Featured Four reasonable questions concerning KJVO

You do not know English Bible history? The King James Version is founded upon the Bishops Bible, Rheims New Testament, Geneva Bible, Great Bible, Matthews Bible, Coverdale's Bible, William Tyndale's original and revised Translations.

“I had perceived by experience, how that it was impossible to stablish the lay people in any truth, except the scripture were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue, that they might see the process, order, and meaning of the text.”

—William Tyndale, Preface to the Pentateuch, 1530

English Versions of the Bible

“Truly, good Christian Reader, we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.”

- Preface to the King James Bible

The King James Bible
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE TRANSLATORS

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.
2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, accordingly as they are vulgarly used.
3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word church, not to be translated congregation.
4. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place and the analogies of faith.
5. The division of chapters to be altered either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.
6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed, in the text.
7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit reference of one Scripture to another.
8. Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter or chapters; and, having translated or amended them severally by himself where he thinks good, all to meet together to confirm what they have done, and agree for their part what shall stand.
9. As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously; for his Majesty is very careful on this point.
10. If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, shall doubt or differ upon any places, to send them word thereof, to note the places, and therewithal to send their reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be of the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work.
11. When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be directed by authority to send to any learned man in the land for his judgment of such a place.
12. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of his clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as many as, being skillful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to send their particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford, according as it was directed before in the king's letter to the archbishop.
13. The directors in each company to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester, for Westminster, and the king's professors in Hebrew and Greek in the two universities.
    [*]These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible: Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's [Rogers'], Whitchurch's [Cranmer's], Geneva."
14. By a later rule, "three or four of the most ancient and grave divines, in either of the universities, not employed in translating, to be assigned to be overseers of the translation, for the better observation of the fourth rule".
15. History of the King James Version

 

Do you clearly bear false witness since I have never made such a claim?

You improperly try to put words in my mouth that I do not say.

 

You misunderstand what I have stated or else you try to distort it. Do you try to create a strawman distortion that clearly misrepresents my points and what I state?

When I refer to human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning, I am clearly referring to human, non-scriptural claims for the KJV that are not stated nor taught in the Scriptures included as translated in the KJV.

Some attempt to pass off KJV-only teaching as being a doctrine of God when it is not taught in Scripture; therefore, it is not a doctrine of God nor sound Bible doctrine. KJV-only advocates fail to demonstrate that their exclusive only claims for the KJV and their claims of perfection for the KJV are scriptural.

 

It is really unreasonable to say that being justified is to be considered righteous? What difference would you say it makes, saying it one way vs. the other? What actual harm do you feel like the NIV has done to James chapter 2?

The NIV translates the same Greek word as "justified" in Romans chapters 3, 4, 5, 8 & 10 (and probably lots of other places that I didn't bother to look up) and so I don't see any hostility on the part of the NIV towards the English word "Justified" when translating this word. In fact, it is in three places in James chapter 2 that it is rendered "considered righteous" and nowhere else. And since the term "justified", in the context of the gospel, means for God to consider you righteous then I don't see the problem, especially considering the voluminous amount of text on this specific topic throughout both the Old and the New Testament, nearly all of which the NIV translates in the manner you prefer.

Having said that, I would be interested to know why they chose to translate it differently in the book of James than they did everywhere else (except for Rev. 22:11). The inconsistency seems odd to me.

I don't disagree with you, I feel like translations of the bible should be done as conservatively and dispassionately as is reasonable. I'm simply saying that different people can honestly come to different conclusions about how to translate a particular word or phrase and that some license has to be taken because a woodenly literal translation, to the extent that's even possible, would be all but unreadable.

 

No such hostility exists. I am simply responding to what you've written. I am rising in defense of sound reason, not in hostility toward you. I don't know you from Adam, okay? I have no doubt that you and I would get along quite well in the real world. We could sit and watch old Star Trek reruns and count how many logical fallacies Spock uses per episode while drinking a cold glass of Blue Moon and eating chips and salsa.

The reasoning that leads to this policy fits that description!

How would it even be reasonable to ask a KJV only believer to present evidence from the KJV that KJV onlyism is correct? You're literally asking them to beg the question.

Nor could they ever be without logical fallacies starting to fly all over the place!

Look, I'm not saying that KJV onlyism is correct. It definitely is not but it isn't wrong because of "human logic" is somehow deficient. They're use of logic may be faulty but it isn't because it's "human" and you bringing up "human logic" serves to undermine YOUR OWN POSITION because, guess what, you're a human too, as are we all.

In short, the idea of "sola scriptura" regardless of how it is applied, is not scriptural! How is it even possible that almost no one ever notices that? One cannot even utter the phrase "sola scriptura" without using logic (i.e. reason) to do it and so it hasn't ever been scripture alone but has always been sound reason guided by the word of God.

Lastly, I want to say that I'm very gratified and encouraged by the fact that you did actually respond to this point of mine! I fully expected that you wouldn't and even said so in a previous post. I didn't expect it, not because of your own past behavior but because of the behavior of countless others with whom I've interacted with over the years. You're very much the exception to the rules and I'm glad that I was wrong to expect no response from you.

 

The example I provided is just one of many and you even acknowledged there are inconsistencies. The fact that the NIV (at least the 2011 version) translates men as brothers and sisters should disqualify it from anyone using it as their primary bible. If you want to use it alongside a literal translation and treat it like a commentary then go ahead. I understand some exceptions have to be made from translating idioms and things like that into English. But if the author originally wrote “man” then I want it to say “man”. I’m not going to say that I’m better than anyone else because of my preferred translation. I am definitely not. But I just can’t compromise on that and I have left a church over it. It was a liberal leaning Seventh-Day Baptist church so there were other issues that I would have run into besides that.

 

I do not ask KJV-only advocates to beg the question. Their unproven claims may involve use of fallacies such as begging the question and special pleading, but I do not ask them to use fallacies to support them.

Would you suggest that it is not reasonable to ask them to obey the scriptural command "prove all things" (1 Thess. 5:22)?

Encouraging them to present a positive, clear, consistent, sound, true, and scriptural case for their KJV-only assertions is not unreasonable and it is not asking them to beg the question. Instead, perhaps I am exposing their use of the fallacy of begging the question.

 

As far as I can tell your theology is to believe and teach that God sanctions and leads men, saved and unsaved, to translate and to paraphrase and publish the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts over and over and present them to his church as the word of God. You have never tried to prove that to be true and to be the will of God. Why do you insist I must prove my doctrines and you don’t?

Your energy has always been to present a negative. I visualize you as a man without joy. If you can prove that God is depending on men to preserve his testimony I will believe you. So far you haven’t tried. What is the mind of God on the recent and present practice of continual translating bibles? I have read the pastoral epistles and have seen prophecies of the last days of the church. Is it there.

 

Why?

I agree with you! I'd want it to say that as well but that's a lot different than saying that it's disqualified from being used as someone's primary bible.

Holy smokes! I'd say that NIV usage was the least of their problems!

You know what though! I can just about guarantee that as poor as their doctrine is, there are people there who are not only saved but that get saved by virtue of attended that church in spite of their extremely confused doctrine. Likewise, the message of the gospel survives within the NIV in spite of even the most liberal attempts to make the bible politically correct, as vile a practice as that might be.

And that has been the primary point I'm making with all this. You simply cannot top the mountain against the shear avalanche of truth that God's word represents with something so feeble as differences in translation of a passage here and a passage there. It would take a total rewrite of whole swaths of scripture that would get noticed! I mean, people like yourself are willing to dis-fellowship yourself with fellow believers over the way someone refers to the human race, imagine what would happen if the rewrote Romans in a manner sufficient to make homosexuality a virtue or to wipe out the writings of John so as to kill the idea that Jesus is God become flesh or any number of other major changes that would need to take place to dislodge the notions that are taught throughout the bible in countless different ways about what righteousness is and what God has done for us and why. It simple cannot be done.

Now, that doesn't mean that it's hunky-dory that the NIV contains such troublesome passages. It's isn't. But throwing out the baby with the bathwater isn't the right answer. People who use the NIV can still be Christians. In fact, I'd be surprised if even 10% of the people who do use the NIV are even aware of such issues. The deepest most of them get into bible study is to sit in a Sunday school class where someone reads a bible verse and then everyone takes turns telling the group what the verse says to them. Then they go sit and listen to a sermon that tells them that it's wrong to judge and that the problems in their life happen because they aren't tithing as though that isn't judgmental. But they love Jesus! They believe that He is the Creator God become flesh and that He died for their sin and that He rose from the dead and they go home and they try to love their neighbor as they love themselves because they want to please the God who saved them and maybe get someone else saved too. And they can open up their NIV bible, as piss poor as it is in comparison to the KJV and NKJV, and they can read about all of that and none of it is touched by any of the idiotic translation errors that exist in that translation.

 

I just demonstrated that you did.

If they are KJV-onlyists, meaning that they believe that the KJV is THE scripture and you are telling them that they need to establish that claim via scripture then you are asking them to beg the question because the exercise would necessitate assuming that the KJV is THE scripture which is the question at hand. You ask them to perform a logical fallacy and when they fail, you declare victory. That's cheating!

I would suggest that is not reasonable for you to fail to hold yourself to the same standard that you hold others too.

You cannot prove anything without using logic inside your human brain! You can't make ANY argument, including biblical arguments without using the faculty of reason that is performed inside your human brain. You cannot even read the bible at all, much less formulate a doctrine that you can defend without using logic to do it.

You don't see it, but yes, it is! Either that or it is you who are begging the question!

Either you are asking them to use what they believe to be scripture as proof that it is scripture or you are asking them to argue for their worldview from within your own. One way or the other someone is going to beg the question.

Incidentally, what I am saying to you right now, is the sort of thing that you could use to establish their position as false. There is no way to argue it without being irrational (question begging). Thus, it must be false because of the rational impossibility of the contrary.

Now you're getting it! They cannot escape the irrationality of their position but it doesn't help yours by adopting the same irrational mistake, even if you don't realize you're doing it.

All of this got started because I took what you said to mean that there was some lower form of logic that we humans use. I no longer think that was your intent but I want to take the opportunity to stress that not only can you trust sound reason, you MUST trust sound reason. One cannot even make an attempt to undermine the veracity of logic without using the very thing they're trying to undermine, which is obviously self-defeating and nonsensical.

More importantly, the Disciple that Jesus loved teaches (i.e. John), as a man with your screen name should well know, that Logos is THE God, which is to say that God is Reason itself. He is the very embodiment of reason, just as He is also the embodiment of righteousness and justice and love, which are all just different aspects of the same thing. Trust sound reason the same way you trust God's word because you cannot receive (i.e. hear, read, understand, apply, etc.) the later without the former. They're a package deal.

 

You demonstrate that you do not understand and discern correctly as you try to make a strawman distortion that does not at all present my scripturally-based beliefs. The scripture references that I have cited for my points refer to verses as translated in the KJV. You do not discuss and answer what I actually state and do not deal with my scriptural beliefs.

Being for the consistent truth is not a negative, and it does not show any lack of joy as you incorrectly assert. I have presented the scripturally-based points that present my acceptance of all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves. I have maintained that the same scriptural truths and the same standards should be applied consistently and justly both before and after 1611. The standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations was given and existed long before 1611, so that it is not the 1611 KJV. Many changes, revisions, and corrections were made to the 1611 edition of the KJV based on use of the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

 

KJV-only author Charles Turner asserted: “When there are two authorities, there is no authority at all” and “Where there is more than one authority, there is no authority at all” (Why the KJV, p. 3).

There can be a chain or line of authority with some in a position of lesser authority under others with greater authority or higher power so there can be more than one authority (Rom. 13:1, Matt. 8:9, Luke 7:8, 1 Pet. 2:13-14, 1 Tim. 2:2, Titus 3:1). The Bible clearly gives the example of a centurion who was in authority over 100 men, but he was also still under authority of someone else (Matt. 8:9, Luke 7:8). The KJV refers to those in positions of authority who are called or termed “governors,” and yet these in authority were also under the authority of their king (1 Pet. 2:13-14). The phrase “all that are in authority” (1 Tim. 2:2) indicates more than one authority. The Scriptures acknowledged that there are higher “powers” or authorities (plural) (Rom. 13:1, Titus 3:1).

This KJV-only assertion that “where there is more than one authority, there is no authority at all” would conflict with scriptural truth. While it is true that the matter of Bible translation does involve the important issue of authority, it has not been soundly or scripturally demonstrated that a translation should be assumed to be the final authority or even to have greater authority than the preserved Scriptures in the original languages from which it is translated. Is the KJV possibly assumed or claimed to be the final authority by use of the fallacy of begging the question or by use of the fallacy of affirming the consequent or both?

Since the final authority for the Scriptures on earth existed before 1611, what was that authority in pure, perfect, inerrant, tangible form that could be used for the making of secondary or lesser authorities such as Bible translations? The authority and standard for making Bible translations had to precede the translations. A Bible translation cannot give power, authority, credence, or inspiration to its underlying sources or texts. The derived nature of a Bible translation does not permit it to be an independent, final authority, superior to its sources. A Bible translation does not have independent, absolute, final authority without any limits. The inherent nature and qualities of a translation after A. D. 100 cannot be greater than the inherent nature of the texts from which it was translated or the earlier translations of which it was a revision. If an inherent quality is supposedly absent from the underlying original language texts of Scripture, how can it be present in a translation of those same texts? The underlying antecedent texts or sources must have greater authority than the consequent translation since that translation is derived from those texts and acquires its authority from them. A translation must be built on its foundation [the texts from which it was translated] and should not be separated from it. A translation rests on the foundation of its underlying texts, and not the underlying texts on the translation. The words of a translation built on and made from the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are not more fixed, sure, and solid than their underlying foundation. A translation may be and should accurately attempt to be representative of its underlying texts, but it cannot have greater authority than them or be superior to them. By virtue of its origin as a translation by men that were not directly inspired of God and that did not receive direct revelation or Scriptures by direct inspiration, it is clear that such a translation cannot be correctly regarded to be the final authority beyond which there is no other. By the proper standard of the greater authority of the original-language words of Scripture, the derived authority of a translation will be justified. From the laws of causality, of good and necessary consequence, and of non-contradiction and from the correct and true definition of the terms “translation” and “final authority,“ it can be correctly deduced and understood that a translation is not the final authority beyond which there is no other. It would be logically and scripturally impossible for a translation by men who were not given their translation decisions directly by inspiration of God to be the ultimate authority beyond which there is no other. Translations of something must all alike be compared to that something from which they were translated.

 

They were definitely saved Christians and they preached a saving Gospel. Don't get me wrong, anyone can read an NIV and get saved just as much as the NKJV. Going to church on Saturday as instead to Sunday didn't bother me so much because I was a new Christian at the time. They made the argument that women can be pastors in their church because it wasn't culturally accepted in Paul's day. I quickly recognized that if you start using cultural arguments to promote your doctrine then that can open the door to even more wackiness. Look what has happened to the United Methodists and Lutheran churches. Rome is definitely headed in that direction.

 

Bible doctrines comes from the Bible.

Where is your biblical proof for a multitude of paraphrases and translations that are sanctioned by the word of God, the scriptures? You say you have produced them. The only thing you have ever done is stated a premise and that most of the time has nothing to do with the question, then you throw in 15 or 20 scripture references as if they prove your premise. There is no context to scripture references and it is no way to teach the word of God. If you taught this way in the churches no one would ever learn anything about God and his truths. They would learn what you think and adopt your bias and that is all they would learn.

The word of God is as perfect as Jesus Christ because that is who Jesus Christ is. I will prove that with scripture in context on this thread later. If you are a Bible believer you should know that already. But, in religion, there is more than one Jesus.

I have not argued otherwise. The new Testament did not begin in 1611. However, it does not take a mental heavyweight to see that God is in continual transition as he works his redemptive plan. He began the NT with Jews ONLY. It went that way for 7 years. None of the NT was written during those years. It was the Jewish apostles and prophets preaching and doing miracles as confirmation that they were speaking for God and their words were from him. The Jewish rulers of the nation, speaking for the nation, rejected Jesus Christ and his salvation, the Spirit of God in Acts 7. Transition time; God went to the Samaritans with his preachers, meanwhile saving a man in 37 AD, Saul of Tarsus, in preparation for equipping him with the revelation of the church, a mystery thus far, the definition succinctly given in Eph 3:6 with context, and in AD 40, Acts 10, opened the door of faith to the gentiles by what he says was a baptism of the world with the Holy Ghost and sent Paul to preach to us. This is a great transition. God's history is full of transitions but the gospel is the same. His words and promises do not change and they do not need constant translation into the same language and they definitely do not need to be paraphrased.

Skipping ahead, God gives sinners so much time to repent and believe and then moves on. Europe had years to repent but it became a spiritual wasteland with the Catholics and the Protestants and Calvinists. Without God's intervention it is my opinion there may not be a single Christian there now. God moved west to a land he had reserved and prepared a Bible in the language of the people who would populate the land and whose language would be English. This is yet another transition. We are not speaking Greek over here. We are speaking English and God has provided a perfect testimony of himself and his ways if we will receive it and believe it. The same crowd has corrupted America now and there is nowhere to go now but into judgement. It is time now for another great transition of God. The Bible is full of warnings about this one.

What if God would have just kept his church speaking Greek? The people who speak Greek have been spiritually corrupt for centuries. Their main church is the Greek Orthodox Church and the country is unsaved.

2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

The Spirit, whose temple is the church of Jesus Christ, is the member of the Godhead that hinders the full blown state of iniquity at this present time. When the church is taken out there will not be a single member of the Godhead ministering on the earth and the earth will be completely dark spiritually and most of the world will perish without God.

The corruption of the scriptures, a doctrine you support, is a big part of this mystery. The transitions are the greatest way that God is hindering the reign of the man of sin and complete corruption of society.

 

I agree. The Bible does not teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and interpretation/translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.

 

Your accusation is false. I do not support the corruption of the Scriptures as you incorrectly allege. You bear false witness. You continue to misrepresent, distort what I have stated with your bogus strawmen.

According to the Scriptures themselves, there is such a thing as the possible adding of words in copies or in Bible translations just as there is the possible omitting of words in copies or in Bible translations. It can be properly and legitimately concluded from the Scriptures that God has not directly spoken words added by men and that any words omitted by copiers should be restored (Deut. 4:2, Dut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, and Rev. 22:18). According to clear scriptural truth, words added by men cannot soundly be considered as being words given by inspiration of God. Since the law or word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25) and since by definition perfection would exclude the presence of even one imperfection, would imperfect or inaccurate renderings made by men or any errors introduced by men be identical to the absolutely perfect words of God given directly by inspiration to the prophets and apostles? Since the statues or words of the LORD are right (Ps. 19:8, Ps. 33:4), since the word of the LORD are pure (Ps. 12:6, Ps. 119:140), and since the words of the God are true (Ps. 19:9, John 17:17, Ps. 119:160, Dan. 10:21), it can be soundly and scripturally concluded that any errors introduced by men in copying, in printing, or in translating are not words spoken or given by God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies and in Bible translations can be and should be corrected. It could also be soundly concluded that any words perverted, diminished, or mistranslated by men are not actual words spoken by God (Jer. 23:36, Deut. 4:2, Jer. 23:28, Deut. 12:32, 2 Cor. 2:17, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 26:2).

Maintaining that errors introduced by men or words added by men are not the pure inspired words of God would be soundly distinguishing between what is holy and pure and what is not, and it is not accusing the word of God given by inspiration of corruption, of impurity, or of error.

 

Do KJV-only advocates in effect bind themselves to the opinions and interpretations of the finite, fallible, imperfect KJV translators as their ultimate voice of authority?

This dependence on the human authority of the fallible, imperfect KJV translators indicates a serious weakness with the KJV-only view. The KJV-only view depends a great deal on the inappropriate human authority and scholarship of one exclusive group of imperfect, fallible, uninspired Church of England men in 1611. Does a blind trust in the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of the KJV translators suggest trust in fallible, imperfect men? If God's Word was "wholly revealed" to the KJV translators or “wholly understood” and perfectly interpreted/translated” by them, they in effect become the ultimate standard for truth, beyond which there is no other. When an attempt is made to claim that the product of the KJV translators is the final authority, it would in effect make these men who produced it the real final authority.

KJV-only advocates have in effect cloaked the KJV translators with such robes of superiority and infallibility that even a pope could only envy. Fred Butler, a former KJV-only advocate, asserted: “In a warped way, KJVO propaganda elevate the [KJV] translators to near, divine-like status” (Royal Deceptions, p. 117). Glenn Conjurske contended: “The main tenet of this [KJV-only] system, which exalts a human and imperfect translation to the place of perfection, giving it an authority equal (or superior) to the original, is a tenet of Romanism, which no Protestant ever believed before the advent of the present generation” (Bible Version, p. 62). Has the sufficiency of God's Word in effect been replaced with a "unique priesthood" of the KJV translators?

The KJV-only view in practice seems to abandon the NT doctrine of the priesthood of all believers as it implies the exclusive priesthood of only a group of Church of England scholars/priests in 1611. KJV-only reasoning would leave English-speaking believers in effect dependent upon this one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611.


Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood (1 Peter 2:5a)

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9a)

And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father (Revelation 1:6a)

 

I am not looking your verses up. Yours is an illigitimate response. It is your opinion until proven with the scriptures. This is no way to present your case.

The mysteries of the kingdom of heaven is 12 parables, seven of which are in Matt 13 that gives us the entire progression, beginning to end, of this church age while the king is gone to receive and earthly kingdom from the Father. Meanwhile, we who are his sons by the new birth have been made stewards of his business and we have clear instructions. We will give account of our stewardship. If you have usurped the position of steward you will give account of that.

Lu 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this [man] to reign over us.
15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

Mt 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

These are the three families that God divided the earth into. Leaven is corruption. The woman is false religion. and it works slowly and without being seen and corrupts the whole loaf entirely. There is no leaven in Christ. These 7 parables correspond to the 7 churches of revelation 2 and 3 and the 4th parable in matthew is the one I just quoted and the 4th church in Revelation has a wicked woman that is sowing discord and they are the same woman.

You do not understand how wrong you are and you are plowing with the wrong team.

1Co 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

 

Perhaps it is your attempts to dismiss scriptural truths that is illegitimate. Are you unwilling to search the Scriptures?

Are you suggesting that the 1611 edition of the KJV with its many cross-references is illegitimate? The 1611 KJV provided cross-references to other verses without presenting the text of the verses.

Are you suggesting that Bible doctrine textbooks and systematic theology textbooks that may list scripture references for points without quoting the verses are illegitimate?

Are you suggesting that the statements of faith in many Baptist church constitutions that list scriptural references for the different doctrinal views or positions of that congregation are illegitimate?

 

Make excuses if you want but you have presented nothing but your opinions.I am not attempting to agree or disagree with you on a scripturtal basis because you have not made a scriptural argument. There is no context to scripture references. You are acting like a moron, and I know you are not one.