Featured Is this guaranteed true claim really true?

According to the KJV, 2 Timothy 3:16 concerns the giving of the Scriptures, and they were given to the prophets and apostles.

The Scriptures are the specific revealed, written words of God given by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles. According to the Scriptures, God revealed His Word to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 2:10-13, Rom. 16:25-26, Heb. 1:1-2, Acts 1:2, Eph. 2:20, Acts 3:21, John 16:13, John 17:8, 14, John 3:34, 2 Sam. 23:2, Luke 24:25, 27, 44). The word of the LORD came to the prophets and apostles (1 Sam. 15:10, 2 Kings 20:4, Isa. 38:4, Jer. 1:4, Jer. 29:30, Ezek. 6:1, Dan. 9:2, Jonah 1:1, Zech. 7:8, Acts 3:21). A true prophet spoke from the mouth of the LORD (2 Chron. 36:12, Luke 1:70, Jer. 1:9, Acts 3:21, 2 Sam. 23:2, Deut. 18:22). The actual specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God or that God breathed out are those original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Matt. 4:4, Deut. 8:3, Luke 4:4, Isa. 55:11). God’s Word is “the Scriptures of the prophets” (Rom. 16:26, Matt. 26:56). God gave His words or spoke by the mouth of the prophets (Luke 1:70, Jer. 1:9, Acts 1:16, Acts 3:21, Ps. 68:11, 2 Chron. 36:12). All Scripture was given by inspiration of God to those prophets and apostles (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, Jude 1:3). While 2 Timothy 3:16 may not directly mention the prophets and apostles, the parallel verse concerning inspiration (2 Pet. 1:21) clearly connected the miracle of inspiration to them when considered with other related verses in the whole of Scripture. Comparing scripture with scripture, the holy men of God moved or borne along by the Holy Spirit in the miracle of inspiration were clearly the prophets and apostles (2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 16:26, Luke 1:70, Matt. 26:56).

The exact same words that the psalmist wrote in Psalm 95 the Holy Spirit spoke or said (compare Ps. 95:7 with Hebrews 3:7). What Moses said to Pharaoh as the LORD told him (Exod. 9:13), the Scripture said (Rom. 9:17, Exod. 9:16).

The whole counsel of God or the overall teaching of the Scriptures would indicate that there can be no new inspired works without living apostles or prophets (2 Peter 1:21, Eph. 3:3-5, Heb. 1:1-2, Luke 1:70, 24:27, 44-45, Acts 1:16, 3:21, 26:27, Matt. 2:5, Rom. 1:2, Rom. 16:25-26, Jer. 29:19, 2 Chron. 36:12, Dan. 9:10, Amos 3:7).

2 Timothy 3:16 is not about the translating of the Scriptures. You have presented no Scriptures that suggest that the process of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration to the prophets and apostles continued after the completion of the New Testament.

 

I did not say that. You did not answer nor address the actual scripturally-based points that I made. You did not demonstrate anything unscriptural in my scripturally-based observations. You merely divert away from the scriptural truths that are presented to you.

God gave His entire word to the prophets and apostles, and it was finished with the completion of the New Testament.

Men have not followed and obeyed God's instructions and commands perfectly so that many variations and differences have been introduced into the preserved original-language manuscript copies of Scripture, including in the manuscript copies on which the varying Textus Receptus editions were based. In order to obey scriptural truth, believers need to apply God's instructions soundly and justly to deal with the fact of those variations, applying the same measures/standards justly.

 

You cite verses without demonstrating how you interpret them and whether you would apply them consistently and justly.
You provide no positive explanation or discussion that in any way would suggest that those verses support modern KJV-only reasoning/teaching.

Perhaps you could misunderstand, misinterpret, or misapply the verses.

 

When interpreted soundly in the light of the whole counsel of God, 2 Timothy 3:16 concerning the giving of the Scriptures would support my scripturally-based point. Did you fail to read my post [#28 on this page 2 of this thread] that cited several verses of Scripture for my point? In this post, it seems that you had to try to change the translation of the verse to try to take away my sound point.

According to the KJV, 2 Timothy 3:16 concerns the giving of the Scriptures, and they were given to the prophets and apostles.

The Scriptures are the specific revealed, written words of God given by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles. According to the Scriptures, God revealed His Word to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 2:10-13, Rom. 16:25-26, Heb. 1:1-2, Acts 1:2, Eph. 2:20, Acts 3:21, John 16:13, John 17:8, 14, John 3:34, 2 Sam. 23:2, Luke 24:25, 27, 44). The word of the LORD came to the prophets and apostles (1 Sam. 15:10, 2 Kings 20:4, Isa. 38:4, Jer. 1:4, Jer. 29:30, Ezek. 6:1, Dan. 9:2, Jonah 1:1, Zech. 7:8, Acts 3:21). A true prophet spoke from the mouth of the LORD (2 Chron. 36:12, Luke 1:70, Jer. 1:9, Acts 3:21, 2 Sam. 23:2, Deut. 18:22). The actual specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God or that God breathed out are those original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Matt. 4:4, Deut. 8:3, Luke 4:4, Isa. 55:11). God’s Word is “the Scriptures of the prophets” (Rom. 16:26, Matt. 26:56). God gave His words or spoke by the mouth of the prophets (Luke 1:70, Jer. 1:9, Acts 1:16, Acts 3:21, Ps. 68:11, 2 Chron. 36:12). All Scripture was given by inspiration of God to those prophets and apostles (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, Jude 1:3). While 2 Timothy 3:16 may not directly mention the prophets and apostles, the parallel verse concerning inspiration (2 Pet. 1:21) clearly connected the miracle of inspiration to them when considered with other related verses in the whole of Scripture. Comparing scripture with scripture, the holy men of God moved or borne along by the Holy Spirit in the miracle of inspiration were clearly the prophets and apostles (2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 16:26, Luke 1:70, Matt. 26:56).

 

Do you interpret Matthew 4:4 correctly?

When Deuteronomy 8:3 was given by inspiration to Moses, every word of all Scripture had not yet been given. It should be obvious that God was not commanding that people live by words that had not yet been revealed and given by inspiration. According to this new KJV-only interpretation, was God demanding that people in the time of Moses have an absolutely perfect memory to remember every word from God that Moses spoke or every word of the law read to them by the priests? Was there any command or instruction for every Hebrew man to make complete handwritten copies of the law of Moses? When the Lord Jesus Christ quoted from Deuteronomy 8:3, every word of the New Testament had not yet been given by inspiration. Could it at least be agreed that this command or instruction from God was saying that people should live by every word that they did have and not that they needed to live by words that had not yet been given?

Every word from Deuteronomy 8:3 quoted by the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 4:4 is not found in the quotation in Luke 4:4. Six individual words [“that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”] spoken by Jesus as found in Matthew 4:4 are not preserved and presented in Luke 4:4. Is this fact a hint or indication that the new KJV-only interpretation of Matthew 4:4 could be incorrect? According to the KJV-only interpretation, could early readers of the gospel of Luke who did not have a copy of the gospel of Matthew live by every word of God since Luke does not have six words quoted and stated by Jesus? Would a just application of KJV-only reasoning concerning Matthew 4:4 suggest that the Holy Spirit was wrong to move Luke to omit six of the words stated by Jesus? Would a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning in effect suggest that Luke 4:4 casts doubt on part of what is stated in Matthew 4:4? According to KJV-only reasoning, was it OK to omit or delete words in Luke 4:4 as long as they are somewhere else? Would a consistent, just application of KJV-only claims and assertions concerning Matthew 4:4 in effect condemn Luke 4:4 for not including and preserving every word that Jesus stated? Does Luke 4:4 clearly demonstrate or prove that the new KJV-only interpretation of “every word” at Matthew 4:4 could be faulty or wrong? Do KJV-only advocates in effect have to set aside other texts of Scripture in order to try to press a few favorite texts to an extreme or to try to misinterpret them in order to justify their human KJV-only reasoning?

What are the possibilities of the meaning or intepretation of “every word”? It could be noted that the same Greek word translated “word” at Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4 is also translated by the KJV translators themselves as “saying” six times (Mark 9:32, Luke 2:17, Luke 2:50, Luke 9:45 [twice], Luke 18:34). Does that fact indicate that “every saying” would have been considered by the KJV translators to be an acceptable alternative rendering for “every word”? Would “every word” (Matt. 4:4) possibly be parallel in meaning to “every precept” (Heb. 9:19)? Would “every word of God” (Luke 4:4) be in harmony and in agreement with “all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord” (Luke 1:6)? Would Luke 1:6 indicate that Zacharias and Elisabeth could be considered examples of two who lived by every word of God? If every word could mean every saying, every command, every ordinance, every precept, or every instruction of God, then perhaps KJV-only advocates may have jumped to a wrong conclusion in their new claim concerning Matthew 4:4. At Luke 4:4, the 1560 Geneva Bible has the following marginal note for “word”: “That is, by the ordinance, and providence of God.” Is that firsthand evidence that believers in that day had a different understanding of “every word” than post-1900 KJV-only advocates present? Did any of the early English Bible translators including the KJV translators suggest that Matthew 4:4 taught or required that they had to make a perfect every-word translation? Can any commentaries or writings by believers be cited from the 1500’s, 1600’s, or 1700’s that state that they understood Matthew 4:4 to teach what a few KJV-only authors recently assert? If this new KJV-only interpretation of Matthew 4:4 was true, would it not have been necessary for English-speaking people to have been provided with a perfect every-word English translation many years before 1611?

KJV-only advocates would likely assert that “word” is the better or correct rendering at Matthew 4:4. However, they seem to ignore or avoid the fact that this rendering “word” [singular in number] in the KJV can actually refer to a saying or statement made up of several words. Clear evidence from the KJV itself would demonstrate this observation to be true. For example, “the word” at Matthew 26:75 and Mark 14:72 refers to an entire statement made by Jesus as recorded in Matthew 26:34 and Mark 14:30. At John 2:22, the word [singular] referred to an entire statement by Jesus as stated in John 2:19. Does “the word of faith” in Romans 10:8 refer to one single individual word so that the apostles preached a message comprised of only one word? Were the believers preaching the word (Acts 8:4), preaching a message comprised of only one word? Does the “word [singular] that I have spoken” (John 12:49) refer to one single word? When Mary said “be it unto me according to thy word” [singular] (Luke 1:38), it did not refer to one single word. The nobleman believed “the word” [singular], and it clearly referred not to a single word but to an entire statement made by Jesus [“Go thy way, thy son liveth” (John 4:50)]. Does “word” in John 17:20 refer to a single word? In an Old Testament example, the rendering “word” [singular] in Numbers 3:16 is used for instructions made up of over twenty words (Numbers 3:14-15). In another Old Testament example, “word” [singular] in Exodus 8:31 refers to sayings or statements made by Moses that consisted of several words (Exod. 8:29). These examples from the KJV itself should soundly demonstrate this point that “word” [singular] can refer to a saying, a command, precept, or an instruction made up of several words instead of having always to refer solely to one single word. Do these examples from the KJV indicate that the new KJV-only interpretation of Matthew 4:4 could be mistaken?

Can KJV-only advocates demonstrate from the Scriptures that early believers in the book of Acts had the same understanding and interpretation of the words of Jesus presented in Matthew 4:4 as they present or suggest in their writings? Did the early believers who “were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria” (Acts 8:1) “preaching the word” (Acts 8:4) have every-word perfect and complete copies of the entire Old Testament that they took with them? When people in Samaria “had received the word of God” (Acts 8:14), does it really mean that each one of them had to have in their hands an every-word perfect and complete copy of the entire Old Testament and of an every-word perfect and complete copy of any New Testament books that had been already written? Is that not what typical KJV-only reasoning seems to require according to their new interpretation of Matthew 4:4? If any people in Samaria had a copy or scroll, it would have likely been one of the imperfect Samaritan Pentateuch instead of a perfect and complete Hebrew Masoretic text. Perhaps KJV-only authors have not thought through how a just application of their claims concerning Matthew 4:4 may affect other scripture passages.

Glenn Conjurske observed: “The notion that any blemish or omission in the Bible makes it therefore not the word of God is simply foolishness. Yet this [KJV-only] movement thrives upon such foolishness. It exists in the realm of a false and artificial absolutism, created by heated emotions which have put thought and reason to flight” (Old Paths, Dec., 1997, pp. 279-280). Glenn Conjurske asserted: “The King James Only movement is based upon emotion divorced from reason—true and excellent emotion I freely grant, but in hopeless defiance of facts and reason” (p. 273). Would it not be foolishness to suggest that Luke 4:4 would not be the word of God because it omits six words found at Matthew 4:4? Would it not be foolishness to suggest that the 1611 edition of the KJV is not the word of God translated into English because it omits some words that are found in post-1900 editions and because it had some errors?