The proof is self-evident. No one has shown us any manuscript that would prove the assertion wrong.You need to prove what you claim. And this is impossible for anyone to do.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The proof is self-evident. No one has shown us any manuscript that would prove the assertion wrong.You need to prove what you claim. And this is impossible for anyone to do.
Why is it I believe you are in error in most of what you suggest?that's what I'm doing by pointing out false doctrines of faith/worship. In this forum, the false doctrine being pointed out is the KJVO myth.
But you cannot prove one does not exist. Aren't we being hypocritical here?The proof is self-evident. No one has shown us any manuscript that would prove the assertion wrong.
How ridiculous to say something does not exist based on mere human ignorance.But you cannot prove one does not exist. Aren't we being hypocritical here?
I believe and accept what the Scriptures actually state about themselves.
It is surprising that KJV-only advocates who claim to believe the Scriptures and believe the truth too often resort to the carnal tactic of making misleading and even false allegations against those who believe the Scriptures but disagree with non-scriptural opinions. Throwing out unproven accusations seems to have become the main argument for those opinions. KJV-only advocates have not demonstrated anything hypocritical in my advocating the applying of the same just measures/standards to all Bible translations.
It suggests to me that they know the truth that they cannot present any positive, clear, consistent, sound, true, scriptural case for the opinions that they try to add to the Scriptures.
We need to add Psalms 119:89, "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven."Talk about misleading!
You are the Leader of misleading:
"ONLY the originals are inspired"
with NO scripture or bible verses to prove.
I am a "bible believing man"
but do not even believe the preserved scripture is inspired.
Then calling on man made evidences
and calling all who disagree LIARS.
And using the word "scripture".
You should be rightfully ashamed of yourself.
The word of our God shall stand for ever.
Isaiah 40:8
All scripture is given by inspiration of God...
2 Timothy 3:16
Man shall not live by bread alone but by
every word
that proceedeth out of
the mouth of God.
Matthew 4:4
Heaven and earth shall pass away but
my words
shall not pass away.
Matthew 24:35
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever.
And this is
the word
which by the gospel is preached
unto you.
1 Peter 1:25
It all adds up to you suggesting God fails to provide true scriptures to the Church over the centuries.
How can you deny you set stumbling blocks in front of those with simple faith in God's word?That is your incorrect opinion and may be your unrighteous judgment.
According to a consistent, just application of your own stated reasoning, it would be suggesting that the KJV translators themselves undermined and destroyed faith in God's word and denied God's providence over His word.
In the preface to the 1611 KJV entitled "The Translators to the Reader," Miles Smith favorably quoted Jerome as writing “that as the credit of the old books (he meaneth the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth the original Greek. Then Miles Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "If truth be to be tried by these tongues [Hebrew and Greek], then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles." In this preface, Miles Smith wrote: “If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.” Earlier on the third page of this preface, Miles Smith referred to “the original” as “being from heaven, not from earth.” Writing for all the translators, Miles Smith noted: “If anything be halting, or superfluous, or no so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.” Miles Smith observed: “No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men indured with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the word translated, did no less then despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express.”
How can you deny you set stumbling blocks in front of those with simple faith in God's word?
I can soundly deny it because it is the truth. Advocating the truth is not a stumbling block for those with simple faith in God's word. You are wrong to try to make truth conflict with faith.
While you claim to be "simple faith in God's word" actually includes complex blind faith in the opinions and human reasoning evident in KJV-only assertions that are not true and are not scriptural.
Believing assertions that are not true and are not scriptural is being deceived about those assertions, and it is not having simple faith in God's word since God's word does not state the non-scriptural KJV-only assertions that you may believe. No one has to believe blindly men's opinions in order to have faith in God's word.
You say God does not provide true copies of his word over the centuries.I can soundly deny it because it is the truth. Advocating the truth is not a stumbling block for those with simple faith in God's word. You are wrong to try to make truth conflict with faith.
While you claim to be "simple faith in God's word" actually includes complex blind faith in the opinions and human reasoning evident in KJV-only assertions that are not true and are not scriptural.
Believing assertions that are not true and are not scriptural is being deceived about those assertions, and it is not having simple faith in God's word since God's word does not state the non-scriptural KJV-only assertions that you may believe. No one has to believe blindly men's opinions in order to have faith in God's word.
Your doctrine is unprovable from the bible but provable ONLY from the doctrines of men.
Here's one, by a KJVO:Give us a quote, something to look at. I would like to see what they are saying.
Because you're in thrall to the KJVO myth & try to avoid the truths that prove it false.Why is it I believe you are in error in most of what you suggest?
You say God does not provide true copies of his word over the centuries.
No; YOU are. Funny that Beza had access to a ms. that no one else before or after him had.But you cannot prove one does not exist. Aren't we being hypocritical here?
How can you say this without proving it?No; YOU are. Funny that Beza had access to a ms. that no one else before or after him had.
So, what source did he use for those words in that verse? Was it the Latin Vulgate, that Rastus used for the Rev's last words? Here's Rev. 16:5 from the LV: "Et audivi angelum aquarum dicentem: Justus es, Domine, qui es, et qui eras sanctus, qui hæc judicasti"
See "and shall be" in there?
Without any SOURCE being known, we must assume Beza made a conjectural emendation of his own accord. No one has so far been able to prove differently.
You imply many things about God that are not true according to scripture. No wonder you want to get rid of it.Instead of discussing or answering my actual statements, you improperly try to put words in my mouth that I did not say.
You can read doubters and end up being one. I'm careful who I listen to.Here's one, by a KJVO:
stylos: WM 115: Review: Beza and Revelation 16:5
There are many more. Just Google "and shalt be" is a conjectural emendation in Rev. 16:5.
Fact is, those words weren't in that verse in the TR until Beza put them in. And, far as I'm concerned, such emendations are NOT SCRIPTURE, but are ADDITIONS to God's word, against His express command. While there are many defenses written for Beza's CE, the fact remains we cannot see any SOURCE for it but beza himself.
Because you're in thrall to the KJVO myth & try to avoid the truths that prove it false.
You imply many things about God that are not true according to scripture. No wonder you want to get rid of it.
How can you say this without proving it?