Questions From A KJV-Onlyist

[robycop3]

quote:
Can you PROVE these verses were actually OMITTED, & not ADDED in later mss?
__________________________________________
Yes,by Scripture....Gen 3,Numbers 22:12,13,and Jeremiah 36;as you can plainly see(or maybe not)Satan and his ilk are all about omission..No matter how much spin you put on it..

The only "spin doctors" here are the KJVOs who are trying to place respectability upon a false, man-made doctrine. Baruch wrote Jeremiah's words from God long before the ms issue was invented, & Moses wrote long before Jerry was born. Their writing have absolutely NOTHING to do with whether the older mss omitted some material or later ones added material.


quote:
How can something OLDER omit something that wasn't found until LATER?
______________________________________________
Because they are found in older witnesses such as the Old Latin for instance-which pre-dates the "oldest and best mss." by at least 150 years-that's how.

WHICH Old Latin??

The extant OL ms are vastly different from each other, even more so than the "Alex" mss are from the "Byz" ones. Proof? Enter 'vetus latina' into any search engine & read for yourself.

 

[robycop3]

David Rea:Refering to John 1:18...
If you have two manuscrits that support a reading, and all of the quotes from all of the Church fathers (over 170 quotes) are all unified against these two manuscripts AND ALL OF THESE QUOTES PREDATE THE MANUSCRIPTS, and all of the other texts are all unified against these two manuscripts. AND THEN... these two manuscripts disagree with each other MANY TIMES...

The issue is the internal realiability of these manuscripts. They conflict with each other! With this in mind, HOW DO YOU TELL WHICH ONE IS RIGHT!?!?!!?!?

Somtimes translators reject Aleph, and accept B

Other times they reject B and accept Aleph

Is not thier a ring of cirular reasoning? If these are the oldest then "best" is rather subjective...

I try to have an open mind, I find it embaresing reading most of the arguments that are made in support of the KJV. Good points are have been brought up. But when the evidence is brought up about the soundness of the texts used in the new versions... it is ignored. Why is this?

There's a little game, played mostly by KJVOs, called, "MY scholar can whup YOUR scholar!" For every opinion on the Scriptural mss given one way by some scholar, there's an opposing one from another scholar.

A significant fact, often ignored by the KJVO is that God has apparently chosen not to preserve any of the original writings of His word, other than what was placed into the ark of the covenant, which is now in the heavenly temple.

Most newer Bibles are made from an eclectic mix of the available mss. We have no authority to simply ignore some of them because of personal dislike.

 

[David Rea]

Originally posted by robycop3:
David Rea:Refering to John 1:18...
If you have two manuscrits that support a reading, and all of the quotes from all of the Church fathers (over 170 quotes) are all unified against these two manuscripts AND ALL OF THESE QUOTES PREDATE THE MANUSCRIPTS, and all of the other texts are all unified against these two manuscripts. AND THEN... these two manuscripts disagree with each other MANY TIMES...

The issue is the internal realiability of these manuscripts. They conflict with each other! With this in mind, HOW DO YOU TELL WHICH ONE IS RIGHT!?!?!!?!?

Somtimes translators reject Aleph, and accept B

Other times they reject B and accept Aleph

Is not thier a ring of cirular reasoning? If these are the oldest then "best" is rather subjective...

I try to have an open mind, I find it embaresing reading most of the arguments that are made in support of the KJV. Good points are have been brought up. But when the evidence is brought up about the soundness of the texts used in the new versions... it is ignored. Why is this?

There's a little game, played mostly by KJVOs, called, "MY scholar can whup YOUR scholar!" For every opinion on the Scriptural mss given one way by some scholar, there's an opposing one from another scholar.

A significant fact, often ignored by the KJVO is that God has apparently chosen not to preserve any of the original writings of His word, other than what was placed into the ark of the covenant, which is now in the heavenly temple.

Most newer Bibles are made from an eclectic mix of the available mss. We have no authority to simply ignore some of them because of personal dislike.

It is not about personl dislike, it is about the evidence used to create them. You never did address the issues in the post you quoted...

Why is this?...

In the past, for well over 10 years, I used all versions - had no problems with them. But then I I began to look at the evidence I am submiting here. And I thought about it.

I use the KJV, Basically becasue I belive it is the most accurate, or has the least number of issues. I don't blindly follow the KJVO crowd..............

But I also don't blindly follow the new version crowd.

I find it ironic that the the MJ crowd uses the same blind faith that they accuse the KJVO crowd.

 

[Phillip]

David,
Since you are new to the board, I think that maybe you think you are posting a new revelation concerning the manuscript streams which have been used for modern translations. What the posters are trying to say is that this is not new to anybody who has been here for a period of time. Yes, we are very aware that are multiple streams which have been compiled to obtain the New Testament. Yes, we also have people who tend to agree with one more than the other. For instance, Skan feels the TR and Byzantine are the most accurate; while others feel that other compilations are more accurate. This has been debated ad nauseum in old posts and no conclusions have been drawn.

Neither you nor anybody else has provided absolute proof that one particular stream is the most accurate. Since we do (unfortunately) have the original autographs, then we have to use other methods of determination and sadly, those methods are done by "man", not God.

I think this has been where the confusion in your post lies. Maybe I am wrong, but you must understand that the multiple New Testament manuscripts are very well known and have been discussed here in the past. This is not a new revelation to this crowd.

 

[steveo]

I also have a problem with the newer versions saying the end of Mark shouldn't be there.
It comes down to, are you going to believe that it was in the King James for hundreds of years and now all the sudden it shouldn't of been there.
Even with all the arguments and scholars saying this and that, our church uses the King James for teaching and preaching.

 

[Alcott]

Yeah? The last 12 verses ought to be there? Do you think baptism is a condition for salvation? do you speak with new tongues? cast out devils? pick up serpents? do you heal anyone by laying hands on them? and do you drink poison without being harmed? That passage says these are the signS that shall follow them that believe.

"Shall follow them that belive"-- no limistations of time or space. So if this passage should be there, do you show these signs, or are you not a believer?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Alcott:
Yeah? The last 12 verses ought to be there?

Yes, the evidence suggests they are canonical.

Do you think baptism is a condition for salvation?

No, and neither does Mark 16:16.

do you speak with new tongues?

No, but the gift of tongues was still being given when Mark wrote his gospel.

cast out devils?

No, but the miraculous sign gifts were still operating when Mark wrote his gospel.

pick up serpents?

No, but the miraculous sign gifts were still operating when Mark wrote his gospel.

do you heal anyone by laying hands on them?

No, but the miraculous sign gifts were still operating when Mark wrote his gospel.

and do you drink poison without being harmed?

No, but the miraculous sign gifts were still operating when Mark wrote his gospel.

That passage says these are the signS that shall follow them that believe.

"Shall follow them that belive"-- no limistations of time or space.

Who do you think the "them" is referring to? Could it be the "them" who refused to believe in verse 14? And it was "them" whom He encouraged saying not only was the resurrection real, but there would be real miracles in their lives as they went and preached the gospel? Your problem is that you are trying to claim a promise which was not made to you.

So if this passage should be there, do you show these signs, or are you not a believer?

Your failure to understand the context does not make the word of God wrong.

 

[Alcott]

Do you think baptism is a condition for salvation?

No, and neither does Mark 16:16.

"He that believes and is baptized shall be saved..." If the verse does not say one must be baptized, then neitehr does it sa one must believe.

"...miraculous sign gifts were still operating when Mark wrote his gospel."

You are assuming what is not said. Still, this passage makes no limitation as to time or setting; it just says "these signs shall follow them that believe.."

The whole point here is: Why does anyone insist that a passage must be included in the canon of scripture which the same one repudiates as to the obedience thereof? (as you obviously do, 'KJVO' or not)

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Alcott:
"He that believes and is baptized shall be saved..." If the verse does not say one must be baptized, then neitehr does it sa one must believe.

You, very conveniently for your position, left out the last half of the verse, "but he who does not believe will be condemned."

Think of it this way, "He that boards the bus, and sits down, rides into town. He who boards not is left behind."

You are assuming what is not said. Still, this passage makes no limitation as to time or setting; it just says "these signs shall follow them that believe."

Why did you delete the part that dealt with that? Who is the "them?" In context, it is the "them" who did not believe the resurrection in verse 14.

The whole point here is: Why does anyone insist that a passage must be included in the canon of scripture which the same one repudiates as to the obedience thereof? (as you obviously do, 'KJVO' or not)

The manuscript evidence supports the inclusion of the verses, and I do obey them. I just don't claim promises not made to me (which I also already stated but you, again, very conveniently, left off).

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by steveo:
I also have a problem with the newer versions saying the end of Mark shouldn't be there.
It comes down to, are you going to believe that it was in the King James for hundreds of years and now all the sudden it shouldn't of been there.
Even with all the arguments and scholars saying this and that, our church uses the King James for teaching and preaching.

Based on your theory, then you should be believing the Vulgate is more important because it was around much longer than the KJV has been. Want to switch to Latin?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Alcott:
"He that believes and is baptized shall be saved..." If the verse does not say one must be baptized, then neitehr does it sa one must believe.

You, very conveniently for your position, left out the last half of the verse, "but he who does not believe will be condemned."

Think of it this way, "He that boards the bus, and sits down, rides into town. He who boards not is left behind."

You are assuming what is not said. Still, this passage makes no limitation as to time or setting; it just says "these signs shall follow them that believe."

Why did you delete the part that dealt with that? Who is the "them?" In context, it is the "them" who did not believe the resurrection in verse 14.

The whole point here is: Why does anyone insist that a passage must be included in the canon of scripture which the same one repudiates as to the obedience thereof? (as you obviously do, 'KJVO' or not)

The manuscript evidence supports the inclusion of the verses, and I do obey them. I just don't claim promises not made to me (which I also already stated but you, again, very conveniently, left off). </font>[/QUOTE]Skan, I am glad you have explained these verses. Your explanation is one of the best that I have heard.

I have always seen the Baptism part clearly based on the second part of the verse; but, your other explanations ---as to the people who the scripture was intended for-- shows how important "context" is in regards to any scripture. It also shows how easy it is to make the Bible say anything you want it to by "plucking" verses. I hear a lot of that in preaching today.

As for your earlier remark about having a change of heart---nah, someone hit me in the back of my head with a Ruckman book and I was knocked a little silly for a few days. Then I woke up.

 

[Alcott]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
You...left out the last half of the verse, "but he who does not believe will be condemned."

While I leave out the whole passage, it's still there for those who want it.

Think of it this way, "He that boards the bus, and sits down, rides into town. He who boards not is left behind."

That's stupid. You can get to a town without boarding a (or 'the') bus, you don't have to sit down, and you are not necessarily left behind if you don't board it.

Who is the "them?"

Them that believe. Does that include you?

In context, it is the "them" who did not believe the resurrection in verse 14.

What are you saying here? The disciples, the "them" of verse 14 did not believe, so they are damned (v.16)?

The manuscript evidence supports the inclusion of the verses, and I do obey them.

False, unless you pick up snakes and to the other things.

I just don't claim promises not made to me.

If you exclude yourself from the category "them that believe," okay.

Do you talk to your family or your work group, addressing them as "they" and and the objective "them", or is it "you" or "y'all" 2nd person plural, or "we" and "us", 1st person plural?

Finally, you would not throw the word "context" into your explanations unless you know that the passage says something you think it must not mean. That's how virtually anyone justifies their position as one they will not change [as Chruch of Christ persons say Baptists don't consider 'context' when we read Romans 10:9 without considering Mark 16:16].

 

[Trotter]

It comes down to, are you going to believe that it was in the King James for hundreds of years and now all the sudden it shouldn't of been there.

Funny thing is, something could be wrong for hundreds of years and still be wrong. As for the KJV, everybody took the attitude of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" which means that any new manuscriptural evidence that was discovered has been ignored in favor of an inferior compilation.

I prefer to use bibles that include such information in the footnotes. These are at least honest as to the uncertainy of what was or was not in the original autographs.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Alcott:

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
You...left out the last half of the verse, "but he who does not believe will be condemned."

While I leave out the whole passage, it's still there for those who want it.

Think of it this way, "He that boards the bus, and sits down, rides into town. He who boards not is left behind."

That's stupid. You can get to a town without boarding a (or 'the') bus, you don't have to sit down, and you are not necessarily left behind if you don't board it.

No, that is NOT stupid.

He is explaining how the verse reads in plain English.

The second half of the verse tells you exactly what you need to do to miss out on salvation. It is very specific; listing only the salient item. If you read the entire verse, in context, it is as clear as crystal (unless you are a member of the Church of Christ).

Who is the "them?"

Them that believe. Does that include you?

In context, it is the "them" who did not believe the resurrection in verse 14.

What are you saying here? The disciples, the "them" of verse 14 did not believe, so they are damned (v.16)?

The manuscript evidence supports the inclusion of the verses, and I do obey them.

False, unless you pick up snakes and to the other things.

I just don't claim promises not made to me.

If you exclude yourself from the category "them that believe," okay.

Do you talk to your family or your work group, addressing them as "they" and and the objective "them", or is it "you" or "y'all" 2nd person plural, or "we" and "us", 1st person plural?

Finally, you would not throw the word "context" into your explanations unless you know that the passage says something you think it must not mean. That's how virtually anyone justifies their position as one they will not change [as Chruch of Christ persons say Baptists don't consider 'context' when we read Romans 10:9 without considering Mark 16:16].

No, YOU are missing exactly what Skan is saying, either that or it is flying right over your head.

Skan explained very well that you have to take the "context" of the entire chapter. Mark was written during the time apostles were still alive and miracles were still happening. Remember when Paul was bitten by the snake and he simply shook it off into a fire? The onlookers expected it to kill him. Why was this in the Bible? To show that good Christians like Paul are not harmed by snakes? If this were the case, do we get to claim this miracle? No, of course not. The same thing with people being raised from the dead. Just because the Bible told incidents of this happening in the first century this does not mean that we have the right to accept that as a promise to us--far from it.

Many miracles were promised in the New Testament that we cannot claim today. Jesus told the disciples that He would send the Holy Spirit to them when He was gone. Do we have to wait for a Baptism of the Holy Spirit as the charismatics believe--that is seperate and a completely different experience from salvation? Do we get to claim the miracles of healing simply by invoking the name of the Son of God?

Let me be clear. Do NOT go away and say that I do not believe that God can work miracles today. I am simply trying to help you understand what Skan has just told you and see that -- yes, the Bible must be taken in context--otherwise you CAN make it say anything you want to by stripping verses.

If I were to stick to your theory that "all Christians were included when a promise was made", then you would have to say that we need to be building altars and sacrificing animals to God, because the Old Testament says for believers to do that. Using your theory, that means believers then and believers today. No, the Bible does not have to explain that sacrifices quit, but you have to take the whole book in context to find that it is true.

It doesn't say that this will change after Christ comes to earth. The same thing with Mark. Who were the verses meant for.

I am not arguing for or against the fact that those verses are supposed to be included, I am not good enough to make a scholarly decision based on the manuscript evidence, but I am trying to show you that the existence of those verses do no harm to any doctrine you might believe.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Trotter:
I prefer to use bibles that include such information in the footnotes. These are at least honest as to the uncertainy of what was or was not in the original autographs.

Amen! Believers have nothing to fear from the truth!

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Trotter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> It comes down to, are you going to believe that it was in the King James for hundreds of years and now all the sudden it shouldn't of been there.

Funny thing is, something could be wrong for hundreds of years and still be wrong. As for the KJV, everybody took the attitude of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" which means that any new manuscriptural evidence that was discovered has been ignored in favor of an inferior compilation.

I prefer to use bibles that include such information in the footnotes. These are at least honest as to the uncertainy of what was or was not in the original autographs.

In Christ,
Trotter </font>[/QUOTE]Amen Trotter,

Don't misunderstand me when I agreed with Skan above on the scriptures in Mark. Whether or not they were there in the original manuscripts does not matter to me because I see no effect on today's doctrine and what Skan explains about them makes perfect sense.

I do want to say that I agree with your post as far as footnotes and side-bars. In fact, I wish they would put more information regarding the manuscripts that contain or skip passages. I would have very little problem seeing that on every single passage (if room permitted). It would make an excellent study Bible for those who want to get an instant comparison of manuscript groupings. Don't you think?

 

[Trotter]

Phillip,

Yeah. That is why I use a MacArthur's Study Bible. Between the NKJV sidenotes and his study notes, I get a great picture of what is and what ain't.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Phillip]

This is a point I have been trying to make to the KJVo crowd. This is a point that I have been trying to make to Michelle. The verses and words in question have no effect on doctrine. Everything left out is either repeated in other places or simply different terminology is used.

There is NO intentional "weakening" of the Bible.

Please note, however, that I am talking about the mainstream translations that are accepted as being consistent with the original text streams from which the translators chose to use.

If it is something that has been added to a translation like the KJV, it has no effect on doctrine. If it was already in the originals, that is fine too; still no effect on doctrine. As we can see, God has done an excellent job at preserving His Word for all of us. There are a great many good translations that are excellent.

I notice that it is interesting that certain people (KJVo) who claim not to read an MV. This is sad, because if they would simply sit down and read an MV all the way through, they would see that the entire doctrine of "The Way" is maintained and preserved in its entirety--just exactly the way God has promised.

We can argue for hours on end whether or not we have "The only begotten Son or the only begotten God" and guess what, we have the same thing. Jesus Christ--God, who was begotten as a man to save those who will accept Him.

 

[Alcott]

I am not arguing for or against the fact that those verses are supposed to be included, I am not good enough to make a scholarly decision based on the manuscript evidence, but I am trying to show you that the existence of those verses do no harm to any doctrine you might believe.

You're goofy, too. Those verses state no conditions of time or space limitation. That is immaterial to me, since I disregard them. The footnote idea is alright, though, and the Bible I read most often does use them.

Now, since you think the disputed passage "in context" applies only to the disciples or the the believers of that day and time, is the same true of v. 15-- And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. ? My suspicion is you don't want this part of it to fall under your "context" explanation, so you think it doesn't.

 

[Trotter]

Amen, Phillip