Scriptural proofs for KJVOnlyism

[Scott J]

Steve K, JYD, Pure Words, Pioneer, Harvest et al.

You guys continually avoid these questions so I wanted to start a thread specifically for them:

What scripture says that only the KJV is the Word of God in English?

What scripture supports any of your KJVO beliefs?

These are simple questions that do not require any of your (il)logical deductions, cut/paste articles, or other evasions. If it is not a man-made heresy, please take this opporunity to prove it.

 

[BrianT]

Should be a short thread.

 

[AV Defender]

What scripture says that only the KJV is the Word of God in English?

What scripture supports any of your KJVO beliefs?

There is none that I know of,it has to do with manuscript evedence and just plain common sense.You see, your problem is that you are being so "scriptural" that you are un-scriptural.. Just because it is not in scripture doesn't make it wrong;however bible mutilation IS in the scriptures(Jeremiah 36) and it IS wrong..

 

[Scott J]

OK. JYD admits that it is not a scriptural belief. Any others?

 

[AV Defender]

OK. JYD admits that it is not a scriptural belief. Any others?

Exactly, It all comes to common sense;no problem telling the thruth.I know of any.But why attact just the KJB? What is it about that book that people hate? I know, it is Hebrews 4:12..and having ONE final authority in ALL matters of faith and practice.."KJVO" is just a mask for the above..

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by JYD:
Exactly, It all comes to common sense;no problem telling the thruth.I know of any.But why attact just the KJB? What is it about that book that people hate? I know, it is Hebrews 4:12..and having ONE final authority in ALL matters of faith and practice.."KJVO" is just a mask for the above..

So, if it is not scriptural, what is my final authority if I want to know what the final authority is? Your personal "common sense"? Why should I believe you?

 

[Japheth]

You guys continually avoid these questions so I wanted to start a thread specifically for them:

Well,before I answer your question let me ask you a question,where,when,and why did you loose faith in the KJV?? But to answer your query, I dont know of any verse.So what??

 

[Pastor Larry]

What makes your sense "common" and why do the vast majority of believers in church history not have this "common sense"? Why your "common sense" contradict my common sense?

And why have you taken such a strong stand on something you admit is not in Scripture but is based on "common sense" that people with far more knowledge than you and I have rejected? How much "common sense" is it when you tell the people who know what they are talking about that they do not know what they are talking about?

If two or three doctors told you you had cancer and your neighbor who is an auto mechanic tells you you don't, which does "common sense" dictate that you listen to?

 

[Scott J]

it has to do with manuscript evedence

The mss evidence does not prove the claims of KJVOnlyism. It may prove the superiority of the MT. It may prove the superiority of the TR or CT.

...and just plain common sense.

It would be common sense to say that the source closest to the original writing is likely the most reliable. It would be common sense to argue that the majority of mss best represent the originals. It would be common sense that some kind of weighted evaluation of both yields the best representative of the original. But it can never be "common sense" to believe that one and only one English translation represents the original Word. That conclusion can only be deduced by evidence... and there is no evidence for it.

You see, your problem is that you are being so "scriptural" that you are un-scriptural.. Just because it is not in scripture doesn't make it wrong;

Never said it did. But when scripture does not say it and the evidence does not prove it, it is wrong for you to demand that others accept it as true.

however bible mutilation IS in the scriptures(Jeremiah 36) and it IS wrong..

One, this scripture has nothing to do with the KJV. Two, none of you have proven that the KJV equals the original therefore you cannot prove that all other versions "mutilate scripture." Three, the way KJVO's misuse scripture in an attempt to foist their doctrine onto scripture is scripture mutilation in the worst form, ie. Psalms 12:6-7.

 

[AV Defender]

It would be common sense to say that the source closest to the original writing

How can you or anybody else make such a claim when the originals are gone????

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Japheth:
Well,before I answer your question let me ask you a question,where,when,and why did you loose faith in the KJV??

Never happened. I still have faith in the KJV.

I lost faith in KJVOnlyism when I looked into the evidence. It helped that KJVO behavior was un-Christlike and that they lied about much of what they cite as evidence.
Also, I accept what the KJV teaches as my final authority and it does not teach KJVOnlyism.

But to answer your query, I dont know of any verse.So what??

If you draw a doctrine from any other source than the scriptures then it is manmade and false. Also, you and others have said that your final authority is the KJV. If that is so then how can you justify KJVOnlyism when the KJV does not teach it?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by JYD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> It would be common sense to say that the source closest to the original writing

How can you or anybody else make such a claim when the originals are gone???? </font>[/QUOTE]A document that is date 400 AD is without any doubt fewer generations from the original than a document dated 1100 AD.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by BrianT:
Should be a short thread.

I knew it wouldn't be. I figured these guys would attempt to talk their way around this obstacle.

 

[AV Defender]

A document that is date 400 AD is without any doubt fewer generations from the original than a document dated 1100 AD.

But still, to claim to be closest to the originals is dishonest,having NEVER seen them!!!

 

[Johnv]

Just because it is not in scripture doesn't make it wrong

I'll have to remember you said that when someone blasts the Catholics for something they do that's not in the scriptures.

 

[Pioneer]

I will answer your questions. However, I know perfectly well that my answers would never satisfy you nor anyone else that is a believer in modern versions. Thus, I am responding, not for your benefit, but for the benefit of those that are searching for the truth.

Whenever I compare modern versions to the King James Bible and point out the many words and verses that are missing from the modern versions, many of you have constantly replied with, "they are not missing from the modern versions but they have been added to the King James Bible." Or many have said, "what gives you the right to say that the King James Bible is the standard by which all other bibles are judged?"

I believe that the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Old Testament) and the Greek Textus Receptus (New Testament) are the providentially preserved word of God in the original languages. I believe that we have the perfect word of God in the above mentioned original language texts.

I also believe that the King James Bible is the providentially preserved word of God and is the perfect word of God in the English language because it has been faithfully translated from the above mentioned original language texts.

I further believe in comparing apples with apples. I know that all modern versions (including the New King James Bible) have been influenced by the Westcott and Hort textual theory. I also know that Westcott and Hort not only rejected the Textus Receptus but they actually hated it and did everything they could to discredit it. Thus I must reject all modern versions. They are the corrupt fruits of a corrupt tree.

Psalm 12:6,7 is a promise from God to preserve his pure words for all generations. Psalms 19:7-10 gives us certain adjectives to describe God's word; perfect, sure, right, pure, clean, true, righteous altogether, more desirable than gold, sweeter than honey and the honeycomb. Proverbs 30:5 tells us that every word of God is pure.

If the King James Bible is not the perfect word of God then the proclamations and promises found in it are all lies. I have yet to hear a defender of modern versions express belief in their "bibles" as being the perfect word of God.

No they will say something like "God never intended for us to have a perfect Bible" or "the only perfect Bible is the original" Or many have said, "where was the perfect Bible before the King James Bible was translated?" It is like the tempter saying "Yea hath God said?"

I will close with this verse: II Cor. 2:17 - "We are not as many, which corrupt the word of God;"

[ February 05, 2003, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Pioneer ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by JYD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> It would be common sense to say that the source closest to the original writing

How can you or anybody else make such a claim when the originals are gone???? </font>[/QUOTE]Have you ever played the game where you sit in a circle and the first person whispers something in the ear of the person next to them and it gets passed around to the end?? IT often has very funny conclusions. That is the principle at work here. The more generations of copying something has gone through, the more likely it is that errors were introduced, inadvertantly to be sure, but errors nonetheless.

IT might also be easily illustrated by the rumors that often get spread. It goes like this. Person A tell you that person B said something. PERson B says it came from person C. Person C from person D. So you trace it back and find out that person D actually said something very different but the transmission of it introduced inadvertant corruption.

We see this principle at work everyday in life.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by JYD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />A document that is date 400 AD is without any doubt fewer generations from the original than a document dated 1100 AD.

But still, to claim to be closest to the originals is dishonest,having NEVER seen them!!! </font>[/QUOTE]No more so than saying a copy of a Monet painting is closer to the original than the copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a.... copy of a Monet painting.

Would you say that what I assert is more dishonest than saying that a particular translation is the perfect equivalent of the originals without ever seeing them? If so, How so?

 

[Ransom]

Japheth said:

Well,before I answer your question let me ask you a question,where,when,and why did you loose faith in the KJV??

When did you stop beating your wife?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Pioneer:
I will answer your questions.

Reading through your post, I didn't see any scriptural proof that the KJV alone is the word of God. Did you misunderstand the question or just ignore it??