Featured The King James Version onlyism mistake.

I cannot prove anything that claims it is a 2000 year old testimony of God concerning his Son, whom he claimed he raised from the dead. He did not ask me to prove it, he asked me to believe it. The same God who made claims about his perfect Son made also claims about his perfect word.The men who are writing the new translations that are having such a profound effect on the Christian faith today are those who do not believe what God says about his Son. They say they believe in the Son, but they do not believe what God says about him. They have made a Christian faith that conforms to a special class of worldly wise elites and everyone else is left out. That is one reason we have scores and scores of various presentations of his words that God has in no way sanctioned.

The men and some women who have produced these unending and varied works do not have the Spirit of God. I know this is not a work of the Spirit because I have read the scriptures for 50 + years and he is not so radically different in the last 2000 years, and especially the last 200 years, as he presented himself in the scriptures that preceded the coming of Christ and the giving of the New Testament. Your presentation of God in the things you embrace and allow in your life is far different than his own presentation of himself and his ways.

The op is speaking of the "true" word of God. According to you then because of these various errors there must be a consensus among scholars on correcting these error you mentioned above, and for the life of me I cannot understand why the result of the corrections would not amount to the "true" word of God. I could understand it if there were disagreements among the scholars on what the errors are and how to fix them. I suppose there are disagreements, right?

According to you but not according to me. But, I am just going on faith and I don't have all the books you have, with the time to read them all, and to memorize what they say.

I would like to officially go on record at 12:46 Eastern time, on Thursday, Nov 3, 2022 as agreeing with you on this point. Psalm 19:7 does not say that the 1611 KJV is perfect.

 

You said "the true word of God." This is what I want to join you in defending. You must know there is one and if you know where it is then tell me. That is what I am asking.

 

Are you actually saying your particular doctrine of the word of God that governs your faith and practice does not require biblical support while at the same time you are requiring it of me? Do not just say I am wrong, but try proving you are right. It has not occurred to anyone of your stature to attempt that yet.

 

Nowhere in the Scriptures did God ask you to believe claims for the KJV that are not true. The Scriptures warn against being deceived by believing things that are not true. God did not ask you to believe your non-scriptural KJV-only opinions.

 

You fail to prove your accusation to be true. You do not at all demonstrate that my scripturally-based position is far different than God's own presentation of Himself and His ways. My position is based on what God says.

 

I am seeing a disconnect. The true word of God has variants? I am beginning to see your thinking and it is illogical and unreasonable. First of all, if there are variants, then the copies are not true, except possibly one. Secondly, if all agree on the variants, then it is possible to reconcile the copies and have a true word of God.

 

My head spins trying to keep up.

I wonder if you will accept the definition of the word "variant?" Here is the dictionary meaning.

Noun
a form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard.

If you accept that meaning then, according to you, the variants concerning the manuscripts (hand written copies) are known. They are the only issues in Bible translation. They are not God's words. There is a standard, the true words of God.

This is your argument so far.

My questions for you are, where is the standard, and if what you have said above is true, "they are known," why do we yet have variants. Why have they not been reconciled (eliminated - they are known = they are not the words of God), at least for the purpose of authority, in a single perfect manuscript? Who told the church to stop copying the NT some 100 years after the last apostle (John) died?

My whole issue is to stand with you in defending the true word of God, but we need to be on the same page and identify the "true" word of God. You are saying that you have confidence that your manuscripts have variants that are not the words of God and that you know them.

I am saying that my standard for the word of God is perfect, not because I say it is or that I can prove it is, but because I believe it is. I do know what God says about his words and because of more than one opinion about the "true" word of God among scholars, like yourself, I am forced to take a position and to choose sides. Having done that, I notice that you are much more exercised with my decision about the word of God than I am with yours.

I do know this about our differences in what we believe about God, his ways, and what he says. We differ because we have a difference of opinion concerning the words we read in the scriptures. It is not about dreams, visions, modern day prophets, voices from heaven, or any such things. We have a different doctrine because of how we study the words. Obviously, if we have different words we will likely have different doctrines. It is only a logical conclusion.

 

Actually it is KJV-only thinking that is inconsistent, illogical, unreasonable, and non-scriptural. It is KJV-only reasoning that depends upon use of fallacies such as begging the question and special pleading.

There is not "if" about it. It is a known fact that there were many textual variants in the original-language manuscripts on which the printed editions on which the KJV is based were made. The 1550 Stephanus edition of the Textus Receptus (one of the TR editions of which the KJV is based) listed over 2,000 variants in less than twenty Greek NT manuscripts.

The KJV is not translated from any one original-language manuscript or any one printed original-language edition. The KJV is based on multiple, varying texts.

 

There are variants among men who write the historical records and opinions as well, and you receive some and reject others depending on your prejudices and preferences and your goals. The proof for this is other men with the same opportunities as you read the histories and opinions during the same era and come to opposite opinions as you. [Snip]

(Post edited my moderator, inappropriate comments removed)

 

Where is God's given original? Tell me that and I can give you the "true" word of God. You are the expert on variants. Logos 1560 does not accept the critical texts from which most new translations come. You do accept them and believe they are good. You guys do not agree. Logos 1560 has chosen the Geneva Bible and you have probably chosen the ESV. Different source manuscripts. Having more than one word of God demands you make a choice.

 

Your opinion is incorrect. I am still learning and studying the Scriptures.

On the other hand, many who read your posts may think the same opinion of you since your posts seem to suggest that you think that what you claim concerning the KJV and concerning the word of God cannot be wrong.

 

I am right about the word of God. It cannot be wrong.

 

The printing press did not stop textual variants in the KJV.

Changes in the King James version