SIMPLY AMAZING!

THAT is simply amazing. [/QUOTE]Men following,Bible(KJB) correcting FOOLS deny that the King James Bible is God's word;while claiming to "love it" and "use it" while constantly finding "fault in it.Sickening.Frighting..


That is simply PAR for the course. [/QB][/QUOTE]

In Psalm 12:7, the Geneva Bible, the standard British Bible of 1610 reads, "...thou shalt preserve *HIM*...", while the AV 1611 reads, at the same verse, "...thou shalt preserve *THEM*..."

In Acts 12:4, the GB reads, "...after *PASSOVER*..." while the AV 1611 reads, "...after *EASTER*..."

Were the AV translators "Bible Correcting Fools"?

 

Which is why you should not put confidence in the men who devised this KJVO doctrine. It is why you should not put confidence in the men who translated the KJV. That is good advice you gave here. Now if only you will follow it.

This would depend on which edition of the KJV you are using. The later editions both added and subtracted words.

Careful study would debunk this notion in a heartbeat.

 

No one is asking you to do that and we are not doing that.

I believe all of that as well. The difference is that I hold the biblical position of not limiting his inspiring/preserving work to just the KJV. That is your main error (aside from believing false teaching).

I am not studying anything to debunk the Bible. I believe the Bible. I study and preach it. I have no desire nor need to do the impossible of debunking the Bible. When my NASB says that all Scripture is inspired, I simply believe it. Why?? Because it is God's word.

 

But you are wrong. You have defined Scripture is a way that Paul would not and you have defined it in a way to reach your predetermined conclusion. If I say that "Scripture" is that which is found only in the NASB, you have no solid basis apart from your opinion to disagree with me. You have left the realm of objectivity and entered into personal preference. That is bad method.

The Book of Mormon and the Koran has never been considered Scripture, in the biblical sense. That is simply your attempt at redefinition to suit your own ends.

Scripture is that which is inspired by God. The defining mark of Scripture is inspiration. Therefore, these other books cannot be considered Scripture.

You have bad logic and bad method ... but it is the only way you can reach your predetermined conclusion. It is your conclusion that should be the result of your method, not the other way around. You are backwards.

 

I do not hold to your definition of "all Scripture." With your definition, any so called bible could be inspired, such as the Koran or the Book of Mormon, and etc. My definition of "all Scripture" is the Scripture that is found only in the King James Bible.
_______________________________________
Can you PROVE that all Scripture is found only in the KJV? Can you PROVE that the NASB or NKJV are not all Scripture? Without such proof, your Onlyist statements are nothing more than unsubstiantiated opinion based upon personal preference and/or guesswork.

 

The Holy Spirit bears witness to the Word of God in several different forms. He has and continues to bear witness that the KJV is the Word of God.

However, how has the Holy Spirit borne witness to the KJV to the exclusion of all other versions, before and after? If you were shown statistics that proved that more souls were saved last year using MV's than the KJV, would that be a witness of the Spirit against the continued use of the KJV?

The Spirit has also borne witness by the negative concerning KJVOnlyism, ie. lack of the Spiritual fruit mentioned in Galatians 5, acceptance of false/unqualified teachers (such as Riplinger), doctrinal error (such as Hyles' brand of easy-believism and Ruckman's 10 foot black Antichrist), and moral failures among leaders (Ruckman's divorces, Hyle's affair and incidents concerning his son).

 

Underlying manuscripts.

 

Now we are getting somewhere. This is what we have been saying all along. It is okay for you to have a preference for a particular version or a Greek text. No one will argue over your preference. We might discuss the pros and cons of it. But when you assert your personal preference as "doctrine," you have crossed a line. The Holy Spirit does bear witness (he does not bare it ). The church has always agreed on that. But it is not an explicit witness. It is an internal witness.

I did define it. Scripture is the writings that were inspired by God. The Mormons, JWs, and whoever else do not have the writings inspired by God once they depart from the Scripture.

 

Underlying manuscripts. </font>[/QUOTE]Which Greek manuscript(s) agree with the KJV 100% of the time?

You also need to develop this idea further. In what way has the Holy Spirit borne witness to the mss behind the KJV? If others use these same mss are they likewise witnessed for? If another version gave more respect to the 95%+ of mss belonging to the Byzantine type, would that mean that the Holy Spirit had borne greater witness to them?

 

Underlying manuscripts. </font>[/QUOTE]Comparison with the underlying manuscripts show us that the KJV is not a perfect translation. But the "underlying manuscripts" are not all that God has preserved for us. He preserved over 5000 more manuscripts that don't "underlie" the KJV. Those other 5000 are just as much the result of God's preservation as the "underlying manuscripts" of the KJV. What you would like us to do is tell God that we don't need the manuscripts he preserved for us. I find that to be a questionable tactic.

 

So what is it that you define as Scipture? i.e., NIV, NASV, NASB, NKJV, KJB, the originals, etc... </font>[/QUOTE]Scripture is the revelation of God written down. It was originally the originals as the authors penned them. Scripture is now the copies that God has preserved for us. A translation is Scripture so long as it is an accurate translation. Is this that new to you?? Why, after all this time of berating people about their views on Scripture, are you just now asking these primary questions? If you do not even know what Scripture is, how can you take such a definitive position on it?? This is the most basic stuff that you should have learned long before you ever got the place of being KJVO. In fact, it would have prevented it. I think the situation demonstrated here shows what a great dearth of teaching there is in our pulpits. So many pastors fail to teach their congregations these basic things. It is no wonder there is confusion and doubt about God's word.

 

Can you PROVE that all Scripture is found only in the KJV? Can you PROVE that the NASB or NKJV are not all Scripture? Without such proof, your Onlyist statements are nothing more than unsubstiantiated opinion based upon personal preference and/or guesswork.
________________________________________

For that matter, you don't have proof that I am wrong.

Yes, I DO. That proof is called, "every other valid English-language Bible".

On the other hand, the Onlyist has presented the case which in effect reads, "The ONLY valid English Bible translation is the KJV." Since it is the ONLYIST who's offered this case, the burden of proof lies upon the Onlyist to PROVE his/her case by a preponderance of evidence. I believe this is GOD'S standard, and not just something from an American court. Remember, God tells us to search the Scriptures and "test the spirits".

Where is the Onlyists' PROOF??? All we have are statements such as yours, which is merely guesswork without one scintilla of proof. Although the ONLYIST has the burden of proof, we nononlyists HAVE PROVEN our arguments against Onlyism. We've shown its man-made origins. We've proven the existence of some rather poor renderings in the KJV. We've proven the existence of the great KJVO double standard, which says that if the Onlyist faults something in some other version, it's OK if the KJV does the very same thing; it's only a fault in the other version and NOT a fault in the KJV.

The Onlyist has NOT proven that the words he/she says are OMITTED in some modern version were not ADDED into the KJV. The Onlyist cannot explain why that, if the Textus Receptus and its underlying mss were to be translated directly into English, neither of them would match the KJV nor each other. NOT ONE CLAIM by the Onlyists has been proven!

Onlyism is a false, man-made doctrine.

 

Underlying manuscripts. </font>[/QUOTE]Which Greek manuscript(s) agree with the KJV 100% of the time? </font>[/QUOTE]From the Antiochian texts to the Byzantine texts, the KJV was derived and translated.

 

Homebound, we have been here before.
You are using the 1769 Revision, which is NOT the true King James Version of God's Holy Word. Do the math: that was over a century and a half after the true AV - King James AND the Translators were already dead by the time your Bible was written.

That would include your subjacent posthumous revision of the King James Version.

I assume you meant "sense" and the answer is no. There are no stark differences, and anyone with a basic knowledge of the English language would have the ability to follow along in any version.

If you are going to attack a particular Version of God's Holy Word, I would urge you to know the Version you are actually using.