Please provide scriptural support for KJVOism.

[DHK]

What Greek & Hebrew words do you think are not original?

The ones that contradict each other. Basically there are two Bibles, two underlying texts, the critical text and the majority text. They differ in many different places. In those many places only one can be right. Both cannot be the same. Often they are opposite of each other, and most often it is a matter of omission or inclusion.

I didn't contend that there was perfect accuracy in any individual copies, but through examination of the mutiplicity of the manuscript witnesses we can ascertain the truth. I don't know what that "3,000" actually represents, but in a document with as much text as the complete Bible (with Apocrypha) that number would likely characterize a small percentage of variance.

If there is a small percentage of variance it cannot be termed as infallible. Thus only what "God-breathed" can be considered infallible. Only the original MSS are infallible, inerrant, inspired.

 

[Harold Garvey]

The Scriptures found with the cover of the KJV are Scriptural support to stay with the KJV.

It all has to do with maintaining the Bible without adding other versions to confuse the thinking or the spirit giving a resource unmatched for scripture memorization and familiarity to all who hear it in English.

:sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep:

 

[DHK]

The Scriptures found with the cover of the KJV are Scriptural support to stay with the KJV.

It all has to do with maintaining the Bible without adding other versions to confuse the thinking or the spirit giving a resource unmatched for scripture memorization and familiarity to all who hear it in English.

:sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep:

Will you obey the Great Commission should the Lord call you to a nation that speaks no English, has no English Bible, and only a Bible in another language translated from the Critical Text, or even a nation with no Bible at all? What will you do then?

Do you know that there is no command in the Bible to "stay."
The command is always to go.
Unless you have a specific calling from the Lord to stay in Monroe, you are in disobedience to the Great Commission--going into all the world and preaching the gospel to every creature.

 

[franklinmonroe]

DEFINITION: "Inspiration is that extraordinary supernatural influence exerted by the Holy Ghost on the writers of Our Sacred Books, in which their words were rendered also the words of God, and therefore, perfectly infallible." (Benjamin Warfield, Inspiration and Authority, p. 420)

Looking carefully at this definition it seems to me that Warfield is stating that Inspiration is exerted "on the writers", rather than upon the words. He states that Inspiration is an "extraordinary supernatural influence". Cognitive humans can be influenced; but inanimate words cannot be influenced. We are then led to conclude that it is God's men that are directly inspired, not His words. Is that what you believe, or would you disagree with Warfield's definition?

According to the above definition the writers are being called 'God-breathed' men; that terminology doesn't make as much sense to me as Scripture being called 'God-breathed' words. I would in favor of continuing a discussion of Inspiration, but should be done under a new topic.

 

[DHK]

Looking carefully at this definition it seems to me that Warfield is stating that Inspiration is exerted "on the writers", rather than upon the words. He states that Inspiration is an "extraordinary supernatural influence". Cognitive humans can be influenced; but inanimate words cannot be influenced. We are then led to conclude that it is God's men that are directly inspired, not His words. Is that what you believe, or would you disagree with Warfield's definition?

According to the above definition the writers are being called 'God-breathed' men; that terminology doesn't make as much sense to me as Scripture being called 'God-breathed' words. I would in favor of continuing a discussion of Inspiration, but should be done under a new topic.

in which their words were rendered also the words of God, and therefore, perfectly infallible.
--He is perfectly clear. The words are also the words of God, and therefore perfectly infallible. They are the words which are inspired.
He states that the Holy Spirit used them, which I have stated all along. There was an extraordinary supernatural influence, he says. And so there was. He didn't say they were inspired as you seem to think. He was saying that the Holy Spirit used them to pen the inspired words of God. It is a well-written straight forward definition.

 

[Johnv]

The Scriptures found with the cover of the KJV are Scriptural support to stay with the KJV.

Then it shouldn't be difficult to provide just one passage that supports single-translation-onlyism.

It all has to do with maintaining the Bible without adding other versions...

So what you're saying is it's against sripture to come out with a translation after the KJV was published, but it was scripturally permissible for the KJV translators to pubish the KJV despite the fact that there was already an existing English translation?

I'd like to see you post scripture that supports that position.

:sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep:

 

[Trotter]

The Scriptures found with the cover of the KJV are Scriptural support to stay with the KJV.

So, basically, because the KJV exists it is it's own scripturla support for it being the only English bible? Correct me if I misread or misinterpreted that statement. I do hope I did misunderstand it as it makes no sense whatsoever if that was what it was intended to say.

Face it... KJVOism is a personal preference. There is no scriptural support for it and there has never been any scriptural support for it. It is what one chooses to prefer, pure and simple. The bad side of this is that some decide to elevate the KJV into the position of an idol, bowing down to it instead of the God who gave the words that were translated within it.

The KJV is a translation of the word of God, but it is one translation of it among many which are also the word of God. The KJV is not the parchments and vellum used by the writers of scripture, nor does it correct the original languages. It is a translation that has been around a long time (thanks to the Church of England banning any other bibles for over two centuries), but it still just one valid English version among many other equally valid English translations.

 

[Aaron]

This is not intended to be a thread of arguments, and I'm asking people to refraim from arguing, trolling, spamming, or flaming.

I'm asking for scriptural support for KJVOism. If anyone can provide scritural support, I will accept KJVOism as biblically sound.

You will base your opinion on a logical fallacy?

It's like saying "I'll believe the Bible if you can find a verse in the Bible that says the Bible, the collection of 66 literary works we call the Old and New Testaments, is true." To accept one's witness of himself as evidence of the truth of his character is to beg the question.

 

[Johnv]

Aaron, it's KJVOists who claim that scripture supports KJVOism. If that's so, let 'em prove it by providing that scriptural support.

 

[robycop3]

You will base your opinion on a logical fallacy?

It's like saying "I'll believe the Bible if you can find a verse in the Bible that says the Bible, the collection of 66 literary works we call the Old and New Testaments, is true." To accept one's witness of himself as evidence of the truth of his character is to beg the question.

Your logic can be applied to any and all Bible versions.

Besides that, the question isn't about the veracity of the Bible itself, but some KJVO would try to get us to go off on a bunny trail with such stuff as "Where is the Scriptural support for a 66-book canon?" That is just a dodge to the basic fact of the total lacka Scriptural support for KJVO, coupled with another fact, that the MAN-MADE origin of KJVO is well-known.

JohnV is giving the KJVOs every chance to JUSTIFY their belief in this doctrine with GOD'S OWN WORDS. I have done the same for many years on other boards.

Some folx on the BVDB offered a monetary reward for anyone who could cite Scripture that supported KJVO. One KJVO alone responded, lamely citing Psalm 12:6-7! Needless to say, the money remained safe.

 

[Baptist4life]

I have done the same for many years on other boards.

Some folx on the BVDB offered a monetary reward for anyone who could cite Scripture that supported KJVO. One KJVO alone responded, lamely citing Psalm 12:6-7! Needless to say, the money remained safe.

Then WHY do you keep asking? Years? You've been asking for years, and no one has answered you? Don't you think you should maybe just quit asking? I'm not defending the KJVO view, just curious as to why you've spent years chasing a rabbit down a bunny trail?

This whole topic gets boring after awhile.

 

[Mexdeaf]

We keep asking because we want people to know the truth, not because we don't know the truth. It's a form of Biblical apologetics. If you keep asking the hard questions, sooner or later some folks will catch on.

 

[robycop3]

Then WHY do you keep asking? Years? You've been asking for years, and no one has answered you? Don't you think you should maybe just quit asking? I'm not defending the KJVO view, just curious as to why you've spent years chasing a rabbit down a bunny trail?

This whole topic gets boring after awhile.

The reason is simple...more than one professing Christian who is sola scriptura in every other aspect of their religious beliefs, still believe the false, MAN-MADE KJVO doctrine. As the enemy of all false dox of worship, I try to remind people that KJVO is NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SLIGHTEST QUARK OF THE SLIGHTEST IMPLICATION IN SCRIPTURE, & therefore cannot be true. I'm sure JohnV is doing the same thing with this thread.

 

[Askjo]

The rationalists are interested in the human reasoning and humanism rejecting the supernaturalism. The rationalists and the naturalists are best friends because they rejected the revelation from God, even the Spiritual Truth. They denied the Bible prediction. Are you one of them?

The KJV is the RECEIVED BIBLE because the Scripture predicted the translation model.

 

[DHK]

The KJV is the RECEIVED BIBLE because the Scripture predicted the translation model.

And all of us are still waiting for this Scriptural prediction to found in the Scriptures. Where is this prophecy found. Chapter and verse please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[TC]

Twenty pages and no scriptural support for KJVO has been provided - only personal opinion and guesswork. Me thinks that it is time for this thread to go bye bye.

 

[Askjo]

And all of us are still waiting for this Scriptural prediction to found in the Scriptures. Where is this prophecy found. Chapter and verse please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you deny that God provides us the Scripture?

 

[Trotter]

No one here denies that, Askjo. but you are the only spouting off about some extra-biblical "prediction" stuff. there is nothing, nothing in the bible even close to what you are saying... unless you can twist verses and proof-text your way through it.

Put up or shut up, mi amigo.

 

[Askjo]

No one here denies that, Askjo. but you are the only spouting off about some extra-biblical "prediction" stuff. there is nothing, nothing in the bible even close to what you are saying... unless you can twist verses and proof-text your way through it.

Put up or shut up, mi amigo.

Do you deny the Bible prediction (i.e. the inspiratrion and the preservation)? Do you deny that we are sinners?

 

[Trotter]

Never have, never will, on both counts. But that doesn't answer the question.

Either tell us what in the world you are talking about or shut up about it.