Please provide scriptural support for KJVOism.

[Thinkingstuff]

Of course you realize that I do not base my beliefs upon "orthodox definitions" but rather upon the Word of God. If I did, however, lean to secular definitions of biblical words, I would certainly choose the definition that best fit the context of Scripture.


Why would we consider any other definition except the biblical one given in #3? Especially when you consider that the Greek word pneuma is translated many times "spirit" or "ghost" but never"breathe."

So, we can rightly say that "all Scripture" is given by pneuma the Holy Spirit. That is the doctrine of preservation and the doctrine of inspiration combined together to give us an inspired, preserved copy of the Word of God today. The Holy Spirit never stopped working after the originals were completed.

Uh. Just a note this definition isn't based on Webster dictionary not the bible. Infact I would be interested to see what words are defined by the bible.

 

[Trotter]

This thread is now 3 pages long, and so far, no scriptural support? Can't anyone do better than that?

Actually, no. No one can produce what is not there.

If that was God's intent, there'd only be one version.

I agree. Last I checked God was still big anough to do what He pleased.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Kinda Pointless At This Juncture

In my opinion it is kind of pointless to continue to beat on this "dead horse". If you guys who like your MV's would spend as much time trying to show all the problems that can be found in THEM (the MV's) (come on guys...it's easy,just do the vs-to-vs comparisons)as you do trying to shoot holes in the KJB then the discussion might just be interesting,but as it stands,it is just a tired old TIRADE that seems to have it's only point in deriding what has been and is the most blessed and venerable translation of the Inspired Originals that God EVER commissioned to be put on this planet...the Authorized King James Bible. That,of course,is my opinion...but it is one I have consistently held to for over 25 (approx) years after starting out my Christian life reading mostly a Living Bible and a JB Phillips translation in high school and then having a BJU administrator (who I'll not name) try to get me going on the NASB(I understand they like the ESV now). After spending a year in the early 80's in Corpus Christi Texas around Bro.Lester Roloff's ministry I came back to the Greenville SC area(home) with my conviction firm and my mind made up that I needed nothing more than my old KJB (which my godly old SBC grandmother had made sure I had a copy of). I'm settled...PERIOD.
On another note,ROBY...I've followed these threads (even though I don't post much in here) for over four years now and although I totally disagree with your position as well as that of most of the moderators on this issue,I willingly acknowledge that all have a right to their opinions/convictions as they see fit. I'll remind you to look back at my first post in this thread WHERE I READILY ADMIT THAT THERE IS NO VERSE IN ANY KING JAMES BIBLE THAT SAYS WHAT THE ORIGINAL OP IS ASKING FOR......(scriptural support for the KJVO position)but by the same token you'll not find any of those verses in any of the others (translations) either. I don't have a problem with that but I will hold to my opinion/conviction that IF YOU ARE AN ENGLISH SPEAKER in this late generation prior to the Lord's (hopefully soon) return then the King James Bible is the ONLY one you OUGHT to be using. I believe that the MV's(all of them) are GOOD TRANSLATIONS (many of them) but are based on inferior manuscripts/texts that add to or take away from the Word of God in direct violation of Rev.22:18,19.That is my opinion/conviction based on the manuscript evidence and "version" comparisons that I have seen and done and I'll stick to it. I'm also willing to take the heat for it if need be.I GUESS MUCH OF THIS BOILS DOWN TO WHOSE VERSION OF THE MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE AND ACCEPT...DOESN'T IT? I guess the bottom line is that most people are so polarized on this and other issues that there will never be agreement and only rarely will anyone who is truly convinced(one way or the other) ever change their mind. I happen to believe that the Holy Spirit led me to believe I have a Bible with no mistakes or errors in it. I hardly think I can surrender that position to believe anything else. Like I have always said and continue to believe...the Judgement Seat of Christ will straighten out ALL OF US who know the Lord Jesus Christ....I look forward to that day with godly fear and humility knowing that in many things I will suffer loss and hopefully praying that there will be some reward for me....and all my true brothers and sisters in Christ. God Bless All.

Bro. Greg Perry Sr. raying::saint:

 

[Johnv]

In my opinion it is kind of pointless to continue to beat on this "dead horse". If you guys who like your MV's would spend as much time trying to show all the problems that can be found in THEM...

Here's the problem with your post. I haven't once in this thread mentioned modern versions. I'm simply asked people to post scripture suport for KJVOism. So far, not a single verse.

I believe that the MV's(all of them) are GOOD TRANSLATIONS (many of them) but are based on inferior manuscripts/texts that add to or take away from the Word of God in direct violation of Rev.22:18,19.

That doesn't for KJVOism, since it ignores the fact that there are numerous translations that use the same manuscripts used by the KJV translators.

 

[Baptist4life]

 

[Logos1560]

Baptist4life, was your post intended to imply that KJV-onlyism is a dead horse?

 

[Baptist4life]

Baptist4life, was your post intended to imply that KJV-onlyism is a dead horse?

No. Just that I agree with the other guy that posted. This "argument" has been going on for YEARS on forums all over the internet, and no one has changed anyone else's mind on it. It's a "personal" belief, and continuing threads like this one is pointless, and only leads to angry exchanges. Some people believe in KJVO, some prefer the KJV, some prefer MV's. Everyone has their own reasons. Why continue to argue about it? I don't believe in "infant" baptism, drinking alcohol, etc. It's a personal conviction. You can "show" me Scripture to support drinking alcohol. I don't think it's OK, so you won't change my mind. Same with the KJV, I think.

 

[Johnv]

This "argument" has been going on for YEARS on forums all over the internet, and no one has changed anyone else's mind on it.

The argument is started by KJVOists, who claim that KJVOism is a doctrinal absolute, not a personal preference.

No one argues issues of preference or liberty. But when people make a doctrinal claim that they claim shoudl apply to all, then it stands to reason that they should be able to provide evidentiary support for this claim. To date, none exists.

If support can be cited, then it stands to reason that KJVOism is a doctrinal position that all Christian should take. OTOH, if support cannot be cited, then it stands to reason that KJVOism is a liberal doctrine (since it adds to scripture), and should be categorically condemned by all Christians. Evidentiary support should therefore be readily available, and I invite such support to be posted here. The fact that we are approaching 4 pages, and no suport has been posted, wattants concern.

 

[annsni]

In my opinion it is kind of pointless to continue to beat on this "dead horse". If you guys who like your MV's would spend as much time trying to show all the problems that can be found in THEM (the MV's)[

See, there are those of us who know that each Bible version that we have is not perfect to the original languages because of issues in translation differences. In other words, you can't exactly translate from one language to another perfectly and there will be some strengths and weaknesses in each one. As new manuscripts are found, it is best to use wisdom to know where each one stands in light of the others and the modern versions do look at that since many manuscripts have been found since the KJV was written.

KJVOs reject the idea, even when faced with facts, that there might be translational errors in their great book. But to hide from facts is not helpful. But in this thread, the KJV was not attacked at all - but a question was asked and it has not been answered.

(come on guys...it's easy,just do the vs-to-vs comparisons)

Well, if you do a verse to verse comparison or version to version comparison, you will see DIFFERENCES. However, that's not what's important. That's like seeing if Mary's KFC copycat recipe is better than Jane's KFC copycat recipe. We must have the true KFC to see who's recipe is closer to the original. To just compare the two without the original is stupid.

 

[DHK]

Of course you realize that I do not base my beliefs upon "orthodox definitions" but rather upon the Word of God. If I did, however, lean to secular definitions of biblical words, I would certainly choose the definition that best fit the context of Scripture.


Why would we consider any other definition except the biblical one given in #3? Especially when you consider that the Greek word pneuma is translated many times "spirit" or "ghost" but never"breathe."

So, we can rightly say that "all Scripture" is given by pneuma the Holy Spirit. That is the doctrine of preservation and the doctrine of inspiration combined together to give us an inspired, preserved copy of the Word of God today. The Holy Spirit never stopped working after the originals were completed.

Theological definitions tend to be drawn from conclusions that are made from Scripture. For example, we do not have any definition of trinity, but we draw from the Scripture that we know about the trinity to form a definition.
However we do have the word "inspiration" in the Bible. From it we can gain the exact denotative meaning: "God-breathed." But the doctrine of inspiration encompasses much more. Entire books have been written on the doctrine of inspiration. What is inspiration then? The best place to start is in the Scriptures themselves:

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--First note that it is "holy men" referred to here. These holy men specifically refer to the OT prophets that wrote down the words of Scripture that are found in the OT canon. I believe that Peter, by extension, would be including the words of the apostles. What it does not refer to and never will refer to is the words of KJV translators, or any other translator or copyist. It refers directly to the writers of Scripture. What they wrote down was inspired (God-breathed). These were the men that "moved by the Holy Spirit" to pen the words of God. If you include any others than we have an open canon and anyone (like the Mormons) can continue to add to our Bible.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
--This is the verse where "inspiration" is actually used. As has already been noted it means "God-breathed." Anything written by God, breathed out by God, is perfect. We know that the KJV has literally scores of mistakes in it, as posted elsewhere. There are differences just between the Oxford and Cambridge editions of todays KJV. Obviously it isn't error free. Only the originals are error free. Meaning is lost in any translation, as it is in the KJV. If you ever work with languages this will be very apparent to you. There are many things that cannot be translated accurately, and some things that are actually untranslatable; that is they do not have an English equivalent in the language from which they are being translated. Don't think that the KJV has escaped from these problems in translation.
Thus only the originals are perfect, breathed out by God, infallible, without any mistake whatsoever. It is that way, because they alone are produced by God.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So DHK just to be clear the bible doesn't define words but you can assertain by using deductive reasoning with in the context of word usage in the bible. Is this correct?

 

[Amy.G]

How do you know that the originals are error free? What kind of errors are you talking about? Spelling? Sentence structure? A scribbled out word?

 

[DHK]

So DHK just to be clear the bible doesn't define words but you can assertain by using deductive reasoning with in the context of word usage in the bible. Is this correct?

That depends what kind of word you are talking about.
In most cases a word is defined by the context that it is used in. Most words have more than one definition. Thus context is always important. What does the word mean in the context of the entire Scripture? That is another important factor. Not just the context of the verse, but comparing Scripture with Scripture, for the Bible does not contradict itself.

I used an example "trinity" where the word is not used in the Bible.
Another word "rapture" is not used in the Bible.
These are Biblical truths that must be defined by putting together the teaching found in Scripture which the word represents (one God, yet three persons: co-equal and co-eternal, but existing as one God). That is what "trinity" (or the definition of the term) represents.

 

[DHK]

How do you know that the originals are error free? What kind of errors are you talking about? Spelling? Sentence structure? A scribbled out word?

Because God makes no mistakes.

 

[Amy.G]

Because God makes no mistakes.

I agree, but people do. We have no way of knowing if the writers of the NT made any mistakes. Even if they did, it wouldn't diminish God's inspiration.

What kind of errors are the originals free of?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That depends what kind of word you are talking about.
In most cases a word is defined by the context that it is used in. Most words have more than one definition. Thus context is always important. What does the word mean in the context of the entire Scripture? That is another important factor. Not just the context of the verse, but comparing Scripture with Scripture, for the Bible does not contradict itself.

I used an example "trinity" where the word is not used in the Bible.
Another word "rapture" is not used in the Bible.
These are Biblical truths that must be defined by putting together the teaching found in Scripture which the word represents (one God, yet three persons: co-equal and co-eternal, but existing as one God). That is what "trinity" (or the definition of the term) represents.

I understand however I don't think I agree rapture is a biblical truth. Certainly the trinity is and so is the ressurection but rapture I don't think it has that much biblical support.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Theological definitions tend to be drawn from conclusions that are made from Scripture. For example, we do not have any definition of trinity, but we draw from the Scripture that we know about the trinity to form a definition.

Apples and oranges. Man ascribed the word "trinity" to the doctrine which now bears that name.

However we do have the word "inspiration" in the Bible. From it we can gain the exact denotative meaning: "God-breathed."

Why, then, is the Greek pneuma translated everywhere else in the New Testament as something other than "inspiration" which man has given the definition of "God-breathed?"

What is inspiration then? The best place to start is in the Scriptures themselves:
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

This verse wonderfully supports my position. Notice that is is the men who are speaking while the Holy Spirit (pneuma) did the moving.

What they wrote down was inspired (God-breathed). These were the men that "moved by the Holy Spirit" to pen the words of God.

Which method was used? Was it breathed by the very breath of God? Or what is given to each man by a direct moving of the Holy Spirit?

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
--This is the verse where "inspiration" is actually used. As has already been noted it means "God-breathed."

It has been noted, but by no means proved.

 

[Trotter]

Seems the disussion has degenerated into a wrestling over whether pneuma can be translated as "God-breathed" or not. Pnuema can be translated breath, but that is beside the point.

The whole of the discussion is being dragged off topic.

The OP asked:

How could writings from 400 BC and before be used to justify preserving the KJV 1611?

Another words, how can a version written int he 17th century be "preserved" in the 2nd - 16 th centuries?

 

[Trotter]

trying to shoot holes in the KJB

I haven't seen anyone "trying to shoot holes in the KJB", Greg. I have seen several, myself included, stand up against a man-made "doctrine". No one is attacking the King James version. It is, and always will be, a classic translation.

The KJV is not, however, anything other than a translation. It is not perfect and did not descend from on high wrapped in white linen and gold bows. It is not the only English translation. And it is not a second work of inspiration.

To just compare the two without the original is stupid.

Not when you have already decided that your KFC recipe is going to the measuring stick used to measure the rest it's not, Ann. Or, in this case, KJV.

 

[annsni]

I haven't seen anyone "trying to shoot holes in the KJB", Greg. I have seen several, myself included, stand up against a man-made "doctrine". No one is attacking the King James version. It is, and always will be, a classic translation.

The KJV is not, however, anything other than a translation. It is not perfect and did not descend from on high wrapped in white linen and gold bows. It is not the only English translation. And it is not a second work of inspiration.


Not when you have already decided that your KFC recipe is going to the measuring stick used to measure the rest it's not, Ann. Or, in this case, KJV.

That's fine - but then you can't say that it's a copy of the original. You must measure against the original if you're saying it's like the original. If you wish to measure other things against your own recipe, that's fine - but don't call it a KFC copycat recipe.