KJV 3:Rev. 16:5

[robycop3]

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.

What I doubt is the KJVO myth. That myth is something else you can't prove, any more than you can counter the "Rev. 16:5 thingie".

 

[Logos1560]

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

I have noticed that you refuse to admit that you make and believe assertions that are not true and thus are incorrect. Examples have been given where sound evidence would prove that you believe assertions that are not true.

 

[robycop3]

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 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."

I think it's only natural that Paul, writing to Greeks, would've written to them in Greek.

Now, we don't know who first made copies of the originals, but they almost-certainly copied Greek into Greek.

You're using English here (as am I, of course) because it's the language of your readership here, and I believe you'll continue to use it here, no matter how many other languages you know. I know only English, so, of course, that's what I use. And it's well-known that Greek was then the prevalent language in that part of the world. There's lots of evidence that Luke was a Greek, as well as Mark. Peter & John were Jews, And the ms. used to make the various TR editions were Greek.

And, for the purpose here, the oldest-known ms. of Revelation are all Greek.

 

[robycop3]

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.

Saying that God provided His word in English only in the KJV isn't a matter of faith, but of guesswork and thralldom to a Satanic, man-made false doctrine, an attempt by Satan to LIMIT GOD.

 

[rlvaughn]

I think...only natural...don't know...almost-certainly...I believe...well-known...lots of evidence...

All that said, still not one quark of evidence from the Scriptures themselves saying that the oldest surviving manuscripts are best.

 

[Alofa Atu]

Now, we don't know who first made copies of the originals, but they almost-certainly copied Greek into Greek.

What about the Syrian texts? and the Latin texts? and the Egyptian texts? etc?

 

[Logos1560]

What about the Syrian texts? and the Latin texts? and the Egyptian texts? etc?

What are you claiming about them? Do you claim that one of those texts was perfect?

 

[Alofa Atu]

What are you claiming about them? Do you claim that one of those texts was perfect?

I claimed nothing. I am simply asking about the copies of the texts into those languages. Surely you do not believe that every single Greek copy came out perfectly, and that only the perfect copies remain in that language (Greek)?

To answer you, wouldn't it depend on what texts you are referring to? The ones we have access to now, in tatters, or others which we do not have access to now, since then, or even having fallen apart since obtained?

 

[1689Dave]

Saying that God provided His word in English only in the KJV isn't a matter of faith, but of guesswork and thralldom to a Satanic, man-made false doctrine, an attempt by Satan to LIMIT GOD.

Consider that God has an elect people for salvation. But most are reprobate. He provides scripture for the elect. Why should it be for deaf ears?

 

[1689Dave]

What I doubt is the KJVO myth. That myth is something else you can't prove, any more than you can counter the "Rev. 16:5 thingie".

I'm KJV "mainly" but I also study from many other translations. So what's your beef?

 

[1689Dave]

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.

You assume I am KJV only. I study from many translations but so far, I prefer the KJV over the rest.

 

[Logos1560]

You assume I am KJV only. I study from many translations but so far, I prefer the KJV over the rest.

Your statement below to which I responded is a typical KJV-only allegation that defends KJV-only claims as being a matter of faith and that suggests any believers who disagree with KJV-only claims prefer doubt. Why would you suggest or repeat a KJV-only allegation if you are not KJV-only?

Do you acknowledge the fact that there are some inaccurate renderings in the KJV, that there are some biased pro-Church of England renderings, or some errors made by the KJV translators [not introduced by the printers]?

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.

Preferring the KJV is not actually being KJV-only, but your allegation and statement above displays typical KJV-only reasoning. There are some who may try to be KJV-only and not-KJV-only at the same time, but that is not in reality possible. KJV-only advocates may study from many translations, but they do not accept those translations as being the word of God in the same sense as they would claim for the KJV, and they may study them to find support for renderings in the KJV or to find fault with them.

 

[1689Dave]

Your statement below to which I responded is a typical KJV-only allegation that suggests that defends KJV-only claims as being a matter of faith and that suggests any believers who disagree with KJV-only claims prefer doubt. Why would you suggest or repeat a KJV-only allegation if you are not KJV-only?

Do you acknowledge the fact that there are some inaccurate renderings in the KJV, that there are some biased pro-Church of England renderings, or some errors made by the KJV translators [not introduced by the printers]?



Preferring the KJV is not actually being KJV-only, but your allegation and statement above displays typical KJV-only reasoning. There are some who may try to be KJV-only and not-KJV-only at the same time, but that is not in reality possible. KJV-only advocates may study from many translations, but they do not accept those translations as being the word of God in the same sense as they would claim for the KJV, and they may study them to find fault with them.

I'm not familiar with any of the charges made against the KJV except for the Johannine Comma. Firstly, I do not trust those making them. They cannot have saving faith if they doubt the integrity of scripture.

 

[Logos1560]

I'm not familiar with any of the charges made against the KJV except for the Johannine Comma. Firstly, I do not trust those making them. They cannot have saving faith if they doubt the integrity of scripture.

Questioning or doubting biased pro-Church of England renderings in the KJV would not at all be the same thing as doubting the integrity of Scripture.
Questioning or doubting misleading or inaccurate renderings in the KJV (that do not accurately present the meaning of the preserved original-language words of Scripture) would not at all be the same thing as doubting the integrity of Scripture.
Questioning or doubting any words added by the KJV translators for which they had no original-language words of Scripture would not at all be the same thing as doubting the integrity of Scripture.
Questioning whether it was correct for the KJV translators to omit providing an English renderings for some preserved original-language words of Scripture in their underlying texts would not at all be the same thing as doubting the integrity of Scripture.

You seem to be questioning the salvation and faith of any believers who disagree with KJV-only reasoning, which is a KJV-only assertion of some KJV-only advocates.

Are you suggesting that you do not trust any believer who is not KJV-only?

 

[Logos1560]

I'm not familiar with any of the charges made against the KJV except for the Johannine Comma.

How can you not be familiar with some of them if you read the posts at this forum?

How can you not be familiar with the subject of this thread--about the following of a textual conjecture at Revelation 16:5 not found in preserved Greek NT manuscripts?

 

[1689Dave]

Questioning or doubting biased pro-Church of England renderings in the KJV would not at all be the same thing as doubting the integrity of Scripture.
Questioning or doubting misleading or inaccurate renderings in the KJV (that do not accurately present the meaning of the preserved original-language words of Scripture) would not at all be the same thing as doubting the integrity of Scripture.
Questioning or doubting any words added by the KJV translators for which they had no original-language words of Scripture would not at all be the same thing as doubting the integrity of Scripture.
Questioning whether it was correct for the KJV translators to omit providing an English renderings for some preserved original-language words of Scripture in their underlying texts would not at all be the same thing as doubting the integrity of Scripture.

You seem to be questioning the salvation and faith of any believers who disagree with KJV-only reasoning, which is a KJV-only assertion of some KJV-only advocates.

Are you suggesting that you do not trust any believer who is not KJV-only?

I don't listen to those who attack scripture. They might know what it says, just as the Pharisees do. But they do not know what it means, just as the Pharisees do not.

 

[1689Dave]

How can you not be familiar with some of them if you read the posts at this forum?

How can you not be familiar with the subject of this thread--about the following of a textual conjecture at Revelation 16:5 not found in preserved Greek NT manuscripts?

I avoid negative doubting people. I only read what I think is worthy of my time.

 

[robycop3]

All that said, still not one quark of evidence from the Scriptures themselves saying that the oldest surviving manuscripts are best.

of course not. That'd be like a Maytag factory worker saying "Maytag washers are best because they're Maytags." The original writers of Scripture didn't have anything with which to compare them. But Paul did write that if anyone taught any other "Gospel" besides what he & his companions had presented, let him be accursed.

 

[robycop3]

What about the Syrian texts? and the Latin texts? and the Egyptian texts? etc?

They were almost certainly translated from Greek ones.

 

[robycop3]

Consider that God has an elect people for salvation. But most are reprobate. He provides scripture for the elect. Why should it be for deaf ears?

Calvinism is false.