[sarcasm]Lack of scriptural support [/sarcasm]

You get the logo: "1,000 Posts Club "
placed beside your name when you post.

Personally i chose my picture insterad
of club membership. See the Webmaster
if you want your picture there instead\
of the logo.

 

Our side refuses to accept it? What side would that be? The "anti-KJV" side? Wrong! Try the "non-one version onlyist" side.

The problem with the scriptures that you and others have offered is that they apply to each and every translation of the bible known to man. They are not translation specific. In fact, if you want to be strict about it, each and every translation violates the very verses that you have proposed...and that includes the KJV.

I can pull up verses that show it is OK to drink, to gamble, and to have relations with other women besides my wife. True, they are taken out of context, but they still prove that I can do those things. You may interpret them differently, but I can stand on my faith and be "right" because I can back up my position with scripture.

Your faith is not being called into question here, Jim. The lack of hard scriptural proof for ANY one-version-onlyism is. You want to hold that the KJV is perfect, fine. But if you try to teach it, you are stepping outside of the scriptures to do so.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

What did such scriptures mean in 1601? I've personally yet to see any scriptural support put forth that is also accompanied with an explanation of how such passages were both true and meant KJV exclusivity and perfection before the KJV was produced. Scriptures didn't mean one thing in 1611 while the printer was setting up his machine, and something else a few minutes later when the first KJV pages came out. If a certain scripture didn't mean KJV exclusivity and perfection in 1601, it didn't have a new, different meaning in 1611.

av1611jim, even Bro Lacy admits there are no scriptures that support KJV-onlyism. What we're trying to get from him is an answer as to why he holds (and teaches?) a doctrine that has no scriputal support (i.e. an extra-Biblical doctrine) and what authority he has for doing so.

 

Deu 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

The Israelites didn't have the perfect food of the angel's before God sent it to them in the wilderness. Why should we demand that there be a perfect bible before He saw fit to give us one? The Israelites were fed with this manna for 40 years, until they entered the promised land. Does that mean that no other food was valid? The Israelites didn't think so. They were sure they needed something better to eat. So God gave them quails. Was the quail as good as the manna? I think it must have sustained those that weren't killed for lusting, but it wasn't as good as the manna.

Psalms 106:14-15
(14) But lusted exceedingly in the wilderness, and tempted God in the desert.
(15) And he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul.

I think the church has been eating quail when they should have been eating manna.

 

Please provide one shred of evidence that the KJV is manna while others are quail... or whatever.

OTOH, God said He sent manna and told the Israelites exactly what to look for and when. He never mentioned anything that would point us to the KJV as being the "perfect bible". That is simply something that vain men insist on putting into God's mouth.

 

AV1611Jim: That's precisely the sticky point isn't it? We offer what we believe to be Scriptural support, yet your side refuses to accept it.

WQhat we don't accept is the KJVO VIEW of those Scriptures. There's NO WAY to apply them to just the one version. That's COMMON SENSE.


Instead what you do is deny that what we offer even applies.

No...We deny that they apply to the KJV ALONE. The KJVOs cannot prove any differently.


So what do you expect of us?

To see the truth of the matter and the falsehood of the KJVO myth.


If you are going to interpret what we see differently than the way we see it, we then have no choice but to remain steadfast on our faith.

We have a thread open where we claim there's no Scriptural support for the KJVO myth. If you can prove differently by showing us any Scripture thatt applies to the KJV alone, there's your golden opportunity. Otherwise, KJVO remains false, and a myth.

TRUE faith is believing the unseen by the seen. BLIND FAITH is just another term for GUESSWORK, as there's no seen upon which to have faith in the unseen far as KJVO goes.

 

We're proving your theory wrong, that the AK is the ONLY gun available for the fight.

 

I agree. In fact, I believe there have always been inspired scriptures available.

Predicting? Nope. Claiming to be? Yep. Psalm 12, Prov 30:5, etc., were all true in 1601, in 1500, in 1200, in 500. They are true today, and still would be even if the KJV was never produced. They are true in the Geneva, the KJV, the NASB, etc. They are true in the Vulgate, French Bibles, Japanese Bibles, etc.

First, fruit comes from people, not books. Second, popularity does not equal exclusive perfection.

I don't embrace that either.

 

Colossians 1:5-6
[5] For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;
[6] Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:

 

Yes, the word can bring forth fruit in people, and people can bring forth fruit because of that. Not books. Books are merely one of the mediums for the word. The word can bring forth fruit even in the illiterate.

 

I agree brother, God's word is not bound. But it is also not floating around in the air.

 

Lacy Evans:I see the Bible clearly predicting a refined, preserved pure Word.

So do WE. That's why we don't reach into a hat, pull out one version, & say, "This is IT!" Unlike Shakespeare's works, Scripture is not frozen in time.

I see the Bible teaching over and over that God's method of preserving things is to let them die, be destroyed, be scattered, be smashed against a mountain, be cut up with a knife, tossed in the sea, or be lost, only to raise them back up again perfect. (Usually better than the originals.)

But does such a method apply to God's word? Would it have been applied to Israel if they'd stayed true to God? remember, He said, "IF you won't listen..." As for His word, He said it endures forever.

I don't want to be the man. My Bible is perfect.

Perfect for its intended use, same as are many others. Perfect as in being free of booboos? Newp! You know full well we've provided PROOF of some of those booboos right here on this board...errors shown by FACT, not guesswork.


I don't question it or fix it where it is "broken".

So if your AK jams, you use it as a club, rather than correcting the jam? Or, fix the bayonet on it & use it as a sword rather than as a firearm, leaving it jammed?


If I don't get it, I study. If I still don't get it, I guess I just have to wait on the Holy Spirit line by line, precept by precept.

So do we, bro, so do WE...only we're not hidebound to just one given version. That's why God has made so many available...to give us more material to study and use.


There is no freedom in the world like there is in the knowlege that I have inspired "scripture" in my hand right now.

Correct! Man, am I ever happy to not be stuck with only one man-made take of God's words, written in a style of English no longer in everyday use!

 

Lacy: "I see the Bible teaching over and over that God's method of preserving things is to let them die, be destroyed, be scattered, be smashed against a mountain, be cut up with a knife, tossed in the sea, or be lost, only to raise them back up again perfect."

So by equal analogy, perhaps Westcott and Hort were not so wrong by presuming the true text had been lost and scattered for centuries, only to be "resurrected" (as per Bro. Lacy) with the discovery of Sinaiticus and the publication of Vaticanus....

 

Ziggy, that would be a better argument than to say that there is no word of God today, and if you think that the KJV is the word of God, you better show me what was the word of God in 1608. You would then have to compare the fruit of the WH text with the KJV. But we don't care what the fruit is, maybe we don't even like the fruit. We would rather be growing wild grapes, I think. If, as Mr Robycop says, the bible is just a man-made take on God's word, who can have faith in that? If I have the infallible words of the All-Mighty in my hand, I can move mountains.

 

James Newman:If, as Mr Robycop says, the bible is just a man-made take on God's word, who can have faith in that? If I have the infallible words of the All-Mighty in my hand, I can move mountains.

However, if you're KJVO, you have the fallible words of the KJVO translators, revised many times since first penned, in your hand. is I have the NIV or NASV in my hand, I have the word of God in it as much as you do with your fave version.

 

By what authority do you make that claim?

 

Slambo: By what authority do you make that claim?

Same as yours for what you claim.