The Inanity of KJVOs' Questions

[jonathan.borland]

KJVOs ask the most inane questions demonstrating the triviality of the games they play with the inspiration and preservation of God's Word.

For example, they pretend to ask questions that every Christian in the history of the church should have and actually have answered in the affirmative, such as, "Where can one find God's Word, perfectly preserved, word-for-word?" When asked who ever in the long and rich history of the church ever had such before 1611, they are remarkably silent, indicating that their question itself is either inane or sectarian or novel.

An analogy of KJVOs' inane questioning runs something like this: "Which is the word-for-word, inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God: the KJV rendering of Isaiah 61:1 or the KJV rendering of Luke 4:18? They can't both be inerrant, infallible, inspired, etc., because any stupid person with half a gnat's brain can see that they're different. Did Isaiah say what the KJV of Isaiah says, or what Jesus in the KJV of Luke says that Isaiah said?"

If you say "both," you're called an illogical dimwit, if you say that the current Hebrew mss of Isaiah or the current Greek ones of Luke are corrupt, you're labeled an unbelieving Bible agnostic, and if you say that Jesus himself expanded Isaiah, you're labeled a heretic for claiming that Jesus "lied" about what Isaiah actually said. Basically, any answer to such inane KJVO questions are an exercise in futility.

 

[Winman]

Did Isaiah say what the KJV of Isaiah says, or what Jesus in the KJV of Luke says that Isaiah said?"

If you say "both," you're called an illogical dimwit,

Both.

I could care less if you think I am an illogical dimwit. I think Isaiah and Luke wrote what the Holy Spirit instructed them to write.

 

[robycop3]

Both.

I could care less if you think I am an illogical dimwit. I think Isaiah and Luke wrote what the Holy Spirit instructed them to write.

Well then, if that's true, so did the translators of the Geneva Bible, KJV, NASV, NKJV, and NIV, to name a few.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

KJVOs ask the most inane questions demonstrating the triviality of the games they play with the inspiration and preservation of God's Word.

For example, they pretend to ask questions that every Christian in the history of the church should have and actually have answered in the affirmative, such as, "Where can one find God's Word, perfectly preserved, word-for-word?" When asked who ever in the long and rich history of the church ever had such before 1611, they are remarkably silent, indicating that their question itself is either inane or sectarian or novel.

An analogy of KJVOs' inane questioning runs something like this: "Which is the word-for-word, inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God: the KJV rendering of Isaiah 61:1 or the KJV rendering of Luke 4:18? They can't both be inerrant, infallible, inspired, etc., because any stupid person with half a gnat's brain can see that they're different. Did Isaiah say what the KJV of Isaiah says, or what Jesus in the KJV of Luke says that Isaiah said?"

If you say "both," you're called an illogical dimwit, if you say that the current Hebrew mss of Isaiah or the current Greek ones of Luke are corrupt, you're labeled an unbelieving Bible agnostic, and if you say that Jesus himself expanded Isaiah, you're labeled a heretic for claiming that Jesus "lied" about what Isaiah actually said. Basically, any answer to such inane KJVO questions are an exercise in futility.

Jonathan you know there is much more to the King James Only Position than that.

Most people who are King James Only are so because we believe the CT/MT to be inferior to the TR.

The CT/MT just have too many readings that have very little MSS evidence, Yes I am aware that the TR does as well, but the frequency that the CT does this is much much greater than the TR.

 

[robycop3]

Jonathan you know there is much more to the King James Only Position than that.

Most people who are King James Only are so because we believe the CT/MT to be inferior to the TR.

The CT/MT just have too many readings that have very little MSS evidence, Yes I am aware that the TR does as well, but the frequency that the CT does this is much much greater than the TR.

Kinda like 'the lesser of two evils'?

And...Inferior to WHICH TR? It's only been revised at least 30 times!

 

[Logos1560]

Most people who are King James Only are so because we believe the CT/MT to be inferior to the TR.

Really? You do not demonstrate your assertion to be true.

A TR-only position is different than a KJV-only position.

Those who prefer or even defend the Textus Receptus can accept other English translations of it, and thus they do not have to be KJV-only.

 

[prophet]

Really? You do not demonstrate your assertion to be true.

A TR-only position is different than a KJV-only position.

Those who prefer or even defend the Textus Receptus can accept other English translations of it, and thus they do not have to be KJV-only.

Lol. :beer: :thumbdown:

 

[Yeshua1]

Really? You do not demonstrate your assertion to be true.

A TR-only position is different than a KJV-only position.

Those who prefer or even defend the Textus Receptus can accept other English translations of it, and thus they do not have to be KJV-only.

I hold to the superiority of the Ct over the Tr/MT/bzt , but NOT to the extent that the CT ONLY is the real Greek text, as I like to use the geneva and the Nkjv along with the nasb for study!

 

[robycop3]

While many KJVO questions are inane, how about their ANSWERS to pertinent questions about their myth?

 

[prophet]

KJVOs ask the most inane questions demonstrating the triviality of the games they play with the inspiration and preservation of God's Word.

For example, they pretend to ask questions that every Christian in the history of the church should have and actually have answered in the affirmative, such as, "Where can one find God's Word, perfectly preserved, word-for-word?" When asked who ever in the long and rich history of the church ever had such before 1611, they are remarkably silent, indicating that their question itself is either inane or sectarian or novel.

An analogy of KJVOs' inane questioning runs something like this: "Which is the word-for-word, inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God: the KJV rendering of Isaiah 61:1 or the KJV rendering of Luke 4:18? They can't both be inerrant, infallible, inspired, etc., because any stupid person with half a gnat's brain can see that they're different. Did Isaiah say what the KJV of Isaiah says, or what Jesus in the KJV of Luke says that Isaiah said?"

If you say "both," you're called an illogical dimwit, if you say that the current Hebrew mss of Isaiah or the current Greek ones of Luke are corrupt, you're labeled an unbelieving Bible agnostic, and if you say that Jesus himself expanded Isaiah, you're labeled a heretic for claiming that Jesus "lied" about what Isaiah actually said. Basically, any answer to such inane KJVO questions are an exercise in futility.

You forgot the fourth, and correct answer.
Jesus translated Isaiah into another toungue.

 

[franklinmonroe]

You forgot the fourth, and correct answer.
Jesus translated Isaiah into another toungue.

Luke 4:16-22 KJV --

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
And he closed the book, and he gave [it] again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?​

There is another solution (convoluted as it may be): Jesus did not actually read from the scroll. Verse 16 states that He customarily stood up to read, but nowhere in the passage does it say He did indeed read on this occasion. Perhaps, Jesus finding the synagogue scroll to be inaccurate (as recorded in verse 18) does not actually read from it but instead verbatim quotes Isaiah 61:1 by memory and then can genuinely state that "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." So, there may be all the appearances that Jesus read from the scroll, but in fact, He did not. There is nothing in the text that explicitly demands that He read the words He spoke. I'm sure there is no good argument that He could only know the correct words by reading them from the scroll in front of Him. Must He have read them?

 

[prophet]

Luke 4:16-22 KJV --

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
And he closed the book, and he gave [it] again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?​

There is another solution (convoluted as it may be): Jesus did not actually read from the scroll. Verse 16 states that He customarily stood up to read, but nowhere in the passage does it say He did indeed read on this occasion. Perhaps, Jesus finding the synagogue scroll to be inaccurate (as recorded in verse 18) does not actually read from it but instead verbatim quotes Isaiah 61:1 by memory and then can genuinely state that "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." So, there may be all the appearances that Jesus read from the scroll, but in fact, He did not. There is nothing in the text that explicitly demands that He read the words He spoke. I'm sure there is no good argument that He could only know the correct words by reading them from the scroll in front of Him. Must He have read them?

Jesus only read from scrolls for our sake, to appeal to our final authority, the law and the prophets.
He had no need to read them, for Himself, He is the Word come in the flesh.

 

[robycop3]

Jesus only read from scrolls for our sake, to appeal to our final authority, the law and the prophets.
He had no need to read them, for Himself, He is the Word come in the flesh.

Had Jesus not read from the scroll verbatim, His critix who had the scrolls memorized woulda gone ballistic.