Is there any evidence?

Herb Evans:A. The scriptures are pure and very pure
B. The scriptures are true
C. The scriptures are inspired
D. The scriptures are preserved

True.

If they are not any of those things, they do not qualify as scripture.

Again, true.

A. The KJB superiorty over these versions is self evident.

Wrong. No evidence whatsoever supporting this view.

E. It is self evident from scripture that the writers and recorders of Scriptures considered the scriptures to be inspired, preserved, pure, very pure, true, innerant, and infallible. Now, to say that their evaluation has changed is to brand their testimony as untrue. KJO's still "consider" the real scripture to have those qualities.

And so do Freedom Readers. OUR difference is that we don't try to LIMIT GOD to just our fave version(s), whatever it/they may be.

F. If God has promised to both inspire and preserve the scripture with these qualities forever, we must believe that He did do so and that we still have them. -- Herb Evans

Every Baptist believes exactly that. And we Freedom readers recognize that God has kept His word in fronta every generation of English-users ever since He first made His word available in English, in the language current for the day. We do NOT believe God retired in 1611 so that he no longer supplies His word in the language of the day. And we do NOT believe He has ever been limited to just one version ever since He's had His word translated.

In the OP of this thread, I asked for any evidence to support ANY One-versionism, and not necessarily the KJVO myth alone. So far, we've seen NONE. Dr. Evans, you're gonna hafta do a LOT better than just stamping yer foot & saying, "The KJV is superior because it's better". That aint exactly convincing evidence, ya know!

 

Reply...still no evidence!

Quotes from my previous post, Dr. Evans' old words=regular print
Dr. Evans' new post=italicized
My current responses=red

I'll answer your questions after ya answer mine...and I mean, ANSWER, not spin. I've been answering yours for awhile...YOUR turn now. hOWEVER, I'LL RESPOND TO YER LAST PARAGRAPH... -- Roby

Almost all your answers were either spin or evasions. I do appreciate you being on record to say all bibles have errors in them.

Proven.

And that the NIV is inspired.

Can you prove it ISN'T? I doubt it.

I also appreciate your implication that we do not have the perfect, inspired, preserved complete word of God in one volume intact but have some kind of mystical bible of all the versions and texts together. -- Herb Evans

Never even implied that...what I said in effect is that we have God's word as HE chose to present it.

Well, there are a few more cleanup clarifications that you need to make in blue. –Herb Evans

Actually, I didn't "need " to make the ones I did. I was showing the KJVOs, that, unlike themselves, I ANSWER questions without "spinning". Can't say the same about you Ruckman associates. -- Roby

Had to bring Ruckman into it. I am not associated with him in any way. Still, most of your answers were either spin, evasion, or too general. -- Herb Evans

Still, you bring no evidence for One-Versionism.

If you believe NO doctrine that is not supported by scripture, why do you believe that there are errors in the Bible? – Herb Evans

Because we're dealing with TRANSLATIONS...the perfect WOG handled by imperfect men.

Cuz that's not a doctrine, it's an empirical fact. -- Roby

To demonstrate an emperical fact, you must have a proper standard of comparison. My empirical facts are that the words of the Lord are pure words and very pure and true. Do you have some facts from the Bible proving the words of the Lord are not pure or not true?

Newp! Never said they WEREN'T. And another empirical fact is that no two English BVs, old or new, are alike.

In case you don't know, a teaching is a doctrine. Neither your doctrine or your facts can be backed up by scripture. My teaching of the Bible's purity can be and is backed up by scripture. -- Herb Evans

But yer KJVO teaching, nor anyone else's One-versionism teaching is NOT. So, therefore, a One-Versionist is teaching an ascriptural doctrine which cannot be true.

Is that doctrine supported by scripture? Seems like a pretty important doctrine not to be in there. I never heard Christ, Paul or the apostles talk like you do about these things. –Herb Evans

I know you're pretty old, butcha aint THAT old. Betcha ya aint never heard any of'em talk whatsoever. And again, it aint a doctrine, but a FACT. Your turn: --Roby

Well, he that hath ears to hear, let him hear. But despite your side step in regard to hearing, I never read those men write like you. Now, your turn! -- Herb Evans

Easy! Just do as the ancient Bereans did, & search the Scriptures! If ya find KJVO or any other doctrine of that type, then by all means post it. Otherwise, it's not true.

Quote: IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ANY ONE-VERSIONISM? --Roby

Yes! –Herb Evans

IF SO, WHAT?

1. If you want the spiritual evidence: -- Herb Evans

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Then, please show us the SUBSTANCE. We have asked for EVIDENCE for decades, and haven't had any presented yet.

2. If you want the tangible, human evidence based on scripture. –Herb Evans

A. The real scriptures are pure and very pure
B. The real scriptures are true
C. The real scriptures are inspired
D. The real scriptures are preserved

The process of elimination eliminates most versions, which are not any of these things.

No, it doesn't. It eliminates only those versions that don't follow their sources too closely, such as the "Good As New".

If they are not any of those things, they do not qualify as scripture per "emperical facts." –Herb Evans

But the valid versions all do.

3. If you want the logical evidence

A. The KJB superiority is self evident. – Herb Evans

No, it isn't. Just SAYING it doesn't prove a thing.

B. The errors in many versions are self evident. – Herb Evans

As are those in the KJV.

C. The KJB only position is as self evident as the 66 Book canon that you have refused heretofore to provide any evidence. – Herb Evans

If ya don't think the canon is right, feel free to add to it until you're satisfied. ya may not have too many agreeing with your choice, but the version you're supporting has only 66 books. If that's not enuff, or too many, just fire away. Do ya wanna add some books because none of the present 66 boox support KJVO? Again, just fire away.

D. The King James only position is no less self evident than your comment that define the scriptures as being considered by worshippers to be sacred and authoritative.

Big difference. The prophecies in Scripture have come to pass right down the line. That's very convincing evidence for the skeptics. OTOH, the KJVO myth is based upon opinion, tall tales, spin, & most of all, GUESSWORK. It has no substance nor no evidence supporting it. Its man-made origin is well-known. And I see nothing to even suggest it's true.

I asked,“What constitutes "Scripture?" - Herb Evans

You responded. “The body of writings considered by worshippers of God to be sacred, authoritative, and either spoken by God to His chosen writers, or written by men under His influence, chosen by Him to be part of His word to mankind. – Roby”

The King James Only position is also considers your definition for the KJB and "considers" bibles that radically differ from it not to be authorative or sacred -- only fairly good commentary.

Again, that's only guesswork. You cannot even begin to prove the KJV is the ONLU true edition of Scripture in English. All you've presented so far is OPINION, which is tantamount to GUESSWORK.

Again...NO SUBSTANCE NOR EVIDENCE.

If the scriptures can be decided to be so, the non-scriptures can also be so decided and be so considered by Bible believers in a consenses among them. –Herb Evans

But NO doctrine ABOUT Scripture can be true if it's NOT SUPPORTED by Scripture. That would be placing the doctrine ABOVE Scripture.

E. It is self evident from scripture that the writers and recorders of Scriptures considered the scriptures to be inspired, preserved, pure, very pure, true, innerant, and infallible. Now, to say that their evaluation has changed is to brand their testimony as untrue. KJO's still "consider" the real scripture to have those qualities. –Herb Evans

And so do WE. Now, if ya believe that in English there's only ONE version that's TRULY Scripture, you MUST present PROOF for that assertion, or it shall be untrue.

F. If God has promised to both inspire and preserve the scripture with these qualities forever, we must believe that He did do so and that we still have them. The English speaking people have them in one volume called the KJB. -- Herb Evans

Opinion not substantiated by fact. In other words, GUESSWORK, devoid of evidence.

F. If Roby has any evidence that the versions that he says are "VALID," we have more evidence to the KJB. –herb Evans

Actually, you have NONE....at least none you've presented yet. Opinion and guesswork aren't evidence.

“I have given the definition of a valid version umpteen times. Second parta de question...NIV, NASB, NKJV, HCSB, ESV, 1769 Edition of the KJV. Bible of choice...depends upon what I'm doing.” -- Roby

G. Last of all, if the Hebrews were ever confronted with a rival Bible, including the Septuagint, they would not even bother to defend their Bible, but would declare it as the only one. We so declare to you that at this present time, the KJB is the only one in English without serious rivals. What the future holds, we do not know, but we doubt if there will ever be another Bible like it. -- Herb Evans

Your "declaration" is, as the resta yer "evidence", pure conjecture. In essence, all you've done this whole post is say, "The KJV is the ONLY valid English version because it is!" You haven't presented ONE FACT supporting your position. Sorry, Sir, all you're doing is gluing feathers onto a dead hippo, hoping it'll fly. Now, do ya have any REAL EVIDENCE or not?

 

Might as well close it ASAP, C4K...After repeated requests for EVIDENCE, all we get is OPINION. You left this thread open quite a while, and any One-Versionist reading this has had ample time to present a case.

 

Still no EVIDENCE!!

evans:E. It is self evident from scripture that the writers and recorders of Scriptures considered the scriptures to be inspired, preserved, pure, very pure, true, innerant, and infallible. Now, to say that their evaluation has changed is to brand their testimony as untrue. KJO's still "consider" the real scripture to have those qualities.-- Herb Evans

roby:And so do Freedom Readers. OUR difference is that we don't try to LIMIT GOD to just our fave version(s), whatever it/they may be.

evans:You did not even address the point E. which said nothing about versions but merely said in effect what was true of the scriptures then -- is true now.--Herb Evans

roby: Nothing to discuss if we agree. What we DON'T agree on is that YOU advocate a one-version myth while I know it's not true.

evans:F. If God has promised to both inspire and preserve the scripture with these qualities forever, we must believe that He did do so and that we still have them. -- Herb Evans

roby: Again, agreed.

.

evans:Again, point F. did not address versions or language. It merely emphasized the attributes of the Bible then that are still with us in our present Bible.

roby: yes, in every valid version.


evans:It has nothing to do with language; it has to do whether something is scripture or not. Since you agree that the scriptures are pure, very, pure, inspired, true, you should have no problem with this point. -- Herb Evans

roby: i don't; the problem is with those who insist it's found in only one version, but who cannot back their assertions with EVIDENCE.

roby:In the OP of this thread, I asked for any evidence to support ANY One-versionism, and not necessarily the KJVO myth alone. So far, we've seen NONE. Dr. Evans, you're gonna hafta do a LOT better than just stamping yer foot & saying, "The KJV is superior because it's better". That aint exactly convincing evidence, ya know.

evans:Well, not being able to talk about the other ones on this forum makes for a mighty big handicap.

roby: You are free to talk about any other One-Versionism myth you wish. Why didja believe you were restricted? But why not talk about EVIDENCE? That's what this thread's asking for.

evans:Herb Evans has provided more evidence than Roby has and without the evasion or ambiguity.

roby: WHERE? WHAT? we've seen only OPINION & GUESSWORK.


evans:Roby has absolutely no emperical evidence but demands it of Herb Evans.

roby: EVANS has the doctrine to try to prove; I need nothing to reject it. I'm not trying to hawk any new doctrine; the One-Versionists are


evans:If an atheist demanded emperical evidence from Roby that there ever was an inspired, inerrant, infallible Bibe, Roby would be in thr same situation and would have to do a LOT better than just stamping his foot and saying as he below:

“The body of writings considered by worshippers of God to be sacred, authoritative, and either spoken by God to His chosen writers, or written by men under His influence, chosen by Him to be part of His word to mankind. – Roby”

evans:KJO's meet Roby's criteria in regard to the KJB and nothing else in English since, because they considered it so!

roby: But their lack of proof for the veracity of their view keeps it in opinion/guesswork mode.

evans:Roby would also have to get beyond the ambiguity of this statement of his:

“I have given the definition of a valid version umpteen times. Second parta de question...NIV, NASB, NKJV, HCSB, ESV, 1769 Edition of the KJV. Bible of choice...depends upon what I'm doing.” -- Roby

evans:The valid verson, according to Roby, depends on the source, which Roby has neither defined nor located.

roby: Repetition gets old.


evans:What Roby has named have different sources. Roby will have to be satisfied with my faith evidence

roby:WHAT faith evidence? I see neither substance nor evidence in your "faith".


evans:and my logical evidence

roby: Ya mean, "illogical opinion/guesswork".

evans:as I must evidently be satisfied with his ambiguity and lack of evidence to error claims of Christ, the apostles, the prophets, and the Psalmists. I trust them much more than I do nay sayers. The scriptures themselves express complet confidence in themselves.

roby: You just can't get your stories straight. And you've proven to us in other matters that you're not overly hesitant in departing from the TRUTH. This is just another example of your departing from it. Now, JUST WHERE did I say JESUS OR THE APOSTLES made any error in what they said or wrote? My statements were about the various English translations. If you're gonna tell fishing stories Herb, don't say it was a trout yesterday and a bass today.

evans:This whole argument boils down to what is scripture and what is not, and Roby insists that it does not matter if the candidates for scripture radically disagree or contradict one another. KJO's say that it does matter. Saying that all the texts and all the translations are inspired and preserved is the "MYTH" here! -- Herb Evans

roby: Wrong.

This whole "argument" boils down to the fact that in the OP of this thread, I asked if there was any EVIDENCE supporting ANY One-Versionism view. Ample time and space has been provided for any One-Versionist to present his/her case(s), regardless of which version he/she thinks is "The One". So far, all that's been presented is OPINION AND GUESSWORK. Like the original myth, this O/G has absolutely NOTHING to sustain it. We still have ASCRIPTURAL views of SCRIPTURE, which means that to a Christian who believes Scripture is the highest written authority, these views are simply false.

Back to Square One, ne-Versionists!