Final Authority and Final Canonization

[Logos1560]

There are over 24 reconstructed (Christian, Catholic, Cult) Greek N.T. texts

which do not match in content, volume or doctrine.

The KJV was translated from more than one of those reconstructed Greek NT texts.

The KJV does not follow 100% any one of the varying editions of the Textus Receptus that were available to the KJV translators. The KJV has readings that are found in no Byzantine Greek NT manuscripts. Erasmus produced his reconstructed edition of the Greek text by adding several readings from the Latin Vulgate to it.

 

[Yeshua1]

The KJV was translated from more than one of those reconstructed Greek NT texts.

The KJV does not follow 100% any one of the varying editions of the Textus Receptus that were available to the KJV translators. The KJV has readings that are found in no Byzantine Greek NT manuscripts. Erasmus produced his reconstructed edition of the Greek text by adding several readings from the Latin Vulgate to it.

is that the exact text the NKJV team used? or did they use one of the newer TR texts?

 

[jonathan.borland]

yes, for we derive from the inerrant originals the concept of us having an infallible bible, based upon the reconstructed original languages text available to us today!

We can get infalliblity, but NOT inerrancy for either our texts or versions, which is what KJVO demands!

If 1600 mss of Mark 7:16 are exactly like the original to the letter (for reasons I mention in my previous post), then if the original of Mark 7:16 was inerrant then all 1600 mss that have it are just as inerrant. Yes, we have inerrant Scripture in most mss at every given word in the NT. Granted, sometimes we might not be sure which word is the inerrant original between two or more various readings, but we have it right before our eyes in any case.

 

[Yeshua1]

If 1600 mss of Mark 7:16 are exactly like the original to the letter (for reasons I mention in my previous post), then if the original of Mark 7:16 was inerrant then all 1600 mss that have it are just as inerrant. Yes, we have inerrant Scripture in most mss at every given word in the NT. Granted, sometimes we might not be sure which word is the inerrant original between two or more various readings, but we have it right before our eyes in any case.

No derived inspiration, as ONLY the originals penned by the writers qualified for that!

We would have an infallible txt now, not an inerrant one!

 

[Logos1560]

Can anyone simply answer my question,

Do you have scripture ?

Your question has been answered more than once.

I told you earlier in this thread that I have Scripture.

I have reprints of some of the printed original language texts from which the KJV translators translated. Do you suggest that the editions of the original language texts from which the KJV translators translated are not scripture? The KJV translators asserted that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages was the proper standard and authority for the making and trying of all translations, which would include their own.

I have reprints of all the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision. Do you suggest that the KJV was a revision of earlier English Bibles that were or were not scripture? The 1560 Geneva Bible is the translated word of God in English or is scripture in the same sense and way that the KJV can said to be scripture.

I have over 100 editions of the KJV from the 1611 edition to a 1769 edition printed at Cambridge to several more Oxford and Cambridge editions printed in the 1800's, and many later editions. Do you suggest that I do not have an English translation of scripture in the KJV?

 

[jbh28]

Can anyone simply answer my question,

Do you have scripture ?

YES we do have Scripture

Next question

 

[jonathan.borland]

No derived inspiration, as ONLY the originals penned by the writers qualified for that!

We would have an infallible txt now, not an inerrant one!

Settle for "infallible" if you like. I have no problem accepting that an accurate copy of an inerrant original is also therefore inerrant. A word is a word. It's not like copying money on a xerox machine, or is that what you think it is? If so, I'm sorry for you.

 

[makahiya117]

YES we do have Scripture

Next question

What are you calling scripture ?

 

[Mexdeaf]

KJV But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty,
not walking in craftiness,nor handling the word of God deceitfully;
but by manifestation of the truth commendingourselves
to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

Do you read the scriptures you post?

If so, why do you disobey them?

 

[makahiya117]

That's Silly

KJV 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:

KJV 1 Corinthians 15:3-4
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day
according to the scriptures.

KJV John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said,
out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

 

[makahiya117]

KJV Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing:
but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

KJV 2 Timothy 3:16
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness,

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

We Must Be Wise....

KJV 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:

KJV 1 Corinthians 15:3-4
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day
according to the scriptures.

KJV John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said,
out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

Brother (or is it Sister?...I can't tell) Makahiya...I have been following your comments for some time now and have restrained myself from offering my opinion but it is time to speak. I am a KJVO adherent myself and accept by faith that the KJV is the only valid English translation for the (English-speaking) church in this dispensation of Grace in which we live. I accept that on faith and, like yourself, regard the scriptures I read as THE Scriptures without proven error. Our position is based NOT on the direct statements of scripture (such as....'thus saith the KJV'...etc.) but on the version of the extra-Biblical manuscript evidence that we adhere too. HOWEVER...we,as KJV adherents DO BELIEVE that the verses in scripture THAT SPEAK OF THEMSELVES are, in fact, speaking of the BIBLE the we hold in our hands (the KJV). The CT/MV adherents MUST....IF they are honest, say the same thing about THEIR position as well. The non-KJV guys or CT/MV adherents on this board will always ridicule those of us that believe that because the idea of ONE BOOK being THE final authority is contrary to their own desire TO BE the authority on what is and isn't the Word of God. ( I do acknowledge that they would probably say something similar about us).
Now...with that said...I am more than just a little bit embarrassed that you would state earlier in this thread that Peter Ruckman and Gail Ripplinger ARE NOT KJVO! That is crazy! They are EXTREME in their KJVO-X positions and have brought much despite and shame to those of us who are simply trying to maintain a balanced position that honors the purity and perfection of God's Preserved Word. I don't think your style of "argument" is helping things here and I'm sorry to say that it may even be cause for those of us who honor God and His perfect, preserved Word to be ridiculed
needlessly. Some of these guys in here (on the CT/MV side) are proof to me that "much learning doth me thee mad"!...but your mostly simplistic approach to what they say does not speak well of our position and will never convince the gainsayers of anything. Their god is their education and their pride is many times evident in their attitude. It is not our business to convert them to our way of thinking. That is the business of the Holy Spirit at His discretion. We should declare our belief in any appropriate means and particularly when discipling young believers and new converts....but trying to "convert" the crowd that has been otherwise "educated" may well be a vain pursuit. I myself came to these convictions after I had been saved for some time and by providence, not by the direct efforts of any pro-KJV people trying to "convert" me. God brought me to this place and I am eternally thankful to Him that I can have the utmost and absolute faith in His Word today and forever...IN MY LANGUAGE! My advise to you, my brother, is that arguing about this...with most of THESE people....may be pointless and useless. The point is that if you can't do better than what you have thus far...step away. I have come to the place that THAT is what I'm going to do. I may occasionally post something to "state my position"...so that the truth (as I know it) is available to ALL those who may read the contents of this Board....but my days of pointless and endless debate and argument here are, for the most part at an end. I think God has better things for me to do with the valuable time he has given me. We need to be busy trying to win as many people to Jesus as we can in the short time remaining.raying:

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Mexdeaf]

Some of these guys in here (on the CT/MV side) are proof to me that "much learning doth me thee mad"!...but your mostly simplistic approach to what they say does not speak well of our position and will never convince the gainsayers of anything. Their god is their education and their pride is many times evident in their attitude. It is not our business to convert them to our way of thinking. That is the business of the Holy Spirit at His discretion. We should declare our belief in any appropriate means and particularly when discipling young believers and new converts....but trying to "convert" the crowd that has been otherwise "educated" may well be a vain pursuit.

My advise to you, my brother, is that arguing about this...wiith most of THESE people....may be pointless and useless.

Bro.Greg:saint:

There's enough "pride" and "knowledge" on both sides of this issue (and most others) to float the Titanic, but that should never stop us from seeking to know the truth.

That's what it is all about. Any doctrine built on half-truths and outright lies should be exposed.

 

[Yeshua1]

There's enough "pride" and "knowledge" on both sides of this issue (and most others) to float the Titanic, but that should never stop us from seeking to know the truth.

That's what it is all about. Any doctrine built on half-truths and outright lies should be exposed.

one can be a KJVP, NO valid/legit reason euther based upon scholarship or Bible to be a KJVO!

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Speaking of "exposing" things...

There's enough "pride" and "knowledge" on both sides of this issue (and most others) to float the Titanic, but that should never stop us from seeking to know the truth.

That's what it is all about. Any doctrine built on half-truths and outright lies should be exposed.

We TR/KJV'ers believe that we have a perfect Bible with no mistakes or errors...yes...that is the "doctrine" we hold too. We actually believe as you do that the "Originals" were perfect and without error.....BUT...we go further and believe that that state of "perfection" has been divinely protected and transmitted down through the years by God's supernatural work of Preservation which culminated in the work of translation that produced the Authorized Version or KJV of 1611 in the English language (for english-speakers).

You CT/MV'ers believe that ONLY the now non-existent "Originals" are "perfect" and without error and that no translation is perfect, that they ALL contain mistakes, errors and mis-translations. That is the "doctrine" ya'll believe. That leaves all us "lay-people" wholly dependent on the modern Greek and Hebrew "scholars" to really tell us what the Bible means because we have no pure scriptures upon which we can absolutely depend.

I will agree with you on one thing...you said:

"That's what it is all about. Any doctrine built on half-truths and outright lies should be exposed."

The above is the "gist" of both positions. May all concerned prayerfully decide which they will adhere too and ONLY do so as God directs. The only real important thing is that whichever way anyone goes..they should ONLY choose that which honors God for His sake and His glory. We must chose which position best HONORS God. It is the same acid-test by which we should approach EVERYTHING in our Christian lives as we surrender and submit to His rightful Lordship. (see 1 Cor.10:31)

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[jbh28]

What are you calling scripture ?

The words that God gave us.

 

[Deacon]

We TR/KJV'ers believe that we have a perfect Bible with no mistakes or errors...yes...that is the "doctrine" we hold too. We actually believe as you do that the "Originals" were perfect and without error.....BUT...we go further and believe that that state of "perfection" has been divinely protected and transmitted down through the years by God's supernatural work of Preservation which culminated in the work of translation that produced the Authorized Version or KJV of 1611 in the English language (for english-speakers).

You CT/MV'ers believe that ONLY the now non-existent "Originals" are "perfect" and without error and that no translation is perfect, that they ALL contain mistakes, errors and mis-translations. That is the "doctrine" ya'll believe. That leaves all us "lay-people" wholly dependent on the modern Greek and Hebrew "scholars" to really tell us what the Bible means because we have no pure scriptures upon which we can absolutely depend.

Originally posted by the translators of the King James Version:

S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea is necessary, as we are perswaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expresly forbiddeth, that any varietie of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margine, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we thinke he hath not all of his owne side his favourers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.
Original Preface to the KJV [link]

Rob

 

[jbh28]

We TR/KJV'ers believe that we have a perfect Bible with no mistakes or errors...yes...that is the "doctrine" we hold too. We actually believe as you do that the "Originals" were perfect and without error.....BUT...we go further and believe that that state of "perfection" has been divinely protected and transmitted down through the years by God's supernatural work of Preservation which culminated in the work of translation that produced the Authorized Version or KJV of 1611 in the English language (for english-speakers).

But yet no two manuscripts agree with each other. The KJV was translated from different Greek texts that didn't agree with each other. God never promised that copyist would be kept from error. He did promise to preserve his words, which we all agree. So when you say that you "go further" you are going further than what the Bible teaches.

You CT/MV'ers believe that ONLY the now non-existent "Originals" are "perfect" and without error and that no translation is perfect, that they ALL contain mistakes, errors and mis-translations. That is the "doctrine" ya'll believe. That leaves all us "lay-people" wholly dependent on the modern Greek and Hebrew "scholars" to really tell us what the Bible means because we have no pure scriptures upon which we can absolutely depend.

You are just like the people before the KJV came out. First of all, there are many people in the world that don't have a Bible in their own language. You are blessed with many translation in English. Having a perfect translation of the Bible in your language is not required for God to preserve His words.

 

[Rippon]

Their god is their education

That is very sinful on your part to impute that charge to regenerate brothers and sisters of the Lord.

It is not our business to convert them to our way of thinking. That is the business of the Holy Spirit at His discretion.

The Holy Spirit has never and will never bring somone to the position of KJV Onlyism. That is actually blasphemous.

God brought me to this place something to "state my position"...so that the truth (as I know it)

God has nothing to do with your error-filled doctrine.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

As You Might Expect.......

That is very sinful on your part to impute that charge to regenerate brothers and sisters of the Lord.



The Holy Spirit has never and will never bring somone to the position of KJV Onlyism. That is actually blasphemous.




God has nothing to do with your error-filled doctrine.

As you might expect....I COMPLETELY disagree with your ideas, conclusions and your subjective opinions in regard to this matter. For the record....it is unfortunately very easy for "regenerate brothers and sisters of the Lord" to commit idolatry and make "a god" (little "g") of their education...it happens all the time..... and there are probably some people on this very Board who may be guilty of it. It is of little consequence to me that you disagree with me or wrongfully charge me with the things that you have. I'm sure you believe what you do sincerely but sincerity by itself does not make either of us right. I just know that I love My Lord and His Word and have absolute, unassailable confidence and faith in both. The Holy Spirit has, in fact, led me to have absolute confidence and faith in the very words of scripture that He says He 'magnified above His name' (Psalm 138:2) I do love God's Word and seek to faithfully live by and obey it as I daily live my life. You would say that my KJV has mistakes and errors in it....I would say it doesn't. I will NOT compromise that position. Neither will I discuss the matter any further with you. We have no common ground.....at least NOT in regard to THIS issue. Sad but true. The ONLY thing that would satisfy you and your "type" would be for those of us that believe God's Word to totally capitulate to your opinions and decrees in this matter....and we NEVER will. It is actually YOUR doctrine that is full of error along with it's "Critical Text" and your "champions" (Wescott and Hort...and their "ilk"). I'm done.:BangHead:

Bro.Greg:saint: