Originals (only)

J

JimKnox

Elect
Elect
Joined
May 20, 2026
Messages
243
Reaction score
51
Points
28
Location
Idaho
Where are they?

The claim is that Scripture was inspired ONLY in the "originals".

This can not be proven without having the actual Autographs with which to compare.

The argument that we have them "represented" in the totality of Scriptures we have today can't stand unless we have the Autographs to prove this claim.

Solve for X.

(Cue the clown car)
 
I don't know who's making the claim that you assert.

IMO the message that was given to the authors is contained within the various manuscripts. That message has carried forward over millennia and is as powerful as it was when scribe put pen to paper. There's nothing from antiquity that compares to the Bible regarding volume of manuscripts in existence. I am confident that this proves that God has preserved His word.
 
JimKnox said:
Where are they?

The claim is that Scripture was inspired ONLY in the "originals".

This can not be proven without having the actual Autographs with which to compare.

The argument that we have them "represented" in the totality of Scriptures we have today can't stand unless we have the Autographs to prove this claim.

Solve for X.

(Cue the clown car)
Click to expand...
If you cannot produce the originals, then your claim that the 1769 version of the AV1611 is the only accurate translation of the originals cannot be substantiated.
 
voicecrying said:
If you cannot produce the originals, then your claim that the 1769 version of the AV1611 is the only accurate translation of the originals cannot be substantiated.
Click to expand...
Strawman.

I made no claim that the 1769 EDITION of the AV1611 Bible is "the only accurate translation of the originals" in this thread.

Try sticking to the topic.
 
JimKnox said:
Strawman.

I made no claim that the 1769 EDITION of the AV1611 Bible is "the only accurate translation of the originals" in this thread.

Try sticking to the topic.
Click to expand...
So, there are other reliable translations besides 1769/1611?
 
To be fair to KJVonlyists, believing that only the originals were inspired, and believing in “derivative inspiration” (of the KJV) are both propositions which are matters of faith.
 
subllibrm said:
I don't know who's making the claim that you assert.

IMO the message that was given to the authors is contained within the various manuscripts. That message has carried forward over millennia and is as powerful as it was when scribe put pen to paper. There's nothing from antiquity that compares to the Bible regarding volume of manuscripts in existence. I am confident that this proves that God has preserved His word.
Click to expand...
The claim that only the originals were inspired has been repeatedly asserted on this site.

Is it your claim then that it was only the "message" that was inspired when Paul (under the Holy Spirit) wrote to Timothy that "all Scripture is inspired of God"...?
And that only this "message" is God's words?
 
JimKnox said:
The argument that we have them "represented" in the totality of Scriptures we have today can't stand unless we have the Autographs to prove this claim.
Click to expand...
So, if we don't have the originals, how do we verify the the veracity of any translation?

Given this is a direct quote from the OP, is this on-subject enough for you?
 
X = no KJV-onlyist has ever reliably shown the NIV to contain false teaching.

When KJV-onlyists appeal to manuscript-based arguments, they're engaging in a motte-and-bailey fallacy.
 
abcaines said:
I'd like you to explain how my question is a departure from the "subject".
Click to expand...
Your question was about translational integrity. Correct?

However, my OP is about these "originals".

I submit that since the "originals" were long gone by the time Jesus read from Isaiah and Paul wrote to Timothy, it is disingenuous to claim that ONLY these "originals" were the subject of Paul's statement to Timothy that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God"..

Do you understand?
 
JimKnox said:
Strawman.

I made no claim that the 1769 EDITION of the AV1611 Bible is "the only accurate translation of the originals" in this thread.

Try sticking to the topic.
Click to expand...
"In this thread" is the key. You made the claim elsewhere on this forum, so it is a fair game.
 
JimKnox said:
The claim is that Scripture was inspired ONLY in the "originals".

This can not be proven without having the actual Autographs with which to compare.
Click to expand...
How does having the actual autographs enable one to prove the originals were inspired?
 
JimKnox said:
This can not be proven without having the actual Autographs with which to compare.
Click to expand...
Without the Autographs you can't compare the KJV. You have no more evidence for that translation than there is for any other. And again, the 158 years it took to finally perfect the already perfect 1611 blows up the entire argument.
 
subllibrm said:
Without the Autographs you can't compare the KJV. You have no more evidence for that translation than there is for any other. And again, the 158 years it took to finally perfect the already perfect 1611 blows up the entire argument.
Click to expand...
FYI:
This is NOT about the KJV in any form.
This is about the claim that "only" the mythical originals are inspired.
Deal with that, please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top