Scriptural proofs for KJVOnlyism

I was right when I stated that you would never be satisified with my answer. I gave specific scriptural proof that the King James Bible declares itself to be the perfect word of God. I also showed you why modern versions must be rejected.

I do not elevate the King James Bible above the original language texts. I do however reject the Sinaticus, the Vaticanus, and the Westcott and Hort textual theory. Therefore I reject all modern versions. A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit.

 

Your ability to prophesy accurately is based on your knowledge that I Hold the Bible alone to be the authority. When you can show me where God identifies the KJV as teh only word of God, then you know that I will believe you and accept your position. Until then, you are operating without authority.

Where?? I saw no place in the verses listed where the KJV is identified or intimated to be the word of God.

But it is based on a faulty (though no doubt sincere) understanding of of the process of textual transmission and criticism. The MVs did not come from a corrupt tree. You have no way of proving that (as evidenced by the lack of proof that you put forth).

So I repeat my challenge to all who will give it serious attention: Where does God say that the KJV is the only word of God?

 

I never said that the King James Bible was the "only word of God." I stated very simply (after giving scriptural evidence thereof) that the King James Bible declares itself to be the perfect word of God in the English language. I can't help it if you reject the evidence.

 

Pioneer: "Thus I reject
all modern verstions."

We note the duplicity of your statement.
You are a known user of the KJV1679
or KJV1783, both are modern versions.

Pioneer: "I have yet to hear
a defender of the modern versions
express belief in their "bibles"
as being the perfect word of God.

Perhaps you are deaf?
Try here for the New King James Version (nKJV):

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000682

 

Pioneer: //I will close with this verse:
II Cor. 2:17 "We are not as many,
which corrupt the word of God;" //

Please show proper respect to the written word of God
by correctly citing your quote
of the Holy Bible.

I suggest:
2 Corinthians 2:17a (KJV1873):

Thank you for the consideration of an Elder.

Please answer the following question
without resorting to a MV or
a Greek source:

Which "word of God" Does God speak of
here in His Holy Scripture?

1) the Written Word of God: the Holy Bible
2) the Living Word of God: Messiah Iesus

Which of the following common English
definitions of CORRUPT does God speak of here
in His Holy Scripture?

1. changed from a sound condition to an unsound condition
2. spoiled
3. contaminated
4. rotten
5. morally deteriorated from normal morals
6. altered from normal language

 

Japheth: " ... where, when,
and why did you loose faith in the KJV?"

I can't answer your question, for i've
not yet lost faith in the KJV.
I lost faith in the KJVO = King James Version
Onliest, movement back in the early 60s.
Note a lose of faith in the KJVOs does
not imply a lack of faith in the KJV.

I honor the KJV so much I have
three versions of the KJV on
the desk by my computer.
I have the King Iames Version (KIV1611),
the KJV1769, and the KJV1873.

Back int he early 60's the KJVOs
said the KJV is the only Bible in English
made from the TR. A group of translators
from the mainstream Christian churches in the
US set out to covercome these objections.
They produced a version in 1982 called the
New King James Version (nKJV).
The 80s KJVOs criticized the nKJV grasping
at straws. One objection they came up
with was the triquetra symbol on the
cover page. The triquetra is no more a part
of the translation than is the cover
(do you prefer the burgandy cover or
the black cover?).

What a hoot a translation made to the
specifications of the KJVOs and the
KJVOs reject it for trivial reasons

BTW, the translators of the KJV were
Baptist banishers; the translators
of the nKJV included Baptists.

 

1. So you are admitting that things other than the KJV can properly be called the Word of God?

2. Where does the KJV declare itself to be the perfect word of God in the English language? So far, the best you have come up with is a misinterpretation of a text in Psalms that does not refer to English at all, even if it does refer to "words" (which is very hard to sustain based on what the psalmist wrote).

Again, the burden is on you to show us where God said what you say.

 

I stated very simply (after giving scriptural evidence thereof) that the King James Bible declares itself to be the perfect word of God in the English language.

So you're saying the KJV says something that the Hebrew does not. Doesn't that make it heretical?

 

Psalm 12:7 plainly states, thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
Thus we have God promising to preserve the same words that He inspired. Not too much of a feat to overwhelm such an omnipotent Being.
The fearful fundamentalist launches two attacks on the Scriptural teaching found in Psalm 12:7.
1. They claim, "Verse 7 is talking about the Jews, not the Bible." Then to add credence to their claim they rush out and publish a translation that says just that in Psalm 12:7. Let's look at this verse in the New International Version.
"O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever."
This is an irresponsible and dishonest translation. The Hebrew word "shamar" meaning "to keep" which the New International Version translators render "you will keep us" is found in the future second person singular "thou shalt keep" and is directed to the THIRD person plural "them" and NOT the first person plural "us" as the New International Version translators rendered it. Thus we see it is the King James, God’s perfect, preserved Bible which has accurately preserved the reading of the originals, not the unreliable New International Version.
Psalm 12:7 is not God's promise to preserve the Jews, a promise which flourishes elsewhere in Scripture. It is God’s promise to preserve His words, and is a direct reference to those words as described in Psalm 12:6.

 

How do you know the word "them" refers to the words and not the people previously mentioned in the passage?

 

Amen, Brother BrianT -- Preach it.

Actually, if one read the REAL KJV 1611
what you said is right there in the
sidenotes. These sidenotes are missing
from most of the as sold copies of
the KJV1769 and KJV1873.

 

Psalm 12:7 plainly states, thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

The Hebrew text from which it was translated doesn't say "them". It says: God to preserve for all generations. Look it up in Hebrew for yourself.

 

quote from Brian;How do you know the word "them" refers to the words and not the people previously mentioned in the passage?

Brian it's simple.Did God preserve the Jews from Hitler? Were the Jews in the wilderness preserved? No. The context is definitely words

 

There are Jews today, aren't there? And why do you assume preserve means *physical* life? Luke 17:33 says "whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it". 2 Tim 4:18 says God "will preserve [me] unto his heavenly kingdom". No, you still have not answered why the "them" cannot be referring to the people mentioned previously in the chapter, which is also the context.

 

Brian you may have read this before but please read it one more time and tell me what you think.
QUESTION: What does this statement mean? "The King James Bible was good enough for the Apostle Paul, so it's good enough for me."

ANSWER: This statement is usually made in a sarcastic manner in order to embarrass Bible believers in their belief. The FACT is, the King James Bible WAS good enough for Paul. (See Question #11) But for now I'd like you to see that it was the only Bible that Luke would use.

EXPLANATION: In Acts 1: 1,2 Luke makes the following statement: "The former treatise have I made, 0 Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:"
"The former treatise" is of course the Gospel of Luke which Luke wrote to a believer named Theophilus. Theophilus was apparently an early Christian who had never personally met the Lord while He was on this earth. Considering, though, that he was the recipient of both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, he was most certainly one of the best informed.
Luke, in what may have been a passing comment, in the second verse of Acts chapter one, rings the death blow to the famous Nestle's Greek New Testament and also the New American Standard Version. Luke states that his "former treatise" told of all that Jesus began to do, and continued, "until the day in which he was taken up." The things which Jesus began to do are first recorded in Luke 2:41-52 in which He was left behind in Jerusalem when Joseph and His mother left to return to Nazareth. This correlates with Acts 1:1. Luke's gospel is the only one of the four gospels which records any of Christ's actions prior to His baptism at the age of thirty years old. (Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:9 and John 1:29-34)
Luke's gospel ends with Christ being "carried up into heaven " in Luke 24:51. This correlates with Acts 1:2 "Until the day in which he was taken up."
Thus, Luke states that his gospel begins with the earliest acts of Christ and ends with His ascension. Therefore, any Greek manuscript or manuscripts, no matter what their age, containing the Gospel of Luke which omits either of these accounts is not authentic. In an examination of the 23rd Edition of Nestle's Greek Text we find that the Greek words, "Kai anepheroto eis ton huranon," "and was carried up into the heaven" are not found in this text.
The footnote in the critical apparatus indicates that the authority for removing this phrase is no more than manuscript (MS) Sinaiticus, D, one majuscule MS known as number 52 and one 5th century palimpsect (a MS which has been erased and written over top of). The phrase "and carried up into heaven" is found in B, C, E, F, G, H, L, S, T, V, Y, Z, Delta, Theta, Psi, and Omega plus papyrus p75, and most remaining witnesses. Yet on the basis of only two MSS the conservative scholars of the secret Lockman Foundation have omitted this phrase from Luke 24:51 in the New American Standard Version (NASV). Hence, the NASV is not truly a reliable translation. In fact, of most modern versions, only the "liberal" scholars of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) agreed with the "conservative" scholars of the NASV in omitting the phrase. Thus the known Communistic liberals of the RSV and the conservatives of the NASV are in full agreement that Christ did not ascend bodily into heaven.
So we see that if Luke, the writer of the Gospel of Luke and the book of the Acts of the Apostles, could examine a King James Bible and a New American Standard Version he would declare the New American Standard Version a fraud and promptly proclaim the King James Bible as authentic.
Well, quite frankly, if it's good enough for Luke, it's good enough for me.

 

It is not a promise for Jews, it is a promise for the righteous. Since God will have a witness for all generations, they are preserved.

 

No. Don't change the subject. How do you know the "them" in Psalm 12:7 doesn't refer to the people previously mentioned?

 

Not even close ptw.