KJV Defense of Romans 8:1

[DrJamesAch]

New article on our website defending the rendering of Romans 8:1 against a Bible critic and a Baptist critic,
http://dorightchristians.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/kjv-defense-of-romans-81/

 

[Mexdeaf]

I stopped reading at "Bible agnostic". No need to read something written by someone who cannot treat those with whom he disagrees with at least a modicum of respect.

 

[Van]

8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.* 2 For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. (NET)

* Footnote: "The earliest and best witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western texts, as well as a few others (א* B D* F G 6 1506 1739 1881 pc co), have no additional words for v. 1. Later scribes (A D1 Ψ 81 365 629 pc vg) added the words μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν (mh kata sarka peripatousin, “who do not walk according to the flesh”), while even later ones (א2 D2 33vid Ï) added ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα (alla kata pneuma, “but [who do walk] according to the Spirit”). Both the external evidence and the internal evidence are compelling for the shortest reading. The scribes were evidently motivated to add such qualifications (interpolated from v. 4) to insulate Paul’s gospel from charges that it was characterized too much by grace. The KJV follows the longest reading found in Ï."

The issue then is the removal of text thought by modern scholars to be corruptions of the original text. I think many KJVO/P folks do not believe there are corruptions in the KJV. Some of these folks claim the name of Fundamentalist Baptists, but the actual fundamental doctrine is scripture alone and not the additions of men as the final authority for faith and practice.

 

[Yeshua1]

I stopped reading at "Bible agnostic". No need to read something written by someone who cannot treat those with whom he disagrees with at least a modicum of respect.

Think pretty cleasr that a scribe or copier came to that verse, and thought it too radical to have us not comdemned by fact now in Christ, but have to also stay abiding in Him to keep from being condemned!

 

[preacher4truth]

Yet another poorly written post with a link to it filled to the brim with straw man arguments, misreads, assumptions and fallacies.

I am glad that I don't belong to this unscholarly, rudimentary, schismatic fundamental KJVOnlyism sect.

Any person who actually starts exegeting Scripture properly and thinking through Scripture logically and within proper context will assuredly get out of that sect immediately if not sooner.

 

[preacher4truth]

I stopped reading at "Bible agnostic". No need to read something written by someone who cannot treat those with whom he disagrees with at least a modicum of respect.

Exactly. I'm also tired of these types who are on a misinformed, assumptive and misguided objective against truth, and who embrace a very weak theological understanding of Scripture (based upon KJVOnlyist myths and fables) tell others how much 'they love the reformed brothers' and 'how much they love those who aren't KJVO'. :love2:

 

[Greektim]

New article on our website defending the rendering of Romans 8:1 against a Bible critic and a Baptist critic,
http://dorightchristians.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/kjv-defense-of-romans-81/

According to the website, you have a doctorate in theology. Would you mind too much telling us about it? Where did you get it? What is the actual degree (PhD/ThD/DD...)? Was it earned or honorary? If earned, what was your dissertation about?

I'm extremely curious. Anyone who has "Dr" in their moniker must be proud of it. I'd like to know to gauge you a bit better.

 

[DrJamesAch]

I stopped reading at "Bible agnostic". No need to read something written by someone who cannot treat those with whom he disagrees with at least a modicum of respect.

You should see what he says about Baptists. Me calling an agnostic a Bible agnostic isn't offensive.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Exactly. I'm also tired of these types who are on a misinformed, assumptive and misguided objective against truth, and who embrace a very weak theological understanding of Scripture (based upon KJVOnlyist myths and fables) tell others how much 'they love the reformed brothers' and 'how much they love those who aren't KJVO'. :love2:

It's funny that the KJVO is accused of not being objective when the material that we get for our rebuttals comes from reading the opposition, something that anti-KJVers admittedly are not willing to do, but yet WE are the ones who are biased.:laugh:

 

[DrJamesAch]

Think pretty cleasr that a scribe or copier came to that verse, and thought it too radical to have us not comdemned by fact now in Christ, but have to also stay abiding in Him to keep from being condemned!

And yet the NIV, ESV and almost every other bible translation uses the exact same clause 3 verses later in Romans 8:4

"in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." ESV (English Standard Version)

"that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." ASV

" in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." NIV

"in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." RSV

ETC...ETC...

So if you're going to claim to use a pseudo-scholarly approach, don't be a hypocrite in following your own rules of translation.

 

[DrJamesAch]

8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.* 2 For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. (NET)

* Footnote: "The earliest and best witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western texts, as well as a few others (א* B D* F G 6 1506 1739 1881 pc co), have no additional words for v. 1. Later scribes (A D1 Ψ 81 365 629 pc vg) added the words μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν (mh kata sarka peripatousin, “who do not walk according to the flesh”), while even later ones (א2 D2 33vid Ï) added ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα (alla kata pneuma, “but [who do walk] according to the Spirit”). Both the external evidence and the internal evidence are compelling for the shortest reading. The scribes were evidently motivated to add such qualifications (interpolated from v. 4) to insulate Paul’s gospel from charges that it was characterized too much by grace. The KJV follows the longest reading found in Ï."


The issue then is the removal of text thought by modern scholars to be corruptions of the original text. I think many KJVO/P folks do not believe there are corruptions in the KJV. Some of these folks claim the name of Fundamentalist Baptists, but the actual fundamental doctrine is scripture alone and not the additions of men as the final authority for faith and practice.

The earliest and best witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western texts, as well as a few others

Origen took the texts that DID have the reading out of the A, and attributed it to the Byzantine Family so that it would appear that it was not in the Alexandrian. Yet Origens work was far later then the mss that did contain the reading like the Peshitta in AD 150.

So the "best manuscripts" (when scholars say this it ALWAYS refers to the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) which these "scholars" relied on are 200 years later than the EARLIEST manuscripts that have the reading.

And like I just said to Yeshua1, they didn't follow their own rules even from their own manuscripts when including the same rendering in Romans 8:4, which is NOT in the Aleph ms. So they exclude the KJV rendering in Romans 8:1 based on the Alexandrian text, and then include it in ROmans 8:4 when the Alexandrian texts reject it.

Now THAT'S scholarship:laugh:

 

[preacher4truth]

It's funny that the KJVO is accused of not being objective when the material that we get for our rebuttals comes from reading the opposition, something that anti-KJVers admittedly are not willing to do, but yet WE are the ones who are biased.:laugh:

Your statement makes no sense and is a straw man argument to boot. And it's not 'anti-KJVers' it's those who are anti KJVOnlyism and many of them use the KJV exclusively. For you to say this group is not willing to use your own lame arguments against you is a total straw man argument and you live under a rock. 'The King James Only Controversy' anyone? Hello? :laugh:

There are also many many sites devoted to tearing down your fables of KJVOnlyism which proves yet again your statement to be dreamed up in your La La land somewhere.

Sam Gipp, a ring leader of this nonsense, touted to be one of the best is horrendous in attempting to defend this utter nonsense. He's horrible and he's one of the best you have. The arguments used by you, him and others are mythical, shallow fables, and are laughable as if you got them out of a gumball machine on a bazooka wrapper. I've heard it all -- there is not ONE strong argument in all of it, and this after reading nonsense from Riplinger and others (and not because I wanted to, but because of other KJVOnlys who wished for me to join them, seeking 'converts' to their 'sect'). Nothing but lies and fabrications and a witch hunt, not to mention a money grab.

James, you show how deceived you are by this ridiculous nonsense you spout. Looking at your site you take what others say out of context on a consistent basis just as you do Scripture and then you attack the straw man that you erect. It's glaringly obvious. The KJVO arguments aren't. They're worthless drivel. That you can't see how far off track you are theologically is frankly scary to be honest. Others blinded by KJVOnlyism fall in line and also cannot think through to truth themselves -- and this brings new meaning to 'deceiving themselves and being deceived.'

Nothing in your KJVOnlyism supports that sect nor does it prove that other versions are corrupt. In fact, you learned this line of nonsense after you got saved, not prior to. You were indoctrinated with teachings of men that is unScriptural, dissident and utter foolishness so that others can glory in you following them as a proselyte of error.

None of your arguments hold water and are not well thought out. Be thankful you don't live in Calvins day preaching that KJVO nonsense, and also your other erroneous dissident theological conclusions.

You prove my point. KJVOnlyists aren't for the most part solid in theology, exegesis, nor in rightly dividing the Word of truth. But Oh boy how they love to be called 'Dr.'

:wavey:

 

[DrJamesAch]

Your statement makes no sense and is a straw man argument to boot. And it's not 'anti-KJVers' it's those who are anti KJVOnlyism and many of them use the KJV exclusively. For you to say this group is not willing to use your own lame arguments against you is a total straw man argument and you live under a rock. 'The King James Only Controversy' anyone? Hello? :laugh:

There are also many many sites devoted to tearing down your fables of KJVOnlyism which proves yet again your statement to be dreamed up in your La La land somewhere.

Sam Gipp, a ring leader of this nonsense, touted to be one of the best is horrendous in attempting to defend this utter nonsense. He's horrible and he's one of the best you have. The arguments used by you, him and others are mythical, shallow fables, and are laughable as if you got them out of a gumball machine on a bazooka wrapper. I've heard it all -- there is not ONE strong argument in all of it, and this after reading nonsense from Riplinger and others (and not because I wanted to, but because of other KJVOnlys who wished for me to join them, seeking 'converts' to their 'sect'). Nothing but lies and fabrications and a witch hunt, not to mention a money grab.

James, you show how deceived you are by this ridiculous nonsense you spout. Looking at your site you take what others say out of context on a consistent basis just as you do Scripture and then you attack the straw man that you erect. It's glaringly obvious. The KJVO arguments aren't. They're worthless drivel. That you can't see how far off track you are theologically is frankly scary to be honest. Others blinded by KJVOnlyism fall in line and also cannot think through to truth themselves -- and this brings new meaning to 'deceiving themselves and being deceived.'

Nothing in your KJVOnlyism supports that sect nor does it prove that other versions are corrupt. In fact, you learned this line of nonsense after you got saved, not prior to. You were indoctrinated with teachings of men that is unScriptural, dissident and utter foolishness so that others can glory in you following them as a proselyte of error.

None of your arguments hold water and are not well thought out. Be thankful you don't live in Calvins day preaching that KJVO nonsense, and also your other erroneous dissident theological conclusions.

You prove my point. KJVOnlyists aren't for the most part solid in theology, exegesis, nor in rightly dividing the Word of truth. But Oh boy how they love to be called 'Dr.'

:wavey:

blah, blah, blah. I give you dates, scripts, quotes, texts, contradictions from your own versions, and in return I get blah, blah, blah. blah.

"And Samuel said, What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?" 1 Samuel 15:14

Actually, one of the strongest defenders of the KJV out there IS A CALVINIST (Will Kinney). Hows that grab ya!

 

[Greektim]

Origen took the texts that DID have the reading out of the A, and attributed it to the Byzantine Family so that it would appear that it was not in the Alexandrian. Yet Origens work was far later then the mss that did contain the reading like the Peshitta in AD 150.

So the "best manuscripts" (when scholars say this it ALWAYS refers to the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) which these "scholars" relied on are 200 years later than the EARLIEST manuscripts that have the reading.

And like I just said to Yeshua1, they didn't follow their own rules even from their own manuscripts when including the same rendering in Romans 8:4, which is NOT in the Aleph ms. So they exclude the KJV rendering in Romans 8:1 based on the Alexandrian text, and then include it in ROmans 8:4 when the Alexandrian texts reject it.

Now THAT'S scholarship:laugh:

Speaking of scholarship... I'm still waiting to hear your answer about your "doctorate of theology."

 

[preacher4truth]

blah, blah, blah. I give you dates, scripts, quotes, texts, contradictions from your own versions, and in return I get blah, blah, blah. blah.

"And Samuel said, What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?" 1 Samuel 15:14

In other words you can't face the truth concerning your dissident sect that has nothing but bubble gum wrapper arguments to support a KJVOnlyism fable.

So what do you do as a retort?

You resort to infantile illustrations and pull God's Word out of context in support of it in a vain fashion and disrespect for the Word. This behavior is akin to your asking me 'is your name written in Psalms' when I gave you plain proof about knowing election/knowing we are elect...which you called circular reasoning when you were given the Word of God only (I gave and quoted the text of 1 Thess. 1:4) which proved it.

But turn around and call 'knowing brethren your election of God' circular reasoning. Hmmm. Theos-pneustos = circular reasoning. That's how you treated the Word in that instance when plain as day it proves you incorrect.

Now you pull the above stunt with Samuel? The plain fact is you cannot stand when proven wrong with Scripture, and you even fight against IT when given to you.

These examples are how you respond to and treat the Word of God.

Actually, one of the strongest defenders of the KJV out there IS A CALVINIST (Will Kinney). Hows that grab ya!

This is News? Tell me what this is supposed to prove when you pull something out of context of the dialogue and out of the air as some kind of hocus pocus 'poof' magic trick? You really got me with that one!

Even moronic beliefs such as KJVOnlyism can be believed by those who should know better. This proves nothing, much like all the other proofs KJVOers use prove nothing.

Him, Gipp, others and even yourself rehash all the same old fables over and over again about the KJVOnly and none of it is well thought out, and much of it is outright false information.

Riplingers book is nothing but a pack of lies, and she has been proven to be such.

 

[Van]

Selectively citing sources when they agree, but not when they disagree is hardly scholarly. Many times the Peshitta agrees with the KJV, as in Romans 8:1, but when the KJV disagrees with the Peshitta, it is no longer cited. For example in Matthew 10:8 the KJV reads "raise the dead" but the Peshitta does not have the addition. So the Peshitta, if considered as corrupted at Matthew 10:8, why not consider it corrupted at Romans 8:1-2?

The NASB, HCSB, ESV, and many others agree with the judgment presented in the NET footnote.

What is in view with the phrase, there is now no condemnation in Christ. First, some preexisting condemnation had existed before a person is placed spiritually "in Christ" and once in Christ, that condemnation is removed. So the verse is not saying a person does not continue to miss the mark and have thoughts or do things that are sinful. No, it is saying that the condemnation resulting from those thoughts and actions does not happen. Thus our sins, past, present, and future are forgiven.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Hello Baptistboarders!

Didn't we already cover this one?

KJV Copyist Error? Romans 8:1 and 8:4

Basically, the omitted clause of 8:1 limits the freedom from condemnation to those who do not walk after the flesh. But since Paul said in the previous verse that he serves the law of sin with his flesh (7:25), the motive was immediately present for an ancient scribe or critic, with good intentions to be sure, to omit what seemed to him to have Paul damning himself to hell. "A blatant contradiction that must be removed!" he thought, and then proceeded to remedy the text from its weighty encumbrance.

But the "correction" of Paul by omission didn't really make much of a dent on the deep-seated manuscript tradition of the NT. In this case, all 606 Greek manuscripts of the passage has been examined, and here is the result:

Add: "who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit" (572 witnesses)
Add: "who do not walk according to the flesh" (17 witnesses)
Add: "who do not walk according to the law but according to the Spirit" (1 witness)
Add: "who walk neither according to the law nor the flesh but according to the Spirit" (1 witness)
Omit: (15 witnesses)

 

[DrJamesAch]

.

In other words you can't face the truth concerning your dissident sect that has nothing but bubble gum wrapper arguments to support a KJVOnlyism fable.

More blah. Again, I gave you details, facts, history, texts, and you still respond with blah.

So what do you do as a retort?

Blah

You resort to infantile illustrations and pull God's Word out of context in support of it in a vain fashion and disrespect for the Word. This behavior is akin to your asking me 'is your name written in Psalms' when I gave you plain proof about knowing election/knowing we are elect...which you called circular reasoning when you were given the Word of God only (I gave and quoted the text of 1 Thess. 1:4) which proved it.

The analogy was not infant. You were asked to prove your election and instead, your proof was a verse that tells you to prove your election. You can't prove your election by pointing to a verse telling you that you're supposed to prove. That's why I said there was surely some other place where you would be able to prove it, because it certainly wasn't in the argument you gave. But if you choose to take my sarcasm as a statement of factual truth, that's your problem.

But turn around and call 'knowing brethren your election of God' circular reasoning. Hmmm. Theos-pneustos = circular reasoning. That's how you treated the Word in that instance when plain as day it proves you incorrect.

See argument above. It's still circular reasoning. God breathed has nothing to do with making your calling and election sure, but on the inerrancy of the Bible.

This is News? Tell me what this is supposed to prove when you pull something out of context of the dialogue and out of the air as some kind of hocus pocus 'poof' magic trick? You really got me with that one!

You consistently argue that ALL KVOers are stupid, uneducated, don't know their talking about, blah, blah blah, but yet maintain that Calvinism is correct. If all KVJOers are stupid, and produced "shallow theology" then that means you are criticizing the theology of any Calvinist that used the KJV to arrive at their conclusions. But of course you have a habit of open mouth insert foot because you clearly did not think that statement through. Will Kinney and many others I know who are devout Calvinists according to you, their theology is "shallow" because according to you, ALL KJV ONLY adherents produce shallow theology.

Even moronic beliefs such as KJVOnlyism can be believed by those who should know better. This proves nothing, much like all the other proofs KJVOers use prove nothing.

And why does it prove nothing? Or are you just too lazy to spell it out because it's just easier to claim its false because you have a keyboard and you use blahhhh because you can.

Him, Gipp, others and even yourself rehash all the same old fables over and over again about the KJVOnly and none of it is well thought out, and much of it is outright false information

. Again more blah from the Blah Factory, Inc. At least put some details on your blah.

Riplingers book is nothing but a pack of lies, and she has been proven to be such.

Rip who? She's not even in my top 50 authors for studying manuscript evidence. Even KJVOs disagree with her. http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/PDF/heresy.pdf
Appealing to Riplinger wasn't your best argument.

 

[robycop3]

Keith Dotzler

Will Kinney

What a crew.

Neither of them will answer these simple but pertinent questions:

1.) Where's the SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO?

2.) In what version(s) was God's perfect word in English before 1611?

And I bet YOU won't answer, either!

 

[Van]

Hello Baptistboarders!

Didn't we already cover this one?

KJV Copyist Error? Romans 8:1 and 8:4

Basically, the omitted clause of 8:1 limits the freedom from condemnation to those who do not walk after the flesh. But since Paul said in the previous verse that he serves the law of sin with his flesh (7:25), the motive was immediately present for an ancient scribe or critic, with good intentions to be sure, to omit what seemed to him to have Paul damning himself to hell. "A blatant contradiction that must be removed!" he thought, and then proceeded to remedy the text from its weighty encumbrance.

But the "correction" of Paul by omission didn't really make much of a dent on the deep-seated manuscript tradition of the NT. In this case, all 606 Greek manuscripts of the passage has been examined, and here is the result:

Add: "who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit" (572 witnesses)
Add: "who do not walk according to the flesh" (17 witnesses)
Add: "who do not walk according to the law but according to the Spirit" (1 witness)
Add: "who walk neither according to the law nor the flesh but according to the Spirit" (1 witness)
Omit: (15 witnesses)

If I add to John 3:16, and make more copies of the corruption than all the correct versions, do I win? Of course not, we must consider the source of the copies and whether they are fruit from the same poisoned tree.

Thus the early and reliable sources hold sway, and they do not have the addition.

"The earliest and best witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western texts, as well as a few others (א* B D* F G 6 1506 1739 1881 pc co), have no additional words for v. 1. Later scribes (A D1 Ψ 81 365 629 pc vg) added the words μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν (mh kata sarka peripatousin, “who do not walk according to the flesh”), while even later ones (א2 D2 33vid Ï) added ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα (alla kata pneuma, “but [who do walk] according to the Spirit”). Both the external evidence and the internal evidence are compelling for the shortest reading. The scribes were evidently motivated to add such qualifications (interpolated from v. 4) to insulate Paul’s gospel from charges that it was characterized too much by grace. The KJV follows the longest reading found in Ï." (NET footnote on Romans 8:1)