Does Matthew 5:18 support KJV-only reasoning?

[Logos1560]

In the 2021 edition of his book, Michael Hollner cited Matthew 5:18 as one of the promises of preservation that supposedly support his KJV-only view (King James Only Debate, p. 442).

Michael Hollner wrote: "Christ taught preservation of God's word, right down to the smallest Hebrew letter (jot) and smallest decorative spur (tittle) (p. 40).

After quoting Matthew 5:18, Michael Hollner wrote: "Jesus quoted this because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. Jesus DID NOT use the Greek Septuagint" (pp. 101-102).

Michael Hollner asserted: "If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His Scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew Scriptures" (p. 435).

Your very own argument or assertions concerning the Greek Septuagint (a translation) would also apply as justly to the KJV (also a translation). If your understanding of the promises of preservation exclude the Greek Septuagint, they should also exclude the KJV.

Since you yourself suggest that the promise of preservation at Matthew 5:18 concerned the original-language words of Scripture, it would conflict with or even contradict your inconsistent attempts to change the promises of preservation to one English translation in 1611.

 

[Logos1560]

Michael Hollner claimed that "English is now the chosen language that God chose to use in preserving His Word" (King James Only Debate, p. 121).

Does your non-scriptural claim conflict with what you have said about Matthew 5:18?

 

[Yeshua1]

Michael Hollner claimed that "English is now the chosen language that God chose to use in preserving His Word" (King James Only Debate, p. 121).

Does your non-scriptural claim conflict with what you have said about Matthew 5:18?

So God moved off of using Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek now?

 

[Salty]

Michael Hollner claimed that "English is now the chosen language that God chose to use in preserving His Word" (King James Only Debate, p. 121). ...

Oh, those poor people who do not speak English - I guess they got left out.

 

[Stratton7]

Oh, those poor people who do not speak English - I guess they got left out.

English is the universal language (no not Chinese) and Bible’s have been translated from the KJB or TR. There’s also word of mouth.
“According to David Cloud of Way of Life, the vast majority of these Bibles are based on Received Text scriptures.”
Textus Receptus/Masoretic Text-based foreign language Bibles

 

[Salty]

English is the universal language (no not Chinese) and Bible’s have been translated from the KJB or TR. There’s also word of mouth.
“According to David Cloud of Way of Life, the vast majority of these Bibles are based on Received Text scriptures.”
Textus Receptus/Masoretic Text-based foreign language Bibles

Not talking about a "universal language". If you do not speak English - do you have the Perfect Word of God???

 

[Stratton7]

Not talking about a "universal language". If you do not speak English - do you have the Perfect Word of God???

“Actually I found a group on the Internet called Sociedad Bíblica Valera that hold to the old Reina Valera of 1865, their exact words are:
‘We defend the old Valera Bible produced by Casiodoro de Reina and Cipriano de Valera. The outstanding edition of the Reina-Valera Bible is the 1865 edition. We reject all versions published after the year 1865, given that they ALL represent the diabolical intent to abrogate the authority of the true Castilian Bible of the Protestant reformation in Spain, and to replace it with the corruptions found in the corrupt family of Alexandrian manuscripts.’”
(Similar to KJO)
Chick believes that is perfect.

Forgive me Mike if I’m wrong, but I think Hollner believes the French Bible being currently worked on (sorry don’t know the name) is either perfect or will be upon completion.
Nor do I see any reason the AV can’t be used in other countries if a new believer decided he wanted to learn English (because English is the universal language).

The Old Chinese Union Bible which was translated off of the KJB is the best one to use for Chinese readers, likewise it doesn't hold C.T. readings.
Don’t know if it’s believed by the Chinese community to be perfect.

Etc.

 

[Logos1560]

“Actually I found a group on the Internet called Sociedad Bíblica Valera that hold to the old Reina Valera of 1865, their exact words are:
‘We defend the old Valera Bible produced by Casiodoro de Reina and Cipriano de Valera. The outstanding edition of the Reina-Valera Bible is the 1865 edition. We reject all versions published after the year 1865, given that they ALL represent the diabolical intent to abrogate the authority of the true Castilian Bible of the Protestant reformation in Spain, and to replace it with the corruptions found in the corrupt family of Alexandrian manuscripts.’”
(Similar to KJO)
Chick believes that is perfect.

.

KJV-only reasoning/teaching may have led to divisions among Spanish-speaking believers so that different Spanish-speaking groups influenced by KJV-only teaching have come to advocate varying and differing Spanish Bibles.

In contrast to the group you mentioned advocating the 1865 edition, KJV-only author Michael Hollner, KJV-only author Robert Breaker III, and some others advocate what is called the "1602 Valera Purified".

Other KJV-only advocates advocate the 2010 Reina Valera Gomez Spanish Bible published by Chick. KJV-only author Robert Breaker wrote a book entitled The History and Truth about the Reina-Varera Gomez Spanish Bible, attacking and condemning the 2010 Gomez with typical erroneous KJV-only reasoning.

There is also a Spanish New Testament that was translated directly from the KJV.

Has KJV-only reasoning caused doubt and confusion concerning the word of God in Spanish?

 

[Stratton7]

Has KJV-only reasoning caused doubt and confusion concerning the word of God in Spanish?

Rather the other way of viewing it has KJO reasoning shed light on the words of God in Spanish?

 

[Logos1560]

Rather the other way of viewing it has KJO reasoning shed light on the words of God in Spanish?

You do not view it the other way that I am shedding light and truth on human KJV-only reasoning/teaching.

 

[Reformed1689]

You know, when I went on a Mission Trip to South Africa 20 years ago, they told us specifically to NOT bring a KJV into the country because it would be rejected because of the English (British) heritage of the Bible and instead we were told most of the country uses NIV.

 

[rlvaughn]

Oh, those poor people who do not speak English - I guess they got left out.

I suppose if we judge people poor (to be pitied?) based on not speaking a certain language, those who do not speak Greek and Hebrew are in even worse shape. Based on a composite of several online sources that appear to be reputable, there are about 13.5 million Greek speakers worldwide, and for Hebrew about 9 million (compared to about 1.35 billion people worldwide who speak English and about 1.12 billion Mandarin Chinese speakers).

 

[Salty]

I suppose if we judge people poor (to be pitied?) based on not speaking a certain language, those who do not speak Greek and Hebrew are in even worse shape. Based on a composite of several online sources that appear to be reputable, there are about 13.5 million Greek speakers worldwide, and for Hebrew about 9 million (compared to about 1.35 billion people worldwide who speak English and about 1.12 billion Mandarin Chinese speakers).

Seems like I have read, where some think that the KJV is better than the orginial Greek.
Am I correct? I did a quick google - havent found anything yet - (have other things I must do now)
any help out there.)

 

[rlvaughn]

Seems like I have read, where some think that the KJV is better than the orginial Greek.
Am I correct? I did a quick google - havent found anything yet - (have other things I must do now)
any help out there.)

I suspect that is possible. It is practically impossible to avoid every kind of belief in the U.S. of A.! However, it might be more likely that whoever said that, meant that it is better than the original language manuscripts we now have. Pretty sure Peter Ruckman held that position or something close to it.

There might be some people who think the Bible should only be read in King James English (which may be what you were implying in post # 4) or only the original language Hebrew & Greek, I suspect the vast majority of KJVOs and anti-KJVOs believe that the Bible should be translated into the various languages where the gospel is carried.

 

[Logos1560]

Seems like I have read, where some think that the KJV is better than the orginial Greek.

Peter Ruckman claimed that the KJV is advanced revelation and that it is superior to any Greek text.
Peter Ruckman wrote: "The truth is God slammed the door of revelation shut in 389 B. C. and slammed it shut again in 1611" (Monarch of the Books, p. 9). Ruckman wrote: "The King James text is the last and final statement that God has given the world and He has given it in the universal language of the 20th century" (Ibid.). Ruckman stated: "I would consider an AV reading to be an improvement on a Greek, or Hebrew text, if it revealed a truth not clearly shown in the Greek or Hebrew text" (Scholarship Only Controversy, pp. 357-358). Ruckman claimed: "Often the English text of 1611 is able to give advanced revelation which the Greek scholars cannot find in any Greek text" (Custer's Last Stand, p. ii). Commenting on John 4:24, Ruckman declared: "The A.V. 1611 reading, here, is superior to any Greek text" (Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 118). Concerning 2 Peter 2:17 in this same book, Ruckman wrote: "The A. V. 1611 text is to be preferred over any Greek text, as it tells the truth of the matter, which is apparent by Jude 13. Notice how the English text corrects the errors in the Greek text" (p. 124). Again in this book, Ruckman stated: "The A. V. 1611 is necessary to recover the original text and straighten out the corrupt Greek" (p. 120). Ruckman claimed: "Mistakes in the A. V. 1611 are advanced revelation" (Ibid., p. 126).

In answer to the question Can and did the KJV correct the Greek T. R. and Hebrew variations?, Michael Hollner answered "YES" (King James Only Debate, p. 395, 2021 debate).

Michael Hollner wrote: "We believe the KJV version can correct any variations that are in these T. R. Greek text" (p. 397).

Michael Hollner wrote: "The English of the AV sheds more light than any Greek text can" (p. 400).

Michael Hollner wrote: "We do not consider any of the T. R. editions as 100% perfect as the KJV" (p. 416).

Michael Hollner wrote: "Our position is that the KJV is to be used as primary in any foreign Bible translations, and that the Greek and Hebrew sources are to be used as secondary" (p. 416).

G. John Rov claimed that the makers of the KJV translated “under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost” (Concealed from Christians, p. 148). John Rov claimed that the KJV “alone is the matured, finished Bible carrying the inspiration of God” (p. 70).

KJV-only author David Daniels suggested that “it [the KJV] carries the same inspiration as the originals” (51 Reasons, p. 158).

James Melton wrote: "The English sheds light on the English--without 'the Greek'" (Fighting Back, p. 9).

Pastor Charles Perkins claimed that "no true Bible Believer would ever write" that a translation should not be exalted above God's Word in the original languages (Flaming Torch, April/May/June, 1998, p. 6).

Pastor Al Hughes claimed that the KJV "is superior to anything, including the Greek" (Flaming Torch, Oct./Nov./Dec., 1999, p. 17).
In this same issue of the same publication, Herb Evans wrote: "We do not believe in correcting the Hebrew and Greek, because we ignore the Hebrew and Greek" (p. 4).

 

[Salty]

There might be some people who think the Bible should only be read in King James English (which may be what you were implying in post # 4) or only the original language Hebrew & Greek ....

I was just being facetious.

Peter Ruckman claimed that the KJV is advanced revelation and that it is superior to any Greek text.
Peter Ruckman wrote: "The truth is God slammed the door of revelation shut in 389 B. C. and slammed it shut again in 1611" (Monarch of the Books, p. 9). " ...

Thank you Logos - will try to keep this info?

 

[Alcott]

As Jesus was specifically talking about The Law, then if that verse supports 'KJV only,' and the kjv is a revelation itself, that should obligate us to the whole law, as Paul put it in Galatians. So the Law in this Anglican version is perfect, while in Hebrew or Greek it may not be-- or what's the reason for any new revelation? Nonsense. The answer is No.

 

[Yeshua1]

Seems like I have read, where some think that the KJV is better than the orginial Greek.
Am I correct? I did a quick google - havent found anything yet - (have other things I must do now)
any help out there.)

Yes, some held that any mistakes found in the Hebrew and Greek texts would be corrected by the Kjv!

 

[Yeshua1]

I was just being facetious.




Thank you Logos - will try to keep this info?

I have seen some extreme KJVO hold that the word John described in prologue was the Kjv itself!