The problem of 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chron 36:9

So you made a hasty conclusion without investigating the matter.Better manuscripts do not have a number of verses which the KJV included in their version. It was not an evil intention on the part of men centuries ago-- but we have more knowledge today -- earlier manuscripts are available for which the KJV team or Erasmus had no access.

 

Purely conjecture on your part, yet you state it as truth. That's one of the problems I have with these arguments.


Reminds me of the evolutionists who state their claims as facts.

 

How about older,diverse and many -- hence --better.

It might remind you;but there is nothing relevant between the subjects.

 

:laugh:

Nice try. Survey says........BUZZZZZZZZZ :laugh:

 

And yet, up until just a couple decades ago, most pastors, Bible teachers and Christians held to the belief that God's Word IS PRESERVED IN THE ORIGINAL MSS. That was the conservative, Baptist, and Fundamental belief held to by all of the major IFB colleges.

Guess they were all "illogical' until Ruckman, Riplinger, and their minions came along. And Dr. Bob, Tom, myself and a few others will continue to be "illogical" also.

 

It is a given that the original autographs were inerrant.

But no one today knows the exact content of those original autographs as they were lost centuries ago, and will never be recovered. Even if scholars found some texts that were from the 1st century today, there would be no way to absolutely identify them as the original autographs.

Therefore, you cannot make absolute statements that the KJV or any other version does not agree perfectly with the original autographs. There is absolutely no way to know that, and never will be.

If you read my previous posts, I have never said I know for a fact that the KJV is the preserved, inerrant, and infallible word of God, I have said over and over I believe this by faith. And I have asked repeatedly if the KJV is not the preserved, inerrant, and infallible word of God, then which version is?

My argument is, and will be that there are only two possibilities;

#1 The infallible and inerrent word of God is lost forever (in which case they cannot be preserved).

or...

#2 The preserved, inerrant, and infallible word of God exists in only one version. This must be so, because all of the various versions of scripture are very different and disagree (sometimes outright contradict) with each other. This argument that all the versions can all be the inerrant word of God is blantantly false and defies common sense and logic. It is impossible.

I believe from studies I have done and history that the KJV is the preserved, inerrant, and infallible word of God. I cannot prove it (and you cannot disprove it), and believe it solely by faith, based on the many promises God made to preserve his word.

The reason certain people here attack me is because I am correct and my arguments are sound. This is not rocket science, it is good old fashioned common sense.

 

That may be your argument, but there are more than two possibilities. Trying to make everyone else play follow the leader doesn't work with all of us old tomcats; we just won't play along. You WANT to make the KJV the only option as it fits your own faith and conviction and there's nothing wrong with you having that conviction... but you keep wanting to force it on everyone else and we won't let you get away with it.

No one is attacking you. My words can be rough sometimes, but it is the "doctrine" on KJVO that I am attacking, not you or anyone else. KJVO is a man-made lie straight from the pits of hell and it still smells like smoke. It was concocted by a SDA "scholar" and then picked up by several oddballs who had no Christian qualms plagiarizing the whole load of manure. The SDA cult have even abandoned this malarky as false... that in itself should tell you something.

You are not correct. You hold a personal conviction that you think we should all bow before, but that ain't happening.

Your arguments are only sound if there were only the two choices you try to offer. Were you able to put God in your little neat box the it would be sound. The last time I checked, though, Gos was still sovereign, still on His throne, and wasn't taking orders from you, Benny Hinn, or anyone else.

Common sense is a good thing. Trying to force your personal convictions on others as the gospel truth is not.

 

Really? Proof? That's the most ridiculous reason I've ever heard for "better". Got anything else?

There is absolutely relevance between them. You stated your OPINION as fact. Just like the evolutionists do.

 

I'm glad my post amused you. Why don't you try proving Rippon's statement, if you think my reply was so hilarious? Otherwise, what did you find so funny about it? Or is that just a "moderators" perk?

 

Playing the martyr is not becoming of you. No one has attacked you personally. If they had the moderators would have dealt with it.

As to the rest of your argument- regardless of how you frame it, you do believe FOR A FACT that the KJV is the preserved, inerrant, and infallible word of God and you keep trying to prove it- in spite of the fact that you just said, "I cannot prove it...".

So I ask you, why waste time trying? Use the KJV. Be blessed. And let the rest of us wallow in our supposed ignorance. I'll stand with the multitudes who never believed that God inspired or preserved a translation but instead the original autographs. there are far more of them than of KJVO's.

 

Some of the worst attacks have come from the Moderators. Here is a statement Dr. Bob made about those who are KJVO (that would be me).

I am an idolator because I believe the KJV is the preserved word of God?

Again, from Dr. Bob;

So, I am promoting a destructive and evil teaching?

Again...

And now I am a heretic?

Dr. Bob is only one who has attacked me and others for being KJVO. Tom Vols has done so as well and he is also a moderator.

Well yes, I BELIEVE it is a fact. I can't prove it. I can't go back in time and bring back the apostle Paul and have him read the KJV and then tell you it is a perfect translation of what he said. I don't know where the original autographs are. Believing something is a fact is not the same as knowing something is a fact.

Is this a joke on your part? Go back and see if I have ever created a thread attacking the MVs (you won't find even one). I am defending the KJV against those who attack it. There are many threads here that were started by those who are attacking the KJV, I have a right to defend it. This is utter hypocrisy.

Maybe you non-KJVOs need to quit throwing stones.

 

Just as soon as KJVOs stop trying to shove their man-made lie on to everyone else and stop attacking anything that is not the KJV.

 

Anyone with the ability to read and a little common sense can see that the KJV is attacked on this forum countless times, while being called "attacking KJVOism".

 

So now I am a hypocrite? A joker? LOL! :laugh:

I'll just turn the playground over to you now. Have fun.

 

To equate defending KJVO with defending the KJV is misleading at best and an outright prevarication at worst.

You have every right to defend whatever translation you want. However, to defend a teaching void of Biblical fidelity is not anyone's perogative. Let God's Word be true and human sophistry exposed for what it is.

 

It does not matter how many times you repeat this in thread after thread after thread, it still is not true. It is pure speculation on your part. Nowhere in the scriptures are one translation per language hinted at. IMO, if it is not stated in scripture, then it is wrong - to continue to state otherwise defies common sense.

 

Showing where the KJV could be improved is not attacking the KJV. Showing where the NIV could use improvement is not attacking the NIV. Calling the NIV the spawn of satan, however, is attacking the NIV. I have yet to hear anyone on this or any other board I frequent call the KJV the spawn of satan. Yet, I hear the NIV called the spawn of satan often.

 

Baloney. God doesn't have to say one translation per language. Even I am not saying that. If someone were to rewrite the KJV with modern words replacing the archaic words, provided those modern words gave the same exact meaning and understanding of the archaic words, I would not have a problem with that.

That said, I personally love the older language style of the KJV.

I mean, would anybody suggest rewriting Shakespeare in modern English? That would be a travesty.

But you cannot say that two versions that are very different in many verses and passages and often convey a completely different understanding are both the inerrant word of God. That is impossible.

 

Sigh....there's just too much doublespeak from the KJVO crowd. Winman, you hit the nail on the head:

Good point. I don't want to keep doing it. We just disagree. I believe the Word of God to be pure, inerrant, inspired, and infallible. Always will. No amount of human sophistry will sway me.

 

Okay, you prefer the KJV purely on a stylistic basis. You are driven by your personal esthetics. Sorry, that is not enough to convince the rest of us that the KJV family is the only embodiment of the Word Of God.