AV1611 Bible Forum Archive

AV1611 Bible Forum Archive (https://av1611.com/forums/index.php)
-   Bible Versions (https://av1611.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   King James Only Controversy (https://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=938)

bibleprotector 01-28-2009 11:09 PM

King James Only Controversy
 
In March 2009 there will be another edition of James R. White’s anti-King James Bible only book, “The King James Only Controversy”.

I want to deal with some of the ideas which this book brings up.

KING JAMES ONLYISM IS DIVISIVE

James White makes early reference to the divisive nature of King James onlyism, attributing it as a root of Church splits and other schismatic activities.

However, as White himself argues against Romanish errors, and is himself a reactionary against King James Onlyism, he himself must be just as guilty of “division”, since he has dedicated a whole book and numerous blogs and video clips against the KJBO doctrine.

Division between those who tend toward false doctrine and those who tend towards true doctrine is entirely correct. We cannot pretend that all people who call upon “Christ” are of Christ. In fact, believers are commanded to come out from among them, and be separate.

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34).

To be fair, anti-KJBOism must be equally or just as divisive, since they are claiming to be “right”, and are expending their efforts to “expose” KJBO.

SELECTIVE REPORTING

James White has concentrated (it seems) on what achieves the most shock value for the audience, rather than a fair representation of King James Onlyism. In fact, the King James Onlyism that James White describes is quite unlike the beliefs, attitudes and actions of most people who hold to a KJBO view.

The problem is that James White has selectively taken a few individuals, and has highlighted particularities of these individuals which represent an extreme rather than a broad view. If someone read the book, they would come away thinking that King James Bible only people have all kinds of strange ideas. There is very little to temper accusations such as that some KJBOs believe that Paul used the King James Bible or that the translators were inspired in 1604–1611, etc. If James White was really analysing or reporting on KJBO belief, he would have to show just how few KJBOs really hold these extravagant views.

WRONG CATEGORISATION

James White has attempted to group KJBOs into five categories. They are:
1. I like the KJV best
2. The textual argument
3. Received Text only
4. The inspired KJV group
5. The KJV as new revelation

Notice how James White wrongly jumps from King James Bible preferred and/or Textus Receptus onlyists (his groups 1–3, which are not really “King James Bible only”) to the extreme KJV inspired group and beyond.

What James White has ignored, or deliberately omitted, is that there is the large grouping which believe the King James Bible to be the only Bible used today (at least in English), and who are not merely “Received Text only”, nor have they gone as far as to claim that the KJB was made by inspiration in 1604–1611.

FALSE LOGIC

James White points out how Catholics had the Vulgate as a standard version. Therefore, those who have the King James Bible as their standard must be as erroneous as Catholics... This syllogism is as faulty as claiming that all four-legged beasts are dogs because dogs have four legs.

Also, we find that the modern version people have their own standards of authorities, such as particular editions of the Critical Greek Text, etc.

As for the issue of infallibility, James White champions the view of natural humanism (“to err is human”), that is, that no work of man can be perfect. Therefore, according to him, no version or translation can be perfect. This defies the Scriptural view of God, namely that, God is all-powerful, therefore God is able to manifest His perfect Word wholly gathered in history.

Given time, all modernists can see is multiplying variants, and despite the best efforts of scholars, they will never have a perfect Bible. Notice that this view has no Scriptural support. No verse of Scripture says or implies that God cannot do it. What they have done is look at the temporal, and built up a man-made doctrine that God cannot do it, or that God is subject to the error, sin and devils of this world.

SMEARS ON THE TRANSLATORS

James White asserts that the translators of the King James Bible would not have always caught the different and inconsistent translations of the same original words. However, as the translators themselves said, and as Burgon also wrote, “the plain fact being that the men of 1611 — above all William Tyndale 77 years before them — produced a work of real genius; seizing with generous warmth the meaning and intention of the sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the phrase, as they felt or fancied that Evangelists or Apostles would have varied it, had they had to express themselves in English”.

James White also impugns evil motives onto the translators, such as pride, power, love of money, etc. However, this is only rhetoric, and is the product of anti-prelacy writers. There is no general moderate Puritan witness against the King James Bible or its translators which would suggest the unfitness of the translators in any capacity, either in religion or learning.

James White also points out that the translators held to non-Baptist doctrines. However, since the translators were making an honest translation, what stands is not biased, as James White falsely impugns. Otherwise, the King James Bible would have words like “sprinkling” or “immersion”, but rather it translates honestly and truly, and is the basis of true doctrine, not the daughter of the translators’ doctrines.

James White also asks “the KJV advocate, ‘When the KJV gives a reading that is identical to the Bishop’s [sic] Bible, was the Bishop’s [sic] Bible inspired and inerrant in that place, even before 1611?’”. Consider a moment that he has just implied that the “KJV advocate” believes in the inspiration of the KJB and that basically there was no Bible before 1611. However, James White does not deal fairly here. The answer is that God’s Word existed in truth since its original inspiration, as most KJBOs and non-KJBO fundamentalists believe. Clearly, the text has existed scattered, and only imperfectly in single manuscripts or impressions before 1611. Moreover, there was a purification with all Protestant English Bibles leading to 1611. The reality is that the King James Bible translators were NOT inspired, but that the words which were good, pure and right in 1602 or 1610 must have only been gathered and their rendering into one particular version the finalisation of the purification.

James White also points out that the translators found some words or passages obscure. But this does not mean “impossible to be rendered”. What it means is that providentially, and through the study and cross examination of learned men (i.e. the 1611 translators) the right words were selected, and were rightly translated into English. Thus, we observe God’s providence in godly men’s work.

THE TRANSLATORS SPEAK

James White misreads the translators’ own words, claiming that they speak against King James Bible onlyism. However, the opposite is the case.

The translators said, “For when Your Highness had once out of deep judgment apprehended how convenient it was, that out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own, and other foreign Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue”. This shows that they viewed the King James Bible as one final exact English Bible. This is a statement against modern versions.

The fourteenth section of The Translators to the Reader is entitled, “Reasons moving us to set diversity of senses in the margin, where there is great probability for each.” Where the heading speaks of a probability of a reading, it does not mean as though there is an equal or fifty-fifty chance at God’s Word being one thing or another thing. What happened was that the translators came to certain places where there were two or more possible interpretations, either by textual differences in the originals, or by translation differences. They said, “It is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain.” (TTR, Section 14). Thus, they highlighted places where there were multiple possible renderings. This was the honest course.

But rather than keep things in a state of doubt, the translators weighed each alternative, to discern which was variant. As a certain amount of weight might have been behind one rendering, even more weight was behind another. And so faith in God, the opinion of learned men, and many other things show that God’s Word does not fall to probability, but that the translators’ approach of using their judgment and understanding showed what was the sense of the Scripture, that is, what was the accepted text and what was the variant, as placed in the margin.

When it came to translating difficult words, these cases were resolved, as the translators explained: “There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, &c. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as St Hierome somewhere saith of the Septuagint.” (TTR, Section 14). Rather interestingly, many of these rare words are not annotated with marginal references, while on the other hand, other words which do not seem to be rare at all have another sense supplied in the margin. This indicates that the margins were not designed to be a critical apparatus nor to bring out the fuller understanding of the sense of the Scripture.

“Now in such a case doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident; so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as St Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good; yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.” (TTR, Section 14). If indeed what was in the text was only a guess, then the reading in the margin would be of comparatively equal weight to the text, and that the more variety in guesses and senses and translations, the better. However, this is not the correct understanding of the matter. The variety of translations being referred to were those translations which came before, and not applying to the renderings in the margin as such. The variety of translations was certainly not applying to new translations made afterwards, such as modern versions. The translators chose the correct sense of the originals, and this expressly disallows a person in the present to pick and choose his own version. The margins were supplied so that a reader may check what was rejected and put into the margin. But in reality, either the entire King James Bible must be accepted, or it must be entirely rejected.

REVISIONS AND EDITIONS

James White goes on to say that since the King James Bible today is different to that of 1611, how can a difference be resolved? For example, he says of the KJBO, “there is simply no way of determining the correct text of Jeremiah 34:16.”

Well, I am happy to say that there is an answer. There are two areas to see.

First, the nature of changes in the King James Bible. In the proper revisions, that is, the editions in a line including 1611, 1629, 1769 we observe in the tradition, proper King James Bible differences not in the underlying text, nor in the translation, but,
1. in correction of typographical errors,
2. in standardisation of the language, and
3. in other regularisation (e.g. consistent use of italics, etc.).

Second, that there is a line of proper historical editions from 1611 to 1769, and particularly from the Cambridge University Press’ guardianship, which resulted with the Pure Cambridge Edition of the twentieth century. This edition has resolved correctly any differences which might appear among various editions, providing a basis for rejecting new modernisations, while also rightly portraying places where common variations exist, e.g. at Jeremiah 34:16.

I acknowledge that this was not fully understood until after James White wrote his book. See www.bibleprotector.com

STRAW MEN

James White concentrates his attack on a few individuals, or minority beliefs, tending to broad brush these beliefs to most or many KJBOs. However, this is a deceitful practise, in that most KJBOs do not 100% agree with the KJBO individuals he highlights. The implication is that if a KJBO teacher holds to a particular doctrine which is somehow offensive, that this has somehow automatically disqualified any belief or teaching that this individual brings.

WRONG BATTLEGROUND

James White argues that the real Bible studies or debate should rest in the issues to do with the original languages, and with particular methods of using the context and hermeneutics on that basis.

The point is that if the KJBO argues on the basis of what the Hebrew or Greek says, or doesn’t say, or what the originals really meant to the original audience, etc., they have surrendered the very position of the Scripture, which is, that the Word of God is present.

“For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth” (Col. 1:5, 6).

“But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” (1 Pet. 1:25).

There clearly is no final perfect Testament in the Hebrew or in the Greek, so to argue where there is no final authority or particular perfection is to argue nothing at all. But as soon as we show that the King James Bible translators got it right, and that God has got His Word to us today in English, we are on a solid, logical, Scriptural and godly foundation.

NO FIXED ENGLISH

According to modernists, the English language is always changing, therefore it is impossible to have one fixed English Bible. However, it is something beyond their belief and understanding if there is a Bible which exhibits God’s use of English, which is relevant to the people living in 1611 as much as in, say, 2011.

Since the Spirit of Truth is present in the Earth today, He is able to bring people to understand God’s Word in the King James Bible. In fact, it is only hard to the natural man, but it becomes open to the spiritual.

Whatever accusations are levelled against the seeming peculiar words of the King James Bible are unfounded, because they happen to be the very exact English words to convey the very sense of the originals. In reality, there is no Bible like it.

CONCLUSION

James White’s “The King James Only Controversy” is a largely misleading, unfair misrepresentation of the King James Only movement. What White utterly fails to accomplish is to give any consolation to his readers/viewers that God’s words exist certainly and utterly today in English. It is as if he holds to a naive faith in modernism (that error prevails), which leads him to defend the existence imperfect Bibles and various individuals who held to heresies or gross sins.

However, if we take the King James Bible as true, and what it says about Scripture as truly applying to itself, we find that the King James Bible is both internally and externally (e.g. historically, textually, etc.) consistent. To accept or admit even one error in the King James Bible is the first step of the path to complete apostasy, this is also internally and externally evident with modern versions.

PB1789 01-29-2009 07:25 AM

[QUOTE=bibleprotector;15026]In March 2009 there will be another edition of James R. White’s anti-King James Bible only book, “The King James Only Controversy”.

I want to deal with some of the ideas which this book brings up.

SELECTIVE REPORTING

James White has concentrated (it seems) on what achieves the most shock value for the audience, rather than a fair representation of King James Onlyism. In fact, the King James Onlyism that James White describes is quite unlike the beliefs, attitudes and actions of most people who hold to a KJBO view.

The problem is that James White has selectively taken a few individuals, and has highlighted particularities of these individuals which represent an extreme rather than a broad view. If someone read the book, they would come away thinking that King James Bible only people have all kinds of strange ideas. There is very little to temper accusations such as that some KJBOs believe that Paul used the King James Bible or that the translators were inspired in 1604–1611, etc. If James White was really analysing or reporting on KJBO belief, he would have to show just how few KJBOs really hold these extravagant views.

---- ---- ---- ------ ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

:amen: The first time I tried to read that book I had to put it back on the rack....{gotta watch the Blood Pressure }. As the "Injuns" used to say about the Government Indian Agents ..."White man speak with forked tongue."

He (and people that believe like he does) never seem to address things like the Nestle-Aland Greek Text is now in it's 27th revision/edition... the Greek Text used by most all modern New Testaments has been changed several times in less than a hundred years, yet White is trying to insult AV/KJ folks who want to use a Bible that has not changed with the wind.

---- ----- ------ ------- ------ ------ ----- ------ ---

FALSE LOGIC

James White points out how Catholics had the Vulgate as a standard version. Therefore, those who have the King James Bible as their standard must be as erroneous as Catholics... This syllogism is as faulty as claiming that all four-legged beasts are dogs because dogs have four legs.

---- ---- ------ -------- ------ ------ ------ ----- -----

:D :pound: Good points Bible Protector.

stephanos 01-29-2009 04:27 PM

Thank you brother Matthew. I like PB1789 have a difficult time with White. I've always said that if I never hear his name again, it will be too soon. Nevertheless, I wasn't aware that he was publishing another edition of this book. Did he send you a copy to review?

Now I want to comment on inspiration. I don't think the translators of the KJB were inspired in the way that, say, Paul was. But I don't see how they could have produced a flawless rendition of God's Word without the Spirit guiding their hearts and minds. So, if God was guiding the hearts and minds of these fallible men to produce an infallible Book, what does it say about the process? I know that many moderate KJBO folks want to stay clear of those that believe the KJB translators were inspired, but what I keep being lead to think upon is that I don't see how uninspired men could have produced an inerrant and infallible Book without some mode of inspiration. What say ye?


Peace and Love,
Stephen

MC1171611 01-29-2009 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanos (Post 15044)
Thank you brother Matthew. I like PB1789 have a difficult time with White. I've always said that if I never hear his name again, it will be too soon. Nevertheless, I wasn't aware that he was publishing another edition of this book. Did he send you a copy to review?

Now I want to comment on inspiration. I don't think the translators of the KJB were inspired in the way that, say, Paul was. But I don't see how they could have produced a flawless rendition of God's Word without the Spirit guiding their hearts and minds. So, if God was guiding the hearts and minds of these fallible men to produce an infallible Book, what does it say about the process? I know that many moderate KJBO folks want to stay clear of those that believe the KJB translators were inspired, but what I keep being lead to think upon is that I don't see how uninspired men could have produced an inerrant and infallible Book without some mode of inspiration. What say ye?


Peace and Love,
Stephen

Amen, brother. I've hit that before (though most disagree with me...that's ok ;) ) and I've come to realize that inspiration is simply the Holy Spirit moving or directing a person to do something. If He could have given Paul the exact words to write down in Greek, what's to say that He didn't give the translators the exact words to write down in English?

Winman 01-29-2009 05:48 PM

Thanks for the post. I have to admit, I am not a scholar at all, a lot of this kind of information is very new to me, I have been spending time reading some of these studies here.

I personally think that God himself moved imperfect men to come up with the infallible KJB. It was God himself who promised to preserve His words, not man.

And even the prophets were normal men.

James 5:17 Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.

One of the things I love about the Bible, and why I knew it was true when I read it as a boy, is because it tells the truth about man, and how we really are. We know that Noah got drunk, we know David commited adultery with Bathsheba, we know of Samson and Delilah, how Peter denied the Lord three times...

This gave me hope, because I knew I was a terrible sinner with many faults. But God used these men, and he can use someone like me too. :)

So, I think God could easily have moved the translators to compile the KJB. And this is just my personal opinion, but I think God chose England to spread the Word of God throughout the world. This was when England became a real superpower with colonies throughout the world. They used to say, "the sun never sets on the English empire". And it was so, England was everywhere, in America, in Asia, Africa, all across the globe. So I think God used the KJB to spread the gospel to the entire world.

JOHN G 01-29-2009 06:21 PM

Sovereignty
 
:)Those that ascribe to TULIP theology claim a high view of God's sovereignty (though evidently not sovereign enough to preserve His Word). My God is SO soveriegn He can preserve His Word through falliable men!

Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.


P.S. I have never met a Calvinist who wasn't in the elect!

bibleprotector 01-29-2009 10:37 PM

The central issue at hand is either:

1. God is not able to get His Word 100% into one book; that man is imperfect, and can never be used of God to the extent to bring forth perfection in regards to particular works or areas of knowledge.

Or,

2. God is able to get His Word 100% into one book; and despite the imperfections of the world, men are able to be used of God to the extent that perfection may be exhibited in particular works or areas of knowledge.

Consider that a person is to be living right and grown up before God, as the Scripture says, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48). Since this is a commandment, it is attainable (obviously by faith in God’s grace).

Should we call a Christian living righteously and godly “inspired”? No.

Moreover, Aquila and Priscilla were used to teach Apollos the way of Christ, “And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.” (Acts 18:26).

Should we call those who understand right doctrines, and teachers of them “inspired”? No.

When we look at the making of the King James Bible, if we see it as merely a natural event, and that God’s hand in history is not “absolute”, or that God’s use of men is so limited, then of course we will not be accepting that perfection in the making of the King James Bible. Remember, infallibility is an attribute of God, and if His Spirit is at work, it is Him and not the men used who are infallible. God’s use of men can be in all kinds of ways, and has at many times not been by “inspiration” (i.e. a process of newly giving the Scripture). Nevertheless, God’s use will be by the spirit.

Examples include:

“And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship” (Exodus 31:3).

A person was able to excel in his work and the arts.

“And the pattern of all that he had by the spirit, of the courts of the house of the LORD, and of all the chambers round about, of the treasuries of the house of God, and of the treasuries of the dedicated things” (1 Chron. 28:12).

A person was able to know, plan, layout and processes of the temple.

“Until the spirit be poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness be a fruitful field, and the fruitful field be counted for a forest.” (Isaiah 32:15).

People are able to function the right way at the right time and prosper.

“And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.” (Joel 2:29).

People are able to respond properly, and operate together at the right time.

These historical and prophesied examples go far beyond the initial giving of Scripture, but relate to works, events, movements, etc. It should be evident to see how God worked out the King James Bible in this manner. It is not inspiration, it is providential. The Spirit of God is able to communicate, just as Jesus said He would in the Gospel of John.

bibleprotector 01-29-2009 10:57 PM

James White's book, "The King James Only Controversy" will be a revised edition according to the publisher's website:

Quote:

"Why a second edition? Fourteen years since the writing of the original has seen not only developments in the textual critical field, but the King James Only advocates have been writing books in that time as well, most of which seek to respond to my work. Some key examples, plus an expanded bibliography, bring the work up to date on that level. Further, those advocates have attempted to raise counter examples, and so the number of passages addressed in the work is expanded. During that time I have addressed this topic so many times that I have developed a number of useful illustrations to help the layperson understand the key issues, and these are included in the work as well. Finally, the explosion onto the scene of Bart Ehrman and his works on the New Testament are noted as well. As a result, the next edition of The King James Only Controversy will provide a valuable addition to the library of anyone seeking to understand the trustworthiness of the New Testament today."
—James R. White, explaining his reasoning for a revision of this book
I have not seen the new edition. All my reviewing to this date is based on the original edition.

bibleprotector 02-06-2009 09:19 AM

Listening to James White refute a TR onlyist on his internet broadcast today, I heard this remarkable statement:

James White: “Now, of course, everybody recognises a lie when you see it, and unfortunately King James Only folks are willing to lie. That’s just a fact, we’ve documented it many times, and of course, since I’ve written a book on this subject ...”

PeterAV 02-06-2009 11:45 AM

Forked Tongue
 
White is...Real funny, seeing that Ruckman documents some 70+ lies in White's deceptive facade of a book.
*******
It is so easy to see the out and out lies by the [scholars union] authors of these bible agnostics.
*******
While there is misinformation on both sides, we still have a pure Bible and confidence when witnessing and preaching and teaching and living.

stephanos 02-06-2009 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 15266)
Listening to James White refute a TR onlyist on his internet broadcast today, I heard this remarkable statement:

James White: “Now, of course, everybody recognises a lie when you see it, and unfortunately King James Only folks are willing to lie. That’s just a fact, we’ve documented it many times, and of course, since I’ve written a book on this subject ...”

Sounds like White is still bitter about this issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53W8uiBZq0Q

Peace and Love,
Stephen

Jeremy 02-06-2009 09:12 PM

The only controversy about the KJ Bible,is the Fact that it is not being used in todays churches,as far as Lies,White only tells little ones right?:becky:
Gipp is a Ruckmanite,oh that explains it.:pound:
Give me a break!

solabiblia 02-06-2009 10:08 PM

Context, Context
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 15266)
Listening to James White refute a TR onlyist on his internet broadcast today, I heard this remarkable statement:

James White: “Now, of course, everybody recognises a lie when you see it, and unfortunately King James Only folks are willing to lie. That’s just a fact, we’ve documented it many times, and of course, since I’ve written a book on this subject ...”

This quote becomes quite another thing when you provide the context. Did you misrepresent Dr. White on purpose, or was it accidental?

bibleprotector 02-06-2009 10:23 PM

And how would providing a page of context alter "King James Only folks are willing to lie"? Anyone can go listen to his entire "Dividing Line" one hour broadcast on the TR issue from yesterday.

To allude that "context" will change the meaning or intent of this statement is just a ploy. I notice that some anti-KJBOs resort to tactics like this to "fog the issue". (In fact, I heard Dr. White use these skills wonderfully in his broadcast.)

The issue is that Dr. White said these words, "unfortunately King James Only folks are willing to lie".

If this has a different meaning to what it says, please explain it. Or is an a priori commitment against a sound KJBO position forcing you to question all KJBOs, and defend to the uttermost folks like Dr White (or Westcott and Hort)?

Perhaps you would enlighten us on what Dr White really thinks about KJBOs.

Jeremy 02-07-2009 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 15283)
The issue is that Dr. White said these words, "unfortunately King James Only folks are willing to lie".

I think to understand this statement you would have to understand Hebrew/Greek as he does.
That statement is obvious,i don't know how a person can think otherwise. We are all sinners,and have all lied,but to come out and say KJO are willing to lie, is like the pot calling the kettle black. I guess some well educated young preachers are looking to move up the ladder by knocking out the KJ bible and those who STILL firmly believe it.

JOHN G 02-07-2009 10:38 AM

Is there anyone commited to both the KJV and 5-point Calvinism?

stephanos 02-07-2009 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JOHN G (Post 15295)
Is there anyone commited to both the KJV and 5-point Calvinism?

I suppose there are a few deeply confused individuals that buy into the reformed nonsense (heresy? I think so). Most of us here are simply Bible believers. We believe that the Bible says:

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. (John 12:32 KJV)

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (1 Timothy 2:4-6 KJV)


Thanks and praise be unto our God, who is no respecter of persons!

For Jesus' sake,
Stephen

thedaycometh 02-08-2009 01:35 AM

Yes, there are many Calvinists who hold to the KJV
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JOHN G (Post 15295)
Is there anyone commited to both the KJV and 5-point Calvinism?

Yes. James White routinely avoids the PuritanBoard forums, even though he is a member, because there reside there several Reformed Christians who are Masoretic Hebrew/Received Text at foundation and then King James users on top of that. They argue extremely effectively against the Critical Text and the presuppositions of the Critical Text scholars. White has had every opportunity to debate them, but has to date avoided them completely. He's lately taken to calling them "TRs" which doesn't refer to Textus Receptus but to "Truly Reformed" which is a mocking name given to conservative Reformed Christians by liberal Reformed Christians. White is a liberal theologian at heart. Holding to the Critical Text(s) and the modern versions based on it makes one a liberal by default.

Academic Reformed Christianity wants to give the impression that the Critical Text is the standard among Calvinists/Reformed Christians, but it's not the case. I've found that, again, Calvinists make some of the most devastating critiques of the Critical Text and the scholars to push it.

solabiblia 02-08-2009 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JOHN G (Post 15295)
Is there anyone commited to both the KJV and 5-point Calvinism?

The man who called Dr. White's program on Thursday was a Reformed 5-point Calvinist KJO.

bibleprotector 02-08-2009 07:34 AM

Actually, "CalvinandHodges", the man who spoke to James White on Thursday, is TRO. Actually, not a very convinced TRO either.

He writes, "However, if what Dr. White has said is legitimate, and I do not deny that it may very well be, then I believe that the TR should be amended according to the Byzantine Greek witness."

Source: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/calvin-hodges-dl-43526/

PB1789 02-08-2009 08:55 PM

Seek and ye shall find!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JOHN G (Post 15295)
Is there anyone commited to both the KJV and 5-point Calvinism?

Yes there are!

Go to Sermon Audio.com and look for/type in "Trinitarian Bible Society". They have several speakers with sermons/lectures on the topic of A.V./K.J. and the dangers of Modern Versions, and they/we are Reformed.

Rev. Dr. Ian Paisley (just retired) founded the Free Presbyterian Church in Northern Ireland. They have branches in other countries, including Faith Free Presbyterian Church in Greenville, South Carolina...

...Next door to N.C. btw, so you could visit them next Lord's Day and find out that Calvinists/Reformed folks don't have horns and fangs.

He has hundreds of Sermons on Sermon Audio.com as do the gents from Faith Free Pres. in Greenville. The Free Presbyterians have started a seminary there also. Several 1689-Reformed Baptists/SBC-Founders group are A.V./K.J. folks.

chette777 02-09-2009 03:49 AM

If the KJV taught man didn't have a free will (total depravity). A person must make his own choice to believe no one not even God can make it for him. But the KJV teaches that one must believe or exercise their faith or belief. 4 points left.

If the KJV Bible taught Predestination (unconditional election)as a salvation Doctrine I guess you could have a Calvinist point, But seeing the KJV only teaches the Predestinate are Christian Doctrines meaning that Predestination only occurs after a person believes (Romans 8 and Ephesians 1), and not before as Calvinist teach. 3 points left

How about Limited atonement? the KJV Bible is clear that Christ died for everyone and once for all in Timothy and Hebrews. so atonement is made for all but not all will apply the blood to themselves by way of making a choice or exercising faith in Christ finished work for all. 2 points left

Irresistible grace
well that hooks into Unconditional election so if one doctrine fails they both fail. We have all seen people resist grace but how much clearer than in Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Only One point Left

Preservation of the saint. Now we are all told God will by his power someday unite us to the Lord in an event called the gathering in the clouds known as teh rapture. that is the promise of true preserving for the believer. otherwise we have no promises God will preserve us through every situation, i.e. World trade Center, automobile accidents, cancer and all the like, show that Christians are not preserved from harm in this world. so maybe you have half a point here.

Conclusion the KJV does not teach The Calvinistic TULIP imposed in 1614 (?) Council of Dort on the Christian community as True Salvation Doctrine. The KJV does not teach the TULIP therefore it is a doctrine of man not the teaching of the word of God.

JOHN G 02-09-2009 07:09 AM

Thanks Chette.

BTW, preservation or perserverance?

PeterAV 02-09-2009 11:43 AM

Total depravity...All Calvinists beleive in a free will.

But it is under the control of the LORD and his soveriegnty.
Need the Holy Ghost wooing.
Need the preacher preaching, and need the eternal word.
Need the person's choice to believe.
There are many things that are NEEDED for salvation.
*******
Unconditional Election...this is only what you have been taught.

You did NOT get this from just the Bible alone.
Private interpretation. Just as you confuse Calvinism and claim a man made doctrine.
You have just done the same.
He called us and knew us BEFORE the world ever was.
Unconditional election is simply showing the GROUNDS for salvation.
Just like in point one, there are many things NEEDED in salvation, yet they are not the ground of our salvation.
The preacher, the word, the Holy Ghost wooing and convicting, the person choosing to trust the word of the LORD.
These are all simply conditions that need to be met.
But the ground of salvation is in God's own love.
God so chooses as pleases him.
*******
Limited Atonement...is efectual only in those that are choosen from the foundation of the world.
Even though God would LIKE all to be saved... he nows it would not bring about the most amount of good, nor bring glory to God.
So he at least makes sure of those that are his.
We know that God's WILLING in Peter is not that all will indeed be saved.
But the word willing is in the same framework as strong desires.
God sees fit to not allow certain to be saved, as they fill out certain conditions.
*******

Irresistable Grace... is irresistable to those whom he has choosen before the foundation of the world. In other words None of whom are his will be lost. None of whom he wisely chooses will ulimately reject him.
Is it possible to reject God? Yes, but God works efectually in those whom are saved according to God.
Yes, God dies for all, but does that mean ALL WILL be saved? No.
We choose the grace of God but our action is never alone. That is because a saving choice is preceded and dovetailed with God's Soveriegnty.
God woos and we respond.
To the believer, he works efectively.
To the Unbeliever he is now the judge that they have to deal with eventually.
*******
Perseverance Of The Saints
Rapture is a man made doctrine.
Especially pre-trib.
That was promoted by a Catholics as was Amillenialism.
Even Darby [I believe] had a Catholic background.
If GOD chooses us, FIRST by the calling and wooing of the Holy Ghost and bringing the word to us, and then elects us to be his own, choosing a few out of the many, making sure his calling is efective, then of course we will be preserved. He will loose none.
*******
Surely the Remonstrance is over many hundred years ago.
*******

PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

MC1171611 02-09-2009 12:19 PM

PeterAV, are you saying you believe this claptrap?

Bro. Parrish 02-09-2009 12:21 PM

Hmmm, maybe I'm reading this wrong, but from this thread can we conclude that PB1789 and PeterAV are both Calvinists? How about Brandon Stagg the site admin, where do you stand on this issue? Thanks....

George 02-09-2009 01:56 PM

Re: "Thoughts on Calvinism from PeterAV & PB1789"
 
Aloha all,

A discussion about the Doctrine of Calvinism should be in the Doctrine Section of the Forum.I believe it would be more appropriate to discuss this issue in the "Doctrine" Section of the Forum - so my comments follow in a new Thread: "CALVINISM: Sound Doctrine?" <> http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...53&postcount=1



Diligent 02-09-2009 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish (Post 15351)
Hmmm, maybe I'm reading this wrong, but from this thread can we conclude that PB1789 and PeterAV are both Calvinists? How about Brandon Stagg the site admin, where do you stand on this issue? Thanks....

(Staggs)

I am not a Calvinist. :)

http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...6&postcount=11
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...5&postcount=19
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...6&postcount=29

Bro. Parrish 02-09-2009 02:34 PM

Thank you Bro. Staggs. :amen:

bibleprotector 02-10-2009 12:30 AM

Now to get on track again. More on the King James Only Controversy.

INTRODUCTION

There is a great difference between the modern version view and the King James Bible only view. Also, there are parallels between this issue and the evolution versus creation debate.

APPROACHING THE BIBLE

How we approach the Bible today, and whether we believe there is a perfect manifestation of the Bible in one book depends actually on our heart. It is dependant on our “world view”.

Evidence exists today. Old manuscripts are not in the past (though they existed in the past). Old manuscripts are here now.

Depending on our “world view”, we will interpret the evidence (the old manuscripts) into a narrative of how the Bible came to us today, and whether or not we have a perfect Bible right now.

WHERE DO WE START?

Many scientific and other innovations and advances were discovered after the Renaissance and Reformation. If you look at the British Empire or America, you can see how much knowledge has increased. Many of the scientific pioneers, like Isaac Newton, had a high view of the Bible.

Paul wrote, “And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.” (2 Thess. 3:2). This verse says that having no faith is unreasonable. In other words, reason and faith go together. That is why proper Christian inquiry is important and good.

Opposite to this are the rationalists who divorce reason and faith. They think that advancement comes through humanistic endeavour. They think that religion gets in the way of progress.

Today we can either believe that the Bible is true, self-authenticating and explore it on that basis, or else we can start from theories about the early history of the Scriptures, which always emphasise the weakness of men (i.e. that people made mistakes in copying), and always minimises the involvement of God in actually keeping the Bible from mistakes.

Thus, we either look at the King James Bible and receive a doctrine that it is true, pure, etc., and therefore interpret history in that light, or else, we start from the idea that man is subject to mistakes today, and that despite our best efforts, we will never have a perfect Bible, and history likewise is interpreted in this light (which seems to tend toward the most outlandish claims dressed up in serious sounding language, and an attachment to the most divergent manuscripts on the weakest arguments).

HOW WE INTERPRET THE BIBLE IN HISTORY

Remember that interpretations and narrative of what happened during, say, the Dark Ages exist right now. It is the case which best fits the evidence.

As long as people are disputing on that ground, they have no final authority of appeal. This is why it is heavily practiced by modernist scholars, because they believe that there is no final authority of appeal, but the misguided faith in the “learning” of modernist men.

Modernist thought, by the way, is contradictory, in that while it tends toward denying “faith”, it actually is a faith, and a blind one at that. This is obvious, because people who bring out anti-KJBO propaganda demonstrate an a priori commitment to their theory, which they purport to be fact. Moreover, as much as they have attachment to human reasoning (the deification of man by himself), they hold the contradictory notion that no man is right, and that all are subject to erring.

That is why it is important for Bible believers to stand on the Scripture as it has been given right now as the primary argument, in that the Bible speaks of God, and since God must be working now, this must be His Word right now: “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” (1 Thess. 2:13). “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” (2 Thess. 2:15).

If we have a perfect Bible today, then we have a sure point of reference to understand what actually was occurring in the Dark Ages. In other words, history is not just subjectivity, or a changing story about the past, or today’s current truth, but we have a link to the true view, and we are able to enter into God’s view... so a Christian inquirer might be said to be unlocking the secrets of God’s creation since we are surrounded by an absolute framework.

People who argue against KJBO must therefore have to accept some sort of subjectivity, some sort of hindrance to human achievement, and most drastically, some sort of limitation of God, even to the point where some deny His existence.

BUILDING UP FROM THE FOUNDATION

“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3).

If we have the perfect, infallible Word of God in one book present right now, we can see how everything else will be built up and in place: a proper interpretation of Scripture, right doctrines, proper laws, pure conscience.

If we do not in practice have a perfect Bible today, and hold to a doctrine that we do not know if we can have one, then the whole building of our faith and doctrine begins to crumble. That is why there is a direct link between rejecting the King James Bible and a lukewarm Christianity.

bibleprotector 02-10-2009 12:45 AM

THE CONFLICT

James White, in his book, writes that his view on the King James Controversy is that it is a conflict. This is true. It is a spiritual conflict that is playing right now for the minds of Christians everywhere. The battle is to do with truth, and getting the truth to be understood.

ERASMUS’ NEW TESTAMENT

The King James Bible issue is not made or broken on Erasmus, and what he accomplished. The battle is whether or not we have a perfect presentation of the underlying text in an English translation right now on Earth.

James White points to Erasmus and how he decided to portray instrumentally the New Testament, showing human errors, or his critical choices and the annotations in such a way as to deny the infallibility or perfection of Erasmus’ work.

The reality is that Erasmus is only one part of the working of the providence of God, and the ultimate form of the text of the King James Bible lays with the translators themselves, who produced an independent variety of the textus receptus. We see that King James Bible is the final form of the Received Text today.

James White shows how people were criticising Erasmus for going to the Greek, when he could have stayed with the Romanist’s Latin. James White attempts to link this with the doctrine of KJBOists, who say that we do not need the Greek (because we have the Bible in English).

The tremendous difference that James White does not show is that the Vulgate needed to be corrected in light of the Greek Tradition, and that by taking to measure all sources and witnesses, the correct text of Scripture could be recovered. Once that was completed (and it was completed with the making of the King James Translation), there would be no need to go to the Greek or Latin any more. Thus, the KJBO accepts the initial foundation of the original language basis with other witnesses in the forming of the Bible into its final form, quite unlike the ardent Catholic who believed that whatever edition of the Vulgate was in vogue was infallible, and required no correction. The point is that the Vulgate needed correction, whereas the King James Bible comes out of that process of correction (as primarily based upon the Greek with reference to the Latin).

Since the King James Bible has been made from the right springs, and has been checked and used by so many godly men, it is the height of pride, unbelief and foolishness to come up with a doctrine that requires the correction of the King James Bible. Unlike the Vulgate, the King James Bible does not require correction. In fact, going to the Greek today to change the King James Bible is always corruption, impure, error and wrong.

VARIETY OF TRANSLATIONS WERE PROFITABLE

Anti-King James Bible only writers like to point out that the translators of the King James Bible wrote that variety of translations is profitable for finding out the sense of the Scriptures.

The modern version proponent immediately uses this to say how the King James Bible translators must think it is good that there are more modern versions than ever.

But this is not what the translators meant. They said that they were consulting the variety themselves, so that we would have one more exact translation of the holy Scripture in the English tongue. Ultimately, that denies having any other translation of the Scripture except the King James Bible.

In reality, once the variety had been consulted, only one correct text and translation was presented in the King James Bible. Whatever went into the margins was additional, peri-logical or notational. The margins were not provided so that we could pick and choose between them and the text. The margins were not provided to cast doubt on the text. They were there to show other thoughts, including some possible other renderings or translations, which the consensus and sound judgment of the translators rejected.

Many people have studied the Scripture, looked at the margins and the overwhelming judgment of English-speaking Christianity is that the margins are rightly marginal. They are not the very exact sense of the Scripture.

But the modernist tries to use the fact that the margins exist for the very purpose that the translators denied, namely, that they cast doubt upon the knowledge of what actually rightly is the Scripture.

ERROR IN GOD’S PRESERVATION OF THE KJB?

The preservation of God’s Word is providential. The KJB is only the way by which the preservation was finalised. In reality, the Scripture was scattered from the time of the original autographs until 1611, so that the underlying text was never presented correctly in any single manuscript or Bible to that time.

The issue of having a correct text and translation is different to having a perfect presentation.

The KJB was the end result of the gathering of the correct text and translation, however, the KJB itself went through a purification of editions that refined merely the presentation.

Let no one mix up preservation with perfection. Perfection in any single manuscript is unlikely, except for the Autographs and some immediate copies.

The Scripture was not preserved as perfect in a single entity (e.g. no golden plates at Constantinople in the year 1000). The perfect Word was in fact scattered in many MSS, in many witnesses, etc. Thus, there was a gathering process that was occurring, it happened in part in Latin, but primarily in Greek with TR editions, and more importantly with English Versions, and most importantly, finally and supersuccessionally in the King James Bible.

The perfect Word that was in the Autographs must have been scattered, then gathered, and translated into English, so that the perfect Word was recovered, and the preservation was complete. The next state has been the preservation of the perfect text and translation.

As a subset, the purifying work of the presentation of the King James Bible has been to ensure that the perfect text and translation of 1611 has been presented free from any presentational imperfection.

Modern translations display a different text and translation, and they are edited sometimes, and there are presentational errors in them, e.g. typographical errors.

God's providential work in history takes into account (simplistically):
1. the scattering of the text from the autographs to the gathering of the Reformation time,
2. the refining of the main Protestant English translations, and
3. the purification of the presentation of the lineage of proper traditional King James Bible editions.

Moses wrote, "He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4).

Moses did not see the whole Old Testament. And yet, we would say that having only five books of Scripture is an imperfect Canon. How could God's work be perfect? Clearly, God's work in history must be taken in the total view. God's work when seen in the big picture is perfect.

In regards to text: The inspiration was perfect. Copies were not. But then God was able to providentially outwork so that there was a perfect critical amassing in one Bible.

Were true Christians saved when they practised only infant baptism? Does God require new born Christians to be fully developed? Why would it be wrong to have the book of God only perfectly rendered in 1611, and no perfect single volume in Earth in, say, 1517 A.D.?

IS THE KJB ALONE = WORD OF GOD ALONE TRUE?

James White has reduced King James Bible only as meaning that there is no other possible Scripture. This implication is false. Clearly, there have been many copies of the Scripture in many languages. Even the Alexandrian copies, as corrupt as they are, exhibit Scripture.

The issue in not the existence of Scripture, the issue is that one manifestation of the Scripture is perfect, namely, that there is a perfect text and translation. In regards to use for the King James Bible believer, the formula “the KJB alone = the Word of God alone” is only true in regards to the final and supersuccessionary form of Scripture. In other words, no Bible ever presented 100% what the Autographs had with 100% accuracy except the KJB. Therefore the KJB should be used as the standard. Indeed, it should be the world standard.

This authority is not because the King James Bible was made by inspiration from 1604–1611 as James White implies is believed. The authority of the KJB as being perfect is because it is a self-authenticating argument, consistent with internal and external evidence.

This is lamely accused of being “circular reasoning”. However, the existence of God Himself is based on “circular reasoning”, therefore, there is a proper, logical and consistent use of the self-authenticating argument in regards to absolute truth. Importantly, it is possible and easy to objectively show the existence of God, and likewise to make great inquiry of the truth of the perfection of the KJB.

chette777 02-10-2009 07:23 AM

My mistake it should have been perseverance of the saint.

George 02-28-2009 09:46 PM

Re: "King James Only Controversy"
 
Re: “King James Only Controversy”

Aloha brother Matthew,

I am in complete agreement with your thoughtful analysis of the “King James Only” controversy. {Your last two Posts - #30 & #31 are right to the point.} The main reason why those of us who believe, as we do, in the King James Bible, and those skeptics, who are its critics, can never come to an agreement, is inherent in the difference in our world view (“belief system” or “basic motivational force”) and theirs. Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed? And of course the sensible answer is – NO they can’t!

If the King James Bible Is not perfect and Holy, and exactly what God wants for His people today, then there never will be a “HOLY BIBLE” - the critics & skeptics (Scribes & Scholars) will see to it, since they will be out of a JOB the day that they finally recognize someFinal Authority” other than their own speculations and opinions. {And you may rest assured that that day will never happen – NOT with the “scholars” - they might have to go out and get a REAL JOB! Perish the thought!} :rolleyes:

I believe that God has used three “authoritative languages” to establish His FINAL AUTHORITY (i.e. Standard). And each of those “authoritative languages” was directed at a particular audience (group of people).

HEBREW was the “authoritative language” of the Old Testament (directed almost exclusively at the Hebrew people – as a Family, a Tribe, 12 Tribes, and then a Nation). The Scriptures in HEBREW were God’s written FINAL AUTHORITY (the “STANDARD”), although there were no prohibitions to translating those Scriptures into other languages, the Hebrew Scriptures were the “STANDARD” by which any Translation was to be measured by.

Why was this so? Because from the time of Abraham up to and including the Lord Jesus Christ’s ministry on earth, God dealt almost exclusively with the Jewish (Hebrew) people, who were under God’s Covenants, which were the exclusive inheritance and possession of the Jewish (Hebrew) people. Thus – the “Hebrew Scriptures” were for the Jews (Hebrews).
Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

After the rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ and the subsequent rejection of the Holy Spirit (in the persons of the Apostles and all of Christ’s followers - following His death, burial, and resurrection), God broadened His outreach, from a single nation, i.e. one people – the Jews, to all of the people of the Mediterranean area and nearby surrounding areas. And although there were numerous languages in use amongst the many people living in the Mediterranean area, there was ONE UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE (the language of Commerce, Science, Literature, etc.) used by all – the GREEK language was the UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE of that area and at that time.

When God established the “NEW COVENANT” and caused the NEW TESTAMENT to be written, He chartered a different “STANDARD” (for a different people) for His New Testament. And so the GREEK (Koine) Language became the “authoritative language” of the New Testament. And although there were no prohibitions to translating those Scriptures into other languages, the GREEK New Testament Scriptures were the “STANDARD”, by which all Translations were to be measured. {Please notice: God chose the “specific language” (“Koine” GREEK) that was used UNIVERSALLY by all of the people in the Geographical area that the Apostle Paul (and others) traveled spreading the Gospel and establishing New Testament churches.}

Were the New Testament Scriptures translated into other languages? Without a doubt! But the “authoritative language” that set the “STANDARD” was GREEK (“Koine” Greek), the language that most, if not all, of the New Testament was written in. While the GREEK language became the “STANDARD” for the New Testament, God retained THE HEBREW language as the “STANDARD” for the Old Testament. {So far the “scholars” had it at least partially right.}

However, when the time came to JOIN THE TWO TESTAMENTS (OLD & NEW) TOGETHER into ONE BIBLE (God’s written FINAL AUTHORITY), God needed a different “authoritative language” to reach a different group of people – a much wider and larger group of people, (i.e. all of the people of the world!), and just as in Paul’s time (when God chose the UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE of the Mediterranean area to reach all of the people of that area), once again, God chose the UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE of the world – ENGLISH, (the language that became the UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE of Commerce, Science, Literature, etc. 200 – 300 years after the publication of the King James Bible) to reach ALL of the people of the world!

At the time that the King James Bible was translated, no one, except God, knew that ENGLISH would become the UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE of the world! In 1611, who could have imagined that those small Islands off the Coast of the European Continent would someday rule the seas, and reach the point where: “the sun never set on the British Empire”? Of course - God knew, and so He caused the TWO TESTAMENTS to be joined together and established His written FINAL AUTHORITY (The Final “STANDARD”) in a different “authoritative Language”, by which all Translations are to be measured. {Since 1881, all “New” English Translations of the Bible have always compared themselves to the King James Bible (God’s “STANDARD”) - On the one hand, giving “lip-service” to it in a duplicitous manner, while on the other hand, denigrating, impugning, and slandering it - typical of Hypocrites!}

Did God discard the “authoritative” HEBREW & GREEK “STANDARDS”? Of course not! The Hebrew “Canon” (number of authoritative Books) ended with Malachi, approximately 400 years before the birth of Christ, and is still the same today as it was in the Lord Jesus Christ’s day. The Greek “Canon” (number of authoritative Books) is still the same today as it was in the early church (200-250 A.D. - after the churches separated and discarded “false books” from the genuinely “inspired” Books of the New Testament).

Over many, many hundreds of years the text (in 5,000+ manuscripts) of the “authoritative” GREEK “STANDARD” became “marred” and contained some “blemishes” (See: “The Traditional Text” & “The Causes of Textual Corruption” by Dean John William Burgon), but from the time of Erasmus (1466-1536) up to the present day (nearly 500 hundred years later!) the scholars (“scribes”) have yet to decide on just exactly WHAT constitutes “THE GREEK”! And IF the day ever arrives when all of the scholars (“scribes”) finally agree on an “authoritative Greek Standard” – WHO will it be directed at? There are no “Koine” Greek speaking people left in the world, and there haven’t been for hundreds of years! Of what use is an “authoritative Greek Standard”, if there is no one left alive on earth (except for a few scholars (“scribes”) that can understand it? What benefit does an “authoritative Greek Standard” serve if only a handful of people can understand it? Who is edified by it?

The HEBREW “authoritative STANDARD” is still directed at its original “target audience” (Jews), which simply means that, unlike the GREEK “authoritative STANDARD” (which no longer has a living, speaking “target audience”), The HEBREW “authoritative STANDARD” is still effective and can still edify its original “target audience” (Hebrews - Jews), but, on the other hand, since the Jewish (Hebrew) people make up less than 1% of the world’s population; and considering the fact that the vast majority of the people in the world cannot read, write, speak, or understand the Hebrew language – how is God to reach the rest of the world with His Holy word (in the Old Testament), if less than 1% of the world’s people speak or understand Hebrew?

The obvious answer is that God needed a different “authoritative language” to establish “THE AUTHORITATIVE STANDARD” for THE HOLY BIBLE (i.e. the combined Old Testament & New Testament), God needed a UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE that the vast majority of world has used for communicating between the many diverse people of the world for well over one hundred years, and that is where ENGLISH comes in, and conversely WHY God chose the English language as His “AUTHORITATIVE STANDARD” for THE HOLY BIBLE in order to reach ALL of the people of the world in the UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE of the world.

Does that prohibit Translations in other languages? Of course not! Does that mean that God won’t honor His word in a language other than English? Of course not! What it does mean, is, that ALL translations of the BIBLE (a Book) made into other languages, must come from God’s “AUTHORITATIVE STANDARD” for the whole world, and NOT from His “Authoritative Standard” for all the Greek speaking people of the Mediterranean area 1,500 – 2,000 years ago; or His “Authoritative Standard” for the Hebrew (Jews) people, who make up less than 1% of the world’s population!

Since there is NO GREEK “AUTHORITATIVE STANDARD” (despite the very “best” efforts of the scholars & scribes for nearly 500 years!) and hasn’t been for 1,500 years or so, it becomes obvious (at least to those of us who take God at His word) that God “needed” to reach the world with the UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE of the world – NOT a language that has been DEAD for hundreds of years, and which NO PERSON living uses in the daily course of their life.

The Hebrew Scriptures have served their purpose in reaching the audience (hearers) for which they were intended, i.e. “Hebrews”. The Greek (Koine) Scriptures served their purpose in reaching the audience (hearers) for which they were intended. But the world does not speak Hebrew, and not even the Greeks speak “Koine GREEK”! So what is God to do? Does He “force” all the people of the world to learn Hebrew and Greek (Koine)? Or does He seek out the UNIVERSAL language of the world to institute a new and different “authoritative language” in order to establish His “FINAL AUTHORITY” – THE HOLY BIBLE (The combined Old and New Testaments into ONE HOLY BOOK)?

We already have the “pattern” – He went from a language, Hebrew, to reach His intended “audience” (hearers); to a more UNIVERSAL language, Koine Greek, to reach His intended “audience” (hearers); and, when the REFORMATION was well established, He caused His word (words), in English (THE FUTURE UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE), to be refined (7 times) to produce (IN ONE “BOOK”) His perfect, infallible, HOLY BIBLE! How can anyoneIMPROVE” on that?

Those of us, who believe in, and unequivocally support the King James Bible as being God’s Holy word without error, hold the same convictions about it that millions of saints from 1611 up to the middle of the 20th century did. WHAT CHANGED? We haven’t CHANGED, so WHO has?

From the middle of the 1600's, and on up to approximately the middle of the 1900's, nearly all Christians (with the exception of Catholics and Scholars) agreed on ONE FINAL AUTHORITY - simply known as THE HOLY BIBLE (labeled the AV1611 - by the "scholars", and the King James Bible by the Publishers). All of the confusion about “WHICH BIBLE” is God’s Holy word has come about in the last 60 years or so. All of the disagreements, squabbling, arguments, debates, and all of the contention, discord, conflict, and division between Christians (over this issue) came about AFTER the introduction of the myriad of modern English translations (well over 100 since 1881). So the question arises – just exactly WHO is responsible for the splits, the strife, and the division between brethren?

The question for the modern day Christian is - are we going to trust the scholars and scribes? Or are we going to trust God? It’s your choice. After all is said and done, that’s what life is all about – choices. For the lost it’s – will you believe on and receive the Lord Jesus Christ as your Saviour or will you reject Him? For the Christian it’s - Do we believe what God has said about His word or do we reject His words and ignore them? That’s what the Christian life is all about – Believing God and obeying Him and serving Him according to His word. It’s your choice! WHO are you going to TRUST?

Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.


Psalms 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

Psalms 40:4 Blessed is that man that maketh the LORD his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies.

Psalms 71:1 In thee, O LORD, do I put my trust: let me never be put to confusion.

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Psalms 18:30 As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.

Psalms 56:4 In God I will praise his word, in God I have put my trust; I will not fear what flesh can do unto me.

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.


Last eve I paused besides a blacksmith’s door,
And heard the anvil ring, the vesper chime.
And looking in, I saw upon the floor,
Old hammers, worn with beating years of time.

“How many anvils have you had?” said I,
“To wear and batter out those hammers so?”
“Just one,” said he, and then with twinkling eye,
“The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.”

And so I thought, the Anvil of God’s Word,
For ages, skeptics blows have beat upon.
But tho the sound of falling blows is heard,
The Anvil still remains – the hammer’s gone!

HAMMER AWAY, YE REBEL BANDS!
YOUR HAMMERS BREAK –
GOD’S ANVIL STANDS!




bibleprotector 02-28-2009 10:38 PM

Thank you, George.

You mentioned that the "Hebrew" is still used by the Jews. Of course, modern Hebrew is quite different to Bible Hebrew. We know that Bible Hebrew is only used by a minority (e.g. Rabbis). Even then, in many cases, they would probably be messing up the pronunciations.

* * * * *

I wanted to get a review of James White's book up pre-empting anything that might come up about the revised edition (due around the 13th of March 2009). I know that many KJB-loving people have already responded to "The King James Only Controversy", but I want to hold up some measure of account as to whether the new edition really is "improved".

Since 1995 (when White wrote his book), the King James Bible Only doctrine has been furthered and matured through the advent of widespread internet access, giving great exposure to the differences among the various types of KJBO believers.

James White cannot be taken as an authoritative expert on the KJBO movement since he presents his view as a polemic (and scornfully) rather than analytical (and fairly).

According to him, some KJBOs are TR-onlyists, and the next group after them is “The inspired KJV group”, where “Most King James Bible Only advocates fall into this group.” I do not think that most KJBOs believe that the translators were inspired from 1604–1611. Although I do not have any meaningful statistical data, I doubt James White has any either.

Several times, I have heard James White say (basically) that KJBOs need to lie to make the KJBO doctrine work, and recently, that all KJBOs are liars.

The Dividing Line (Audio), accessed 7 Feb 2009.

James White: “Now, of course, everybody recognises a lie when you see it, and unfortunately King James Only folks are willing to lie. That’s just a fact. We’ve documented it many times, and of course, since I’ve written a book on this subject ...” (Punctuation added.)

tonybones2112 02-28-2009 11:20 PM

I want to deal with Bible Protector's message and not get caught in an argument over Calvinism. When confronted with a deliberate aberration of Scripture in Luke 4, Christ "prooftexted" the contention and settled it once and for all, as Calvinism is settled once and for all by the Scriptures. Simply put:

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Any predestination is preceded by His foreknowledge, and I am only predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ. God is not Baal, He did not cherrypick me at random. Case closed.

On James White, I'll give a background story. I debated a Church Of Christ pastor over two nights. It was generally accepted, even by several COC members who were there, that the debate was over 18 minutes into it. I pointed out that COC says one of the reasons we must be baptized in water is because "...Christ was...". I pointed out that was this baptism of Christ's a work of righteousness or unrighteousness? Of course it's righteous, God cannot sin. Jesus told John, we must needs fulfill all righteousness. It was then I brought up Titus 3:5 that obliterates the COC: Not by works or righteousness which we have done but through His mercy he saved us through the washing of regeneration, NOT WATER. As my 20 minutes drew to a close I told this young pastor, I want an answer to this question from your mouth tonight: Was Jesus Christ's baptism a work of righteousness or unrighteousness?

In two nights he would not give an answer. He tinkled brass about some private interpretation, some invention of the COC called Meritorious Works and Unmeritorious Works found in no version, good or bad.

One verse of Scripture destroys the COC, one verse of Scripture destroys James White.

I used to have time to argue with those followers of Eve in Genesis 3, but don't anymore. Like with Luke 4, James White's only foundation is that God inspired the "original manuscripts", what every Jesuit in this world believes, and one Scripture passage utterly destroys The Original Manuscript Fraud:

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Here is what White and thousands like him try to make you believe:

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the original manuscripts.

If the KJV is not inspired Scripture, if there is NO inspired Scripture anywhere, I am not saved. The word of God is inspired. Is White saying there is an uninspired "word of God"?

The solution to The Original Manuscript Fraud is simple: If only the original manuscripts are "inspired", there has been no salvation since these manuscripts deteriorated according to Romans 10:17.

Many of you have spent years studying manuscript evidence, like me, like Fuller, Ruckman, Hills, and Burgon. But I've come full circle. Manuscript evidence didn't pursuad me that the KJV was the word of God, INSPIRED, the Scriptures themselves did. I mean no offense, but we need to guard ourselves and remember in fighting dragons we may become one. There are many Professional KJV Critics, we must watch and not become Professional KJV Defenders.

I'll debate James White on Mars Hill, Lincoln Center, the inner city or the lowest trailer court with meth labs a cookin'. Watch God and seven verses of Scripture destroy the Alexandrian Cult, then we'll hit the streets and evangelize till dawn.

Grace and peace

Bones

George 03-01-2009 08:23 AM

Re: "King James Only Controversy"
 
Aloha brother Howard,

I have read most of your Posts (since you joined the Forum) and find myself in agreement with you - "most of the time". :)

I agree with your statement:
Quote:

"If the KJV is not inspired Scripture, if there is NO inspired Scripture anywhere, I am not saved. The word of God is inspired. Is White saying there is an uninspired "word of God"?
Please check out this link on the AV1611 Bible Forums <> Bible Versions <> "Inspiration of Scripture": http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...19&postcount=1. I cannot speak for everyone on this Forum, but I too believe that God's word (words) are as much "inspired" today as they were when the "Originals" were penned; and they can be found (without error) in the King James Bible. [John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.]

I also agree with your following statement:
Quote:

"The solution to The Original Manuscript Fraud is simple: If only the original manuscripts are "inspired", there has been no salvation since these manuscripts deteriorated according to Romans 10:17."
But their is also another "fraud" (besides the "original manuscript fraud") taking place within believers ranks: "The Textus Receptus (TR) & Majority Text debate", which claims that there is no perfect "translation" of God's word (words), and never has been; and that God's word can only be found in the "original language" in the "manuscript tradition" - that is: "somewhere's" amongst the thousands of manuscripts (either in the TR or the Majority Text - NOT the "minority text") God's word can be found.

Since the "original manuscript" hoax has been proven to be a fraudulent "straw dog" (at least amongst those who have examined the issue) a new "straw dog" had to be erected to take its place - hence the "original language/manuscript tradition" argument.

Your quote:
Quote:

"Many of you have spent years studying manuscript evidence, like me, like Fuller, Ruckman, Hills, and Burgon. But I've come full circle. Manuscript evidence didn't pursuad me that the KJV was the word of God, INSPIRED, the Scriptures themselves did. I mean no offense, but we need to guard ourselves and remember in fighting dragons we may become one. There are many Professional KJV Critics, we must watch and not become Professional KJV Defenders."
After 20 years of studying the "Which Bible" issue and studying: the History of the Old & New Testament Texts; the History of the transmission of the Scriptures during the church age; the manuscript evidence; and a thorough comparison of the "bible versions" with The King James Bible; it was the internal evidence (what does God say about His word) that finally convinced me, and I too came to the same conclusion that you reached (I'm a bit slow ;)); and was finally and fully convinced, from God's Holy word itself (The King James Bible), that the Book that I had held in my hands since October 1958 was truly God's Holy, word - inspired, perfect, infallible, and without error.

If you check out my Thread on the AV1611 Bible Forums <> Bible Versions <> "Why I Believe in the King James Bible" you will find a complete statement of my conviction: http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...78&postcount=1

I want to welcome you to the forum and encourage you to "relax" - your amongst friends. I too have grown "weary" of battling with the "brethren", and although we may disagree on some issues (as I have with some of the brethren here), we tolerate "disagreement" amongst friends - what we do not tolerate is clear, blatant heresy; academic "elitism"; cheap-shots; false accusations; or name-calling. :eek:

tonybones2112 03-02-2009 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 15266)
Listening to James White refute a TR onlyist on his internet broadcast today, I heard this remarkable statement:

James White: “Now, of course, everybody recognises a lie when you see it, and unfortunately King James Only folks are willing to lie. That’s just a fact, we’ve documented it many times, and of course, since I’ve written a book on this subject ...”

Eve Diseas(see Genesis 3). James whants to "help God out".

Why is James White doing the Jesuit's job for them? Or is he a secret one under oath? I'll debate him, and end the debate before it begins with 7 verses of Scripture.

Grace and peace

Tony

bibleprotector 03-02-2009 11:17 PM

James White brings up this accusation. In Jeremiah 34:16, he writes in his book, there is a difference between the Oxford and the Cambridge Edition. Which edition/wording is the right one?

I will give a brief answer:

Since there is only one inspiration for every word once, and that the inspired nature is only retained by preservation, most particularly in the most accurate copy/reconstruction of the original, (and) in translation, then when it comes to Jeremiah 34:16, we must choose either "whom he" or "whom ye". Only one is actually ultimately God's word in English. God would be the author of confusion if all variations were equally valid continuously.

James White claims that if the KJB is our final authority, we cannot know which is right, but if we go to the Hebrew (that is, the scholars' understanding of the Hebrew), we will able to know what is "right" in this case.

In this particular example, James White correctly understands that one reading is right, and he also discerns which is correct. However, because his method is to appeal to the Hebrew rather than the King James Bible itself, that is to say, a finite purification process of it, he will not always be right. Simply put, without starting from absolute authority, there is no absolute certain answer that can be given.

The answer which has been given by some is that every different reading in different KJB editions are right. However, there is no way logically or spiritually that "whom he" and "whom ye" can be both concurrently correct. One actually has to be correct.

God has actually only one final Word in English. It is "whom ye". We will be able to tell this is correct because it is presented in the Pure Cambridge Edition of the KJB, it was in the 1611 edition, it fits with the context, "whom he" can be easily explained as a typographical error which was perpetuated for many years, and because the Hebrew as well as other translations back up "whom ye".

tonybones2112 03-03-2009 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George (Post 16048)
Aloha brother Howard,

I have read most of your Posts (since you joined the Forum) and find myself in agreement with you - "most of the time". :)

*I bet that disagreement is over the first water baptism in the Bible:

*Le 8:6 And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water.


I agree with your statement:
Please check out this link on the AV1611 Bible Forums <> Bible Versions <> "Inspiration of Scripture": http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...19&postcount=1. I cannot speak for everyone on this Forum, but I too believe that God's word (words) are as much "inspired" today as they were when the "Originals" were penned; and they can be found (without error) in the King James Bible. [John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.]

*You merely echo Job 32:8 my friend, God inspires understanding and He ain't quit, has He? The Mormons and Catholics teach he has not closed the canon for their "Popes" and "Profits", er, "Prophets". We know He stopped there. But has He quite forming babies in wombs? Is inspiration a trance Paul went in or did God speak to Jeremiah PERSONALLY? See, two Christians dialogue and already we have given birth to The Magic Trance Theory, lol. Sure, we're not Charasmatics, but look at an infant and tell me, is that supernatural or natural? If the words of a KJV work effectually in the life of a sinner to bring him or her to the gospel, and then give them understanding of it, is that natural, ot supernatural? Is the KJV then not the word of God? I seen it, it worked effectually in me. What is supernatural? A magic trance where Scripture is written by automatic writing or is it the Whole Counsel of God, 20 copies of it each at Odd Lots and The Dollar Store?

I also agree with your following statement:
But their is also another "fraud" (besides the "original manuscript fraud") taking place within believers ranks: "The Textus Receptus (TR) & Majority Text debate", which claims that there is no perfect "translation" of God's word (words), and never has been; and that God's word can only be found in the "original language" in the "manuscript tradition" - that is: "somewhere's" amongst the thousands of manuscripts (either in the TR or the Majority Text - NOT the "minority text") God's word can be found.

*Then if the word of God can no longer be found or reconstructed there has been NO salvation since it deconstructed, correct? See the corner Gary Hudson and James White paint themselves into? I communicated with Hudson decades ago and never said a word about marriage, divorce, remarriage or salvation being different in different ages, just made it plain I was KJV Only and got branded a "Ruckamnite". I don't mind, Dr. Ruckman ain't Ahab or Absolom.


Since the "original manuscript" hoax has been proven to be a fraudulent "straw dog" (at least amongst those who have examined the issue) a new "straw dog" had to be erected to take its place - hence the "original language/manuscript tradition" argument.

*Old Wine In New Bottles.


Your quote:
After 20 years of studying the "Which Bible" issue and studying: the History of the Old & New Testament Texts; the History of the transmission of the Scriptures during the church age; the manuscript evidence; and a thorough comparison of the "bible versions" with The King James Bible; it was the internal evidence (what does God say about His word) that finally convinced me, and I too came to the same conclusion that you reached (I'm a bit slow ;)); and was finally and fully convinced, from God's Holy word itself (The King James Bible), that the Book that I had held in my hands since October 1958 was truly God's Holy, word - inspired, perfect, infallible, and without error.

*I agree. Fuller showed 262 out of 264 manuscripts for I Tim. 3:16 read as the KJV. That ain;t waht convinced me. It was Romans 10:17.

If you check out my Thread on the AV1611 Bible Forums <> Bible Versions <> "Why I Believe in the King James Bible" you will find a complete statement of my conviction: http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...78&postcount=1

* That I will do brother George.

I want to welcome you to the forum and encourage you to "relax" - your amongst friends. I too have grown "weary" of battling with the "brethren", and although we may disagree on some issues (as I have with some of the brethren here), we tolerate "disagreement" amongst friends - what we do not tolerate is clear, blatant heresy; academic "elitism"; cheap-shots; false accusations; or name-calling. :eek:

*This forum is rest to me, R&R, outside of it I'm spoiling for a fight. Not my TR vs Kutileks Nestels, just to see an answer to some Scripture. Our fight is not with carnal weapons. So thank you for the welcome and I got your back my brother:)

Grace and peace

Tony

fightthegoodfight 03-07-2009 09:22 PM

I did a youtube review of his book. I go by the handle of grasshoperjax, and initially I did a video where I called him a liar. Of course I should have read his whole book first ( I didn't want to justify wasting money on his propoganda,) but after reading it I posted a 23 part video series where I was able to expose so much error and falsehood in his book, using primarily the Scriptures to show why White's position, along with those who follow him, is totally UNBIBLICAL.

Here is a link of the playlist if you are interested. So far none of White's followers have had any rebuttals to the points I bring up regarding his book:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...A65F64DC4E99E2


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study