The KJVO Myth Has NO Scriptural support!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
63
Pennsylvania
✟26,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Hmmmm. Guess the KJVOs have conceded they CANNOT counter the fact that their myth has no Scriptural support & therefore cannot be true. However, they're too ashemed to admit it.
I guess those who oppose the Scriptural truth that ...

30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Proverbs

and ...

12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalm

God has done so in both the original languages, and in the King James Bible.

Do you believe God has preserved His words in a single version you can hold in your hand? If not, you have no Scriptural evidence to support your position.
 
Upvote 0

Phil W

Well-Known Member
Apr 15, 2019
3,187
675
69
Mesa, Az
✟67,340.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The KJV was meant to please the reader, in the language of 400 years ago. Still, nothing to do with the FACT that the KJVO myth has NO Scriptural support & is therefore false.
So what changed?
Not the word of God, that's for sure.
That is unless you have a version of scripture that substitutes "complete" for "perfect".
That seems to please the present day publishers and reader's aversion to perfection...that Jesus commanded in Matt 5:48.

BTW, as there was no other version of scripture when the KJV was published, there was no need to include a defense of itself.
There is indeed, no scriptural evidence of a KJV only straw man.,
 
Upvote 0

Concord1968

LCMS Lutheran
Sep 29, 2018
790
437
Pacific Northwest
✟23,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
BTW, as there was no other version of scripture when the KJV was published
Except for the Geneva Bible, the Bishop's Bible, the Great Bible, Tyndale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Luther's Bible, ect. That's not even touching on the Latin Vulgate and various Greek translations.
 
Upvote 0

Phil W

Well-Known Member
Apr 15, 2019
3,187
675
69
Mesa, Az
✟67,340.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Except for the Geneva Bible, the Bishop's Bible, the Great Bible, Tyndale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Luther's Bible, ect. That's not even touching on the Latin Vulgate and various Greek translations.
Are you as "anti" those versions too?
Do any of those substitute "complete" for "perfect" in 2 Tim 3:17?
Which version do you rely on as the word of God?
 
Upvote 0

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
63
Pennsylvania
✟26,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Yes, but the issue isn't nearly about correct translation, as it is about determining what is and isn't Scripture. This is the issue that Johann Semler (as well as his disciples) had. They denied both the inspiration of all Scripture, and the authoritativenes of all Scripture; hence they developed the rules of Textual Criticism to remove those portions of text which they felt were either inspired, nor authoritative.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I took the time to read through this thread this morning and I am just wondering if anyone posting on it has studied Greek and/or Hebrew.

I'm pretty sure that the answer to that is a big "no."

Do any of those substitute "complete" for "perfect" in 2 Tim 3:17?

The Greek word (in all Greek texts) is ἄρτιος (artios). It does not occur elsewhere in the NT, but elsewhere in Greek literature it means something like "exactly suitable for the purpose."

Probably the best translations of 2 Timothy 3:17 are the NIV (so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work) and perhaps the NAB (so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work).

hence they developed the rules of Textual Criticism to remove those portions of text which they felt were either inspired, nor authoritative.

That is an absolute and total misrepresentation of what Textual Criticism is about. Textual Criticism is about comparing ancient manuscripts and, where they differ, trying to determine which is the closest to the exact words of the original.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
63
Pennsylvania
✟26,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I'm pretty sure that the answer to that is a big "no."



The Greek word (in all Greek texts) is ἄρτιος (artios). It does not occur elsewhere in the NT, but elsewhere in Greek literature it means something like "exactly suitable for the purpose."

Probably the best translations of 2 Timothy 3:17 are the NIV (so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work) and perhaps the NAB (so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work).



That is an absolute and total misrepresentation of what Textual Criticism is about. Textual Criticism is about comparing ancient manuscripts and, where they differ, trying to determine which is the closest to the exact words of the original.
Maybe you need to study the origin of Textual Criticism, and people like Johann Semler.

I find it interesting that even Dr. James White who has made an abundance of videos, and written against the KJV only position, and also knows Greek rather well, believes the NIV is practically a joke. He does say that it in no way qualifies to be a Bible.

The NIV abuses Bible doctrine horribly!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Maybe you need to study the origin of Textual Criticism, and people like Johann Semler.

Maybe you need to find out what Textual Criticism actually is.

I find it interesting that even Dr. James White who has made an abundance of videos, and written against the KJV only position, and also knows Greek rather well, believes the NIV is practically a joke. He does say that it in no way qualifies to be a Bible.

And here you are absolutely and totally misrepresenting what James what says. He says nothing like that at all. In fact, in The King James Only Controversy, he writes very positively about the NIV.

The NIV abuses Bible doctrine horribly!

And here you are absolutely and totally misrepresenting the NIV. Once again, what you say is completely false.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,784
Pacific Northwest
✟728,105.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Are you as "anti" those versions too?
Do any of those substitute "complete" for "perfect" in 2 Tim 3:17?
Which version do you rely on as the word of God?

The Greek word translated as "perfect" means "complete", which is also one of the definitions for the English word "perfect".

This is apparently a case where you are bothered by other translations because they challenge your particular interpretation of how an English word is being used.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Radagast
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,784
Pacific Northwest
✟728,105.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I guess those who oppose the Scriptural truth that ...

30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Proverbs

and ...

12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalm

God has done so in both the original languages, and in the King James Bible.

Do you believe God has preserved His words in a single version you can hold in your hand? If not, you have no Scriptural evidence to support your position.

What do those passages have to do with the Bible?

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
63
Pennsylvania
✟26,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Maybe you need to find out what Textual Criticism actually is.



And here you are absolutely and totally misrepresenting what James what says. He says nothing like that at all. In fact, in The King James Only Controversy, he writes very positively about the NIV.



And here you are absolutely and totally misrepresenting the NIV. Once again, what you say is completely false.
A study of the history of Textual Criticism will show that many consider Semler the father or founder of New Testament historical criticism. Werner Georg Kümmel, for instance, states, “Semler is the founder of the historical study of the New Testament.”
(Werner Georg Kümmel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems, trans. McLean Gilmor and Howard C. Kee (London: SCM Press, 1973), 68; similarly David S. Dockery, “New Testament Interpretation: A Historical Survey,” in New Testament Criticism & Interpretation, ed. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery)

Semler’s ultimate motivation was to detect―and remove―the time-bound content of the New Testament.
Cf. Hornig, Studien, 279.

How exactly am I misrepresenting these facts?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,784
Pacific Northwest
✟728,105.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Do we find the "words of the Lord" at a place other than the Bible?

Well, the Prophets proclaimed the word of the LORD, some of what they wrote was written down which would eventually become part of the Bible.

The Apostles preached the word of God/the word of the Lord, i.e. the Gospel. This message existed before and apart from the Bible. As the preaching of the Gospel is the preaching, the announcement, of the good news of what God has done and accomplished for us and the whole world in and through Jesus Christ.

So there's that.

The Bible uses the term "word" in a variety of ways and in different contexts. For example, when the Psalmist says, "Your word is a lamp unto my feet" he means God's instruction in the Torah.

I'm not saying there aren't occasions where "word" refers to Scripture, at least in part; but generally when I see people do this they are reading things anachronistically. They are reading "the Bible" into texts where that simply isn't what's being mentioned.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
63
Pennsylvania
✟26,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Well, the Prophets proclaimed the word of the LORD, some of what they wrote was written down which would eventually become part of the Bible.

The Apostles preached the word of God/the word of the Lord, i.e. the Gospel. This message existed before and apart from the Bible. As the preaching of the Gospel is the preaching, the announcement, of the good news of what God has done and accomplished for us and the whole world in and through Jesus Christ.

So there's that.

The Bible uses the term "word" in a variety of ways and in different contexts. For example, when the Psalmist says, "Your word is a lamp unto my feet" he means God's instruction in the Torah.

I'm not saying there aren't occasions where "word" refers to Scripture, at least in part; but generally when I see people do this they are reading things anachronistically. They are reading "the Bible" into texts where that simply isn't what's being mentioned.

-CryptoLutheran
1) I am not saying that every word spoken by God, the prophets, or the Apostles, is written in Scripture. (I think we both know that would be common sense.)
2) God did choose to give us Scripture, (which are the words of God), and they are pure.
Why would it then be unreasonable to apply these texts to the Scriptures (the Bible), are they not the Words of God that God directed his prophets and apostles to put in written form?
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,784
Pacific Northwest
✟728,105.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
1) I am not saying that every word spoken by God, the prophets, or the Apostles, is written in Scripture. (I think we both know that would be common sense.)
2) God did choose to give us Scripture, (which are the words of God), and they are pure.
Why would it then be unreasonable to apply these texts to the Scriptures (the Bible), are they not the Words of God that God directed his prophets and apostles to put in written form?

Because context matters if we're going to be exegetes and students of Scripture.

Further, the Bible isn't "the words of God". The Bible is that collection of holy and, by the historic confession of the holy Christian Church, divinely inspired set of writings which have been received and accepted down through the ages; as those works which are to be read aloud in the Church's sacred liturgy in order for the Faithful to hear, receive, and confess the word of God. To hear the Gospel, to hear and encounter Christ in His word to us which is contained and communicated in these texts. This Canon of Scripture, the Bible, is for our benefit as God's people that we might, age to age, hear the unfaltering truth of the holy and precious Gospel. For here, in these Scriptures, is contained the one Divine Word and Utterance Himself, Jesus Christ our God and Lord.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
63
Pennsylvania
✟26,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Because context matters if we're going to be exegetes and students of Scripture.

Further, the Bible isn't "the words of God". The Bible is that collection of holy and, by the historic confession of the holy Christian Church, divinely inspired set of writings which have been received and accepted down through the ages; as those works which are to be read aloud in the Church's sacred liturgy in order for the Faithful to hear, receive, and confess the word of God. To hear the Gospel, to hear and encounter Christ in His word to us which is contained and communicated in these texts. This Canon of Scripture, the Bible, is for our benefit as God's people that we might, age to age, hear the unfaltering truth of the holy and precious Gospel. For here, in these Scriptures, is contained the one Divine Word and Utterance Himself, Jesus Christ our God and Lord.

-CryptoLutheran
Are you saying the "Bible" isn't "Scripture"?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,784
Pacific Northwest
✟728,105.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Are you saying the "Bible" isn't "Scripture"?

The Bible is the collection of Scripture into a Canon. So for most practical purposes in the modern day there's no difference to speak of. But historically it's an important distinction to make.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.