Featured KJVO is alive and well here at the BB

Do you believe what 37818 says he believes?

 

I believe we have what GOD wants us to have, both in the ancient mss and in translations.

 

So your short answer is no?

 

My short answer is 'no' if his belief differs from mine. I mean, like, how else would we have God's word to man if it wasn't what GOD wanted us to have ?

 

Here is what he said:

37818 said: ↑
No. I believe in the verbal plenary God breathed written word of God being handed down to us from the original autographs.

 

So ?

 

@JD731 was asking if you believe in verbal plenary God breathed written word of God?

See:
KJVO is alive and well here at the BB

 

Who sent him?

All he needs to worry about is;

Critical View:

1. Scripture is like any text of human origin.

2. Approach Scripture like any other text.

3. The subjective judgment of the individual critic is
the ultimate criterion for determining the Scripture
text, to be applied through the methods of intrinsic and
transcriptional probability.

4. The older the manuscript, the better its text.

5. The quality of a manuscript is determined by its
genealogy.

6. The number of manuscripts is not a criterion for
determining the quality of a text.

7. The traditional majority text is the result of conflation
(the mixing of two or more texts).

8. The Traditional Text is the result of at least two
deliberate revisions.

9. Cureton’s Syriac is the only surviving specimen of the
unrevised version.

10. The critical minority text is the purest.


Traditional view:

1. Scripture is the unique Word of God.

2. Scripture requires its own special approach.

3. The Scripture text is to be established on the basis
of all the available textual evidence by applying all the
relevant textual principles, at least the ‘seven notes of
truth’ (defined by John Burgon in Burgon 1896a.

4. The age of a manuscript is a necessary but not
sufficient criterion for determining the quality of its
text, even less an absolute one.

For the New Testament text, age is also inadequate
in that some of its earliest manuscripts
are among the most corrupted ones, so
that an older witness is not necessarily better.

Moreover, the oldest uncials33 *
adduced to support the Critical Text
are not the oldest extant manuscripts.

5. Genealogy is an inadequate principle, insufficient in
and of itself.

Drawn as it is from familial relationships,
the textual analogy is flawed.

As the precise relationships between most extant New Testament
manuscripts are unknown, this principle is inapplicable.

6. Insufficient in and of itself, the number of
manuscripts is one of several textual criteria necessary
for determining the providentially preserved text.

The normal laws of evidence require it.

Hort is contradicting himself.

7. There is no sufficient and unambiguous historical
evidence to support any conflation, much less wholesale
conflation, of the Traditional Text.

Omission in the Critical Text is more plausible.

8. That there were the two revisions supposed by Hort
is pure conjecture.

This view is not supported either by
external evidence of the existence of church councils on
such revisions, or of any documents relating to major
Bible revisions produced by such councils.

9. This critical assumption is pure hypothesis,
unsupported by historical or textual evidence.

10. The traditional majority text is the purest.

* ‘Uncials’ are European manuscripts of the 4th-8th
centuries written in a majuscule script with rounded unjoined
letters, from which modern capital letters are derived.

 

The textually-varying printed Textus Receptus editions were not 100% the traditional majority text as John William Burgon pointed out. Some readings were introduced by Erasmus into the Textus Receptus editions from corrupt editions of Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Some readings in the TR editions are found in no known preserved Greek NT manuscripts. There may be over 1,000 minority readings [readings found in less than 50% of the collated Greek NT manuscripts] in the printed Textus Receptus editions.

 

With no or few exceptions Family 35 manuscripts are identical to the to be identified as the text from the New Testament autographs. Do you think you know an exception? Point it out by book, by word.

 

There is a word that is associated with the entire subject of manuscripts, preservation, translation, infallibility, versions, etc., etc., that God's people have always been led to employ, which could be stated as a Doctrine of the Faith, in and of itself.

That word is, 'compare'.

The Baptist Doctrine of True Christianity: COMPARISON.

Comparison of reliable documents has always been the devotedly attended to Spiritual Process of determining the proper inclusions and renderings of God's words and remains so, until this day. It is a portion of what the Oracles of God being committed to the Lord' churches is all about.

They weren't about to just handle the Manifold Wisdom and While Counsel of God willy-nilly, as if it was their property to do with as they pleased

Then, there are those who go about their treatment of God-Given Sacred writings by saying, "that's right, and I will 'Compare' what I want, when I want, the way I want".

And not to presume upon God, especially while speaking about His Revelation to Mankind, but we might guess He could respond to that something along the lines of, "and do Me a favor, when you do go about what you think is some business of yours, with your own little self-absorbed and self-serving 'Comparision Process', when you come across the word, "fool", leave that one in there, because along with the rest of My Revealed Will, I put that in there on purpose, for a reason, that may very well be associated with you, intimately, personally and with Eternal consequences."

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth:

"it shall not return unto me void,
but it shall accomplish that which I please,

"and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." Isaiah 55:11.

 

Huh. Apples and Oranges.

At issue are the written verbal plenary God breathed word of God from the original autographs handed down to us.

 

You seem to be describing KJV-only advocates who present no sound textual measures that they are willing to apply consistently and justly and who assume by use of fallacies such as begging the question and special pleading that the KJV can supposedly be used as a standard for other English Bible translations.

Do KJV-only advocates compare the way that they want even if it means making unrighteous judgments based on use of double standards and even if it means assuming what they wish by use of fallacies?

 

Zen Buddhist style meditation?? That's what the photo is. (The hand position is the giveaway.) Pretty sure you're not doing that, though.

Years ago in Yokohama, my wife taught English a flock of Japanese ladies. One day they came to the lesson laughing. Seems a young American man enamored with Zen had come to stay and learn at the local Zen temple. However, it was not too long until he had to return home due to a nervous breakdown from all the Zen.

They would get up at about 4:00 AM, and then have to meditate for hours. A Zen priest would walk behind the "meditators" with a bamboo kendo sword, ready to whack anyone who started to nod off.

 

I believe gode gave His word to His chosen authors to write down, & to pass along to successive generations, preserved by His power.

 

That is what KJV onlyism is based on.

 

And so is Freedom Reading, because of the fact that GOD IS NOT LIMITED to any one version or translation.

 

Oh, am I to understand you do not believe in the immutability of the word of God of His original autographes He gave?