A very silly KJVO argument...

Trotter said:

Well, first of all, this argument works against all of you who claim that only the inerrant and infallible word is in the Greek. Jesus and his disciples did not speak Greek (except perhaps Paul and Luke), so these were translations from another language and according to what you believe must be full of error.

If that is the case, you cannot argue that God preserved his word. Perhaps the word preserved means something different to you than it does to me. Perserved means not only to keep, but it also means to keep pure. Now if I preserve some grape jelly, I expect it to be kept pure and safe to eat when I finally open the jar. If it becomes corrupt and is spoiled, I hardly consider that preserved.

And you cannot argue that the KJVs and the MVs are the same. I and others have already shown many differences. These are not just saying the same thing in another way, they are clearly saying things that are quite different as Acts 13:20 showed. And not only do the KJV and the MVs differ, but the various MVs differ from each other in many places.

So, when it comes down to it, you and others do not believe God preserved his word, and you do not believe the scriptures inerrant. You can't say the scriptures are inerrant and has errors, that is an impossibility. But that is exactly what a few here are claiming.

It is a matter of faith. I nor anyone else can absolutely prove that the scriptures have been preserved inerrant, we simply rely on the promises of God. It seems to me that you so-called "scholars" are trying to circumvent faith and prove the scriptures through scholarship. That is not the way it works with God.

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

You can argue all day long that the KJV is full of error, skeptics have been doing this for centuries, and none has ever proven it error.

 

Only if you redefine "error". By all conventional definitions there ARE errors whether they be mistakes, mistranslations, omissions or additions.

And I know that by faith also- faith in the fact that God is right when He says He will keep His Words IN SPITE of what man does to them or thinks about them.

 

Why don't you provide a few examples? I have showed several verses where the KJV and MVs are quite different. I don't just make statements and then not provide evidence to support my statements.

Here is an example where the MVs and KJV differ greatly I showed on another thread. 2 Sam 21:19.

NASB-

2 Sam 21:19 There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

The NASB and many other MVs erroneously say Elhanan killed Goliath in this verse. What does the KJV say?

KJV-

2 Sam 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

The KJV correctly says that Elhanan killed Goliath's brother, not Goliath. So once again, it is easy to show that the MVs and KJV do not agree in many places and are not saying the same thing.

 

I never cease to shudder at such. To deny the Word of God is an act so heinous to me....it's just simply beyond words.

 

The fact that the KJV has (and that MV's also have) errors has been proven time and time again here on the BB and in numerous other places so there's no need to re-heat the leftovers since you're not looking to eat anyways.

:thumbsup:

 

Well, you have contradicted yourself. You have said you believe the scriptures are preserved, and then said all versions are full of errors.

You can't have it both ways, but that is exactly what you and others are trying to do.

 

From http://www.kjv-only.com/2sam21_19.html:

Of great importance to this issue is the KJV's use of italics. The words "the brother of" are italicized here in the KJV because they do not appear, nor are implied, in the Hebrew from which this verse is translated. These words were added to the text of the KJV, most likely because the translators were matching up the account with the 1 Chron 20:5 passage and trying to eliminate a perceived contradiction. However, according to Rev. Tom Weaver's quote, then even the Hebrew from which the KJV was translated contains a lie and therefore cannot be God's word.


This is a serious problem, and raises some other very serious questions that don't bode well for KJV-onlyism:
[SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]
1. Since the Hebrew is therefore lying as well, why was it used for generating the KJV?
2. Since the Hebrew appears this way, there must not have been any inerrant Scripture until the KJV came out in 1611. What then of inspired inerrant Scripture prior to the KJV?
3. Why are "corrections" to the KJV labeled as heresy while "corrections" to the Hebrew scripture that's been around much longer accepted as inspired scripture? Couldn't God get it right the first time?


However, if the Hebrew is the way God intended it to be, other serious questions arise that also don't bode well for KJV-onlyism:


1. Why are versions like the NIV and NASB, which accurately follow the Hebrew God inspired, criticized so strongly when in fact it's the KJV that has deviated from the Hebrew?
2. If the Hebrew is the way God intended it to be, how can the KJV be "inerrant and infallible" when versions like the NIV and NASB, have translated more accurately on even a single phrase? (ie. How can the KJV be "inerrant and infallible" when it deviates from the "inerrant and infallible" manuscripts it was translated from?)

 

Not preserved in your way of thinking of preservation. We're not talking about grape jelly here.:laugh:

 

Wow, what an obvious misrepresentation of what I really said. Here is what I said, I will highlight the part you purposely pulled out of context.

You intentionally pulled a phrase out of my statement to make it appear to say something I did not say. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

I had an error in my sermon yesterday, but what I said was still true.

You keep trying to limit God to your perspective of how He can work. He is not limited to ONE translation in English, German, Spanish or even in Greek or Hebrew. That much should be obvious from a casual reading of the New Testament.

 

Well, you are redefining the word preserved. God not only promised to keep his word, he promised it was pure, without error and corruption.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

And don't bother with the argument that this is speaking of the poor and not God's word, I have seen that ridiculous argument many times.

 

Care to back that up? Care to try to prove that I do not believe God has preserved His word? Care to try to prove that I do not believe that God's word is inerrant? Unless you can you would do best to keep your attacks to yourself.

I have said that TRANSLATIONS have errors. but you keep taking that to mean that I condemn God's word. There are a lot of things I could add to this but I will leave it at "you are dead wrong".

The KJV is a TRANSLATION of God's word and not God's word itself. God did not use Jacobean English to record His word; He used Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

God's word is preserved and pure in the original languages. So what if some manuscripts differ? I don't have a problem with it because I know and trust God enough to know He will take care of the situation. I don't try to put God in a box and limit Him to an out-dated translation.

Really? Now that you have condemned me as not believing God can and has preserved His word you now decide you are taking it on faith? How hypocritical of you.

No one here has said God has not preserved His word inerrant. We have said, however, that your idol the KJV is not inerrant and that has gotten you all in a tissy. The truth hurts when it ain't what you want to hear, don't it? but that's OK because no other translation is inerrant, either... but everyone else knows that.

Christianity is a religion of knowledge. Christians are to study the word of God and to continue to learn. Faith is a cornerstone of Christianity, but one must know what it is that one has faith in. Blind faith is just that... blind. Being blind in spiritual matters is not what Christ instructed us to do. We are to be wise and discerning in all things, and we are to love and exalt God above all else while shunning idols (like worshiping a translation of the word of God instead of the Author).

The scriptures are preserved, and yes, all translations have errors. A child can understand this simple fact and yet you rant on and on and on and on about how that can't be true. get over it. God has preserved His word in the original languages, but a translation is not the same.

Are you really as dense as you make yourself out to be? Do you really think that those verses are talking about your idol the KJV?

12:7 does not contain any pronouns as objects of the verbs in the Hebrew. It literally says "[You(singular)] [Jehovah] [hedge about/guard/protect] [guard/conceal] [part of/from/out of] [age/revolution/dwelling] [this/that] [concealed/out of mind/eternity]" according to IHOT and Strong's.

12:6 is referring back to the Lord speaking in verse five to illustrate that the words of the Lord are pure and that He will keep His word to arise to the needs of the poor. In the same way verse seven builds off of verse six, maintaining that the Lord will do as He has said and that He will do so forever. Verse eight is a bookend for the entire psalm, linking what was said in verses one through four and linking the whole together. This a very common construction used in many psalms. To rip the psalm apart to try to pervert it into a proof text for the idolatry of KJVO is completely abhorrent to anyone who actually studies and knows the scriptures.

"Don't bother with the argument" just tells us that you would prefer to cling to your idol that to God's word.

 

God did not promise that He would preserve His word only in the original languages. He promised He would preserve His word period. What good does that do for an english speaking child of God if He only preserved His word in the original languages?

 

I've never made the argument that God only preserved in the KJ, in fact I've argued against that point. My argument is against the idea that God only preserved His word in the original languages and everything else has errors. That's nonsense.

 

Indeed. And the combat against such worldy notions is being waged by those of us who have the truth of God's precious word on our side, who reject what itching ears long to hear.

I'm so thankful for ministries out there who defend God's Word against those who attack it. May their tribe increase.