Featured Where are the Orginials?

Yes, since KJVO do that to the Kjv, just think if we had the actual ones given directly by God to us!

 

No, they do not ( at least I've never heard of anyone who actually worships the KJV as a god ).

In addition,
Coming from you, that charge surprises me, Dave...
Considering all of the things that have been said about that subject ( and all of the threads in which you've participated in ), having had those things carefully explained to you.

It seems that what you keep getting out of the entire thing is, "Those people worship the KJV"....
Instead of what is really being said:
"There are many people today who are seriously concerned about the textual differences that underlie the KJV and many of today's more modern translations".

That said,

I don't even know of any pagan religion that truly worships a leather-bound book...
Do you?

But I do know of plenty of people who worship the God who wrote the words of the Bible,
and still more that are convinced that God actually had a hand in certain translation(s) of it.

Yes, just think...
If we actually had the originals, we wouldn't need to have faith that God promises to preserve His words for His people.

Plus, we wouldn't have people continually stating that God's inspired words were lost with the originals.

 

Somehow, given what we as men have done with things like carving out idols from trees ( Isaiah 44:9-20 ), making ornate statues (Isaiah 46:5-7, Jeremiah 10:3-5 ), and even bowing to things like "Montrances" and "venerating the statues of saints",
I have a feeling that people would indeed worship them as "holy relics" of some sort.

I mean, the Shroud of Turin gets its fair share of speculation and even ( I suppose ) "worship",
as does the statue of Our Lady of Fatima, the place of Our Lady of Guadalupe and several other "Christian holy sites"...
Most of which are in Jerusalem.

Ever seen a 1950's film titled, "The Robe"?
I'm almost sure that you have.

I think that there's a lesson to be had from that one's plot all by itself.

Well, we already have a very large Institution that does that,
and has, on several occasions throughout history, gone so far as to say that outside of it,
no one is saved.

Personally I think that they're confusing the religious system that they've created,
with the people that God has graciously saved for Himself.

"The church" that Christ loved, and gave Himself for ( Ephesians 5:25 ).

No,
and I think it's best that they have been lost.

After all, we as believers walk by faith, and not by sight.

 

I believe he has kept that promise.

I do not know why; perhaps it could relate to your next questions. As I said, I believe he has kept that promise -- without preserving the physical media on which the original inspired writing was conveyed.

God doesn't just think something might happen. He knows what will happen. However, I am not sure what he knew about this, since I don't think the Bible specifically addresses it. The story of the brasen serpent, though, indicates just what can happen when a beneficial physical object has outlived its purpose (Numbers 21:8-9; 2 Kings 18:4).

Some in Rome and Constantinople sort of did so anyway, so I can imagine it would be even worse if they had them. (Them being a corrupt majority, it seems to me likely that they would have had them.)

Since God did not see fit to preserve them, that tells me he knew we would not be better off (Romans 8:28).

 

KJV-only author G. John Rov claimed: "We can say, in some unexplainable way to us, that the Bible is a book that turned into a person and that Jesus is a person who turned into a book" (Concealed from Christians for the Glory of God, p. 13).

G. John Rov claimed: "as we mature, despite concealment, we see the actual Jesus and the actual Bible in the 1611 King James Version" (p. 47).

 

Unless a document is it's original, a document is a copy. There exist no copies which have no originals from which a said copy came.

 

Certainly the originals exist in our hand written copies of the New Testament in Greek. Some have errors say in a certain section, but there are plenty more that will not have those errors in those sections but will follow the originals exactly. While no one single copy is exactly perfect by itself, the shear numbers of excellent copies will guarantee the original reading survives distributed among the copies. God seems to have built in a safe guard guaranteeing the originals survive distributed among the great number of copies in the Original Greek.

 

I'm having trouble finding a reply to the OP in that post, Logos.
Granted, @Yeshua1 made a comment that I believe shows a bit of misunderstanding on the subject, and I replied with what I see as clarification ( at least from my own point of view ) in the hope that he will take a hard look at what some are saying behind most of the rhetoric that is out there;

But @Salty is asking about the original autographs, not "KJV-O".

If you like, one of us can start a thread detailing the differences between the types of "KJV-O's" / "TR-O's" and their beliefs...
Perhaps even throw in the differing types of "MV-O's" / "CT-O's" / "MT-O's" and what they each have to say on the subject as well.

But shouldn't we at least answer Salty and give him our opinions about what he has asked?

As far as I can tell, he has not asked about what so-called "KJV-O's" believe about their preferred translation,
nor has he asked about their preferred Greek texts or other beliefs.
However, I thank you for pointing out what some "KJV-O" authors have said,
as I find those things to be very informative...

Even though I tend not to agree with a fair number of them and their views ( especially nowadays ),
nor with the way that a few of them sometimes portray other professing Christians as being somehow inferior to those who disagree with them.

 

Not saying that you do, but there are some who do indeed seem to place the Kjv on an exalted pane, as some have stated that the Word John spoke about in prologue was the Kjv itself!

 

And yet some of them will indeed "die" for the sake of the Kjv!
See # 7, that shows they do deify in a sense the Kjv!

 

There is enough of the original texts in the CT/MT/TR to see therm ALL has being the word of the lord unto us for today!

 

I'm sure they are just lost in an attic in Jerusalem somewhere.
Those sorts of things eventually turn up when you least expect it.

On a serious note, it would not change more than a few dot's and tittles on Greek copies. We would have the exact same arguments about how to correctly exegete and translate it.

 

If you are married and/or have children, would you be willing to die for their sake? Would that mean you deify them? You "logic" does not hold up.

 

You do not see making Jesus and the KJV equivalents as being act of making the KJV idol?

 

E.g. Tyndale died for the sake of his translating prior to the AV. (Many martyrs throughout history.)
If one is only willing to die for the sake of the originals only, then I suppose it’d be difficult to retain the faith to endure today since we don’t have them.
Anyway, I’d hope you as well as all Christians would have that faith to endure to the “end” should something like that ever come our way.

@Salty I think it’s probably a good thing that we just have copies. I picture the originals on a display if we had them where people are worshipping the object rather than studying the words of them. (Not to suggest all would, of course, but as the Pharisees had done in Jesus’s day).

 

That has nothing to do with what I said. I said being willing to die for something or someone does not mean one thinks that object or person for which one is willing to die is an idol. Paul said "...for a good man some would even dare to die," with no thought of that being idolatrous.

I believe the charge of idolatry for loving and treasuring the Bible -- any Bible, whether KJV or otherwise -- is a red herring that does not to provide light on the subject and should be banished from our thoughts. I do not know anyone that I think worships the Bible, have never known such a person, and I do not accept any so-called arguments that I have seen so far. (That does not mean there can be no such persons, but my experience makes me doubt the validity of the charge.) Be advised that you yourself would be considered a Bible idolater in the eyes of some people. In 1959, L. Nelson Bell (Billy Graham's father-in-law) wrote an article that appeared in Christianity Today. He said he had been chided by a reader who said he worshipped the Bible. Many people cannot abide any confidence that others place in a Bible.

L. Nelson Bell was not KJVO.

And I notice you avoided answering my question.