Adding To Scripture?

Myself, I’m not wanting to argue this. If there are any “Whatever-Only cult” that want to argue there are no differences in the versions, proceed without me.

Are there any willing to say that if one receives/believes the Authorized Version readings, while rejecting those places in other versions that are clearly contradictory, that they have added to Scripture?

What say ye? Yes, they have added to Scripture, or no they have not added to Scripture?

If your answer is yes, then where is the Scripture that says clearly contradictory readings are the word of God and “very pure” as the “word” is said to be?

KJV Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

 

Pete R

What an informative answer you have provided. Perhaps a topic for another thread could be, is Pete R a Geneva-Only and should he be called a cultist, and divisive, since he recommends the Geneva on this message board. Or another topic for a different thread might be, does anyone actually believe Pete R when he says what he does about the Geneva, and if they do actually believe he is being honest, why isn’t he called a cultist and Geneva-Only, the same way any that dare say they believe the KJV readings rather than contradictory readings from other versions, by the majority of those thus far posting on this message board.

Scott J

What would you recommend Scott, going through every shred of evidence and where there is any difference with any other evidence, throw that part away, and only use what is the same? You are saying something about pure, exclusive of all others. Here is what I say. Where there are clear contradictions, I don’t call those places each pure.

Scott, what I am saying, is where there is a clear difference in meaning between the KJV and any other version, in those places I settle on the KJV.

Perhaps you could make what you do in those places where you find a clear difference the topic of another thread. Do you tell others, if you are sharing a passage of Scripture, that you know there is a different reading showing a different meaning, or do you just say you have told them the true and pure reading, and ignore the fact there are what you claim are differences in readings, differences you claim are also the pure word? That might be a problem for some people. If you make a different thread to share how you handle the differences, some might find it interesting.

I’m settled with the KJV so I have no conflict, except the conflict brought forth by others that consider that divisive and cultic.

Back to the questions. . .

Are there any willing to say that if one receives/believes the Authorized Version readings, while rejecting those places in other versions that are clearly contradictory, that they have added to Scripture? My intended meaning about adding to Scripture, I don’t mean in the sense of adding all the verses listed in the KJV that are not listed in most all other versions, but I mean in the sense of an extra biblical mandate that a translation could be wholly true.


What say ye? Yes, they have added extra biblical mandate, or no they have not added extra biblical mandate?

With that said. . .

If your answer is yes, an extra biblical mandate is added, then where is the Scripture that says clearly contradictory readings are the word of God and “very pure” as the “word” is said to be?

Certainly the original autograph was given by inspiration of God, and was inerrant, but I say that same word could be made available in a different language, translated, and so be inerrant, trusted, and rightly so, to be very pure.

KJV Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

 

Why?

And stop baiting people with the whole "cult" thing. You know that's off limits. </font>[/QUOTE]That cult thing will be dropped by me. I hadn't realized that word had been dropped from the vocabulary here, having seen it used so many times by various ones towards those that believe the KJV is true.

What about the topic of the thread?

 

Perhaps we need some soothing music to keep some from getting upset. I would hope not.

You've posted twice to the thread in about three minutes time, at teh ame time I was posting a clarification. I'll wait and see if you have clarification of what you do not understand.

 

Back to the questions. . .

Are there any willing to say that if one receives/believes the Authorized Version readings, while rejecting those places in other versions that are clearly contradictory, that they have added to Scripture? My intended meaning about adding to Scripture, I don’t mean in the sense of adding all the verses listed in the KJV that are not listed in most all other versions, but I mean in the sense of an extra biblical mandate that a translation could be wholly true.


What say ye? Yes, they have added extra biblical mandate, or no they have not added extra biblical mandate?

With that said. . .

If your answer is yes, an extra biblical mandate is added by those saying the KJV translation is wholly true and inerrant, then for the opposing view, where is the Scripture that says clearly contradictory readings that appear in the many different versions are the word of God and “very pure” as the “word” is said to be?

KJV Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

 

Tom

Straw man? You seem to suggest I am telling a lie about not being aware the word was removed from the vocabulary here. The term has been used more than a few times in the posts I have read in recent days. You said don’t use the term, I said I would stop, and now you seem to be calling me dishonest. Interesting.

Actually, I have thought I would keep the thread on topic, rather than be swayed by diversionary tactics. One thing I noticed in the few threads I skimmed over, is the effort to keep the threads on topic. Now it seems for this thread that is a problem.

Back to the questions, I’ll attempt to clarify for those interested. If you don’t understand what I say I suggest you ignore the questions. . .

Are there any willing to say that if one receives/believes the Authorized Version readings, while rejecting those places in other versions that are clearly contradictory, that the person has added to Scripture? By adding to Scripture, I mean in the sense of adding an extra biblical mandate saying a translation could be wholly true.

What say ye? Yes, they have added extra biblical mandate, or no they have not added extra biblical mandate?

With that said. . .

If your answer to the above is yes,, please answer the following. If it applies to your belief, where is the Scripture that says contradictory readings that appear in the many different versions are the word of God and “very pure”?

KJV Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

 

Scott

I'm reminded of the time someone posted a note to me, not having any idea what I believed, but they were convinced they would find it to be error. They said to me, "Post something and we'll tell you what you are wrong about." Well, such an attitude really doesn't impress me.

I really don't know what you call a KJVO, and don't care. Further, I doubt you even know what I believe about the issue, and I doubt if you even care, for you seem content to carry on about what the KJVO is, and what the KJVO believes, and what you demand of the KJVO. You seem to assign those traits of "your" KJVO to any that come by here and say they believe the KJV.

I don't know what "you" mean by Word with a capital Vs words without a capital. No need to explain, for I'm not wanting to know.

If believing the KJV is true, no provable errors, causes so much fuss on this message board that is “listed as a KJV message board” what would happen if one were to post on a “whatever-only” message board and said they believed the KJV were true??? I don’t even want to think about it.

 

{violation edited}

Or could I have an answer, from those interested, based on my purpose for making this thread?

Back to the questions. . . If you don’t understand what I say I suggest you ignore the questions. . .

Are there any willing to say that if one receives/believes the Authorized Version readings, while rejecting those places in other versions that are clearly contradictory, that the person has added to Scripture? By adding to Scripture, I mean in the sense of adding an extra biblical mandate saying a translation could be wholly true.

What say ye? Yes, they have added extra biblical mandate, or no they have not added extra biblical mandate?

With that said. . .

If your answer to the above is yes,, please answer the following. If it applies to your belief, where is the Scripture that says contradictory readings that appear in the many different versions are the word of God and “very pure”?

KJV Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

[ April 05, 2003, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

{Violation edited}



[ April 05, 2003, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]