Scriptural proofs for KJVOnlyism

I gave you scriptural proofs! The Bible says the KJV is without error in exactly the same place as it states the following beliefs that you hold:

1. Textual criticism must be used to discern which words are really God's words.
2. Codex Vaticanus is an accurate manuscript.
3. God would only preserve his word in a multitude of imperfect manuscripts.
4. The NIV is the word of God.
5. Any "faithful translation" is the word of God.
6. There are 66 books in the Bible.
7. Only the original was inspired.

Now come on Larry, you (and those of a similar persuasion) continually tell us such things! You tell them us so often that you must know where the Bible teaches them! At guess what? KJVOnlyism is in the same place as these.

 

You did not use one verse of Scripture. How is that scriptural?? Do you have a different authority than Scripture??

[/b]This is a simple fact that is true no matter what version you hold to. The KJV had to undergo textual criticism. In fact you practice textual criticism when you tell us that the KJV is right and everything else is wrong. Textual criticism means deciding between two or more readings.

I never said this. It is a manuscript fo God's word. You throw it out like it isn't. We treat it like it is. It is neither biblical nor unbiblical.. It is a simple fact that can be verified by looking at it.

Again, history clearly tells us to be the case and the Bible confirms it through its own use of texts of Scripture that themselves were not perfectly preserved. God does not dispute this fact in his word.

It claims to be. Just read it.

Clearly verified in Scripture by the quotation of the OT and NT texts. Christ and the apostles quoted things other than the KJV with absolute authority and expected you to obey them.

This has been the uniform testimony of hte church for 1700 years.

2 Tim 3:16 -- the writings.

You have totally missed the boat in your effort to avoid the reality that you have no place where God tells you what you enforce on us. You keep telling us that one version is hte only word of God yet God never says that. Don't you think it strange?? You should

 

You are so right.All one has to do is look at the name of it,VATCANUS;you know the Vatican!! The poly-versions read like it's Dark-Age counterpart,the Jesuit Rheims bible of the Dark-Age North-African Vatican text.But after all,whats in a name.

 

Are you are unaware of the facts that you think that the name has something to do with its origin?? Surely you are not that unfamiliar with the truth. It was found there. The text predates the catholic church and has not been changed since the time of its copying. It is pure and utter foolishness to suggest some catholic conspiracy in the differences in the texts. That is a ridiculous argument that shows how unfamiliar you appear to be with what you are talking about.

What is a simple fact is that it is a manuscript of some of the NT documents. That does not testify to its accuracy any more than the fact that the existence of the TR testifies to its accuracy. It is a piece of evidence that has been wrongly omitted by some.

 

JYD said:

Well, now that I think of it,the KJB was translated under the authority of a King,see Ecclesiastes 8:4;

Man, I love KJV-only eisegesis. You gotta laugh.

And God said He would Show His Word unto Jacob(Psalms 147:19),James is the English word for Jacob.

But this one, which I haven't heard before, is so funny that I've reserved all my little icons for it.


*


By Jacob, of course, the Psalmist means the nation of Israel as he makes clear in the next line.

 

You did not use one verse of Scripture. How is that scriptural?? Do you have a different authority than Scripture??</font>[/QUOTE]No, I didn't name the scripture I was refering to - but to do so would have been to insult your intelligence, wouldn't it? I mean, I told you where the scripture is: the same place as the seven positions I outlined below. Since you MVers believe the Bible, instead of being heretics who just believe ideas of men (like us KJVOs), you surely know which scripture testifies those points, don't you? You don't need me to tell you where the Bible teaches your beliefs, do you? I didn't think so. So go and read that verse. It's the same verse that says KJVOnlyism is true.

This is a simple fact that is true no matter what version you hold to.</font>[/QUOTE]Yep, KJVOnlyism is in the same scripture that teaches what you just said.

I never said this. It is a manuscript fo God's word. You throw it out like it isn't. We treat it like it is. It is neither biblical nor unbiblical.. It is a simple fact that can be verified by looking at it.</font>[/QUOTE]Many of a similar position to yourself hold that it is accurate. But wait - you say the position is "neither unbiblical nor biblical"? Surely you bible-believing MVers don't believe something that the Bible doesn't state? No, I didn't think so. But wait: KJVOnlyism is in the same verse as what you said there, too.

Again, history clearly tells us to be the case and the Bible confirms it through its own use of texts of Scripture that themselves were not perfectly preserved.</font>[/QUOTE]When the Bible quotes Bible texts it does not affirm that they are imperfect. Nor does it affirm that there existed no perfectly preserved texts. But of course, there is a Bible text that clearly states your position on this, isn't there? Good. And BTW - the same verse states KJVOnlyism.

It claims to be. Just read it.</font>[/QUOTE]Of course it does! Just go and read that verse that says "the NIV is the word of God"! Now, read the rest of that verse - it says "KJVOnlyism is true", too!

Clearly verified in Scripture by the quotation of the OT and NT texts. Christ and the apostles quoted things other than the KJV with absolute authority and expected you to obey them.</font>[/QUOTE]Of course they did! But they also answered the point - they said any "fatihful translation" was the word of God. It's the same verse I keep talking about! And it's the same verse as KJVOnlyism!

This has been the uniform testimony of hte church for 1700 years.</font>[/QUOTE]No, it hasn't; but even if it has, why are you appealing to something that isn't the Bible? Go on, just quote that verse! It's the same verse as you find KJVOnlyism!

2 Tim 3:16 -- the writings.</font>[/QUOTE]No, 2 Tim 3:16 doesn't say only the original was inspired. Why are you quoting that verse? Come on, just quote the verse that says what you believe. It's the same verse that states points 1-6. And it's the same verse as KJVOnlyism!

I've never tried to enforce anything on you. In fact, when I first came to Baptist Board, what I found was yourself and others attacking people like me who happen to believe that the modern versions do not improve upon the Authorised version. But I'm extremely surprised that you say "God never said that". Why, can't you read to the end of a verse??? He said it in exactly the same passage that affirms your beliefs; exaclty the same passage as affirms KJVOnlyism!!!

I'm so glad that both our positions are found in the Bible.

 

"Because the FOOLISHNESS of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." (1 Cor. 1:25, Anglican Version 1611; emph. added)

There you KJV Onlyites have your absolutely infallible and error free and inerrant and 100 per cent perfect and inspired only Word of God and absolute Final Authority in English. Which blasphemes the only Lord God with a vengeance, teaching God is possessed of an attribute known as FOOLISHNESS. Then if this KJV is your Final Authority why do you not teach that attribute with zeal?? Check up in Strong's concordance what the same KJV says about "foolishness", and the blasphemy of the KJV will be all the more obvious to you! And most Modern Versions ape the KJV, also teaching God has an attribute known as FOOLISHNESS, including the NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, ALT etc. etc. So far I have found only TWO single official English translations which do not thusly blaspheme Jehovah God in this very verse, they being the LITV and the MKJV. Both translate the underlying God-breathed Greek correctly. God is not the author of confusion. Yea, let God be true (not possessed of FOOLISHNESS), and each man a liar.

Harald

 

Bartholomew,

I can't help but think you aren't in tune with what we are asking here. It has been said by many that the KJV is the only word of God. We have been heretics, Bible-deniers, and other things for denying this. We have been said to be using perversions. Now this is strong language to use when your only support is the word of men. In fact, I would not use those words to describe beliefs that stem from the word of men. Therefore, since such strong language is being used, we want to know where God said this.

We have never said that you need to agree with our position to have the word of God. We have never said that you need to agree with us to be faithful believers and pastors. And that is a significant difference. We are willing to admit that God has not given clear revelation on this issue.[/i] Therefore, we speak clearly where Scripture speaks clearly and allow liberty where it does not.

All we are asking from you is to do the same. Speak clearly where God speaks clearly and allow liberty where he does not.

You have never seen me attack anyone who didn't believe the MV were an improvement. I have never done that.

This doesn't make much sense. Perhaps you can explain in a clearer way. We have asked for the verse where God identifies the KJV as the only word of God. That is a simple request. I didn't see you give any verse, much less read to the end of it.

The scriptural support for our position is clear:
1. The texts that affirm Scripture as God's word predate the 1611 and therefore, there are things other than the KJV that are the word of God.
2. the NIV is Scripture and 2 Tim 3:16-17 says that "all scripture is God-breathed." Therefore, the NIV is the God-breathed writing from God (as are the NASB, ESV, NKJV, etc).
3. The OT prophets, Jesus, and the apostles all referred to texts of Scripture that were not the KJV and that were indeed different than the KJV. Those non-KJV texts were held up as authoritative and inerrant and inspired. Therefore Jesus and the apostles agreed with our position--that things other than the KJV can and should be called the word of God.

I have shown you some of the evidence for mine. You have yet to show me any for yours.

 

This doesn't make much sense. Perhaps you can explain in a clearer way. We have asked for the verse where God identifies the KJV as the only word of God. That is a simple request. I didn't see you give any verse, much less read to the end of it.</font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for your post, Pastor. Basically, I was being totally sarcastic. This thread demands scriptural evidence for KJVOnlyism. Of course, the Bible never mentions the KJV, so it can never be done in the way being demanded. You all knew that when the thread was started. However, I was pointing out that you believe many things about what the Bible is without the Bible telling you so. The Bible does not state that this or that manuscript is "reliable"; it does not state that only the original was inspired; it does not state that God only preserved his word in imperfect manuscripts; and it does not even state which books make up the Bible! My point is that you cannot produce direct scriptural statements to back up your beliefs about what the Bible is; so it is hypocritical for anyone like yourself to demand KJVOs produce such evidence. Like I said, the same verse that testifies to there being 66 books in the Bible is the same verse that says the KJV is without error (i.e. the verse doesn't exist).

That does not necessarily follow. There were things before 1611 (and therefore not the KJV) that were the word of God; but that does not mean there are things now that are the word of God besides the KJV. Besides, all KJVOs I know of teach that the MVs contain the word of God, anyway. Your point does not address the question of whether the KJV is superior to other English versions, or whether it has errors in it. But read your own quotation again: it is NOT appealing to a Bible verse! Yet this thread demands such evidence from KJVOs!

I think this quotation proves my point exactly. Where does the Bible say this is a reference to the NIV? Where does it say the NIV is scripture??? It doesn't. You've decided it from somewhere else. It's just like when you ask, "where does the Bible teach KJVOnlyism"? Somebody says, "Psalm 12:6&7". Then you say, "where's the Bible say that's a reference to the KJV?" It doesn't; it was decided from somewhere else. Besides, I could equally use the same argument to prove my point:

1."All scripture is God-breathed."
2.The KJV is scripture.
3.Therefore all the KJV is "God-breathed."
4.God is perfect and cannot lie.
5.Therefore the KJV is perfect and contians no lies.

Finally, I'd point out that a few posts ago you were using this text to refer just to the originals. Now you're saying it applies to the NIV. Which is it?

No, this point does not follow, either. Just because Jesus and the apostles had texts that weren't the KJV that were inspired and innerant does NOT mean that you have texts that are inspired and innerant and not the KJV. Do you have these texts? And besides, if Jesus and the apostles had texts that were considered inerrant and inspired, why do you say that only the original was inspired?

I have shown you some of the evidence for mine. You have yet to show me any for yours. </font>[/QUOTE]And in so doing you've proved my point: that you demand evidence for KJVOs of the kind you are not willing to advance for your own ideas. Without meaning to sound rude, that is hypocritical.

 

And neither has your position. Why, you can't even prove that anyone actually exists!

Well, they were my points, but I think Pastor Larry believes them. In this thread you demanded scriptural proof of KJVOnlyism. As I have shown you, such scriptural proof does not exist for any of those seven points. That does not mean they are neccessarily wrong, but it does show you have immense double-standards.

And how does this prove that the KJV has errors in it???

My bedroom?

This does not follow!!!

Again, this does not follow! Show us where it says the NIV is one of these versions. I have no problem with something other than the KJV being considered the word of God. John 1:1 in the NIV is the word of God. But can you prove that all the scriptures at the time of Christ had errors in them?

Yes: The Koran, the book of Mormon, etc...

Opinions don't prove things.

I challenge you to find any post I have made where I've tried to restrict Christian practice on this issue. However, I've found you and others telling me I can't believe my KJV has no errors. And, like I showed, you cannot produce scriptural proof for your position. You seem to have massive double-standards.

 

Absolutely right. What we are getting at is that people are telling us what God's standard is (the KJV) without having any support from God to demonstrate it. That is the problem. I have often said that I don't care what version people use. Just use it.

But there are a great many people saying that MVs are perversions and Satanic and that we shouldn't use them. They do not have on iota of biblical support which means their authority is something other than the Bible. That is the point we are getting at. If our authority is the Bible, then we need to use the Bible to support our dogmatic statements. If you have a preference fine; but let it be a preference ...

I ahve given biblical evidence for my position. You may not like but there it is. I have not told anyone that there are sinning by using the KJV or told anyone that the KJV is perverted or Satanic. There in lies the difference. When people start calling the word of God satanic and perverted, they are on dangererous ground. They need to be rebuked and corrected.

 

Well, I guess it bothers you that the KJV reads like the Latin Vulgate at times, you know, the official Bible of the Vatican for many centuries. Like in the Book of Revelation and that all so famous passage in Isaiah where Satan is referred to Lucifer (which is Latin). So I guess your roots run deeper with the Vatican than you think! Especially since the TR was put together by a Catholic humanist, Erasmus!

Neal

 

It should bother YOU that the poly-versions read like the Dark-age Jesuit Rheims Vatican bible that derives from Jerome's Vatican text that kept Europe in the Dark-Ages for 1000 years.I guess the translators of the "better easier to read bibles" hopes no one knows about Church History;not to mention they did not translate the Apocryphal books that were deemed by the Pope as Holy Writ in the Alexandrian family of texts.

[ February 17, 2003, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

You know, you have a remarkable ability to dodge the real issue and change the subject. You are the one that brought up the subject of the Vatican. Please answer this question, yes or no, no changing the subject: Does it bother you that the KJV reads like and borrows from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, the official Bible of the Vatican for centuries, or that the TR was compiled by a Catholic humanist name Erasmus?

Please, yes or no only. I know the manuscript Vaticanus bothers you, so we are not talking about that.

Thank you.
Neal

 

Please notice that the KJV did translate the Apocrypha and include it in the AV1611.

Neal

 

Your wrong, The Protesent Text of the Reformation never had the Apocrypha in it's Canon,but the Alexandrian Texts DO! The texts poly-versions hail from.

 

Not only that, it was forbidden that a KJB be printed WITHOUT the Apocrypha by the Church of England for many years after the original publication.

JYD, check this out...

http://www.thebiblerevival.com/teachings/books/0042/

Here is a photocopy of a page from the KJV 1611 Apocrypha...

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1967/apocry.htm

HankD

[ February 17, 2003, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]