Jump to content
Online Baptist

Tyndale

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

    103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tyndale

  1. Disagreeing with human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning is not actually questioning God's ability to preserve His word for us. I believe what the Scriptures state and teach about their preservation. It has not been soundly demonstrated that I question God's ability to preserve His word for us. Where do the Scriptures say or teach that the word of God is bound to the textual-criticism decisions, Bible-revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England priests/scholars in 1611?
  2. Disagreeing with human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning would not be actually the same thing as attacking the KJV. Perhaps some may jump to a false conclusion based on use of the fallacy of false dilemma that would suggest that if someone does not believe a KJV-only view that they have to believe that all versions of the Bible are full of errors.
  3. No, I do not find any scriptures where God clearly promised to preserve the inspired Scriptures through Bible translations made after the end of the giving of the New Testament?
  4. H. D. Williams asserted: “Translations of the Words of God are words that have been ’tooled’ by men [Exod. 20:25, Deut. 27:5]. Words declared pure by God in the received Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, which were made available throughout the generations of men for translations, have not been ’tooled’ by man (2 Pet. 1:19-21)” (The Pure Words of God, pp. 29-30). Williams claimed: “If we attribute purity and inspiration to the translated Words of God in any language, we are in reality claiming double inspiration, double purity, and double Apostolic or prophet-like men who chose them and wh
  5. I believe in the preservation of the Scriptures. I accept all that the Scriptures state and teach about preservation. No one demonstrated from the Scriptures anything unscriptural in my scripturally-based points concerning the preservation of the Scriptures. I love the KJV and accept it as what it actually is. I have read the KJV for over 50 years. I do not disparage those who read and use the KJV as what it actually is. Do you disobey a command of God as you bear false witness by falsely alleging that I supposedly hate the KJV? You are wrong to question my honesty, and your in
  6. It should be obvious that I actually accept and believe what the Scriptures themselves state and teach about preservation. I believe what the Lord Jesus Christ taught concerning the Scriptures. I properly and soundly explain what I mean by preservation while many seem to be unclear in what they mean by preserve or they do not define the term or do not use it with the same exact meaning. My statements were clearly based on what the Scriptures state and teach. Exact word preservation would mean that the actual exact same original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophe
  7. I do not consider applying scriptural truths soundly and justly straining at a gnat. Advocating scriptural truths is not being a blind guide. Luke 16:10 He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
  8. The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by means of the Holy Spirit and later written referred to those words that were written in the original languages (1 Cor. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:2, John 17:8, Luke 18:31, Heb. 1:1-2). The Lord Jesus Christ directly referred to “the things that are written by the prophets” (Luke 18:31), and the actual words directly written by the prophets themselves would have been in the original language in which God gave them by inspiration to the prophets. The oracles of God [the Old Testament Scriptures] given to the prophets
  9. Jim Taylor maintained that preservation is not “an attribute” but that it “is a process” (In Defense of the Textus Receptus, p. 40). Jim Taylor asserted that “translations are not preserved because preservation is not an attribute” (Ibid.). Taylor noted: “Add to this the fact that God preserved what he gave. God gave us his words in Greek and Hebrew and thus, he preserves his words in those languages” (Ibid.). Tim Fellure observed: “Obviously, it’s not required that preservation extends to a translation if the Word of God has been preserved in the Greek and Hebrew text” (Neither jo
  10. Could KJV-only allegations against the NKJV demonstrate that many KJV-only advocates do not approach the NKJV with the same attitude with which they would approach the 1560 Geneva Bible or the 1611 KJV? Do some seem to approach the NKJV as a Bible critic instead as a serious, seeking reader of a Bible translation? While they may condemn anyone who approaches the KJV as a critic, are they perhaps guilty of the same thing in their approach to the NKJV? Do the Scriptures instruct believers to approach their reading of one English Bible translation differently than the
  11. John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. Are some possibly jumping to wrong conclusions by judging merely according to the appearance instead of judging righteous judgment by applying the same exact measures/standards justly? Would John 7:24 suggest that judging according to the appearance is excellent teaching? The 1568 Bishops' Bible did not have the name Bishops' Bible on its title page, and the 1611 edition of the KJV did not have the name King James Version on its title page. The first rule for the making of the KJV stated: "
  12. The title page of the 1611 edition of the KJV asserted [perhaps by the printer] that it is "newly translated out of the original tongues" while the translators in the 1611 preface suggested that the KJV is only a revision and not a new translation. The fact is that the KJV can accurately be said to be both a revision and a translation [more a revision than a new translation since over 60% of the KJV's English comes from the pre-1611 English Bibles]. The NKJV is also both a revision [a revision of the KJV] and a translation of the same original-language texts used in making the KJV.
  13. Doug Stauffer alleged that the NKJV has "51 omissions of God", but he does not compare these places in both the KJV and the NKJV to the Hebrew Masoretic text and Textus Receptus from which the KJV is translated (One Book Stands Alone, p. 150). In response to this misleading charge likely repeated from Gail Riplinger, James D. Price noted: "The truth is that the KJV added the word "God" in fifty one or more places where the Hebrew or Greek text did not contain it--and that without using italics in most cases. This was because the KJV used dynamic equivalence paraphrases such as "God forb
  14. Doug Stauffer asked: ""Does your version reduce Jesus to God's servant rather than His Son in Acts 3:13, 3:26, 4:27, or 4:30" (One Book Stands, p. 297)? This same Greek word found at Acts 4:27 and 30 was also used of Jesus at Matthew 12:18a where it was translated "servant" in the KJV. However, it was translated "child" in Wycliffe's, 1534 Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops' Bibles and as "son" in 1526 Tyndale's. Why is this difference important in Acts 4:27 and 30 but unimportant in Matthew 12:18? Does the KJV’s rendering at Matthew 12:18 demonstrate that the NKJV
  15. KJV defender David Norris acknowledged that the NKJV can “be classed largely as a revision rather than a retranslation” (Big Picture, p. 367). KJV defender David Sorenson admitted that the NKJV’s N. T. “is translated from the Textus Receptus” (Touch Not, p. 240). David Sorenson also listed the NKJV as being “based upon the Received Text” (p. 10). Laurence Vance acknowledged that the NKJV’s “New Testament was based on the Received Text” (Brief History, p. 92). Joe Gresham claimed that the NKJV “follows the same ancient manuscripts as the KJV” (Dealing w
  16. That may be your opinion, but I do not think that it has not been soundly and justly proven to be true. I have read Stauffer's book, and I do not think that he makes a convincing case based on use of the same measures/standards applied justly. From the evidence that I have seen and examined, the differences between the KJV and the NKJV fall into the same range of differences as those between the KJV and the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision. There are by far greater textual differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV than any KJV-only advocate has cla
  17. In contradiction to scriptural instructions to apply the same measures/standards justly, it should be evident that Doug Stauffer applies different measures to the word choices in one English Bible translation [the NKJV] than he would apply to the word choices in another English Bible translation [the KJV]. Would use of double standards be just and scriptural? The makers of the KJV changed meanings in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision, and they did not just update language and grammar in them.
  18. I think that some of editions of it have a 1611 date on the title page while there may be some editions of it that have been found with a 1613 date on the title page. David Norton observed: "Though it is probable that the 'She" Bible, in one of its varying forms, dates from 1611, it is genuinely a second edition" (Textual History, p. 65). Norton added: "Since "she went" is the commoner reading, the second edition is taken as being much more influential than it really was; most of the early editions that have 'she went' derive from the first edition, not the second" (Ibid.) The
  19. Yes, the 1611 "He" edition and the 1611 "She" edition are two different editions of the KJV. The identification of "He" edition and "She" edition does come from the difference at Ruth 3:15. The "He" 1611 edition is also known for its error at Exodus 14:10 where it repeated 21 words. There were also other differences. In appendix 2 ["First and second edition variations"] of his book A Textual History of the King James Bible, David Norton listed seven pages of differences (pp. 173-179).
  20. Is it being unintentionally suggested that the Bible is not the independent standard for what Bible doctrines that independent Baptist congregations believe and teach? Are the opinions and human reasoning of men made a greater authority than what the Bible states and teaches in some independent Baptist churches since the Bible does not teach some of the KJV-only opinions that individual churches may choose and wish to believe? Is each local church to determine which KJV edition is supposedly "a true" KJV independent of what the Scriptures state and teach? The editors who made c
  21. What is the clear definition of a "true King James Bible"? How many changes or revisions to the 1611 edition of the KJV does it take for an edition not to be considered a "true" KJV? What is the independent standard for determining which edition is to be claimed to be a "true" KJV?
  22. All Bible translators add many words in translating and provide no word for some original-language words of Scripture.
  23. Perhaps one difference between Strongest Strong's Concordance for the KJV and other Strong's Concordances for the KJV may be in cases where words are added for which there was no original-language word of Scripture. The Strongest Strong's Concordance will identify those added words with NIH [Not in Hebrew] or NIG [Not in Greek] in place of giving a Strong's number for an original-language word instead of leaving a blank.
  24. As a Bible-believer, I have read the KJV over 50 years. I advocate and support the teaching of sound Bible doctrine. It should also be acknowledged that some can read their own opinions into verses that do not state and teach what they claim. In agreement with scriptural truth, believers should object to the teaching of opinions and traditions of men as being a doctrine or commandment of God when they are not (Mark 7:7-9). In agreement with the wisdom from God above, believers also should object to the showing of partiality to one exclusive group of translators since God's wisdom is w
  25. Someone can assume or suppose their opinions to be correct, but that does not prove them to be true. Mixing in a scriptural truth with opinions of men does not make the opinions scriptural. Opinions that anyone merely assumes or supposes to be true cannot soundly be known to be true. To be known to be true they would need to be proven to be true [not merely assumed]. Some may put their own non-scriptural opinions above what the Scriptures state so that they can be guilty of what they accuse others. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good (1 Thess. 5:21). Several of the K
×
×
  • Create New...