Scriptural proofs for KJVOnlyism

[neal4christ]

Your wrong

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

 

[AV Defender]

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

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!!!

Well, I guess it bothers you that the KJV reads like the Latin Vulgate at times,

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

Especially since the TR was put together by a Catholic humanist, Erasmus!

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 ]

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by neal4christ:
...the TR was compiled by a Catholic humanist name Erasmus?

The proponents of the Critical Text often assert that the Traditional Text originated with the cleric Erasmus. There is a fundamental dishonesty inherent in that statement. The Traditional Text of the Greek New Testament existed in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts back to at least 450 A. D., and Traditional readings existed in the below mentioned versions and lectionaries back to at least 150 A. D.
Textual Criticism Fact and Fiction Dr. Thomas Cassidy 1995

 

[rlvaughn]

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

 

[rlvaughn]

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

 

[neal4christ]

The Traditional Text of the Greek New Testament existed in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts back to at least 450 A. D., and Traditional readings existed in the below mentioned versions and lectionaries back to at least 150 A. D.

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

Neal

 

[neal4christ]

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!!!

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.

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

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.

Erasmus was no more a catholic humanist than Luther was;Luther continued what Erasmus started.

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

 

[AV Defender]

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

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.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by JYD:
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.

 

[neal4christ]

Lets see, obviously you cant read.

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

 

[neal4christ]

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

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

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by JYD:
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!!!

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.

You was given proof that Erasmus was not even a good Catholic;

This is both debatable and irrelevant.

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

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?

 

[AV Defender]

Any one who can read can pick up an MV and see that the Apocrypha is not there.

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.

They can also pick up an eclectic text and see that the Apocrypha is not there.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by JYD:
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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[Ransom]

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.

 

[Ransom]

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.

 

[Scott J]

Fourteen pages.... and still waiting on scriptural proof for KJVOnlyism. You guys have presented nothing even closely alluding to the notion that only one translation of the Bible into english can be called the Word of God- much less proving that the KJV is that Bible- much, much less establishing a scriptural basis for claiming that the KJV is perfectly worded to the exclusion of all other translations and textual choices.

Coupled with a complete whiff on the topic of "Historical proofs...", its astounding and troubling that you all don't see the utter vanity of your position.

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
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.

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

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

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 ...

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.

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Fourteen pages.... and still waiting on scriptural proof for KJVOnlyism.

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

its astounding and troubling that you all don't see the utter vanity of your position.

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)

 

[Scott J]

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

No. God does not tell us in His Word how He will preserve His Word. The facts of history do speak to this however. They support what we believe and completely disprove the type of preservation you espouse.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

And you are telling us that the KJV has errors in it. Where does the Bible say that?</font>[/QUOTE] Why the evasion? The answer to your question is pretty obvious and has to do with mss evidence. Yet you try this very silly evasive tactic to avoid the question. If you are going to judge and condemn something, you should have scripture to back it up. We are not judging nor condemning the KJV. In fact, those engaging you now affirm that the KJV is in fact a faithful version of God's Word with derived authority from the originals.

Why do you duck and weave and avoid what should be simple questions?