1611 KJV only and anger

[Baptist4life]

#2- We have just as much proof as you do- that is to say- none.

Isn't that what he said?

I simply believe by faith that God has promised to preserve his word, and in English that preserved word is the KJB. I can't prove it, nobody can.

 

[Logos1560]

You must believe that one text is true and all others are corrupt (because they are different), or you must believe all texts have been corrupted. Thus you do not believe in real preservation.

.

Would you say that you must believe in the text of one edition of the KJV and that all the other editions with their actual differences are incorrect because they have differences? There are over 2,000 differences between the 1611 edition of the KJV and most present KJV editions.

 

[Logos1560]

God repeatedly warns not to add or diminish from his word. How is it possible to know whether words have been added or diminished unless a person can know the correct text?

Those warnings clearly concerned the actual words in the original languages given to the prophets and apostles. Thus, those verses are evidence that indicates that preservation concerned the original language words.

It is KJV-only posters who keep implying that the correct original language texts cannot be known.

Translators including the KJV translators cannot strictly follow those commands and still produce a translation that is understandable. Translators sometimes add words that they put in italics, sometimes they add words that they do not put in italics, sometimes they translate one original language word with two or more English words or even a phrase, sometimes they may translate two or more original language words with one English word, sometimes they do not translate an original language word at all, etc.

 

[Winman]

Would you say that you must believe in the text of one edition of the KJV and that all the other editions with their actual differences are incorrect because they have differences? There are over 2,000 differences between the 1611 edition of the KJV and most present KJV editions.

I don't know the exact number of differences, but I do know the vast majority of these changes are spelling changes as the English language was standardized over time. I do not consider a spelling change a change at all.

 

[Winman]

Those warnings clearly concerned the actual words in the original languages given to the prophets and apostles. Thus, those verses are evidence that indicates that preservation concerned the original language words.

It is KJV-only posters who keep implying that the correct original language texts cannot be known.

Translators including the KJV translators cannot strictly follow those commands and still produce a translation that is understandable. Translators sometimes add words that they put in italics, sometimes they add words that they do not put in italics, sometimes they translate one original language word with two or more English words or even a phrase, sometimes they may translate two or more original language words with one English word, sometimes they do not translate an original language word at all, etc.

It is a fact that the original autographs penned by the apostles and prophets are lost, this was true even in Jesus's day, when Jesus read Isaiah in Nazareth, he was undoubtably reading a copy. If the original existed, it would have been in Jerusalem.

Preservation has always been entrusted to godly men.

The best argument for the TR is the large number of texts that speak as one voice. The CT texts are few and disagree with each other thousands of times. The fact they disagree with each other so often alone argues the CT is not the "preserved" text.

Look, I have repeatedly said I cannot prove which text is the true text, NOBODY can, the originals are lost. By faith I believe in preservation, and the evidence overwhelmingly favors the TR text IMO.

But I do not agree the TR and CT are the same, I think that is ridiculous.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

But I do not agree the TR and CT are the same, I think that is ridiculous.

Could you point out one instance where it was claimed that they are the same?

 

[Winman]

Could you point out one instance where it was claimed that they are the same?

I am not going to keep arguing this, believe what you want. But don't call me a heretic because I believe the KJB is the only accurate version in English, there are legitimate reasons behind this view. Not that I can't handle being falsely called names, doesn't bother me at all, but it does bother some.

 

[Winman]

Could you point out one instance where it was claimed that they are the same?

Half of my previous post did not appear for some reason. I just read an article at Reformedanswers.org that said the TR and CT are "essentially the same", no doctrines are affected. I disagree, Jn 7:8 is a good example, Jesus said "I go not up YET unto this feast" where the CT says, "I do not go up to this feast".

I would say that is a huge difference, and others have noted this difference. Atheists, and even Muslims have used the CT text in this verse to "prove" Jesus was a liar. I posted an article from an Islamic site some time ago where they used this CT verse to claim Jesus was a liar.

I would call whether Jesus is a liar a doctrinal issue, but who am I?

So, as I said, there are real and legitimate reasons folks like me trust the KJB only. We are not crazy fanatics as some portray us.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I am not going to keep arguing this, believe what you want. But don't call me a heretic because I believe the KJB is the only accurate version in English, there are legitimate reasons behind this view. Not that I can't handle being falsely called names, doesn't bother me at all, but it does bother some.

Huh? Where have I ever come close to accusing you of heresy?

 

[Winman]

Huh? Where have I ever come close to accusing you of heresy?

Is this a joke? YOU have not called KJOs heretics, but many on this forum have, go back and read some of Luke's posts a couple of weeks back, he said it repeatedly.

And no moderator jumped in to correct him I noticed.

Look, I don't care if folks call me names, I am very secure in what I believe and why. But some folks are offended.

I will say one last time that you can only know this answer by faith. Many are like Thomas, they need "proof" before they will believe. I've got news for these folks, you are never going to get this proof you demand.

This is all about faith and one's concept of God. I believe God loves us and wants us to know him. Therefore I believe he would not only reveal his word to us, but he would keep and preserve it as well. If God expects us to live by EVERY word that proceeds from his mouth, he is going to provide it. It is not hidden somewhere, it is in plain view.

I cannot begin to explain how God preserved his word, but I believe he did.

But if you are looking for scientific scholarly proof, you are out of luck.

 

[Rippon]

Half of my previous post did not appear for some reason. I just read an article at Reformedanswers.org that said the TR and CT are "essentially the same", no doctrines are affected.

The agreement of the main textual schools of thought certainly outweighs their disagreements.

I disagree, Jn 7:8 is a good example, Jesus said "I go not up YET unto this feast" where the CT says, "I do not go up to this feast".

You might be interested to know that Wescott and Hort agreed with the TR in this particular passage.

 

[Rippon]

By the way, do you know how many verses there are in the book of Mark? 678.

If you omit the twelve last verses the CT says shouldn't be there, how many do you have? 666!

Mark? 666? Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.

Acting like a conspiracy guy will not cause you to be respected.

With a quick look (I know I had to miss a bunch) there are at least four more verses that the NU/WH (or the WH alone or the NU alone) has missing:
7:16;11:26;14:68 and 15:28.

Then there are multiple passages where the TR has added many words like in 7:8;14:19 and 27.

 

[Rippon]

Could you point out one instance where it was claimed that they are the same?

I've asked the same thing. He can't tell us.

 

[Rippon]

I am citing the 2011 NIV

But the KJBs and MVs often give a different understanding to scripture. 1 Tim 3:16 is a great example, the KJB says, "God was manifest in the flesh" while the MVs say "he was manifest in the flesh". Now that is a HUGE difference, the KJB clearly teaches Jesus is God, while the MVs say Jesus was manifested in flesh.

What is special about that? EVERYBODY is manifested in the flesh.

No,not quite. Look at the context --it is pointing to Christ alone. There can be no other.

Beyond all question,the mystery from
which true godliness springs is great:
He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up into glory. (1 Tim. 3:16

You can use 1 Tim 3:16 to refute a JW who denies Jesus is God. You cannot do this with a MV, the MVs agree exactly with the NWT.

That's nonsense Winman. Of course one can defend the Deity of Christ in 1 Tim. 3:16 with modern versions.

So, the KJB and MVs are not teaching the same thing,

They are indeed teaching the same thing. The KJV revisers would be ashamed to hear you say that.

I simply believe by faith that God has promised to preserve his word,

All true Christians would agree.

and in English that preserved word is the KJB.

Most true Christians would disagree with the above.

Let me ask you --did God arrange for each language group to have a perfect,preserved Word of God in their tongue --and TR at that? Of course not. That is patently absurd.

 

[Rippon]

But the KJBs and MVs often give a different understanding to scripture. 1 Tim 3:16 is a great example, the KJB says, "God was manifest in the flesh" while the MVs say "he was manifest in the flesh". Now that is a HUGE difference, the KJB clearly teaches Jesus is God, while the MVs say Jesus was manifested in flesh.

I looked at the NET notes. There were no unicals with God in the verse before the 8th or 9th centuries. "Most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox,affirming the deity of Christ."

 

[Logos1560]

I don't know the exact number of differences, but I do know the vast majority of these changes are spelling changes as the English language was standardized over time. I do not consider a spelling change a change at all.

Perhaps you merely assume rather than actually know. Have you ever examined the actual evidence yourself and compared word for word the 1611 edition with a present KJV edition? I was not referring to the many thousands of spelling changes that did not change a word into another word, did not change a singular to a plural or a plural to singular, did not change the tense of a verb, did not change the case or number of pronouns, etc.

While I did not count the following changes in my over 2,000 count [change of "foul" to "fowl," "blew" to "blue," "pray" to "prey," "sow" to "sew", "sent" to "scent", "counsel" to "council", "beer" to "bier", "musitions" to "musicians", "brick kill" to "brickkiln", etc.], is it proper to suggest that those changes are not a change at all in cases where they actually are different words in today's English?

Are you aware of the number of verses where later editors add one word that was not found in the 1611 edition, add two words, add three words, and even add six words? Are you aware of the verses where later editors or printers omit one word found in the 1611 edition? Are you aware of all the places where later editors changed the number of the noun or pronoun: from singular to plural or from plural to singular?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Is this a joke? YOU have not called KJOs heretics, but many on this forum have, go back and read some of Luke's posts a couple of weeks back, he said it repeatedly.

And no moderator jumped in to correct him I noticed.

Look, I don't care if folks call me names, I am very secure in what I believe and why. But some folks are offended.

I will say one last time that you can only know this answer by faith. Many are like Thomas, they need "proof" before they will believe. I've got news for these folks, you are never going to get this proof you demand.

This is all about faith and one's concept of God. I believe God loves us and wants us to know him. Therefore I believe he would not only reveal his word to us, but he would keep and preserve it as well. If God expects us to live by EVERY word that proceeds from his mouth, he is going to provide it. It is not hidden somewhere, it is in plain view.

I cannot begin to explain how God preserved his word, but I believe he did.

But if you are looking for scientific scholarly proof, you are out of luck.

I keep asking you to report posts where the KJV is attacked or you are called a heretic so I can deal with it. So far you have not done so.

 

[Logos1560]

The best argument for the TR is the large number of texts that speak as one voice. .

You are ignoring those places where the Textus Receptus has readings that are supported by no Greek manuscripts or very few Greek manuscripts. The Textus Receptus has a few readings that were added from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome.

 

[Winman]

You are ignoring those places where the Textus Receptus has readings that are supported by no Greek manuscripts or very few Greek manuscripts. The Textus Receptus has a few readings that were added from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome.

I know all these facts.

You don't get it, I believe the KJB is correct by faith, not scientific scholarly proof.

I don't believe God gave the prophets and apostles his word and then withdrew into heaven and then allowed his word to be corrupted. I believe God is still active in the affairs of men. I also believe that Satan is active and is still going about to destroy men.

One reason I believe the KJB is because it came on the scene just as England became the greatest empire ever known. It was said the sun never sets on the British Empire, and it was true. England had colonies and trade on all continents and with nearly every country on earth, even desolate islands in the seas. And they took the word of God to the world. This also continued with America and the missionaries sent out. I believe this a fulfillment of prophecy, I do not believe it mere coincidence.

What I am saying is that I believe God was involved with the KJB. The translators were humble men who would not dare say such a thing, but I believe God brought about those events that happened during the Reformation to take his word to the world.

I can't prove this, but I believe this.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... There comes a time when you must either believe one text is preserved and the other corrupt, or that both are corrupt. They are not the same, both cannot be the true text. If you can not settle on one, then you have none.

So, do you have one, or do you have none?

I have stated this before (in so many words): I do not believe that either of these two man-made amalgamations ought to be considered the perfect reconstruction of the original inspired text. Actually, both the CT and the TR exist in several variations; additionally, there are other contending texts (such as the two published MTs).