tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post4012932790782943255..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: The King James Version and the Doctrine of SeparationKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-50038695733304562732015-05-07T12:22:32.392-07:002015-05-07T12:22:32.392-07:00Hi saints. Interesting discussion. I wanted to poi...Hi saints. Interesting discussion. I wanted to point out that there is a whole lot more wrong with the NKJV(s) than just a few minor places where they did not follow the same underlying Greek text. A LOT more.<br /><br />Here are some of the things I have found. This is not a copy and paste from somebody else. <br /><br />Is the NKJV the infallible words of God? Not a Chance!<br /><br />http://brandplucked.webs.com/nkjvsameaskjb.htmwill kinneynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-25663334798090582582015-04-15T19:06:53.011-07:002015-04-15T19:06:53.011-07:00It' important to clarify what schism is, from ...It' important to clarify what schism is, from a <br />classical Reformed view it was a rend in the<br />body, whether that was local or throughout<br />the "association". <br />The party which held the truth, be it ever so small, <br />was not considered to be the schismatics.<br />so you could have a small tiny remnant which held<br />fast to the truth or returned to it, whilst the majority<br />made defection, the majority who have embraced<br />heresy and caused a rift/division were/are to be<br />considered as the schismatics.Robert Joseph T.https://sites.google.com/site/chosentolifeinchrist/homenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-90300583279706499532010-12-30T15:02:49.362-08:002010-12-30T15:02:49.362-08:00Hi Anonymous,
I don't think your line of reas...Hi Anonymous,<br /><br />I don't think your line of reasoning is going to stand up. We believe in a 66 book NT canon, and we don't have a single verse that states it. Is that just opinion then?<br /><br />I think you are confused as to what Kent is arguing. We believe in the preservation of the text that underlies the KJV, and we believe the KJV is a faithful translation of that text.<br /><br />There are many Scriptures that show God would preserve all his words. There is a very new, modern view that God only preserved 93% of his words, and the rest we need scholars to figure out. When that view is rejected, and the Scriptures examined for direction as to what we should expect in the text of Scriptures, you end up with the Received Text.<br /><br />None of us here believe that the KJV is "inspired" directly. God didn't do a second work in 1611.<br /><br />If you do wish to meaningfully interact here, it will help you to understand where we are coming from. I strongly recommend "Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture" to bring you up to speed.Joshuanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-88894042684228748102010-12-24T07:24:40.341-08:002010-12-24T07:24:40.341-08:00Perhaps the problem rests within our definition of...Perhaps the problem rests within our definition of preservation. We think that God's Word is exactly found in a certain text etc. Show me in the KJV (and I do love my KJV. It's what I use. I am KJVese fluent!) where it expressly states that the KJV is the inspired, preserved Word of God for the English language. Show me one...one! You can't. That tradition or doctrine of man is opinion. A bunch of verses prove creation by God, deity of Christ, virgin birth, resurrection and so on. But none prove the opinion. Don't you dare use verses to show inspiration or preservation. I need specific verses (one would do) stating KJV, inspired, preserved, English language.<br /><br />Now back to the definition of preservation. God's Word will not pass of the earthly scene as Robespierre wanted or "The Book of Eli" illustrates.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-12424008885971922032010-12-23T07:28:45.690-08:002010-12-23T07:28:45.690-08:00D4,
Churches that gladly receive His Word, that i...D4,<br /><br />Churches that gladly receive His Word, that is, churches who wish to align themselves with the Word of God in doctrine, practice, and affections. Revelation 2 & 3 would be a guide. I believe NT churches have the Bible as sole authority, regenerate, immersed church membership, pastor and deacons, the two church offices, autonomous, separation personally and ecclesiastically, Immersion and Lord's Table, two church ordinances, Priesthood of the Believer/Soul Liberty.<br /><br />Interesting on the google situation. Thanks.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-59508997049832291872010-12-22T10:47:41.618-08:002010-12-22T10:47:41.618-08:00Hi Kent, I agree that we don't need English Tr...Hi Kent, I agree that we don't need English Translation after English Translation. There are certainly a lot of unnecessary translations available today. Of course, in a free society, who is to stop the proliferation? Thus we all need wisdom from above and great discernment.<br /><br />Maranatha!<br />Don Johnson<br />Jer 33.3Don Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03332212749734904541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-90813438387002100652010-12-22T09:02:42.284-08:002010-12-22T09:02:42.284-08:00Hi Bro. B.,
Out of curiousity, I suspect when yo...Hi Bro. B., <br /><br />Out of curiousity, I suspect when you say "the churches" there are criteria to be included in that group. What might they be?<br /><br />In other news, if you google "what is truth," the predictive match containing "brandenburg" now out ranks that for the one containing Pilate. Congrats! :^)d4v34xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346680257860879900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-52361473429153341932010-12-22T08:35:47.854-08:002010-12-22T08:35:47.854-08:00Don,
There are a few issues that would make it ac...Don,<br /><br />There are a few issues that would make it acceptable to me, and it really should be more of a concern to those who accept whatever translation comes out there.<br /><br />First, what you said, faithful translation.<br /><br />Second, accepted by true churches. The Holy Spirit knows what He meant and He works through the church. I don't think it should be a translation accepted by the publishing house or the society of scholars, but by churches.<br /><br />I don't believe we need English translation after English translation after English translation and it becomes dangerous.<br /><br />With a good translation and the churches receptive, I too would be receptive. I believe what God inspired was in the languages in which those Words were written. I also believe that is what He preserved.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-1398059828641939482010-12-22T00:12:53.960-08:002010-12-22T00:12:53.960-08:00Hi Kent, I appreciate the word changes. That is wh...Hi Kent, I appreciate the word changes. That is what I thought you held to.<br /><br />But it does raise this question for me. I understand that the NKJV is said to have used a slightly different text than the KJV. If a version were to use the exact same text as the KJV and was a faithful translation, would it be acceptable?<br /><br />Maranatha!<br />Don Johnson<br />Jer 33.3Don Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03332212749734904541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-80674443058313813562010-12-21T21:07:44.741-08:002010-12-21T21:07:44.741-08:00D4,
Thanks.
Robert,
I also use the terminology,...D4,<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />Robert,<br /><br />I also use the terminology, general accessibility. It is scriptural and historical doctrine. Saved people who would want access to all the Words would have access to them.<br /><br />Don,<br /><br />I changed a few words to make it clearer for you, but if you take the whole article, you can see I'm talking about the underlying text. That should settle your questions. I believe in a perfect text.<br /><br />Gary,<br /><br />I agree. It seems to be a no-brainer to me. I think these men get what we're saying.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-48198941537920727712010-12-21T18:01:54.315-08:002010-12-21T18:01:54.315-08:00It is a matter of hypocrisy for the critical text ...It is a matter of hypocrisy for the critical text supporters to say that we are schismatics when they separate over the Bible issue just like we do. I cannot imagine a more important issue that the text of Holy Scripture.Gary Webbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-74503165094038822182010-12-21T16:10:27.979-08:002010-12-21T16:10:27.979-08:00Hi Kent
I understand your reaction to this point....Hi Kent<br /><br />I understand your reaction to this point. I think Bauder's raising the issue is a bit of a red herring to distract attention from his main point. (Or red meat to the wolves?)<br /><br />In any case when you say the following:<br /><br /><i>The issue of Bible versions is a matter of faith. #1, does the Bible teach that God would preserve every Word? Answer: yes. #2, does the Bible teach that every Word would be available for every Christian of every generation? Answer: yes. #3, does the Bible teach that God's Word would be perfect? Answer: yes.<br /><br />If you have a version with 7% variation from another one, they can't both be the same. With what I see the Bible teach about preservation, I can't overlook the variation. I can't say they are the same. I won't say they are the same. I won't say they are the same like I won't say that rock music and classical music are the same. They are not. I can't say the differences don't matter. God inspired every Word.</i><br /><br />it sounds like inspiration of the King James Version.<br /><br />In other words, it is understandable for their to be variation between versions, because they are translations, not inspired. So the differences between the versions are less important (not unimportant) than the differences between the underlying manuscripts. That is the way I see it (and of course I differ with you with respect to the manuscripts). But... if it is the ONE VERSION alone from which there is to be no deviation... wow! that seems like KJV inspiration.<br /><br />Not sure you are intending to say it that way, but that is the way it comes across.<br /><br />If you are intending to say it that way, then I have two questions:<br /><br />1) Are you saying that there can be no new version (based on the TR) that would be acceptable?<br /><br />2) Are you saying that prior to 1611 the English speaking people did not have the Word of God? The Wycliffe and Tyndale are quite different from the KJV.<br /><br />Not wanting to argue, but I don't think I have heard you state it that way before.<br /><br />Maranatha!<br />Don Johnson<br />Jer 33.3Don Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03332212749734904541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-12088647716459301222010-12-21T13:02:45.925-08:002010-12-21T13:02:45.925-08:00In point 2 you write that every word of God is &qu...In point 2 you write that every word of God is "available" to every Christian in every generation. How are you defining availability?Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03759513028364776662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-40601598858133360432010-12-21T09:40:20.969-08:002010-12-21T09:40:20.969-08:00Re:Addendum #2, I'd have to go back and dig it...Re:Addendum #2, I'd have to go back and dig it out (not something I'm eager to do), but at leaset one person stated that the NKJV diverges from the greek text "presumed to underlie the KJV" in some spots. I noticed because I was ready to point it out but didn't because (I thought) someone did. <br /><br />Also the failure to recognize a difference between your position and double inspiration is, well, a failure of understanding your posiont, double insp., or both. I can understand why that would frustrate.d4v34xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346680257860879900noreply@blogger.com