King james bible only

[Guest]

Isn't it strange how dogmatically people teach things as fact that they either read somewhere or were taught without the possibility to confirm those things as fact?

 

All I know is I can't believe this thread is still going on . . .

[Guest shiloh357]

I reject most of what you said is in the 14 books in the Apocrypha in the 1611 KJV Bible.  I challenge you to show those passages, and remember that I have all 14 books and will look to verify everything you are claiming. 

 

1.   "For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness."  Tobit 4:11  - Teaches salvation by works, specifically by almsgiving

 

2.  "For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting."  Tobit 12:9 - Again, salvation by works

 

3.  "Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar  king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Niniveh the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him." Judith 1:5 - Claims that Nebuchadnezzer was the king of Assyrians and that he reigned in Nineveh.  Two historical errors

 

4.  "And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace." Baruch 6:2 - Now this verse says that they will be serving in Babylon for seven generations, but Jeremiah prophesied that they would be in Babylon for 70 years. (Jer. 25:11)

 

5.  Use of the occult and magic is condoned in Tobit 6:5-7, namely that smoke from a burned fish's heart will drive away demons. 

 

6. Offerings  for the dead in II Maccabees 12:43 "And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection."

 

Yes, most documentaries do attack our traditional Bible, but that is not proof that books like the one about Adam and Eve in the garden shouldn't be there.

 

I didn't offer it as proof of anything. I did offer it has evidence that those books are not inspired, and thus would not have been included in a Bible that God wants to be 100% inspired.  Satan doesn't attack anything but the 66 books of the true Bible.  It is evidence that they are human and not divine in origin and they do not have any of the evidences of inspiration contained in the true books of the Bible.  Thus there is no reason for them to be in the Bible.

 

No direct references to things in those books is hardly proof either.

 

Direct references to errors in the Apocrypha demonstrate why they don't belong. 

I do believe the TR can be traced all the way back to the early church.  Can I prove that?  No, but lets make one thing clear Shiloh.  It is by faith we hold to the Bible being the Word of God. 

 

You are talking about two different things.  The transmission of the Scriptures to the original authors (prophets, apostles) is what we take by faith.  That is not the same issue as considering copies and translations down through the ages.  That is a different issue, and if the Textus Receptus goes all the way back to the early church, the manuscript path would prove it and that path simply doesn't exist.  IT only goes back to the 15th century and it is a Greek New Testament that was used.  The Textus Receptus has nothing to do with the Old Testament.  It is a Greek copy of the New Testament that was used during the Reformation period.

 

The Textus Receptus doesn't go back to the apostles. It origins only date back to  Erasmus in 1516 and it had numerous errors and had to be revised several times in 1527 and 1535. It was still found to be in error and had to be incorporated by another Greek text created in Spain. That version of the TR became the accepted version.

 

However Erasmus's Greek text  was again revised 1633 and it is THAT revised text that was called "The Textus Receptus"  which is shorthand for Textum ergo habes, nun cab omnibus receptum.  Technically, the "Textus Receptus" in its final form didn't really exist in 1611.

 

Far from going back to the original apostles, it is only a few hundred years old and cannot be used to claim the entire KJV is based on the Textus Receptus seeing that it only applies to the NT and not the OT.

 

 

It is by faith we believe Moses wrote the first 5 books.  Yes, we can point to prophecies fulfilled, and we can give specific reasons why we believe the Bible is genuine, but when it comes to absolute proof that every single one of the 66 books of the canon belong, good luck proving that.  For instance, prove to me that Song Of Solomon should be scripture.  Go through and prove one by one that all the 66 books belong, and do so individually.  Good luck.

 

I don't claim to be able to prove anything, but there is far and away more evidence for the 66 books of the Bible than for the Apocrypha belonging to the canon.   They are not on the same level.  All of the 66 books have the same character of divine inspiration, are without error and don't promote false doctrines, like offerings for dead people, magic spells, salvation by works and historical inaccuracies.

 

So it is the apocryphal writings that must justify their fitness to belong in the Bible, not the 66 books which are unified at every possible point of comparison, historically and doctrinally.

[Guest shiloh357]

When it comes to historical anything, I am skeptical.  What I mean is the idea that Nebuchadnezzar couldn't have been the name of a King in a certain place, and things like that.  You can make the claim that a certain King by that name wasn't in that position, but more than one person can bear the same name, so that doesn't impress me much.

Sorry Butero, but there is only ONE historical king with the name Nebuchadnezzar.  Only one. No other king in history every bore that name.  If you deny that, you are committing intellectual suicide. 

 

Neither does comments about tracing the TR back to the early church.  There is no way to prove it only goes back to the 15Th century.  Within myself, I am dismissing that. 

 

Butero, the historical record is an open book.  I am right and numerous historical records are on my side.   The Textus Receptus, technically, only goes back to 1633 as that is the first time the name Textus Receptus appears.   If the Textus Receptus goes back to the apostles, then you should be able to produce an unbroken chain of manuscripts that give evidence of that fact.  You dismiss it, but you can't refute it.  You can't own up to the facts, so the easiest response is to just pretend the facts don't exist.  You really need to find the courage within yourself to admit your mistakes.

 

You still have to deal with the fact that the Textus Receptus doesn't include the Old Testament, so you cannot use the argument to claim the entire KJV Bible was based on the Textus Receptus.  So, 2/3 of the 1611 KJV Bible has nothing to do with the Textus Receptus.  So much for claiming the entire KJV Bible is inspired.

 

As for the Apocrypha, I am still waiting to hear about purgatory in it.

 

Purgatory is based, in part, on the passage in II Maccabees where they were to pay offerings for the dead.  I didn't say that purgatory is mentioned in the Apocrypha.  I said that it is the basis for the doctrine.

 

I will look into the verses from Tobit and Baruch, but I do want to once again state for the record that I don't consider the Apocrypha equal to scripture.

 

And Yet you are trying so hard to defend the accuracy of the apocrypha.  Yes you go and look those verses up.

 

I still believe it should be included in the Bible as it is in the KJV Bible.

 

They are not the Bible and don't belong in the KJV Bible or any Bible.  And God doesn't mix the holy with the profane.

[Guest shiloh357]

The Apocrypha was always questioned, and that is why it is in the center of the 1611 KJV Bible, apart from the rest.  Using your logic about God not mixing the perfect with the profane, any Bible with commentaries, maps, or anything in them that is not part of the original text pollutes the Bible. 

 

That is an invalid comparison. The apocrypha is used to formulate doctrine in some denominations.  That is be true about commentary notes or maps. You are comparing dissimilar things.

 

 

I do defend the Apocrypha being placed in the center of the Bible, and will continue to.  If you are ready to condemn any extra anything being placed in a Bible besides the actual text, including punctuation, we can talk.

 

That would only apply if someone tried to add English punctuation to the Greek manuscripts.  The English punctuation is there for English readers and it helps give the sense of the ideas from the Greek text.   That is not the same as adding the Apocrypha and the claiming that the 1611 edition is inspired. To say that God wanted it in there is essentially attributing a degree of inspiration to the presence of the Apocrypha and up to this point, you cannot provide a substantive reason why God would want a manuscript containing false doctrines and false teachings married to His Holy Word.

 

 

The historical record is not perfect in regard to American history, let alone world history.  Revisions have taken place everywhere, and continue to take place.  I could produce more than one history book with differences in American historical events, so that comment about history being an open book is nonsense. 

 

But we are not dealing with a revision of history.  Revisionist history is usually contained in a minority of historical accounts and are easily refuted by a preponderance of evidence and whole weight of the historical record.  That is what you are dealing with here.  There is no alternative historical accounts about the history of the Textus Receptus for you to fall back on.  There is only ONE flow of historical evidence and that is the one I have recounted to you.  History is open for you and everyone else.  If I am wrong then provide the historical evidence to that end.  I have the evidence for my claims and so far you have been unable to really grapple with those facts.

 

 

There is no way anyone can produce an unbroken chain of manuscripts back to the early apostles, anymore than I can do that with the books attributed to Moses.  When you produce an unbroken chain of manuscripts showing Moses wrote Genesis, then we can talk about the TR. 

 

I don't have to produce an unbroken change of manuscripts going back to Moses.  The Bible already, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, inerrantly attributes those books to Moses.  God has already made that claim and so that issue is already settled.

 

You are claiming that extra-biblical manuscripts are inspired and so far, you can't really defend it.  All you can do is summarily dismiss my claims (because you can't refute them) and you really have not grappled with the evidence I have presented.

[Guest shiloh357]

From the book, "Which Bible Can We Trust" by Les Garrett, we find the following comment on page 18.

 

452 - 1453 A.D. - The Textus Receptus was used by the Greek Church during this time under the direction of the Holy Spirit. 

 

Is the fact a book makes this claim proof of anything?  No, but neither is claiming something is true with no sources or other sources.  It comes down to who do you believe.

 

What is the author's sources for that claim?  Who does he cite as his authority?

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

From the book, "Which Bible Can We Trust" by Les Garrett, we find the following comment on page 18.

 

452 - 1453 A.D. - The Textus Receptus was used by the Greek Church during this time under the direction of the Holy Spirit. 

 

Is the fact a book makes this claim proof of anything?  No, but neither is claiming something is true with no sources or other sources.  It comes down to who do you believe.

 

What is the author's sources for that claim?  Who does he cite as his authority?

 

He simply gives "A Chronology of the King James Bible," and that is part of it.  I will add a little more of the text from the book.

 

1.  From the birth of Christ to 100 A.D. the original manuscripts were written in the Greek language.

 

The New Testament was compiled by 400 A.D.

 

(a)  by 170 A.D. - 20 New Testament books had been accepted by the early church.

 

(b)  by 400 A.D. - all 27 books of the New Testament had been accepted by the early Christians as they were guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

©  the Holy Spirit guided so that only the genuine books were included.

 

(d)  The Holy Spirit also guided in the selection of the pure manuscripts.

 

(e)  The Holy Spirit so guided that false gospels and manuscripts were set aside.

 

3.  452 - 1453 A.D. - The Textus Receptus was used by the Greek Church during this time under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

 

Of course, this is just a small portion of a book defending the TR and the King James Version Bible.  There are numerous books put out by people on both sides of this issue, and they both make claims they cannot prove. 

 

He makes a claim but has no footnotes, no sources that can be checked?

 

I tis not true that both sides make claims they cannot prove.   My claims are based on real, checkable history.   My claims can be fact checked.  Your author makes a claim about the Textus Receptus that has no basis in history.

 

Here is a fully footnoted and checkable history on the Textus Receptus>>>  http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/textusreceptus.htm

 

Excerpts from the web page:   "The TR as we know it today is the work of Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener in 1881.48  Scrivener was aware that the KJV translators had 7 different printed versions of the Greek NT at their disposal: the 5 editions of Erasmus, the 1550 Stephanus edition, and the 1598 Beza edition.  Where these texts differed, the KJV translators had to make a choice as to which reading they would translate.  In effect, they produced a new, eclectic Greek text, but never committed that text to writing."

 

(Snip)

 

 

"This is not good news for TR/KJV-only advocates who hold up the TR as the ideal/standard text and dismiss other Greek texts (such as the Nestle-Aland Greek text) on the basis that they are eclectic.  The kettle is calling the pot black.  Not only were the seven Greek texts used by the KJV translators eclectic texts, but the KJV translators themselves used an eclectic approach to determine which Greek words they would translate.  There is not a single Greek manuscript or published Greek text prior to the creation of the KJV that contains the precise Greek words the KJV translators translated.  Textual criticism and eclecticism is present at every level.  It is unavoidable.  The question is not whether textual criticism and eclecticism is a valid way of determining the original text of the NT, but how best to apply these methods to accomplish that goal."

[Trinitron]

Gail Riplinger?  Oh brother...closing thread.

 

Let me help you out friend.  Some King Jamesians:

 

Jack Moorman

D. A. Waite

Kent Hovind gets involved

Gail Riplinger off course

Same Gipp

Texe Marrs

 

I know all of their material and arguments and I have seen them get destroyed completely.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Trinitron

[Guest shiloh357]

The only thing that person did was include footnotes of yet other sources that can't be proven to be true.

 

Those footnotes demonstrate that the claims have an evidentiary basis.  They are not pulling things out of thin air.  Again, this is not about proving anythiing.  It is about the difference between your claims for which there is NO evidence, no historical credibility and other claims that contradict your claims but have evidence and history behind them.

 

 

In other words, It would be like me buying a bunch of books by various authors that defend the TR and the KJV Bible, using that information, and putting it in footnotes to prove it is true. I would use Les Garret's book as one source, Gail Riplinger as another source, etc.  Then I would say, look everyone, I have given you sources to back up my claims.

 

Well not exactly.  Footnoting other authors who themselves have no evidence or checkable history for their claims isn't the same as what I have provided.  They are not simply citing other authors.  They are citing authorities and original documents that can be checked to support their claims.  You don't have that.  All you can do is parrot what other KJV defenders parrot from one another without any real historical evidence to back up their claims about the origins of the Textus Receptus.

 

 

 

 

 

I would use Les Garret's book as one source, Gail Riplinger as another source, etc.  Then I would say, look everyone, I have given you sources to back up my claims. 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

I have no way to check the sources of the sources without buying all of their books, and I have no reason to believe they actually prove anything. 

 

 

 

Still missing the point.  The point is that there is evidence for their claims. I don't expect you to check each source.  My point is that your claims have nothing, no substance other than wishful thinking.

 

The true history of the Textus Receptus is open for all to see.  And some will have the resources to check it.  

 

You still have not explained the problem for the KJV in the OT since you can't rely on the Textus Receptus for the authority of KJV's translation of the Old Testament.

[Guest shiloh357]

The entire Bible was available in Greek.  That is confirmed by Les Garrett.  It is just that the Old Testament was also available in Hebrew.  The Apocrypha was only available in Greek.  That is one reason why it was not fully accepted.  In other words, there was a complete Bible in existence in Greek that was accepted by the early church, and that same Bible was passed down to the people that would later translate everything to English in the King James Bible.  I am defending those early manuscripts over the Majority Text that was discovered later on in caves. 

 

But the Textus Receptus only applies to the New Testament.   Your claim for the perfection of the KJV translation rests on the Textus Receptus, but that claim can't extend to the OT.  What is the OT equivalent to the Textus Receptus?

 

 

The history of the TR is available for all to see, and those who are defenders of the KJV Bible and the TR give one version of history and those who support the modern translations give another history. 

 

No, the KJV defenders provide a bunch of made up claims pulled out of thin air.  The KJV defenders don't really provide any real history.

 

 

  I don't trust any of the so-called historians, so I go by what I can see. 

 

No, you simply don't want to face up to the facts of history, so your only tactic in that regard is to pretend that any history that you can't refute or that doesn't conform to your assumptions and beliefs can't be trusted.  The truth is that is you are simply operating from a position of denial at any cost.  It would be like me claiming that "I do not trust any "so-called historian" that says that the Union won the Civil war and that nothing any so-called Civil War historian says can be proven."  That is the magnitude of the denial you are engaging in, here.

 

 

I see a complete Bible, the KJV, and a lot of new translations coming out that discredit portions of the text and leave portions out, and a bunch of people claiming we can't fully trust any translation.  Based on that alone, I am KJV only.  I don't know about Les Garrett and his sources, but I do know I trust him more than those on the other side.

 

But that isn't a responsible or even a sensible approach to truth.  That is akin to just maintaining a stubborn denial, even in the face of reality.  In this case, it appears that even if you're wrong, you would rather be wrong than accept the truth.