...reason to reject holding to a single standard (as in the KJV), I offer this: Isaiah 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

I am here to "get inside your minds." I have no grand illusions of persuading you. I want to learn why you are KJVOnly.

To show that I do not intend to build straw men up and want to debate fairly, are you comfortable by rephrasing my original question with?

Where is the biblical passage that demands holding to a single standard (as in the KJV)?

I can go with that if you are willing. Do you have a better way of rephrasing this?

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

I am here to "get inside your minds." I have no grand illusions of persuading you. I want to learn why you are KJVOnly.

To show that I do not intend to build straw men up and want to debate fairly, are you comfortable by rephrasing my original question with?

Where is the biblical passage that demands holding to a single standard (as in the KJV)?

I can go with that if you are willing. Do you have a better way of rephrasing this?

It looks to me that many have tried to answer your question. It seems you just want to go in circles with your many questions. Your questions look as though you are twisting scripture as tight as you can to prove our error. That's just the way I see it.

I think Brandon had a good question can you answer it?

So, the question is not "can you prove the KJV is God's word without error," but "if not the KJV, then where do I find the book of the Lord, so that I may read it?"

It looks to me that many have tried to answer your question. It seems you just want to go in circles with your many questions. Your questions look as though you are twisting scripture as tight as you can to prove our error. That's just the way I see it.

"Twisting Scripture" is quite the charge. If I am in error, I will admit it (and have done so here on different threads). I simply want to know what drives your dogmatism. It is a fair question. Since I have a difficult time knowing how you think, I am allowing you to restate it in a way that is balanced in your opinion. As a Scripture-driven person, I am compelled to ask. If there are passages I have not considered, this is your chance...where else can I go to get the best answer?

So, since Brandon is the Forum Administrator, let's let him frame the question. I will deal with his secondary question if you so desire. But until then, let's not change the subject. I will keep my end of the bargain.

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

"Twisting Scripture" is quite the charge. If I am in error, I will admit it (and have done so here). I simply want to know what drives your dogmatism. It is a fair question. Since I have a difficult time knowing how you think, I am allowing you to restate it in a way that is balanced in your opinion. As a Scripture-driven person, I am compelled to ask. If there are passages I have not considered, this is your chance...where else can I go to get the best answer?

I did no charging. I said that is the way it looks to me. I take it from my experience with my discussion with you on Psalms 12:6-7. To me, it is plain teaching. The many questions you have about Psalms 12:6-7 left me suspect of your twisting ability. and especially when you change the subject of the passage itself, when the subject is clearly written in the passage itself. It's hard not to question your motives here.

Psalms 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

So, since Brandon is the Forum Administrator, let's let him frame the question. I will deal with his secondary question if you so desire. But until then, let's not change the subject. I will keep my end of the bargain.

Why does he have to re-frame the question, when he already asked the question?

I was just thinking that because our answers to your very many questions are inadequate that you could answer his question that he already asked and is left unanswered.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

Where is the biblical passage that demands holding to a single standard (as in the KJV)?

The last time someone showed you, you were offended and thought you were being compared to a demon-possessed individual. Are you sure you want to see it again?

It is an undeniable fact that your multiple standards disagree with each other -- otherwise we'd have no argument over different translations and you wouldn't be offering your corrections of the KJV here for us. And yet, some how, you say you hold to the KJV as being God's word just like you do the NAS and "your translation" (which you never explained).

Luke 11:17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.

This verse teaches more than one truth. Instead of being offended and assuming someone is comparing you with the demon-possessed, re-read the verse to find the second teaching: a house divided falleth. Your "houses of scripture" are divided against each other. Ask who killed Goliath and get your answer from a KJV -- check the NAS and wonder why they contradict. (Easy: the NAS translators didn't understand Hebrew; the KJV translators did.)

Also, God's word is pure. Obviously it will evince itself as a standard! If we can have multiple, differing standards, as you hold to, then it is not pure.

Psalms 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Do I really need to go and paste in more verses that show God's word is pure? Does anybody really think there is a logical way to reconcile multiple conflicting standards with purity?

Why does he have to re-frame it? He restated my original question as:
"...a reason to reject holding to a single standard (as in the KJV)" the offered the Isaiah passage.

"The real issue is: where is the book of the Lord?" Then asks "if not the KJV, then where do I find the book of the Lord, so that I may read it?"

These are two different questions. I will answer him, but need to know what the question is that I am dealing with. Remember the question has to be answered biblically. What is the biblical passage for holding to a single book of the Lord? If we are Scripture-driven people, then the KJVOnly position should have God's authority behind it. Why is this a difficult question to deal with Scripturally? The only passage offered is the above Isaiah passage.

So, how does Brandon want to frame the question? We have to have a standard question to deal with.

P.S.: This is the last thread I will post on for some time. I am getting overloaded with work.

I see that we posted simultaneously, so I will start to answer you, eventhough we have not established a common question.

The last time someone showed you, you were offended and thought you were being compared to a demon-possessed individual. Are you sure you want to see it again?

This one took me "off guard." I have never seen this passage applied in the way it was to my post. I really was not offended, just more frustrated that a verse would be used so far out of context.

I see why we bypass each other often on this forum. Your hermeneutic allows for dual meanings. "This verse teaches more than one truth....re-read the verse to find the second teaching: a house divided falleth."

Without drifting too far off the topic of this thread, you really should reconsider your hermeneutics. To say a passage has dual meanings actually matches Origen's hermeneutic.

Now...back to defending my position.

Psalms 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Biblically, this is David's declaration that God's word is pure. It is pure in the sense that what God says will come true. It is "tested."

Even so, we will set our interpretive differences aside here and assume your interpretation to be true.

If you apply these verses to the KJV in the sense that it is "pure" (without error), then you have a problem. Even the 1611 differs greatly from the Cambridge edition that Bibleprotector wants to establish as the standard. Within KJVOnlyism, there is ongoing textual criticism. So, how can the KJV be considered pure? Even the smallest changes to a pure text renders it impure. Remember the "jot" and "tittle" passage?

Now, I will present why I believe, biblically, the KJVOnly position is wrong...

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

I see why we bypass each other often on this forum. Your hermeneutic allows for dual meanings. "This verse teaches more than one truth....re-read the verse to find the second teaching: a house divided falleth."

Without drifting too far off the topic of this thread, you really should reconsider your hermeneutics. To say a passage has dual meanings actually matches Origen's hermeneutic.

I don't know how I am supposed to take you seriously. You compare me to Origen when all I have done is accept the very words of Jesus Christ:

Luke 11:17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.

I'm doing nothing except accepting Christ's words at face value. Of course Christ was dealing with demon possession, but in that he spoke of another truth, which is what was pointed out to you. Origen was all about finding hidden meanings that didn't even fit with the Bible. I am telling you that the truth Christ cited against one case is no less truth in another case.

Now of you think a house divided against a house doesn't fall in any case other than demon possession, then you are beyond reason!