Questions for KJV critics

KING JAMES AV 1611 said:

The real problem you guys have is authority.

And since you have no authority at all, you have no problem with it.

* *
* * *
* *

Rave on.

 

KING JAMES AV 1611 said:

Brian all of the evidence that you receive you reject.

Yeah, because it's all FAKE!

* * * * * *
* * * * *
* *

 

Ah, so now the *evidence* is the authority? Which evidence? And whose interpretation of the evidence?

 

YOu have said your authority is the KJV. I will accept your authority if you will show me where your authority says that the KJV is the only word of God. We accept the authority of God's word; you will not use that authority to substantiate your position. I have repeatedly asked you to provide proof from the "Final Authority" that you claim to believe. Yet you will not post such proof. Why?

Funny you bring this up. Did you know that all Greek texts read the same here?? There is no personal pronoun. If you look closely in your KJV, you should notice the word "his" is in italics, meaning that the KJV translators added it in. So they did not give you God's word. They gave you what they thought it should be understood as.

Your belief is wrong. I have supported my view from Scripture. I will accept any truth you offer from Scripture. The problem is that in spite of my repeated requests, you will not post even one verse of Scripture where God says we should use only the KJV. Does it not seem strange to you that someonne like yourself who is arguing for the final authority of the KJV will not use the KJV to support his position.

My problem is not my memory. MY problem is your unwillingness to use the "Final Authority" to support your position. Why will you not do this? Are you admitting that you have no biblical proof so you must cite the opinions of men??

 

Instead of trying to dodge the question with a question,show me hard evedence not heresay.. </font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps you didn't read my post. I gave the evidence and told you where you could get more info on it. IT is not difficult. The evidence for the LXX being intertestamental is a very simple and clear argument. IT can be found in a number of places, documented by people who lived at that time and had reason to know. Please read the posts and consider the evidence before posting your rebuttals or questions. I am not dodging your question. To the contrary I gave the evidence and even told you where to find it.

 

Pastor Larry, this is just an example of the same-old-same-old KJV-only skepticism.

Just as since we don't have the autographs we are supposedly without any reliable knowledge of their contents, so the KJV-only skeptics say, similarly since there is no copy of the LXX extant that can be dated earlier than the third century, it must not have existed before then.

It blows the KJV-onlyists' fantasies out of the water if the apostles, not to mention Christ himself, actually appealed to an imperfect translation of the Scriptures as authoritative. That is why Dr. Petey and his cronies are so eager to discredit the LXX.

Though apparently it doesn't matter if the Textus Receptus did not exist prior to 1633 and there is no extant copy of the Masoretic Text dating from before the ninth century. Just another double standard.

 

That is because NNE has ever produced one single verse or even a part of a verse from a pre-AD220 Greek Old Testament.So how can someone honestly say that Jesus or any New Testament writer was quoting from a pre-AD220 LXX when there is no such thing??

 

JYD said:

So how can someone honestly say that Jesus or any New Testament writer was quoting from a pre-AD220 LXX when there is no such thing??

You do know the difference between "no extant copies" and "no such thing," right?

I believe I'll add the "no LXX before AD 220" to my examples of this kind of fuzzy KJV-only thinking.

While we're at it:

In favour of the LXX:

</font>

• We have an ancient Greek Old Testament, extant copies of which date back to the second century.</font>
• We have a somewhat fanciful story about the creation of a Greek Old Testament by Jewish scholars during the reign of Ptolemy. This story is repeated by different sources, some who buy into the more fantastic elements, some who don't.</font>
• We have the fact that the Greek-speaking men who penned the Bible frequently quote from Old Testament passages in ways that do not match the Hebrew Scriptures, but do match the aforementioned Greek Old Testament.</font>
• We also have extrabiblical authors, such as Philo and Josephus, who also quote Scripture that matches the aforementioned Greek Old Testament.</font>
• A gap between the creation date for an ancient literary work, and the date of the earliest extant copies, is normal and frequently much larger than is the case here. There is a gap of 1000 years between the life of Plato and the earliest copies of his works, and no one seriously suggests that they were fabricated at that time.</font>

Now, we get some people who dispute the existence of a pre-Christian LXX.

In their favour: there are no extant copies of the LXX.

Against them: First, to explain the stories of the LXX's creation, the no-LXXers necessarily must posit a second ancient Greek Old Testament, of which no copies exist. (But this is what they accuse the LXX of: non-existence! Double standard.)

Second, they must explain why, if this non-extant Greek Old Testament was as important and influential as the ancient accounts claim, it is no longer extant and had to be replaced by the one that is extant.

Third, they must propose an alternative theory of creation for the extant Greek New Testament - in this case, it is sometimes said that Origen translated it himself for his Hexapla, incorporating the Old Testament quotations from the New Testament.

Fourth, they must provide a reason why someone would manufacture a forgery.

So, the no-LXXers must invent four entities to make their theory fit the facts. The LXXers must invent none. Whose theory does Occam favour?

[ February 05, 2003, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

In short, you cannot produce the goods,right?

 

In short, you cannot produce the goods,right?

Earn 'em.

 

It turns out that JYD's question may rest on false premises, as it seems that there may actually be extant fragments of the LXX dated far earlier than the third century AD.

Can anyone shed light on these?

</font>

• Papyrus Fouad 266
  1st or 2nd century BC
  Deut. 18, 20, 24-27, 31</font>
• John Rylands Library Papyrus Greek 458
  2nd century BC
  Deut. 23-27, 28</font>
• 7QLXX (part of the Dead Sea Scrolls)
  fragments of Exod.
  1st century BC or 1st century AD</font>
• 4QLXX (part of DSS)
  fragments of Lev. and Num.
  1st century BC or 1st century AD</font>
• fragment found in a cave of the WaÆdéµ Murabbaat in 1952
  Minor Prophets
  1st century AD</font>

This site has pictures of some of the Greek fragments found at Qumran. I certainly don't endorse their theology; I'm just pointing out the images.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, KJV-onlyism exegesis for your enjoyment.

 

KING JAMES AV 1611: "The Real problem
you guys have is authority."

OK, you will be then the good example.
You will start addressing me (if you
choose to address me at all) as
Elder Ed. ("Sir" at the end of is
optional for you. )

When you type a "," or "." you will
put a space after the puncuation mark,
like normal people do.

When you list a scripture you shall anotate
it respectfully with book, chapter, verse,
and volume notation. For example:

1 Timothy 6:1 (KJV 1873):

Failure to comply with my instructions
will show you have authority issues
yourself.

Thank you.

[ February 05, 2003, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: Elder Ed ]

 

Very good Steve. Now when you follow the command of this verse you will have earned the right to use it authoritatively.

 

KING JAMES AV 1611 said:

1Thes.5:21 KJV"Prove all things;hold fast to that which is good."
I as multitudes of others have proved MV's are definitely NOT good.

Oh heck. If this is all it takes, I can prove that the modern versions are the Bible God intends us to use.

I did not have a KJV in my youth; I had an NIV. (Nor, for that matter, is the KJV very youthful!) Therefore, I should rejoice that God has given me a Bible in modern English that I might read. Her "breasts," clearly, are the two Testaments.

QED.

 

Steve, I have read what you posted no matter how stupid I thought it was except for your really long spams which are too inconvenient to interact with. Frequently, I have answered you line by line, thought by thought. You don't like my answers but I truthfully have not closed my mind to the possibility that you might give a genuine fact at some point that checks out.

I am obeying that command by not swallowing what you say without checking it against tangible facts. You on the other hand seem to buy whatever these ear ticklers are selling without taking the time to check it out for yourself.

 

This verse doesn't mention the KJV. How do you know it is good and the others are bad? Maybe the KJV is bad and the others are good.

You haven't proved the MVs are "Definitely not good," at least not here. MAybe you proved it elsewhere. Everything you have posted here has been shown to be faulty at a number of different levels. At this point, you have too high an opinion of your own work. Those of us who know the facts are unimpressed by it.

Or maybe this verse isn't referring to translations at all. Care to offer any actual discussion of the text and its context here?