King James Vs NAB Bible

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;9353107:

If it wasn’t questioned (mentioned) because it was "accepted’, then why not say silence does not prove it’s acceptance ? The gnostics were claiming something not in scripture. If the gnostics were told they were wrong in claiming apostolic tradition, why can’t one say that other apostolic claims such as Peter’s chair or Mary doctrine be wrong ? That is the problem when we don’t stick to scripture more instead of “tradition” claims.

First tell me where Scripture teaches everything must be said and taught from the Bible-only?

BTW: Scripture is a living tradition but in written form. For the life of me I do not understand how so many Potestants cannot comprehend Scripture is tradition,but in written form.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

david ruiz;9368429:

First tell me where Scripture teaches everything must be said and taught from the Bible-only?

BTW: Scripture is a living tradition but in written form. For the life of me I do not understand how so many Potestants cannot comprehend Scripture is tradition,but in written form.

Because that would mean accepting the authority of fellow humans in its dispersion…

It is better to put ALL authority in an inanimate object than in other men that might have a different opinion than yourself without the option of an escape route based on a different interpretation.

I am in no way minimizing the importance the Word of God. I have about every translation available (RSV, NRSV, ESV, RSV, HCSB, NAB, DRB, KJV, NKJV, NIV, NLT, ASV, Jerusalem Bible - 1966, New Jerusalem Bible, and then some more in Spanish ).

I absolutely love and enjoy the Bible and believe that they are the Word of God. But I also know that God entrusted other men, who throughout history were given the responsibility to preserve and defend it for me. The Bible itself shows how there are layers of authority amongst us.

It is the safety of putting our trust in something that will not defraud/hurt us.

However, we ignore the most important fact of Jesus on earth:

He chose 12 Apostles. He did not hand out pamphlets, he chose and commissioned other men to instruct others. After all, God also chose men to preserve His Word.

What a wonderful creator that gives us the opportunity to work with Him and for Him!

Peace,

Jose

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;9368429:

First tell me where Scripture teaches everything must be said and taught from the Bible-only?

BTW: Scripture is a living tradition but in written form. For the life of me I do not understand how so many Potestants cannot comprehend Scripture is tradition,but in written form.

Show me where something is better than what God has said , done , or written ? Is the church better than what was written ? Is tradition better than what was written ? We know exactly what Peter spoke and did , when it is written. From there the validity of any claims to what he said and did is debatable. That is the nature of things.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;9374717:

Show me where something is better than what God has said , done , or written ? Is the church better than what was written ? Is tradition better than what was written ? We know exactly what Peter spoke and did , when it is written. From there the validity of any claims to what he said and did is debatable. That is the nature of things.

Once you show me where God explicitly states the Word of God is binded to WRITTEN WORDS ONLY!

BTW: What WRITTEN word or ‘done’ word did Abraham read from?

Debatable? Far from it!

 

[Prosmith]

What are reasons that someone would accept the King James Bible as Authoritative over the Latin Vulgate or NAB bible? Why is Textus Receptus the word of god over the Say Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus? My friend believes King James is the absolute word of god because it does not come from Egypt. Says its closest to Hebrew. I say it doesn’t have Apocrypha like original King James. Can anyone offer any scholarship on this issue. Thanks in advance…

NRSV with apocrypha for me!

 

[Prosmith]

Nicea325;9374717:

Show me where something is better than what God has said , done , or written ? Is the church better than what was written ? Is tradition better than what was written ? We know exactly what Peter spoke and did , when it is written. From there the validity of any claims to what he said and did is debatable. That is the nature of things.

I agree.

 

[david_ruiz]

Correct .I did state the obvious, God speaks,does and writes. The three are one like the trinity ? Have you heard of a rayma word , from God , that is something more personal ,revlation from God, I think. So of course God is not limited to His ways of communicating with us.
BTW:

What WRITTEN word or ‘done’ word did Abraham read from?

Understand your point . But what do you rely on to know what Abraham heard and saw God do ?
The debatable is not how God communicates, only what has He indeed communicated .There is enough debate just determing the meaning of what He wrote to us , much more what oral tradition says.

 

[Nicea325]

Correct .I did state the obvious, God speaks,does and writes. The three are one like the trinity ? Have you heard of a rayma word , from God , that is something more personal ,revlation from God, I think. So of course God is not limited to His ways of communicating with us.
BTW: Understand your point . But what do you rely on to know what Abraham heard and saw God do ?
The debatable is not how God communicates, only what has He indeed communicated .There is enough debate just determing the meaning of what He wrote to us , much more what oral tradition says.

 

[david_ruiz]

And Daivd the Jews did not have a Torah for centuries and still taught and learned without it. It is really foolish to believe that God’s Word = WRITTEN. Evidently ANYTHING written had to be said orally…FIRST!

Understand. But after it was written , then what , you go back to the oral , question what was written, do things , believe things that are not written ? Indeed there was some trial and much error, and by the time of Jesus, He had to correct much with…what was written.

I beg your pardon? What oral tradition says? David,apparently you never learned as a Catholic what Tradition exactly means?

Yes, perhaps I am not being techically correct .Sorry

 

[Izdaari]

NRSV with apocrypha for me!

Yeah, that works for me too.

As I said earlier, I don’t much care for either the KJV or NAB… but I like the whole RSV family of translations.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Nicea325

And Daivd the Jews did not have a Torah for centuries and still taught and learned without it. It is really foolish to believe that God’s Word = WRITTEN. Evidently ANYTHING written had to be said orally…FIRST!

David:
Understand. But after it was written , then what , you go back to the oral , question what was written, do things , believe things that are not written ? Indeed there was some trial and much error, and by the time of Jesus, He had to correct much with…what was written.

David,but here is where the whole Bible-only belief is false. No where does Scripture teach once God’s Words were to be written oral traditions were to cease or not be put into use. If written scripture were of the utmost importance and priority,then I find it rather odd Jesus Himself was not writing His own words or telling the 12 to write everything down he said?

Quote:
I beg your pardon? What oral tradition says? David,apparently you never learned as a Catholic what Tradition exactly means?

David:
Yes, perhaps I am not being techically correct .Sorry

Tradition has always been part of the living church,not something that was kicked to the curb as many Protestants have done.

 

[david_ruiz]

If written scripture were of the utmost importance and priority,then I find it rather odd Jesus Himself was not writing His own words or telling the 12 to write everything down he said?

,He did tell them what to write

Tradition has always been part of the living church,not something that was kicked to the curb as many Protestants have done

.It must not be finished , God’s moving, communicating “outside” His word. His written word can not be"finito’, for how else could one add things necessary to believe in,whether dogma or doctrine . Is this thew Catholic understanding ? It is almost like the “new testament” isn’t finished yet. Faith matters , and things we are bound to believe, can still be “expanded”. At least there is a mode of operendum for it…Why did early church father Barnabus say to stick to things that are “written” ? Didn’t he know to respect tradition in the first century ?..What are protestants not doing that the apostles and those around them (lay people) do? I do not know of one thing that I kicked to the curb , except maybe the high level of faith and commitment and fervor they had.

 

[david_ruiz]

If written scripture were of the utmost importance and priority,then I find it rather odd Jesus Himself was not writing His own words or telling the 12 to write everything down he said?

 

[mackbrislawn]

Nicea325;9374717:

Show me where something is better than what God has said , done , or written ? Is the church better than what was written ? Is tradition better than what was written ? We know exactly what Peter spoke and did , when it is written. From there the validity of any claims to what he said and did is debatable. That is the nature of things.

No, I don’t think we know exactly what Peter spoke and did just becaue it is written, unless we trust the writer. And why should we trust the writer? He was merely writing down tradition. We trust the writer because we trust the church that gave us the writings.
If we don’t trust the church, then there is no longer any reason to trust its writings either.

Is the church better than what was written? Let’s put it this way–the church produced the writings, so how can what is produced be better than the producer? We believe the church, guided by the Holy Spirit, wrote scripture, and further decided which writings were truly inspired by the Holy Spirit and which weren’t.

So if we reject the church, we also logically should reject scripture as well. Why is it any easier to believe only scripture is from the Holy Spirit, but not the church that gave us scriptrue?

 

[ForeverGrace]

I haven’t read all the replies. But I have noticed that the topic has spawned other ideas which is fairly normal for forums.

First. King James Onlyism is just completely and utterly crazy. There is nothing wrong with the King James Bible. It’s a majestic translation that was put together by people who loved God.

Second. Let’s talk about how the Textus Receptus came to be the foundation for this particular translation. The TR was first put together by Desiderious Erasmus. Erasmus was a Catholic priest who had some of his own issues with the church, but remained a faithful catholic and had a very high view of Mary. He gathered up manuscripts that are commonly called the Byzantine manuscripts. If I remember correctly, Erasmus compiled five editions. After that, Theodore Beza edited the manuscripts. Theodore Beza succeeded John Calvin in Geneva and he was a staunch Calvinist (a fact that KJV Onlyists hate), it was then edited by Stephanus. Stephanus was a Calvinist as well, but his editing was more about style, grammar, etc., than foundation. These editions are the foundation of many Bibles to include the Geneva, Bishops, etc.

Third. The KJV came about because of many things, and most of them were political. Some of the Bibles in use had numerous footnotes that encouraged people to give their allegiance to the living Savior, not the King. At the time the Church of England was in the majority, but it was a difficult time for the church.

Fourth. A puritan (staunch calvinist) by the name of John Rainolds suggested a new Bible to King James (another fact that KJV onlyists hate).

Fifth. The translators of the KJV all held to some Calvinists teachings that included paedobaptism, predestination, etc. You will find it helpful to read the 39 articles of the Church of England and then compare them to the basic doctrines of Calvinism. I can assure you that most KJVOnlyists, detest Calvinism. Most are independent Baptists.

Sixth. You can obtain a copy of the TR, but it wasn’t the TR that the KJV translators used. It is Scriveners edition and he put it together from the KJV, not the documents that formed the KJV. So, it’s deceptive to say that these versions of the TR are what the KJV translators used. They didn’t.

Seventh. The KJV translators also used other Bibles that were in use at the time, to include the Geneva, Bishops, etc.

Eighth. KJV Onlyism has perpetuated many ideas that are just simply not true. They have villified the oldest manuscripts available by associating them with Gnostics, Origin and completely forget that Athanasius came from the same area of the world. Yes, these manuscripts known as the Alexandrian manuscripts do have some differences, but the truth is it’s less than 2% and there is not one single change of doctrine in them from the Byzantine manuscrips. None, zero, nada.

KJV Onlyism has made a big deal about certain words being missing, but if you look closely at context and the manuscripts it’s quite easy to see that these are specious accusations. Next they’ll say that certain entire parts of the scripture are missing and condemn everyone who uses another Bible to hell. They’ll quote Revelation regarding adding or subtracting from the scriptures. First of all, that is speaking of the book of Revelation itself, not the whole Bible, and second, the KJV’s forget that Erasmus used the Vulgate to finish the last 16 verses of Revelation because he could find no other manuscript for it. So I might suggest that you ask them if maybe the KJV translators added something instead of other versions subtracting.

The one thing you should ask yourself is this: **Why do KJV Onlyists hate Catholics so much? ** They’ll go on and on about Vaticanus, Siniaticus, the Septuagint and call down hell-fire on them, but they don’t have a problem with Desiderious Erasmus using the Vulgate to finish the book of Revelation. Completely inconsistent in their thinking.

If you have any particular questions regarding KJV Onlyism, I’m happy to answer. I’ve been studying this nonsense since the mid 1970’s

God Bless.

 

[Nicea325]

He did? Show me where Jesus’ tells the 12 write everything down,right there and now? So simply because ECF Barnabus says to stick the things written proves Tradition had no role? Pure conjecture.

 

[Nicea325]

I haven’t read all the replies. But I have noticed that the topic has spawned other ideas which is fairly normal for forums.

First. King James Onlyism is just completely and utterly crazy. There is nothing wrong with the King James Bible. It’s a majestic translation that was put together by people who loved God.

Second. Let’s talk about how the Textus Receptus came to be the foundation for this particular translation. The TR was first put together by Desiderious Erasmus. Erasmus was a Catholic priest who had some of his own issues with the church, but remained a faithful catholic and had a very high view of Mary. He gathered up manuscripts that are commonly called the Byzantine manuscripts. If I remember correctly, Erasmus compiled five editions. After that, Theodore Beza edited the manuscripts. Theodore Beza succeeded John Calvin in Geneva and he was a staunch Calvinist (a fact that KJV Onlyists hate), it was then edited by Stephanus. Stephanus was a Calvinist as well, but his editing was more about style, grammar, etc., than foundation. These editions are the foundation of many Bibles to include the Geneva, Bishops, etc.

Third. The KJV came about because of many things, and most of them were political. Some of the Bibles in use had numerous footnotes that encouraged people to give their allegiance to the living Savior, not the King. At the time the Church of England was in the majority, but it was a difficult time for the church.

Fourth. A puritan (staunch calvinist) by the name of John Rainolds suggested a new Bible to King James (another fact that KJV onlyists hate).

Fifth. The translators of the KJV all held to some Calvinists teachings that included paedobaptism, predestination, etc. You will find it helpful to read the 39 articles of the Church of England and then compare them to the basic doctrines of Calvinism. I can assure you that most KJVOnlyists, detest Calvinism. Most are independent Baptists.

Sixth. You can obtain a copy of the TR, but it wasn’t the TR that the KJV translators used. It is Scriveners edition and he put it together from the KJV, not the documents that formed the KJV. So, it’s deceptive to say that these versions of the TR are what the KJV translators used. They didn’t.

Seventh. The KJV translators also used other Bibles that were in use at the time, to include the Geneva, Bishops, etc.

Eighth. KJV Onlyism has perpetuated many ideas that are just simply not true. They have villified the oldest manuscripts available by associating them with Gnostics, Origin and completely forget that Athanasius came from the same area of the world. Yes, these manuscripts known as the Alexandrian manuscripts do have some differences, but the truth is it’s less than 2% and there is not one single change of doctrine in them from the Byzantine manuscrips. None, zero, nada.

KJV Onlyism has made a big deal about certain words being missing, but if you look closely at context and the manuscripts it’s quite easy to see that these are specious accusations. Next they’ll say that certain entire parts of the scripture are missing and condemn everyone who uses another Bible to hell. They’ll quote Revelation regarding adding or subtracting from the scriptures. First of all, that is speaking of the book of Revelation itself, not the whole Bible, and second, the KJV’s forget that Erasmus used the Vulgate to finish the last 16 verses of Revelation because he could find no other manuscript for it. So I might suggest that you ask them if maybe the KJV translators added something instead of other versions subtracting.

The one thing you should ask yourself is this: **Why do KJV Onlyists hate Catholics so much? ** They’ll go on and on about Vaticanus, Siniaticus, the Septuagint and call down hell-fire on them, but they don’t have a problem with Desiderious Erasmus using the Vulgate to finish the book of Revelation. Completely inconsistent in their thinking.

If you have any particular questions regarding KJV Onlyism, I’m happy to answer. I’ve been studying this nonsense since the mid 1970’s

God Bless.

I have a q? Is KJV onlyism more widely accepted in evangelicals or fundamentalist?

 

[ForeverGrace]

I have a q? Is KJV onlyism more widely accepted in evangelicals or fundamentalist?

That would depend on your definition of evangelical and/or fundamentalist.

In general, this entire nonsense got started with the Seventh Day Adventists. Most protestants consider them to be cultic, but I’m not willing to go that far. From there it spiraled out of control with the likes of Gail Riplinger, Peter Ruckman, Sam Gipp.

A fundamentalist no longer describes people who believe in the essentials of the Christian faith as it has been historically been described by Protestants. Fact is, I’ve seen both Protestants and Catholics use the word as an insult.

You will most commonly find this type of belief in many (not all) of the Independent Baptist churches. They are extreme and and well, just plain hard-headed. It won’t matter how much proof is given, they’ll dig in their heels after sticking their heads in the sand.

Here is an example. This person (who calls himself a Pastor) is a KJV Onlyist to the max . He has a YT video where he actually burns other Bibles. Despite the fact that without Calvinism, he’d not have the Anglican KJV, he does this:

youtube.com/watch?v=1E-YZ_IIbMY

 

[david_ruiz]

He was merely writing down tradition.

 

[david_ruiz]

He did? Show me where Jesus’ tells the 12 write everything down,right there and now? So simply because ECF Barnabus says to stick the things written proves Tradition had no role? Pure conjecture.

Sorry .not technical again . Of course the twelve did not all write, and we aren’t sure which is the twelfth, after Judas( I say Paul). Would you not say, God, the Holy Spirit ,and in Paul’s case, maybe even Jesus inspired, moved, dictated told, led, etc., Matthew, Mark Luke and John and Paul and Peter and James and Jude to “write” ?.. Tradition has a role as long as it is written.