[KeruxR]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

________________________

If the KJV Bible promotes universalism, how do you explain these verses? (Lycia)

I think we'd better define our terms.

What does the term universalism mean to you?

___

At least no one has started using ad hominem.

___

[KeruxR]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

Didn't you just criticize the Masoretic text as being too Jewish? Why is the Hebrew now "inspired"? (Levi Jones)

The Hebrew is not jewish.

What is wrong with wanting the Bible to be in the vernacular?

Nothing. Where did you come up with that?

What is the solution to your perceived dilemma?

What "perceived dilemma" ?

Should we just quit reading the Bible and wait for God to tell us what He wants?

Your last statement borders on a straw man argument. I'm not advocating we quit reading the Bible.

___

[barton]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

Welcome to the forum!

You make some bold claims but have yet to provide your evidence. I must say that similar claims have been made for centuries and, rather than guess as to how yours might be different, I'll just ask if you in any way can refute what is spelled out by James L. Melton in his "A Handy Reference For King James Bible Believers". I'll quote one part of it here.

Reasons for Accepting the KJV as God's Preserved Word (By James L. Melton):

1. God promised to preserve His words (Psa. 12:6-7; Mat. 24:35). There has to be a preserved copy of God's pure words somewhere. If it isn't the KJV, then what is it?
2. It has no copyright. The text of the KJV may be reproduced by anyone for there is no copyright forbidding it's duplication. This is not true with the modern perversions.
3. The KJV produces good fruit (Mat. 7:17-20). No modern translation can compare to the KJV when it comes to producing good fruit. For nearly four hundred years, God has used the preaching and teaching of the KJV to bring hundreds of millions to Christ. Laodicean Christians might favor the new versions, but the Holy Spirit doesn't.
4. The KJV was translated during the Philadelphia church period (Rev. 3:7-13). The modern versions begin to appear rather late on the scene as the lukewarm Laodicean period gets underway (Rev. 3:14-22), but the KJV was produced way back in 1611, just in time for the many great revivals (1700-1900). The Philadelphia church was the only church that did not receive a rebuke from the Lord Jesus Christ, and it was the only church that "kept" God's word (Rev. 3:8).
5. The KJV translators were honest in their work. When the translators had to add certain words, largely due to idiom changes, they placed the added words in italics so we'd know the difference. This is not the case with many new translations.
6. All new translations compare themselves to the KJV. Isn't it strange that the new versions never compare themselves to one another? For some strange reason they all line up against one Book--the A.V. 1611. I wonder why? Try Matthew 12:26.
7. The KJV translators believed they were handling the very words of God (I Ths. 2:13). Just read the King James Dedicatory and compare it to the prefaces in the modern versions. Immediately, you will see a world of difference in the approach and attitude of the translators. Which group would YOU pick for translating a book?
8. The KJV is supported by far more evidence. Of over 5,300 pieces of manuscript evidence, ninety-five percent supports the King James Bible! The changes in the new versions are based on the remaining five percent of manuscripts, most of which are from Alexandria, Egypt. (There are only two lines of Bibles: the Devil's line from Alexandria, and the Lord's line from Antioch. We'll deal with this later.)
9. No one has ever proven that the KJV is not God's word. The 1611 should be considered innocent until proven guilty with a significant amount of genuine manuscript evidence.
10. The KJV exalts the Lord Jesus Christ. The true scriptures should testify of Jesus Christ (John 5:39). There is no book on this planet which exalts Christ higher than the King James Bible. In numerous places the new perversions attack the Deity of Christ, the Blood Atonement, the Resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, and the Second Coming. The true scriptures will TESTIFY of Jesus Christ, not ATTACK Him!

[Levi Jones]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

You don’t agree that if errors can be shown to exist in the KJV (or any other version for that matter) then it is by definition, not the inspired Word of God?

No, I do not. A few commas and different synonyms that are different in various translations do not make it uninspired.

It doesn’t matter what translation I consider to be better. We not discussing better translations, which are a matter of opinion.

I think it does. You come here and attack the KJV, but you offer nothing in terms of what you believe to be better.

What we are discussing is inspiration, which is not a matter of opinion, at least not for a Christian.

Oh dear. I feel this is all leading up to something, I haven't yet been able to put my finger on it.

It can safely be said “All scripture is given by inspiration of God…” The question is: what Scripture? The KJV or the original languages?

Yes.

Incorrect. The original New Testament was written in Greek (LJ)

You seem pretty sure of yourself.

I try not to speak on subjects I know little about.

I’m not so sure. Aramaic was spoken by Christ and the disciples, not Greek. I'm searching for my source, but I'm quite sure the disciples would have first written down their writings in their native language.

Are you? How is that search coming along?

If I can show that the KJV teaches universalism, then my statement is correct, agreed?

Perhaps if you can show that the KJV exclusively teaches universalism, but I doubt it.

[Levi Jones]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

What does the term universalism mean to you?

The idea that other religions are included as a path to Salvation and permissible.

At least no one has started using ad hominem.

What is this? Debate 101? This ain't that kind of forum, pal.

What "perceived dilemma" ?

That the Bible is not inspired unless you can read the Greek or the Hebrew.

Your last statement borders on a straw man argument. I'm not advocating we quit reading the Bible.

Then, could you actually say what you are advocating? All I'm seeing from you is a lot of tearing things down. I'm not seeing any ideas.

[KeruxR]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

________________________

Perhaps if you can show that the KJV exclusively teaches universalism, but I doubt it.


Now, now, Levi, let’s not start adding words to what I said. I did not use the word “exclusively” did I?



A few commas and different synonyms that are different in various translations do not make it uninspired.

No, a few commas and different synonyms that are different here and there do not make it uninspired, but then again, I haven’t said that, have I? In fact, I have yet been given a chance to provide any of the evidence.
Looks to me that some of you are not as open minded as I had first thought.


You come here and attack the KJV, but you offer nothing in terms of what you believe to be better.

Ditto above.



I try not to speak on subjects I know little about.


Oh, I think you’re speaking quite a bit about subjects you think you know a lot about all right. It was Mark Twain (I believe) who said, paraphrase:


“The problem is not what you know but what you think you know that ain’t so.”



____

[KeruxR]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

________________________

The idea that other religions are included as a path to Salvation and permissible.

Not my definition at all.

That the Bible is not inspired unless you can read the Greek or the Hebrew.

The Bible can be inspired whether or not someone can read Greek or Hebrew. The two are mutually exclusive. Aren’t they?

Then, could you actually say what you are advocating? All I'm seeing from you is a lot of tearing things down. I'm not seeing any ideas.

And what I see is a lot of tearing what I am saying down.

What is it with you guys' love affair with the KJV?

I’ve advocating quite a few things here, but you’re so busy attacking what I have to say, that you can’t see them.

Boy, I can see I came in and rattle your cages, rocked your boat, upset your apple cart, spoiled your picnic, rained on your parade, all in less than 120 mins. or so.

LMHO

Chill out would ya? I'm not your enemy.

___

I'm going to take a walk. It's nice out where I am.

Thanks for the discourse, catch you all later.

___

[Lycia The Repentant]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

Haven't been given a chance either, have I?

I believe I asked you to provide some evidence for your claim when I originally posted in this thread.

Handy little gimmick there I see: make a claim that the KJV is the inspired word of God, and then impose the burden of proof that it isn't on others.

From wickedpedia:

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim.[1] This burden does not demand a mathematical or strictly logical proof (although many strong arguments do rise to this level such as in logical syllogisms), but rather demands an amount of evidence that is established or accepted by convention or community standards.[2][3] This burden of proof is often asymmetrical and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes either an ontologically positive claim, or makes a claim more "extraordinary",[4] that is farther removed from conventionally accepted facts.

I would make the argument that on this forum, it is a conventionally accepted fact that the KJV is inspired (or, at the very least, perfectly preserves the inspiration of His word). You have made a claim that it is full of errors, which goes against the conventionally accepted fact here that the KJV is perfect. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with you.

Who says the KJV is the inspired word God, you?

Myself, most others here and many prominent Baptist thinkers.

Show me the verse where the Bible says: "The KJV is the inspired word of God" and I'll forever hold my peace.

Even the KJV says: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God ...." And, in the original language, that was written about 1600 years before the KJV came out.

Again, a valid concern. But why don't we take a look at some scripture that shows how much importance God Himself places on original documents? Lets start by going through the book of Jeremiah.

"So the king sent Jehudi to fetch the roll: and he took it out of Elishama the scribe's chamber. And Jehudi read it in the ears of the king, and in the ears of all the princes which stood beside the king." Jeremiah 36:21

Here is the roll Jeremiah has originally written. Lets call it Original #1.

"And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth." Jeremiah 36:23

Original #1 gets destroyed.

"Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words." Jeremiah 36:32

Jeremiah makes a copy of Original #1. He's close enough to the source where I think it would be fair to call it Original #2. Jeremiah 45-51 goes on to show us what was on the scroll.

"The word which Jeremiah the prophet commanded Seraiah the son of Neriah, the son of Maaseiah, when he went with Zedekiah the king of Judah into Babylon in the fourth year of his reign. And this Seraiah was a quiet prince. So Jeremiah wrote in a book all the evil that should come upon Babylon, even all these words that are written against Babylon. And Jeremiah said to Seraiah, When thou comest to Babylon, and shalt see, and shalt read all these words;" Jeremiah 51:59-61

Jeremiah gives Original #2 to Seraiah and tells him to read it when he goes to Babylon. But then this happens!

"And it shall be, when thou hast made an end of reading this book, that thou shalt bind a stone to it, and cast it into the midst of Euphrates:" Jeremiah 51:63

So Original #2 gets destroyed, and this begs the question as to how we are able to read it in the Bible today. I think the answer to that question is God doesn't particularly care about the original documents, so long as the Word is preserved.

As to a more in-depth analysis as to why the KJV specifically is the only perfect Bible, I believe Brother Barton has already cleared that up.

Reminds me of that saying we used to hear: "If the KJV was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me." LOL

The best jokes are those with elements of truth in them.

I think the burden of proof is on those who make your claim.

I believe I've explained adequately that the burden of proof lies on you here, friend.

However, I will show, in the coming days, many of the errors in the KJV. And those errors will be my evidence that the KJV is not the inspired scriptures.

I for one am waiting.

I think we'd better define our terms.

What does the term universalism mean to you?

Perhaps I jumped the gun on that one, but I assumed you were referring to the doctrine of Universal reconciliation, or the idea that the punishment of sin is not everlasting. Maybe you could tell us what you meant by universalism?

At least no one has started using ad hominem.

I promise that if you keep your arguments civil, I will be able to do the same.

[Levi Jones]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

Perhaps if you can show that the KJV exclusively teaches universalism, but I doubt it.

Now, now, Levi, let’s not start adding words to what I said. I did not use the word “exclusively” did I?

I added that as a qualifier to your offer. You offer, I counter. It's negotiating.

A few commas and different synonyms that are different in various translations do not make it uninspired.

No, a few commas and different synonyms that are different here and there do not make it uninspired, but then again, I haven’t said that, have I? In fact, I have yet been given a chance to provide any of the evidence.

I am dying to see if you have a point, much less evidence to back it.

Looks to me that some of you are not as open minded as I had first thought.

It looks like the red herring has been laid down.

You come here and attack the KJV, but you offer nothing in terms of what you believe to be better.

Ditto above.

I try not to speak on subjects I know little about.


Oh, I think you’re speaking quite a bit about subjects you think you know a lot about all right. It was Mark Twain (I believe) who said, paraphrase:


“The problem is not what you know but what you think you know that ain’t so.”

I still await your evidence that the New Testament was ever written in Aramaic.

No, the Passion of the Christ will not suffice as evidence.

[Lycia The Repentant]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

I’ve advocating quite a few things here, but you’re so busy attacking what I have to say, that you can’t see them.

Boy, I can see I came in and rattle your cages, rocked your boat, upset your apple cart, spoiled your picnic, rained on your parade, all in less than 120 mins. or so.

Its not that you've rattled our cage, but we can't really have a meaningful discussion of the concerns you've brought up if you don't back them up in any way, now can we?

[KeruxR]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

_________________________

From Lycia:

I would make the argument that on this forum, it is a conventionally accepted fact that the KJV is inspired (or, at the very least, perfectly preserves the inspiration of His word). You have made a claim that it is full of errors, which goes against the conventionally accepted fact here that the KJV is perfect. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with you.

Like I said, I can handle the burden. However, just because you and a thousand other prominent Baptist leaders believe something, doesn't make it so.
___________________


So Original #2 gets destroyed, and this begs the question as to how we are able to read it in the Bible today. I think the answer to that question is God doesn't particularly care about the original documents, so long as the Word is preserved.

So long as the Word is preserved. That is the deal breaker, isn't it? The meat of the matter.

I contend that the Word has been altered and because you, me or a thousand prominent Baptists "thinkers" are not Hebrew or Greek scholars, we have all be taking someone else's word as to preservation - haven't we? How do you know the word has been preserved? Because someone told you it was preserved? Or because you checked the source for your self and confirmed your belief?

Again:

I Thessalonians 5:20, 21 Do not despise expounding of scripture, but scrutinize all things. Hold fast that which is right.

________________

Maybe you could tell us what you meant by universalism?

By universalism I mean that the gospel or redemption or salvation is offered universally - that is: to "whosoever" - "all" - "to the world" as in "For God so loved the world" et al.
___________________

Its not that you've rattled our cage, but we can't really have a meaningful discussion of the concerns you've brought up if you don't back them up in any way, now can we?

Oh, I think I've rattled cages all right.

I've been busy fending off - what three of four of you watchmen ? - for the past few hours and have not had time to get to the evidence. It's been fun, and there is nothing better I'd like to do than discuss Scripture with fervent defenders of what they believe to be the TRUTH .....

However, I've been referred to previous "sermons" and need time to review that content before I reply. But reply, I will. Probably on a new thread.


_____

[Melvin K. Dobbs]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

From what i'm seeing, you randomly come to this Godly forum, and attack the KJV1611 Holy Bible. Why don't you just accept God's word, and stop arguing?

[KeruxR]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

______________________

From Levi:

I am dying to see if you have a point, much less evidence to back it.

Oh, there is plenty of evidence to support the claim that the KJV is full of errors. So much so, that I’m surprised that you stalwart defenders of the Scriptures weren’t aware of them already.

I still await your evidence that the New Testament was ever written in Aramaic

I provided one point already: Christ and His disciples spoke Aramaic – not Greek. As I said, it would have been quite natural for them to write in their native tongue – and not Greek. The Greek copies would have come later, because there would have been a need for just that – copies.

Where is your evidence that the originals were written in Greek?

No, the Passion of the Christ will not suffice as evidence.

Why not? The script has the actors using the language of the day. You're telling us that the writers leap frogged over their native tongue to Greek?


_____________

[KeruxR]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

___________________________

Why don't you just accept God's word, and stop arguing? Dobbs

Oh, Mr. Dobbs, I fully and completely accept "God's word." 100%. (And arriving here was not a random act. I believe in the sovereignty of God, don't you?)

You apparently miss the point.

The point is: what exactly is God's word?

Most here obviously believe God's Word to be the KJV.

I for one, disagree. And I'm going to provide ample evidence to back up my belief.

For the record, I have yet to be shown any convincing evidence that the KJV is the "inspired word of God." All I have been told is what people here believe. And - like you have done - have been told to accept what others are telling me and get in the bandwagon.

Sorry, that doesn't work for me: I'm simply a believer in doing what God's word commands us to do:

"..... but scrutinize all things. Hold fast that which is right."

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched (examined) the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Acts 17:11

____

[Melvin K. Dobbs]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

If you don't believe God's Word to be the KJV1611 Holy Bible, then what, pray tell, do YOU believe God's Word to be?