Take the KJV only challenge

[TheBibleSender]

I found this tonight http://timothysburden.com/2006/12/08/th ... challenge/ and thought others might be intereted in taking this challenge. God bless. :)

[Jerry]

But I extend a simple challenge to those who believe that only the King James Version can properly be regarded as God

[kevinmiller]

The challenge: Show me from the text of the King James Version itself reason to believe that it it is the best of all Bible versions?

I think that this here is the key. The KJV should be defended on factual grounds rather than from the KJV itself. Would you defend the Communist Manifesto by quoting the Communist Manifesto? You cannot defend the merit of a book(or Book) by quoting it.

[Calvary]

I have to disagree with that kevin.

In the case of the scriptures, we must look to the scriptures themselves to see what they say about themsleves in order to judge whether or not we have the scriptures.

This is something I posted a few years ago on a web site when dealing with Rick Norris.

I have edited it in a few places as it was getting heated and I have since learned how to tone down my posts (If you can believe that! :smile )


To date he never could answer me directly on the logic used in this post.

All Bibles will be found to agree as to what scripture is by character, anture, attributes. All Bibles without exception. The real pride swallowing truth is what will you do friend. Will you allow the Bible to determine what is the real Bible? Or will you hold fast to your greek lexcions, concordances and mss evidences?
____________________________________________________________________________


Yes, let's be good Bereans shall we?

The collection of scriptures we commonly call

[kevinmiller]

But other Bibles may very well meet those qualifications. The Geneva Bible, or the Evidence. And then how would you discern what was a good foreign-language Bible to use in your ministry? You might be able to say, "yeah, it sure seems like this is the Bible by these standards," but you can't prove that it is the Bible. You have to judge a Bible by whether it is an accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew.

[IM4given]

Why bother responding to this in the first place? There is no room for debate/argument on this issue in my humble opinon. No need for high-minded wittism or snarky come backs or arrogant oratories on this subject. Either you believe 1 Timothy 3:16,17 or you don't. It is that simple. God is not complicated, nor is he the author of confusion.

You don't really need concordances, or Greek and Hebrew texts, or any of that other stuff. All that you really need is faith. I know a real dollar bill when I see one, and I know the difference between what is fake and what is real. I don't have to get all puffed up and loud mouthed about it. I keep what is real and put what is fake on the trash heap - it is just that simple.

[dwayner79]

I would think if anyone wanted to, they should respond by taking the challenge... on that site. IMHO of course.

[Alen]

Calvary, that argument is pretty lame, if anyone can answer my objections to the KJO position than I will hold it to some credibility, and may even become KJO. I will not bother posting them here, but they are in one of the locked topics.

As IM4Given has already said, their is no need for debate on this topic. The KJO position doesn't even have a firm standing worthy of a debate, the best they can do is shift the burden of proof to the person debating their position, since they can't defend their own position.

-Alen

[IM4given]

Maybe I did not make myself clear enough - I am most certainly KJV Only. I find that the best anyone can do to refute KJV Only people is to start hurling names at them like "Ruckmanite" or what ever.

As I said, either you believe it or you don't - 'nuff said.

[Jerry]

Watch it, Alen! Remember you are on a KJVonly website - and we do have much PROOF for what we do believe. Just because it might not be presented in every thread that is posted doesn't mean there is nothing to back it up. This is not a defense of everyone posting on the KJVonly side, but it is posted in defense of the KJV and the KJVonly position.

We are quite willing to discuss honest and sincere questions (obviously, depending upon the manner they are presented) - but if they are simply posted for the sake of debating or trying to create smokescreens, we are not interested. At the same time we have no desire to answer endless questions that go round and round in circles, or are posted for the sake of trying to make the KJV and the KJVonly position look stupid or wacky.

Do some reading in this forum - there is definitely enough information posted in all these threads to answer a high percentage of any sincere questions you may come up with.

[Calvary]

Calvary, that argument is pretty lame

Yeah, so lame that to date Doug Kutilek, Rick Norris, James White and James Coombs couldn't answer me the simple yes or no question.

I doubt you would do any better brother.

I have pages of correspondence with those Greek experts that wouldn't take the challenge.

You see brethren, every Bible critic I have ever met denies his own profession.

They say "the Bible" and when shown what "the Bible" says, they always resort to double speak, revisionist history, redefining of terms or start in with the Ruckmanite charge.

I haven't read your locked thread where your objections weren't met, but I would be willing to guess that they are nothing that hasn't been dealt with years ago or a rehash of some tired old worn out rhetoric.

Do yourself no harm, we're all here.

God bless,

Calvary

[Alen]

I'll expand on the points I made, they are:

1. The writers of the Bible seem to be aware of the inspiration of the scriptures, yet the writers of the KJV do not seem to be aware. On the contrary, they give alternate translations, the include cross references to the Apocrypha, and in their preface to the KJV they call even the meanest translations the word of God. Why do you suppose that is? Does the Bible suggest that a writer of the Bible can be inspired unknowingly? Keep in mind that some suggest the passage saying the writers were "moved" means they were physically moved while writing the scriptures. How could the KJV translators miss that?

2. There are numerous editions of the KJV; this is generally explained away as fixing spelling errors. However spelling errors are not the only problem, words throughout these additions have been changed, added or removed throughout the KJV. How are we to know which version is right? Even modern publishers of the KJV such as Oxford and Cambridge do not agree on which words are correct in some passages. So with this in mind which version should we use, the 1611, 1629, 1769 or the 1850?

3. A translation that is 100% perfect needs to be compatible with the language it was translated from. I'll give an example to illustrate my point, to perfectly translate the sentence "I am going to the shop" from English to another language, I would need to have the "future tense" in that language, it seems pretty simply, but you translate that into say, Japanese, then you have issues. In Japanese the present and future tense are the exact same. It would be hard to translate that phrase clearly, without adding words to it, and thus changing the sentence. Therefore no longer being a "perfect" translation. Here now is the application to Bible versions, in Koine Greek, the language the NT was originally written in, there is at least one tense in it that does not exist in the English language. That tense denotes that this event is a "one time" only thing. How could you translate that though perfectly into English, since that tense does not exist in English? Adding words to it would no longer make it a perfect translation.

4. Another compatibility issue is words. In the original languages there is many words that do not exist in English, as a result some of them have been transferred to the English language to help (the word baptizo means to immerse in water, since English had no word for it, translators imported it into English as baptize, baptism etc) the meaning be understood. Others the closest word to it were instead used. In the Koine Greek, there are several words for love, but in English there is only one. In Greek, there are two words for the word "another" one meaning "another like this item" and one meaning "another not like this item". In the Hebrew there is words meaning an eternity in the past, and an eternity in the future, which in the KJV is translated as "from everlasting to everlasting". With this lack of compatibility, how is the total meaning able to be understood in English? How is it possible for there to be no loss of information when these words do not exist, and how can it be a perfect translation if words are added to reveal these meanings?

5. With all these issues currently in play, how do we also explain how many people's names, and many places in the Bible are not translated? How is it a perfect translation when the meaning is not revealed in these things? Most people's names have no real meaning to them today in English, but all the names in the Bible have meaning to them, and often has effects on our understanding of scripture, such as the Apostle Peter, when Christ said the familiar phrase "upon this rock.." we would not know if he was referring to a rock or to Peter without the original languages, as Peter's name means a small pebble or rock. Can the KJV be a perfect translation with these phrases not translated, and thus meaning lost?

6. The phrase "God forbid" appears in the NT some what, yet if you would care to look into the Koine Greek, the word God does not appear whatsoever in these passages. How is this a perfect translation of the passage?

7. Lastly, where was God's word before the KJV in 1611? No KJO advocate I have talked to can answer this question; ALL ignore it, and try to dismiss it. My friend that is not good enough, if God preserved it perfectly into English in 1611, then it should be preserved elsewhere perfectly as well. No translation that I know of agrees with the KJV, this is the ultimate dilemma for the KJO advocate, if God has not preserved His word perfectly in another language, why assume He did it in English? The only preservation done by Him we have proof of is through the original languages.

Those were my points. I have yet to see a refutation of them. These are undeniable facts and/or rhetorical questions.

I don't really care what KJO people believe, but the amount of insults I see generated towards those that do not hold their beliefs, and all this false information/propaganda gets to me sometimes. Even if you look at the "Forum rules" it insinuates that those who are not KJO will act in a unChristlike fashion. In one post a user calls all those who are not KJO idiots, I report the post, and nothing is done. How funny is that. Yet I say something out of line, I am told to "watch out". I may of come off harsh, and I apologize for that, but at the same time it is disappointing to see that the warning was only displayed to me and my comment, and not that of that user. A double standard is at play here, and that is a very disapointing site to see.

Just so no one thinks I am lying about this:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16922

Thanks brother for your reply. It is refreshing to hear from someone who is not brain-dead to the degree he can't see the obvious perversions of all the modern versions. It's always nice to meet other Bible believers who love God's precious words.

In the Beloved,

Will K

Anyways, I am done with the KJO discussion. You may reply to my post if you wish, but I won't reply back, and I will no longer participate in any future KJO discussion. It frustrates me too much .

-Alen

[Jerry]

Thanks Alen for deciding to back out. Less chance of conflict then.

For those who care to do research on the issue, most of what was brought up has been adequately answered in the myriads of threads in this Forum. Some of the supposed problems mentioned (ie. some issues with languages) are issues ANY translation would have - it is simply a sidetrack, a smokescreen. Obviously translating His Word into another language is not a problem with God - and certainly isn't a problem to modern media (when translating speaches, news reports, books, etc.) - yet somehow it is impossible to do it accurately when it is God's Word...

Alen, it sounds like you got more problems with your Bibles and your position than we do with our King James Bible - so we will stick with ours. Thanks anyway for your concern.

[Me4Him]

Arguments using "Worldly Knowledge", comparing Manuscripts, to prove/disprove scripture, is "Foolishness",

Scripture is "Spiritually discerned", they either have "eyes to see/understand" or they don't.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Lu 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

[kevinmiller]

Arguments using "Worldly Knowledge", comparing Manuscripts, to prove/disprove scripture, is "Foolishness",

Scripture is "Spiritually discerned", they either have "eyes to see/understand" or they don't.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Lu 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

If you don't use "worldly knowledge," how do you know that it is Scripture? I could have faith to believe in the writings of Ghandi, how would you know which is Scripture?

If someone tells me that the KJV is the Bible, it would be foolish just to believe it, no questions asked. And to defend it with the KJV would be like my defending the Koran with the Koran. I'm sure it defends itself superbly. The question is, what makes it Scripture? How do we know that it is the inspired Word of God? I believe it is by facts and faith in the original inspired Word of God in the Greek and Hebrew.