I do not agree with some claims attributed to KJV-onlyists. I believe God worked through men to write the Bible and I believe God worked through men to preserve the Bible. I agree with the human conclusions that honored the texts used to translate the KJV and dishonor texts in major conflict with the texts underlying the KJV.
Am I saved from the Christian point of view?
- Thread starter garyflet
- Start date
You could have just said, "Yes, I'm a KJV-onlyist".
It isn't required that you agree with every syllable that every other KJV-onlyist says.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Let's give that a go.
Those who attempt to justify God are in the same boat.
Yea.
King James Bible
Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
Perhaps you are conflating God with his angel?
His very son?
Genesis 22:11
And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
Could God have been training his son?
King James Bible
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
King James Bible
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Why should I identify as a KJV-onlyist when I disagree with the worst ideas KJV-onlyists hold that result in their being mocked by others?
Isn't that a good thing?
For instance?
At face value, that position seems to have some merit, except... the supposed "dishonorable" texts were not even available to the KJV scholars. It was IMPOSSIBLE for any of the translators in Oxford and Cambridge to even evaluate the manuscripts that you (without sufficient ability) have rejected. Current scholars in Oxford and Cambridge, having them now available, do not reject them.
Now if you wish to reject the Vaticanus because of your hatred for Catholic, then at least be honest that your assessment is purely emotional and not rational. The Sinaiticus, given the great care and high expense made to create this manuscript, was likely one of those commissioned by Constantine and published by Eusebius back in 325 AD.
Not all manuscripts or fragments, though, are equal in value or importance. And I'm not sure you even understand where the TR came from, or the purpose or reason why Erasmus published his EDITED version.
Read more. Learn more. You've made a conclusion that you are not informed well enough to make.
Which men?
You see, that's the problem. Not all men (or their education) are equal in value or importance.
Most Evangelicals today don't even realize that King James was a Catholic. The Reformation in Germany was theological in nature. The Reformation in England was one of Governance, NOT doctrine. The Anglican Church held to the same Doctrine of Soteriology as did Rome. And the only reason that Martin Luther prevailed in Germany was because of MONEY (not any great affinity for Truth).
And why not those men in Douay Rheims, France, who translated the Bible into English BEFORE the KJV was a gleam in the King's eye?
I keep running into Catholic Smack that are mostly lies, like Catholics don't want people to read the Bible (hateful propaganda). If they didn't, then why did they publish an English Translation in 1582 well before the KJV ??
Which men?
You see, that's the problem. Not all men (or their education) are equal in value or importance.
The canon of books you have in your New Testament was FIRST established in 367 AD by a Catholic Bishop named Athanasius who lived in Alexandria. It's a bit ironic to note that you accept his canon, but reject his Bible.
But were you aware that the Apostle Thomas established a canon over which Rome had absolutely no influence? The Apostle Thomas went into the Parthian empire, and then later into Persia, even down to Jewish settlements along the west coast of India. The common language spoken in that Empire was Aramaic, not Latin, and the Church of the East, started by the Apostle (NO, not the Eastern Orthodox), preserved the canon he established.
Take a look at the table of contents of the only Bible preserved by an Apostle: (and yes, it's written in Aramaic).
TheAramaicScriptures.com
The Holy Aramaic Scriptures: With a literal English translation and transliteration of The Eastern Peshitta New Testament Text, such as given in The Khabouris Codex.
www.thearamaicscriptures.com
Which men?
Certainly God did not work through men who made copies of the Bible having errors (that would be shoddy work on God's part), or copies of the Bible purposefully changed (and we know of a few).
It is well accepted today that the number of the beast in Revelation is 616, the TR being now known to derive from a family of mss. having copyist errors. (The majority of mss. saying 616.)
I'd like to recommend a wonderful book for those who may be interested in learning more about the history of the development of the canon.
The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development…
Completing his New Testament trilogy, eminent theologia…
Thanks kindly,
Rhema
(Not if you follow the wrong humans.....)
;^)
Excellent question.
Thanks,
Rhema
I think so.
I do not believe the KJV is more inspired than manuscript copies of the original writings.
God was aware of all extant texts when the KJV was translated. I trust God knew what He was doing in answer to Tindale's martyred prayer, "Lord, open the eyes of the King of England."
Because ducks quack, Marke!
If you do not use anything other than the KJV and you think that every other translation of the bible, even those that aren't in English, are inferior to the KJV because the KJV is the result of God preserving His word on Earth and no other bible can make that claim and that therefore anyone who chooses to use something other than the KJV is, at best, settling for something less than ideal, then you're a KJV-onlyist. I don't care what else you think about whatever other nonsense some one who agrees with you on that point might say.
Besides, what are these "worst ideas" that you disagree with anyway?
Do you believe it to be JUST AS inspired?
I agree that the KJV is the best English translation available. If you feel some need to brand me with a name for then then knock yourself out.
I believe some manuscripts are more accurate representations or preservations of God's word and that the KJV is the most accurate English translation I know about. However, God's word is not in letters but in spirit and Christians must seek God in order to understand His word in ways that cannot be achieved by just studying the preserved writings through which we are introduced to and made familiar with God's word.
Me neither.
The Source, God, is unimpeachable.
But the translators were not.
We now know better.
Erasmus fabricated part of the Greek text that was used by the KJV translators.
(Did you not know this?)
God did indeed know what He was doing when he sent Tischendorf.
Rhema
And now you know about a better one.
(You're welcome.)
Rhema
(If need be, our church will buy you one - not a problem.)
You make questionable claims that have no verifiable significance.
God always knows what He is doing and sending Tischendorf, like sending Baalim, always has significance.
A reformed Greek text has no value outside of the camp started by Westcott and Hort.