Is the KJV the only Bible Christians should use?

[rlvaughn]

I think this is often reactionary, though.

There clearly are lots of reactions back and forth, and back and forth again. I suppose it then becomes a debate of which came first, the chicken or the egg (i.e., who started it).

(I did a quick scan through BB's posts in the Bible Versions Forum a week or so ago, and my "anecdotal evidence" suggested that the "anti-KJVOs" start many more posts about the King James translation than the "KJVOs" do. Nothing scientific about it, I was just looking at the subjects and who started them, and this has a lot of room for error.)

 

[Stratton7]

The interesting thing is nobody rages against the KJV, but KJVO people rage against all other English translations as if God gave the translators of the KJV a second revelation of Scripture (which is not exactly the same as any other copy of Scripture in any other language).

A good chunk of people that hold only to the KJB do not believe the translators had special revelation but that the inspiration is through perfect preservation.

 

[Logos1560]

2 Timothy 3:15–16
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.


Timothy was a child and wasn’t looking at the originals. Yet Paul considered the holy scriptures Timothy had learned from (the copies) wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. It’s clear that not only the originals are inspired.

Where in 2 Timothy 3:15 does it state that Timothy or his mother had copies of Scripture? You seem to be assuming something that the verse did not state.

The verse (2 Timothy 3:15) does not actually state that Timothy’s Jewish mother, Timothy’s Jewish grandmother, or Timothy had scrolls, a codex, or a physical book with a complete copy of the Old Testament in their possession or in their hands. The verse did not even directly say that Timothy’s mother, Timothy’s grandmother, or Timothy had read the holy Scriptures. The verb read is not used in 2 Timothy 3:15.

This verse said that Timothy had known the holy scriptures, and he could have known them by more than one way. Timothy could have known the holy scriptures first by being taught them by his mother and grandmother and later by hearing them read at a synagogue or the temple. Timothy’s mother and grandmother may also have known the scriptures by hearing them read, and then they repeated what they remembered and knew of the Scriptures to Timothy.

In the Old Testament, it is noted that the priests were to read the law to all Israel every seven years (Deut. 31:9-13). The Jews often had known the Scriptures orally by either hearing them read or hearing a prophet of God speak the words of God. Gary Long observed: “The Hebrew Bible’s audience primarily heard rather than read the text” (Grammatical Concepts, p. 7). Does 2 Timothy 3:14 indicate or acknowledge that Timothy had received and learned from oral instruction? Were the five brothers of the rich man to hear “Moses and the prophets” (Luke 16:29) by hearing a priest or someone read from the writings of Moses and the prophets since most Jews did not have their own individual or personal copies? Do KJV-only advocates cite any verses where it is stated that each Jewish home was to have possession of a complete copy of the Old Testament in their home? Would KJV-only advocates try to suggest that the scriptures cannot be known by hearing?

David Cloud asserted: “Scriptures written as scrolls were distributed only in portions,” and he indicated that a scroll copy of just the book of Isaiah would be about 24 feet long (Faith, p. 115). In the days of Jesus on earth, it is indicated that copies of Scripture were found at a synagogue, such as the copy of Isaiah, possibly a scroll, that was delivered to Jesus to read (Luke 4:16-17). From hearing the Scriptures read, Timothy’s mother and grandmother may have memorized or remembered some or many portions that they repeated to Timothy. In Acts 15:21, it is suggested that something from the writings of Moses was read in the synagogues every sabbath. Could Acts 15:21 be connected to John 5:47 where the same Greek term in 2 Timothy 3:15 is translated “writings” as used for the writings of Moses? Should 2 Timothy 3:15 be considered a parallel reference to John 5:47? Does Acts 15:21 reveal or demonstrate one way that Eunice and Lois could have known the Scriptures so that they could teach them to Timothy? Could Eunice and Lois have also known the Scriptures from hearing the preaching or teaching of Paul or one of the other apostles? Does Acts 18:14 indicate that people can receive the word of God without having personal, physical, complete copies of it? Perhaps in their home Eunice and Lois may possibly have had a copy of a few brief written portions that they could read, but 2 Timothy 3:15 does not state directly anything about any personal possession of copies or anything about reading. In New Testament times, Jews may have had phylacteries (Matt. 23:5) [strips of parchment with four scripture passages (Deut. 11:13-22; Deut. 6:4-9; Exod. 13:11-16; Exod. 13:1-10) written on them] in their homes, but is there any clear indication in Scripture that they typically had complete copies of the entire Old Testament?

 

[Logos1560]

Is our God so weak that He is not able to keep His promise?:

I have nowhere suggest that God is not able to keep His promise nor that He did not keep it.

I believe that God has kept and keeps all His promises.

However, the Scriptures do not suggest that you are entitled to dictate to God how He has to keep them. It has not been demonstrated that God has to keep His promise the way that human KJV-only reasoning claims. You seem to want to limit God to keeping His promise the way that you demand.

 

[Stratton7]

Where in 2 Timothy 3:15 does it state that Timothy or his mother had copies of Scripture? You seem to be assuming something that the verse did not state.

The verse (2 Timothy 3:15) does not actually state that Timothy’s Jewish mother, Timothy’s Jewish grandmother, or Timothy had scrolls, a codex, or a physical book with a complete copy of the Old Testament in their possession or in their hands. The verse did not even directly say that Timothy’s mother, Timothy’s grandmother, or Timothy had read the holy Scriptures. The verb read is not used in 2 Timothy 3:15.

This verse said that Timothy had known the holy scriptures, and he could have known them by more than one way. Timothy could have known the holy scriptures first by being taught them by his mother and grandmother and later by hearing them read at a synagogue or the temple. Timothy’s mother and grandmother may also have known the scriptures by hearing them read, and then they repeated what they remembered and knew of the Scriptures to Timothy.

In the Old Testament, it is noted that the priests were to read the law to all Israel every seven years (Deut. 31:9-13). The Jews often had known the Scriptures orally by either hearing them read or hearing a prophet of God speak the words of God. Gary Long observed: “The Hebrew Bible’s audience primarily heard rather than read the text” (Grammatical Concepts, p. 7). Does 2 Timothy 3:14 indicate or acknowledge that Timothy had received and learned from oral instruction? Were the five brothers of the rich man to hear “Moses and the prophets” (Luke 16:29) by hearing a priest or someone read from the writings of Moses and the prophets since most Jews did not have their own individual or personal copies? Do KJV-only advocates cite any verses where it is stated that each Jewish home was to have possession of a complete copy of the Old Testament in their home? Would KJV-only advocates try to suggest that the scriptures cannot be known by hearing?

David Cloud asserted: “Scriptures written as scrolls were distributed only in portions,” and he indicated that a scroll copy of just the book of Isaiah would be about 24 feet long (Faith, p. 115). In the days of Jesus on earth, it is indicated that copies of Scripture were found at a synagogue, such as the copy of Isaiah, possibly a scroll, that was delivered to Jesus to read (Luke 4:16-17). From hearing the Scriptures read, Timothy’s mother and grandmother may have memorized or remembered some or many portions that they repeated to Timothy. In Acts 15:21, it is suggested that something from the writings of Moses was read in the synagogues every sabbath. Could Acts 15:21 be connected to John 5:47 where the same Greek term in 2 Timothy 3:15 is translated “writings” as used for the writings of Moses? Should 2 Timothy 3:15 be considered a parallel reference to John 5:47? Does Acts 15:21 reveal or demonstrate one way that Eunice and Lois could have known the Scriptures so that they could teach them to Timothy? Could Eunice and Lois have also known the Scriptures from hearing the preaching or teaching of Paul or one of the other apostles? Does Acts 18:14 indicate that people can receive the word of God without having personal, physical, complete copies of it? Perhaps in their home Eunice and Lois may possibly have had a copy of a few brief written portions that they could read, but 2 Timothy 3:15 does not state directly anything about any personal possession of copies or anything about reading. In New Testament times, Jews may have had phylacteries (Matt. 23:5) [strips of parchment with four scripture passages (Deut. 11:13-22; Deut. 6:4-9; Exod. 13:11-16; Exod. 13:1-10) written on them] in their homes, but is there any clear indication in Scripture that they typically had complete copies of the entire Old Testament?

“Luke 4:21 "…This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." Did this synagogue in Nazareth have the original manuscript of Isaiah? And consider John 5:39 as Jesus told the Jews who had challenged Him to "Search the scriptures..." Was He telling these people to search the original manuscripts? How would anyone know if the "scripture" were fulfilled if the original manuscripts had crumbled into dust centuries earlier? Simply because they had copies and translations of the original manuscripts!

And at Acts 8:32, Philip was sent to meet up with the Ethiopian eunuch. When Philip found him, he was reading something called "scripture". How on earth did this fellow from Ethiopia get his hands on the original manuscript of the book of Isaiah? And why did that synagogue in Nazareth ever give it to him? And consider the Bereans at Acts 17:11. Did the Bereans have all the original manuscripts of the Old Testament? If they had them all, what did the eunuch have; or if the eunuch had Isaiah, the Bereans were deprived of Isaiah?

If "scripture(s)" refers to "original manuscripts," then one would have to say that Jesus was playing a cruel hoax on those to whom He spoke. Examine Matthew 21:42; 22:29; Mark 12:10,24; Luke 24:27; John 2:22; 7:38,42; 19:36-37; 20:9. How could these people read or know the scriptures, if they had crumbled into dust centuries earlier? Because, of course, they hadcopies of the original manuscripts.”

 

[Stratton7]

However, the Scriptures do not suggest that you are entitled to dictate to God how He has to keep them. It has not been demonstrated that God has to keep His promise the way that human KJV-only reasoning claims.

Yet you feel entitled to spread that God does not keep His promises even though you state you do.
On SGO’s behalf, us little humans that hold to the KJO haven’t decided how God’s promise for how His word is kept. God has. In Scripture.
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Mat. 5:18
Psalm 12:7 is not God's promise to preserve the Jews, a promise which flourishes elsewhere in Scripture. It is God's promise to preserve His words, and is a direct reference to those words as described in Psalm 12:6. 2. Oftimes a Christian, whose faith is too weak to accept the literal truth of Psalm 12:6, 7, will piously quote Psalm 119:89.

 

[Logos1560]

.
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Mat. 5:18
.

The oracles of God [the Old Testament Scriptures] given to the prophets were committed unto the Jews in the Jews‘ language (Rom. 3:2, Matt. 5:17-18, Luke 16:17). 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 to the prophets and would state something about language.

Concerning Matthew 5:18, KJV-only advocate D. A. Waite noted: “This is a clear verse for Bible preservation of the original Hebrew text and, by extension, for the original Greek text” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information, p. 93). Steve Combs asserted: “When God made the promises of preservation, the words He promised to preserve were Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words,” and he noted: “This is evident by the Scriptures themselves,” citing Matthew 5:18 (Practical Theology, p. 43).

The Lord Jesus Christ directly referred to “the things that are written by the prophets” (Luke 18:31), and the actual words directly written by the prophets themselves would have been in the original language in which God gave them by inspiration to the prophets.

“Moses wrote all the words of the LORD” (Exod. 24:4). The Lord 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). In another apparent reference to the writings of Moses, Jesus asked the Pharisees concerning whether they had not read them (Matt. 19:4, 7-8, Luke 10:26). The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses directly wrote them. The word of the LORD by the hand of Moses (2 Chron. 35:6, Num. 4:45) would be in the original language in which Moses spoke or wrote it. The LORD commanded by the hand of Moses (Lev. 8:36, Num. 4:37, Num. 15:23, Num. 27:23), and the LORD had spoken by the hand of Moses (Lev. 10:11). In what language were the actual words written by the hand of Moses? When later Jewish scribes made a copy of the writings of Moses, they copied his same words in the same language in which Moses had originally wrote them.

Do these Scripture passages teach or at least clearly infer that the doctrine of preservation would concern the actual specific original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles? Do KJV-only advocates avoid or ignore these internal statements in the KJV that would indicate or affirm that preservation would concern the same original-language words spoken and written by the prophets and apostles?

 

[Stratton7]

The oracles of God [the Old Testament Scriptures] given to the prophets were committed unto the Jews in the Jews‘ language (Rom. 3:2, Matt. 5:17-18, Luke 16:17). 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 to the prophets and would state something about language.

Concerning Matthew 5:18, KJV-only advocate D. A. Waite noted: “This is a clear verse for Bible preservation of the original Hebrew text and, by extension, for the original Greek text” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information, p. 93). Steve Combs asserted: “When God made the promises of preservation, the words He promised to preserve were Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words,” and he noted: “This is evident by the Scriptures themselves,” citing Matthew 5:18 (Practical Theology, p. 43).

The Lord Jesus Christ directly referred to “the things that are written by the prophets” (Luke 18:31), and the actual words directly written by the prophets themselves would have been in the original language in which God gave them by inspiration to the prophets.

“Moses wrote all the words of the LORD” (Exod. 24:4). The Lord 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). In another apparent reference to the writings of Moses, Jesus asked the Pharisees concerning whether they had not read them (Matt. 19:4, 7-8, Luke 10:26). The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses directly wrote them. The word of the LORD by the hand of Moses (2 Chron. 35:6, Num. 4:45) would be in the original language in which Moses spoke or wrote it. The LORD commanded by the hand of Moses (Lev. 8:36, Num. 4:37, Num. 15:23, Num. 27:23), and the LORD had spoken by the hand of Moses (Lev. 10:11). In what language were the actual words written by the hand of Moses? When later Jewish scribes made a copy of the writings of Moses, they copied his same words in the same language in which Moses had originally wrote them.

Do these Scripture passages teach or at least clearly infer that the doctrine of preservation would concern the actual specific original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles? Do KJV-only advocates avoid or ignore these internal statements in the KJV that would indicate or affirm that preservation would concern the same original-language words spoken and written by the prophets and apostles?

You may have the last word, but I have a Bible to read before rest. I will pray for you.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This will be closed no sooner than 1230 am EDT- (Fri) / 930 pm PDT (Thur)

This thread is closed

Feel free to start a new discussion on this subject.

 

[JonC]

To continue a few ideas

KJV 2