KJV...other than the myth that the modern versions are "better."

Funny how Mr Roby won't address this, even though you pointed it out, as did I?

He talks about taking away from God's Word, but ignores the fact that the majority of MV's either actually remove verses or at least imply they should be removed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...