KJV 3:Rev. 16:5

[Stratton7]

Your opinion is wrong. You have not proven your claim to be true. Accepting what the Scriptures actually state and teach is not a scam. Your allegation of a scam bears false witness. You have not demonstrated that I believe anything concerning the Scriptures that is not taught by the Scriptures.

On the other hand, human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching could be considered a scam since it has not been demonstrated from the Scriptures that they teach it.

Is it? You still haven’t shared where I can find an inerrant, infallible and inspired Bible today? The originals don’t exist or we don’t certainly have them. So where has God preserved His words for us today? It can’t be in the majority of versions where they differ from one another.

 

[Michael Hollner]

WHERE is this "evidence"? Beza? you gotta be KIDDING!!!

You obviously did not even read the link, for the manuscript evidence has nothing to do with Beza.

Proverbs 18:13 (KJV)?

 

[Logos1560]

You still haven’t shared where I can find an inerrant, infallible and inspired Bible today? The originals don’t exist or we don’t certainly have them. So where has God preserved His words for us today?

Although the original autographs are not known to exist on earth, the preserved Scriptures in the original language still exist in the multiple manuscripts and in printed editions. I believe God is just as faithful to preserve His words today as He was before 1611.

The KJV was based on multiple, varying original-language editions of the Scriptures so why can't the Scriptures be in multiple varying original-language editions as it was before 1611? I have reprint editions of some of the printed original-language texts on which the KJV is said to be based. Would KJV-only advocates suggest that those editions are not the word of God so that the KJV was not translated from the word of God? Do the Scriptures actually teach that each believer has to have a complete, every-word perfect edition of all the Scriptures in one volume?

Do you ignore how that new believers in the book of Acts are said to have received the word of God even though they did not have an complete, every-word, inerrant scroll or copy of the entire Scriptures [all the New Testament had not yet been given and written]? It would have likely taken months for the multiple scrolls to be copied that would be needed to contain the entire Old Testament in the original languages.

While having all the Scriptures in one printed volume has not been demonstrated to be essential, there are some printed one volume editions with both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. One example would be The Interlinear Bible edited by Jay Green, and it also includes an English translation.

It is KJV-only reasoning that seems to suggest that God failed to preserve some of His exact, specific words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles so that they supposedly had to be restored from imperfect Latin translations or other language translations or regiven in 1611.

 

[SavedByGrace]

You obviously did not even read the link, for the manuscript evidence has nothing to do with Beza.

Proverbs 18:13 (KJV)?

yeah, you KJV deluded guys should take real note of that verse in Proverbs! You just cannot admit that this is only a VERSION of the Bible, amoung hundreds of others, none of which are Inspired by the Holy Spirit, and MUST have human errors!!!

 

[Stratton7]

yeah, you KJV deluded guys should take real note of that verse in Proverbs! You just cannot admit that this is only a VERSION of the Bible, amoung hundreds of others, none of which are Inspired by the Holy Spirit, and MUST have human errors!!!

Proverbs 22:21

 

[Logos1560]

KJV-only advocates do not answer with only words of truth since often they answer with invalid questions that assume unproven premises, with assumptions based on use of fallacies, with assertions that are not proven to be true, and even with assertions that are not true.

Assumptions based on fallacies such as begging the question are not certain words of truth.

 

[robycop3]

You remind me of the Russians who didn't see God when orbiting the Earth for the first time. They said God didn't exist because they didn't see him. How can you prove something doesn't exist without perfect knowledge?

We must assume something physical doesn't exist if we can't detect it. OTOH, God is only physical when He chooses to be, but there are plentya other proofs of His existence. And He is alive, while manuscripts are not.

So, my assertion remains correct unless/until can show us a manuscript that proves it wrong.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Proverbs 22:21

 

[1689Dave]

We must assume something physical doesn't exist if we can't detect it. OTOH, God is only physical when He chooses to be, but there are plentya other proofs of His existence. And He is alive, while manuscripts are not.

So, my assertion remains correct unless/until can show us a manuscript that proves it wrong.

But, you are not everywhere present. You cannot know any more than what you experience.

 

[robycop3]

But, you are not everywhere present. You cannot know any more than what you experience.

Either the evidence exists or it doesn't. We must assume it doesn't exist til seen.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Either the evidence exists or it doesn't. We must assume it doesn't exist til seen.

I think that you are wasting your time with these guys, who are not interested in the EVIDENCE, but keep on banging that silly drum of the KJV being "perfect"! They are DELUDED.

 

[1689Dave]

Either the evidence exists or it doesn't. We must assume it doesn't exist til seen.

I prefer to think God watches over his word and provided the KJV to the church for centuries. It is a matter of faith. But you prefer to doubt.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I prefer to think God watches over his word and provided the KJV to the church for centuries. It is a matter of faith. But you prefer to doubt.

 

[Michael Hollner]

Although the original autographs are not known to exist on earth, the preserved Scriptures in the original language still exist in the multiple manuscripts and in printed editions. I believe God is just as faithful to preserve His words today as He was before 1611.

The KJV was based on multiple, varying original-language editions of the Scriptures so why can't the Scriptures be in multiple varying original-language editions as it was before 1611? I have reprint editions of some of the printed original-language texts on which the KJV is said to be based. Would KJV-only advocates suggest that those editions are not the word of God so that the KJV was not translated from the word of God? Do the Scriptures actually teach that each believer has to have a complete, every-word perfect edition of all the Scriptures in one volume?

Do you ignore how that new believers in the book of Acts are said to have received the word of God even though they did not have an complete, every-word, inerrant scroll or copy of the entire Scriptures [all the New Testament had not yet been given and written]? It would have likely taken months for the multiple scrolls to be copied that would be needed to contain the entire Old Testament in the original languages.

While having all the Scriptures in one printed volume has not been demonstrated to be essential, there are some printed one volume editions with both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. One example would be The Interlinear Bible edited by Jay Green, and it also includes an English translation.

It is KJV-only reasoning that seems to suggest that God failed to preserve some of His exact, specific words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles so that they supposedly had to be restored from imperfect Latin translations or other language translations or regiven in 1611.

'Although the original autographs are not known to exist on earth, the preserved Scriptures in the original language still exist in the multiple manuscripts and in printed editions,

Does your book say this exact statement? If so, what page?

 

[Logos1560]

It is a matter of faith. But you prefer to doubt.

KJV-only faith is too often blind faith in opinions and unproven assertions of men instead of Biblical faith in what God said as recorded in the Scriptures.

I would think that it would be better to doubt non-scriptural opinions of men than it would be to be deceived by believing assertions that are not true and that are not scriptural.

What KJV-only advocates sometimes try to justify or excuse as being a matter of faith is instead a matter of being deceived by acceptance of assertions that are not true and scriptural.

 

[rlvaughn]

OF COURSE the original mss. didn't talk about themselves. Few of those writers knew their writings would become Scripture. The only reference to such is when Peter called Paul's letters "Scripture".

Just to remind you, the original reference to the manuscripts was not about the autographs of Peter and Paul, but rather where you wrote, "...that the best, most-accurate New Testament manuscripts are the oldest-known ancient Greek ones." To use your own words directed to that topic:

"BY WHAT AUTHORITY do you believe the [oldest manuscripts are best] myth?...no doctrine of faith/worship not found in Scripture can be true. And we know the MAN-MADE origin of [oldest is best]."

"That belief is taught as a doctrine in many circles, while many of us, including I, believe it's false."

"Without any AUTHORITY for the [oldest is best] doctrine, we can only conclude it's FALSE, and should not be believed by any Christian."

And, of course, most of Paul's letters were written to churches in Greece, so, naturally, they would've been written in Greek. (Remember, he knew Greek, & usually employed a scribe.)

And yet, "naturally, they would've been written in Greek" is a man's words, your words to be exact, without one quark of evidence from the Scriptures themselves that the autographs were written in Greek. To quote an authority, "It's entirely man-made, with no Scriptural backing whatsoever."

 

[Logos1560]

Does your book say this exact statement? If so, what page?

I typed up that post without pasting anything from any of my books.
I do not think that statement is in my 2003 book.

My computer file for my 2003 book is greatly revised, corrected, and expanded, perhaps from around 600 pages to over 1,000 pages. In addition, I have written six other books that are in print and have another almost finished.

 

[Michael Hollner]

Although the original autographs are not known to exist on earth, the preserved Scriptures in the original language still exist in the multiple manuscripts and in printed editions. I believe God is just as faithful to preserve His words today as He was before 1611.

The KJV was based on multiple, varying original-language editions of the Scriptures so why can't the Scriptures be in multiple varying original-language editions as it was before 1611? I have reprint editions of some of the printed original-language texts on which the KJV is said to be based. Would KJV-only advocates suggest that those editions are not the word of God so that the KJV was not translated from the word of God? Do the Scriptures actually teach that each believer has to have a complete, every-word perfect edition of all the Scriptures in one volume?

Do you ignore how that new believers in the book of Acts are said to have received the word of God even though they did not have an complete, every-word, inerrant scroll or copy of the entire Scriptures [all the New Testament had not yet been given and written]? It would have likely taken months for the multiple scrolls to be copied that would be needed to contain the entire Old Testament in the original languages.

While having all the Scriptures in one printed volume has not been demonstrated to be essential, there are some printed one volume editions with both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. One example would be The Interlinear Bible edited by Jay Green, and it also includes an English translation.

It is KJV-only reasoning that seems to suggest that God failed to preserve some of His exact, specific words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles so that they supposedly had to be restored from imperfect Latin translations or other language translations or regiven in 1611.

I typed up that post without pasting anything from any of my books.
I do not think that statement is in my 2003 book.

My computer file for my 2003 book is greatly revised, corrected, and expanded, perhaps from around 600 pages to over 1,000 pages. In addition, I have written six other books that are in print and have another almost finished.

Thanks for your honesty. I would recommend adding your statement, "Although the original autographs are not known to exist on earth.........

In all due honesty, I have revised several statements in my book also based on giving some better clarification to some of your questions, so I guess in an odd way (in that we agree to disagree) we are helping each other.

Blessings....

 

[Logos1560]

I guess in an odd way (in that we agree to disagree) we are helping each other.

I try to help KJV-only advocates remove incorrect claims from their writings although often they do not seem to listen.

I had asked around 20 believers to read and review copies of manuscript copies of my 2003 book before I had it printed. Some of them would be KJV defenders or KJV-only advocates. One KJV-only advocate sent me his suggestions on part of my manuscript, but then he stopped because he thought he was helping me too much or was helping me make my points stronger.

 

[Michael Hollner]

I try to help KJV-only advocates remove incorrect claims from their writings although often they do not seem to listen.

I had asked around 20 believers to read and review copies of manuscript copies of my 2003 book before I had it printed. Some of them would be KJV defenders or KJV-only advocates. One KJV-only advocate sent me his suggestions on part of my manuscript, but then he stopped because he thought he was helping me too much or was helping me make my points stronger.

That is good, but remember I said 'better clarification,' not 'incorrect claims.'