Featured Please Show Scripture That Says...

You failed to provide any documented evidence for your claim. Can you provide evidence that King James himself provided "his cash" for the making of the KJV? King James was known to be short of funds so that he keep asking for more money from Parliament. According to what I have read, the only money used in the making of the KJV was the money that the king had the royal printer pay for the rights to print it.

King James I did approve the rules for the making of the KJV, and some of those rules indicate bias for Church of England doctrines. King James I as head of the Church of England had Archbishop Richard Bancroft oversee the making of the KJV.

 

What are the characteristics of wisdom from the Lord?

James 3:17
But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

The wisdom from God above is without partiality and without hypocrisy while human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning shows partiality to one exclusive group of imperfect Church of England critics in 1611. Is human KJV-only reasoning peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated?

 

That is your incorrect opinion.

The guiding of the Holy Spirit of truth is available for all believers, not just for one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.

Can you demonstrate that the Church of England makers of the KJV were guided by the Holy Spirit of truth in all of their Church of England doctrinal views including baptismal regeneration and in their persecuting of professed believers for their beliefs?

 

You are applying the wisdom & the prejudices of man towards the KJV rather than by scripture.

To prove that scripture is not going against scripture in all Bibles, you have to discern with Him to which Bible is keeping the meat as in the truth in His words that does not sow doubts to the truth in His words elsewhere. You may find as I did that the elimination rounds in keeping the truth with other scripture leaves me with the KJV.

Who is the Giver of Life? Jesus or the few verses that capitalized spirit when KJV & a few modern versions do not but yet all Bibles testify to Jesus being the Giver of Life? Which Bible is correct? John 5:39-40 has Jesus testifying of Him in the O.T. Stands to reason the N.T. is supposed to as well so readers come to him for life as He is the bread of life that gives life to the world John 6:30-35

Next elimination round goes to how the Holy Spirit speak & NOT speak in John 16:13 that all Bibles testify of BUT the KJV & a few modern Bibles has kept the truth of His words in John 16:13 in Romans 8:26 in that not even His groanings can be uttered..

Next elimination round is 1 Corinthians 1:18 where we are saved as opposing the false teaching out there that we are in the process of being saved. Sowing doubts to His words about them as saved make believers play it safe by working to obtain their salvation.

I find out of all that that the Lord confirms His words as kept by those who loved Him & His words in the KJV and so only He can do that for you. So ask the Lord for wisdom because prejudices is blinding you to the meat & the truth as kept in the KJV.

 

Perhaps it is your own prejudices and showing of partiality which is blinding you to the wisdom from God.

I have asked the Lord for wisdom and He has given it. It is in agreement with the wisdom from God above that I choose to reject the showing of partiality and the use of unjust divers measures evident in human KJV-only reasoning.

 

Perhaps you are the one who is doing that.

You do not demonstrate that you are applying the wisdom of God to your showing of partiality to the KJV.

 

You seem a bit frustrated here, SGO.
I sympathize.

From my point of view, not only are there so many professing Christians today who don't even seem to know what sound doctrine is,
they don't even appear to know that there are differences ( some of them markedly so ) between English translations currently in print and on the market today.

That's not even taking into account the increasing number of non-English translations that differ among themselves.
Throw in the disparity between ones that make use of the "Received Text" and the ones that are based on the "Critical Text", and it gets even more confusing.

 

PLENTY. Check out the reference in my signature which all mention scripture in reference to what could not possibly be an original autograph.

 

V.16 harks back to v.15, the scriptures which Timothy, an uncircumcised half-breed Greek from Asia, had known since his youth - evidently not any original autograph!

 

Please show that they are inspired.....

 

Concerning 2 Timothy 3:15, KJV defender Thomas Strouse observed: “The words ’holy scriptures’ translate hiera grammata, literally ’sacred’ or ’temple writings’” (The Lord God, p. 42). Concerning 2 Timothy 3:16, Thomas Strouse noted: “But the word ’scripture’ translates graphe, which means ’scripture’ and refers to the autographa.” Strouse added: “Paul obviously used a different word to differentiate between the apographa [copies] and the autographa [original autographs], especially with regard to the scope of inspiration” (Ibid.). Thomas Strouse asserted: “Grapha always refers to the autographical scripture whereas gramma sometimes refers to non-canonical literature. This distinction between these words might help one to recognize that Paul probably referred to the temple writings or scriptures (apographa) in v. 15 and the autographa in v. 16” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep, p. 239). The Greek word translated “scriptures” at 2 Timothy 3:15 is the same Greek word translated “bill” at Luke 16:6, 7, which is the example that Thomas Strouse cited as where the term referred to non-canonical literature.

 

None of the scripture references to which you appeal state or teach that a Bible translation (made after the end of the giving of Scripture by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles with the completion of the New Testament) is given by inspiration of God.

Those verses provide no support for a modern, non-scriptural KJV-only theory.

 

Yep, definitely #2 in the signature.

 

Yet again, I didn't claim what you said I'm claiming. Those scriptures refer to non-original autographs as scripture and all scripture is given by inspiration of God - thus including copies and translations as referenced in the Bible's texts.

 

# 2 in the signature. The refs speak of scripture in reference to non-original autographs, and all scripture is given by inspiration of God.

 

So what? Those verses provide no support for your opinions concerning the KJV or other post-NT Bible translations. You seem to jump to incorrect conclusions based on your misuse of those references. You continue to fail to prove your biased opinions concerning the KJV to be true and scriptural.

The claimed translating assumed in those references was part of the original giving of the Scriptures by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.