The King James Version onlyism mistake.

[JD731]

According to your own assertions, the 1611 edition of the KJV cannot be the true word of God since it had some errors.
According to your own assertions, the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV cannot be the true word of God since it had some errors.

I cannot prove anything that claims it is a 2000 year old testimony of God concerning his Son, whom he claimed he raised from the dead. He did not ask me to prove it, he asked me to believe it. The same God who made claims about his perfect Son made also claims about his perfect word.The men who are writing the new translations that are having such a profound effect on the Christian faith today are those who do not believe what God says about his Son. They say they believe in the Son, but they do not believe what God says about him. They have made a Christian faith that conforms to a special class of worldly wise elites and everyone else is left out. That is one reason we have scores and scores of various presentations of his words that God has in no way sanctioned.

The men and some women who have produced these unending and varied works do not have the Spirit of God. I know this is not a work of the Spirit because I have read the scriptures for 50 + years and he is not so radically different in the last 2000 years, and especially the last 200 years, as he presented himself in the scriptures that preceded the coming of Christ and the giving of the New Testament. Your presentation of God in the things you embrace and allow in your life is far different than his own presentation of himself and his ways.

According to your own assertions, the printed original-language texts on which the KJV is based cannot be the true word of God since they had some errors including some introduced by printers, some introduced by their textual editors, and some followed from copying errors in their imperfect, underlying original-language manuscripts.

The op is speaking of the "true" word of God. According to you then because of these various errors there must be a consensus among scholars on correcting these error you mentioned above, and for the life of me I cannot understand why the result of the corrections would not amount to the "true" word of God. I could understand it if there were disagreements among the scholars on what the errors are and how to fix them. I suppose there are disagreements, right?

In some cases, you are defending errors followed or introduced by men in the KJV.

According to you but not according to me. But, I am just going on faith and I don't have all the books you have, with the time to read them all, and to memorize what they say.

You demonstrate that you believe something that is not true concerning the many varying editions of the KJV.

I would like to officially go on record at 12:46 Eastern time, on Thursday, Nov 3, 2022 as agreeing with you on this point. Psalm 19:7 does not say that the 1611 KJV is perfect.

 

[JD731]

God's word is pure. But your view of God's written word as given to man, being handled by man, is to discard it all because of errors of man.

You said "the true word of God." This is what I want to join you in defending. You must know there is one and if you know where it is then tell me. That is what I am asking.

 

[JD731]

I have no ideal what you are asking/saying
other then you do not want to answer my question

Thus Until you choose to answer my question, I see no reason for
my continued participation with you on this subject.

Are you actually saying your particular doctrine of the word of God that governs your faith and practice does not require biblical support while at the same time you are requiring it of me? Do not just say I am wrong, but try proving you are right. It has not occurred to anyone of your stature to attempt that yet.

 

[Logos1560]

He did not ask me to prove it, he asked me to believe it.

Nowhere in the Scriptures did God ask you to believe claims for the KJV that are not true. The Scriptures warn against being deceived by believing things that are not true. God did not ask you to believe your non-scriptural KJV-only opinions.

 

[Logos1560]

Your presentation of God in the things you embrace and allow in your life is far different than his own presentation of himself and his ways.

You fail to prove your accusation to be true. You do not at all demonstrate that my scripturally-based position is far different than God's own presentation of Himself and His ways. My position is based on what God says.

 

[37818]

You said "the true word of God." This is what I want to join you in defending. You must know there is one and if you know where it is then tell me. That is what I am asking.

That it's written form has been handled down, originally hand copies which we have today. The variants are known. Most of all the copies agree. Only the known variants are at issue. Other than the known variants are disagreement on translation and interpretations.

 

[JD731]

That it's (THE TRUE WORD OF GOD) written form has been handled down, originally hand copies which we have today. The variants are known. Most of all the copies agree. Only the known variants are at issue. Other than the known variants are disagreement on translation and interpretations.

I am seeing a disconnect. The true word of God has variants? I am beginning to see your thinking and it is illogical and unreasonable. First of all, if there are variants, then the copies are not true, except possibly one. Secondly, if all agree on the variants, then it is possible to reconcile the copies and have a true word of God.

 

[37818]

I am seeing a disconnect. The true word of God has variants?

Twisting truth. The variants from the written word of God are not God's words.

That it's written form has been handled down, originally hand copies which we have today. The variants are known. Most of all the copies agree. Only the known variants are at issue. Other than the known variants are disagreement on translation and interpretations.

 

[JD731]

Twisting truth. The variants from the written word of God are not God's words.

My head spins trying to keep up.

That it's written form has been handled down, originally hand copies which we have today.

The variants are known.
Only the known variants are at issue.
The variants from the written word of God are not God's words.
The King James Onlyism's mistake is defending the KJV for KJV rather than defending the true word of God which is the real issue.

I wonder if you will accept the definition of the word "variant?" Here is the dictionary meaning.

Noun
a form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard.

If you accept that meaning then, according to you, the variants concerning the manuscripts (hand written copies) are known. They are the only issues in Bible translation. They are not God's words. There is a standard, the true words of God.

This is your argument so far.

My questions for you are, where is the standard, and if what you have said above is true, "they are known," why do we yet have variants. Why have they not been reconciled (eliminated - they are known = they are not the words of God), at least for the purpose of authority, in a single perfect manuscript? Who told the church to stop copying the NT some 100 years after the last apostle (John) died?

My whole issue is to stand with you in defending the true word of God, but we need to be on the same page and identify the "true" word of God. You are saying that you have confidence that your manuscripts have variants that are not the words of God and that you know them.

I am saying that my standard for the word of God is perfect, not because I say it is or that I can prove it is, but because I believe it is. I do know what God says about his words and because of more than one opinion about the "true" word of God among scholars, like yourself, I am forced to take a position and to choose sides. Having done that, I notice that you are much more exercised with my decision about the word of God than I am with yours.

I do know this about our differences in what we believe about God, his ways, and what he says. We differ because we have a difference of opinion concerning the words we read in the scriptures. It is not about dreams, visions, modern day prophets, voices from heaven, or any such things. We have a different doctrine because of how we study the words. Obviously, if we have different words we will likely have different doctrines. It is only a logical conclusion.

 

[37818]

My head spins trying to keep up.



I wonder if you will accept the definition of the word "variant?" Here is the dictionary meaning.

Noun
a form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard.

If you accept that meaning then, according to you, the variants concerning the manuscripts (hand written copies) are known. They are the only issues in Bible translation. They are not God's words. There is a standard, the true words of God.

This is your argument so far.

My questions for you are, where is the standard, and if what you have said above is true, "they are known," why do we yet have variants. Why have they not been reconciled (eliminated - they are known = they are not the words of God), at least for the purpose of authority, in a single perfect manuscript? Who told the church to stop copying the NT some 100 years after the last apostle (John) died?

My whole issue is to stand with you in defending the true word of God, but we need to be on the same page and identify the "true" word of God. You are saying that you have confidence that your manuscripts have variants that are not the words of God and that you know them.

I am saying that my standard for the word of God is perfect, not because I say it is or that I can prove it is, but because I believe it is. I do know what God says about his words and because of more than one opinion about the "true" word of God among scholars, like yourself, I am forced to take a position and to choose sides. Having done that, I notice that you are much more exercised with my decision about the word of God than I am with yours.

I do know this about our differences in what we believe about God, his ways, and what he says. We differ because we have a difference of opinion concerning the words we read in the scriptures. It is not about dreams, visions, modern day prophets, voices from heaven, or any such things. We have a different doctrine because of how we study the words. Obviously, if we have different words we will likely have different doctrines. It is only a logical conclusion.

Which variants are not the changes from God's given original?

 

[Logos1560]

I am seeing a disconnect. The true word of God has variants? I am beginning to see your thinking and it is illogical and unreasonable. First of all, if there are variants, then the copies are not true, except possibly one.

Actually it is KJV-only thinking that is inconsistent, illogical, unreasonable, and non-scriptural. It is KJV-only reasoning that depends upon use of fallacies such as begging the question and special pleading.

There is not "if" about it. It is a known fact that there were many textual variants in the original-language manuscripts on which the printed editions on which the KJV is based were made. The 1550 Stephanus edition of the Textus Receptus (one of the TR editions of which the KJV is based) listed over 2,000 variants in less than twenty Greek NT manuscripts.

The KJV is not translated from any one original-language manuscript or any one printed original-language edition. The KJV is based on multiple, varying texts.

 

[JD731]

Actually it is KJV-only thinking that is inconsistent, illogical, unreasonable, and non-scriptural. It is KJV-only reasoning that depends upon use of fallacies such as begging the question and special pleading.

There is not "if" about it. It is a known fact that there were many textual variants in the original-language manuscripts on which the printed editions on which the KJV is based were made. The 1550 Stephanus edition of the Textus Receptus (one of the TR editions of which the KJV is based) listed over 2,000 variants in less than twenty Greek NT manuscripts.

The KJV is not translated from any one original-language manuscript or any one printed original-language edition. The KJV is based on multiple, varying texts.

There are variants among men who write the historical records and opinions as well, and you receive some and reject others depending on your prejudices and preferences and your goals. The proof for this is other men with the same opportunities as you read the histories and opinions during the same era and come to opposite opinions as you. [Snip]

(Post edited my moderator, inappropriate comments removed)

 

[JD731]

Which variants are not the changes from God's given original?

Where is God's given original? Tell me that and I can give you the "true" word of God. You are the expert on variants. Logos 1560 does not accept the critical texts from which most new translations come. You do accept them and believe they are good. You guys do not agree. Logos 1560 has chosen the Geneva Bible and you have probably chosen the ESV. Different source manuscripts. Having more than one word of God demands you make a choice.

 

[37818]

Where is God's given original?

In the copies of the manuscripts handed down to us. If one denies this, one dismisses the word of God.

. . . you have probably chosen the ESV. . . .

I use the KJV as my go to translation. I consult the F35 Greek New Testament.

 

[Logos1560]

However, from reading your stuff over the years, it is my opinion that no one has ever come to a higher opinion of himself than you.

Your opinion is incorrect. I am still learning and studying the Scriptures.

On the other hand, many who read your posts may think the same opinion of you since your posts seem to suggest that you think that what you claim concerning the KJV and concerning the word of God cannot be wrong.

 

[JD731]

Your opinion is incorrect. I am still learning and studying the Scriptures.

On the other hand, many who read your posts may think the same opinion of you since your posts seem to suggest that you think that what you claim concerning the KJV and concerning the word of God cannot be wrong.

I am right about the word of God. It cannot be wrong.

 

[Conan]

There are "variants" in all the copies of the manuscripts that are not the word of God. You said so yourself. None of those manuscripts were hand copied by an apostle or a prophet, an eye witness of the ministry of Jesus, beginning to end. Thank God that he decided to write his scriptures in an English Bible where he would glean the truths from those copies of manuscripts that had been compromised with variants. He even allowed the invention of the printing press so that could not happen again. Now we have an English Bible with the words God wants to teach his preachers. He wants us to understand his words literally and the framework of his revelation of himself and his ways dispensationally and numerically.

But, alas, the printing press did not stop the variants because unfaithful and unspiritual men began to teach that words do not matter and they paraphrased the scriptures and gave us endless translations and dynamic equivalences and the result is that the church is almost completely ignorant of the great truths of the word of God. If truth were dynamite, most commentators on this board, no matter what subject they were dealing with, would not have enough to blow their nose.

Few men on this Baptist board believes the words of God, even the words in the corrupt translations. It is a sad day when the apostasy is growing daily.

1Co 2:1 ¶ And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6 ¶ Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world (it was the mystery that was decided on) unto our glory: (Predestination)

What Reformed person believes the following verse?

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it (the mystery), they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Still speaking of the Mystery and it must be revealed to the understanding of men individually BY THE SPIRIT. This is the reason he says a few verses later that the natural man cannot understand them because they are foolishness to him. This is why mocking goes on concerning the church and it's deliverance from wrath by the glorification of the body and the translation from earth to heaven in the twinkling of an eye, commonly called the rapture.

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

How then does the Spirit reveal the deep things, the mysteries unto us? Does he write it in the sky? Does he send dreams? does he send visions? Does voices come from heaven? Does God use some magic and one just knows of a sudden? The answer is no. He tells us how in the next verse.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but (in words) which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

The Holy Spirit chooses the words and they must be compared because the truths of God are in the words. I have learned over time how to think like God, and one must think in his words. I refer you to the last verse in this chapter where we must have the mind of Christ.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

My motto is "Believe the Words."

The printing press did not stop textual variants in the KJV.

Changes in the King James version

 

[Salty]

Few men on this Baptist board believes the words of God, even the words in the corrupt translations. It is a sad day when the apostasy is growing daily.

1) Other than the KJV - what other versions do you consider to NOT be corrupt.

2) which version do you consider to be very corrupt

 

[JonC]

Mod hat on
​

@JD731 will not be replying in this thread. Therefore please continue the discussion without challenging the member.

As a reminder -

From the BB rules:

Personal attacks will not be tolerated. The board has an edit button enabled. We encourage you to use it and edit your own words. Moderators and Administrators will be visibly proactive in dealing with potentially offensive situations.

From the Bible Versions and Translations forum rules:

9. Certain terms are off limits in this forum.
For example:

1. The KJVO crowd will not not refer to the Modern Versions as "perversions," "satanic," "devil's bibles," etc...nor call those that use them "Bible correctors," "Bible doubters," etc.
2. The MV crowd will not refer to the KJVOs as "cults," "heretics," "sacrilegious," etc...nor refer to the KJV in derisive terms such as "King Jimmy's Bible," "Pickled Preserved Version," etc.

Mod hat off​

 

[37818]

I am a pro KJV advocate. As with any translation of the word of God, there are two major issues. The underlying texts from manuscripts chosen and how the transition was done.

I use the KJV as my go to translation. I consult the F35 Greek New Testament.