Scripture support for KJVOism and KJVO dogma

Perhaps if you were more willing to answer questions more people would be willing to answer yours. I asked you a question in the second post on the first page which you have not, as yet, answered. I guess not answering questions in not exclusively a KJVO trait.

 

Yes,right nice website;best propaganda from the Alexandrian "sect" I've seen in a good while;Obi Wan has taught you well!!! </font>[/QUOTE]Anti-Alexandrian; where do you stand on the KJVo chain? Do you believe that the KJV is perfect word for word or do you believe that the underlying text is simply better than the Alexandrian texts?

 

You asked the question, in your first post, "Why should I trust the current KJV when it differs from the first KJV which is the AV1611?" That seems to be saying you have as yet found no reason to trust the KJV. And again, I ask "Why not trust it?" What have you found to be untrustworthy in the KJV?

So what? What do typos and some minor word changes have to to with the trustworthiness of a bible? All bibles contains such errors. If you have no reason to trust the KJV then you also have no reason to trust any other version for they all contain typos and printer's errors, not to mention revisional changes.

How so? What additions can you show us in the canonical 66 books of the 1762/1769 KJV when compared to the 1611 edition?

So what? The Apocrypha are not contained in the OT, as they are in Catholic bibles (and in the two darlings of the Critical text, Aleph and B), nor did the translators consider them canonical according to the 39 Articles of Religion. And, in case you missed it, there are quotes of the Apocrypha contained in the canonical New Testament!

Why? You haven't produced any tangible reason yet. All you have done is post anti-KJVO rhetoric that is just as meaningless as most KJVO rhetoric.

But that is exactly what you are doing. You are using arguments without merit, just as they do.

Then you should not have whined about KJVOs not answering your questions. If you don't want to answer questions you have no basis to demand answers from others.

Then why are you still doing so?

I thought you weren't going to play that game any more.

But you have assumed a stance for the KJVOs which the vast majority of them don't take. That is either an error or dishonest. They have dealt with the differences between the editions of 1611 and 1762/1769 many many times on this forum.

Another straw man demand. It has been clearly stated over and over again that no scripture supports the supremacy of any bible version or any text type.

To the best of my knowledge you haven't committed a crime. All you have done is post a bunch of hackneyed non-arguments which are, for the most part, irrelevant to the discussion.

Then do so. But you can't defend truth with error.

There you go demanding answers again! And, as I am not a KJVO, I can say I can trust any version of the bible. Some are better than others. Some have more variants and some have fewer. Some have more poor word choices some have fewer. But all are the word of God if they are able to make you wise unto salvation.

My point is that honest intelligent discussion is what we need, not worn our hackneyed stereotypes. This issue is too important to clutter it up with such nonsense.

 

Hello again David,

Personally I would say go ahead and keep asking your questions but the essence of the KJVO problem IMO has to do with the definition of KJVO.

IMO, the KJVO doctrines which constitute the essential error are the following 1) Second inspiration : that God "God-breathed" and superintended the word choices of the KJV translators and 2) that God used a technique called "advanced revelation" through the "inspired" translation of the KJV of the Bible.

Holding to Either/or IMO constitutes an error of high enough magnitude to be totally rejected.

A secondary but related problem to be dealt with are what I call KJVO wannabees. These are folks who hold to these doctrines somewhat loosely but are not willing to go the full route and seem to stop short of the error. When you ask the tough questions they become very elusive and either depart or recapitulate to a lesser position.

And I don't mean Skan who has clearly made his position known as non-KJVO.

The committed radical KJVO will not be moved, they come and go here at the BB (drive-bys, hit-and-runs, etc). A few have endured and we here from them with varying frequency.

MV and KJVp folks here are interested in the true seeker and the KJVO wannabees to inform them of alternative historic view(s).

HankD

 

I take it AA that you are against God's Preservation. As Dr Bob has pointed out elsewhere,

God sent His son to EYGPT to preserve his life.
He sent his People to EYGPT to preserve their life.
And apparently he sent His Bible to EYGPT to preserve it.

 

What does God think of Egypt? Let His words to Isaiah as found in the KJV answer:

Isaiah 19:25
"Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance."

Scripture shows all those KJVO arguments against Egypt to be without merit. Sure, God has punished Egypt greatly for her sins, but something that's apparently been lost on the KJVOs is that God has preserved Egypt as a nation from the early history of mankind till now. While I'm not becoming an Egyptophile, nor disregarding what God has done for the Jews, I'm reminding certain people that God does NOT hate Egypt as they say.

Another silly KJVO argument bites the dust.

 

David-the typical KJVO CAN NOT AND WILL NOT answer simple little questions such as, "Where's any Scriptural support for the KJVO myth?" Or, Is KJVO of God, or man? Please provide PROOF if you say it's of God. I can provide proof it's of man, so if you disagree, please provide the whys & wherefores for your disagreement."

In more than 20 years of discussing the KJVO phenom, all I've ever seen in support of it are fables, guesswork, bunny trails, fishing stories, shots in the dark, Scripture-twisting, and many an outright LIE. There's simply no REAL support for the KJVO myth, nor for any of the sub-myths invented by the KJVO advocates.

I keep plugging away at KJVO because I KNOW it's merely a myth, and I hope to keep any new Christian or those weak in faith from falling for an outright false doctrine, started by a known cult official, completely unsupported by the KJV itself or its translators. KJVO has no place in the Baptist faith.

 

Hey, Roby! I found the board, and was accepted! Thanks for telling me about it. Hope my contributions can be helpful.

Commenting on something said a few posts above:

Onlyists in general seem to have a hard time with history. I tend to approach the "which Bible" debates not as a MV user, but as someone who reads Bibles older than the KJV1769 or the AV1611 (Luther 1534/1545, Zürcher 1531, de Reina 1568, Geneva 1599, Tyndale 1530). It catches them pretty much off-guard, especially when their renditions of certain verses line up more with MVs than they do the KJV (even though they, like the KJV, are based on the Byzantine family of MSS).

They don't like it when I quote to them the perspectives of the Reformators on Bible translation, either. They sound more like MV translators today rather than your garden-variety Onlyist.

Not only do they have problems with time, they have problems with culture as well. I also approach this Bible issue as a reader of foreign-language Bibles (my mother tongue is English, but I've been reading German Bibles almost exclusively for over a decade, with the ability to read in five others), and am well familiar with language issues. I find it strange that Onlyism has the perspective that God has preserved His words only in English, leaving the rest of the world with the potential of rising no higher than second-class spiritual citizens in the Kingdom of God (that idea comes from a foundational tenet of Onlyism that corrupt seed brings corrupt children). It doesn't do much towards encouraging missions activity, if you ask me.

jth

 

Basically there are only two Bibles: that which is derived from the Received Text (KJV), and that which is derived from the Critical Text (MVs). I also know more than one language, and travel to more than one country. The problem of translations in other countries (not necessarily European) goes back often to groups such as Wycliffe Bible Translators. When they translated the Bible into different languages they used the Critical Text, leaving many countries with a "revised edition" of the Bible. It may be the only Bible translation they have, but almost always it is translated from the Critical Text. Thus the problem arises when people like me (not a radical KJVO), but one who believes that the KJV is preserved in the manuscripts that make up the Received Text, go and teach in such a nation. The two Bibles are very different.
If you are teaching through the Gospel of John, and you believe that John 3:13 teaches the omnipresence of Christ (which it does), you have a problem if you are using a MV, because it doesn't.
The confession of the Ethiopian Eunuch is missing in Acts 8. There are so many differences--mostly omissions, that it becomes embarassing. Embarassing because they feel that they don't have all the Word of God, or their Bibles have been changed or tampered with. If you are preaching, and someone else is translating using a different Bible, and he looks at you and says: "That is not what is written in our Bible?" Then what do you say? It is not a matter of an inspired KJV. I don't believe that. It is a matter of which Bible is the true Word of God. Both cannot be right. It is either from the Received Text or the Critical Text. We have two Bibles. One of them is in error. And it makes a big difference in missions.
DHK

 

DHK, we've often asked those who say the "Alex" mss have OMITTED some material to *PROVE* this material was actually OMITTED & not ADDED to later mss. Can YOU do it?

And where do YOU allow for the POWER OF GOD to present/provide His word in any language, especially those which didn't exist 2000 years ago, AS HE CHOOSES?

 

Or more than likely it is a combination of both. Some stuff in the RT is added, while stuff in the CT was omitted. This is why we must continue to do research in this area.

 

http://thelordjesus.com/Majority%20Text/Alexandrian%20Texts.htm

Origen, himself, didn't have any scruples about changing the actual text where he saw fit. The changes that occurred in the text no doubt occurred right there in Alexandria by the hand of Origen, the Father of Arianism.
DHK

 

The above is a myth perpetuated by KJVOs who have little or no love for the truth.

Count Constantin von Tischendorf did not find Sinaiticus in a trash can.

In his book Search on Sinai, Dr. Ludwig Schneller tells of Tischendorf's search and what happened.

Tischendorf had found leaves of manuscript dated 360-375 A.D. Sinaiticus dates to 350 A.D.

Tischendorf left the Sinai, but returned for a third visit in January, 1859. Count Tischendorf searched in vain for an ancient copy of the Greek Old Testament, and, finally, ready to give up and go home, he inquired if any other ancient manuscripts were stored in the library vault. He was then taken into the room of a monk where he was shown Sinaiticus which was stored in a cabinet and wrapped in red cloth. Codex Sinaiticus consisted, at that time, of 346 and one half pages, 199 containing the Old Testament in Greek and 147 1/2 containing the New Testament plus the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas.

In May of 1975, during a restoration of the Monastery, Monks discovered a hidden room under the chapel which contained 13 of the pages missing from the Old Testament of Codex Sinaiticus bringing the total number of pages of the Old Testament to its present 212.

[ April 28, 2004, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: skanwmatos ]

 

Perhaps, I don't know. We may never know for sure. But what we do know is that he did find ancient Greek manuscripts being thrown out into the trash by the monks in the monastery.
That doesn't say a whole lot for the value that the Catholic Church placed on the Word of God.
DHK

 

But we do know. It is only the KJVOs who perpetuate the wastebasket myth, even when they know it isn't true!

&lt;sigh&gt; St. Catherines is Greek Orthodox.

 

Not to mention, it was common practice to destroy worn out copies of scripture - even Jewish scribes did this. We still do today. Or, perhaps DHK has every copy of every old worn-out Bible DHK or someone in DHK's family ever owned piling up the house? I don't.

 

Most of my KJV's are all worn out. But my NIV, NWT, NKJV, NEV, Phillips, etc., are all still pristine.

Lacy

 

DHK:Do you know what this most valuable Word of God was being used for? It was in a trash pile and was being used to light the fireplace. In my opinion, it was right where it belonged. It contained nearly all the New Testament with a few other delightful editions. The "Shepherd of Hermes" and the "Epistle of Barnabas". To me, this would be a huge red flag not to trust the words written therein but White and Carson disagree.

While I read your entire post carefully several times, this part conveys the idea best IMO.

Assuming, at least for the sake of this discussion, that the trashcan theory is true, has no one ever considered that it may have been the WILL OF GOD to have led Tischendorf to this one little monastery in the middle of nowhere at that particular time, to rescue that material from destruction?

I've read Burgon's books. The KJVOs who claim to have read them conveniently ignore his statements where he in effect says he was NOT KJVO( the KJVO myth didn't exist in Burgon's day) and that the Textus Receptus could stand a thorough revision.

As for the delightful additions to Sinaiticus, let's not forget they were also found in the AV 1611.

And I STILL believe, and always will believe, that God can, and DOES, present/provide His own word in ANY FORM OR METHOD HE CHOOSES.