Final Authority before 1611?

--------------------------------------------------
The text Jesus read from did not have "God" in it therefore he used a different text than the KJV. Which one is correct Michelle?

--------------------------------------------------

First, you all need to stop looking at the scriptures in a critical way. It is blinding you. What we have in the scriptures, is exactly what Jesus said, as Luke recorded what came out of the mouth of Jesus.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

The TR is the continuity from the apostolic time to 1611; the KJV is the continuity since almost 400 years. The TR/KJV is still continuity hereafter.

The W/H grows its MVS, but it replaces MVs such as ASV, NASB, NASB95 or NIV, NTIV, NrIV, etc,. However they never ever KILL the KJV.

 

I am not. I already posted saying that I don't believe these passages are contradictory even though the reality is that they are not worded the same.

This reasoning allows me to say with ABSOLUTE FAITH that both Luke 4 and Isaiah 61 in the KJV are the Word of God...

I apply this same reasoning consistently and in obedience to scriptural principles that we are not to use double standards to modern translations of the Bible. They say the same thing but with different wording. Where you claim they differ, I IN FAITH recognize that they clarify one another.

Now, I gave you a polite, direct, rational answer. Please do the same for me without attempting to turn the debate into an argument.

 

Askjo said "The TR is the continuity from the apostolic time to 1611; the KJV is the continuity since almost 400 years."

The TR is less than 100 years older than the KJV.

Askjo said "However they never ever KILL the KJV."

Good. Nobody wants that.

 

Nope. The TR was not in existence until Erasmus collated it during the 1500's. If it was then it would not have been necessary for him to compare multiple manuscripts... he could have just copied the one perfect one.

 

--------------------------------------------------
I guess Jesus blinked at the wrong time while reading and got confused. Or maybe he wanted to "delete" God from the Bible.
--------------------------------------------------

Or maybe it is because Jesus is God and he gives the scriptures. Bet that never crossed your mind did it? Jesus gave us that verse of scripture from his mouth. You are trying to debunk this truth, and outright denying the power he is revealing in this concerning his own words. Jesus Christ did not need to use ANY TRANSLATION, VERSION, SCROLL, ETC. He is God and the author and creater of those scriptures. This is what you are denying in this passage. You are doing this because you are trying to prove something that is false, and using critical analysis to prove it. This is not how we are to approach understanding the scriptures! This is all I have to say regarding this. I cannot believe the extents you all go to to prove something, even at the expense of denying the power of Jesus Christ our Lord. I do not want any more part to do with it. This to me is sick.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

The text doesn't say he spoke independently but rather that he read.

Stop avoiding the obvious. The wording in the KJV Isaiah 61 is not the same as the KJV records Jesus reading in Luke 4. Why? Is one true and one false or is there another explanation?

If you have one, please stop evading.

If you don't, please consider mine.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Sorry Michelle, but straining is not gagging. Two entirely different words.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So is "out" and "at", to which "out" gives the WRONG UNDERSTANDING of that verse. Gagging is alot closer to the meaning than out. Besides, I explained this to you in another post. You just, and yet again, deny the truth.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle said "Or maybe it is because Jesus is God and he gives the scriptures. Bet that never crossed your mind did it?"

Yes, it did cross my mind, and yes I even believe it. However, that does not change the fact that it is different.

Michelle said "He is God and the author and creater of those scriptures. This is what you are denying in this passage."

No, what I am denying is a man-made myth about those scriptures.

Michelle said "This is all I have to say regarding this."

Oh, if only that were true...

Michelle said "I cannot believe the extents you all go to to prove something, even at the expense of denying the power of Jesus Christ our Lord."

I keep telling you, you need to look up "deny" in a dictionary one of these days.

Thanks for keeping the boredom out of my day.

 

Nope. The TR was not in existence until Erasmus collated it during the 1500's. If it was then it would not have been necessary for him to compare multiple manuscripts... he could have just copied the one perfect one. </font>[/QUOTE]The TR began with the Apostles because it has been in existence from apostolic times right down to the present.

 

Askjo said "The TR began with the Apostles because it has been in existence from apostolic times right down to the present."

And the moon is made of cheese.

So what did Erasmus waste his time for?

 

Nope. The TR was not in existence until Erasmus collated it during the 1500's. If it was then it would not have been necessary for him to compare multiple manuscripts... he could have just copied the one perfect one. </font>[/QUOTE]The TR began with the Apostles because it has been in existence from apostolic times right down to the present. </font>[/QUOTE]Which text prior to Erasmus agrees 100% with the TR?

 

Why are you evading Michelle? You don't want to deal with the truth, do you?

I promise, once you truly approach this issue with faith, those differences will not be so scary.

 

Circular refers to the sort logical argument you are using. A circular argument is an invalid argument. It's a fallacy.

It doesn't meant that your premises or even you conclusion are not true, it just means that your argument (the way you arrived at your conclusion) is invalid. You can't (or shouldn't) use it to prove your conclusion.

Let me rework the argument you gave, to make it absolutely logically valid.

Okay, in order for your argument to be airtight, this is going to have to be changed to this:

The KJV is the only word of God.

This'll have to become

Modern versions are not the KJV

Yep, as long as the first two statements are true (and I assume you believe them so) then that conclusion is valid. The argument is airtight as long as the premises are true

Premise #2 gives no problems. I assume everyone here would agree with that.

The problem is with premise #1. What argument do you give for it? How do you know it true?

If you say, because I know it's true", that's a circular argument. Its basically saying, the KJV is the only word of God because the KJV is the only word of God.

If you say, "because the Holy Spirit told me", then you are using very subjective proof, and proof that can't be known by anyone but you. (This is where the gnostic charge comes in. This seems awfully close to claiming "special knowledge" as proof of truth.)

If you say, "because God's word tells me it's so", then you are going to have to come up with the statements from scripture that support the KJV being the only word of God. If you can, then you've got good objective proof that your starting premise is a true one, and I'd bet that no one here would argue with you then.

So if you want to make a valid argument, that's where your going to have to concentrate your effort. Finding scriptural proof that the KJV is the only word of God.

All the other stuff doesn't help you at all, because it doesn't help you make a VALID argument.

 

Erasmus used TR texts.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Not my “opinion”, Michelle, but an honest statement of known and demonstrable _fact_.

--------------------------------------------------

Not according to the evidence of the word of God he provided for us and we have in our own language. We have the word of God accurately in our own language in the Holy Bible with the label of KJB. You will not be able to deceive me, with all your vain knowledge.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
So, Michelle, why don’t any two Greek manuscript copies agree, if they are supposedly all “accurate”, “careful and exact”, “free from errors” and “precise”? And if they are _not_ all “accurate” in the sense of being totally “free from errors” and “precise,” then why can they not be accepted as they really exist, and be recognized as “reasonably accurate” or even “highly accurate” as the existing evidence was summarized in the wording of Key Fallacy #2?
--------------------------------------------------

Because God already provided His words for us accurately in our own language, and have NO NEED FOR THE GREEK/HEBREW ANYMORE. You couldn't realistically and truthfully tell me why the existing manuscripts differ, any better than I could, because they would be based upon our own presumptions of why. You presume that man has made errors, without knowledge that it was always that way. I presume by faith, that the faithful have always had it error free. You are talking about 2000 years of scattered and copied manuscripts, of foriegn languages, and bothering about them in the direct face of God Almighty who already provided them for you in your language. This is nothing but a mockery of God and what He has done, to suit man's ego and vain pride of their own wisdom and at the expense of the faith of the naive, and unlearned, and all because of the desire to condone the altered versions. Just remember one thing, Westcott and Hort thought the TR was vile. This was what the KJB was translated from, and all previous Bibles, and they did not like it. This was the beginning of all the modern versions and their alterations from the true word of God.


This is sad indeed. We truly are living in perilous times.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Askjo said "Erasmus used TR texts."

Oh yes, I forgot about the KJVO time-machine argument. Very handy, that one.