Thoughts to ponder

Ransom said:
Mitex said:
You can redirect and fallaciously (you fallacy-meister) construct a straw man all you want, but the fact remains you yourself appealed to "the church" (a collective body) when you stated: "The church  has received the Scriptures because they are God-breathed." The church in your sentence was the consensus opinion of that collective body as a whole and not particular individual members or a sect within the church.

Speaking of straw men, kindly stop creating them by (incorrectly) explaining to me what I meant. I never claimed that the church was a "consensus opinion."
You stated, "The church has received...". What is the church if not the collective body of born again Christians? The church is not a particular individual in the church, a sect within the church, etc. You were referring to that collective body which reached consensus agreement on the same subject - the Scriptures. If that was not your intent please explain to the Reader what you meant by "the church".
 
FSSL said:
I translated NT and OT books... Those translations are God's word.

They remain on my computer. I only shared my translation of Amos with one other person. They are God's word and no one else ever gave their opinion (except one of my professors) on the translation.

No consensus. People don't even know they exist (until now)... YET, it is God's word with full authority.

Where your private translation agrees with the Standard version recognized as such by the Church of God then, yes of course it is the word of God. Where any difference in text presents a discrepancy then the Standard version/edition recognized by a consensus of Spirit filled members of the church of God takes precedence. Where your translation is sectarian or peculiar no one is commanded to submit to it or even believe it for that matter. You version is NOT profitable for doctrine where it disagrees with the previously established Canon. You understand this even while squirming around looking for gotcha points. Would you care to take the time to differentiate for the Reader where your definition of Scripture differs from mine? I'll repeat mine:

The Scriptures are the anthology of Canonical books recognized by THE CHURCH OF GOD (the consensus opinion of born again Spirit filled members) in any language or generation as the very word of God in written form - given by inspiration of God, true in all its parts, perfect, pure, inerrant, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. The Scriptures are preserved in the form that God wants every generation and language group to have.

There is one Bible, the Scriptures, it has come to us in multiple languages, versions and editions. The Standard version/edition in any language or generation always takes precedence over sectarian, peculiar, private or individually preferred versions/editions. This is not to say that sectarian, peculiar, private or individually preferred versions/edition have no validity, but it does say that the Standard version/edition recognized by a consensus of Spirit filled believers takes precedence where any difference in text presents a discrepancy.

Things different can indeed be the same, this should never be construed to mean that all things are different are the same.

1Ti 3:15  But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

"The Church of God holds forth the truth to be seen and read by all." Gill
 
Mitex said:
You stated, "The church has received...". What is the church if not the collective body of born again Christians?

Are you arguing with me or against me? Do you even know?
 
Mitex said:
Where your private translation agrees with the Standard version recognized as such by the Church of God then, yes of course it is the word of God.

Here is an interesting proposal...

Here is the beginning of my translation of Amos 3. Is this the word of God or not?

Amos 3

1 -  Hear this word the LORD has spoken against you, O sons of Israel - against the whole family I brought up out of Egypt, saying:

2 -  Only you I have known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your sins.

3 - Can two walk together, unless they have made an appointment?

4 - Will a lion roar in the woods when there is no food?
will the young lion roar from his den unless he has taken?

5 - Will a bird fall into a trap when there is no bait for him?
or will one pick up the trap from the ground and have not taken at all?
 
FSSL said:
Mitex said:
Where your private translation agrees with the Standard version recognized as such by the Church of God then, yes of course it is the word of God.

Here is an interesting proposal...

Here is the beginning of my translation of Amos 3. Is this the word of God or not?

Amos 3

1 -  Hear this word the LORD has spoken against you, O sons of Israel - against the whole family I brought up out of Egypt, saying:

2 -  Only you I have known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your sins.

3 - Can two walk together, unless they have made an appointment?

4 - Will a lion roar in the woods when there is no food?
will the young lion roar from his den unless he has taken?

5 - Will a bird fall into a trap when there is no bait for him?
or will one pick up the trap from the ground and have not taken at all?

I don't see anything off hand that presents a discrepancy in the text found in Standard versions/editions, it's not the best translation in my opinion as it feels stilted to me while reading it. I see no reason why it couldn't be considered the word of God. I'm curious, what did your professor give you as a grade for the translation? Now will you answer my questions that I have previously presented?

A few weeks back I was speaking to a group of people on the streets in Toru?, Poland. I said something like this:

"Jesus Christ is the only mediator, he is the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father except by him. Your tradition teaches you that you cannot get to God without a mediator, which is true, every sinner needs a righteous mediator to enter into the presence of God. However, your tradition also teaches you that Mary, the saints and your local priests are sufficiently righteous and can serve as mediators between man and God. This is a falsehood that needs to be repented of. You must come to Christ the only mediator between man and God.  For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus..."

* Did I preach the word of God in obedience to 2Timothy 4:2? Why or why not?
* Was I moved by the Holy Spirit when I preached the above? Why or why not?
* Is the above the word of God or not? Why or why not?



 
Mitex said:
I don't see anything off hand that presents a discrepancy in the text found in Standard versions/editions, it's not the best translation in my opinion as it feels stilted to me while reading it.

Verse 3 is different than the KJV.

It is still rough, but it is pretty much a word-for-word translation from the Hebrew. I did not consult the KJV when I made this translation.

Are you still comfortable this translation?

I'm curious, what did your professor give you as a grade for the translation?
A-... he never gave an A


* Did I preach the word of God in obedience to 2Timothy 4:2? Why or why not? Yep!
* Was I moved by the Holy Spirit when I preached the above? Why or why not? Probably. Did you understand the meaning and significance of the text? Then sure!
* Is the above the word of God or not? Why or why not? The quotes are the word of God. The rest is your modern application of the text.
 
FSSL said:
Mitex said:
I don't see anything off hand that presents a discrepancy in the text found in Standard versions/editions, it's not the best translation in my opinion as it feels stilted to me while reading it.

Verse 3 is different than the KJV.

It is still rough, but it is pretty much a word-for-word translation from the Hebrew. I did not consult the KJV when I made this translation.

Are you still comfortable this translation?

I'm curious, what did your professor give you as a grade for the translation?
A-... he never gave an A


* Did I preach the word of God in obedience to 2Timothy 4:2? Why or why not? Yep!
* Was I moved by the Holy Spirit when I preached the above? Why or why not? Probably. Did you understand the meaning and significance of the text? Then sure!
* Is the above the word of God or not? Why or why not? The quotes are the word of God. The rest is your modern application of the text.

My comfort level on your peculiar private translation hammered out upon your own anvil hasn't changed a bit. Would you like to address my repeated questions or do you have another series of questions for me?

P.S. Jot and tittle matches of the English Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures is not my criteria for recognizing what is and what is not the Scriptures. See above. Scriptures are not determined by jot and tittle matches of the autograph, the originals or the English AV.
 
Mitex said:
Would you like to address my repeated questions or do you have another series of questions for me?

I already answered them.
 
FSSL said:
Mitex said:
Would you like to address my repeated questions or do you have another series of questions for me?

I already answered them.

I had hoped, since you obviously disagree with my definition of Scripture, that you would  differentiate for the Reader where your definition of Scripture differs from mine. If that's too much for you I understand.  I'll repeat my definition just in case you find the time:

The Scriptures are the anthology of Canonical books recognized by THE CHURCH OF GOD (the consensus opinion of born again Spirit filled members) in any language or generation as the very word of God in written form - given by inspiration of God, true in all its parts, perfect, pure, inerrant, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. The Scriptures are preserved in the form that God wants every generation and language group to have.

There is one Bible, the Scriptures, it has come to us in multiple languages, versions and editions. The Standard version/edition in any language or generation always takes precedence over sectarian, peculiar, private or individually preferred versions/editions. This is not to say that sectarian, peculiar, private or individually preferred versions/edition have no validity, but it does say that the Standard version/edition recognized as such by a consensus of Spirit filled believers takes precedence where any difference in text presents a discrepancy.

Things different can indeed be the same, this should never be construed to mean that all things different are the same.

1Ti 3:15  But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

"The Church of God holds forth the truth to be seen and read by all." Gill
 
We have been over and over this... our problem is that you set up this false idea of "consensus" and "standard" derived from Kincaid who wants to give KJVOs something to grasp.

This "standard" talk wants (according to your website)...
... consensus opinion to be binding on dependents
... kindle the KJVO

You claim not to be a KJVO, yet, you promote their false ideology which denies Soul Liberty and seeks to give provide a foundational argument for KJVOism. It is not an attempt to be faithful to Scripture.

What is Scripture?
Most succinctly and precisely, it is "God's word."

I know this does not sit well with you because you want this statement to include some kind of conscience binding application so that translations like the NIV, NKJV, NASB, Warsaw, no longer can be considered "God's word" in the fullest sense, having the same authority as the KJV/OldGdansk.
 
Here is a nice explanation for why the KJV is the most printed Bible today. It has less to do with the quality of the manuscripts used or the accuracy of the translation than it does other factors including that listed below.

The outlawing of the Geneva Bible in England which was at the time the choice of Spirit filled believers is one of the main factors. Without the heavy hand of government it is doubtful that it could have competed with The Geneva Bible on an even playing field.  This fact alone makes it unreasonable to suggest that the KJV was the Bible chosen by the Spirit filled believers. It was not.

http://religion-today.blogspot.com/2007/10/bible-battles-king-james-vs-puritans.html

After the King James Version was published in 1611, the Geneva Bible was banned in England. Indeed, James made ownership of it a felony. The King James Bible became the pulpit Bible for Anglicans and inexpensive copies were published for sale to the masses. At first, it was not very popular; several of its early publishers went broke from poor sales.

The King James Version began to gain popularity only when different publishers began to add explanatory notes to the text, in direct opposition to James? expressed wishes. Indeed, the KJV became the most popular Bible version in twentieth-century America when a set of notes written by Cyrus I. Scofield was added in 1909 and then revised into the Scofield Reference Bible in 1917. These notes promote the theology of dispensationalism, based in part on Calvinist theology that James rejected, and have helped promote that theology?s popularity, just as the Geneva Bible promoted Puritan theology.
 
bgwilkinson said:
Here is a nice explanation for why the KJV is the most printed Bible today. It has less to do with the quality of the manuscripts used or the accuracy of the translation than it does other factors including that listed below.

The outlawing of the Geneva Bible in England which was at the time the choice of Spirit filled believers is one of the main factors. Without the heavy hand of government it is doubtful that it could have competed with The Geneva Bible on an even playing field.  This fact alone makes it unreasonable to suggest that the KJV was the Bible chosen by the Spirit filled believers. It was not.

http://religion-today.blogspot.com/2007/10/bible-battles-king-james-vs-puritans.html

After the King James Version was published in 1611, the Geneva Bible was banned in England. Indeed, James made ownership of it a felony. The King James Bible became the pulpit Bible for Anglicans and inexpensive copies were published for sale to the masses. At first, it was not very popular; several of its early publishers went broke from poor sales.

The King James Version began to gain popularity only when different publishers began to add explanatory notes to the text, in direct opposition to James? expressed wishes. Indeed, the KJV became the most popular Bible version in twentieth-century America when a set of notes written by Cyrus I. Scofield was added in 1909 and then revised into the Scofield Reference Bible in 1917. These notes promote the theology of dispensationalism, based in part on Calvinist theology that James rejected, and have helped promote that theology?s popularity, just as the Geneva Bible promoted Puritan theology.
So, much misinformation in your most recent posts; enough to make a wild-eyed KJVO blush with envy.
The KJV is indeed the most printed Bible in the history of the world, not just today. This uncomfortable fact had nothing to do with "the banning of the Geneva". The Geneva, like many Bibles in history were banned by ecclesiastical and political powers throughout history which were unable to stop the printing, distributing, reading and preaching them. Why do you think it was named the Geneva Bible instead of the London Bible? King James banned the Geneva and this was the reason the KJV become so popular? What a riot! King James grew up with the Geneva and had his own personal copy. As much of the English wording of the KJV comes from the Geneva and Tyndale Bibles, I'm really pressed to understand your argument. You think the Geneva should have been the English Standard instead of the AV? Is your anti-KJV bias showing? Let me do a quick check on a few verses that have been debated on this board:

The word "Bishop" is used in the Geneva - 1Timothy 3
The word "baptize" is used the Geneva - Mt 3
The word "church" is used in the Geneva - Mt 16
I find "God is manifest in the flesh" in the Geneva - 1Timothy 3:16
I find "only begotten Son" in the Geneva - John 1:18
I find "Son of man which is in heaven" in the Geneva - John 3:13
I find "except they be agreed" in the Geneva - Amos 3:3
I find "confirmed the word with signs that followed" in the Geneva - Mk 15:20
I find "the desire of money is the root of all evil"in the Geneva - 1Timothy 6:10
And wonder of wonders, I find "For there are three, which bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one" in the Geneva - 1John 5:7
etc.

So, I'm sure, since you insist that Spirit filled believers chose the Geneva, but were stifled by threat of felony,  that you will stop attacking those same readings found in the English Authorized Version and similar versions.

May I suggest reading Leland Ryken, a professor of English at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois and a English language stylist for the ESV translation. He is NOT KJVO. He has made comments that contradict your preferred blogger. I quote:

* AV is the most influential English Bible
* Those who demand a colloquial language Bible and complain about the alleged high style language of the AV should take note that the AV has a modest vocabulary of 6000 words compared to 10,000 words of Milton and over 20,000 words of Shakespeare.
* The AV is the best selling book of all time, the most influential book, the most quoted book, the most important book and most widely read book in the English language; it is a book of books.
* Translators were selected because of their expertise in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures and not on the basis of political or ecclesiastical allegiance. All translators were scholars and came from all parties within the Anglican Church ? 1/4 were puritans. They were the best of the best of the Hebrew and Greek scholars. When translators were chosen and did their work everyone rose above partisan spirit, even the anti-puritans.
* The AV was not an immediate sensation, but was an immediate success. In the first 3 years it went through 17 editions compared to 6 editions for the Puritan?s Geneva Bible, in the 3 decades following the AV went through 182 editions verses only 15 for the Puritan?s Geneva.
* When the Puritans came to power in 1640 they did not push for their Geneva version. The AV replaced the very popular Geneva Bible and became ?THE Bible? for English speaking people. For over three centuries it was THE Bible of English speaking Christians and read regularly.
* Unlike modern translators, the AV translators put no premium on being original and daring. Truly, good Christian Reader, we never thought that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark. Continuity with the whole English Bible tradition was their goal.
* The AV was never officially authorized either by the king, nor ecclesiastical authority, but received an even greater authorization on the basis of its inherit superiority. The AV was authorized by the people, a better authorization than by a king or ecclesiastical authority.
* The most accurate English Bible?has better words than other translations?the words are beautiful, powerful and moving beyond other translations?superior?became dominate because of its excellence and it carried an authority that compelled allegiance?
* The language of the AV is beautiful, its style is dignified and stately so unlike the dressed down language of modern colloquial versions. It is elegant. It would never have dominated had its language been reduced to common every day street language. Its style is uplifting, moving and sounds like a sacred book and not like the daily newspaper. Simplicity of style and majestic in effect.
* New translation philosophy emerged only recently in the mid 20th century. It pains Dr. Ryken to hear disparaging comments about the AV from those who promote this new dynamic equivalence philosophy in translation.

Here just a couple of Dr. Ryken's books:
* The Word of God in English
* The Legacy of the King James Bible

Also, you might want to read, Sir, Frederic Kenyon's book, Our Bible and the ancient manuscripts.

I happen to have a C.I Scofield editon of the Holy Bible with the Introduction (to be read), which reads in part:

"After mature reflection it was determined to use the Authorized Version. None of the many Revisions have commended themselves to the people at large. The Revised Version, which has now been before the people for twenty seven years , give no indication of becoming in any general sense the people's Bible of the English-speaking world"

Dr. Schofield an early Fundamentalist was not KJVO as we further read:
"The discovery of the Sinaitic MS. and the labours in the field of textual criticism of such scholars as Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Winer, Alford and Westcott and Hort, have cleared the Greek textus receptus of minor inacuracies, while confirming in a remarkable degree the general accuracy of he Authorized Version of that text. Such emendations of the text as scholarship demands have been placed in the margins of this edition, which therefore combines the dignity, the high religious value, the tender associations of the past, the literary beauty and the remarkable general accuracy of the Authorized Version, with the results of the best textual scholarship."

Scholar Scofield wanted to use the Revised Version, but recognized that the AV was the people's Bible. That long arm of English Bishops and kings must have reached across both time and the ocean to compel Dr. Scofield to go against his better senses. :-)


Hope this helps you tamper some of your anti-KJV bias.
 
There was too much dust in your last post for me to get it all cleaned up in a reasonable time so I am going to start again with just your op and point out one place where you have not made your case.

I will not respond to your ad hominem nor will I turn it back on you in sarcasm.

Here is the first part of your op.

First part of Mitex's op:
The Scriptures are the anthology of Canonical books recognized by a consensus of born again Spirit filled believers in any language or generation as the very word of God in written form - given by inspiration of God, true in all its parts, perfect, pure, inerrant, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. The Scriptures are preserved in the form that God wants every generation and language group to have.


Nowhere do I deny that the KJV is the most printed version of all time, that is not the point of my post.

I am trying to make only one point here.

It is the reason that it is the most printed Bible version of all time that is in question.

You are confusing being the most printed version with being accepted by the consensus of the most Spirit filled believers, they are not the same.

Those Spirit filled believers in England would not have had the opportunity to choose the Geneva since the printing of it was outlawed by the State Church.

It was the British Government State Church that was responsible for the use of the AV1611 as it was the only one that could be legally printed and sold for much of the 400 years since 1611.

So it is up to you to prove that was recognized by a consensus of born again Spirit filled believers who had other versions from which to chose, if you want your definition to be accurate and valid.

You can not call it a consensus if their choice was coerced or forced upon them.

 
bgwilkinson said:
There was too much dust in your last post for me to get it all cleaned up in a reasonable time so I am going to start again with just your op and point out one place where you have not made your case.

I will not respond to your ad hominem nor will I turn it back on you in sarcasm.

Here is the first part of your op.

First part of Mitex's op:
The Scriptures are the anthology of Canonical books recognized by a consensus of born again Spirit filled believers in any language or generation as the very word of God in written form - given by inspiration of God, true in all its parts, perfect, pure, inerrant, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. The Scriptures are preserved in the form that God wants every generation and language group to have.

Nowhere do I deny that the KJV is the most printed version of all time, that is not the point of my post.

I am trying to make only one point here.

It is the reason that it is the most printed Bible version of all time that is in question.

You are confusing being the most printed version with being accepted by the consensus of the most Spirit filled believers, they are not the same.

Those Spirit filled believers in England would not have had the opportunity to choose the Geneva since the printing of it was outlawed by the State Church.

It was the British Government State Church that was responsible for the use of the AV1611 as it was the only one that could be legally printed and sold for much of the 400 years since 1611.

So it is up to you to prove that was recognized by a consensus of born again Spirit filled believers who had other versions from which to chose, if you want your definition to be accurate and valid.

You can not call it a consensus if their choice was coerced or forced upon them.

Go back and read the quotes of Dr. Leland Ryken, a non-KJVO. Read Sir Kenyon's book. When the Puritans came to power they did not respond with, "At long last, after being "forced" for 39 years to read that 'dreaded KJV' , we can finally get back to the Geneva, the real choice of Spirit filled believers."  They kept on choosing the English AV right on up past the time of Dr. Scofield who recognized in 1917, three hundred and six years after 1611, that the English AV was "the people's Bible of the English-speaking world, that was before his Study Bible was ever published. The AV became the English Bible for the Baptists, Southern Baptists, Northern Baptists, National Baptists, North American Baptists, International Baptists, American Baptists, Mexican Baptists, General Baptists, Regular Baptists, Missionary Baptists, Conservative Baptists, Freewill Baptists, Hard-shell Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Landmark Baptists, Old German Baptists, 7th Day Baptists, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Baptists, Union Baptists, Independent Baptists, Particular Baptists, Bible Baptists, Bible Believing Baptists, Fundamental Baptists, and all the other Baptists, all branches of Mennonites, Lutherans, Methodists, Congregationalists, Pentecostals, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Moravian Brethren, Open Brethren, Closed Brethren, Evangelical Free, non-denominationalists, etc., not by force, but by choice. Please go back and read Dr. Ryken's statements along with his books. He stated, "For over three centuries it was THE Bible of English speaking Christians and read regularly." Perhaps you should pick up a book by Richard Chenevix Trench, D.D., Dean of Westminster, which he wrote in 1858 (247 years before 1611 and alleged felony arrest warrants) entitled, "On the AUTHORIZED VERSION of the NEW TESTAMENT in Connection With Some Recent Proposals for its  Revision. In it he wrote,

?We must never leave out of sight that for a GREAT MULTITUDE of readers the English Version [AV, ed.] is not the translation of an inspired Book, but IS ITSELF THE INSPIRED BOOK ... The English Bible [AV, ed.] is to them all which the Hebrew Old Testament, which the Greek New Testament, is to the devout scholar.  It receives from them the same UNDOUBTING AFFIANCE [confidence, pledge of fidelity, ed.]... ?The Roman Catholics and the Unitarians [Old time JW?s, ed.] are, I believe, the only bodies who have counted it necessary to make VERSIONS OF THEIR OWN.  With the exception of these, the Authorized Version is COMMON GROUND for ALL in England who call themselves Christians...is alike the heritage of all.?, On the AUTHORIZED VERSION of the NEW TESTAMENT in Connection With Some Recent Proposals for its  Revision,  Richard Chenevix Trench, D.D., Dean of Westminster, 1858, pg. 174-176.

I've been saved for over 42 years and know thousands of born again Spirit filled believers whose choice of Bible is the AV. Those same believers have no interest in this debate nor are they being coerced, knowingly or unknowingly, as you falsely conclude by the long arm of English kings and bishops.

My O.P. dealt with the definition of the Scriptures as found in the Scriptures. If you don't like my definition, then point out to the Reader where and why you disagree and then give your clear concise definition so that the reader can diligently compare the two and come to their own conclusions.

P.S. Your quote is fallacious, "Those Spirit filled believers in England would not have had the opportunity to choose the Geneva since the printing of it was outlawed by the State Church." The printing of it was "outlawed" from the very beginning, that's why it was called the Geneva Bible and not the London Bible. You keep missing that salient point. People were "choosing" and reading the Geneva even while it was "outlawed". Your conspiracy theory goes up in smoke with this salient fact.
 
Mitex,

I took a look at one of the books by Leland Ryken you mentioned. I have had it for several years. I have all his books on the Bible.

Here is a quote from it.
"In graduate school I dabbled in a few modern translations, more out of novelty than conviction or heartfelt allegiance. When I came to teach at Wheaton College, I providentially came under the sway of people who used the Revised Standard Version in the form of the Harper Study Bible. It was one of the best things that ever happened to me. I used the Harper Study Bible with complete profit and delight until the appearance of the English Standard Version in 2001. As my thumbnail autobiographical sketch implies, I do not believe that the King James Bible is the best translation for a reader today. One reason for this is that the KJV is not based on the best available knowledge about the Bible in its original Hebrew and Greek. Some parts of the KJV are based on ancient manuscripts that a majority of scholars today regard as inferior."

Ryken, Leland. The Legacy of the King James Bible: Celebrating 400 Years of the Most Influential English Translation

I enjoy his writing and have much in common with him, I also have used the RSV over the years and have several copies.

I  have all the other books you mentioned.
 
bgwilkinson said:
Mitex,

I took a look at one of the books by Leland Ryken you mentioned. I have had it for several years. I have all his books on the Bible.

Here is a quote from it.
"In graduate school I dabbled in a few modern translations, more out of novelty than conviction or heartfelt allegiance. When I came to teach at Wheaton College, I providentially came under the sway of people who used the Revised Standard Version in the form of the Harper Study Bible. It was one of the best things that ever happened to me. I used the Harper Study Bible with complete profit and delight until the appearance of the English Standard Version in 2001. As my thumbnail autobiographical sketch implies, I do not believe that the King James Bible is the best translation for a reader today. One reason for this is that the KJV is not based on the best available knowledge about the Bible in its original Hebrew and Greek. Some parts of the KJV are based on ancient manuscripts that a majority of scholars today regard as inferior."

Ryken, Leland. The Legacy of the King James Bible: Celebrating 400 Years of the Most Influential English Translation

I enjoy his writing and have much in common with him, I also have used the RSV over the years and have several copies.

I  have all the other books you mentioned.
Hmm. You don't have to prove that Dr. Ryken isn't KJVO, that was already conceded in the first post. PLEASE read what he wrote about the history and influence of the KJV in CONTRARY to your conspiracy theory.
 
Mitex it is your responsibility to validate your premise, it is not up to me to prove it. I am not convinced you are correct.

I don't need to give you my formulation. You came here and asked us to ponder. Well I've been pondering and the more I ponder the more I find wrong with your formulation. I see no need to point out other places of disagreement if we can't get past this one. Just more dust in the air.


It is up to you to prove that the KJV was recognized by a consensus of born again Spirit filled believers who had other versions from which to chose.

A few Bible publishers or editors does not a consensus make. That reminds me of army chow, they just fork it over and you pretend to like it, cause it's all you are going to get.

You can not call it a consensus if their choice of Bibles was coerced or forced upon them. Here is your Bible take it or leave it.

I am not the one making up a conspiracy theory, I am simply asking you to prove your premise.

I am in agreement with men like Alister McGrath, Benson Bobrick, Leland Ryken and David Norton as to the English Bible's influence on our nation, language and culture. They all support the view that the Government Church controlled the publication of the English Bible not a consensus of spirit filled Christians.
 
* I can?t think of any significant differences in the text of the Geneva and the AV, both follow Tyndale in the main, so, your limited choices doctrine is fallacious. The Geneva included all the controversial verses that the AV has. This debate isn?t about where all Bibles agree (consensus!), but rather where they disagree and what to do when they do. Sectarian, peculiar, private and individually preferred opinion does not and cannot hold the consensus opinion of the Church of God in hostage.

* Along the lines of point one, my O.P. didn?t even mention the KJV; that was your Freudian assumption. Standard Bibles in other languages contain the controversial verses and word choices, ex. Bishop, church, baptize, agreed, hell,  the root of all evil, God, manifest in the flesh, only begotten Son, Son of man which is in heaven, 1John 5:7, etc.

* The Geneva became quite popular despite political and ecclesiastical powers railing against it. This point alone debunks your lame conspiracy theory. It was named the Geneva Bible and not the London Bible for a reason. The Bishops Bible was the ecclesiastical choice in England, yet, the Geneva became popular despite it's "banning". And once again, when the Puritans came to power they did not choose the Geneva, but they did chose the KJV.

* Englishmen had a choice of the Geneva Bible, Bishops Bible, the great Bible, Coverdale?s Bible, later they could have picked up Purver?s Quaker Bible, Brown?s version, Thompson?s Version, Bagster?s Polygot, Webster?s Version, Wesley?s Version, Joseph Smith?s Version, the Apostle?s Bible (Brenton?), Forshall?s Version, Barham?s Version, Murdock?s Version, Young?s Version, the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, etc. and a host of other Old Testaments, New Testaments and portions of the Scriptures translated into English; but alas, Englishmen kept right on choosing the AV for 350+ years after the period of your conspiracy theory.

* Your own mouth testifies against you for you concede that the AV is the most printed Bible in the history of the world. Who was receiving, reading and preaching this most printed Bible if not born again Spirit filled members of the Church of God? Supposing your conspiracy theory were true for the first 40 years of the AV, what about the following 360+ years? Who was forcing the Church of God to read, believe and preach a Bible they did not believe during that time? No political or ecclesiastical power for sure. 

* No congress, senate, president, king, pope, group of cardinals or bishops could make you or I read, believe or preach a Bible we do not believe.  This fact is true for a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians throughout history, unless of course you consider yourself exceptional. Born again Spirit filled Christians were dying at the stake in order to translate, print, read, believe and preach politically and ecclesiastically banned Bibles.

* Historical facts indicate that the AV became the English Bible of Baptists, Southern Baptists, Northern Baptists, National Baptists, North American Baptists, International Baptists, American Baptists, Mexican Baptists, General Baptists, Regular Baptists, Missionary Baptists, Conservative Baptists, Freewill Baptists, Hard-shell Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Landmark Baptists, Old German Baptists, 7th Day Baptists, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Baptists, Union Baptists, Independent Baptists, Particular Baptists, Bible Baptists, Bible Believing Baptists, Fundamental Baptists, and all the other Baptists, all branches of Mennonites, Lutherans, Methodists, Congregationalists, Pentecostals, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Moravian Brethren, Open Brethren, Closed Brethren, Evangelical Free, non-denominationalists, etc. That is evidence of the direct hand of God if not an outright miracle. If it happened today with any of your preferred versions you without doubt would insist that it was a miracle of God.

* All scholars including Dr. Ryken and Dr. Scofield have recognized that the AV has been the people?s Bible long after kings and ecclesiastical powers had any alleged sway in the matter.

* When the Scriptures mention the word ?Scriptures? it is NOT a reference to sectarian, peculiar, private or individually preferred versions, but rather the Canonical Scriptures recognized as such by the Church of God.

* Dr. Ryken stated, ?The AV was not an immediate sensation, but was an immediate success. In the first 3 years it went through 17 editions compared to 6 editions for the Puritan?s Geneva Bible, in the 3 decades following the AV went through 182 editions verses only 15 for the Puritan?s Geneva.? According to Dr. Ryken, a non-KJVO, the Geneva was still being printed during and after the time of your ?banned theory?. 

* Dr. Ryken stated, ?When the Puritans came to power in 1640 they did not push for their Geneva version. The AV replaced the very popular Geneva Bible and became ?THE Bible? for English speaking people. For over three centuries it was THE Bible of English speaking Christians and read regularly.? The AV became ?the Bible for English speaking people? even after the Puritans came to power and your alleged ?banned theory? was lifted. They didn?t take up the popular Geneva. Dr. Ryken is shooting down your conspiracy theory.

* Dr. Ryken stated, ?The AV was never officially authorized either by the king, nor ecclesiastical authority, but received an even greater authorization on the basis of its inherit superiority. The AV was authorized by the people, a better authorization than by a king or ecclesiastical authority.? Dr. Ryken?s statement stands in contrary to your conspiracy theory. Ouch, that must hurt.

* Dr. Ryken stated, ?The most accurate English Bible?has better words than other translations?the words are beautiful, powerful and moving beyond other translations?superior?became dominate because of its excellence and it carried an authority that compelled allegiance?? The AV carried an authority that compelled allegiance not from political or ecclesiastical, but rather from being accurate, containing better words, and being a beautiful, powerful and superior translation.

* Dr. Ryken stated, ?The AV is the bestselling book of all time, the most influential book, the most quoted book, the most important book and most widely read book in the English language; it is a book of books.? Yes, indeed, it is a book of books. The AV is one of, if not the greatest translation in the history of the Church of God.

* Dr. Scofield note in 1917, ?After mature reflection it was determined to use the Authorized Version. None of the many Revisions have commended themselves to the people at large. The Revised Version, which has now been before the people for twenty seven years , give no indication of becoming in any general sense the people's Bible of the English-speaking world" According to Dr. Scofield and early Fundamentalist and non-KJVO, the people?s Bible was NOT one of the MANY REVISIONS, but rather the AV itself. The board of editors chose the AV not because they as scholars thought it was ?the best?, but rather because they recognized that the AV was indeed ?the peoples Bible?. There?s your choice - The people chose the AV over the MANY Revisions, Revisions that included the Revised Version and the American Standard Version.

* Dr Trench stated, ??We must never leave out of sight that for a GREAT MULTITUDE of readers the English Version [AV, ed.] is not the translation of an inspired Book, but IS ITSELF THE INSPIRED BOOK ... The English Bible [AV, ed.] is to them all which the Hebrew Old Testament, which the Greek New Testament, is to the devout scholar.  It receives from them the same UNDOUBTING AFFIANCE [confidence, pledge of fidelity, ed.]... ?The Roman Catholics and the Unitarians [Old time JW?s, ed.] are, I believe, the only bodies who have counted it necessary to make VERSIONS OF THEIR OWN.  With the exception of these, the Authorized Version is COMMON GROUND for ALL in England who call themselves Christians...is alike the heritage of all.?, On the AUTHORIZED VERSION of the NEW TESTAMENT in Connection With Some Recent Proposals for its  Revision,  Richard Chenevix Trench, D.D., Dean of Westminster, 1858, pg. 174-176.

I'm pretty well convinced by past experience that none of this is going to persuade you (no intrusion on your soul liberty) to take up my position, but at least it gives you a glimpse into my perspective. That I have indeed carefully weighed the arguments on both sides and reached what I believe is a reasonable conclusion. What does this mean practically? It means that where your preferred edition of the Bible differs (really differs, not in the petty "jot & tittle" differences pounced upon by wild-eyed KJVO) from our Standardized Version we are at an impasse: I'll say, "Thus saith the Lord", and you'll respond, "No He didn't." And around and around we'll go. So, like I have to do with the JW's (no innuendo or poisoning the well-intended) I'll quote the verse, allow them to deny it, which they always do with similar arguments against the AV made by those on this board, and then move unto other verses found in their Bible to prove my point. That is where their Bible contains the same text (consensus) authority is established.

 
Mitex... you keep avoiding the fact that your opinion seeks to overcome soul liberty and that it comes from Bill Kincaid who developed this idea of consensus for the purpose of giving the KJVO a basis to their KJV defense.

It is clearly stated on your website... "THE AUTHORITY OF CONSENSUS (of spirit-filled, born-again, blood-bought saints), binding on dependents, is THE scriptural concept that kindles KJVO, and that burns your conscience," (point #10 https://brentandjaniceriggs.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/relvance-of-the-canon/)
 
FSSL said:
Mitex... you keep avoiding the fact that your opinion seeks to overcome soul liberty and that it comes from Bill Kincaid who developed this idea of consensus for the purpose of giving the KJVO a basis to their KJV defense.

It is clearly stated on your website... "THE AUTHORITY OF CONSENSUS (of spirit-filled, born-again, blood-bought saints), binding on dependents, is THE scriptural concept that kindles KJVO, and that burns your conscience," (point #10 https://brentandjaniceriggs.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/relvance-of-the-canon/)

Barry, you can't see that your arguments are fallacious. They are in fact a straw man argument. You interject a half quote of Bill Kincaid into this thread and pretend that you have proven me wrong. If you want to argue the weakness or merits of Bill Kincaid's statements start another thread and deal with it there. You have been unwilling or unable to address the O.P. and specific questions directed toward your objections of the O.P. You continue to attempt to force me to say things that I in fact have not said, while remaining unwilling or unable to give a clear statement on how your position differs from mine. You stated that all translations are the word of God - prove it. You have stated that you believe the Canon is limited to 66 books - prove it without using "the acceptance/recognition of the Church of God" to establish the Canon" or personal fiat. Please prove from the Scriptures that the NIV has the same authority as the AV and the AV has the same authority as the Received Text. Please do so from Scripture and without human fiat.
 
Back
Top