Bible Translation Discussion Place

On what do you base your assertion, "God is preserver and he keeps his words"?

Even KJVers like the Independent Fundamentalist Baptists are ashamed of him.

The phrase, "KJV only" does not mean "only authority". It means the belief that the KJV is the only sound/valid translation of the Bible in English. Whether strictly accurate or not, it is an appropriate designation. Get over it.

You haven't answered the question at the end of my post. Please do so.

The phrase, "KJV only" does not mean "only authority". It means the belief that the KJV is the only sound/valid translation of the Bible in English. Whether strictly accurate or not, it is an appropriate designation. Get over it.

You haven't answered the question at the end of my post. Please do so.

I wasn't aware of the "unknown tongues" thing but that's definitely forcing an interpretation on the verse.

Let me quote 2 Timothy 3:15-16 as the doctrine of preservation in the New Testament.

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

These verses not only teaches inspiration but also preservation.

1. Timothy had the scriptures.
2. Timothy did not have the "original autographs"
3. The copies Timothy had access to are called "scriptures and are said to be inspired.

So Timothy is dealing with the prerserved copies of the originals. Certainly, it is God's care and keeping if not then it is not Holy Scriptures, not pure or not set apart.

Many of the KJVO so-called that I know believe in the Preface of the KJV written by Miles Smith.

2 Corinthians 2:17 King James Version (KJV)
17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
King James Version (KJV)

This verse does not teach preservation at all. You're imposing the doctrine of preservation upon the text. If you didn't already hold it, you wouldn't extract it from 1 Timothy 3:15-16. Try again.

Your point?

Not sure what your point is here either. The acceptance of a 400-year-old version as authoritative against other 400-year-old versions and against newer versions which are based on far more extensive manuscript evidence has nothing to do with "not being of those who corrupt the word of God". The charge of corruption can be levelled against the KJV translators on exactly the same basis you use to accuse the modern translators.

However, you likely won't do that, because consistency of standards is unknown among KJV-only advocates.

Umm, If you can't see that, I just don't know. Explain to you in detail what that the passage tells us also of preservation and as expected you won't see it. My other try :

In the previous verse (v. 15) Paul told Timothy that he HAD the SCRIPTURE in his possession. Not only this but in Acts 8:32 the Ethiopian Eunuch had “the scripture” in his hands. Now, did Timothy and the Eunuch have the “original manuscripts” in their possession? NO, THEY DIDN’T! They had copies of copies of copies of the originals. Yet they were “scripture” according to the “scripture” itself. So in the direct context of 2 Timothy 3:15-16 “the scripture” is not in reference to the originals but preserve copies called scripture. Now we know that the “originals” were “given by inspiration, but the direct context of the passage is not referring to them.

So I guessed, it's your turn to try explaining these verses why preservation is not in here. Give a try...or simply be classified as circular reasoning, the thing I learned from you...

My point is, it's KJV Finally not KJV only.

BTW, as observed, you haven't given even one verse from the Bible in all your posts in this thread so far, but I stand to be corrected if you have done that in this thread. I have to supposed. Is this a circular activity?

If all I am doing is challenging you to support your assertions, I need not quote Scripture. I only need to do so when making my own assertions, or refuting yours or those of others.

Umm, so I see, you run out of your gas. You cannot discuss the scriptures of truth. The Logos of God still have no much of your fleshy logic. Paul in his day withstands Epicurean and Stoic. Paul, who tells us to beware of philosophy, understood philosophy well enough to refute bad philosophy with the truth of scripture. Paul’s message was surgically accurate, based on a knowledge of the truth and knowledge of the false philosophy.

Let me quote 2 Timothy 3:15-16 as the doctrine of preservation in the New Testament.

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

These verses not only teaches inspiration but also preservation.

1. Timothy had the scriptures.
2. Timothy did not have the "original autographs"
3. The copies Timothy had access to are called "scriptures and are said to be inspired.

So Timothy is dealing with the prerserved copies of the originals. Certainly, it is God's care and keeping if not then it is not Holy Scriptures, not pure or not set apart.