The Inanity of KJVOs' Questions

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by jonathan.borland, Dec 31, 2013.

  1. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    KJVOs ask the most inane questions demonstrating the triviality of the games they play with the inspiration and preservation of God's Word.

    For example, they pretend to ask questions that every Christian in the history of the church should have and actually have answered in the affirmative, such as, "Where can one find God's Word, perfectly preserved, word-for-word?" When asked who ever in the long and rich history of the church ever had such before 1611, they are remarkably silent, indicating that their question itself is either inane or sectarian or novel.

    An analogy of KJVOs' inane questioning runs something like this: "Which is the word-for-word, inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God: the KJV rendering of Isaiah 61:1 or the KJV rendering of Luke 4:18? They can't both be inerrant, infallible, inspired, etc., because any stupid person with half a gnat's brain can see that they're different. Did Isaiah say what the KJV of Isaiah says, or what Jesus in the KJV of Luke says that Isaiah said?"

    If you say "both," you're called an illogical dimwit, if you say that the current Hebrew mss of Isaiah or the current Greek ones of Luke are corrupt, you're labeled an unbelieving Bible agnostic, and if you say that Jesus himself expanded Isaiah, you're labeled a heretic for claiming that Jesus "lied" about what Isaiah actually said. Basically, any answer to such inane KJVO questions are an exercise in futility.
     
  2. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Both.

    I could care less if you think I am an illogical dimwit. I think Isaiah and Luke wrote what the Holy Spirit instructed them to write.
     
  3. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Well then, if that's true, so did the translators of the Geneva Bible, KJV, NASV, NKJV, and NIV, to name a few.
     
  4. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
    Jonathan you know there is much more to the King James Only Position than that.

    Most people who are King James Only are so because we believe the CT/MT to be inferior to the TR.

    The CT/MT just have too many readings that have very little MSS evidence, Yes I am aware that the TR does as well, but the frequency that the CT does this is much much greater than the TR.
     
  5. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Kinda like 'the lesser of two evils'?

    And...Inferior to WHICH TR? It's only been revised at least 30 times!
     
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Really? You do not demonstrate your assertion to be true.

    A TR-only position is different than a KJV-only position.

    Those who prefer or even defend the Textus Receptus can accept other English translations of it, and thus they do not have to be KJV-only.
     
  7. prophet

    prophet
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,037
    Likes Received:
    2
    Lol. :beer: :thumbdown:
     
  8. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,080
    Likes Received:
    49
    I hold to the superiority of the Ct over the Tr/MT/bzt , but NOT to the extent that the CT ONLY is the real Greek text, as I like to use the geneva and the Nkjv along with the nasb for study!
     
  9. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    While many KJVO questions are inane, how about their ANSWERS to pertinent questions about their myth?
     
  10. prophet

    prophet
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,037
    Likes Received:
    2
    You forgot the fourth, and correct answer.
    Jesus translated Isaiah into another toungue.
     
  11. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Luke 4:16-22 KJV --
    And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
    And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
    The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
    To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
    And he closed the book, and he gave [it] again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
    And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
    And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?
    There is another solution (convoluted as it may be): Jesus did not actually read from the scroll. Verse 16 states that He customarily stood up to read, but nowhere in the passage does it say He did indeed read on this occasion. Perhaps, Jesus finding the synagogue scroll to be inaccurate (as recorded in verse 18) does not actually read from it but instead verbatim quotes Isaiah 61:1 by memory and then can genuinely state that "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." So, there may be all the appearances that Jesus read from the scroll, but in fact, He did not. There is nothing in the text that explicitly demands that He read the words He spoke. I'm sure there is no good argument that He could only know the correct words by reading them from the scroll in front of Him. Must He have read them?
     
    #11 franklinmonroe, Jan 8, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 8, 2014
  12. prophet

    prophet
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,037
    Likes Received:
    2
    Jesus only read from scrolls for our sake, to appeal to our final authority, the law and the prophets.
    He had no need to read them, for Himself, He is the Word come in the flesh.
     
  13. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Had Jesus not read from the scroll verbatim, His critix who had the scrolls memorized woulda gone ballistic.
     

Share This Page

Loading...