God promised to preserve His words believers believed they have it

[Conan]

Quote box removed.

That you pretend and make believe and woefully limit those promises to one not perfect English translation shows that you take the word of God out of context to make a golden idol out of the KJV. The KJV is a bible translation not a golden idol.

 

[glenlogie]

Quote Box removed

How then did the KJV cams to be.

 

[logos1560]

Quote box removed.

It is a promise that I believe. You are wrong to try to suggest that I do not believe it.

God was just as faithful to keep His promises before 1611 as afterwards. There is no Scripture that states that God's promises are bound and tied to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England critics in 1611. There is not Scripture that suggests that God contradicted Scriptural truth (James 3:16) to show partiality to English-speaking people after 1611. You keep trying to add to Scripture inconsistent opinions of men that God did not say. You advocate KJV-only opinions that conflict with scriptural truth. You try to read into verses human opinions that are not taught in the verses. You try in effect to invent and advocate a modern KJV-only command that God did not command. Your modern, subjective, human KJV-only reasoning/teaching is not scriptural.

 

[logos1560]

Quote box removed

I believe and accept all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves. God's promises directly concern the exact, specific words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. Those exact, specific words were the original-language words of Scripture.

It is KJV-only reasoning/teaching that would in effect suggest that God failed to preserve all His words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles so that the preserved original-language words of Scripture are no longer considered the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations including the KJV. KJV-only reasoning/teaching advocates an inconsistent, incorrect view of the preservation of the Scriptures as it in effect attempts to make an imperfect English translation superior to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

 

[robycop3]

Quote box removed

MMRRPP! WRONG!

For years, I've posted the CURRENT KJVO myth. I just don't see the need to write "current" every time I mention it, as that fact should be obvious.

The "evidence" does NOT show any past organized KJVO myth. It's just a collection of individual opinions. You cannot show us any pre-1930 book dedicated to hawking the KJVO myth. And, as I said, virtually all current KJVO literature has at least some material from those first 3 boox. A classic example is the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" which is hawked by KJVOs trying to lend some Scriptural support to their myth, which actually is NOT found in Scripture whatsoever.

The KJVO myth remains phony as a Ford Corvette!

Also, you didn't answer my question..."Can you PROVE the KJVO myth is true?" Nor did you respond to my statement that the KJV is far-from-inerrant. Think it isn't? Then, please point out any ancient manuscript of the Revelation that has the words "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5, as the KJV does.

 

[Theo1689]

Quote box removed

There are many errors in your presentation here.

First of all, let's talk about the verse, "my words shall not pass away".

1) Is that referring to the entire Bible, or only Jesus' words? (Prove it.)

2) Is that referring to each individual "word" (and each corresponding syllable), or is it referring simply to the overall message ("rhema")? (Prove it.)

3) Is it referring to the preservation of "His words" (whatever we determine that means):
a) in the original languages (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic);
b) in English;
c) in all languages of the world?

(Prove it.)

4) If it means "all languages of the world", then if translations in different languages read differently, which one is correct? How do you determine it? (Prove it.)

5) If one English translation renders John 11:35 as "Jesus wept", and another as "Jesus cried", and yet another as "Jesus sobbed", are they all correct, or are two of them in error? And if the latter, how do we determine which is the correct rendering? (Prove it.)

KJVO's make a GREAT many assumptions in getting to their conclusion, and I have yet to see them substantiate ANY of them.

Quote box removed

Just as you can pretend to not see all the errors in the KJV, such as 1 John 5:7-8, Rev. 16:5, etc. etc.

And we can recognize these errors precisely BECAUSE God has preserved His word.

Quote box removed.

Take your own advice.

 

[glenlogie]

Quote box removed

Will you be the first KJVO to produce scripture that declares the KJV to be perfect.

 

[logos1560]

Quote box removed

Your question is pointless and serves no purpose since God did not choose to preserve the original autographs. Are you attempting to reject what God choose to allow to be preserved: the original-language words of Scripture preserved in manuscript copies with variations and differences?

Believers just have to deal with the fact that the existing, preserved original-language manuscript copies of Scripture have some textual differences including copying errors so there is a need to apply scriptural truth to attempt to remove any additions, restore any omissions, and correct any changes by imperfect men.

 

[logos1560]

Quote box removed

I do not seek the autographs so your statement is not true. You jump to wrong conclusions.

You ask invalid questions based on strawman distortions or based on premises that you do not prove to be true. Your questions do not stand. Questions do not determine nor establish truth. You do not answer the questions that you are asked so you do not practice what you preach.

I accept what God chose to allow to be preserved. The existing preserved Scriptures in the original languages remain the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations just as the KJV translators also acknowledged.

Bible translations are not the final authority. Bible translations are dependent upon the greater authority of their underlying original-language texts. Bible translations have proper derived authority from the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

 

[glenlogie]

Quote box removed

Another KJVOer refuses to answer a question. As usual

 

[RiJoRi]

I wonder what would happen if we had the autographs. "Nehushtan" comes to mind...

Another question is why God allowed these variations to occur, along with how He has preserved it...

Just food for thought...
--Rich

 

[imJRR]

You and KJV-only advocates fail to heed and honor God's warnings and instructions. Your human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning conflicts with those warnings.

The Church of England makers of the KJV acknowledged that added many words for which they did not have any original-language words of Scripture. In their 1611 marginal notes, the Church of England makers of the KJV also acknowledged that they gave no English rendering for several original-language words of Scripture.

Which means that the makers of the KJV were honest and truthful. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for KJVONLYists.

 

[robycop3]

Hmmmm...Seems our friend J316 has taken a powder, at least for now. I hope he's taking the time to study the KJVO myth to see just how phony it is, & realizes it's a pox upon Christianity, invented by Satan, who placed it in the minds of some of his unknowing followers. It CANNOT be of GOD, since it's nowhere in God's word.

 

[RiJoRi]

Hmmmm...Seems our friend J316 has taken a powder, at least for now. I hope he's taking the time to study the KJVO myth to see just how phony it is, & realizes it's a pox upon Christianity, invented by Satan, who placed it in the minds of some of his unknowing followers. It CANNOT be of GOD, since it's nowhere in God's word.

Not only did he take a powder, he took all his messages as well! (Don't be shy, robycop3, tell us how you really feel! )

--Rich
Just for the record, I totally agree with you.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Which means that the makers of the KJV were honest and truthful. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for KJVONLYists.

The translators on the 1611 Kjv were not Kjvo!

 

[glenlogie]

Not only did he take a powder, he took all his messages as well! (Don't be shy, robycop3, tell us how you really feel! )

--Rich
Just for the record, I totally agree with you.

KJVOs are notorious for hit and run posting. They refuse to discuss anything beyond their pronouncements

 

[YeshuaFan]

Hmmmm...Seems our friend J316 has taken a powder, at least for now. I hope he's taking the time to study the KJVO myth to see just how phony it is, & realizes it's a pox upon Christianity, invented by Satan, who placed it in the minds of some of his unknowing followers. It CANNOT be of GOD, since it's nowhere in God's word.

One can be a KJVP, based upon textual evidences and the scriptures, but not KJVO!

 

[YeshuaFan]

KJVOs are notorious for hit and run posting. They refuse to discuss anything beyond their pronouncements

They do avoid any biblical or textual logic, that's for sure!

 

[glenlogie]

They do avoid any biblical or textual logic, that's for sure!

So true

 

[YeshuaFan]

So true

Those who support either the Critical Greek texts or the Majority texts have ample textual evidences for their positions, Kjvo and TR only not so much!