Companion Thread for KJV only debate

[dreadknought]

Hi Bereancam,

Oh, I have read the "evidence against" from Daniel Wallace and Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman and others rather extensively, even from the earlier days of the debate, as from the 1600's through the 1800's. So why are you "assuming" that I am "assuming" ?

Hmmm.. I did not know that you claimed a particular inspired Greek. Can you point this "inspired Greek" out to us ? Where is it ? What text ? What manuscript ? Is it God's pure and perfect word ? How inspired is it ?

I have no idea what you are claiming here. Are you actually claiming that the Cyprian quotation does not indicate that his Bible had the Johannine Comma in it ? Did you even read the Marty Shue and Daniel Wallace net dialog ? What is the "bias" and "translation" elements that you repeatedly claim ?

And if you really want to discuss the Apocrypha, that would be fine. Clearly the King James Bible never placed those books as scripture, you can see that by simply looking at the Holy Bible 1611 online. However, I believe you are raising additional side issues only to avoid having to be consistent and responsive in our discussion.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

This is great news. You can give us the burden of Proof then. You've read it all.

Apparently by Cyprian's own words he was extrapolating theology from 2 or more verses as you read. But here's the point, you have to read what he actually said. Not make up support for Greek text that is not there.

Now Steve, your doing exactly what Wil was doing. Deflect. Change the subject or try to disprove people by proxy. You brought up Cyprian. It was brought up in the past and dismissed as unverifiable. The verse is not in the earliest Greek. Prove that it is.
Why cannot the verse in question be proved to the 4th century Greek? Why is it predominantly in Latin?


The uninspired apocrypha was a part of the inspired perfect translation then removed, with cross-references to inspired Scripture. Why?

Why would it take some scholars 30 years of work to co - late early text and translate and another 10 months?
You've questioned scholars about their leanings and teachings but I don't recall a publishing for Steven Avery or Will Kinney; the internet does not count as reliable or verifiable.

So we're all basing information from learned people, some of us have a lot more bias than others. The peanut gallery see's the fruit of the most severe of the biasness.


Now if you'd be so forthcoming as to explain the KJVO view of it being the only, perfectly preserved Bible with historical and biblical proofs. Enough of this tag team circular deflection hocus pocus.

 

[dreadknought]

Bereancam, I have to say, you seem to not have much understanding of textual matters. It was originally claimed here that there were no MSS with the Johannine Comma before the 1500's. Even putting aside the necessary "extant" this overlooked entirely hundreds of Latin MSS in the Old Latin and Vulgate lines. It was a totally wrong claim. Rather than simply say "we were wrong, thanks for the correction" we get diversionary grandstanding like the above.

We are very aware that Wycliffe translated from Latin MSS to English, while the Tyndale, Geneva and King James Bible translated the Johannine Comma from the Greek Textus Receptus. Properly acknowledged, this would lead to a fascinating discussion of the wonderful textual understandings and labors of the Reformation, of which you seem to be mostly unawares. How they utilized both the Greek and the Latin MSS in giving us the excellent Textus Receptus, the pure Bible of the Reformation that triumphed over the RCC Vulgate. They were not one-dimensional thinkers (Erasmus, Stephanus, Bezae, Calvin, Elzivir, Turretin, Whitaker, John Gill, Matthew Henry and dozens of others). They really understood God's providential hand upon his word and were all used of God to help give us his pure word more excellently.

The modern version confusion is simply a counter-reformation text, disguised by pseudo-scholarship, the backdoor way to fight the histo4ic Received Text.

The Received Text came to full fruition in the majestic and beautiful and perfect King James Bible.

Shalom,
Steven

So this is a rough quick guess, we're at the 12th century Latin here going back to what A.D 800 or so. And the inspired Greek is where?

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

To dot an i.

In fact, it was studying the Johannine Comma itself which helped bring me to the King James Bible position. In the last post you simply claimed as your own the fallacy that I had gently warned you about,

Huh? I can only guess that you are referring to my statement:"I started out believing absolutely that the Johannine Comma was authentic, and I was led by the evidence to conclude that it was a later addition."There is no fallacy here.

No, the fallacy from you was:

"You and Brandplucked are starting out assuming that the evidence MUST point to the Johannine Comma being part of the autograph. That explains why the evidence is being ignored and why certain conclusions are being drawn in the absence of, or in contradiction to, evidence."

You fell right into the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (you had a misguided sequential understanding and built the fallacy on your own false sequencing and adding a false causation element) that I had just warned you about. I had even told you that my studies of the Johannine Comma views preceded and helped trigger my full understanding of the King James Bible as the pure word of God. Thus it is totally false of you to claim that I defend the Johannine Comma because of my King James Bible view. Fallacies are expected, but here you simply ignored my clear exposition and warning.

You still obstinately declared that I had a presuppositional approach to Johannine Comma evidence, and my result was only caused by my KJB view, after I had told you specifically my history which is essentially the opposite. By seeing arguments weak and strained and convoluted against the Johannine Comma like that of Daniel Wallace, it reaffirmed that his was indeed God's scripture that man fights against, and thus made me look upon the King James Bible with higher regard (in those days I moved from NIV to NKJV to the King James Bible). In my flesh, I was looking for reasons to doubt God's word, studying the Johannine Comma evidence helped the spirit of God to really speak to my heart.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

Apparently by Cyprian's own words he was extrapolating theology from 2 or more verses as you read. But here's the point, you have to read what he actually said. Not make up support for Greek text that is not there.

Above, I asked you a couple of simple questions about the Cyprian quote and your assertion. Would you please answer ?

btw, his text was in Latin, although, like many he was likely quite bi-lingual.

Cyprian.. was brought up in the past and dismissed as unverifiable.

What was unverifiable ??? We have his quote, so why not answer my simple questions,

Is Cyprian referring to scripture with "it is written" ?
What verse ?
And would there be any contesting the Cyprian reference
if this was not the battleground verse ?

You ask a lot of counter questions of less relevance, and I would be happy to try to address. However, I would prefer you to answer first my previous post.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

So this is a rough quick guess, we're at the 12th century Latin here going back to what A.D 800 or so. And the inspired Greek is where?

Maybe you should study the actual materials. The Johannine Comma is clearly referenced by writers in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th centuries and later. It was strongly referenced at the Council of Carthage in the 5th century, and the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles of the Vulgate has a fascinating reference. Cyprian was the 3rd century. Priscillian was the 4th. I could likely list a dozen more before your 800 AD. And there are strong indications of the Johannine Comma in Tertullian and other ante-Nicene writings such as the Rebaptism tract. Various extant Old Latin and Vulgate MSS were about the 6th century on.

Hope that helps.

Oh, Daniel Wallace omitted all this ?

Shalom,
Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

[ And the inspired Greek is where?

Please note that I asked you above to identify the inspired Greek you are referencing.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[dreadknought]

Maybe you should study the actual materials. The Johannine Comma is clearly referenced by writers in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th centuries and later. It was strongly referenced at the Council of Carthage in the 5th century, and the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles of the Vulgate has a fascinating reference. Cyprian was the 3rd century. Priscillian was the 4th. I could likely list a dozen more before your 800 AD. And there are strong indications of the Johannine Comma in Tertullian and other ante-Nicene writings such as the Rebaptism tract. Various extant Old Latin and Vulgate MSS were about the 6th century on.

Hope that helps.

Oh, Daniel Wallace omitted all this ?

Shalom,
Steven

Deflect all you wish Steven, commentary and theological extrapolation is not Scripture make.

 

[dreadknought]

Please note that I asked you above to identify the inspired Greek you are referencing.

Shalom,
Steven

Why? You need the burden of proof for your assertion, not I. I know my preference to a translation. BUT I DO NOT BOW BEFORE IT.

 

[dreadknought]

Above, I asked you a couple of simple questions about the Cyprian quote and your assertion. Would you please answer ?

btw, his text was in Latin, although, like many he was likely quite bi-lingual.

What was unverifiable ??? We have his quote, so why not answer my simple questions,

Is Cyprian referring to scripture with "it is written" ?
What verse ?
And would there be any contesting the Cyprian reference
if this was not the battleground verse ?

You ask a lot of counter questions of less relevance, and I would be happy to try to address. However, I would prefer you to answer first my previous post.

Shalom,
Steven

Oh since you claim to read but don't, here's a quickie... The Father and Son are one; John 10:30 me thinks; and 1 John 5:8 and these three are in agreement theologically extropolated together to explain the nature of God in a triune identity. That scholars talked of such things doesn't place this commentary in the original inspired Greek Scripture; as it is not and cannot be verified, only speculated.

Now the proof of your position is?

 

[dreadknought]

You ask a lot of counter questions of less relevance, and I would be happy to try to address. However, I would prefer you to answer first my previous post.

Shalom,
Steven

Camels and gnats Steven. You've addressed specific refutable points without dealing with the real issue. So I gave you the same you gave us back to you in kind.

Now would you provide the basis for me and the peanut gallery to be convinced that the KJV is the only true Bible.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Afternoon STP,

And this has to do with the KJV being the only true perfectly preserved canon of Holy Scriptures how?
But I will answer without adou, the first translation I pick up is the NASB. I compare several, NKJV, ESV, NRSV, NIV, KJV, NIV etc. in hand. And I trust the NASB 1995 as truthful, it being my preferred translation. I have more on pc software but you get the idea. NASB as Literal as the KJV from an older, different source than the King James. So, now you'll pick apart this too....... round and round and round and round... I am totally dismayed. :sigh:

bereancam

Hello bereancam,

My question didn't directly relate to the One on One, I was just curious.
So, you trust the NASB 1995 as truthful? Are you able to distinguish which words are God's, which are man's, and where the errors are? Which parts can you rest on with the assurance that it's God's word?

Can you do this? Matthew 4:4 KJV

 

[adamwaw]

Hi all.

Just to clear "EVERYTHING" up for you regarding the "Infallible" "Inerrant" word of god (being the 1611 version of King James or any other translation)

There exists no originals of Hebrew or Greek of the New testament and Old testament so why all the "Baseless Argumentation" of something that does not exist?

The Bible is not "Flawless" in any sense.
Prove me wrong.

The Bible is not "Inerrant".
Prove me wrong.

When you or anyone else can produce any "factual" proof that the KJV is the "Word of God" without a belief that it is so (Because of your ingrained ideas) please feel free to "correct me"

I'll be holding my breath.

Until then all that most of you do is waste time on the keyboard typing words that have no meaning whatsoever.

Again prove that I am wrong
Waiting with baited breath.

 

[dreadknought]

We are very aware that Wycliffe translated from Latin MSS to English, while the Tyndale, Geneva and King James Bible translated the Johannine Comma from the Greek Textus Receptus. Properly acknowledged, this would lead to a fascinating discussion of the wonderful textual understandings and labors of the Reformation, of which you seem to be mostly unawares. How they utilized both the Greek and the Latin MSS in giving us the excellent Textus Receptus, the pure Bible of the Reformation that triumphed over the RCC Vulgate. They were not one-dimensional thinkers (Erasmus, Stephanus, Bezae, Calvin, Elzivir, Turretin, Whitaker, John Gill, Matthew Henry and dozens of others). They really understood God's providential hand upon his word and were all used of God to help give us his pure word more excellently.

The Received Text came to full fruition in the majestic and beautiful and perfect King James Bible.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven,

I'm man enough to say that I missed this part of your comments. So, the Textus Receptus is the only inspired Greek text?

bereancam

 

[Steven Avery]

Deflect all you wish Steven, commentary and theological extrapolation is not Scripture make.

Hi bereancam,

You are a bit hard to understand. You made a guess about what the evidences were for the Johannine Comma, clearly you were ill-informed. So I corrected your guess, with an overview of the Old Latin, the Latin and the early church writers and a bit on special situations like Councils .. and so you then you accuse me of deflection. Very strange.

Actually I have a feeling that you have never really considered or understood even the basics of the significance of early church writers quoting and referencing scripture, or the history of the Bible text.. May I suggest that you read a little bit of Dean John Burgon ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

Why? You need the burden of proof for your assertion, not I. I know my preference to a translation. BUT I DO NOT BOW BEFORE IT.

And you are even harder to understand here, bereancam.

A couple of times you referenced the "inspired Greek" as if you really believed there was a Greek text that is inspired and pure. I simply asked you to identify what you are referring to, e.g. perhaps the Textus Receptus, or the Vaticanus MSS, or NA 27, or Codex Alexandrinus, or the Robinson-Pierpont Majority Text. Or something.

Why does that discomfit you ?

And if you have no idea what you are referring to, why are you calling an unknown text inspired ? Does that make any sense ?

Please, can you see that we are only trying to unravel your own confusions to help you have a consistent understanding of the word of God.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

The Father and Son are one; John 10:30 me thinks; and 1 John 5:8 and these three are in agreement theologically extropolated ...speculated

Ok, thanks. I see that you are simply parroting the conjectural extrapolation theories you read from Daniel Wallace. At least you gave an answer, and now I know the extent of your sense-ability.

Bereancam, I make absolutely no claim to be able to prove or convince you of something as simple as seeing that Cyprian was most assuredly referencing the heavenly witnesses of 1 John 5:7. Something very deep within you desires to reject the simple and clear and truthful understanding. And readers can simply rehash the Daniel Wallace taken to the woodshed by Marty Shue experience that is already on the net.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

Now would you provide the basis for me and the peanut gallery to be convinced that the KJV is the only true Bible.

If we are going to move more in this realm (see above) let me ask you a question to get this rolling.

How many distinctly different true Bibles do you believe there are ?

(Yes, to move along, I would be happy to give you a examples of distinctly different Bible claimants, such as Mark writing or not writing the resurrection account, the last twelve verses, a swine marathon taking place 35 miles from the Sea of Galilee, Jesus falsely saying he is not going to the feast, Acts 8:37 baptism testimony, God was manifest in the flesh, the Johannine Comma, the Pericope Adultera .. etc.etc)

Shalom,
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

The Bible is not "Flawless" in any sense. Prove me wrong.
The Bible is not "Inerrant". Prove me wrong.

Hi Adam. Please note what I said above about the skeptic who says "prove Jesus...". Thank you for giving us an excellent demonstration, the skeptic mentality applied to the Bible text.

I'll be holding my breath.... Waiting with baited breath.

I will assume this is metaphorical and not be concerned about your short-term health.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

So, the Textus Receptus is the only inspired Greek text? bereancam

Hi Bereancam, here we have a spot-on question.

The Textus Receptus is the only extant pure Greek text. With the caveat that there is no one "Textus Receptus" in the same way that there is one King James Bible. There are variations, most relatively minor, in about 35 editions that were published over almost a century (the term Textus Receptus is actually back-dated onto earlier editions, starting with Erasmus). And generally speaking the later editions were more pure and refined and perfect than the earlier editions. And the Received Text gave us the excellent Reformation Bibles, from Tyndale to Geneva (and Bishops and Coverdale and more) to the majestic King James Bible in English, the Reina-Valera in Spanish and other editions in languages all over the world.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[CabinetMaker]

Brandplucked Admits defeat in Post #8

Brandplucked Admits defeat in Post #8

Branplucked has admitted that he cannot do what he claimed he would do his opening post. He lured somebody into a discussion so that he could accuse them of not having a real bible with no intentions of ever demonstrating that the KJV is what he claims it to be.

Congratulations to Muz for sticking to the topic and adhering to the rules of debate! :first: Well done!