What other Doctrines does KJV Only violate

[AVL1984]

these words are my own. I actually study the scriptures and believe the words, something I am encouraging you to do.

....and just for the record, you have not even attempted to refute what I have said on any of those texts. I am accusing you, not of rejecting my words, but rejecting God's words and supplanting them with your own ideas.

And yet, you have sidestepped answerin'g with proof that I am rejecting God's words...as well as your accusations against Robycop of doing the same thing. You can't defend your position, but continually throw up strawman arguments.

 

[JD731]

Because you accuse, it does not mean that you prove what you claim to be true. At times you may be the one supplanting God's words with your own ideas that you read into them unless you claim to be an infallible/perfect interpreter.

The translated words in the KJV are not actually the directly-inspired, original-language words of God given to the prophets and apostles. Words in the KJV can be incorrect because they may at times be errors introduced by printers, words added by translators, or inaccurate renderings of translators. You also do not know the original-language words omitted by the makers of the KJV in translating [words for which they put no English rendering in the text although they sometimes put an English word for those words in their 1611 marginal notes that are not found in most post-1900 KJV editions].

You have no scriptures that says the Greek and Hebrew are the only languages where God's words are preserved. You might make the case if the author of the originals was not here among us in the person of the Holy Ghost and who possesses editorial license. He can choose his own words in a translation. They were his inspired words to begin with.

You are battling for the acceptance of a doctrine that is not in the scriptures.

 

[JD731]

And yet, you have sidestepped answerin'g with proof that I am rejecting God's words...as well as your accusations against Robycop of doing the same thing. You can't defend your position, but continually throw up strawman arguments.

Does Acts 2:38 say that the men of Israel must repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins and they will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost? Will you accept what the words say?

 

[Conan]

You have no scriptures that says the Greek and Hebrew are the only languages where God's words are preserved. You might make the case if the author of the originals was not here among us in the person of the Holy Ghost and who possesses editorial license. He can choose his own words in a translation. They were his inspired words to begin with.

You are battling for the acceptance of a doctrine that is not in the scriptures.

What you are saying is that God changes his words, which is wrong. God's words are preserved in the Languages that he gave them in. English was not even in existence when God caused His Word to be written in Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek.

 

[37818]

Does Acts 2:38 say that the men of Israel must repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins and they will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost? Will you accept what the words say?

No. I believe Acts of the Apostles 2:38. [There exists no texts in the Bible were if one is not immersed [baptized] one cannot receive any gift of God.]

 

[AVL1984]

Does Acts 2:38 say that the men of Israel must repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins and they will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost? Will you accept what the words say?

This point has been hashed and rehashed here, not by only myself, but many others. Move on. You're continuously asking the same question over and over proves you're not on the correct track and have a love for one phrase "the words." As stated many times before, nobody here is denying "the words." Yet, you cannot seem to let that FACT sink into your brain.

 

[JD731]

This point has been hashed and rehashed here, not by only myself, but many others. Move on. You're continuously asking the same question over and over proves you're not on the correct track and have a love for one phrase "the words." As stated many times before, nobody here is denying "the words." Yet, you cannot seem to let that FACT sink into your brain.

Do you have a comprehension blockage? Read below. I did not even need to search for an example . Good grief, man, you are making yourself look simple.

No. I believe Acts of the Apostles 2:38. [There exists no texts in the Bible were if one is not immersed [baptized] one cannot receive any gift of God.]

 

[JD731]

What you are saying is that God changes his words, which is wrong. God's words are preserved in the Languages that he gave them in. English was not even in existence when God caused His Word to be written in Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek.

I am saying if you want to quote me a passage where God says what you say about the original language being the only means by which he as God can deliver his words, then I am super anxious to believe it. But at the present time we have no preserved original language that is the express word of God that everyone will agree to. We have four families of manuscripts, in various stages of complete, and no two people agrees which are the word of God.

The simple fact of reality does not support your doctrines and since that is true you are left with nothing but opinions. God has never said anywhere that we must have a copy of his word in Greek to have his words and you haven't ever produced them.

 

[Logos1560]

You have no scriptures that says the Greek and Hebrew are the only languages where God's words are preserved.

You are battling for the acceptance of a doctrine that is not in the scriptures.

Your opinion is incorrect. There is more scriptural support for my accepting what the Scriptures teach in relationship to preservation than there is for recent or modern KJV-only opinions concerning it.

Do you suggest that you do not believe the words "written by the prophets" (Luke 18:31) which would refer to the actual specific words directly written by the prophets in the original languages in which God gave them by inspiration?

The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by means of the Holy Spirit and later written referred to those words that were written in the original languages (1 Cor. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:2, John 17:8, Luke 18:31, Heb. 1:1-2). The Lord Jesus Christ directly referred to “the things that are written by the prophets” (Luke 18:31), and the actual words directly written by the prophets themselves would have been in the original language in which God gave them by inspiration to the prophets. The oracles of God [the Old Testament Scriptures] given to the prophets were committed unto the Jews in the Jews‘ language (Rom. 3:2, Matt. 5:17-18, Luke 16:17). The specific features “jot“ and “tittle“ at Matthew 5:18 and the “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would indicate the particular original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and would state something about language and about the preservation of the Scriptures.

That which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet would be in the original language in which it was given by inspiration (Matt. 1:22, Matt. 2:15). The actual, specific, exact words which the LORD of hosts sent in His Spirit by the prophets would be in the original language in which God gave them (Zech. 7:12). The actual words written by the prophet would be in the same language in which he originally wrote them (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31). The exact words which “the prophets and Moses did say” (Acts 26:22) would be in the same language in which they stated them. Which are the same words spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets (Acts 3:21)? Would not the words spoken by the LORD by the prophets be in the language in which God gave them (2 Kings 21:10, 2 Kings 24:2)? It would be sound and true to conclude that the actual words of the prophets themselves would be in the original language in which they were given (Acts 15:15). The scriptures of the prophets (Rom. 15:26) would be in the language in which they were given to them.

The actual words of Haggai the prophet would be in the language in which he spoke or wrote them (Haggai 1:12). The scroll of the LORD to be sought and read at the time that Isaiah the prophet wrote would have been a scroll written in Hebrew (Isa. 34:16). The apostle John referred to his own actual words he himself was writing in the language in which he wrote them (1 John 2:12-14). “Moses wrote all the words of the LORD” (Exod. 24:4). The Lord Jesus Christ stated: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47). In another apparent reference to the writings of Moses, Jesus asked the Pharisees concerning whether they had not read them (Matt. 19:4, 7-8, Luke 10:26). The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses directly wrote them. The word of the LORD by the hand of Moses (2 Chron. 35:6, Num. 4:45) would be in the original language in which Moses spoke or wrote it. The LORD commanded by the hand of Moses (Lev. 8:36, Num. 4:37, Num. 15:23, Num. 27:23), and the LORD had spoken by the hand of Moses (Lev. 10:11). In what language were the actual words written by the hand of Moses? When later Jewish scribes made a copy of the writings of Moses, they copied his same words in the same language in which Moses had originally written them.

Do these Scripture passages teach or at least clearly infer that the doctrine of preservation would concern the actual specific original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?

 

[AVL1984]

Do you have a comprehension blockage? Read below. I did not even need to search for an example . Good grief, man, you are making yourself look simple.

The passage you keep throwing up has been addressed over and over. You seem to lack the comprehension and hermeneutical skills to accept what has been addressed. I'm far from simple-minded, yet, you seem to be here to do nothing but cause dissension, and to try and distract from what has already been explained over and over. Attacking 37818 isn't helping your cause...nor is attacking me. Grow up and move on.

 

[JD731]

Your opinion is incorrect. There is more scriptural support for my accepting what the Scriptures teach in relationship to preservation than there is for recent or modern KJV-only opinions concerning it.

Do you suggest that you do not believe the words "written by the prophets" (Luke 18:31) which would refer to the actual specific words directly written by the prophets in the original languages in which God gave them by inspiration?

The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by means of the Holy Spirit and later written referred to those words that were written in the original languages (1 Cor. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:2, John 17:8, Luke 18:31, Heb. 1:1-2). The Lord Jesus Christ directly referred to “the things that are written by the prophets” (Luke 18:31), and the actual words directly written by the prophets themselves would have been in the original language in which God gave them by inspiration to the prophets. The oracles of God [the Old Testament Scriptures] given to the prophets were committed unto the Jews in the Jews‘ language (Rom. 3:2, Matt. 5:17-18, Luke 16:17). The specific features “jot“ and “tittle“ at Matthew 5:18 and the “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would indicate the particular original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and would state something about language and about the preservation of the Scriptures.

That which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet would be in the original language in which it was given by inspiration (Matt. 1:22, Matt. 2:15). The actual, specific, exact words which the LORD of hosts sent in His Spirit by the prophets would be in the original language in which God gave them (Zech. 7:12). The actual words written by the prophet would be in the same language in which he originally wrote them (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31). The exact words which “the prophets and Moses did say” (Acts 26:22) would be in the same language in which they stated them. Which are the same words spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets (Acts 3:21)? Would not the words spoken by the LORD by the prophets be in the language in which God gave them (2 Kings 21:10, 2 Kings 24:2)? It would be sound and true to conclude that the actual words of the prophets themselves would be in the original language in which they were given (Acts 15:15). The scriptures of the prophets (Rom. 15:26) would be in the language in which they were given to them.

The actual words of Haggai the prophet would be in the language in which he spoke or wrote them (Haggai 1:12). The scroll of the LORD to be sought and read at the time that Isaiah the prophet wrote would have been a scroll written in Hebrew (Isa. 34:16). The apostle John referred to his own actual words he himself was writing in the language in which he wrote them (1 John 2:12-14). “Moses wrote all the words of the LORD” (Exod. 24:4). The Lord Jesus Christ stated: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47). In another apparent reference to the writings of Moses, Jesus asked the Pharisees concerning whether they had not read them (Matt. 19:4, 7-8, Luke 10:26). The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses directly wrote them. The word of the LORD by the hand of Moses (2 Chron. 35:6, Num. 4:45) would be in the original language in which Moses spoke or wrote it. The LORD commanded by the hand of Moses (Lev. 8:36, Num. 4:37, Num. 15:23, Num. 27:23), and the LORD had spoken by the hand of Moses (Lev. 10:11). In what language were the actual words written by the hand of Moses? When later Jewish scribes made a copy of the writings of Moses, they copied his same words in the same language in which Moses had originally written them.

Do these Scripture passages teach or at least clearly infer that the doctrine of preservation would concern the actual specific original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?

I am not searching for any verses that you can quote. This very practice as I have told you before is a dishonest way to deal with the scriptures. This is one way that I know you are a false teacher. You presume upon a text without showing how it makes your point in context.

Now if you want to show me a passage that says God is going to preserve the Greek New Testament and that will be our authority for all our faith and practice, I really and truly want to see it. Or, if you cannot do that, then just show me where all these Greek scholars agree which of the Greek manuscripts are truly every word of God and are inspired. I will be happy if you do that.

God inspire the scriptures and God is still in the world today.

And BTW, Jesus lived and ministered in OT days, which was 2000 years ago and the OT was preserved and he read from Isaiah when he began his ministry.. What you have now is fragments. Most of the quotes you put up was truth given to the Jews, not you, and the copies were relatively young. You seem to be desiring a priesthood with only a few having access to the truth.

What good would it have done God to preserve his Bible in Hebrew when the Hebrews are blind to spiritual truth and is not going to preach it to anybody? There are 12 million Greeks in Greece today and only 3000 Protestants. Who knows if they are saved Protestants. These are people who can read the language.

Do know what insanity is? It is a bunch of people wasting their time going out and learning Greek after we see that we have a 2000 year example of it doing no good for the Greeks. This means one learns the language and has no one to preach to who will believe it. Have you ever tried to win a Jew to Christ? Good luck with that if you speak fluent Hebrew and have a truck load of Bibles.

I live over here in Realville.

 

[Logos1560]

I am not searching for any verses that you can quote. This very practice as I have told you before is a dishonest way to deal with the scriptures. This is one way that I know you are a false teacher. You presume upon a text without showing how it makes your point in context.

You jump to wrong conclusions. It is not at all dishonest as you incorrectly and improperly allege. You should know that most Baptist churches in their statements of faith present their teaching and then list scripture references for that teaching. Bible doctrine textbooks for Bible colleges often do the same thing. When believers have their own copies of Scripture to read and are familiar with scriptural teaching, there is no necessity for a writer to type up all the whole verses for them.

You disobey the scriptures by bearing false witness since you fail to prove any false teaching on my part.

Your citing a verse does not at all demonstrate that you are not presuming upon it or reading something into that it does not actually state. You fail to prove that I presume something that the Scriptures do not teach or support.

You presume your own claims for the KJV that the Scriptures do not state. You choose to believe claims for the KJV that are not true. You advocate your own personal opinions concerning the KJV, and those opinions are not stated in the Scriptures. Your own KJV-only opinions depend far more upon presumption and assumption than my scripturally-based position does.

 

[Conan]

We have four families of manuscripts, in various stages of complete, and no two people agrees which are the word of God.

Tell us about these "four families of manuscripts"?

 

[JD731]

Tell us about these "four families of manuscripts"?

Start a thread on that subject if you want to discuss it..

 

[John I Morris]

While this may be related to the laws of logic [the KJV-only use of fallacies or false arguments], I would think that sometimes KJV-only teaching violates what the Scriptures teach concerning truth [Bible doctrine of truth].

He is the Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are judgment, a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he (Deut. 32:4)
as the truth is in Jesus (Ephesians 4:21b)

thy word is truth (John 17:17)

Thy word is true from the beginning; and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth forever (Psalm 119:160)

all thy commandments are truth (Psalm 119:151b)

God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar (Romans 3:4a)

That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18a)

God is not a man, that he should lie (Numbers 23:19a)

and that no lie is of the truth (1 John 2:21c)

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour (Exodus 20:16)

Thou shalt not raise a false report (Exodus 21:1a)

Wherefore, putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another (Ephesians 4:25)

I have chosen the way of truth (Psalm 119:30a)

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

God said that He would preserve His Word from that generation forever (Psalm 12:6-7). Did He do that? From that generation (originals) forever, In what, I believe that would be the KJV for us in the English speaking world. Did God leave us without His Word until the ESV, NLT, CEV, RSV, and so on? NO! It is the KJV. My opinion.

 

[AVL1984]

God said that He would preserve His Word from that generation forever (Psalm 12:6-7). Did He do that? From that generation (originals) forever, In what, I believe that would be the KJV for us in the English speaking world. Did God leave us without His Word until the ESV, NLT, CEV, RSV, and so on? NO! It is the KJV. My opinion.

And you're welcome to it! I don't believe anyone here would fault you for using the KJV if that's your belief...Being a former KJVO, now a KJV preferred person, I certainly wouldn't. But, I won't fault anyone else for using newer translations, either. Whatever the Holy Spirit uses in a persons life is fine by me, as long as the doctrines are intact. Wording doesn't have to be word for word, since even the KJV isn't.

 

[37818]

God said that He would preserve His Word from that generation forever (Psalm 12:6-7)

Verse 7 is about persons. See the 1611 footnote the Hebrew 'him' in the text was translated as 'them' in the text.

 

[AVL1984]

God said that He would preserve His Word from that generation forever (Psalm 12:6-7). Did He do that? From that generation (originals) forever, In what, I believe that would be the KJV for us in the English speaking world. Did God leave us without His Word until the ESV, NLT, CEV, RSV, and so on? NO! It is the KJV. My opinion.

This is speaking about personages, not the "words." Sorry...no cigar!

 

[Logos1560]

God said that He would preserve His Word from that generation forever (Psalm 12:6-7). Did He do that? From that generation (originals) forever, In what, I believe that would be the KJV for us in the English speaking world. Did God leave us without His Word until the ESV, NLT, CEV, RSV, and so on? NO! It is the KJV. My opinion.

Your opinion is inconsistent and incorrect. Your opinion would suggest that God left English-speaking believers without His word until 1611. You ignore the fact that the Scriptures had been translated into English many years before 1611. Before 1611, many English-speaking believers accepted, loved, and believed the 1560 Geneva Bible.

The Bible doctrine of preservation would concern first the actual same words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles, which would be the original-language words.

 

[JD731]

This is speaking about personages, not the "words." Sorry...no cigar!

Failure of some KJV believers to put this psalm in it's proper context has given occasion of nay-sayers like logos1560 and others to leverage against a perfect Bible from a perfect God. While KJV believers typically errs when dealing with this Psalm 12, it does not follow that it makes the multi translation believers right, it just makes them err more because they cannot, and have not, ever dealt with it in it's context because they mostly do not know the context. They generally disagree with KJV believers for the wrong reasons.

Ask Logos1560 to exegete the Psalm sometimes. See what he comes up with.

You, AVL1984, tell us what should we learn from this Psalm 12? What does the Psalmist mean when these people are purified seven times in the furnace of earth like silver? The original language words will not help. Understanding the mind of God certainly requires his very words but having his very words is no guarantee that one will grasp the truth of those words. One could speak fluent Hebrew and have a truckload of original manuscripts, 17 NIV translations and a couple KJVs and still not understand what God wants us to understand about this Psalm. He must have the Spirit of God as well as the words of God to teach him and even then he must have the right heart and a love for the word and a submissive heart. He must be willing to change his mind with additional light when he gets it.