Do any of our KJVOist support Sola Scriptura?
If you support Sola Scriptura then how do you defend KJVOism with no scripture that supports KJVOism?
If you have scripture that says "KJV" and which "KJV" then please list it here. This would be using Sola Scriptura thus defending your doctrine.
If not then do you REALLY support Sola Scriptura?
Thank you
Sola Scriptura and KJVOist
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by David J, Nov 2, 2004.
Page 1 of 2
-
Are you waiting for a verse that supports "onlyism"? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Pack a lunch!
-
-
Most KJV-o's will tell you they just "know" the KJV is God's only preserved word, the Holy Spirit told them so. The funny thing is, the vast majority of them will also tell you "personal revelation" is heresy.
Which one is it? -
Who made KJVO a doctrine? Is it a doctrine if it is in a church's bylaws and not their doctrinal statement of faith? Input please.
-
-
Some KJVO's will claim they are out numbered. Jesus was out numbered and He proclaimed the truth.
-
Thank you, Russel55.
So If the bylaws state to the effect that the church will only use the KJV in preaching and teaching services and doctrinal statement only goes this far,
-
It depends on some things. For instance, in a sort of circular way, many KJVO's would read the statement that the the Bible is inerrant, infallible-God breathed to mean that the KJV is the only inerrent, infallible-God-breathed revelation because they have a prior assumption that the KJV is the only Bible, and they would they would filter that statement through that lense.
Then there is this part of the statment:
We may wish that God had breathed pure copies through the hands of the copiests, or that he perfectly guided the minds of the compiler of the text, so that whenever there were variant readings in the manuscripts he was using, he chose the one variant that exactly corresponded with what was originally written by the original author. Someone may even think that's the way God probably worked. But we can't know it, because we're not told it. It's an extrabiblical statement. And so we can't set it out like that in our doctinal statement, especially while we are claiming that the Bible is our rule of faith and practice. -
Russell55,
I appreciate you taking time to give these views. I hope I may ask a few more questions.
-
gb93433 said:
Some KJVO's will claim they are out numbered. Jesus was out numbered and He proclaimed the truth.
The Flat Earth Society is outnumbered, too. -
I think the emphasis is on NO ONE SINGLE DOCUMENT that is the exact copy of the autograph, though we have ALL of God's Word preserved in the wealth of copies.
Even the most radical KJVo will admit that there is NO ONE SINGLE GREEK TEXT that is "correct", but rather a blend of 6-8 texts + Latin, etc, compiled by Catholic humanist Erasmus.
But with 5500 manuscripts/fragments, we HAVE it all. Compiling it is a challenge though, unless you want to believe Erasmus' version - and I surely don't! -
Originally posted by Dogsbody:
In light of this passage would you still assert that God has not promised to preserve his word? Understanding of course there is no “exact” copy.Click to expand...
I believe we have his word preserved in many faithful translations of different texts compiled from copies of copies of copies of the original God-breathed autographs, in the same way that differing versions of God's word were providentially preserved in Jesus's time.
I also have no doubt that God providentially guided things so that we have trustworthy versions of his word in our own language, and that we are able to be fully equipped by them.
My problems is when someone says that one particular version is the only true or right version of God's word. We aren't told that, and to speak dogmatically about it is to make extrabiblical doctrine. It is making something other than God's word--like tradition ("what 400 years worth of believers have always used"), or personal experience ("God told me", or "I was lead by the Spirit to this truth")--the rule of faith and practice. -
I never said God didn't preserve his word. I just said exactly what you said--that he didn't preserve it in an exact word for word copy.Click to expand...
I believe we have his word preserved in many faithful translations of different texts compiled from copies of copies of copies of the original God-breathed autographs, in the same way that differing versions of God's word were providentially preserved in Jesus’ time.
I also have no doubt that God providentially guided things so that we have trustworthy versions of his word in our own language, and that we are able to be fully equipped by them.Click to expand...
Thank you,
DB -
The web page mentioned earlier as an example is kind of funny. At the top of the page it sais they are " King James 1611 only", but their statement only claims 66 books to be Scripture. How do you stand on the 1611 and not claim the extra-biblical liturature contained therein? Either you take the 1611 as a whole, or you've got a later addition. Which is it?
-
Those Scriptures of Isaiah can be applied to any valid Bible translation in any language of any time period.
-
Those Scriptures of Isaiah can be applied to any valid Bible translation in any language of any time period.Click to expand...
DB -
What I was really after was if any saw the verses as God’s promise to divinely preserve his word?Click to expand...
And, BTW, I think the command is actually more about seeking out a particular place on the scroll to read from to find specific information than it is about finding the scroll itself.
what or who determines what is a “valid translation”Click to expand... -
Dogsbody said "What I was really after was if any saw the verses as God’s promise to divinely preserve his word? The command to "seek out the book of the LORD" is really intresting! I think it’s a absolutely beautiful passage of scripture. Any Amens?"
Amen! What did these verses mean in 1610 and prior? Did they change meaning? -
And, BTW, I think the command is actually more about seeking out a particular place on the scroll to read from to find specific information than it is about finding the scroll itself.Click to expand...
Any translation that is done by a committee without a particular bias that they want to read into the text is probably a valid translation.Click to expand...
Thank you again, Russell55
DB
Page 1 of 2