Preserved in English God's Word KJV

DeclareHim,

If it is not a manuscript that the KJV derived from, then it must be corrupted. At least, that is the logic (or lack thereof) that the KJVO use.

They seem to forget that the KJV does not come from ANY manuscript, but from a compilation of several different manuscripts and the Latin Vulgate. But, then, facts have never been a strong point for the KJVO falacy.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Not debating but I thought this was funny.

 

If only that graphic could be used without the KJV 1611 on the front....

 

Let me explain something about the Wescott and Horton text that most(if not all,im not sure.) MVs use...it came from manuscripts found in a Roman Catholic monastary.I believe the manuscripts were called the "Vaticanus"(sp?),this does not seem like a very good thing to use to me.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]We have a lot of facts,its your side that doesnt.

 

KJVBibleThumper said "Let me explain something about the Wescott and Horton text that most(if not all,im not sure.) MVs use...it came from manuscripts found in a Roman Catholic monastary".

Gasp!

And just where do you think the Byzantine manuscripts were kept??? Gail Riplinger's attic?

 

KJVBible ironically followed this up with "We have a lot of facts":

Let me explain something about the Wescott and Horton text that most(if not all,im not sure.) MVs use...it came from manuscripts found in a Roman Catholic monastary.

Uh, no, it was a Greek Orthodox monastery.

I believe the manuscripts were called the "Vaticanus"(sp?),

The name you are groping for is Sinaiticus. (Gee, I wonder where an MS named "Vaticanus" might have been found?)

this does not seem like a very good thing to use to me.

Yes, better we use the thousands of other manuscripts preserved by the Catholics and Orthodox than this one or two, right?

Man, I love it when the KJV-onlyists try to impress us poor heathen with "facts." You gotta .

 

Plus Church history and Scripture to boot(Acts 11 & 13).

 

I don't usually get involved in this forum, but the first English translation of which we have a record was Wycliffe's in the late 1300s.

Second, the preservation of old manuscripts was ALL accomplished by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox scholars in their areas, and MUSLIM scholars (in North Africa).

 

Anti-Alexandrian said "Plus Church history and Scripture to boot(Acts 11 & 13)."

Ya, history and scripture are FULL of KJV-only teachings.

 

1389AD

 

Hey, Natters, be nice.
BOth Acts 11 and Acts 13 mention the
city of Syrian Antioch (not to be confused
with Pisidian Antioch). To bad that
the Antiochian texts are more often referred
to as the Benyzine Texts by most scholars.
But, of course, by KJVO Double standards:
the comments of an ignorant KJVO superceeds
the comments of a wise foreign language
scholar.

 

Thanks for that laugh! I needed it! Yes, I can just see the Apostle John circa 90AD preaching from the KJV! LOL NOT!

AVL1984

 

KJVBT said:

Why not ?

Not everything that comes out of the Vatican is wrong.

The Reformers all came out of the Vatican, and thanks to that era, you have the beginnings of your KJV, right ?

 

That's right,but that's just it,they got away from it,just like they got away from the Vatican's official mss.;Apocrypha and all.

Do a little research into Church history,you will find the rejection of the "oldest and best"(and the "bibles" from them) is nothing new.

 

Please, don't confuse them with the facts. They don't want to acknowledge that the reformers were splinters off the RCC. They don't want to acknowledge that the KJV is a part of that heritage. It frightens them.

AVL1984

 

Even Dean Burgeon (sp) and Everett Hills did not attempt to go with "English preservation." I do not agree with their conclusions, but at least they are intelligent and plausible.

And, speaking of church history, an interesting point is that the Puritans, by and large, did not accept the KJV when it came out--they greatly preferred the Geneva Bible to the "modern" version of the KJV translators. It took a generation for the KJV to take hold.