This is Must Reading On the KJVO Position!

You can yell that till you're blue in the face and add 100 exclamation marks. We need verses.
You guys are so wild about inspiration yet ironically struggle to provide verses...

 

Oh yeah man! Nice seminary regurgitation.
Give us verses! verses! verses! Prove with verses!
Enough of your naturalistic humanistic philosophy. Verses!

 

Are you kidding? Wait, just tell me this. Have you laid out the verses that differ side by side? Just tell me if you ever did.

 

Luke 4:21 states nothing about a perfect translated copy of the Scriptures.
John 5:39 states nothing about a perfect translated copy of the Scriptures.
Acts 8:32 states nothing about a perfect translated copy of the Scriptures. When a statement or verse from the Old Testament is presented in Greek by a NT writer, it is a part of the giving of the New Testament by direct inspiration of God. It is not the making of a complete translated copy of the Old Testament or even of a complete translated book of the Old Testament. Thus, it is not comparable to the make of a complete Bible translation into another language.
Acts 8:35 states nothing about a complete translated copy of the Scriptures or a complete translated book of the Old Testament. Perhaps the Ethiopian eunuch was reading from a Hebrew scroll with the book of Isaiah.
Acts 17:2 states nothing about a translated copy of the Scriptures.
Acts 17:11 states nothing about a translated copy of the Scriptures.
Acts 18:24 and Acts 18:28 state nothing about a translated copy of the Scriptures.
Romans 15:4 states nothing about a translated copy of the Scriptures.
Romans 16:26 refers to "the scriptures of the prophets" which would be the original-language Scriptures written by the prophets. Roman 16:26 clearly does not refer to a translated copy of the Scriptures.
2 Timothy 3:15 states nothing about a translated copy of the Scriptures. Timothy's mother and grandmother were Jews, and they may have been taught from the Hebrew Old Testament.
1 Peter 2:6 provides a Greek translation of a statement from the Hebrew Old Testament as part of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God. That does not require a translated copy of the Scriptures since the words that Peter wrote proceeded from the mouth of God by the miracle of inspiration. You seem to be trying to pull a bait and switch as you take part of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God and switch that into something else.
2 Peter 1:20 states nothing about a translated copy of the Scriptures.

None of the verses that you cite suggest that an entire translation of the Old Testament was made by inspiration of God. You are trying to read into the verses your own subjective opinions or your own modern KJV-only philosophy. You present no verses that teach what you try to claim.

 

We do. A simple internet search will show you that brother.

 

Perhaps you are misinformed or uninformed. The New Testament was given by inspiration of God to apostles and prophets [NT prophets] so that any NT writers who were not apostles can be soundly considered prophets.

NT revelation given to holy apostles and prophets (Eph. 3:5)

 

Ok, finally tackling the issue.
So let's start one verse at a time and bear in mind that we let the Bible define the Bible by comparing scripture with scripture.

We both believe Paul's teaching that: 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
In the passage addressed to Timothy, what scripture was Paul referring to? The scriptures just mentioned in the previous verse: 2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Now let me ask you a simple, non-trick question: do you suppose that Timothy, a first century and originally uncircumcised half-breed Greek/Jew from Asia Minor (Acts 16:1-3) had the original autographs with him of a child, or do you suppose he had copies, and possibly translated ones at that?

 

You present your own naturalistic, humanistic KJV-only philosophy that is not stated in the Scriptures.
You are reading into verses your own subjective, human opinions.

 

Bible Doctrines Affected by Modern Versions (1/2)

 

Are you doing this intentionally? Because I've specifically said that these verse aren't about the KJB for like the 4th time now.
I'm not talking about the KJB. Open your ears!

 

Please inform me then. Give me a verse that Mark or Luke were prophets.

 

Wow you read all that in like what, 90 seconds?

 

Eh?

 

Have you ever noticed that Gabriel calls his Lord Jesus Christ "thing"?Back to that is a second.
Look at Genesis 3:15. This is not the only time the Bible uses the third person singular to refer to the Son of God. The angel Gabriel himself called Christ "that holy THING": "Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy THING which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Was it therefore Gabriel's intent to lessen the deity of Christ? I trow not.
To go back to: "Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; IT shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise HIS heel." The "it" is immediately defined by the personal adjective "his" as a person. So the "it" was only a grammatical reference to Christ as being a "seed". I don't quite see what is the problem here.
The Spirit of God is a person and acts as an influence also, and sometimes, just as people, can be referred to as "it".

Let's not tone the words of God down to our level of conceit.