Featured How can you be honestly a KJVONLYIST?

I have been a strict KJV all my life... Now I have no idea what a KJV onlyist is?... Now are they saying that if you don't read the KJV, you're are not saved?... Name any translation that is flesh and blood?... Even the KJV won't claim that... The next time you are approached by a KJVO, ask them that... So read, study and quote what you want but separate the strict KJV from KJVO... Eternal Salvation is of the Savior (Jesus Christ the Son Of God) not the scriptures... Brother Glen

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

 

And I have recently came across someone who is not just KJV only, but states it is God breathed and trumps the originals.

 

Good grief! How did either Matthew or Luke know anything about the temptation of Jesus Christ by Satan? Jesus was in the wilderness for 40 days fasting. These guys were not with him so they had to be told about what happened there by the only one who was there with an interest to tell it. Each of these men had a different theme for their gospels and Jesus gave them the words to fit their themes. Most probably at different times. Is this what you study to reach your conclusions on doctrinal issues like what is the word of God? No wonder there is so much confusion among the scholars.

Matthew was not even called until chapter 9.

 

As a reminder to KJVOs that they're believing a doctrine that's been proven false.

 

A KJV-onlyist is a person who believes and makes exclusive only claims for the KJV, suggesting that it is the word of God translated into English in a different sense than any other English Bible translation is the word of God translated into English and often suggesting that it is the standard or final authority in and of itself as though it is not a translation that derives its secondary authority from the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the originals.

 

すると、イエスは悪魔に答えて言われた。「『人はパンだけではなく、神の一つ一つの御言葉によって生きる。』と書いてある。」

 

I'm one of 'em! (But I believe you mean "textual critics" rather than "translators".) And of course "minority" certainly does not mean "wrong," as you know.
...

These are unproven assertions. There are mss from the 2nd century with various readings, even Byzantine. But Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, used most often to prove Alexandrian priority, are 4th century.

But even if the Alexandrian is from the 2nd century, so is the Old Syriac. "In general, the Old Syriac versiojn is a representative of the Western type of text" (The Text of the NT, Metzger and Ehrman--ugh--p. 97) but nobody today considers the Western to be the original. So having early mss does not prove that a reading or text is the original.

"A popular misconception is that the earlier the witness, the earlier and more authoritative the text presented by that witness, merely because such a witness is chronologically closer to the time of autograph composition. It is known, however, that virtually all sensible variant readings came into existence in the tumultuous second century...,and that what is reflected in all our extant manuscripts is a mixture of variant readings that date back into the obscurity of that era from which we have but scant textual information" (Maurice Robinson, "The Case for Byzantine Priority," in Rethinking NT Textual Criticism, ed. by David Alan Black, 2002, p. 135).

Very true.

 

Some people prefer to use stone tools and live in mud huts and believe that anything better is sinful worldliness. Textual criticism of the New Testament, however, is not performed using stone tools nor is it performed in mud huts. Indeed, it is meticulously performed using the very finest and sophisticated tools for studying the text of the New Testament—and it is performed in well-lighted facilities where the researches can actually see what they are doing.