Prove all Things

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Pioneer:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 (KJV) - "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

Here is my position:

The proof of our position is in the manuscript evidence and we believe that manuscript evidence bears witness that the King James Bible is God's preserved word for the English speaking people!

We have 5,255 manuscripts. 5210 of 5255 manuscripts supported the KJV. That mean 99% manuscript evidence! 45 of 5255 MSS supported modern versions. That mean 1% manuscript evidence!

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JYD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (KJV) - "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

using the scriptures alone

Ok,the Bible(KJB)says that God will show us(at least the ones who are willing) the truth,lets look at John 16:13,Proverbs 22:17-21,and 1 Corinthians 2:9-13,also see Hebrews 5:14,1st Cor 12:10,1st Cor 2:14,and Romans 9:1.That is more than enough proof according to 2Tim 3:16!!</font>[/QUOTE] Not a single one of these verses says anything at all in support of your belief. You assume your superiority then claim these verses in support of your conclusion. This is nothing less than an abuse of scripture.

Nowhere do these verses say that the KJV is the only Word of God in English or any other variation of KJVOnlyism. Nowhere do these verses point to YOU as being guided to a extra-biblical truth that the spiritually undiscerning cannot see. All that your citing of these verses reveals is that KJVOnlyism is based on human authority to the extent that some are even willing to distort what God said to make it agree with something they believe but He didn't say.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The proof of our position is in the manuscript evidence and we believe that manuscript evidence bears witness that the King James Bible is God's preserved word for the English speaking people!

Correct!!! If in doubt,read the above Scripture again.. </font>[/QUOTE]Where? Where is this elusive proof that the MSS evidence points to the KJV and the KJV alone as the preserved Word in English? </font>[/QUOTE]See my comment to Pioneer.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by JYD:
I already did with John 16:13,Proverbs 22:17-21,and 1 Corinthians 2:9-13,also see Hebrews 5:14,1st Cor 12:10,1st Cor 2:14,and Romans 9:1.

And your abuse of this scripture was already pointed out. Either prove it means that only the KJV is the Word of God in English or stop posting false information.

Now if you are a "Bible believer" as you claim you are,then what will you do with those verses?

Apply them in the way they were intended... ?

God said He would show us the truth did He not?

Yes, through His Word He does. Which is why we continue to ask you to prove your position with scripture that shows what you believe to be true. So far all you have managed is to twist scripture to suit your purposes.

Do you think He would LIE??

No. But we aren't talking about what God said. We are talking about what KJVO's say... which is an entirely different matter.

Do I fall under Galatians 4:16??

No. Not considering that what you are telling us is not true. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 seems to apply to your KJVOnlyism though.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

MV-Neverist writes:

&gt;&gt;Why don't folks quit skirting the issue and
&gt;&gt;just answer the original question;forget the I
&gt;&gt;will if you will tripe,just answer the
&gt;&gt;QUESTION...

Well, let's analyize your rationale for KJV-Onlyism:

(The following is taken from your posts in the thread "Use of the NKJV" that are logged at May 15, 2003 09:48 AM )

&gt;&gt;The problem is that you'r [sic] so Biblical
&gt;&gt;that you are un-Biblical!

I'm sorry, perhaps I am misunderstanding you. I asked you to prove to me with Scripture that KJV-Onlyism is sound Biblical doctrine, and as a result, I am "so Biblical" that I am "un-Biblical?" Are you honestly saying that my demand that all doctrine come from Scripture is "un-Biblical?" I certainly hope that you don't honestly mean this.

&gt;&gt;look at Ecc 8:4.The KJB was translated under
&gt;&gt;the authority of a King; nothing since has been
&gt;&gt;translated under the authority of a King!!
&gt;&gt;Period..

Obviously, you share King James' belief in the divine right of kings ......
Anyway, here is the verse you quote:
"Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?"
This verse has to do with keeping the "king's commandment" (check Verse 2). It does not refer to God's Word in any way, shape or form. I certainly hope that you are not trying to say that God's Holy Word has now become the word of King James.

&gt;&gt;Not to mention Psalms 147:19.James is the
&gt;&gt;English form of Jacob

Ah, so this is a prophecy? Here is the verse:
" He sheweth [H]is word to Jacob, [H]is statues and his judgments unto Israel ."
Do you honestly believe that this is a prophecy about King James? If you really think this, then you have taken your love for King James to an alarmingly unhealthy level.

All doctrine comes from Scripture, and nobody has shown me with Scripture that KJV-Onlyism is sound Biblical doctrine. As a result of this, the Scripture to support my complete rejection of KJV-Onlyism can be found in Chapter 5 of Galatians.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Askjo:
We have 5,255 manuscripts. 5210 of 5255 manuscripts supported the KJV. That mean 99% manuscript evidence! 45 of 5255 MSS supported modern versions. That mean 1% manuscript evidence!

Nope. Only 6 have anything close to what the KJV reads at I John 5:7-8. That is .1% mss evidence.

No MS reads like the KJV in the last 7 verses of Revelation. That is 0% mss evidence.

In reality, no mss perfectly supports the KJV or any other translation or original language text. All of the 5255 mss you cite differ from each other so how can they be said to support the KJV to the exclusion of others? Answer: They can't.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

neal4Christ writes:
&gt;&gt;I put forth that my ESV is the Word of God.
&gt;&gt;Prove me wrong Scripturally.

No, wait: I put forth that my 1599 Geneva Bible is the Word of God. Prove me wrong Scripturally.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Pioneer:

Why can't you compare the teachings of a King James Bible believer with the plain teachings of the scriptures and show me (from the scriptures) how you came to the conclusion that for me to believe that the King James Bible is the preserved word of God in the English language (for the English speaking people of this world) is an unscriptural doctrine?

According to Scripture, both the Ethiopian eunuch (Ac. 8:27-35, cf. Isa. 53:7-8) and even Jesus himself (Lk. 4:16-21, cf. Isa. 61:1-2) used a different version of Isaiah. This fact, established from Scripture alone, proves conclusively that any form of "One-Version Onlyism" is unscriptural. If Jesus had no qualms about using a different version, why should we?

 

[TomVols]

We're not getting anywhere. Let's wrap this up. Thread may be closed in at least 12 but not more than 24 hours. Probably shoulda been closed from the git-go.

[ May 30, 2003, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

[Haruo]

Originally posted by Arubian Baptist:

This is a bit off-topic, but I'm curious to know what edition is God's preserved Word in Papiamentu, so I can compare it to the KJV and see if God is ever of two minds about anything.

Haruo

 

[Arubian Baptist]

As said else where by me, in the papiamento language there is no bible translation which I could recommend.

Thank you for asking anyway

By The way...did you know that papiamento and esperanto is very much alike?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by JYD:
I already did with John 16:13,Proverbs 22:17-21,and 1 Corinthians 2:9-13,also see Hebrews 5:14,1st Cor 12:10,1st Cor 2:14,and Romans 9:1. Now if you are a "Bible believer" as you claim you are,then what will you do with those verses?

None of these verses identify the KJV as hte word of God. My NASB and NIV contain all of them. Therefore, the NASB and NIV must be the word of God based on your own argumentation.

God said He would show us the truth did He not?

He actually told his disciples that in John 16:13 with reference to their writing of the NT. This is called "pre authentication" by theologians. It has nothing to do with the KJV. The verses on teh work of the Spirit have to do with illumination. They applied long before the KJV and have nothing to do with the KJV itself. They apply to the word of God no matter the translation.

Do you think He would LIE??

No, but we are not the ones arguing he did. We believe fully what he said. You have yet to show us where we disagree with God. You have yet to show even one place where the truth from God is what you teach. So far, it appears that you are not the one telling the truth.

Do I fall under Galatians 4:16??

No becuase you are not telling the truth. As Titus says, there are many false teachers who must be reproved sharply because they are upsetting whole families teaching the Jewish myths and the commandments of men, having turned from the truth. KJVO is not a Jewish myth, but it most certainly is a myth. KJVO is the commandment of men, since men are the only ones who support it. You have shown this to be true by your consistent failure to show us that God is the one who commanded KJVOnlyism. In supporting KJVO, you have turned from the truth. Now, on the basis of Titus, we are to reprove your sharply so that you will be sound in doctrine and so that others will not be upset by your teaching.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Askjo:
We have 5,255 manuscripts. 5210 of 5255 manuscripts supported the KJV. That mean 99% manuscript evidence! 45 of 5255 MSS supported modern versions. That mean 1% manuscript evidence!

This is simply not true. over 5000 manuscripts also suppor the modern versions in 99 percent of places. Your small percentage (probably closer to 5% actually) refers to the difference. You are clearly misrepresenting the truth on this issue. The vast majority of those 5000+ manuscripts agree. There is a difference on about 5% or so. The MVs take into account the total amount of evidence. The KJV only takes into accoutn 95% or so. They have chosen to disregard 5% of what God has preserved for us. But KJV has, most interestingly, decided not to follow the majority of manuscripts in certain places and chosen not to translate the Greek text accurately in other places. Strange to say the least.

 

[Ransom]

MV-neverist said:

Why don't folks quit skirting the issue and just answer the original question;forget the I will if you will tripe,just answer the QUESTION...

I did answer the question. So far, none of the KJV-onlyists have refuted me.

I submit that there is not a single instance of KJV-onlyism taught in Scripture, either explicitly or by necessary inference.

All the KJV-onlyists have to do to prove me wrong, is find one, just one, piece of Scriptural evidence to the contrary.

Since that is, presumably, the easier job, why have none of them tried yet?

(Well, OK, we all know why, but you see my point . . .)

 

[Ransom]

JYD said:

I already did with John 16:13

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. (John 16:13)

Jesus tells the Apostles that after he has ascended, they will receive further revelation from the Holy Spirit.

What does this have to do with one English Bible being the God-approved standard? Nothing. Strike one.

Proverbs 22:17-21

Bow down thine ear, and hear the words of the wise, and apply thine heart unto my knowledge. For [it is] a pleasant thing if thou keep them within thee; they shall withal be fitted in thy lips. That thy trust may be in the LORD, I have made known to thee this day, even to thee. Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?

I see nothing about any one English Bible translation being the God-approved standard here. Perhaps I would see it if you were more competent in expositing this Scripture. I doubt it though. Strike two.

1 Corinthians 2:9-13

For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things. To whom ye forgive any thing, I [forgive] also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave [it], for your sakes [forgave I it] in the person of Christ; Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices. Furthermore, when I came to Troas to [preach] Christ's gospel, and a door was opened unto me of the Lord, I had no rest in my spirit, because I found not Titus my brother: but taking my leave of them, I went from thence into Macedonia.

What does a passage about Paul testing the obedience of the Corinthians and passing up an opportunity to preach in Troas because he was worried about Titus, have to do with an English Bible translation being the God-approved standard? Nothing, as far as I can tell. Strike three.

Now if you are a "Bible believer" as you claim you are,then what will you do with those verses?

Why, I'm going to believe them, of course. By which I mean, I will believe what they actually say, and not whatever it is the KJV-onlyists claim they say.

Well, you had your chance. Have a good one.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Pioneer:
#1 - I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that 'Calvinism' is an unscriptural doctrine.

#2 - I don't need a Calvinist to give me his 'scriptural proofs' as to why he believes what he believes.

#3 - I can compare the teachings of Calvinism with the plain teachings of the scriptures and come to the conclusion (with clear scriptural evidence) that Calvinism is an unscriptural doctrine.

#4 - Why can't you compare the teachings of a King James Bible believer with the plain teachings of the scriptures and show me (from the scriptures) how you came to the conclusion that for me to believe that the King James Bible is the preserved word of God in the English language (for the English speaking people of this world) is an unscriptural doctrine?

#5 - You attempt to back King James Bible believers into a corner with your challenge. The scribes and the Pharisees did the same thing with Christ and often he ignored them.

1. Do all KJVO ignore the Scripture as bad as you? Actually, I just repeated myself. Nevermind.

2. This is hilarious. Since when has a KJVO ever wanted Scriptural proofs.

3. Of course you can do that. I am sure it is the same quality of study that has led you into KJVO.

4. It is unscriptural because no passage declares it. You try to argue from your own belief about preservation. That is another issue all together. A little honesty would go a long way.

Btw, it is unscriptural also because it smacks inerrancy and inspiration.

5. Since that is your conclusion, I don't expect to see you around anymore. Hopefully, the Lord will deliver you from the same lie that I believed for so many years.

 

[Arubian Baptist]

Hopefully, the Lord will deliver you from the same lie that I believed for so many years.

Is it a lie that God said that He would preserve His word??

Shame on you