Scriptural proofs for KJVOnlyism

If I wanted to know what the final authority is, what is the final authority that would tell me? Your statement is an admission that your final authority is something *outside* the KJV. Whoops.

 

Kinda like what MV-er's say about Psalms 12:6-7, right? </font>[/QUOTE]Not in any way similar. We believe what Psalm 12:6-7 say. We see that it falls after 12:1-5 and before 12:8. Therefore, we see the context and understand that God is not talking about his words; he is talking about the godly man that may perish from the earth. God's words are true; he will preserve the godly man from that generation onward. There will never cease to be godly men because the protection and hand of God will be one them. He promised it in his word.

 

Kinda like what MV-er's say about Psalms 12:6-7, right? </font>[/QUOTE]No, we don't say "God didn't really say it". We say "You are misinterpreting what God said". As Pastor Larry keeps pointing out and as you keep avoiding, God said he would preserve people, and *you* are the one saying "God didn't really say it".

 

Who's WE??

So, in other words, NO bible verse can have more than one meaning?? wishful thinking?? God plainly states in that verse that HIS Words will be preserved,why is this a problem for you??

 

YOu got it. The univocal nature of language assures us that communication is possible by limiting meaning to what the author intended to communicate with his words.

He plainly did not state any such thing. When will you read the passage for what it says. IT plainly says that the godly man will be preserved. NO matter how many times you respond, this meaning will not change. God is the one who said it, not us. We must take him at his word.

 

The answer is simple,they are affraid of ridicule from their peers more than they are affraid of God,death,sickness,or the judgement seat of Christ.This is WHY they try to ridicule every Bible believer out of his faith in the word of God(AV)

 

I meant Pastor Larry and I, but I'm sure others like Ransom and others agree as well.

I personally believe that each verse has a single meaning (the meaning intended by the original author), and that *sometimes* another author of scripture *under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit* will apply a secondary meaning or fulfillment to it. Additional meanings are NOT something we (ie. people *not* under direct inspiration) can or should try to identify.

"Plainly"??? Then why does the *vast* majority of English Christianity and all of Hebrew Christianity think Psalm 12:7 is talking about the preservation of people? AGAIN I ask (because I've yet to receive an answer) why do you think the word "them" does not refer to the people?

 

Well I guess it is a matter of how you veiw Bible preservation. If (like so many) you resent God preserving his word(KJB) then I guess it would be a problem.Right???

 

Well I guess it is a matter of how you veiw Bible preservation. If (like so many) you resent God preserving his word(KJB) then I guess it would be a problem.Right??? </font>[/QUOTE]Wrong.

First, just because one believes in Bible preservation does not mean they should read that into whatever passage they want.

Second, I do NOT "resent God preserving his word", but thanks for the attempt at slander. I do believe in Bible preservation, I just believe this particular verse is not talking about that, and that Bible preservation took a different form than you do.

So again, why does the word "them" not refer to the people previously in the chapter? Have you even *read* the whole chapter? Does context mean nothing?

 

No, it really doesn't have anything to do with that. We believe that God preserved his word. OUr issue goes more to the point of this: By what authority do you take what God has said and change it to mean something else?

Psalm 12:6-7 is not a problem for us. We rejoice in the truth of that verse. We wonder by what authority you make the verse mean something else.

 

MV-NEVER'ist said:

Kinda like what MV-er's say about Psalms 12:6-7, right?

Are you equating KJV-onlyists don't understand Psa. 12:6-7 with God didn't really say Psa. 12:6-7?

How arrogant can you be?

 

Hey guy's more scriptural proof.
Genesis 2:18: The NKJV ought to make Hillary Clinton proud: "And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make a helper COMPARABLE TO HIM"

Genesis 22:8: One of the greatest verses in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh: "God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:" The NKJV adds that little word "for": "God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering" And destroys the wonderful promise! Where'd they get their little "for"? From the NASV!

Genesis 24:47: The "old" KJV reads: "I put the earring upon her face". But the NKJV has different plans for beautiful Rebekah: "I put the nose ring on her nose". Where did it get the ridiculous idea to "cannibalize" Rebekah? Just take a peek at the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!

Ezra 8:36: The KJV reads, "And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants. . ." The "much clearer" NKJV reads, "And they delivered the king's orders to the king's satraps. . ." Who in the world thinks "satraps" is "much clearer" than lieutenants? The NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV - they do! They put in the same "much clearer" word!

Psalms 109:6: removes "Satan". (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV).

Matthew 7:14: change "narrow is the way" to "difficult is the way". There's nothing "difficult" about the salvation of Jesus Christ! Jesus says in Matt. 11:30, "For my yoke is EASY, and my burden is light." THE EXACT OPPOSITE! Boy, you talk about a contradiction!

Matthew 12:40: change "whale" to "fish" (ditto NIV) I don't guess it matters (what's the truth got to do with it?), the Greek word used in Matthew 12:40 is ketos. The scientific study of whales just happens to be - CETOLOGY - from the Greek ketos for whale and logos for study! The scientific name for whales just happens to be - CETACEANS - from the Greek ketos for whale!

Matthew 18:26 & Matthew 20:20: The NKJV removes "worshipped him" (robbing worship from Jesus) (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

 

Scriptural proof that KJV-onlyists are incapable of any thought that they wrote themselves, perhaps.

But not that the KJV and only the KJV is the Word of God in English.

It seems the entire KJV-only movement is incapable of providing that.

You gotta laugh.

 

You might as well laugh because you can do nothing to disprove the scriptual facts before you. Now all that is left is the conviction of the Holy Spirit and if you will laugh that off too.

 

More scriptural proof;
When someone "corrects" the King James Bible with "more authoritative manuscripts" or "older manuscripts," or "the best authorities," they're usually making some reference to Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. These are two very corrupt fourth century uncials that are practically worshipped by modern scholars. These are the primary manuscripts that Westcott and Hort relied so heavily on when constructing their Greek text (1851-1871) on which the new versions are based.

Vaticanus (B) is the most worshipped. This manuscript was officially catalogued in the Vatican library in 1475, and is still property of the Vatican today. Siniaticus (Aleph) was discovered in a trash can at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai by Count Tischendorf, a German scholar, in the year 1844. Both B and Aleph are Roman Catholic manuscripts. Remember that! You might also familiarize yourself with the following facts:

1. Both manuscripts contain the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament.

2. Tischendorf, who had seen both manuscripts, believed they were written by the same man, possibly Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340 A.D.).

3. Vaticanus was available to the King James translators, but God gave them sense enough to ignore it.

4. Vaticanus omits Geneses 1:1-46:28, Psalm 106-138, Matthew 16:2-3, Rom. 16:24, I Timothy through Titus, the entire book of Revelation, and it conveniently ends the book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14. If you're familiar with Hebrews 10, you know why.

5. While adding The Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas to the New Testament, Siniaticus omits John 5:4, 8:1-11, Matthew 16:2-3, Romans 16:24, Mark 16:9-20, Acts 8:37, and I John 5:7 (just to name a few).

6. It is believed that Siniaticus has been altered by as many as ten different men. Consequently, it is a very sloppy piece of work (which is probably the reason for it being in a trash can). Many transcript errors, such as missing words and repeated sentences are found throughout it.

7. The Dutch scholar, Erasmus (1469-1536), who produced the world's first printed Greek New Testament, rejected the readings of Vaticanus and Siniaticus.

8. Vaticanus and Siniaticus not only disagree with the Majority Text from which the KJV came, they also differ from each other. In the four Gospels alone, they differ over 3,000 times!

9. When someone says that B and Aleph are the oldest available manuscripts, they are lying. There are many Syriac and Latin translations from as far back as the SECOND CENTURY that agree with the King James readings. For instance, the Pashitta (145 A.D.), and the Old Syriac (400 A.D.) both contain strong support for the King James readings. There are about fifty extant copies of the Old Latin from about 157 A.D., which is over two hundred years before Jerome was conveniently chosen by Rome to "revise" it. Then Ulfilas produced a Gothic version for Europe in A.D. 330. The Armenian Bible, which agrees with the King James, has over 1,200 extant copies and was translated by Mesrob around the year 400. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are clearly NOT the oldest and best manuscripts.

 

Where does this verse tell us the KJV is the only word of God?? That is the proof we are looking for.

Do you know what ezer cenegdo means?? It would probably be helpful to find out before spouting off about how it is translated.

Actually the "for" came from Moses. The text read "yireh-lo." (Look up what Moses wrote if you doubt me.). Yireh means to provide. "Lo" is a preposition with an object suffix. The "le" part means "to or for;" the "O" part is a third masculine singular suffix. Thus "lo" means "for himself." To omit the "for" is to take away from the word of God as revealed to MOses. This verses is not a testimony that the sacrifice is God; it clearly was not; it was a ram caught by its horns in the bush. In order to believe that God provided himself as the sacrifice you must believe that the ram was God. Surely you don't believe that. This verse rathers testifies to the fact that God is the one who provided the sacrifice to satisfy his own wrath against sin. This is a wonderful verse about the fact that God provides for sinners what they cannot provide for themselves. The NASB translates what MOSes wrote under the inspiration fo the Spirit.

PUTting a ring in the nose is not cannibalization. Here, the text uses the word "Aph" which means nose. Where would you put a earring on her face?? Earring itself is an interpretation of a word that means "Ring." When the translators put "ring" they put the formal translation of "nezem." EArring was an interpretation of that word.

[quot]Ezra 8:36: The KJV reads, "And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants. . ." The "much clearer" NKJV reads, "And they delivered the king's orders to the king's satraps. . ." Who in the world thinks "satraps" is "much clearer" than lieutenants? The NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV - they do! They put in the same "much clearer" word![/qutoe]Probably because that is what the word means. Why not just get our your dictionary and look the word up if you don't know it? THAT is what you always tell us to do.

They didn't remove it. The word "satan" means accuser. In the verse, it is parallel with "The wicked man" in the first line. Understanding poetry would help you avoid making this simple mistake you have made here.

The NIV, NASB both use "narrow." The word in question is "Thlibo" and it has the idea of difficult to pass through or narrow. Your own lack of knowledge led you to make this statement. Knowing the facts would have prevented you.

Are you denying that a whale is a large fish?? Surely you know better than that. The word, suprisingly enough, means "large fish."

Again, a simple few minutes of study of the context would have prevented such a ridiculous accusation. The man fell at the feet of JEsus to beseech him for help. There is no robbing of worship here. This is absurb.

So what you long post has shown is that you have made a lot of mistakes because of a lack of being properly taught. YOu have made mistakes that are very easy to correct. And to top it all off, in a thread asking for a place where Scripture calls the KJV the only word of God, you have once again grossly failed. Why?