Do you see A Difference between Inerrancy/Infallibility?

[Winman]

Edward F. Hills did not claim perfection or inerrancy for the KJV. He acknowledged that there were at least a few errors in the KJV.

My point is that scholars disagree. There are scholars who can explain all of your objections and YOU KNOW THAT. You may not accept their views, but many have offered credible explanations.

I realized years ago that you will never find the answer through scholarship. In the end you must rely on faith.

My argument is the same argument as that asserted by the KJV translators: that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the proper standard and authority for the making and trying of all translations.

Yes, but they must have believed the copies they had were those preserved scriptures. They knew very well that the original autographs had disappeared many centuries before.

And this is what is wrong with the "only the original autographs are inerrant" argument. If this is so, then the word of God has not been preserved and everything we have is corrupt and untrustworthy.

Truth be told, that is the objective of those who say this, they are trying to destroy faith in the word of God. Too bad you can't see that.

Do you really think that Edward F. Hills would argue against the view of Bible translations held by the KJV translators which is the view that I have also advocated?

How in the world can I answer that question? I did not know the man.

The KJV translators rejected the arguments for a one-perfection-translation view in their day [the Latin Vulgate-only theory], and their preface demonstrates that they indicated that no translation, which would include their own, would be perfect.

So what? Just because these men were humble and considered themselves fallible does not mean that God was not directing the process. Don't you believe that God is still alive and working in the world?

Winman, disagreeing with your opinions or some other KJV-only advocate's opinions is not attacking the KJV. To try to claim that it is is wrong. Your claims and arguments have been answered.

Give me a break, you are like one of these guys who beats his wife and then tells everybody he loves her. You need to look in the mirror man.

Since you show that you are unable to answer the sound evidence presented, your response seems to be to try to attack me personally. You improperly and wrongly questioned my faith in God and in the Scriptures.

I don't know if your evidence is sound, I would bet that many scholars would disagree with your evidence.

My stand is for the Scriptures and what they actually teach. My stand is for consistent truth that would be true both before and after 1611 and that would be true for all believers, not just those who speak English.
You consider my stand for the truth to be "a waste of time", but that does not mean that it.

Your stand for the scriptures?? Man, you are in total denial, you do not stand for the scriptures, you believe they are all corrupt. You do not believe they have been preserved as God promised. Your stand is AGAINST the scriptures. Again, you need to look in the mirror, you are deceiving yourself.

Winman, you are uninformed and misinformed. You end up opposing established facts of history.

Whose facts? Yours? I could find many scholars that would disagree with you and you know it.

Your KJV-only claims rest on no sound, solid foundation. You cannot show that the Scriptures teach your KJV-only opinions or claims.

That is your opinion, and I could find good scholars who agree with me and disagree with you. Again, you know this is true.

I cannot explain how God preserved his scriptures, but I know God did promise to preserve his word and so I believe it, DESPITE folks like you that spend all their time trying to discourage people and make them doubt the word of God.

There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Christians who believe God kept his promise and preserved his word. You may not like this, but this is what we sincerely believe. We can't explain it, we believe it by FAITH.

You need to learn to believe man.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Good Post and Rebuttal Winman

Win...I'm right there with you standing shoulder to shoulder for the truth!

That said...I have to believe though, even though I know what side of this argument I come down on (faith), that God must be sitting there in His heaven looking down on us and shaking His head at our feeble and finite attempts at understanding the transmission, preservation, and perfection of His Word. What the scholarly crowd can't understand or explain is the utterly SUPERNATURAL aspect of that great work. It defies any human explanation. Therefore they have to continue to try and produce translation after translation because there will NEVER be one that settles all their pointless arguments or satisfies them. We take it by faith that we already HAVE THAT BOOK....and it nearly drives them insane that we could possibly believe such a thing and reject all their scholarly scholarship. How dare we!!!
Frankly....I'll be honest enough to say that I believe in something that I can't possibly explain adequately in any human terms. I don't have to understand something perfectly to exercise the faith He has given me. I love God and His Word and I'm thankful that He loved me enough to make sure that I can have His perfect Word as the guide whereby His wonderful Holy Spirit can guide me to a life of Christ-likeness...if I would obey Him and surrender my life to Him. Amen and AMEN!!:thumbs:

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Mexdeaf]

I realized years ago that you will never find the answer through scholarship. In the end you must rely on faith.

Faith that has no scriptural foundation is not faith at all. You have deceived yourself.

Truth be told, that is the objective of those who say this, they are trying to destroy faith in the word of God. Too bad you can't see that.

KJVO destroys people's faith in the Word of God. I have seen it with my eyes on the mission field.

Give me a break, you are like one of these guys who beats his wife and then tells everybody he loves her. You need to look in the mirror man.

You are the one who needs to look in the mirror- when presented with FACTS and TRUTH that is not in accordance with your personal beliefs, you turn to attacks instead of seeking to know if what you have believed is true or not. KJVO is a damnable lie from the Devil. I have said it again and again. If something is not true then it is a lie.

Your stand for the scriptures?? Man, you are in total denial, you do not stand for the scriptures, you believe they are all corrupt. You do not believe they have been preserved as God promised. Your stand is AGAINST the scriptures. Again, you need to look in the mirror, you are deceiving yourself.

The Scriptures are preserved, just not in the way that you KJVO's would like to believe. God never promised preservation in one translation.

There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Christians who believe God kept his promise and preserved his word. You may not like this, but this is what we sincerely believe. We can't explain it, we believe it by FAITH.

If you can't explain it, why do you waste so much time trying to?

 

[Logos1560]

KJV-only blindness and false accusations

Originally Posted by Logos1560
My stand is for the Scriptures and what they actually teach. My stand is for consistent truth that would be true both before and after 1611 and that would be true for all believers, not just those who speak English.
You consider my stand for the truth to be "a waste of time", but that does not mean that it.

Your stand for the scriptures?? Man, you are in total denial, you do not stand for the scriptures, you believe they are all corrupt. You do not believe they have been preserved as God promised. Your stand is AGAINST the scriptures. Again, you need to look in the mirror, you are deceiving yourself.

Winman, you deceive yourself if you think that your disobeying of the Scriptures by making false accusations and bearing false witness against me is supposedly right. I do not stand against the Scriptures. You have not demonstrated that I stand against anything that the Scriptures actually state. I believe in the preservation of the Scriptures as taught in them. Perhaps you are too uninformed to known that my belief in preservation is in agreement with the view of the early English translators including the KJV translators. I look in the mirror of the word of God and know that your accusations are false.

Winman, you also disobey the Scriptures by showing partiality to one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611. You in effect oppose the truth since your KJV-only opinions depend upon fallacies [false arguments] such as begging the question and depend upon use of divers measures or weights [double standards] which are contrary to the Scriptures. You may be too blinded and too uninformed to see the use of divers weights in a man-made KJV-only theory, but their use is clearly there. You are asserting as a claimed doctrine what is actually only a tradition of men (Mark 7:7-9).

If anyone can claim that something is true just because he believes it to be true then he can believe without any justification anything he wants to believe. If faith can be based on contradiction, how could God hold anyone accountable for mistaking His commands for their contradictions? A command and its contradiction cannot be both true. Therefore, it is important that believers break down the false opposition which has been set up between truth and faith. A faith that does not rest on scriptural truth or rational evidence is fideism, which is essentially the leap-in-the-dark faith of the neo-orthodox. According to Karl Barth, a person with faith can accept a contradiction, rest in it, and even base their life on the contradiction. A blind faith such as this is an irrational act of subjective arbitrariness.

Biblical faith comes by hearing and following the truth of God's Word (Rom. 10:17). Biblical faith is linked to an acknowledging of the truth (2 Tim. 2:25). To say that a person has faith in something is to say that he acknowledges the truth of something. Biblical faith surely does not come from a denial of truth or by following false claims or fallacies. Faith does not come from following opinions and speculations of men or from following their misinterpretations (2 Tim. 2:15). Faith in error, falsehoods, fallacies, or false claims as demonstrated to be in a KJV-only theory is not Biblical faith.

Pastor Glenn Conjurske noted: "The truth courts the facts, and stands on these facts precisely by faith. Error fears the facts, while it claims to stand 'by faith.' This is not faith at all, but superstition and delusion" (Olde Paths, March, 1997, p. 59). D. A. Waite affirmed that “those of us who stand for the truth must stand up against the falsehood” (Bob Jones, p. 25).

 

[Logos1560]

You need to learn to believe man.

Likely you meant to put a comma after believe in your statement or at least should have put a comma after it to make it mean what you likely intended to say.

Your statement above in its present form with its actual meaning in that form may actually tell the truth about your view. You do believe man whether your own opinions or the opinions of other KJV-only advocates.

You have failed to show that your man-made KJV-only view rests in sound, scriptural belief in God and on what the Scriptures actually state.

 

[Logos1560]

Win...I'm right there with you standing shoulder to shoulder for the truth!

Are you suggesting that the opinions of Winman determine or establish the truth?

What truth are you standing for when it cannot be demonstrated to be truth actually taught in the Scriptures?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Where are there errors in the King James Bible? Please show them to me.

I do not know if you consider the following an error ... but it is a problem.

There are two lists of commandments that God gave Moses ... and they do not agree.

Exodus 20:1-17,
Exodus 34:14-28

 

[Logos1560]

KJV-only reliance on scholarship

I realized years ago that you will never find the answer through scholarship.

You need to learn to believe man.

Yet your KJV-only theory finds its answer through scholarship since it depends upon the claimed scholarship of one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611.

A KJV-only theory places its trust or belief in the textual criticism decisions and translating decisions of one group of scholars in 1611, in effect making that one exclusive group into perfect or infallible interpreters/translators.

Does claiming it is by faith cover up this reliance on and trust in one group of scholars?

God was and is just as involved in the making of translations before 1611 such as the 1560 Geneva Bible and in translations after 1611 such as the NKJV as He was in 1611. The Scriptures do not teach that God showed partiality to one group of scholars in 1611 in contradiction to what the Scriptures teach (James 3:17).

The hypocrisy is in the obvious showing of partiality and in the use of divers measures or weights that is evident in KJV-only claims.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Nope

Are you suggesting that the opinions of Winman determine or establish the truth?

What truth are you standing for when it cannot be demonstrated to be truth actually taught in the Scriptures?

Nope...and you know better. I'm just in agreement with the position he takes regarding the KJV. He didn't "establish" it...he just believes it based on the version of the evidence that he, like I, have determined to be true...JUST LIKE YOU. We have all just come to different conclusions. I have said it here on the BB before and I will say it again.......ALL OF US HERE (including you Bro.Norris) have come to the conclusions that we have regarding the Bible Version issue by EXTRA-BIBLICAL means based on the differing versions of the "manuscript evidence" we have chosen to accept. As I have said before....I believe this work of the Preservation of the text to be a totally supernatural work that defies any adequate explanation by any man. I just have FAITH that He did it. And no, you don't have to have chapter and verse to make a statement like that.....at least not any chapter and verse that says something like ...'thus saith the Lord, the KJV is the only.....' well you know what I mean.

Bottom line is this....YOU and those who believe as you do cannot produce ONE VERSE of scripture (in any language) that backs up your position either. If you can...I think we'd all like to see it.(see your embolded quote above)...back at ya brother.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Logos1560]

.......ALL OF US HERE (including you Bro.Norris) have come to the conclusions that we have regarding the Bible Version issue by EXTRA-BIBLICAL means based on the differing versions of the "manuscript evidence" we have chosen to accept.

What supposed different version of the "manuscript evidence" have I supposedly chosen to accept?

I accept the truth concerning the manuscript evidence. What have I supposedly stated about the manuscript evidence that is not true?

I have not recommended the Critical Text nor English translations made from it. I have accepted and recommended English translations based on the same original language texts as the KJV such as the 1537 Matthew's Bible, the 1560 Geneva Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Bible-believing Baptists, the NKJV, the Modern KJV, the KJ2000.

As I have said before....I believe this work of the Preservation of the text to be a totally supernatural work that defies any adequate explanation by any man.

Are you perhaps unintentionally implying that God was responsible for the known copying errors in the manuscripts on which the printed editions of the original language texts were based that were used in the making of the KJV?

 

[Logos1560]

part of scriptural basis of my view

The Scriptures are the specific written words of God given by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles. According to the Scriptures, God revealed His Word to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 2:10-13, Rom. 16:25-26, Heb. 1:1-2, Acts 1:2, Eph. 2:20, Acts 3:21, John 16:13, John 17:8, 14, John 3:34, 2 Sam. 23:2, Luke 24:25, 27, 44) and not by means of human wisdom or scholarship including that of the KJV translators. The words that proceeded directly out of the mouth of God are those original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Matt. 4:4). God’s Word is “the Scriptures of the prophets” (Rom. 16:26, Matt. 26:56). God gave His words or spoke by the mouth of the prophets (Luke 1:70). All Scripture was given by inspiration of God to those prophets and apostles (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, Jude 1:3). While 2 Timothy 3:16 may not directly mention the prophets and apostles, the parallel verse concerning inspiration (2 Pet. 1:21) clearly connected the miracle of inspiration to them when considered with other related verses. Comparing scripture with scripture, the holy men of God moved or borne along by the Holy Spirit in the miracle of inspiration were clearly the prophets and apostles (2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 16:26, Luke 1:70, Matt. 26:56). The words that the psalmist wrote in Psalm 95 the Holy Spirit spoke or said (compare Ps. 95:7 with Hebrews 3:7). What Moses said to Pharaoh as the LORD told him (Exod. 9:13), the Scripture said (Exod. 9:16, Rom. 9:17). God's Word indicates that there can be no new inspired works without living apostles or prophets (2 Peter 1:21, Eph. 3:3-5, Heb. 1:1-2, Luke 1:70, 24:27, 44-45, Acts 1:16, 3:21, 26:27, Matt. 2:5, Rom. 1:2, Rom. 16:25-26, Jer. 29:19, 2 Chron. 36:12, Dan. 9:10, Amos 3:7).


Since the entire Old Testament was designated by God with names such as "Moses and the prophets," "the law and the prophets," “all the prophets and the law,“ and “the scriptures of the prophets,“ this could be understood to indicate that all the O. T. writers were prophets (Luke 16:29, 16:31, 24:27; Matt. 5:17, 7:12, 11:13, 22:40, 26:56; Luke 16:16; John 6:45, Acts 24:14, 26:22, 28:23; Rom. 1:2, 3:21, 16:26). The writer of Hebrews could be understood to describe the entire Old Testament as what God spoke by the prophets (Heb. 1:1). William Whitaker affirmed “that the whole scripture of the old Testament was written and promulgated by prophets” (Disputation on Holy Scripture, p. 50). At Luke 16:29, the writer (Moses) is put for his writings. Moses was a prophet (Deut. 34:16). Since the Psalms is sometimes included in the designation "the prophets," it shows that their writers could have been considered prophets. In addition, individual writers of the Psalms were referred to as prophets (Matt. 13:35, Acts 2:30).

The oracles of God [the Old Testament Scriptures] given to the prophets were committed unto the Jews (Rom. 3:2) in the Jews‘ language. The writers who received the revelation concerning Christ that would be recorded in the New Testament also seem to be regarded as being prophets or apostles or both (Eph. 3:3-5, 2:20). The N. T. prophets given to the church may refer especially to those prophets that were given revelation that would be written as part of the New Testament (1 Cor. 12:28, Eph. 4:11, Eph. 3:3-5, Eph. 2:20). Along with the Old Testament, New Testament writings are also called Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16, 1 Tim. 5:18). The apostle Peter asserted that the commandment of the apostles are connected with the words revealed and spoken by the prophets (2 Pet. 3:1-2). The apostle Paul noted that his writing or epistle was “the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by means of the Holy Spirit and later written referred to those words that were written in the original languages (1 Cor. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:2, John 17:8, Heb. 1:1-2). The words or word that Jesus Christ spoke were in the original language in which they were given by inspiration to the New Testament writers (John 12:48). Jesus Christ stated: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47). The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses wrote them.

If some will not accept the authority of the Word of God given to Moses and the prophets and then to the apostles, how will they be persuaded by the translating work of Church of England scholars in 1611 that is in effect separated or cut off from the proper authority of the original language Scriptures according to a consistent application of KJV-only claims or reasoning?

 

[Logos1560]

more of scriptural basis of my view

God never promised to preserve His Word in any language other than the original languages used in the original autographs (Matt. 5:17-18). The phrase “the law or the prophets” (Matt. 5:17) was used to denote the entire Old Testament Scriptures. The specific features “jot“ and “tittle“ at Matthew 5:18 and the “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would indicate the particular original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God.

Since the Scriptures indicated the positive that preservation would be in the exact specific words that were given by God in the specific original languages in which He gave them, it did not need to state the negative that preservation did not relate directly to different words that are used in translations. When the positive principle for the preservation of the Scriptures in the original languages given to the O. T. prophets was indicated, there was no need to state again the same principle for the preservation of the additional Scriptures given to the N. T. prophets and apostles. If preservation cannot be limited to the original languages, it could also not be scripturally limited to translation into any other languages.

Christ’s comment about the writings of Moses (John 5:46-47) would also refer to Moses’ writings in the original language that had been preserved and could still be read and believed. The Scriptures or oracles of God committed to the Jews or Hebrews were in the original language (Rom. 3:1-2). “The scriptures of the prophets” were in the original language (Rom. 16:26). The prophecy that came in old time would have been in the original language (2 Peter 1:21). The Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles were in the original languages (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Rom. 16:26). The actual languages in which God said or revealed His words are the original languages. The actual languages of the specific, precise, pure words given to the prophets and apostles by inspiration of God are the original languages.

 

[Baptist4life]

KJVO destroys people's faith in the Word of God. I have seen it with my eyes on the mission field.

Claiming and proclaiming that ALL Bible versions contain mistakes and errors, some versions including verses, others versions leaving them out, destroys people's faith in the Word of God. I have seen it with my own eyes in Sunday school classes and Bible studies. KJVO does no more damage than having all the hundreds of different versions does. I'm really sick of hearing that.

 

[Logos1560]

more of scriptural basis

Other verses also demonstrate that preservation would have to concern the Scriptures in the original languages. Those verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly relate to the doctrine of preservation. KJV defender Thomas Strouse claimed: “The severe warnings in Scripture about tampering with the written word demand the view that the Lord did not want any of His inspired words changed. John’s colophon predicted a terrible destiny for anyone tampering with the text” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep Them, p. 241). Thomas Strouse also wrote: “Joshua and Israel had the responsibility to guard the very Words of the Torah, to not allow any deviations (cf. Dt. 4:2; 12:32)“ (p. 110). In this same book, Kent Brandenburg wrote: “Further instruction in the Old Testament to Israel regards carefulness with the stewardship of His Word. Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 both admonish the nation to neither add to nor take away from God’s Word” (pp. 105-106).

Concerning which specific words did God directly state these warnings and instructions? These commands must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language. Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. Again it should be obvious that these commands had to be directed concerning the Scriptures in the original languages since it is well-known that in translating words have to be added or omitted for the translation in the other language to make sense.

These verses could also be understood to suggest that God gave to men an important role or responsibility in preservation. These commands or instructions would indicate the need and responsibility for the making of exact, accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages. These commands also demonstrate that the source being copied was the standard and authority for evaluating the copy made from it. These commands also reveal that the copies were not given by a miracle of inspiration. For a king or whoever copied them to be able to “keep all the words,“ they would have needed to make an accurate, exact, and complete copy of them (Deut. 17:18-19).


In addition, a logical deduction from these verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would affirm that copies would need to be carefully examined, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, and that no words were changed. These verses could be understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies should be corrected. Just as the source definitely had to be the correct standard, proper authority, and just measure or balance for evaluating the copy so the words in the original language sources would have to be the proper standard and authority for evaluating the different words in a translation made from them (Rom. 11:18, Prov. 16:11, Job 14:4, Deut. 25:13-15, Lev. 19:35-36, Ezek. 45:10, Matt. 7:17, Prov. 11:1, Micah 6:11). The use of any unrighteous divers weights, divers measures, unjust balances, untrue judgments, or double standards in evaluating or trying copies would be wrong according to the Scriptures (Prov. 16:11, 10:10, 11:1, 20:23, Deut. 25:13-15, Ezek. 45:10, Lev. 19:35-36).

That the preserved and accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages should be the proper standard, measure, and authority for trying or evaluating translations of the Scriptures would be a valid implication or deduction drawn from what several verses of Scripture indicate.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Claiming and proclaiming that ALL Bible versions contain mistakes and errors, some versions including verses, others versions leaving them out, destroys people's faith in the Word of God. I have seen it with my own eyes in Sunday school classes and Bible studies. KJVO does no more damage than having all the hundreds of different versions does. I'm really sick of hearing that.

BALONEY!!!

There is a huge world of difference between

1. people who cannot use their God-given powers of spiritual discernment to understand that things that are different can indeed be the same.

And

2. Believers in another country who have ONE version of the Bible that they have revered and believed is the Word of God being told that sionce their version was not translated from the KJV itself THEY HAVE NO BIBLE.

There is NO COMPARISON!

 

[Yeshua1]

What supposed different version of the "manuscript evidence" have I supposedly chosen to accept?

I accept the truth concerning the manuscript evidence. What have I supposedly stated about the manuscript evidence that is not true?

I have not recommended the Critical Text nor English translations made from it. I have accepted and recommended English translations based on the same original language texts as the KJV such as the 1537 Matthew's Bible, the 1560 Geneva Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Bible-believing Baptists, the NKJV, the Modern KJV, the KJ2000.




Are you perhaps unintentionally implying that God was responsible for the known copying errors in the manuscripts on which the printed editions of the original language texts were based that were used in the making of the KJV?

Are you then not KJVO, but are only relying upon those versions that came of same textual basis, a TR only?

What about versions such as nasb/esv?

 

[Amy.G]

Are you then not KJVO, but are only relying upon those versions that came of same textual basis, a TR only?

What about versions such as nasb/esv?

I don't see a problem with that. To be one manuscript family "only" is understandable to me. But not KJV only. There is a huge difference.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't see a problem with that. To be one manuscript family "only" is understandable to me. But not KJV only. There is a huge difference.

i agree, but since logos only uses bible versions from that one tree, would he consider Nasb word of God?

 

[Winman]

Faith that has no scriptural foundation is not faith at all. You have deceived yourself.

My faith is absolutely grounded in scripture, God made many promises to preserve his word. I could list the verses if you would like, I am sure you have seen them many times before. The difference is that I BELIEVE those promises, you do not, you do not believe God has preserved his word, you think all versions of scripture are corrupt.

If you opened a jar of preserves and it was moldy and corrupt, would you call that preserved? I sure wouldn't.

KJVO destroys people's faith in the Word of God. I have seen it with my eyes on the mission field.

Nonsense, it does the exact opposite. My church is KJVO and we all rejoice that God has preserved his word. We have complete faith in it. It is you and others that claim all versions are corrupt, you do not have faith in any version, including your preferred version. Maybe you should become a KJVO so you can have faith. :thumbsup:

You are the one who needs to look in the mirror- when presented with FACTS and TRUTH that is not in accordance with your personal beliefs, you turn to attacks instead of seeking to know if what you have believed is true or not. KJVO is a damnable lie from the Devil. I have said it again and again. If something is not true then it is a lie.

Whose facts? I looked carefully into this issue years ago. I found good scholars on both sides who made good arguments. In the end it came down to faith for me, God has promised to preserve his word, and I believe God did preserve his word. There are two lines of scripture, I believe the KJB from the Received Text is the preserved scripture.

You do not believe any text is preserved, you believe they are ALL corrupt.

The Scriptures are preserved, just not in the way that you KJVO's would like to believe. God never promised preservation in one translation.

Nonsense, God warned against adding or diminishing from his word. The Critical Text has around 3000 less words in the original Greek. Either the Received Text added to God's word, or the Critical Text diminished from God's word, but both cannot be the word of God.

That is why I asked in another thread, should the last twelve verses be in the book of Mark or not? I say YES, you never answered because you have no clue. You don't know what to believe.

If you can't explain it, why do you waste so much time trying to?

I do not know how God spoke the world into existence, but I believe it. Likewise, I cannot explain how God preserved his word in the KJB in English, but I believe he did.

I am not saying the KJB is the only word of God, any accurate translation from the same text in another language would be the word of God in that language.

 

[Yeshua1]

My faith is absolutely grounded in scripture, God made many promises to preserve his word. I could list the verses if you would like, I am sure you have seen them many times before. The difference is that I BELIEVE those promises, you do not, you do not believe God has preserved his word, you think all versions of scripture are corrupt.

If you opened a jar of preserves and it was moldy and corrupt, would you call that preserved? I sure wouldn't.



Nonsense, it does the exact opposite. My church is KJVO and we all rejoice that God has preserved his word. We have complete faith in it. It is you and others that claim all versions are corrupt, you do not have faith in any version, including your preferred version. Maybe you should become a KJVO so you can have faith. :thumbsup:



Whose facts? I looked carefully into this issue years ago. I found good scholars on both sides who made good arguments. In the end it came down to faith for me, God has promised to preserve his word, and I believe God did preserve his word. There are two lines of scripture, I believe the KJB from the Received Text is the preserved scripture.

You do not believe any text is preserved, you believe they are ALL corrupt.



Nonsense, God warned against adding or diminishing from his word. The Critical Text has around 3000 less words in the original Greek. Either the Received Text added to God's word, or the Critical Text diminished from God's word, but both cannot be the word of God.

That is why I asked in another thread, should the last twelve verses be in the book of Mark or not? I say YES, you never answered because you have no clue. You don't know what to believe.



I do not know how God spoke the world into existence, but I believe it. Likewise, I cannot explain how God preserved his word in the KJB in English, but I believe he did.

I am not saying the KJB is the only word of God, any accurate translation from the same text in another language would be the word of God in that language.

Did God have a word of God to give to others before the 1611 KJV?

What word did Calvin and luther have from God, or did they?