Sola scriptura

[Bible Highlighter]

That doesn't change the meaning of perfect. Since it was perfect, the original established the standard, not the other way around. Perfection does not need to "catch up with the times". The times have to catch up with perfection.

God's thoughts are not our thoughts.


...

 

[sculleywr]

God's thoughts are not our thoughts.


...

They are also not hidden knowledge that is only revealed to the elite. That's something KJV Purism has in common with Gnosticism.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

They are also not hidden knowledge that is only revealed to the elite. That's something KJV Purism has in common with Gnosticism.

And the disciples came, and said unto him,

"Why speakest thou unto them in parables?"​

He answered and said unto them,

"Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.”

(Matthew 13:10-11)


...​

 

[sculleywr]

And the disciples came, and said unto him,

"Why speakest thou unto them in parables?"​

He answered and said unto them,

"Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.”

(Matthew 13:10-11)


...​

Here you act as if I am not a Christian, because ALL the saints were given ALL that is required to be part of the Kingdom of Heaven (Jude 3). Therefore, the only 2 ways in which the purity of the KJV would not be revealed to me are the following:

1. I am not a Christian, and therefore the purity of the KJV would not be revealed to me
2. The KJV is not pure, and therefore the purity of the KJV would not be revealed to me.

Which one is it?

The fact is that all that is necessary for the Christian to believe or know was revealed through Christ directly to the Apostles. Since the KJV did not exist then, and Scripture was not yet complete, the purity of the KJV is neither necessary nor revealed by God. You are not special, Jason. You have not been privy to some special revelation from God. Others have made that claim. They were all wrong. You are too.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Here you act as if I am not a Christian, because ALL the saints were given ALL that is required to be part of the Kingdom of Heaven (Jude 3). Therefore, the only 2 ways in which the purity of the KJV would not be revealed to me are the following:

1. I am not a Christian, and therefore the purity of the KJV would not be revealed to me
2. The KJV is not pure, and therefore the purity of the KJV would not be revealed to me.

Which one is it?

The fact is that all that is necessary for the Christian to believe or know was revealed through Christ directly to the Apostles. Since the KJV did not exist then, and Scripture was not yet complete, the purity of the KJV is neither necessary nor revealed by God. You are not special, Jason. You have not been privy to some special revelation from God. Others have made that claim. They were all wrong. You are too.

May God bless you.
And please be well.

...

 

[sculleywr]

That did nothing to answer the question.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That did nothing to answer the question.

Yes, that was my intention; And I am under no obligation to always give you an answer, my friend.
For sometimes in reply to certain things people say, things are best left unsaid.


...

 

[sculleywr]

Yes, that was my intention; And I am under no obligation to always give you an answer, my friend.
For sometimes in reply to certain things people say, things are best left unsaid.


...

Things can't be said in defense of the KJV's purity because they don't exist. You have nothing to say that is logical, empirically based, or Scriptural.

Let's break it down. The translators said the KJV had errors, and that was the reason they included the marginal notes. The comparison to its own source text reveals errors in the translation. The changing of language over the 4 centuries since its creation has created errors. And finally, God never revealed to anyone that the KJV is perfect.

Finally, when it comes to the Scripture, it says "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear". Am I not a man? Did I not ask you for a reason? Or is the KJV's perfection not necessary for one to have hope? If that be the case, then it isn't true.

Things are only best left unsaid if they are lies or are going to tear people down. Considering that all I have ever seen KJV Onlyism do is tear people down, from 20 years of living in KJV Only churches, I'll agree with your last sentence. KJV Onlyism is best left unsaid.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Things can't be said in defense of the KJV's purity because they don't exist. You have nothing to say that is logical, empirically based, or Scriptural.

Let's break it down. The translators said the KJV had errors, and that was the reason they included the marginal notes. The comparison to its own source text reveals errors in the translation. The changing of language over the 4 centuries since its creation has created errors. And finally, God never revealed to anyone that the KJV is perfect.

Finally, when it comes to the Scripture, it says "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear". Am I not a man? Did I not ask you for a reason? Or is the KJV's perfection not necessary for one to have hope? If that be the case, then it isn't true.

Things are only best left unsaid if they are lies or are going to tear people down. Considering that all I have ever seen KJV Onlyism do is tear people down, from 20 years of living in KJV Only churches, I'll agree with your last sentence. KJV Onlyism is best left unsaid.

First, as I said before, I am not a KJV-Onlyist. I believe in using Modern Translations. I also believe Scripture existed perfectly in other languages thru out the past.

Second, I do not agree with certain KJV-Onlyist's behavior. But I have seen the attitude of those who hate the KJV as being worse.

Third, I have defended the KJV as being the perfect Word of God over the years more times than I care to count. I do not need to convinced of such a position. I know it to be true (even if you do not agree). But I don't care to discuss the issue with you because it appears to get you upset and because you immediately dismissed out of hand my explanations for the verses you think are a problem in the KJV.

In either case, if you or another person are looking for reasons for a defense of the KJV, I have listed a few reasons here on another forum:

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...bible-vs-rest-other-bibles-7.html#post1628099


...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

... ALL the saints were given ALL that is required to be part of the Kingdom of Heaven (Jude 3).

EXACTLY !
Why do you disagree with this (Jude 3) ?

 

[sculleywr]

First, as I said before, I am not a KJV-Onlyist. I believe in using Modern Translations. I also believe Scripture existed perfectly in other languages thru out the past.

Second, I do not agree with certain KJV-Onlyist's behavior. But I have seen the attitude of those who hate the KJV as being worse.

Third, I have defended the KJV as being the perfect Word of God over the years more times than I care to count. I do not need to convinced of such a position. I know it to be true (even if you do not agree). But I don't care to discuss the issue with you because it appears to get you upset and because you immediately dismissed out of hand my explanations for the verses you think are a problem in the KJV.

In either case, what are my reasons for defending the KJV?

I have listed a few reasons here on another forum:

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...bible-vs-rest-other-bibles-7.html#post1628099


...

Do any of them include a provable declaration of God or answer to the various obvious errors in the KJV? No they do not. You are believing a manmade tradition as equal to the Scripture. So yes, you do have to prove it to be true. Either that, or you must recant your statement that Scripture is the highest authority in the Christian world. The fact is that you cannot be logical saying that the KJV is perfect but it is fine to use a "corrupted" version of Scripture. At least the internal logic of KJV Onlyism is mostly consistent. But if the KJV is perfect, it MUST be the ONLY perfect Scripture out there, for several reasons:

1. It does not match any Scripture in any language that has been made with perfect synchronicity.
2. It does not even match the Greek texts we do have with perfect synchronicity, and that includes the Textus Receptus from which it was mostly translated.

This means that God loves English speakers more than any other language group that has ever existed, including those who came before. And if you bring up the claim that Scripture exists in every language in one perfect version for each, we know that not to be true for several reasons:

1. There are still many languages with no written form, and therefore no Scripture.
2. There are at least 78 languages that can never have a written form, unless there is a fundamental change in the way in which we write, since there is no way to perfectly convert any Sign Language into written form. They are not just code for the spoken language around them. I say this as a person who actually interprets between English and American Sign Language. The grammar and syntax of all manual languages includes many functions which resist conversion into written form, and even contextual forms that can be effected by things which are "said" many sentences ago. And that is just using ASL as the example. There are more complex manual languages like Japanese Shuwa. Since these languages cannot be converted into written form, and because the dialectical variation across users can vary immensely with vocabulary and grammar changing from city to city and state to state in ASL, just one translation will never be enough.


Besides that, none of the three claims can be true of all of Christian history. In fact, the Apostolic and Post-Apostolic era was filled with errant copies spread hither and thither, and most churches had to do with only one letter, or none at all, from the Scriptures. Churches of the time treated the chance to read directly from Scripture as such a high honor that they held an ostentatious parade from the place the letter they had was stored to the place they would gather to worship! It wasn't long before the original letters of the Apostles were lost, and only copies remained. Since it cannot be established which copy is perfect, and we probably don't even have a first generation or second generation copy of the letters of even the Apostles, there is no evidence that this interpretation is anything more than an interpretation of Scripture that has nothing in the way of backing.

As to the second in your list, There isn't a single modification in any carefully performed translation or difference with the KJV that harms the doctrine of my Church. If your church couldn't stand doctrinally if all KJV's were destroyed, then it's quite weak. Of course, KJV Purism would be impossible to believe if all KJV's were to be destroyed.

Thirdly, the argument of biblical numerics is quite weak. There have been many predictions made using these so called numerics that have completely and utterly failed, including the time of the Rapture itself. Quite frankly, the coincidental events of numerics are all just coincidence. There are many more cases in Scripture where numerics could never be applied than the handful of times where it happens that a number can be used. This, compounded with the fact that many ancient languages had letters that doubled as numbers makes it no more than superstition

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Do any of them include a provable declaration of God or answer to the various obvious errors in the KJV? No they do not. You are believing a manmade tradition as equal to the Scripture. So yes, you do have to prove it to be true. Either that, or you must recant your statement that Scripture is the highest authority in the Christian world. The fact is that you cannot be logical saying that the KJV is perfect but it is fine to use a "corrupted" version of Scripture. At least the internal logic of KJV Onlyism is mostly consistent. But if the KJV is perfect, it MUST be the ONLY perfect Scripture out there, for several reasons:

1. It does not match any Scripture in any language that has been made with perfect synchronicity.
2. It does not even match the Greek texts we do have with perfect synchronicity, and that includes the Textus Receptus from which it was mostly translated.

This means that God loves English speakers more than any other language group that has ever existed, including those who came before. And if you bring up the claim that Scripture exists in every language in one perfect version for each, we know that not to be true for several reasons:

1. There are still many languages with no written form, and therefore no Scripture.
2. There are at least 78 languages that can never have a written form, unless there is a fundamental change in the way in which we write, since there is no way to perfectly convert any Sign Language into written form. They are not just code for the spoken language around them. I say this as a person who actually interprets between English and American Sign Language. The grammar and syntax of all manual languages includes many functions which resist conversion into written form, and even contextual forms that can be effected by things which are "said" many sentences ago. And that is just using ASL as the example. There are more complex manual languages like Japanese Shuwa. Since these languages cannot be converted into written form, and because the dialectical variation across users can vary immensely with vocabulary and grammar changing from city to city and state to state in ASL, just one translation will never be enough.


Besides that, none of the three claims can be true of all of Christian history. In fact, the Apostolic and Post-Apostolic era was filled with errant copies spread hither and thither, and most churches had to do with only one letter, or none at all, from the Scriptures. Churches of the time treated the chance to read directly from Scripture as such a high honor that they held an ostentatious parade from the place the letter they had was stored to the place they would gather to worship! It wasn't long before the original letters of the Apostles were lost, and only copies remained. Since it cannot be established which copy is perfect, and we probably don't even have a first generation or second generation copy of the letters of even the Apostles, there is no evidence that this interpretation is anything more than an interpretation of Scripture that has nothing in the way of backing.

As to the second in your list, There isn't a single modification in any carefully performed translation or difference with the KJV that harms the doctrine of my Church. If your church couldn't stand doctrinally if all KJV's were destroyed, then it's quite weak. Of course, KJV Purism would be impossible to believe if all KJV's were to be destroyed.

Thirdly, the argument of biblical numerics is quite weak. There have been many predictions made using these so called numerics that have completely and utterly failed, including the time of the Rapture itself. Quite frankly, the coincidental events of numerics are all just coincidence. There are many more cases in Scripture where numerics could never be applied than the handful of times where it happens that a number can be used. This, compounded with the fact that many ancient languages had letters that doubled as numbers makes it no more than superstition

I provided the reasons not so much for you but for others so as to give them a reason for the hope that is within them. I was not expecting you to accept it. Hence, why I have no interest in debating this topic with you.

Have a nice day.
And may God bless you.

Side Note:

Oh and I could have written a ten page essay refuting your post with Scripture, but like I said, I believe you are not open to hearing it, so it would be a waste of my time. For I have already debated this topic more times than I care to count. I provided the basic reasons, it is up to others if they want to dig deeper or not (and or to believe it).


...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Oh and I could have written a ten page essay refuting your post with Scripture, but like I said, I believe you are not open to hearing it, so it would be a waste of my time.

The key lies somewhere in his life, that he hasn't listened for many years to the Bible believers.
Why someone depends on others in their own life (medical, financial, physical needs; ?)(family) etc...
is sometimes a mystery, and requires long drawing out like drawing water out of a deep well.
When they are not willing, there's nothing to be done.
But if they are willing, they end up knowing the truth and being set free
from those they depended on before. Simple BIBLE. Why that's so hard for so many to believe, I don't know,
except it is fulfillment of God's Word that that is how things are.

 

[sculleywr]

I provided the reasons not so much for you but for others so as to give them a reason for the hope that is within them. I was not expecting you to accept it. Hence, why I have no interest in debating this topic with you.

Have a nice day.
And may God bless you.

Side Note:

Oh and I could have written a ten page essay refuting your post with Scripture, but like I said, I believe you are not open to hearing it, so it would be a waste of my time. For I have already debated this topic more times than I care to count. I provided the basic reasons, it is up to others if they want to dig deeper or not (and or to believe it).


...

I rejected it. Remember, I was raised with that belief. I did not leave it lightly. Evidence is what is needed, and you provide no evidence that meets the requirement. In point of fact, if you take away all assumptions, you have no points, because they assume the KJV is correct.

So by not giving real reasons, you're basically telling people they shouldn't think critically about the KJV Purist stance. Critical thinking destroys KJV Purism every time it is introduced. Why? Because the stance has no evidence to support it.

The Catholics used the first two reasons you gave to prove the Vulgate was perfect.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I rejected it. Remember, I was raised with that belief. I did not leave it lightly. Evidence is what is needed, and you provide no evidence that meets the requirement. In point of fact, if you take away all assumptions, you have no points, because they assume the KJV is correct.

So by not giving real reasons, you're basically telling people they shouldn't think critically about the KJV Purist stance. Critical thinking destroys KJV Purism every time it is introduced. Why? Because the stance has no evidence to support it.

The Catholics used the first two reasons you gave to prove the Vulgate was perfect.

Bye.

May God bless you.

...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The Catholics used the first two reasons you gave to prove the Vulgate was perfect.

Really ? Was anything about the vulgate correct ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Bye.

May God bless you.

...

Is there ANYONE Yhwh does not bless with rain and sunshine today ?

 

[BobRyan]

There are two difficulties here.

1. No Scriptural canon is established by Scripture, so the canon itself is purely tradition.

2. There is no verse that says Scripture is comprehensive, meaning the doctrine of Sola scripture is itself not derived from Scripture.

The error there - is that your entire argument relies on ignoring what the Bible has to say on that subject - and simply "quoting you".

There is... another way.

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL Scripture is inspired by God AND IS to be used for DOCTRINE"
Is 8:20 "To the LAW and to the Testimony - if they speak not according to THIS WORD - there is no light in them"
Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by Paul - WERE SO"
Gal 1:6-9 "IF WE (Apostles) OR an ANGEL from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you - let him be accursed!"

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

 

[sculleywr]

The error there - is that your entire argument relies on ignoring what the Bible has to say on that subject - and simply "quoting you".

There is... another way.

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL Scripture is inspired by God AND IS to be used for DOCTRINE"
Is 8:20 "To the LAW and to the Testimony - if they speak not according to THIS WORD - there is no light in them"
Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by Paul - WERE SO"
Gal 1:6-9 "IF WE (Apostles) OR an ANGEL from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you - let him be accursed!"

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

The Bible doesn't say that Scripture is all we need. It commands oral Tradition. You just ignore Scripture whenever it isn't convenient to agree with it.

You are deserting His command the moment He says "Hold to the Traditions which we have taught you, both in words, and by our epistle".

Sola Scriptura was impossible when ALL of those letters were written. Heck, the Sola Scriptura teaching at the time of the Apostles was that you follow the Scriptural food laws. The Council of Jerusalem went against Sola Scriptura completely.