Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | KJV Only Radicals | Bible general Archive 2 | PreacherMan777 | 136003 | ||
I have encountered several KJV only radicals with tons of books and tapes that they provide me every week. Without going bankrupt, I'd like a list of free or reasonable resources to give back to them that do not deflate our convitction that God's Word is inspired, but refute their KJV only position. e-mail me your ideas. mjoplin@latigopetro.com |
||||||
2 | KJV Only Radicals | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 136004 | ||
QUESTIONS FOR THE KJV-ONLY CULT [One of the best websites that deals with the issue of KJV ONLY is (www.kjvonly.org). A sample of the material available there follows. --Kalos] 'QUESTIONS FOR THE KJV-ONLY CULT 'by Gary R. Hudson '(1) Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If not, why do some "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611? Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them to North America? '(2) Were the KJV translators "LIARS" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"? '(3) Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"? '(4) Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct" the English? '(5) Do you believe that the English of the KJV "corrects" its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated? '(6) Is ANY translation "inspired"? Is the KJV an "inspired translation"? '(7) Is the KJV "scripture"? Is IT "given by inspiration of God"? [2 Tim. 3:16] '(8) WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" - 1611... or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850? '(9) In what language did Jesus Christ...teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18? '(10) Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?' ____________________ www.kjvonly.org/gary/questkjv.htm |
||||||
3 | KJV Only Radicals | Bible general Archive 2 | Praise Be To God | 136009 | ||
Dear Kalos, I am not a KJV radical, but I do prefer that version. Here's an exercise for you. Look up Matthew 18:11 in the NIV and tell me what it says. Blessings, Janae |
||||||
4 | KJV Only Radicals | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 136013 | ||
Dear Janae - Such an exercise in which you invited Kalos to engage involves a great deal more than makiing a comparison of a single verse between one translation and another. In your example of Matthew 18:11 for instance, it seems fair enough to ask why it appears in the KJV and not in the NIV. Without knowing and examining the facts, one could jump to any number of conclusions which have a high probability of being wrong. One could say that the NIV translators took a nap or went on coffee break after translating Matthew 18:10 and when they returned to their work they inadvertently skipped v.11 and went to v.12. Or attribute it to printer error. Or one could even accuse them of sabotage, which is the radical view that some KJV Onlyists take. The matter involves none of these things. It involves the enormously complex and often controversial subject of textual criticism on which a large number of specialized scholars have labored so much for so long and have not as yet arrived at total unaninimity. But to say that the NIV translators have deliberately tampered with the text by omitting Matthew 18:11 is no more valid than to say that the KJV translators tampered with it by adding it. The textual basis of the KJV New Testament is known as Textus Receptus. The NIV used an eclectic one. In either case, both teams followed texts which they considered the most reliable available to them at the time. It is therefore as absurd to hurl the curses of Revelation 22:18 at the KJV translators for adding words to Scripture as it is to hurl those of Revelation 22:19 at the NIV translators for taking them away. ..... If you'd like to read more posts -- many more I might add -- on this topic, use Quick Search and type in the words Textus Receptus. I'd like also to recommend a book you might enjoy. It's called "The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism" by D. A. Carson. It's readily available in inexpensive paperback on-line and at bookstores. ..... By the way, the NASB includes Matthew 18:11, but puts it in brackets and notes marginally "Early mss. do not contain this v." For what it's worth, I will note that I use the 1995 NASB Update about 90 per cent of the time for my reading and study and am trying to update my Scripture memorization from KJV to NASB. In this effort I find it tougher to "unlearn" than to learn :-). ...... And here's an exercise for you. Let someone who is unfamiliar with the KJV read Psalm 5:6 and ask him to tell you what it means to speak leasing. Blessings. --Hank | ||||||