Salamander said:
Hmmm? I hear the same arguement, against Scripture, that says there is no "scriptural" proof for KJVOism, but where is Scriptural proof that it isn't?
We don't establish doctrine or claim divine truth based on what cannot be disproven from the Bible. We estalish belief, doctrine, and determine divine truth from what the Bible positively affirms.
For instance, you cannot provide scriptural citations proving that babies shouldn't be baptised. We know it is wrong because it IS NOT what scripture directly establishes and affirms.
The same is true for KJVOnlyism. We know it is wrong because it is not what scripture directly establishes... and is not what the facts of history as interpretted in accord with scriptural principles tell us.
I also hear arguement against words found in the KJB as them being archaic, but for that to be honestly true, the words would have to have been deleted or lost from the language, but they are not: "archaic" means "not in use", but these words deemed archaic are used in the very arguement against them.
Often it is the definitions rather than the words that are no longer in use... which is actually worse than the words themselves being out of use. For instance, "conversation" as a word is not archaic. The definition of conversation=behavior is largely archaic.
The definition "to share" is archaic for the word "communicate". When someone says they've communicated with someone, we assume they've talked with them... not given them something.
Anybody else notice the sheer lunacy in the arguement against the King James Bible?
Anybody else noticed the persistent dishonesty of questions like this? The arguments aren't "against" the KJV. They are against a false belief about the KJV.
I am critical of my children when they don't do things well. I am not "against" my children. I am willing to be critical of the KJV in the few places where it is not correct on some technical point. I am not "against" the KJV.
If the debate isn't important to the MV proponents, then why do they vehemently argue so much?
Because KJVOnlyism is a false, divisive belief that has the capacity to keep people ignorant of God's Word by only allowing them to read the Bible in language they lack the education to understand.
God didn't inspire the NT in classical Greek. He used the language of the marketplace... the everyday language of the people. Regardless of any other protest you might make, you cannot rationally contend that the language of the KJV is how people talk every day.
Why is it when they are pressed they go to the preface to the King James, persistently overlooking the humility of the translators, as some sort of "proof" against the stand for the King James Bible?
Because it
is proof decidedly against KJVOnlyism. Read the words for yourself. They specifically denied that their work was perfect or could not be improved on.
It would then be no wonder to the observer, that those who argue; are only those who argue against the King James Bible, then act as if they prefer the KJB, when actually they repeatedly argue against it;
I prefer my wife... by no means am I delusional enough to believe she is completely without flaw or cannot improve.
the rest are simply standing on the preservation of God's Word in the KJB.
No. You are standing on the false, unsupported notion that God's Word has only been preserved in the KJV and/or TR.
Hmmm? Isn't the preservation of God's Word important enough to argue against those versions that either confound the understanding or omit portions that concrete the understanding beyond any misinterpretation?
raise: :Fish:
raise:
You have yet to prove any confounding of understanding. Further, whether a "portion" 'concretes' an understanding or not isn't the issue, is it? The issue is "What is the best representation of what God originally inspired?" There are merited arguments on every variant. The assumption that one is right and all others are wrong as a "proof" that all of the others are wrong is quite obviously without any merit at all. You can't use an assumption as proof of anything.
