Is KJVO unscriptural? (Topic started for 2 people)

That is fine, but let me make something clear. One of the biggest problems we have with KJVO is they change the subject, and refuse to come back to it. I understand you feel we may disagree on how God preserved his word, and I will take time to explain it, but I do believe GOd has preserved his word for us today. YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THAT I SIMPLY FEEL HE DID IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY. I will explain this below.

I would like a statement from you which says that you are not avoiding the subject addressed in my last post, and that you will return to those questions. Can you do this for me? It is the most frustrating part of the debate, because so many KJVO, which you have shown so far to be different from the norm, use this tactic to avoid ever answering tough questions. I trust you care more about truth than that, and I believe you do.

I dont see how I could be more clear. That is not what I said. I ask you please pay close attention here. I believe that the entire word of God has always been preserved. I said that we still today have the entire word of God. We have many variant readings in many places, but ONE OF THEM IS THE TRUE ONE. I believe that very strongly. WE ARE NOT MISSING ONE SINGLE WORD OF GOD. I believe there are ADDITIONS. If you are aware of the differences between the text types, the majority of them are all ADDITIONS! The later dated texts have words and phrases which are not in the earlier dated texts.

I dont know how I can be more clear. We have always had the complete word of God, ever since the book of Revelation was penned. I believe today in english we have the entire word of God WITH SOME ADDITIONS WHICH DO NOT BELONG.

Therefore, if you cunsult a modern greek text, all the variant readings of any consequence are listed. Most of the MV list the variant readings in the margin. They give you as much information as they can. It is up to US to study his word and rely on HIM to show us what belongs and what doesnt.

I must add that in fact, your theory should apply to the KJV rather than the modern versions. Are you saying that God's people were without 1John 5:7-8 for 1000 years, until God decided to resurrect it? Where did that verse go? It is the later manuscripts which nearly always are the ones ADDING THINGS IN. Are you aware of that fact?

Except I am unaware of a reading of any consequence which is present in the alexandrian manuscripts which is NOT present in the byzantine. there are very minor variations, but I have not seen one that changed a meaning of any kind. I have seen ADDITIONS in the later texts. I need an example of something that is ADDED IN by the alexandrian texts.

Through copying mistakes, WE HUMANS have brought errors ADDED INTO our manuscripts which CONTAIN the word of God. The errors are not IN THE WORD OF GOD, they are added into the same manuscripts which contain the bible. I cant see how this is difficult for you, because the byzantine manuscripts disagree in many places as well. Many times the KJV rejects the majority reading. Many times the KJV rejects the Byzantine reading. What exactly is the formula for deciding which manuscript to follow, and who made that formula? Why is that formula perfect?

What it does back up is that if you cannot show evidence, through scripture or fact or reason or something, as to why the KJV is the perfect english translation, then you are not able to judge another man who uses another translation, or EVEN TO CALL HIM WRONG. I think you need to understand that none of us think YOU ARE WRONG FOR USING THE KJV, we think YOU ARE WRONG FOR ATTEMPTING TO CLAIM WE SHOULD without offering PROOF. I think if God wanted us to use ONE VERSION, he would have made it undeniable as that such a version was perfect. How can it be undeniable that 1 John 5:7-8 belongs in the word of God when it breaks every rule the KJVO says are important? Where do the words "raise the dead" in Matthew 10:8 come from? Why are they not supported by the byzantine text? There are WAY TOO MANY unanswered questions for KJVO to be a true doctrine.

And it may FOR YOU. However, I use the NASB, the NIV, and the NLT, and the bible is very sharp for me. You may need to use only one version, otherwise you may be confused. I gain a better understanding of the scriptures by using several versions. In fact, I have NOT ONE TIME found a doctrine that is only in the KJV. I have found NO DOCTRINE that is ONLY IN THE MODERN VERSIONS. You may read the NASB, and see a different reading from the KJV, and it disturbs you. However, if you have no proof that the KJV is the perfect translation in English, then how can you use it as your measuring stick? I think you must admit that the perfection of the KJV is ASSUMED by KJVO. It is that assumption that I reject. Following the example of the bereans, I ask why, and I ask for evidence. You cannot say "well the word of God must exist somewhere, so it must be the KJV". So far, you have claimed there are errors in the NASB, yet your ONLY PROOF has been to show how it is different from the KJV!!! HOW DO YOU KNOW THE KJV IS RIGHT?!?! Is it assumed? If it is, then I think you are finally able to grasp why I reject this doctrine. I need evidence, not assumptions. Now, I need you to understand, I do not judge you for using only the KJV. I dont think it is wise, but I will not call you wrong, just like in Romans 14, where the man who eats must not judge the man who doesnt eat, since no scripture addresses the subject.
However, I do KNOW it is wrong to claim that others are wrong for using a different version, IF YOU DONT HAVE PROOF. If you have no scripture or factual evidence to back yourself up, then you cannot hold others accountable to YOUR CONVICTION. An example would be drinking. NOWHERE IN SCRIPTURE does the bible forbid drinking, in ANY TRANSLATION. I choose not to drink. However, if I hold someone else to that standard, when they have chosen to drink in moderation, I am WRONG.

So, our dilemma remains. We can argue about preservation for days, but I still need you to answer these tough questions, or we will not get anywhere. Let it be known I AM NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU TO USE ANY OTHER TRANSLATION. I am asking you for proof as to why you feel I SHOULD USE ONLY THE ONE YOU FEEL I SHOULD.

So, the word of God is far from dull for me. I use several versions, and in fact, it is the KJV which is dull FOR ME. I do not judge those who use it, I simply choose not to.

take as much time as you need! However, I have addressed this issue at length. i agree, it must be addressed, but we need not AGREE before moving on. I think it would only be fair for you to at least begin to address some of the questions about the evidence behind the KJVO claim. I am asking for DIRECT EVIDENCE which shows that the KJV is perfect. If you simply assume it is, by faith, then please admit that.

I need to know what your measuring rod for claiming "errors" in the MV is.

I have asked many questions. I am asking the same questions we have been asking KJVO for YEARS. Please, help us respect your position by answering them truthfully and directly. It is the failure to do so thus far which DIRECTLY leads to the tension between the sides, in my opinion.

I feel so far, I have answered every question you have asked. I trust you will at least begin to do the same, and as quickly as possible, answer every question I have asked. If there are any you think I have not answered, please include them at the bottom, perhaps with a number, so I will not miss them. It is my goal to answer truthfully and directly EVERY QUESTION YOU ASK. Will you commit to the same goal?

I must make it clear that when I type in CAPS, it is not due to anger of any kind. It is merely to emphasize the point, and make sure you dont overlook it. Please take no offense from it, none is intended.

God bless you today, sister!

 

Prolly right about the first time a manuscript was copied. I dont see how you could believe any differently. There are no 2 manuscripts which agree 100%. So far, I am unaware of any claim at any time in history of there being 2 manuscripts which agree 100%. Thererfore, most likely, erroneous additions began to creep in the very first time John's gospel, Paul's letters, and other books were copied.

However, I object to the word "split". At no time have I said the word of God was "split".

Yea, from the day it was penned, up until the day it was copied in greek or translated into another language. If you disagree, would you mind posting some evidence to support it? My evidence is the fact that no where on this planet are there 2 manuscripts which agree 100%.

Then I think the only problem is with your definition of the word "preserved".
The hebrew word here is "Natsar", and the primary definition is "to guard, watch, watch over, keep". Now, I look up preserve in the merriam/webster dictionary, and I get the following:

Now, you must also note that the verb "natsar" has a note beside it saying "qal". Here is the definition for "qal"

This basically means that the verb is being done PASSIVELY. God is not supernaturally preserving his word, but rather providentially.

Now, lets say God gave me a package of skittles (candy). If I pass them all around the room, and then collect them again, and I keep every one of them, but somehow some M&M's are added in, have I preserved the skittles? Have I failed to guard a single one of them? I think not! In fact, the only thing I need to do to remedy the entire situation is to KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SKITTLE AND AN M&M!!!

So, God has preserved his word, even though us humans, through our faulty minds, have copied his word and added mistakes into it. Now, all we need to do is find out how to tell the diffence bewteen a skittle and an M&M. The only way to do that? THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Make no mistake, the skittles are STILL SKITTLES. It was OUR FAULT that the M&M's got added in. OUR MISTAKES did not change what GOD DID. OUR MISTAKES have not changed what God IS DOING.

Now, I understand completely if this disagrees with your theology. However, I urge you to provide evidence, either from scripture or outside facts, which show that my above explination is incorrect.

I encourage you to consider a committment I have chosen to build my theology upon. "May what I believe never be more important that what is true"

 

I will answer your latest, longer post tonight. Have a blessed evening!

 

Easy, because I choose FACT over TRADITION. I have faith in what I DO NOT SEE, not in spite of what I DO SEE. When I look at KJVO, all I see is a doctrine filled with unanswered questions, lots of guesses, and truckloads of double standards. KJVO CONSTANTLY accuses the modern versions of things that the KJV was guilty of LONG BEFORE THE MVs WERE EVER CREATED.

I lead people to the Lord because I challenge them to value TRUTH, not tradition. Thus far, you have only spoken of tradition. You have yet to offer ONE PIECE of tangible evidence to support your position. I understand that we have just begun, and you have not yet had time to answer many of my questions, but those in which you have answered have been only with your tradition, which is the ASSUMED PERFECTION OF THE KJV.
I dont assume there is a God. I KNOW THERE IS A GOD because of the evidence. I dont ASSUME Jesus came and died, I KNOW HE DID because of the evidence. It isnt a belief. ITS A FACT. Faith is USELESS if it is not in something that is FACTUALLY TRUE. The mormon has faith in his scriptures. What makes him different from us? HIS SCRIPTURES ARENT TRUE. The bible is. So, I respect your faith tremendously, but faith in a tradition is nothing. I wish to see the FACTS which support your tradition, and those "facts" should stand up to plain reason. I look forward to the time we get to discuss those!

Here is where you arent understanding. I CAN prove the trinity from the NASB because THIS ISNT THE ONLY VERSE WHICH DISCUSSES IT!!!
The same problem came with Psalm 12:7. You seemed to claim that if I dont believe that verse discussed bible preservation, then I dont believe in bible preservation. However, I showed you that EVEN THE KJV TRANSLATORS KNEW THAT VERSE WASNT DISCUSSING BIBLE PRESERVATION. Why was that not a problem for them? BECAUSE ITS NOT THE ONLY VERSE WHICH DISCUSSES IT!!! My theology doesnt live or die by ONE VERSE, expecially one verse which contains a serious textual variant.

Here is my question for you: Do you prefer the KJV readings because they are more orthodox or because they are accurate? What evidence do you have that this verse in Timothy originally read "God"? Please answer as directly as possible.

You know whats funny, I PREFER the reading "GOD" here. However, you still never answered my question: "Who is "he who" referring to?"
The JW can claim anything they want! It doesnt change the fact that even if "HE WHO" is the original reading, that HE WHO is referring to GOD! Jesus was manifested in the flesh! There is no change at all. They can claim "this implies ......." No, it doesnt imply anything. The JW misread this verse, take it out of its context, and READ A MEANING INTO IT. I can do that with the KJV! Does that mean the KJV is "changing" God's word?

All I want is SOME EVIDENCE. ANYTHING! You are saying you cant give me "what I want". That statement is incorrect. The word of God clearly states for you to always be ready to give a defense for this faith you have. I am ready to give a defense, and I have answered EVERY QUESTION YOU HAVE ASKED. Does it not bother you that you are unable to even BEGIN to ATTEMPT to give any evidence in response to my questions?

First, we arent talking about DOCTRINE. We are talking about TEXTUAL CRITICISM. Second, you have stated you take their word on textual criticism and bible translation as official doctrine. You called their translation "perfect". They clearly stated that they knew this verse meant "people". I need you to do one of 2 things. Either say "They were wrong" and show why, or simply admit that they were correct. An honest christian would have to admit one of those 2 things. So far, I have never seen a KJVO be honest with this issue of Psalms 12. Will you be honest here?

And I agree! There are no errors in God's word. There are errors in MAN MADE TRANSLATIONS!!!! God's word is still perfect today! It is our responsiblity to remove mans mistakes from our books which contain God's word. DO you understand now?

Yes, I believe they were. And whats funny, many of those translations came from the LATIN, which is where that reading came from.

Once again, this same question can be asked of you:
Where the KJV disagrees with all the other translations here, were those godly men really so ignorant and decieved? Are you aware of the places where the KJV disagrees with nearly every other bible translation, such as in Psalms 12:7?
Were the Geneva translators ignorant and decieved?
Please answer as directly as possible.

Before I answer this, would you mind telling me if this was copied and pasted, or is this your own words? I will answer it in my next post.

In order for your statement to be true, the following must be true:
1. You have conclusive proof that the new versions are wrong.
2. The doctrine of the trinity stands or falls ON THIS VERSE ALONE.

1. You have offered nothing as evidence except the reading of the KJV. I have shown how neither reading causes a problem. Do you have evidence which supports you theory, or is it simply the assumed perfection of the KJV?

2. I highly doubt you would claim this, so I think you must admit that you statement was in error, and the doctrine of the trinity has not been removed. You may claim this verse is incorrectly translated, which I would love to discuss that. But you cannot claim that the doctrine of the trinity is removed, since there are many other verses in the NASB which clearly show the doctrine of the trinity. If you disagree, I will post them for you, and show the doctrine of the trinity from either the NIV or NASB.

For the above statement to be true, the following must be true:
1. God's word MUST BE PRESERVED PERFECT IN ENGLISH.
2. God's word MUST BE FOUND IN ONE VOLUME TO BE PERFECT.

1. I reject the idea that God ever promised to provide a perfect translation in english. Would you care to provide evidence that he did? Also, doesnt the doctrine of preservation make more sense if God preserved is word how he originally inspired it? That would be IN GREEK, HEBREW, and ARAMAIC. Why would he preserve it in English? That language wasnt even in existence when the bible was written. Can you explain this?

2. I also reject the idea that God's word has to be found in one volume. Would you care to provide evidence which shows it must? I am aware of no scripture which explains HOW or WHERE or in WHAT LANGUAGE God will preserve his word. Would you please provide some evidence as to why you believe it must be in one volume, must be in english, and must be in the KJV?

So are you prepared to admit that there is no evidence to support this claim of yours? If not, then please provide that evidence. If so, then you cannot claim an absolute truth without evidence. Without proof, it is nothing more than a guess, because you can be wrong. Many people have been convicted of things in their hearts, and lacked proof, and were wrong. Joseph Smith is an example. What makes your conviction different from his (his convciton being the truth of the Book of Mormon).

Once again, what is the standard you are using to judge "error"? So far, it appears is it nothing more than the ASSUMED PERFECTION of the KJV. Is there any evidence that these are errors in the NASB, or are they simply different from the KJV, which you assume is perfect?

Except I dont JUST believe it by faith, I believe it because it is FACTUAL! Can you see the difference? Imagine the power of witnessing when one is able to say "this isnt just what I believe, it is the truth! ABSOLUTE TRUTH! Here, I will show you CONCLUSIVE, UNREFUTABLE evidence for it!" I love to see the look on lost people's faces after that discussion! They were convinced that Christians were just guessing like everyone else. The power those souls won to christ have now is unstopable, because they not only have FAITH, they have FACT!

i will be honest as well. I never expect you to have all the answers. I do expect, however, and I hope you understand why, is that when you are confronted with a belief you hold which does not stand up to plain reason, that you would SEEK OUT THOSE ANSWERS.
I dont have all the answers. I have to look them up. Since we are talking about the most central doctrine of our faith, I would encourage you to research this doctrine of KJVO, and be able to answer the questions I asked before claiming you believe KJVO anymore. Remeber, "may what I believe never be more important than what is true." I challenge you to pray that sentence, and see what God shows you about his word. Even if (and I believe WHEN) he shows you that KJVO isnt true, that does not mean YOU have to use another version!!! That just means you now understand that you cannot call MV readers wrong, since you have ZERO evidence with which to do so! NNE is trying to convince you to read another version. All I am trying to do is show you that if you are going to claim something, you need PROOF. Jesus claimed he was God. He didnt just say believe it or be damned, he PROVED IT BY RISING FROM THE DEAD!!! Every thing God did, he left proof of it. Why would he refuse to do the same when it comes to his most treasured creation, HIS VERY WORD?

You arent understanding. YOU DONT HAVE TO PROVE IT TO US! Its a personal conviciton! We arent bound to it!!!! If you believe the KJV is the translation God wants you to use, then PRAISE BE TO HIS NAME!!!! However, if you believe that the KJV is the translation God wants EVERYONE TO USE, then you need proof. Does this make sense?

I agree, it is a splendid translation, which has been used to lead countless people to Christ. Only problem is, so have many other versions. Many AMAZING men and women of God have lived consecrated lives for the Lord, and yet were not KJVO. Jim Elliott is one. I have personally know countless others, who gave God everything, and all based on what they read about him in other versions! I myself know that the God I serve is a triune God, and I do not use a KJV.

Dear sister, be encouraged and fearless in your witnessing. I pray MANY are won to the Lord from your efforts. Please never think for a second that this doctrine divides us. We are both members of the same body, that is Jesus Christ. Keep telling the lost about him!

All I ask is that when you do, make sure you have EVIDENCE for what you claim, or be honest and simply say "this is what I believe, but seek out the facts yourself", and then point them not to a KJVO author, but to both sides of the discussion. Trust God that he will show them the truth.

I am still keeping faith that you will take the time to seek out those answers. I have all the time in the world, sister!
The only thing that you should be sorry for is IF you choose to refuse to seek out the evidence for what you claim to believe. Judging from the spirit for truth I see in you, I believe you will. I also believe you will be able to admit that so far, you have no such evidence, and this is mostly a doctrine of faith and tradition. Those are not BAD per se, they are only bad when they are claimed to be absolute truth. I pray you seek out those answers before claiming KJVO is truth for here out.

And that you have! I commend you for your sweet spirit, your love for truth, and you great faith. You are truely a woman of God!

I must make it clear that you have proven my original theory as well: No evidence exists to support the claim that the KJV is the only translation that English speaking Christians should use, and NO EVIDENCE exists which supports the perfection of the KJV. The perfection of the KJV is simply ASSUMED by the KJVO.

I wish I could be as optimistic as you are of this, but I along with many others here have been studying this issue for a long time, and so far, no one has come forward with any evidence to support the KJVO doctrine. Many have been nice about it, such as yourself, but in the end they all simply fail to provide any evidence.

NONSENSE!!! Dear sister, you have not disappointed me! You have been honest and kind, loving in spirit and deed. You are truely a woman of faith. If nothing else has come of this, I believe you are now aware that you have no factual evidence to support you belief, and will now begin to seek out evidence and ask questions and challenge what you believe is true.

I and many others have learned that we can have an open and honest discussion with KJVO without calling names or throwing things!!!

I have also learned that I must be willing to answer ALL questions if I am to ask a single one. I hope I did not fail to answer even one, so that you completely understand that when I say I believe something, it is based on the SUM of the facts supporting that belief and the faith God gives me. Both must be present for me to claim I believe ANYTHING.

Please allow me to give an example: I often have people ask me "what is your belief of eschatology". Now, I have a guess, but my response is "I have no clue what Revelation means, so I do not truely have a belief, I have a guess." Many are insulted, but the true believers, in my opinion, are the ones who encourage me to continue to trust in the Lord for my theology, and not in my own thinking.

"May what I believe never be more important than what is true"

I pray that over you sister, and over all those lost souls you witness to.

Have a blessed day!

 

OK, well I guess this one on one is over, we can now open it up to the board.

Any comments?