Biblical and/or Factual Basis

[kevinmiller]

Since we have several rabbit-trail debates going on about the KJV, I figured I would post these questions here without anything else to distract in the hope that they might be answered.

To the hard core KJVO's:

1. What Biblical basis is there for the KJV?

2. What factual basis is there for the KJV?

3. Where was the Bible before 1611?

Thanks.

P.S. No circumstantial evidence please.

[Calvary]

1. What Biblical basis is there for the KJV?

It's a simple process of elimination. Gather all the verses that describe the attributes of the word of God. Systemize them. being honest, you begin to eliminate any version that does not hold to the actual Bioblical data that you have accumalated. For instance, when the word of God says that truth is one of it's immutable attributes, and you find a verse in some Bible that in fact is not true, can it be then, the word of God? Is Mark 1:1-3 true in the NASB? Is it true in the NIV? Is it true in the RV? Well, as a matter of fact, no. So is the NASB, the NIV or the RV the word of God according to what the actual Biblical data states?

2. What factual basis is there for the KJV?

The factual basis, is very much the same as the Biblical basis, I would have to say see the above. You're just wording it a little differently. But the only true facts are Biblical facts. Thy word is truth.

3. Where was the Bible before 1611?

"The Bible" was found in whatever the priesthood of believers denoted the BIble to be at their junction in time. I woudl reccomend that you study the doctrine of provoidential preservation as positied by Edward F Hills in his book The KJV Defended. It is actually a great piece, without any diatribe or personal attack. Edward Hills was a very soft spoken, mild mannered man. A doctartae from Harvad and Yale, he was a great defender of the TR text type, and therefore logically extended that defense to the KJB as there is no other English variant available that demostrates that text type.

Providential p[reservation is basically this. The Older mss that are extant today are very well preserved, they are on better material (not contain, "on"), they are beautiful, perfectly spaced and their calligraphy is immaculate. I refer to the Vaticanus, Sianaticus, B, D, P75 etc.

They are hardly even used! And that is one of the points Doc. Hills makes. The so few examples of the "older mss" lends to the idea that few Christians actually ever read them. The numerous and newer mss which make up the bulk of the "Byzantine text type" (TR) lend to theidea that Christians used them all the time and therefore they wore out, making it neccesary to produce more copies and that's why we have 5000+ pieces of this text type.

How many Bibles have you wore out? I have wore out a few in my 25+ yeasr as a Christian. So I go get another one. The leafs begin to fall out, my notes begin to fade or jumble up the page to the point of distraction, the bindings fail etc.

I do have some special study Bibles as well. We all do most likely.

I have a Dakes Bible. A Companion Bible. A Beautiful Cambridge wide margin. These are still in the boxes they came in. very well preserved becuase I hardly ever actually use them.

However I am on my 2nd Spanish Bible at this church and I only began the work 4 years ago in my living room.

Application.

Due to the frequent use of the Byzantine text type, it's frequent re-production, it's familiar sound to the common man, it's public ministry, the Body of Christ maintained it's purity by its use. Whenever a newer reading was introduced it would land on ears that were already accustomed to the text that they grew up on. And therefore rejected by the priesthood of believers. God gave the custody of his word in the OT to the Jew. He did the same in the NT to His Body.

If you have heard For God so loved the world that He gave His Only-begotten Son, that whosover believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life for all your Christiian life,

then along comes a guy and gets in the pulpit and says,

God loved everybody, he proved it by sending his only son to save anyone at all that believes on him.

Yeah, it's the same nessage. But you know it doesn't sound like what you've heard all your Christian life. So you understood what it meant, but somewhere down in your heart you knew it wasn't the real way to say it. So it's rejected.

Now think. 400 years ago, 600 years ago, 1000 years ago Christians did not have as many distractions in life to dissuade them from regular Bible reading, regular family time, regular worship. It was their life. It was the axel, not the spoke of their daily existence. Today you have very light bread Christianity over all. We both know it's true. The average Christian couldn't quote more than 10 running verses.
I don't say this to brag, but in our home we have held to a rigid devotional time that includes Bible memorization. My son when he was only 7 or 8 years old could quote Proverbs 1,2,3,4,5. I mean the chapters brother, not a few verses. I can quote Romans 1,2,3 John 3,5 and others.

That is the huge difference between our generations and those of yesteryear.

The Lord used that time period to endear the words of God in the hearts of Christians and thereby preserved His words in that process.
Today that process is gone. Say what you like brother, it just doesn't exist anymore. Christianity is Laodecian and lazy over all. I beleive that it is a very compelling thesis and a very likely truth that God preserved his words in that way. Since His priesthood has waxed slow, he has at least in these last days afforded us a viable preserved through tramission of a priesthood, secondarily through a text type and finally to us by our common faith.

I don't accept the KJB simply by faith or simply because it says KJB on the cover. I think a lot of us have done a lot of homework, we have derived certain conclusions based upona Bible believing approach to the words of God and have rejected any naturalistic approach as it relies upon human rationale instead of seeing what the Lord has done before. he did so preserve his words of the prophets exatly as I have said. He used a priesthood to maintian their purity. He has done the same with the NT brother. Providential preservation states that due to our faithful ness in defending the words of God as of rgeater import than the general message or tome of the words, we have a pure text today. It is found in the KJB. Ther simply is no other representative of the text type that has been used by the NT priesthood of believers available today. If you know of one that better presents the preserved text, please share it with us. If you have a better purer word than the KJB, I for one would like to have it.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

God bless,

Calvary

[kevinmiller]

Thanks for taking the time to respond Calvary. Before I reply though, I want to wait in the hopes that others who hold to similar beliefs will also take the time to answer these questions. :smile

[kevinmiller]

Well, looks like you are it Calvary. lol

It's a simple process of elimination. Gather all the verses that describe the attributes of the word of God. Systemize them. being honest, you begin to eliminate any version that does not hold to the actual Bioblical data that you have accumalated. For instance, when the word of God says that truth is one of it's immutable attributes, and you find a verse in some Bible that in fact is not true, can it be then, the word of God? Is Mark 1:1-3 true in the NASB? Is it true in the NIV? Is it true in the RV? Well, as a matter of fact, no. So is the NASB, the NIV or the RV the word of God according to what the actual Biblical data states?

I don't quite follow this line of reasoning. What verses are you going to use to compare the other versions against? If it is the KJV then we are back to what basis is there for the KJV. Which, using the KJV would be fine amongst those of us who believe that the KJV is without error but it would be hard to convince someone who uses any and every version to come out. And if, in the Geneva, or Evidence Bible, it does not contradict or "lie," are we safe to assume that they are as much God's Word?

I'm not sure what you mean by Mark 1:1-3 though.

The factual basis, is very much the same as the Biblical basis, I would have to say see the above. You're just wording it a little differently. But the only true facts are Biblical facts. Thy word is truth.

So you are saying that you don't believe that there is a factual basis for the Bible? And yes, God's Word is truth. But again, we are back to what makes the KJV truth.

"The Bible" was found in whatever the priesthood of believers denoted the BIble to be at their junction in time. I woudl reccomend that you study the doctrine of provoidential preservation as positied by Edward F Hills in his book The KJV Defended. It is actually a great piece, without any diatribe or personal attack. Edward Hills was a very soft spoken, mild mannered man. A doctartae from Harvad and Yale, he was a great defender of the TR text type, and therefore logically extended that defense to the KJB as there is no other English variant available that demostrates that text type.

Providential p[reservation is basically this. The Older mss that are extant today are very well preserved, they are on better material (not contain, "on"), they are beautiful, perfectly spaced and their calligraphy is immaculate. I refer to the Vaticanus, Sianaticus, B, D, P75 etc.

They are hardly even used! And that is one of the points Doc. Hills makes. The so few examples of the "older mss" lends to the idea that few Christians actually ever read them. The numerous and newer mss which make up the bulk of the "Byzantine text type" (TR) lend to theidea that Christians used them all the time and therefore they wore out, making it neccesary to produce more copies and that's why we have 5000+ pieces of this text type.

So in your first paragraph here, are you saying that the Bible was whatever the true Christians assumed or claimed it to be? You say that it was whatever the believers denoted it to be.

And are you also saying that a faithfully translated Bible from the TR or Byzantine Text is what makes it the Word of God? It seems you are authenticating them here.

God loved everybody, he proved it by sending his only son to save anyone at all that believes on him.

Yeah, it's the same nessage. But you know it doesn't sound like what you've heard all your Christian life. So you understood what it meant, but somewhere down in your heart you knew it wasn't the real way to say it. So it's rejected.

I'm not sure of the point you are making. Are you against paraphrasing?

If you know of one that better presents the preserved text, please share it with us. If you have a better purer word than the KJB, I for one would like to have it.

So are you accepting the KJV because it best represents the Greek and Hebrew Texts? If that is the case, then I agree with you.

[Calvary]

Well, looks like you are it Calvary. lol

Well it could be because we're kicking a dead horse, in fact a putrid corpse of a dead horse.



I don't quite follow this line of reasoning. What verses are you going to use to compare the other versions against? If it is the KJV then we are back to what basis is there for the KJV. Which, using the KJV would be fine amongst those of us who believe that the KJV is without error but it would be hard to convince someone who uses any and every version to come out. And if, in the Geneva, or Evidence Bible, it does not contradict or "lie," are we safe to assume that they are as much God's Word?

I'm not sure what you mean by Mark 1:1-3 though.

I didn't say Bible verses against other versions. I would use any version that any person cared to to prove that point. What I am saying is the attributes of God's word(s) make the real life product a limited edition. Studying the attributes of the word(s) of God willd etermine whether or not what you have in you hand is in fact the word of God. Ya see, kevin, the Lord is the one who has decreed what His word is, not a KJB right wing conservative. it was jehovah that said "The words of the LORD are right", it was Jehovah who said, "Thy word is truth", it was Jehovah that said His words "are true, every one of them", so we take that line of doctrine, not opinion, but doctrine. What does the Bible say about itself? So, having studied out the various non immutable attributes of the word of God we form certain conclusions. If Jehovah said His word is true, then when we find a falsehood due to textual variants, or suspect mss, or translation error, or readings that exhibit untruth, we have to in all honesty reject said example as fulfilling the stringent requirements that Jehovah God placed upon His word(s), and agree with Him by saying, That (whatever deviant it might be) is NOT the word(s) of Jehovah. Toss it out.

So go read Mark 1:1-3 in the NASB and tell me if it is a true statement. It is not in fact, therefore based upon the attributes of the word(s) of God, it must be rejected due to it's [sic] inability to meet the requirements.

Hope that makes that a little more clear. So in answer to your question What am I going to use for comparison to other version, I would use the versions themselves to elimate themselves.



So you are saying that you don't believe that there is a factual basis for the Bible? And yes, God's Word is truth. But again, we are back to what makes the KJV truth.

Again, the facts are what the Lord has said they are, what does "the Bible" say about itself in these areas of immutable attributes? And once more, I don't see the real difference between your first 2 questions.


So in your first paragraph here, are you saying that the Bible was whatever the true Christians assumed or claimed it to be? You say that it was whatever the believers denoted it to be.

As the Body is led into all truth by the Holy Spirit, how could it be otherwise? Look at John 16:12-13 and think about those two verses in light of a promise of preservation. Then read John 14:26 and think again, in the light and context of this topic, KJB or?? and see if there is no promise to remember what the Holy Spirit had said? 1 Corinthian 14:37, again we must acknowledge that what is written is of the Lord, if we believe those promises in John 16 and 14. So, yes basically, not explicitly, but basically yes. I say it that way to try to fend off your next line of argument that will no doubt be the door that opens to allow other versions from the same textual basis or family. But let me tell you, I'm not fearful of the Geneva or the Bishops or the other Bibles of that day that several make really lame arguments from to corner the KJB advocate. What I would say to that line of reasoning that intends to allow the Geneva or the Bishops or whatever to stand on the same ground as the KJB is this: Will you preach from it? Will you stick to it when it disagrees with the KJB? I do not fear these versions I just have a realistic look on them as one that understands they had their day, they are no longer needed, so let them rest in peace.

And are you also saying that a faithfully translated Bible from the TR or Byzantine Text is what makes it the Word of God? It seems you are authenticating them here.

Faithfully according to whom? That my friend is the crux of the biscut as they say. And no, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that the immutable attributes are what makes a Bible the word(s) of God or not. Faithful translation has nothing to do with it. The NIV is in fact faithful to its text. So just because it's from a Byzantine text type does not make me accept it, no. But at one time that text type was what was acceptable to the Body of Christ who in that time period could read it, compare it and preach it. A few scholars who might be able to do so today is not representative of the priesthood of believers, it's just private interpretation and we are not subject to an elite class. Does that make sense?




I'm not sure of the point you are making. Are you against paraphrasing?

My point is that familiarity is what begins to bring it home. Paraphrasing is niether here nor there, I was making a point that what you understand the Bible to say, not mean, is what determines for you, for me, for anyone what the Bible is. That yuppie sitting in Saddleback Community Baptist Church does not have a fixed Bible, therefore he cannot determine what it should say, what it might say or what it is saying, his authority is too broad, too wide and too variable. That providential preservation process has slipped away from us as a whole. The KJB has been fixed as the standard due to its place in history, due to its usage of the common Christian for too long a period to be usrped in the English tongue. That is just something that has to be understood, it is what it is and since we are dealing with a supernatural boook, we muust conclude that it is of the Lord, not man. You see kevin, I didn't do that, you didn't do that and Doctor Ruckman didn't do that. If men, be they scholar or no didn't do that, who did?


So are you accepting the KJV because it best represents the Greek and Hebrew Texts? If that is the case, then I agree with you.

Nope. I think you now know what I am saying. I accept that KJB as the inerrant, infallible perserved inspired word of God because the priesthood of beleivers fixed it that way for me an English speaking Christian. In spite of the onslaught of newer versions, newer commentaries, newer styles of Churches, newer methods of inductive study, the KJB stands as the number one seller in the Bible market in English speakign countries.
I repeat, I didn't do that, you didn't do that and Doctor Ruckman didn't do that. Who did? Gernations before us did it, and we continue it by this debate. I continue it everytime I read a verse quoted from a MV by in my mind comparing it to what I have fixed in my heart and mind as the word(s) of God. Everytime that personal comparision is done, the KJB is vindicated.

God bless,

Calvary

[kevinmiller]

Well it could be because we're kicking a dead horse, in fact a putrid corpse of a dead horse.

No, I posted this primarily because of other debates where the KJVO'er or KJVO'ers were not answering my questions. I find that most KJVO'ers know how to post a lot of good looking stuff without there being much to it. Lots of verses and analogies and points that really can't hold water unless you isolate them from the point that is trying to be made.

I didn't say Bible verses against other versions. I would use any version that any person cared to to prove that point. What I am saying is the attributes of God's word(s) make the real life product a limited edition. Studying the attributes of the word(s) of God will determine whether or not what you have in you hand is in fact the word of God. Ya see, kevin, the Lord is the one who has decreed what His word is, not a KJB right wing conservative. it was jehovah that said "The words of the LORD are right", it was Jehovah who said, "Thy word is truth", it was Jehovah that said His words "are true, every one of them", so we take that line of doctrine, not opinion, but doctrine. What does the Bible say about itself? So, having studied out the various non immutable attributes of the word of God we form certain conclusions. If Jehovah said His word is true, then when we find a falsehood due to textual variants, or suspect mss, or translation error, or readings that exhibit untruth, we have to in all honesty reject said example as fulfilling the stringent requirements that Jehovah God placed upon His word(s), and agree with Him by saying, That (whatever deviant it might be) is NOT the word(s) of Jehovah. Toss it out.

So go read Mark 1:1-3 in the NASB and tell me if it is a true statement. It is not in fact, therefore based upon the attributes of the word(s) of God, it must be rejected due to it's [sic] inability to meet the requirements.

Hope that makes that a little more clear. So in answer to your question What am I going to use for comparison to other version, I would use the versions themselves to elimate themselves.

But in versions that are very close to the KJV or faithfully translated from the proper source texts, they would pass that test.

As the Body is led into all truth by the Holy Spirit, how could it be otherwise? Look at John 16:12-13 and think about those two verses in light of a promise of preservation. Then read John 14:26 and think again, in the light and context of this topic, KJB or?? and see if there is no promise to remember what the Holy Spirit had said? 1 Corinthian 14:37, again we must acknowledge that what is written is of the Lord, if we believe those promises in John 16 and 14. So, yes basically, not explicitly, but basically yes. I say it that way to try to fend off your next line of argument that will no doubt be the door that opens to allow other versions from the same textual basis or family. But let me tell you, I'm not fearful of the Geneva or the Bishops or the other Bibles of that day that several make really lame arguments from to corner the KJB advocate. What I would say to that line of reasoning that intends to allow the Geneva or the Bishops or whatever to stand on the same ground as the KJB is this: Will you preach from it? Will you stick to it when it disagrees with the KJB? I do not fear these versions I just have a realistic look on them as one that understands they had their day, they are no longer needed, so let them rest in peace.

You're contradicting yourself here. But first, do those versions disagree? The Geneva or Tyndale's, for example.
Second, you say that "they had their day." Okay, so you are saying that at one time they were God's Word. But now you ask what I will do when they contradict the KJV. If they contradict then were they ever God's Word? Or are they equally God's Word? I don't see how they could have been God's Word 500 years ago but not now.

Faithfully according to whom? That my friend is the crux of the biscut as they say. And no, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that the immutable attributes are what makes a Bible the word(s) of God or not. Faithful translation has nothing to do with it. The NIV is in fact faithful to its text. So just because it's from a Byzantine text type does not make me accept it, no. But at one time that text type was what was acceptable to the Body of Christ who in that time period could read it, compare it and preach it. A few scholars who might be able to do so today is not representative of the priesthood of believers, it's just private interpretation and we are not subject to an elite class. Does that make sense?

The NIV is faithful to corrupt texts. But the KJV is a translation. If being a faithful translation had nothing to do with it, then you must take up the belief that the KJV was delivered directly to us from God in 1611. The faithful translation is everything! Not understanding Greek does not mean we can't understand what the Bible came from. I don't have to understand Greek to know that the KJV came from the TR or Byzantine Text.

My point is that familiarity is what begins to bring it home. Paraphrasing is niether here nor there, I was making a point that what you understand the Bible to say, not mean, is what determines for you, for me, for anyone what the Bible is. That yuppie sitting in Saddleback Community Baptist Church does not have a fixed Bible, therefore he cannot determine what it should say, what it might say or what it is saying, his authority is too broad, too wide and too variable. That providential preservation process has slipped away from us as a whole. The KJB has been fixed as the standard due to its place in history, due to its usage of the common Christian for too long a period to be usrped in the English tongue. That is just something that has to be understood, it is what it is and since we are dealing with a supernatural boook, we muust conclude that it is of the Lord, not man. You see kevin, I didn't do that, you didn't do that and Doctor Ruckman didn't do that. If men, be they scholar or no didn't do that, who did?

I think this paragraph in particular is a very weak argument. You make the points:
1. The Bible is determined by what I believe it says.
2. The KJV is the standard because it is famous(place in history).
3. The KJV is the standard because it has been used for a long time.

So based on those three things, Homer's Iliad can be my Bible.

Nope. I think you now know what I am saying. I accept that KJB as the inerrant, infallible perserved inspired word of God because the priesthood of beleivers fixed it that way for me an English speaking Christian. In spite of the onslaught of newer versions, newer commentaries, newer styles of Churches, newer methods of inductive study, the KJB stands as the number one seller in the Bible market in English speakign countries.
I repeat, I didn't do that, you didn't do that and Doctor Ruckman didn't do that. Who did? Gernations before us did it, and we continue it by this debate. I continue it everytime I read a verse quoted from a MV by in my mind comparing it to what I have fixed in my heart and mind as the word(s) of God. Everytime that personal comparision is done, the KJB is vindicated.

So basically, in a nutshell, you believe the KJV to be God's Word because it is popular and because it is still around after all these years. Okay.

Kevin

[Calvary]

You're not reading with much comprehension brother, but whatever.

Your conclusion as to why I accept the KJB is putting words in my mouth and a lack of comprehension of what I am saying.

God bless,

Calvary

[kevinmiller]

Forgive me if I fail to see some grand analogy in all of what you posted. I tend to be straight to the point. I ignore the filler and concentrate on the point being made. And my conclusion is that there is no basis for the KJVO philosophy. It can't be substantiated with the Bible nor with fact. Whenever I confront anyone on it, the most I get are accusations, articles, or faith arguments.

That being said, I do use the KJV for my own personal use. Anyone who wants to see exactly where I stand can look in the locked KJV thread. I don't have a problem with the KJV. The only problem I have is when arguments are made that can't be backed up and others are condemned for not holding them.

[Will]

I don't see any major difference between Mark 1:1-3 in the NASB vs KJV. Could you expound on this?

[manofconviction]

It's good to be able to civilly discuss this topic. If the Spirit is with me (and He is)as I read the bible (yes I use only KJV) I will understand what God wants me to understand. Each version has been used to lead a person to the understanding and acceptance of God as the savior of their soul.

[Calvary]

@ kevin,

No need for sorry, you haven't offended me in the slightest. You are certainly entitled to use whatever you prefer. But your broad brush sweeping generalization as to what you encounter in the KJB debate is your opinion which can only be substantiated by you. In other words, it does make for great hype, but sadly lacks any real facts other than your opinion, which by the way you are certainly entitled to.

I made no great analogy. I made no eloquent argument. I stated that any bible, any stripe, any version will say the same thing as to the true attributes of what in fact the word of God is. The same versions therefore will eliminate themselves from the running as they cannot fulfill the requirements that they themselves have stated are definitive. It's really not all that complicated to grasp brother.

You seem to think that the Byzantine text is a Bible. You are sadly mistaken and very poorly read on the mss issues, at least that is what I gather on your other posts, both here and elsewhere.

You play both sides of the fence allowing for discrepancies in the name of preference. As I said, I really could care less what you use or prefer or believe, it makes no difference in the world to my profession.

But now you digress to banter that you yourself will accuse the "other side" (which if you were really honest with yourself would be an admission of sorts that you really aren't on the KJB side are you?) of and there you have it don't you? I mean, you weren't really looking for any answers were you? I truly doubt that any one could teach you anything on this KJB issue, so your entire thread might be somewhat disingenious.

You have a good day.

@ Will

The word of God says,

Mar 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
Mar 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Mar 1:3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

The NASB says,

1The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
2As it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
"BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU,
WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY;
3THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS,
'MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD,
MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT.'"

See the quotations in the NASB? That is English grammer to denote that what is contained in those quotation marks is atrributed to a person, in this case the prophet Isaiah. See the quotation inside the quotation? That is attributed to someone else not mentioned or attributed to the source within the first quotation marks, hence making Isaiah the author (humanly speaking) of verse 2.

Does that fulfill the immutable attribute of the word of God as dictated by God himself?

Not only is the answer, no sir, it does not, but it is also a slight upon the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. It ruins a prefectly good cross reference that makes the owner of that quote Jehovah God, and the foreunner John the Baptist, hence, making John the forerunner of God in the flesh.

In Mark 1:1-3 the NASB disqualifies itslef as being the word(s) of God.


I'm sure that you're both convinced now right? (sarcasim intended )

God bless,

Calvary

[Guest Guest]

@ kevin,

No need for sorry, you haven't offended me in the slightest. You are certainly entitled to use whatever you prefer. But your broad brush sweeping generalization as to what you encounter in the KJB debate is your opinion which can only be substantiated by you. In other words, it does make for great hype, but sadly lacks any real facts other than your opinion, which by the way you are certainly entitled to.

I made no great analogy. I made no eloquent argument. I stated that any bible, any stripe, any version will say the same thing as to the true attributes of what in fact the word of God is. The same versions therefore will eliminate themselves from the running as they cannot fulfill the requirements that they themselves have stated are definitive. It's really not all that complicated to grasp brother.

You seem to think that the Byzantine text is a Bible. You are sadly mistaken and very poorly read on the mss issues, at least that is what I gather on your other posts, both here and elsewhere.

You play both sides of the fence allowing for discrepancies in the name of preference. As I said, I really could care less what you use or prefer or believe, it makes no difference in the world to my profession.

But now you digress to banter that you yourself will accuse the "other side" (which if you were really honest with yourself would be an admission of sorts that you really aren't on the KJB side are you?) of and there you have it don't you? I mean, you weren't really looking for any answers were you? I truly doubt that any one could teach you anything on this KJB issue, so your entire thread might be somewhat disingenious.

You have a good day.

@ Will

The word of God says,

Mar 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
Mar 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Mar 1:3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

The NASB says,

1The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
2As it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
"BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU,
WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY;
3THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS,
'MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD,
MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT.'"

See the quotations in the NASB? That is English grammer to denote that what is contained in those quotation marks is atrributed to a person, in this case the prophet Isaiah. See the quotation inside the quotation? That is attributed to someone else not mentioned or attributed to the source within the first quotation marks, hence making Isaiah the author (humanly speaking) of verse 2.

Does that fulfill the immutable attribute of the word of God as dictated by God himself?

Not only is the answer, no sir, it does not, but it is also a slight upon the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. It ruins a prefectly good cross reference that makes the owner of that quote Jehovah God, and the foreunner John the Baptist, hence, making John the forerunner of God in the flesh.

In Mark 1:1-3 the NASB disqualifies itslef as being the word(s) of God.


I'm sure that you're both convinced now right? (sarcasim intended )

God bless,

Calvary

I don't care if others disagree, but that's a good post right there, Calvary. :smile

:amen:

[John81]

Interesting thread.

[kevinmiller]

@ kevin,

No need for sorry, you haven't offended me in the slightest. You are certainly entitled to use whatever you prefer. But your broad brush sweeping generalization as to what you encounter in the KJB debate is your opinion which can only be substantiated by you. In other words, it does make for great hype, but sadly lacks any real facts other than your opinion, which by the way you are certainly entitled to.

I have been involved in a lot of KJV debates and I always find the hardcore KJVO'ers to be very lacking in any kind of an argument. In fact, the arguments usually stay the same no matter who it is that does the arguing. Lacking facts is something the KJVO movement is good at, something I try to stay away from. I don't place my faith in a translation because it is popular or it says KJV on the front.

I made no great analogy. I made no eloquent argument. I stated that any bible, any stripe, any version will say the same thing as to the true attributes of what in fact the word of God is. The same versions therefore will eliminate themselves from the running as they cannot fulfill the requirements that they themselves have stated are definitive. It's really not all that complicated to grasp brother.

It's not hard to grasp if it actually made any sense with regards to the subject at hand. All-in-all, you have made some very weak arguments.

You seem to think that the Byzantine text is a Bible. You are sadly mistaken and very poorly read on the mss issues, at least that is what I gather on your other posts, both here and elsewhere.

The Byzantine Text was what was used in translating the KJV. What do you think it was translated from?

You play both sides of the fence allowing for discrepancies in the name of preference. As I said, I really could care less what you use or prefer or believe, it makes no difference in the world to my profession.

I don't play both sides of the fence, nor do I condone anything in the name of preference. I never have. I am simply against, as I said before, unfounded arguments and unjust condemnation of those who don't line up to the KJVO doctrine.

But now you digress to banter that you yourself will accuse the "other side" (which if you were really honest with yourself would be an admission of sorts that you really aren't on the KJB side are you?) of and there you have it don't you? I mean, you weren't really looking for any answers were you? I truly doubt that any one could teach you anything on this KJB issue, so your entire thread might be somewhat disingenious.

I am on the side of intellectual honesty. Simple logical thinking, and simple Biblical thinking.
Sorry if I'm stubborn, that's what happens when people like brandplucked spam forums so that they can call people heretics and braindead for not being KJVO.

[Randy]

1. What Biblical basis is there for the KJV?

The source docs it uses are from Antioch, where the followers were first called Christians, not from Egypt
God didn't make mistakes in His word - such as calling Joseph the 'father' of Jesus
Also, a direct, literal translation is required, since God did not always give the meanings to the human author.
Bibles that don't indicate which words are added to increase readability are adding or taking away from what God said.
The KJV and older English bibles also translate verb tenses accurately instead of modernising both singular and plural 'you's

2. What factual basis is there for the KJV?

FRUIT - and pleanty of it.

3. Where was the Bible before 1611?

In English, there was the Geneva and preceding bibles - the KJV differs only slightly from them.
Prior to that, complete bibles in any language were rare. In the 1st century church, they had copies or collections of individual books, but they were not compiled in a single volume.