How can you be honestly a KJVONLYIST?

[37818]

Both are accurate.

We know from Matthew 4:4 Jesus mentioned, "by every word of God." At issue did Luke really omit that phrase? If he had not, it is NOT accurate. There being no Biblical grounds for it's omission. Matthew 4:4. The Orthodox Church Luke 4:4 being the same as Matthew only lacks textual evidence being less than 8% of the manuscript copies of Luke.

Two fifth century mss support the phrase. A and D with it having a variant.

 

[tyndale1946]

We know from Matthew 4:4 Jesus mentioned, "by every word of God." At issue did Luke really omit that phrase? If he had not, it is NOT accurate. There being no Biblical grounds for it's omission. Matthew 4:4. The Orthodox Church Luke 4:4 being the same as Matthew only lacks textual evidence being less than 8% of the manuscript copies of Luke.

Two fifth century mss support the phrase. A and D with it having a variant.

I have been a strict KJV all my life... Now I have no idea what a KJV onlyist is?... Now are they saying that if you don't read the KJV, you're are not saved?... Name any translation that is flesh and blood?... Even the KJV won't claim that... The next time you are approached by a KJVO, ask them that... So read, study and quote what you want but separate the strict KJV from KJVO... Eternal Salvation is of the Savior (Jesus Christ the Son Of God) not the scriptures... Brother Glen

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

 

[JonC]

We know from Matthew 4:4 Jesus mentioned, "by every word of God." At issue did Luke really omit that phrase? If he had not, it is NOT accurate. There being no Biblical grounds for it's omission. Matthew 4:4. The Orthodox Church Luke 4:4 being the same as Matthew only lacks textual evidence being less than 8% of the manuscript copies of Luke.

Two fifth century mss support the phrase. A and D with it having a variant.

You are assuming it was an omission. I think you are wrong there as the remainder of Jesus' quotes omit part B of the OT passage.

Either way, the verses say the same thing as Jesus is referencing the OT.

But the older text-types do not iinclude part B of the OT verse. We only see this included in manuscripts a couple of centuries later.

The Orthodox Church uses the Byzantine text-type, as expected.

BUT the question here is whether the old manuscripts omitted part B or the newer ones added it.

Either way the verse remains the same because it points to the OT text.

To prove your position you first need to point to a doctrine that is taught in the Byzantine text-type that is not taught in the earlier sources.

Then we can examine the doctrine and perhaps determine if it was added or removed by examining what was occurring during that time.

What doctrine do you see that is absent in the earlier text?

 

[JonC]

I have been a strict KJV all my life... Now I have no idea what a KJV onlyist is?... Now are they saying that if you don't read the KJV, you're are not saved?... Name any translation that is flesh and blood?... Even the KJV won't claim that... The next time you are approached by a KJVO, ask them that... So read, study and quote what you want but separate the strict KJV from KJVO... Eternal Salvation is of the Savior (Jesus Christ the Son Of God) not the scriptures... Brother Glen

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

They are saying any other translation is not God's Word.

 

[Keith Mullins]

They are saying any other translation is not God's Word.

And I have recently came across someone who is not just KJV only, but states it is God breathed and trumps the originals.

 

[37818]

You are assuming it was an omission. I think you are wrong there as the remainder of Jesus' quotes omit part B of the OT passage.

Either way, the verses say the same thing as Jesus is referencing the OT.

But the older text-types do not iinclude part B of the OT verse. We only see this included in manuscripts a couple of centuries later.

The Orthodox Church uses the Byzantine text-type, as expected.

BUT the question here is whether the old manuscripts omitted part B or the newer ones added it.

Either way the verse remains the same because it points to the OT text.

To prove your position you first need to point to a doctrine that is taught in the Byzantine text-type that is not taught in the earlier sources.

Then we can examine the doctrine and perhaps determine if it was added or removed by examining what was occurring during that time.

What doctrine do you see that is absent in the earlier text?

How a teaching is changed.

You want to believe Luke omitted "but by every word of God." And Luke did not include it for an unknown reason. Maybe did not know Jesus quoted it. Am I adding it? God promised, in Proverbs 30:6, Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

 

[37818]

Why would Luke not include in our our Luke 4:4 the words, but by every word of God? Why would God not have Luke included, but by every word of God?

 

[JonC]

And I have recently came across someone who is not just KJV only, but states it is God breathed and trumps the originals.

Yea....the second revelation people are interesting

 

[JonC]

Why would Luke not include in our our Luke 4:4 the words, but by every word of God? Why would God not have Luke included, but by every word of God?

Why did Luke not include the second part to the other passages Jesus quoted?

Probably because part b was added centuries later.

 

[37818]

Probably because part b was added centuries later.

That does not answer why it was not included.
Was Luke's account written before Matthew wrote his account? Was there not anyone that knew about Jesus' temptation to know Jesus quoted that part to report it to Luke? And not undermine Luke 1:1-3?

 

[JD731]

@JonC,
Most, hut not all, of the TR readings are the better textual readings in the New Testament. So I can't be a KJVonlyist. It can be proven. Luke 4:4 is such a text.

We know from Matthew 4:4 Jesus mentioned, "by every word of God." At issue did Luke really omit that phrase? If he had not, it is NOT accurate. There being no Biblical grounds for it's omission. Matthew 4:4. The Orthodox Church Luke 4:4 being the same as Matthew only lacks textual evidence being less than 8% of the manuscript copies of Luke.

Two fifth century mss support the phrase. A and D with it having a variant.

Good grief! How did either Matthew or Luke know anything about the temptation of Jesus Christ by Satan? Jesus was in the wilderness for 40 days fasting. These guys were not with him so they had to be told about what happened there by the only one who was there with an interest to tell it. Each of these men had a different theme for their gospels and Jesus gave them the words to fit their themes. Most probably at different times. Is this what you study to reach your conclusions on doctrinal issues like what is the word of God? No wonder there is so much confusion among the scholars.

Matthew was not even called until chapter 9.

 

[JonC]

That does not answer why it was not included.
Was Luke's account written before Matthew wrote his account? Was there not anyone that knew about Jesus' temptation to know Jesus quoted that part to report it to Luke? And not undermine Luke 1:1-3?

No, there were no witnesses to Jesus' temptation. He went into the wilderness alone.

And yes, it does explain why Luke did not include those words.

Not only that, it explains why those words may have been added centuries later.

You could ask why Mark wrote so little. Did Mark not know how Jesus was tempted? Why did Matthew not include the statement about wild beasts that Mark mentions?

They wrote as the Spirit guided then, to an audience, about what needed to be recorded. And their accounts are different.

 

[37818]

No, there were no witnesses to Jesus' temptation. He went into the wilderness alone.

Correct. God was. Both Matthew and Luke by revelation.
Luke wrote, . . . having had perfect understanding of all things {from the very first}, . . .

{from the very first}= from above = ανωθεν

 

[JonC]

Correct. God was. Both Matthew and Luke by revelation.
Luke wrote, . . . having had perfect understanding of all things {from the very first}, . . .

{from the very first}= from above = ανωθεν

You are missing that the verse is exactly the same in the earlier text and the Byzantine text.

The probable reason is that the last part of the OT quote was added to Luke at a later date because it was present in Matthew.

Mark also accurately described the temptation, and was guided by the Spirit, and omitted the dialogue completely.

By your reasoning Mark did not understand. Why else would he not describe the conversation between Jesus and Satan?


You still have failed to offer even ONE doctrine not present in the earlier text that is present in the Byzantine text.

 

[robycop3]

Agreed. So why do you feel you need to state what this thread presumes?

As a reminder to KJVOs that they're believing a doctrine that's been proven false.

 

[Logos1560]

I have been a strict KJV all my life... Now I have no idea what a KJV onlyist is?...

A KJV-onlyist is a person who believes and makes exclusive only claims for the KJV, suggesting that it is the word of God translated into English in a different sense than any other English Bible translation is the word of God translated into English and often suggesting that it is the standard or final authority in and of itself as though it is not a translation that derives its secondary authority from the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the originals.

 

[John of Japan]

Luke 4:4, And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

What does your Bible read?

すると、イエスは悪魔に答えて言われた。「『人はパンだけではなく、神の一つ一つの御言葉によって生きる。』と書いてある。」

 

[John of Japan]

You mean the Byzantine text (Byzantine priority is a theory held by a minority of translators).

I'm one of 'em! (But I believe you mean "textual critics" rather than "translators".) And of course "minority" certainly does not mean "wrong," as you know.
...

The Byzantine text dates from the 4th to the 12th century.

The Alexandrian text dates from the 2nd century.

These are unproven assertions. There are mss from the 2nd century with various readings, even Byzantine. But Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, used most often to prove Alexandrian priority, are 4th century.

But even if the Alexandrian is from the 2nd century, so is the Old Syriac. "In general, the Old Syriac versiojn is a representative of the Western type of text" (The Text of the NT, Metzger and Ehrman--ugh--p. 97) but nobody today considers the Western to be the original. So having early mss does not prove that a reading or text is the original.

"A popular misconception is that the earlier the witness, the earlier and more authoritative the text presented by that witness, merely because such a witness is chronologically closer to the time of autograph composition. It is known, however, that virtually all sensible variant readings came into existence in the tumultuous second century...,and that what is reflected in all our extant manuscripts is a mixture of variant readings that date back into the obscurity of that era from which we have but scant textual information" (Maurice Robinson, "The Case for Byzantine Priority," in Rethinking NT Textual Criticism, ed. by David Alan Black, 2002, p. 135).

They agree 99% of the time (completely when taken as a whole on issues).

Very true.

 

[JonC]

I'm one of 'em! (But I believe you mean "textual critics" rather than "translators".) And of course "minority" certainly does not mean "wrong," as you know.
...
These are unproven assertions. There are mss from the 2nd century with various readings, even Byzantine. But Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, used most often to prove Alexandrian priority, are 4th century.

But even if the Alexandrian is from the 2nd century, so is the Old Syriac. "In general, the Old Syriac versiojn is a representative of the Western type of text" (The Text of the NT, Metzger and Ehrman--ugh--p. 97) but nobody today considers the Western to be the original. So having early mss does not prove that a reading or text is the original.

"A popular misconception is that the earlier the witness, the earlier and more authoritative the text presented by that witness, merely because such a witness is chronologically closer to the time of autograph composition. It is known, however, that virtually all sensible variant readings came into existence in the tumultuous second century...,and that what is reflected in all our extant manuscripts is a mixture of variant readings that date back into the obscurity of that era from which we have but scant textual information" (Maurice Robinson, "The Case for Byzantine Priority," in Rethinking NT Textual Criticism, ed. by David Alan Black, 2002, p. 135).

Very true.

I agree that minority dies not mean incorrect.

My point here is that what we have does not disagree in terms of doctrine.

I am probably in a minority because I believe that the text we have are copies that were copied from copies of letters written to Christians in order to communicate doctrine.

I do not, therefore, get bent out of shape when one source has Jesus saying "It is written, man shall not live by bread alone" and another has Jesus saying "It is written, man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God".

I really see that as teaching the exact same doctrine and a difference without distinction.

Again, I am probably in the minority here but I could easily see one congregation noting Luke's letter one way and another congregation either completing the OT quote or leaving it as a reference.

I could also see a later writer making the quote correspond with Matthew (if they had both at hand).


I believe people forget that these were letters circulated and copied, and copies copied.

More than that, I believe that the early Christians were most concerned with doctrine - with what was said in those letters - than acting as scribes.


My opinion stated.....I do not believe one can point to either and factually declare one to be the "better" (which @37818 does).

People have reasons and opinions. And there are good reasons and opinions on both sides. But reasons and opinions do not prove one better.

 

[Craigbythesea]

The following PDF will identify to restore correct KJV readings.
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.tbsbibles...EAE1CF/A-Textual-Key-to-the-New-Testament.pdf

But needs to be checked against Greek text f35 readings. Wilbur Pickering’s New Testament.

or The New EMTV Greek Study Bible 2011 Edition.
The better know Majority Text.

The differences are slight.

Some people prefer to use stone tools and live in mud huts and believe that anything better is sinful worldliness. Textual criticism of the New Testament, however, is not performed using stone tools nor is it performed in mud huts. Indeed, it is meticulously performed using the very finest and sophisticated tools for studying the text of the New Testament—and it is performed in well-lighted facilities where the researches can actually see what they are doing.