facebook quiz - inspiration of kjv 1611.

[steviusthedevious]

is the kjv inspired? it's enjoyable reading some of the comments people have posted on this quiz. it seems it was asked by a 'ruckmanite'.

[Tony R]

(03-27-2011 11:28 AM)steviusthedevious Wrote:  is the kjv inspired? it's enjoyable reading some of the comments people have posted on this quiz. it seems it was asked by a 'ruckmanite'.

Just for clarity sake, it doesn’t say "1611". But it was asked by a self professed "Ruckmanite".

[supernova8610]

I voted "no, it is only a good translation". I read through some of the comments as well; I am sorry, but the ignorance of some KJVO advocates is astounding.

[exIFB]

I voted that as well. I'm pretty much still a KJO guy, in that it's the only one I use at home, but I have no aversion to listening to preachers who don't use it. I used to tune out if they didn't use the KJV. It's not something that concerns me anymore. I have discovered this - those that claim they hold the perfect infallible God breathed word in their hand seem to know absolutely nothing about its content. It's like they think that chanting the mantra that they have the perfect word will somehow, by osmosis, transfer the knowledge within into them. Those that believe it is a good translation have studied it and seem to know more, and are in fact stronger in their doctrines than the IFB's, despite the IFB's claiming that using a modern version weakens certain doctrines.

For example, and I know this will rub people the wrong way, IFB's claim to be dispensational, but all they know is a few verses from revelation and thessalonians, and blah on about Israel and never actually study the Bible. They also deny some major tennants of classical dispensationalism because of their proof texting and refusal to study. To IFB's, being dispy means you believe in a pre trib rapture and that's it. You could be the biggest legalist in the world and insist upon every detail of the law, but if you believe in a pre-trib rapture, according to the IFB's you are dispy, despite denying the main points of dispensationalism.

So I voted no, it is a good translation, because everyone that voted It is inspired or the second option probably has no idea why, other than "Pastor said so".

[chris1000bc]

@exIFB

Well said.

[Tony R]

(03-27-2011 04:42 PM)exIFB Wrote:  So I voted no, it is a good translation, because everyone that voted It is inspired or the second option probably has no idea why, other than "Pastor said so".

I voted the second option, "No, only preserved", not because I have no idea why or any pastor said so. While I reject the notion that the KJV was inspired (that is just silly), I do believe the KJV to be God's preserved Word.

That said, I expect the firewood will start stacking up.

[exIFB]

Nah, don't tie yourself to the stake. I don't think anyone here would have a problem with someone even believing the KJV is inspired. The issue is one of legalism and force. If you believe it, great, but don't just run around screaming "God said I gotta live by every word so bless Gawd I better have every word in my old KJV" etc etc (not saying you do that). Read it, learn from it. Personally, I think it is better to read one version than many.

Here is a question that I never got an answer for.

Which of these is preserved and why?

for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Romans 10:13 NIV
for whoseveer shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved Romans 10:13 KJV

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Romans 3:23 NIV
for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God Romans 3:23 KJV

As a baptist, I would say that the KJV translation was perfect, whereas the NIV was not preserved. But they are nearly identical. This is where I would get into all kinds of knots saying stuff like "the NIV contains parts of the word of God, but the KJV is all the word of God", and make up teachings like that.

Anyway, I have no problem with the KJV and like I said, I use it and believe it to be the most trustworthy translation, and possibly/probably without error (hence preserved). I just can't bring myself to cast judgment upon people who don't agree with me anymore (and once again, I am not implying you do, I love your posts )

[exIFB]

---
Ignore what was here. Unneccesary and probably worded in a way that was aggressive. Sorry if anyone saw it

[Tony R]

(03-27-2011 05:24 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  Preserved? In what sense.. in the sense that you don't think it has errors in it?

Preserved in the sense that it is the only translation (still in use) that was produced from the Textus Receptus. While I have heard of many “errors” in the KJV, I have yet to find any. Although, I will admit that I do not understand passages in the OT that refer to large numbers .

(03-27-2011 05:25 PM)exIFB Wrote:  Here is a question that I never got an answer for.

Which of these is preserved and why?

for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Romans 10:13 NIV
for whoseveer shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved Romans 10:13 KJV

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Romans 3:23 NIV
for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God Romans 3:23 KJV

The verses that you mention are worded so similarly that the differences are insignificant, but there are many, many other differences in the differing versions that are not so insignificant.

For instance...

For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. 2 Cor 2:17 (KJV)
For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word; but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ. 2 Cor 2:17 (RSV)

“Corrupt” (to damage or spoil something) is not the same as “peddle[ers]” (to sell goods). According to the RSV, it is wrong to sell Bibles!

This verse is not what I would call “doctrinal” (there are many differences that are doctrinal) but I used it to emphasize that, even in Paul’s day, the word of God was being corrupted. How much more is it being corrupted today?

[Tony R]

(03-27-2011 07:12 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  If you think there's not problems with the TR I'm wondering if you've read up on it.

You don't have to wonder, I have read up on it.

(03-27-2011 07:12 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  I think unless you're a textual critic and have access to the manuscripts and know Koine Greek and ancient Hebrew then you simply have to take other people's word for it.

You're free to think whatever you like.

(03-27-2011 07:12 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  I have a lot more faith in the opinions of those who favor say NA27 over TR.

Good for you!