Question To KJV Only Advocates

One of the moderators has this posted on his website:

“There are literally thousands of ancient manuscripts in existence...which fully verify the accuracy of the Bible.”

There it is again..."The Bible." Which “Bible”??? Would "The Bible" be the one that states in (for example) Col 1:14....

“In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:” (AV)

Or the one that states,
“in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” (NIV, NASB, ESV)

Or the one that states,
“the Son who got us out of the pit we were in, got rid of the sins we were doomed to keep repeating.” (The Message)

Or the one that states,
“In Whom we have our redemption through His blood, [which means] the forgiveness of our sins.” (Amplified Bible)

Or the one that states,
“God has purchased our freedom with his blood and has forgiven all our sins.” (NLT)

Or the one that states,
“who forgives our sins and sets us free.” (CEV)

Or the one that states,
“in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins:” (ASV)

You folks CLAIM to believe in an inerrant Bible, but you refuse to take the position that ANY ONE of them is inerrant--that is, completely without error. ALL of these can’t be inerrant simply because they say different things.

So which is it...do you believe in inerrancy or not? If so, then WHICH one of the above (or any other I might not have listed) IS the inerrant word of God????

 

Sounddoctrine04 asked:

1. What is the scriptural support-alone for only having 66 books in the Bible?

Irrelevant, off-topic question.

2. Was the pure, inspired, preserved words of God in existance between the time the original autographs were destroyed and before the AV 1769 was published?

Yes.

3. If so, where were they specifically, and in what form were they?

Specifically: The Bible. The form: Ink on paper, papyrus, parchment, etc.

4. If not, why not?

N/A.

5. Do you currently have in your posession "scripture"?

Yes.

6. Was there, at any time before the AV1769, a single volume of the NT containing the pure, inspired, preserved words of God?

Irrelevant, off-topic question.

7. Is there today, anywhere, a single volume of the NT containing the pure, inspired, preserved words of God?

Irrelevant, off-topic question.

 

Sounddoctrine 04: 1. What is the scriptural support-alone for only having 66 books in the Bible?

There is none. However, the criteria established for any writing to be considered Scripture was very exacting.

First, the OT canon was established by the Jews before Jesus' time, under God's auspices.

Next, the NT books were selected with great care. The criteria included, for the first ones, that they be written by an Apostle. Not only was Paul made an Apostle by Jesus; Peter called Paul's epistles SCRIPTURE. The other books had to have been accepted as Scripture from the beginning, and could not contradict any doctrines in already-established Scripture. It wasn't done overnight, but the GOSPEL OF SALVATION BY CHRIST was there from the gitgo.

Feel free to add or subtract from the established canon as you please, but please forgive me if I don't go along.

2. Was the pure, inspired, preserved words of God in existance between the time the original autographs were destroyed and before the AV 1769 was published?

Yerp...Ever since God presented it.

3. If so, where were they specifically, and in what form were they?

They were in every copy that has ever existed, in any language in which they were written. It's only in more recent times that they've been conveniently placed together in book form, although I believe many a church, and more than one individual, had complete collections of all the separate books.

4. If not, why not?

N/A

5. Do you currently have in your posession "scripture"?

Yerp...some 20 volumes, eleven English versions.

6. Was there, at any time before the AV1769, a single volume of the NT containing the pure, inspired, preserved words of God?

Then,as now, there were several volumes in English alone.

7. Is there today, anywhere, a single volume of the NT containing the pure, inspired, preserved words of God?

Not just a SINGLE one; there are LOTS of volumes & versions, in over 2200 different languages & dialects. God, in His power and truth, wants His word to be read & preached everywhere people live.

 

Thank you Roby for presenting your position quite succinctly.

Herein is the problem.

Your side says 'the Bible" is found in 2200 languages, some of which have over 300 versions in one language.

Our side says 'the Bible' is found in just one perfect version for each of the several languages on earth. {Providing a translation has been done in that language at all}.

Your side wants Scriptural support from our side to prove our position.

Our side says you can't even provide such support for your side; therefore such a request is at best, disingenuous.

Your side continues to call our position a 'myth'.

Our side says your position is untenable given the disparities in the various and sundry versions coming from the CT or MT or TR.

And ne'er the twain shall meet.

From my OWN perspective; your side may continue to howl for "evidence" yet WE see that the very evidence you want from us is non-existent for your side as well. Therefore; the criteria of exactly WHAT is acceptable evidence must FIRST be AGREED upon by the two sides before any kind of rational and profitable discussion could ensue, thereby producing at the very least an agreeable understanding of each other.

And; once an agreeable understanding is reached, perhaps we could come to such a decision as was evidenced by the early Apostles, i.e. YOU will go preach to whomsoever you have been called to preach to and WE will go to whomsoever we have been called to preach to, and GOD will lead whomsoever will hear- TO the apporpriate preachers.

Could we at least agree on that?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

In other words leave my KJVO myth alone and let’s just go soul winning.

We are commanded by the scriptures to point out false doctrines Jim. Do you want us to ignore the scriptures? We are commanded to call those who promote false doctrines out by name. Should we become liberals and ignore errors Jim?

There is nothing to agree on concerning the false man made myth known as KJVOism. It is legalism at best created by a SDA cult official and pushed forward by 2 dishonest Baptist.

I'm sorry but I will not blind eye the KJVO lie. Just because Christians are caught up in this false doctrine does not cover the fact that it is 100% wrong. Spin it how you like but KJVOism is a false doctrine.

 

Thank you av1611jim and to Sounddoctrine04, I hope you'll stick around for awhile!

 

AV 1611 Jim: From my OWN perspective; your side may continue to howl for "evidence" yet WE see that the very evidence you want from us is non-existent for your side as well.

No evidence was needed, nor were there any "sides" formed until a CULT OFFICIAL published an error-filled book in 1930 which was copied heavily by a dishonest "Baptist" in 1955, who in turn was copied from(along with the cult official) in 1970 by another dishonest "Baptist" who even went so far as to try to hide the cult official's affiliation. From their three books, a whole set of false assertions, mostly guesswork were made, and a whole new false doctrine was born about the most-honored of all English Bible versions. The main point of this false doctrine is that the KJV is the ONLY valid English BV, a false assertion that's been proven wrong umpteen times.

Since it was the "founding fathers" mentioned above who created the KJVO myth from NOTHINGNESS, we naturally demand that its modern followers provide some sorta proof that their doctrine is from GOD, and is not simply derived from the fevered imagination of a cult official, and the plagiarism and guesswork of two wannabee "authors".

Since this KJVO doctrine was only recently introduced, it is incumbent upon its advocates to prove it correct. It is NOT incumbent upon me to prove it wrong in order to reject it. I reject it simply for lack of any evidence in support of it; I need no other reason although such reasons are plentiful. The KJVOs have had YEARS to gather any proof supporting their doctrine, but all they've EVER supplied has been spin, fishing stories, hearsay, & plain INCORRECT "info", but the ONE thing with which they've supplied us most abundantly is...GUESSWORK.


Therefore; the criteria of exactly WHAT is acceptable evidence must FIRST be AGREED upon by the two sides before any kind of rational and profitable discussion could ensue, thereby producing at the very least an agreeable understanding of each other.

Based upon the above, the KJVO must show his doctrine is from GOD. Since God doesn't change, there MUST be evidence from before 1930, actually, from before 1611, that KJVO is actually a doctrine from GOD...or that doctrine is FALSE.

And; once an agreeable understanding is reached, perhaps we could come to such a decision as was evidenced by the early Apostles, i.e. YOU will go preach to whomsoever you have been called to preach to and WE will go to whomsoever we have been called to preach to, and GOD will lead whomsoever will hear- TO the apporpriate preachers.

There IS one, and ONLY one legit reason to be KJVO...PERSONAL PREFERENCE. And there's NEVER any legit reason to revile someone else's choice od version(s) unless that choice is of one of the clearly-bogus "versions" such as the NWT or TNIV.

All other reasons to be KJVO are EXCUSES, not legitimate reasons, and are FALSE.

Why are those versions bogus? Because they frequently depart from every known ancient Scriptural text.

Could we at least agree on that?

I agree that each believer should use the version or versions to which he/she is directed by God. while I shouldn't criticize you for using only the KJV by personal preference, I believe I have every right, indeed, a COMMAND FROM GOD, as does every other believer, to fight against every false doctrine involving worship...and, until/unless its advocates can prove otherwise, the KJVO myth is as false as they come.

 

Just because many baptists believe in an inerrant Bible doesn't mean that we always know for certain which words are inerrant and which ones are not. That is because many fallible men (and women) have copied MSS through the ages (thank God for them), but they made mistakes as is evident in the 100,000+ significant variants combined in all the MSS so far recovered today containing the NT. What we mean is that the authors, as they were inspired by God, penned the Bible inerrantly. It does not mean that anyone who decided to copy a copy of a copy of what they wrote would automatically copy it inerrantly. Does this make sense?

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

Makes PERFECT sense to me, BF. The KJVOs holler about the precision with which the Masoretes preserved the OT in Hebrew, but they grow quiet when we ask what works the first Masoretes originally copied, and how many times they were removed from the autographs.

I believe GOD has caused His word to be preserved/transmitted as HE has chosen, whether WE think He coulda done it better or not, whether WE think it's perfect or not.

 

IMHO all of these
Bibles quoted are the inerrant written
Word of God preserved for this time (many of
them are even written in language we understand).

IMHO each of these Bibles collectively
and individually are the inerrant
written WORD OF GOD.
However, i note not all of them have been
quoted correctly.

Col 1:13-14 (KJV1611 Edition):

Who hath deliuered vs from the power of darkenesse, and
hath translated vs into the kingdome of *his deare Sonne,
14 In whom we haue redemption through his blood,
euen the forgiuenesse of sinnes:

Sidenote: * Gr. the Sonne of his loue.

This sidenote shows that according to variant
Greek sources, the second best reading of this
passage is:

Who hath deliuered vs from the power of darkenesse, and
hath translated vs into the kingdome of the Sonne of his loue,
14 In whom we haue redemption through his blood,
euen the forgiuenesse of sinnes:

The REAL King James Version, the one that was really
AUTHORIZED by King James I of England (remember, the
King of England against which the USofA rebelled),
shows that varian sources are to be considered by
the translators and the most likely reading put
into the translation.

1 Col 1:14 (HCSB = Holman Christian Standard Bible):

14 in whom we have redemption,* the forgiveness of sins.

footnote: *Other msss add through His blood

This footnote shows the translators of the HCSB knew
of multiple Greek (and other) sources. It is the
duty of the translators to select the option they
think is most correct and footnote the alternative.
Also correct, according to the HCSB footnote:

1 Col 1:14 (HCSB alternate):

14 in whom we have redemption,through His blood,
the forgiveness of sins.

In that the above quoted scripture do not
denote the inerrant Bibles represcentd, they
are incorrect. The fact is, in this scripture
some scriptures (all of them are inspired)
have 'the blood' here and some don't. The
whole doctrine of salvation through the shed
blood of Jesus IS NOT dependant on this one
verse. In fact, it is foolish to hang
major doctrines on one verse -- I recommend
having your major doctrines be the subjects
most mentioned in the inerrant written word
of God.

 

Posted by LarryN

Sorry, sorry, and again sorry, for not posting back I got way cought up in that other thread. Any who the answer to that question is simple. The need did not cease however many versions are not telling the same story, instead of changing the language they end up changing the message all together.

Your servant
Fishnbread

 

Posted by Ed Edwards

Oh come on Eddy God has one message (the Word of God). And if you can't see that the message and not the language has been changed by those word and sentince alterations you must be blind! Next thing I know you'll be trying to hand us the Koran, or the Jw's bible.

For I testify unto every man that heareth the word of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto him these things, GOD shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, GOD shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18 The NKJV, NIV, NASV, RSV, and NRSV all break this biblical rule.

Your servant
Fishnbread

 

Fishnbread: "Oh come on Eddy God has one
message (the Word of God)."

Amen, Brother Fishnbread -- Preach it!

BTW, please don't refer to me as 'Eddy' or
as 'Mr. Ed'. Thank you for your kind consideration.

Fishnbread: "And if you can't see that the message
and not the language has been changed by those
word and sentince alterations you must be blind!

Oh, if i don't agree with you, then i've got a health
issue? Strange that the subject when from Versions
and Translations of God's Holy Written Word to Ed.
While i'm sure my ego likes it, you are off topic.
IMHO the ONE WORD of God is preserved in the 21st
Century (2001-2100) English in the HCSB = Holman Christian
Standard Bible. The HCSB contains God's Holy Written
Word preserved for our time and our language. Please
don't be guilty of condemning God's Holy Written Word
because it shows up in a package you don't like. The
lack of reward will be the same as if you condemned your
favorite flavor of Bible.

BTW, i have lots of good proofs that the sources
from which the KJV were made were subject to addition,
the people doing the adding had GOD add the plagues of
the Revelation to them.

Fishnbread: " Next thing I know you'll be trying
to hand us the Koran, or the Jw's bible."

If your prophecy is NOT true, we have to stone you

 

FISHNBREAD: For I testify unto every man that heareth the word of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto him these things, GOD shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, GOD shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18 The NKJV, NIV, NASV, RSV, and NRSV all break this biblical rule.

Howdya know the KJV hasn't broken that rule? Guesswork.

MY guesswork is as valid as YOUR guesswork.

 

Oh come on Eddy God has one message (the Word of God). And if you can't see that the message and not the language has been changed by those word and sentince alterations you must be blind![/QUOTE]

So you believe that the KJV has correctly translated every first class conditional sentence in Greek as a first class conditional sentence in the KJV? Prohibitive imperatives too?

 

Posted by robycop3

I know the NKJV, NIV, NRSV, RSV, and NASV, have broken this rule and if I research older translations of the Bible and find that the KJV has truly broken that rule also I will gladly eschew it! and you can hold me to my words, because I don't have a big lump of pride stuck in my throat. It's better to have the right point of view than to have people "think" you have it.

Your servant
Fishnbread

 

Posted by gb93433

If I truly find otherwise you can believe the KJV is gone.

You servant
Fishnbread

 

Posted by Ed Edwards

Im sorry if I offended you please forgive? BTW, feel free to call me by any name you see fit Bro Ed Edwards!

Posted by Ed Edwards

Please show me some of these proofs of which you speak?

Posted by Ed Edwards

Yeah, I think some of these guys would gladey take you up on that assertion.

Your servant
Fishnbread

 

If I truly find otherwise you can believe the KJV is gone.

You servant
Fishnbread </font>[/QUOTE]Questions: If you were to "find otherwise", why must the KJV be gone? What version would replace it in your usage? Since you've disavowed any version of the Bible other than the KJV up until this point, are you saying that you'd simply make do without any English translation of the Bible?

Wouldn't simply tossing the KJV be the equivalent of the proverbial "throwing the baby out with the bath water"?