Take the KJV only challenge

[Me4Him]

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.

But which "facts", comparing word for word translation,

Or a "Perfection" in wording the scriptures that only God could achieve???

Scripture/words are woven together like cloth, change one word, the connections between the words are broken, a "thread" is broke, now the cloth can start "Unraveling" until there's no cloth left, only "threads".

"A little leaven, leaven the whole".

In seeing this "prefection", it's recognized as "God's words".

[Calvary]

I believe it is by facts and faith in the original inspired Word of God in the Greek and Hebrew.

Sounds good on paper brother, but the real problem with that is, where are the originals for comparasion?

Therein lies the faulty logic of a defense based upon pure conjecture and theory. It also has the underlying tenet that unless I know Greek and Hebrew, I cannot really know what the scriptures are or say. You may not think you are saying that, but that is where the road take me.

My Bible does not even intimate that a knowledge of original tongues is needed to understand His word.

While you depend upon scholarship to defend your undefendable precept, I use the Bible to defend the Bible.

I think that "scholarship onlyism" is worse than "KJB onlyism" in that it creates a priest class of initiates that based soley upon their knowledge of Greek or Hebrew, are capable of truly understanding what the Bible teaches. Or for that matter what actually even constitutes as a Bible.

You may not agree, but being denied acess to the Constitution for example, to ascertain law is the same baseless argument you just posited. To deny acess to the Bible in order to determine what a Bible is is illogical and so off course that I can find no merit in that line of thinking.

I didn't quote the KJB once in my defense. I quoted the Bible, which according to all Christians on either side of the fence is what we are to believe. I said that the very men and women that say and use the general term "Bible" wouldn't own their own profession when it was put out there like that, and I was right.

Brethren like yourself, or Alen all claim that they believe "the Bible is the word of God" and when I quoted "the Bible" to see what are the requirements needed to ascertain what scripture is in character and attribute, you men deny your own profession effectively.

I am convinced after over 20 years that the real problem is one of authority over your life. American Christians (no offense intended) are the real culprits in this battle. I lay the guilt at your doors for your refusal of "having this man to riegn over us" so to speak.

There is no battle over the scripture in other countries except where an American Missionary brought his pride and "intelligence".

When afforded an opportunity to believe what the Bible says, to date, I have read nothing but more opinions, straw men arguments like, "Where was the Bible before 1611, or the equally lame duck as Which version of the KJB is the real one?

I repeat myself at the risk of sounding overly redundant, the where, the who, the why, the when are all together irrevelant until you agree as to the what.

Why argue about when the word of God was preserved or not when you can;'t even point out to me what the word of God is. Why cavil over translations when you can't even tell me what your translation is? Is the Bible or not?
I mean brother, if you're not sure if it is a Bible or not, why are you arguing for or against it?
It all the same to me as men following another man who says, Come with me men, salvation is just ahead (I think!)...

Such a simple, question really. Is Mark 1:1-3 true in your "version"?

It is in mine. It could be in others, I never said it wasn't or couldn't. But to defend a generic theoretic Bible that exists only on a chalkboard in the scholars study (better said, mind) is really an exercise in futility.

Do you really believe that the Lord only allowed a handful of men to know what he really said? Do you think that the Lord who wants to speak to you has denied you access to Him for failure to have learned Greek or Hebrew?

Hmm...

Another faulty argument is that of grammer rules, as if they are inspired and force us to admit that there are limitations in translation.

Being bi-lingual, I find that to be a misrepresentation of the facts. A verb conjugation not found in one language, is also a "not all the cards shown" argument. Which dative case are you following? A 5 dative case for Greek or a 8 dative case system? I challenge you to present the verb conjugation that "does not exist" in English yet does in the Greek, or does not in the Japonese languages.

Surely there are synonyms, or other ways by use of reflexive verbs to translate. You are limiting translation to literal word for word transmission and no other. But any good translator can say what was said and it be 100% accurate, word for word or no. Expression is part of language. Failing to translate word for word is your own requirement that real life translating knows nothing about. Simply because you say it can't be done is no reason for us to think it can't be done.

Oh well, I suppose we're one post closer to a locked thread aren't we?

God bless,

Calvary

[Kubel]

With respect to everyone here, there's nothing in any translation that says any one translation is Gods translation of choice. KJVO cannot be supported by the KJV any more than NIVO can be supported by the NIV. It's simply not there.

[John81]

Kubel has a point. Every version I've ever read any of contains the verses which says something to the effect that Gods Word is eternal, will be preserved, etc.

One can't rightly say that when the KJB says that it means the KJB is Gods Word but when the NASB or RSV or whatever says it, that's not what it means.

The only way the KJB, or any version for that matter, could truly attempt to prove itself to be the true translation would be to trace a continuous line from them to the originals, or at least to proven accurate copies; and then show that what has been translated is an accurate reflection of the originals or proven accurate copies.

[Calvary]

With respect to everyone here, there's nothing in any translation that says any one translation is Gods translation of choice. KJVO cannot be supported by the KJV any more than NIVO can be supported by the NIV. It's simply not there.
With respect to everyone here, there's nothing in any translation that says any one translation is Gods translation of choice. KJVO cannot be supported by the KJV any more than NIVO can be supported by the NIV. It's simply not there

.

And:

Kubel has a point. Every version I've ever read any of contains the verses which says something to the effect that Gods Word is eternal, will be preserved, etc.

One can't rightly say that when the KJB says that it means the KJB is Gods Word but when the NASB or RSV or whatever says it, that's not what it means.

The only way the KJB, or any version for that matter, could truly attempt to prove itself to be the true translation would be to trace a continuous line from them to the originals, or at least to proven accurate copies; and then show that what has been translated is an accurate reflection of the originals or proven accurate copies.

With all due respect to both of you, my argument was not based upon what the KJB says about anything really. In fact I never quoted it.

I am trying to say that by allowing the word of God to define itself as to character, nature, traits, attributes, one can begin by disqualifying several versions right of the top as not fulfilling the requirements of what God said His word will be.

We do not need to trace a line to anything as it cannot be done, contrary to what many think. One can argue families, text types, or readings until one is blue in the face. Point is any Greek or Hebrew manuscript extant, (or any other language for that matter) can be tried by the same criteria.

God's word is true. Period. If I find a false statement in any version, any language, any "original text" it can safely be discarded as not being God's word.

That isn't some play on words, that is believing Bible study.

True. Is the version you promote or prefer or use true? If it's not, then it is not God's word. Simple enough. If you still want to use it, by all means do so. I have enough grace to allow you your freedom of choice.

You just can't have it both ways brethren. It matters not if it's true to the Greek text that underlies it, because with all due respect to your Greek text, does your Greek text meet the requirements that God's word itself places upon itself? If not, then who cares if the translation is correct? If it's not true, it's not God's word.

You both honed in on the attribute of eternal, but didn't deal with a just as essencial an attribute. True. God's word is true.

Ya see, I'm done splitting hairs with men who use humanistic logic to define what they think error free is. I went to the Bible and allowed it to define it's own nature. Amongst it being true, God's word is Correct, it is Eternal, it is Pure.

Yep, all Bibles teach those things. But not all Bibles can fulfill those things under scrutiny. I'm not discussing what Bibles teach. I am trying to focus on what they are.

So as an example I used Mark 1:1-3. In the MV's (most) all of them say as it was written in the prophet Isaiah, (COMMA) Behold, I send my ... (Period).

That grammer does not allow for a composite thought of two prophets being quoted under the name of just one. The period ends the sentence. What followed the words "Isaiah the prophet," are attributed to Isaiah because of the rules of grammer. That's not semantics, that's just simple English.

So, is that true? In the ASV, no sir, it is not. So what can we conclude?
In the NIV, is it true? No sir, it is not. And so forth.

Are the verses (Mark 1)as found in other versions true? Yes, in fact they are in several pre KJB versions that I know of, and in a few after the fact. So what do we do. Look at other verses until by the process of elimination one has found a Bible that fulfills God's requirements, not ours, or some scholars, and let the chips fall where they may.

I mean look at this example in The Message.

Mar 1:2 following to the letter the scroll of the prophet Isaiah. Watch closely: I'm sending my preacher ahead of you; He'll make the road smooth for you.

Are we to believe that "to the letter" isn't a reference to the prophet Isaiah? Yet what follows is not found in any scroll of Isaiah, ever. So it's not true as found in The Message.

I belabor the point a bit because of the answers I'v gotten on this line of thinking. In fact, the man whose link was the motive for this thread has responded that it doesn't say what was written, so it could've been said by the prophet. Talk about dishonest!

So anyways, with all due respect to you Kubel and John81, I have to go with what I've posted thus far as being what it takes to qualify as the word of God. Any book that claims to be the word of God must meet these simple basic attributes or it must be rejected. No matter who is offended or doesn't like it.

God bless,

Calvary

[John81]

Actually Calvary, my post had nothing to do with anything you have posted.

I believe the KJB is perfect.

[kevinmiller]

Sounds good on paper brother, but the real problem with that is, where are the originals for comparasion?

What a classic, worn-out line. Do you want links so that you can buy copies of the TR as well? But it doesn't matter. The fact is that the KJV WAS translated from the originals and that is what matters. If you say they don't exist, then please, tell me where your Bible came from.

Therein lies the faulty logic of a defense based upon pure conjecture and theory. It also has the underlying tenet that unless I know Greek and Hebrew, I cannot really know what the scriptures are or say. You may not think you are saying that, but that is where the road take me.

No, because the KJV translated it for us.

My Bible does not even intimate that a knowledge of original tongues is needed to understand His word.

Why would it???? It's a translation! Who would add in the clause, "you must read this translation in order for you to truly have God's Word????"

While you depend upon scholarship to defend your undefendable precept, I use the Bible to defend the Bible.

Which isn't an argument anymore than quoting the Koran proves that it is perfect.

I didn't quote the KJB once in my defense. I quoted the Bible, which according to all Christians on either side of the fence is what we are to believe. I said that the very men and women that say and use the general term "Bible" wouldn't own their own profession when it was put out there like that, and I was right.

I could quote those verses. In my Korean Bible. In the NIV. In the NASB. In the English Standard Version.

Brethren like yourself, or Alen all claim that they believe "the Bible is the word of God" and when I quoted "the Bible" to see what are the requirements needed to ascertain what scripture is in character and attribute, you men deny your own profession effectively.

Yes, but the reason I believe it is the Bible is by using common sense and God-given reasoning skills. THEN, when I determine that it is indeed God's Word, THEN, I can conclude that "every Word of God is pure."

I am convinced after over 20 years that the real problem is one of authority over your life. American Christians (no offense intended) are the real culprits in this battle. I lay the guilt at your doors for your refusal of "having this man to riegn over us" so to speak.

What does authority have to do with the price of tea in China? I use the KJV. I memorize the KJV. I study the KJV. Authority is an off-base and baseless argument.

There is no battle over the scripture in other countries except where an American Missionary brought his pride and "intelligence".

That's right. Most other countries aren't plagued by modern versions either. Or by people telling them that unless they use the KJV, they can't get saved or grow.

I have read nothing but more opinions, straw men arguments like, "Where was the Bible before 1611,

Maybe if you answer it, people will stop asking.

Why argue about when the word of God was preserved or not when you can;'t even point out to me what the word of God is. Why cavil over translations when you can't even tell me what your translation is? Is the Bible or not?
I mean brother, if you're not sure if it is a Bible or not, why are you arguing for or against it?
It all the same to me as men following another man who says, Come with me men, salvation is just ahead (I think!)...

I have a KJV Bible. It is God's Holy Word. No uncertainty.

Do you really believe that the Lord only allowed a handful of men to know what he really said? Do you think that the Lord who wants to speak to you has denied you access to Him for failure to have learned Greek or Hebrew?

Who said that you had to learn Greek and Hebrew? :dunno:

Surely there are synonyms, or other ways by use of reflexive verbs to translate. You are limiting translation to literal word for word transmission and no other. But any good translator can say what was said and it be 100% accurate, word for word or no. Expression is part of language. Failing to translate word for word is your own requirement that real life translating knows nothing about. Simply because you say it can't be done is no reason for us to think it can't be done.

I never said that the KJV isn't perfect due to grammer problems. I think studying the Greek and Hebrew can help us have a better understanding of the Bible, especially of the culture and power of some tenses. I have studied some Greek tenses, and they go a lot deeper than ours. It doesn't mean that the KJV has errors, it just means that we can gain a better understanding at times by Greek or Hebrew studies.

[Kubel]

Actually Calvary, my post had nothing to do with anything you have posted.

Same here. I was replying to the OP/challenge. But I disagree with your post in that the KJV fails your requirements for the same reason MVs fail them.

But to the challenge, there is no scriptural support for the doctrine of onlyism. And I choose to believe that doctrine without scripture is not to be taken by faith.

It will be interesting to see how the challenge goes.

[chiara]

Does anyone here think the phrase "Bible critic" is an oxymoron? You can't be a critic unless you have more knowledge on the subject, and that you have authority over that subject matter, and that what you say is absolutely correct.

But all Bible critics claim that the Bible is the Word of God, but I have yet to hear of a Bible critic that IS God. Pray tell me how you can critique the Bible when you have infinitely less knowledge than God who wrote the Bible?

God's word is true. There is only one truth. There is only one true Bible. It needed to be translated because people were sinful and God mixed up the languages. There are documents of true Bibles leading up to the King James. For example the OLD Latin Vulgate, the Textus Receptus, the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament. God uses the most widespread language of the world to communicate to the most # of people. First Hebrew, then Greek (TR), then Latin (OLV), and then English (KJB). Not confusing at all.

Notice the Catholic church came up with a New Latin Vulgate and similarly, the bible critics have come up with the New King James. I hear the hissing of a serpent between each page of these "new and improved" (sic) versions.

Finally, don't be confused by the "greek". One must ask, "Which Greek?" and "which lexicon?" W&H messed with those first so that the confused scholar can go back to the supposedly original Greek text (which was supplied by W&H), and using corrupt greek lexicons to back up their claims.

God's word explains itself. There is no need for dictionaries and lexicons. It's you, the Book and the Spirit. That's how He talks to you.

[Calvary]

My mistake John 81 and Kubel.

Same here. I was replying to the OP/challenge. But I disagree with your post in that the KJV fails your requirements for the same reason MVs fail them.

But I would like to hear more on where the KJB fails on the truth charge. Can you show me an example?

If your statement above is true then there is no error free word of God on the face of the earth.

And to remind you, they are not my requirements, they are the Lord's. :smile

He is the one who said that His word was true, perfect, eternal, correct, pure etc.

Not me.

So if you could show me in the KJB where it is not true, I would be willing to listen.

kevin, you get kinda worked up don't you brother. A lot of that post was in reference to Alen, not you.


But onward Christian soldier.

"What a classic, worn-out line. Do you want links so that you can buy copies of the TR as well? But it doesn't matter. The fact is that the KJV WAS translated from the originals and that is what matters. If you say they don't exist, then please, tell me where your Bible came from"

You must be a bit confused beloved, the TR (which in and of itself means nothing) is not the original. The KJB was translated from a variety of sources, in fact, can yuu tell us which Hebrew text was followed?

My Bible came from God. he said, All scripture IS inspired, not was. Since my Bible is scripture, it therefore must be inspired.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Did Timothy have the original? What he had was scripture according to the Holy Ghost.

Therein lies the faulty logic of a defense based upon pure conjecture and theory. It also has the underlying tenet that unless I know Greek and Hebrew, I cannot really know what the scriptures are or say. You may not think you are saying that, but that is where the road take me.

"No, because the KJV translated it for us."

Then you didn't mean what you said?

My Bible does not even intimate that a knowledge of original tongues is needed to understand His word.

"Why would it???? It's a translation! Who would add in the clause, "you must read this translation in order for you to truly have God's Word????""

Then you must have been saying something else right? Perhaps you should re-read your first post to refresh your memory brother. You certainly seemed to be saying that a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is needful to know what is the true word of God. You said that we must go back to the original languages in order to ascertain what is the true reading.

My bad, I just took you at your word,

While you depend upon scholarship to defend your undefendable precept, I use the Bible to defend the Bible.

"Which isn't an argument anymore than quoting the Koran proves that it is perfect."

I didn't quote the KJB to p[ove it is perfect. Please read with comprehension.


You say you could quote those verses in your Korean Bible and some others. PLease do, then tell us if your Korean Bible meets the requirements that it says it must meet in order to be the word of God. If your Korean Bible says the word of God si true, and then lies in Mark 1:1-3, is it still the word of God? That's a double contradiction brother.


You also state that you use common sense to determine that it is God's word.
I don't lean to my own understanding, in my best state I am altogether vanity. I look to the Bible to see what it says about itself. Then I believe it. Period.

You asked what does authority have to do with it? Well if the KJB is your final authority in all matters of faith and practice, then good for you. For most American Christians (which is what I said) it is a matter of profound rejection.

You stated that most other countries are not plagued by MV's. But they are. Your Korean Bible for example, is it a MV put out by a Bible Society?

What does it say in 2 Timothy 2:15; 1 Timothy 3:16; Mark 1:1-3; Romans 1:18;,25; 1 Timothy 6:5,10,20; 2 Corinthians 2:17?

In answer to where was the Bible before 1611, that's easy. All over the world. Where did you think it was? In a monestary waiting for Tischendorf to find it?

Finally,

I have a KJV Bible. It is God's Holy Word. No uncertainty.

Is it error free?

Thanks in advance for your answers to a few of the questions I had in this post.

God bless,

Calvary

[kevinmiller]

Then you didn't mean what you said?

What do you mean? I said that a true Bible is based on how accurately it was translated from the Greek and Hebrew. I never said you had to understand it, just know that it was accurately translated. That's what's wrong with modern versions, not just the fact that they don't say "KJV" on their cover.

Then you must have been saying something else right? Perhaps you should re-read your first post to refresh your memory brother. You certainly seemed to be saying that a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is needful to know what is the true word of God. You said that we must go back to the original languages in order to ascertain what is the true reading.

My bad, I just took you at your word,

Apparently, you read someone elses words, this was my original post:
"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."

You don't have to be a Greek scholar, but you do have to know that it was translated from the right Greek and Hebrew sources.

You say you could quote those verses in your Korean Bible and some others. PLease do, then tell us if your Korean Bible meets the requirements that it says it must meet in order to be the word of God. If your Korean Bible says the word of God si true, and then lies in Mark 1:1-3, is it still the word of God? That's a double contradiction brother.

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

Not sure what those verses have to do with it, but okay.

Korean Bible:

[Jerry]

Finally, don't be confused by the "greek". One must ask, "Which Greek?" and "which lexicon?" W&H messed with those first so that the confused scholar can go back to the supposedly original Greek text (which was supplied by W&H), and using corrupt greek lexicons to back up their claims.

Westcott and Hort came up with their own Critical Texts - and the manuscripts that were behind them were also corrupt. HOWEVER, there is also the Greek Text behind the KJV, the Textus Receptus. Don't lump all the Greek texts together and paint them all as corrupt. The TR is not. The CT and other related manuscripts are.

God's word explains itself. There is no need for dictionaries and lexicons. It's you, the Book and the Spirit. That's how He talks to you.

Show me where in the Bible God says to throw out all study helps. He gave teachers to the church to teach them the Word of God - therefore God can surely use SOUND materials to teach His people. Yes, there are corrupt lexicons and dictionaries - but not all are. If a saved person does not understand the words in a passage, being further ignorant and refusing to look up the meanings in good, sound dictionaries (like Webster's 1828 Dictionary, the Way of Life Encyclopedia) or lexicons (like Strong's Concordance) is not helping ANYONE.

Cults arise out of ignorance and lack of understanding of the Bible - they bring their own definitions to the Bible and fit them in there and come off with something really wacky, then they teach it as truth. Use a sound Bible study resource and find out what it means.

[Kubel]

I agree with Jerry. Studies and helps aren't scripture, but they can help us understand difficult passages.

I believe the Greek is also profitable for study, as often the subtle meaning behind words that are translated are sometimes lost when it enters another language. English sometimes doesn't do the Hebrew/Greek justice. And there are sometimes some difficult words that have lost or changed their meaning over 400 years.

[Calvary]

kevin:

Yes, I believe it is without error.

Sorry for the belaboring of this, but what is error free? Could you be a little more specific?

God bless,

Calvary

[kevinmiller]

kevin:



Sorry for the belaboring of this, but what is error free? Could you be a little more specific?

God bless,

Calvary

lol, maybe we need to go back to the Latin and find out the meaning behind "error free."

Error free- I believe that the KJV does not have errors in it. I believe some tenses and such that are unique to Greek or Hebrew were lost in the translation but I do not believe that there are any errors in it.