Featured KJVO question

It may be a result or by-product of their human KJV-only reasoning or exclusive only claims for the KJV.

Some KJV-only advocates often do not even refer to the KJV as a version or as a translation as they may use only the name King James Bible for it, and they may suggest that only the KJV should be called the Bible.

KJV-only author Troy Clark asserted: “I will never call inspired Scripture a ‘version’” (Perfect Bible, p. 30). After referring to the King James Bible, Jim Ellis declared: “I don’t call it the King James Version” (Only Two Bibles, p. 17). D. A. Waite asserted: “I call the King James Bible the Bible” (Foes of the KJB, p. 44), but he also admitted: “The King James Bible is a translation” (p. 46). In a personal word in William Grady’s book Final Authority, Jack Hyles maintained that “the King James is not A version, but THE Bible” (p. iii).

D. A. Waite claimed: “The New King James Version is not a Bible, but a version” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 19), showing KJV-only inconsistency.

 

Yet another whipping of a dead horse thread, going over the same ground. Like Calvinists, the KJVO crowd does not care about truth, they are in the my view, right or wrong, camp.

 

They invented the idea, maybe after reading the jive of Ruckmen, Riplinger, etc.

They certainly didn't TRUTHFULLY get it from the KJV itself, as the KJVO myth is not found in the KJV whatsoever.

 

It's a good and just question, but let me ask you this:
How do you prove, along the same lines of evidence that you require of the KJVO position, that our 66-book canon is right?

 

Interesting question. The KJV as a translation only goes to 1611. Our 66 Book Bible it's tradition to the first century at best.

 

So your answer is: "length of tradition".
But the Christian canon issue was settled by about 350AD, only 250 years after the last book was written, give or take.
We are now 400 years past 1611.
So the length of KJB tradition is longer now than it was circa 350AD when the canon was settled.

My point being this: we all live by faith (or lack thereof) at the end of the day, KJVOs and non-KJVOs alike.

 

So your answer is also: "length of tradition".
How interesting...

Also, you know well that the 14 books were standard is most Bibles of the day and that they were set apart within the volume and identified as non-canon. Why not mention that?

 

You began your post in line with @37818 with the word "and"

so that's why I thought you agreed with him.

That's precisely my point of contention. You did not qualify that misleading statement.
You can still buy today KJB (and others) with the Apocrypha therein. So what?

 

Then it would not be the word of God.
The New Testament books were accepted as Scripture when they were received by the first century receiptant church or churches and copies were made and given to other first century churches. Scripture was Holy Scripture when it was written. Not when those irregular 4th century churches wanted them as Scripture.

 

True, as the entire 66 inspired canonized books were all completed by end of first century, being copied and circulated around, and were already even then see as the scriptures from God

 

ok, I misunderstood you. I thought you were claiming that is something you believe was true.. I agree with you here.

Thank you and I ask forgiveness

 

Brother I was not offended.

 

KJV-only advocates put blind faith in assertions and claims that are not true, thus deceiving themselves.
They assume some of their claims through use of fallacies such as begging the question. The Scriptures warn believers about being deceived.

 

Thank you for bringing your irrelevant anti-Calvinist comments to yet another thread, I can't wait to see what unrelated thread you shoe-horn them into next.

 

Yet another off topic effort to belittle others by the use of fallacious argumentation. And addressing those that read between the lines to pour their presuppositions into the text is the topic of this thread.