The KJVO Myth Has NO Scriptural support!

[ViaCrucis]

Is not "Scripture" (singular) made up of "words" (plural)?

Yes, human ones, because the Scriptures were written by people.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dr. Jack]

Yes, human ones, because the Scriptures were written by people.

-CryptoLutheran

So when God said ...

30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Proverbs

... He was talking about "people", not actual "words"?

 

[ViaCrucis]

So when God said ...

30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Proverbs

... He was talking about "people", not actual "words"?

...What?

In Proverb 30:5-6 Agur is writing about the truthfulness and assurance of God; what God says is true and trustworthy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dr. Jack]

...What?

In Proverb 30:5-6 Agur is writing about the truthfulness and assurance of God; what God says is true and trustworthy.

-CryptoLutheran

And when God speaks He uses "words".

30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Proverbs

When God speaks (words) every one of the words He speaks is pure.

That is why we call the Bible "Scripture", because the Bible in its entirety is both the "word of God" singular; and the "words" (plural) of God, because He said "words", not just "a" word.

 

[Willie T]

I fully agree with you but you will find it is the most accurate version.

The saddest part of a statement like that is that no one alive speaks any of the ancient languages the original Biblical manuscripts were written in.... so, none of us really knows how "accurate" any of the translations are.

 

[Dr. Jack]

The saddest part of a statement like that is that no one alive speaks any of the ancient languages the original Biblical manuscripts were written in.... so, none of us really knows how "accurate" any of the translations are.

I hate to tell you this, but Greek has been preserved throughout the ages. Just one group (for example) is the Greek Orthodox Church. They have been using the Byzantine text throughout history.

The Catholic Church has been using Latin, and the Orthodox Jews, Hebrew.

Since little is debated (normally) about the OT, I will simply address the fact that there are tens of thousands of MSS supporting the NT text, in various languages. It is quite clear that the Biblical Text has been preserved.

 

[Willie T]

I hate to tell you this, but Greek has been preserved throughout the ages. Just one group (for example) is the Greek Orthodox Church. They have been using the Byzantine text throughout history.

I'm sure they probably honestly THINK they have truly preserved the language, but I think we all know better than that.

 

[Dr. Jack]

I'm sure they probably honestly THINK they have truly preserved the language, but I think we all know better than that.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

 

[ViaCrucis]

And when God speaks He uses "words".

30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Proverbs

When God speaks (words) every one of the words He speaks is pure.

That is why we call the Bible "Scripture", because the Bible in its entirety is both the "word of God" singular; and the "words" (plural) of God, because He said "words", not just "a" word.

We call the Bible Scripture because it is scriptura--writings--and it is Holy Scripture because the writings which constitute the Bible are holy and divinely inspired for our benefit as God's people.

It is called the word of God because through the Scriptures God communicates the unassailable and unalterable truth of His Word, Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radagast]

The saddest part of a statement like that is that no one alive speaks any of the ancient languages the original Biblical manuscripts were written in.... so, none of us really knows how "accurate" any of the translations are.

For ancient Hebrew we sometimes have to guess what the words mean (though not very often).

But ancient Greek has been in continuing use, and together with the masses of ancient Greek literature, there is no doubt as to what it means.

And the most accurate translation out there is probably the ESV.

 

[Phil W]

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).

I disagree.
Which phrase do you think makes the devil most angry..."thoroughly equipped", "competent", or "perfect", in regard to Christianity?
I find that those who use the first two phrases also fight against the idea of the perfection of those reborn from God's seed.
Perfect off spring of God threatens their pocketbooks...it seems.
They concur with the devil's bumper sticker that states..."Nobody's perfect".
Certainly not of God who commands it in Matt 5:48.

 

[Phil W]

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.

Not so much "my" interpretation, but the diluting of the message God has brought forth in the KJV of the bible.

 

[Radagast]

I disagree.
Which phrase do you think makes the devil most angry..."thoroughly equipped", "competent", or "perfect", in regard to Christianity?

And do you have any knowledge of Greek to back up your disagreement?

As I said on that verse (2 Timothy 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." It does not mean "perfect."

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).

 

[kiwimac]

Not so much "my" interpretation, but the diluting of the message God has brought forth in the KJV of the bible.

The KJV is not the standard by which we judge other English translations let alone the Greek and Hebrew.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Not so much "my" interpretation, but the diluting of the message God has brought forth in the KJV of the bible.

Since God didn't bring forth His message "in the KJV of the Bible" then this is an altogether moot point.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I disagree.
Which phrase do you think makes the devil most angry..."thoroughly equipped", "competent", or "perfect", in regard to Christianity?

I doubt anyone here has spoken to the devil to ask him.

I find that those who use the first two phrases also fight against the idea of the perfection of those reborn from God's seed.

Translation: Your particular interpretations and beliefs are being challenged, and you don't like that.

If taking what Scripture says seriously is a threat to your theology, then the problem is your theology.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Phil W]

And do you have any knowledge of Greek to back up your disagreement?

As you are unwilling to answer my question, I will wait for your answer before answering your question.

As I said on that verse (2 Timothy 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." It does not mean "perfect."

And the devil rejoices!
But wait a second...doesn't "exactly suitable for the purpose" mean...perfect?
Besides, your interpretation is used AFTER the word perfect, so perfect stands alone in it's meaning.
The man of God CAN be perfect.

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).

So the verse actually says..."That the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
Isn't that a useless redundancy?

It is my opinion that versions other that the KJV are not of God because they remove the essence of Christianity from the text.
In this particular case, the intention of "perfection" for those adhering to the actual word of God.
If you don't want folks to be perfect you will certainly remove any trace of the notion of it from the "bible".

 

[Phil W]

The KJV is not the standard by which we judge other English translations let alone the Greek and Hebrew.

I heartily agree.
Does the Spirit in you concur with the modernizers in changing the word "perfect" in 2 Tim 3:17 to "complete"?
The Spirit in me chokes on the change.

 

[Phil W]

Since God didn't bring forth His message "in the KJV of the Bible" then this is an altogether moot point.

-CryptoLutheran

It was certainly effective in that purpose for me and my future salvation.

 

[Phil W]

I doubt anyone here has spoken to the devil to ask him.
Translation: Your particular interpretations and beliefs are being challenged, and you don't like that.
If taking what Scripture says seriously is a threat to your theology, then the problem is your theology.

-CryptoLutheran

If you need to change the words to suit your theology it may indicate the words of God are not what you seek to bolster that theology.