Scriptural proofs for KJVOnlyism

So you are saying that the KJV, 1611, did not have the Apocrypha in it?

And will you please answer my question in my post before the one you responded to, yes or no. It won't take but a second.

Thanks,
Neal

 

Not in the underlying text,it was never in the Textus Receptus canon;but it WAS in the Alexandrian family of manuscripts as(according to the Pope)HOLY SCRIPTURE!!!

The poly-versions read like a KJB;that dont make them trustworthy;they wont sell if it dont look like a Bible.

Erasmus was no more a catholic humanist than Luther was;Luther continued what Erasmus started.Erasmus rejected readings from Codex B. which was a Alexandrian text.

[ February 17, 2003, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

Wake me up when everyone decides to move on to another subject!!

 

JK,
I actually was motivated to re-study Psalm 12 because of some of the discussion of it in this thread.

 

So the underlying text for the KJV existed in ONE manuscript before Erasmus'?

Neal

 

Let's see, you are KJVO, not TRO. The Apocrypha WAS in the KJV, 1611. It is funny you argue about this. If the TR did not have the Apocrypha, why in the world do the KJV translators translate it and include it in their Bible, which you argue is a perfect Bible. And yet it bothers you that MVs leave out the Apocrypha, even it was in some manuscripts they consider. Also, you bring up the TR in this argument. To my knowledge, the NA or UBS critical texts do not have the Apocrypha in them. These are the underlying texts for many MVs, not Vaticanus. You are comparing apples and oranges anyway. Does this not bother you, that the KJV includes the Apocrypha? And if you start saying you are TRO, then you will have no problems with the NKJV, MKJV, and LITV.

Didn't ask you about this. Doesn't it bother you that the KJV has some readings from the Bible that the Vatican officially used, Jerome's Latin Vulgate? Please stick to the question and stop trying to deflect the focus. A simple yes or no will do.

I never said anything about Luther. It is interesting that Erasmus stayed in the Catholic Church while Luther did not. In fact, Erasmus defended the church against Luther. Please stick to the question. Does it bother you that a Catholic cleric compiled the TR and allowed some readings from the Vulgate into the KJV? Yes or no, please.

Neal

 

Lets see, obviously you cant read.The(once again)Alexandrian family of manuscripts had the Apocrypha in the Old Testament CANON(not between the Old & New testaments).The KJB had the Apocrypha between the Testaments,not in the Canon!!!You was given proof that Erasmus was not even a good Catholic;so you see, it just comes to down right ignoring the facts and trusting in your opinions ,which,like your posts, are worthless.

 

"And the award for most ironic post of the year goes to...."

Ah, JYD, this place would be boring without you. I'll give you that much.

 

Let's see, obviously YOU can't read. Did you not read anything I wrote? What the MVs are based on, the NA or UBS critical text, DO NOT HAVE THE APOCRYPHA! You seem to think that they just took out the Vaticanus manuscript and translated it. THEY DID NOT! What is so hard to understand?

Also, where did you give me evidence that Erasmus was not a good Catholic? Do you not know that he wrote against Luther and defended the Church? Or do you just ignore that?

Why don't you just answer my questions with a yes or no and move on? Is it that hard? Are you afraid to? Doesn't it bother you that there are Latin Vulgate readings in the KJV? Or that you have to thank a Catholic cleric for your Bible? If you do not answer, I will take it that it does not bother you, so your argument against MVs on the basis that they are infected with Catholic influences are null and void.

Neal

 

That is one of the funniest posts I have seen in a long time!

What facts have you given me? And why can't you just answer a couple of simple questions? It seems you opened up a can of worms that you don't like too much now. Maybe you should be a little more cautious as to what you post from now own and check out some things first.

Neal

 

Not sure who it is that can't read here. Any one who can read can pick up an MV and see that the Apocrypha is not there. They can also pick up an eclectic text and see that the Apocrypha is not there. They can also pick up a 1611 and see that the apocrypha is there. These are simple facts of history that are explained away only be creative necessity rather than by devotion to the truth.

But you make an even more telling statement: you say that the alexandrian texts have the apocrypha as part of teh old testament. Friend, alexandrian texts that we are discussing have nothing to do with the OT. It is a foolish attempt at associational guilt to make such an argument.

This is both debatable and irrelevant.

This coming from you??? You have yet to offer anything but your opinions for your position. You consistently refuse to show us God's opinion on it. Why?

 

Thats my point;why did the poly-version's translators omit the Apocrypha? it was and is in the Alexandrian family of manuscripts as Holy Scripture.

Sure, that is because the "Eclectic text" is nothing but the Nestle-Aland re-do of the W&H text,which is from the ALEXANDRIAN family of manusripts that contained the Apocrypha as (acording to the Pope] HOLY SCRIPTURE.

Again, the KJB never had the Apocrypha in it's underlying text;ignoring this simple truth will not make it no less so.

But you see, you have offered nothing but your opinion,am I to take your opinion,why?,but if you want God's opinion just ask Him.

 

Becuase it is not Scripture, never was never will be and therefore is not the text because the text is a text of Scripture.

Then why was in the KJV?? There is nothing in there that says "This is not really Scripture; we just included it for no reason." It is in the Bible and ignoring this simple truth will not make it less so.

For what it's worth, the apocrypha argument is a stupid argument. It makes no sense and the last people that should be bringing it up are the KJVOnly people becuase it destroys their position.

This is where you are wrong yet again. I have offered more than my opinion. I have shown concrete and indisputable fact that Christ and the apostles quoted authoritatively from Scriptures that were not the KJV. NO matter how you slice it, something other than the KJV is the word of God. Therefore the KJV is not the only word of God. That is the position I hold, that things other than the KJV can and should be called the word of God. To call the word of God satanic and perverted as you have done simple wrong.

 

JYD proves the old adage that when you point the finger at someone else, there are three more fingers pointing back at you:

so you see, it just comes to down right ignoring the facts and trusting in your opinions ,which,like your posts, are worthless.

 

JYD said:

Lets see, obviously you cant read.The(once again)Alexandrian family of manuscripts had the Apocrypha in the Old Testament CANON(not between the Old & New testaments).

The "Alexandrian" textual family is the New Testament Scriptures. It has nothing to do with the Hebrew writings at all.

Perhaps if you had done some homework before shooting off your mouth, you would not have proven yourself ignorant.

 

And you are saying that God's standard is a collection of imperfect manuscripts, without having any support from God to justify it.

And you are telling us that the KJV has errors in it. Where does the Bible say that?

This is a dogmatic statement. Where is your Biblical proof for it? As I keep showing, the "scriptural proof" you demand from KJVOnlyists is non-existant for your own position.

 

And I'm still waiting for scriptural proof that God only preserved his word in faulty manuscripts.

What is more astounding and troubling is that you can't even see that your position lacks the "scriptural proof" you demand from KJVOnlyists! (I mean, you either have to laugh or cry)