Is KJVonly a Cult?

[Dr. Bob]

That word is thrown around (often by me) as a tacit condemnation of some who hold the extreme KJVonly position. Not those who prefer the KJV, but who say it is the ONLY Bible (we have their names on other threads1)

Dr. Josh McDowell in his Handbook on Today's Religions lists characteristics of a cult, and I supply some facts about the extreme KJVonly view that seem to fit (but I may be overstating the case; I'm wont to do that!)

1) NEW TRUTH - KJVonly believe in a de facto "miraculous" inspiriation/preservation from God in AD1611 and THEY something other than the inspired originals as "Truth"

2) NEW INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE - If it isn't in the words and language of the KJV, it is "satan's new age bible"

3) NEW JESUS -

4)NEW CHRISTIANITY - Church has departed from the faith and a new fundamental is KJVonly or you are a liberal modernist

5) NEW LANGUAGE - Actually, "old" language is in, and new language that people can understand without a dictionary is evil

6) NEW GOD - Bibliolatry

7) NEW THEOLOGY - Add doctrine of "perservation" to Father, Son and Holy Ghost

8) NEW LEADERSHIP - Cults have strong leaders who cow others into agreeing for fear of being ostracized; who will stand up and say it is "wrong" when Jack or Pensacola or whoever will attack you viciously

9) NEW SALVATION - "Decisionism" and "easy believism" is rampant in the same part of ifb that endorse the KJVonly (no cause-effect claimed, just an observation)

So, how many of these 9 cultic areas does the extreme KJVonly agree with? You judge.

Opinions?

[DocCas]

I would tend to agree with #1, 2, 4, and 8.
3 is, of course, not apropos to this discussion, as you indicated by not applying it to KJVOs.

5 may be a bit of a stretch, although I know some who will obsess over "shew" verses "show" and "thoroughly" verses "throughly."

6 is, in my opinion, a straw man often thrown out to demean those who take a different position on the KJV than we do. I don't know of any KJVO, no matter how radical his position, who worships the KJV as opposed to worshipping God.

7 is troubling to me, for I believe that preservation is a biblical doctrine. God has promised to preserve His word. I will agree that promise does not extend to the English (or any other language) but I do believe it extends to the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek.

9 is, unfortunately, rampant in many (perhaps even most) Baptist churches today, not just those of the KJVO persusasion. I do not think it is a function of versionism as much as the ecumenical compromise brought into Baptist circles by new-evangelicalism and the politically correct "gospel" which does not want to offend anyone by suggesting their religion cannot save them.

Anybody else we can beat up on? :D

[Joseph_Botwinick]

How about Tim Lehayites? :D

Joseph

[Scott J]

While I do not thing there is a cause effect relationship between radical KJVO and easy believism, I do see a common cause relationship. They both rely on emotion/feeling overriding facts and reason. Anyone who reasons or applies intellect is accused of being unspiritual. I live in an area where many of the ifb churches are influenced by Hyles on both topics. When someone disagrees with them on either issue, the can expect a not-very-Christlike response. Anyone objecting to easy believism are said to not want to see people saved.

[Gina B]

Anyone who follows specific teachings is called a cult. Baptists are defined as a cult in books on cults written by non-Baptists. Any religion other than the one you believe in can be classified as a cult, according to it's definition. So now I'm hearing cult within a cult? How peculiar!

[DocCas]

LOL! Well put, Gina! What also strikes me funny about this is that the one thing the proponents of the Critical Text, and the Modern versions based on them, object most strenuously to is being called members of the "Alexandrian Cult." Now, for some odd reason, they are being called cultish themselves. Now for the big question. If it is wrong to call the CT crowd members of the "Alexandrian Cult" is it then okay to call the KJVO members of a "KJVO Cult?" :D

[Dr. Bob]

As my Quaker friends might say: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Everyone is a cult but me and thee,
And I'm not so sure about thee.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[donnA]

I've been told several times by KJVO's on the internet that I wasn't a christian based only on the fact that I don't believe that KJV is the only Bible. This seems to be one of their main ways of deciding someone elses salvation and relationship with God, weither they will admit to it or not.
Because of them being so exclusive on who can be a part of their churches(based on which Bible you use, and not solely on being a christian, haveing repented and trusting Jesus as Lord and Savior), then they fit the bill of cult for me. I would never be a part of any church that makes demands on which Bible I can use. :eek:

[Gina B]

Sure, go ahead and call KJVo's a cult. I'll start it off.
Hello-my name is Gina and I'm a KJVO. tongue.gif
Hey-I've been called worse. If I'm going to be involved in a cult, let it be the one that gets me the closest to Jesus.
Gina

[Blade]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gina:
If I'm going to be involved in a cult, let it be the one that gets me the closest to Jesus.
Gina<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gina,

While I appreciate your enthusiasm for Christ, I don't see how being part of the "KJVO cult" (or "Alexandrian cult" for that matter) brings you closer to Jesus. Indeed, this issue is one of the most damaging and divisive issues in Christianity today. I would hardly say that any version or 'preference mentality' in and of itself would bring anyone closer to Jesus.

Sincerely,

[Chick Daniels]

There is the broad sense that members of people joined by a common belief system is properly labelled a "cultus", however when focusing on the assumption that biblical Christianity is the norm, then deviations from that norm as detailed by Dr. Bob, are properly termed "cults." I see no reason to use the term in this narrow sense against anyone with humble opinions on ANY side of the text issue, or underlying Hebrew/Greek text issue. When the humble opinions give way to an organized effort to execute the items listed by Dr. Bob, then deviation from the norm has taken place, and the label may apply. The key is obviously establishing the norm. Without an ounce of Scripture to tell us how and even if (sorry Thomas) God has preserved His perfect original manuscripts, the standard position would seem to allow for much Christian liberty on this issue. Failure to extend such liberty to other believers opens the door to becoming a cult.

Chick

[Gina B]

So far it's worked for me.
Unless I take the most liberal stance possible and only generally believe in anything, with utter and complete tolerance for anyone and anything that disagrees, someone will label me a cultist.
It just doesn't bother me.
I know a guy who fits the description of a cultist better than anyone else I've ever heard of. He believed in one thing, preached that one thing, taught it to all who would listen, had it carved in stone, had it written on paper, claimed that his was the one and only truth, and obeyed to the letter everything his leader told him to do, even though he was mocked, persecuted, and reviled for his teachings. Eventually his obedience caused him to willingly go to his own cruel death on the cross.
There is today's perfect drfinition of a cultist.
Once again, it doesn't bother me to be one.

smile.gif Gina

[Dr. Bob]

Gina - Dripping piety doesn't win points in a debate, just perhaps sympathy from some who feel you have been unjustly attacked.

Mormons are a cult. Jehovah's witnesses are a cult. Seventh Day Adventists (as much as they deny it) are a cult. There are clear definitions that cannot be changed.

And someone telling me, while I study the Greek and Hebrew, that I am a cult because I don't have the only inspired and preserved Word of God (KJV1769 revision) is not valid. I have not deviated from normative, orthodox christianity; they have.

Hence, even the staunchest defender of the KJV1769 on the BB (Dr. Thomas) will shun the moniker "KJVonly".

If you feel persecuted and forced into a corner to eat worms or take martyr pills, that is your privilege. Please do it quietly, because it's nauseating to others.

But anyone holding to the KJVonly position is still "cultish" in their belief and not orthodox christian.

[Gina B]

I'm not being a martyr. It really doesn't bother me. Baptists in general have been called cultists. And all religions fit in that generic description.
I didn't realize I'd been attacked.
I do stand on the KJV. I used to use other translations also to get a better understanding, but ending up finding that some things just didn't fit together.
Who that is KJVo will get up here and say it should be called a cult? And who that is not will say it isn't at least a bit cultish?
I refer you back to your Quaker Friends comment.
Gina

[Mike G]

What do you think of this one? There is an IFB church here in Maryland which is not only KJV-only, but requires that the Bible must have a black leather cover! :rolleyes: Anyone else encounter anything like that?

[Scott J]

Gina, The definition of a cult does vary widely depending on the source. The world labels all devout believers as cultic. However, the McDowell definition given above is fairly specific and would probably be agreeable to most Christian theologians even if the disagreed as to whom it applies.

What you said in your last post does not make you a member of a cult. I think it is a mistake to use any single English translation without other resources (especially one that uses terms and phrases that have changed or lost their meaning). Greek and Hebrew do not always lend themselves to a translation that is precise and direct while retaining its complete meaning. In spite of this, if someone wants to choose a single English version to use, I think the KJV would be a very good choice.

However, when a preference becomes a formalized, extra-biblical doctrine, scripture is twisted to promote this new doctrine, facts are summararily dismissed, the original writings are subordinated to a late translation, and those who disagree are attacked in a personal, non-Christlike manner...the markings of a cult can be seen.

I would not consider Thomas Cassidy to be cultic. He appears to take evidence as it is, weigh it, and formulate conclusions. His predisposition to favor the KJV is not a problem either since all of us start out from some point of bias. I do not agree with all of his conclusions but he does not seem to ignore the facts nor the problems with the KJV.

There are others on this board however who fall into the extremist KJVO camp. The reasoning of one of the writers seems to have been: God could preserve His Word in the form of the KJV=&gt; I want to believe that He did=&gt; therefore He did=&gt; therefore any evidence to the contrary is a plot of Satan himself=&gt; therefore anyone with a differing opinion is wrong at best or minions of Satan at worst. To this I answer, God could have: given us the printing press in 100 AD, inspired someone to engrave stone/metal tablets with the New Testament to preserve the originals in perfection, prevented all scribes from error, inspired the Bible in English originally, etc...but He didn't. He gave us manuscripts uniform enough to preserve His Word but different enough to prevent them from becoming brazen serpent-like idols.

One of the odd and interesting things to me is that the KJVO position finds such zeal in Baptists. The Baptists were persecuted by the Anglicans in both England and America. This persecution occurred during the same period (and by some of the same men) that the KJV was being translated, revised, and imposed as the Authorized Version. Dissenters from the Church of England preferred the Geneva Bible and other earlier translations. They claimed that the KJV favored Anglican doctrine. One accusation concerned the prelacy and another the transliteration of "baptize" as opposed to the translation to "immerse." In less than 400 years, Baptist have gone from resisting the AV to using it to honoring it to the KJVO movement.

[Gina B]

Thank you for your reply- and for giving it in a non-accusatory manner. I'm learning more from these posts every day!
Gina

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gina:
I know a guy who fits the description of a cultist better than anyone else I've ever heard of. He believed in one thing, preached that one thing, taught it to all who would listen, had it carved in stone, had it written on paper, claimed that his was the one and only truth, and obeyed to the letter everything his leader told him to do, even though he was mocked, persecuted, and reviled for his teachings. Eventually his obedience caused him to willingly go to his own cruel death on the cross.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dear Gina:

I would think twice before using the Sovereign Lord as an example of a "cultist". Actually, holding strong conviction alone does not qualify anyone to be a cultist - be it Baptist or Jesus. A cult always has a false locus of truth at its core, which it holds to beyond evidence or reason. It also follows one charismatic leader who is inerrant in all he speaks - be it the pope in Rome or Peter Ruckman in KJVO circles. Thirdly, a cult is mind-controlling, not allowing its members to hear or experience any other opinions.

One can easily see (I hope) that Jesus did not qualify under any condition.

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
I would think twice before using the Sovereign Lord as an example of a "cultist". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Chris, I think you may have missed Gina's point. Several posts back she indicated, correctly, that "cult" can simply mean "a belief system."

Cult A system or community of religious worship and ritual. American Heritage Dictionary.

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
[QB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Chris, I think you may have missed Gina's point. Several posts back she indicated, correctly, that "cult" can simply mean "a belief system."

Cult A system or community of religious worship and ritual. American Heritage Dictionary.[/QB][/QUOTE]

But Dr. Bob:

That is certainly not the current popular definition, nor is it the definition that anti-cult organizations use.

Perhaps that is the archaic definition as used in 1611? :D

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
But Dr. Bob:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I hate to be the one to have to tell you, but you were not talking to Dr. Bob, you were talking to Gina. smile.gif

[Dr. Bob]

Hey, now I'm getting blamed for everything! ;)

Think I'll go take some martyr pills myself. :rolleyes:

[DocCas]

Dr. Bob, haven't you figured it out yet? The only reason we keep you around here is to have somebody to blame! :D

[Gina B]

Dr. Bob,
You're still upset? Why does it have to be martyrdom when something just doesn't bother someone? And some people do give the word cult that description. It's was a very simple statement, and I feel that sometimes people let the headiness of debates, theology, and acceptability rule out the simpler things God would have us to do with our lives. These things are all very well, but what is it about a pious statement that irks you so? You used the word piety as if it were a bad word. It is an honor according to scripture.
I will not be ashamed of putting into words how I feel about what Jesus did. It seemed to be your intention to make me feel that way. Why?
KJVO should not be called a cult. There is a point it should not go beyond, but it is not in and of itself satanic.
Gina

[tlange]

I am jumping into this discussion midstream, but here goes. I would consider myself a KJV person, but NOT to the extreme of Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, etc. I have always had major problems with Ruckman's theories of if the KJV and TR differ, than the KJV is correct. The question that I have always posed to those that espouse such things, "How can a translation be superior to its source??" Needless to say, they won't answer me!!

I don't get all hyped out and yell AMEN when someone mentions the KJV 1611. I sit there and usually chuckle because of their ignorance, I have a facsimilie copy of a 1611 hardback edition put out by Thomas Nelson years ago. In fact, my former pastor in CA still preaches from a Bible like this. Most of us carry around the 1769 revision to the KJV, but you never hear any preachers say that from the pulpit.

I guess this will always be a controversy until we get to heaven.

My purpose here is to inform not manipulate..

[Dr. Bob]

Dear Gina - My hyperbole and humor may be new to some BaptistBoard readers. I truly do not feel like a "martyr" and trust that those who are in the KJVonly camp likewise do not feel "martyred" for their position.

I simply asked a question - is this type of belief a "cult"? And I appreciate your reasonned response on the negative side of the issue. I certainly would never equate KJVonly with Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses!

They are worse! :eek:

(See, that is my odd humor showing through -- and it is obvious that I am saying that tongue-in-cheek! I love the KJV and it is the only English translation of God's Word that I use in my pulpit ministry.)

[tentpreacher]

Guess I will jump in on this subject. First let me say that I do not intend to defend any one translation of the Scripture or any one Greek text-type, but rather critically evaluate the arguments being used in favor of preferring the Byzantine Text and Textus Receptus/KJV over the Critical Text/modern translations, demonstrating their weaknesses. Such an evaluation is a prerequisite for the formation of any well-informed position on such an important issue as this.

When delving into an issue such as this there are many technical terms to which most believers are not well acquainted. In order to avoid confusion I will define these terms and describe how they are being used.

There are two terms used to refer to the Greek manuscripts which reflect readings contained in the majority of all extant manuscripts: Byzantine Text, Majority Text. I will use the former term in reference to the corpus of all individual manuscripts reflecting a majority of all readings (the corpus of which is referred to as a 'family' or 'text-type'), and the latter term when speaking of the published text reflecting an eclectic (choosing the most likely original readings from among all existing variants contained in the manuscripts) reading of all individual Byzantine Text-type manuscripts.

This published text is called The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, published in 1982 by Thomas Nelson Publishers (Nashville). The text was edited by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad, with the help of Wilbur Pickering. Until that time there was no official published Greek text which contained the readings found in the majority of all manuscripts. This text is the only modern attempt to accumulate the majority of readings from all existing manuscripts, and collate them into one document.

There are also two terms used to refer to the Greek manuscripts which reflect certain readings contained in a minority of all extant manuscripts: Critical Text, Minority Text. I will only use the former term in reference to both the corpus of all individual manuscripts reflecting non-Byzantine readings, and the two primary published texts reflecting an eclectic and critical reading of all manuscripts. These two texts are United Bible Societies 4th edition (UBS) and Nestle-Aland 27th edition (NA).

There is a distinction between a "reading" and a "text/text-type." A text/text-type is a whole document (manuscript) or collection of documents (manuscripts) reflecting certain characteristics. A reading is a particular portion of a whole document.

One more issue needs to be noted for those readers who are somewhat familiar with the terminology employed in these kinds of discussions. The Byzantine Text is often referred to by others as the "Majority Text," the two terms being used virtually synonymously. Such an exchange of terminology can confuse the reader to believe that the "Majority Text" means that all manuscripts classified by this name always contain the majority of readings found among all existing Greek manuscripts. Such is not the case. This is just one reason why I choose to refer to these same manuscripts by the term "Byzantine Texts."

The label of "Majority Text" can also be confused with the published text of Hodges/Farstad referred to as the Majority Text. Because of the confusion that can result it seems better to refer to the manuscript text-type as "Byzantine," and the published, eclectic text of this same corpus of manuscripts as the "Majority Text."

Now, with the above distinctions of text/reading we can distinguish between an individual Byzantine manuscript as a text-type, and the majority of all readings. The former is a document which most often contains readings found in the majority of all existing manuscripts, while the latter is the way the majority of all manuscripts record a particular section of Scripture. The Byzantine Text-type consists of readings which usually manifest conformity to the majority of all extant manuscripts. The fact remains that every reading in each Byzantine manuscript does not always contain the reading found in the majority of all extant manuscripts regardless of text-type. There are places in every individual manuscript of the "Majority Text-type" wherein are contained readings found in the minority of all extant Greek manuscripts. So each "Majority Text-type" manuscript (as it is referred to by others) does contain minority readings. The Majority Text published by Hodges/Farstad extracted the majority readings found by comparison of all Greek manuscripts, and collated them into one Greek text.

It is being noted today that the new translations of the Bible do more than modernize the language of the KJV, but change other vital aspects as well. The changes are often associated with Satan and his desire to pervert the Word of God. While it is true that there are more differences in the translations than language style, to say that the differences have been a perversion or change to the Word of God is a judgment call based on certain presuppositions. To say that something has been changed assumes a standard by which all else is to be judged for variation. It appears to have been assumed that the KJV is the unperverted Word of God because it is based on the Byzantine Text-type, and therefore is the standard by which all other versions are to be judged for accuracy.
The real question is, What constitutes the Word of God? The simple fact of the matter is that all translations, including the KJV, are based on Greek manuscripts discovered over the centuries, which are copies of the original autographs penned by the apostles. It is those original autographs that are the true Word of God. Any translation to be considered the Word of God must accurately reflect the originals..


The ~5400 manuscripts of the New Testament which we currently possess do differ in several places, as is to be expected with the written transmission of any historical document. This is not to say that we have no certainty as to the original wording of the New Testament. Textual critics have ascertained the certainty of 98.33 % of the text. Less than two percent of the text is subject to question, making the New Testament the best preserved ancient text known to man. It is the remaining 1.67 %, however, which affects the different translations of the New Testament available today.The two broadest categories/families of texts (although there are more) are known as the Byzantine Text Text (a.k.a. Majority Text) and Critical Text (a.k.a. Minority Text). The smaller, less significant families of text are called the Western Text and Caesarean Text. The Critical Text dates older than the Byzantine, but is also more limited in count. The real issue is not which English translation is best per se, but rather which Greek text underlying the various translations most accurately reflects the original autographs.

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This published text is called The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, published in 1982 by Thomas Nelson Publishers (Nashville). The text was edited by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad, with the help of Wilbur Pickering....This text is the only modern attempt to accumulate the majority of readings from all existing manuscripts, and collate them into one document.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not entirely true. One other is published, The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine/ Majority Textform, by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont. :D

[Bob L. Ross]

The "KingJamesOnlyism" of the advocates with whom I am acquainted seems to be entrepeneurmanship more than anything else. It reminds me somewhat of the "health food fadists." My nemesis, "Possel" Ruckman of Pensacola, as a "ministry" makes a good living off of people who buy his books, tapes, videos, etc. about this issue. (I even bought one of his KJVO belt-buckles and keep it in our Bible showcase as a "conversation piece"). He calls his products "Scriptural Art Products" (SAP). Gail Riplinger has built a successful publishing business on KJVOism, and Jack Hyles made her a "Doctor" on account of her KJVOism work. The Sword of the Lord Bible Conference preacher-group and church-fellowship seems to be held together by this common KJVO bond, even though Sword founder Dr. John R. Rice was anti-KingJamesOnly. Dr. Rice took issue in the Sword with David Otis Fuller, Peter Ruckman, and E. L. Bynum on KJVOism. But the current Sword sells ads, and several ads are embellished by reference to the "KJV" in the ads. "KJV" has become somewhat of a shibboleth in the Sword. I have never seen an ad which mentioned another translation favorably. -- Bob L. Ross

[try hard]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And someone telling me, while I study the Greek and Hebrew, that I am a cult because I don't have the only inspired and preserved Word of God (KJV1769 revision) is not valid. I have not deviated from normative, orthodox christianity; they have.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, since one side is calling you a cultic member, does it make it right to call them one?

[Dr. Bob]

Simply put, I have not deviated from the inspired Word or added to it - parts of the classic definition of a "cult". So I do not like to be falsely called a cult.

That will not stop me from pointing out the doctrinal and interpretive errors in other groups. Hey, I'm out here in Mormon country and they go ballistic and are really hyper about being labeled a cult.

But they are. Can't change the spots on the leopard . . .

[preacher]

Well, I just signed on today, so I'm 4 or 5
days behind on this discussion. I trust in
the KJV for one reason only, my Lord told me
to. I do have a couple of Questions though.
1. If you have a church that uses more than one version, will that not create confusion
somewhere up the road?, just because of the
FACT that of all the diffrent versions,none
agree 100% on everything important. Now I'm
sure you'll agree that God is not the author
of cofusion.
2.Why would God suddenly decide that the 1611 is too out of date and have (I'm guessing)15-20 diffrent versions come out
in the last50-100 years? ( again I'm no
historian so the nos. may be off a little).
You will have a hard time convinceing me that with all the heated debates that this subject stirs up that it can be to Gods
glory.
Just wondering thats all
stirs up

[Blade]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by preacher:
1. If you have a church that uses more than one version, will that not create confusion somewhere up the road?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only people I have ever met who seem to be confused by the existence of multiple translations of the Bible are KJVOs. This is a straw man argument (it is a creation of KJVOs; an invented [fabricated]'problem,' if you will).

If you sincerely believe that [multiple] versions cause "confusion," then what is your response to the following?

Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures...

The above was the opinion of the KJV translators found in the original preface of the AV1611. Preacher, do you differ from that opinion?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>just because of the
FACT that of all the diffrent versions,none
agree 100% on everything important. Now I'm
sure you'll agree that God is not the author
of cofusion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, an assertion that can't be sustained. The "different versions" do agree on every major doctrine (i.e., you can demonstrate any major doctrine [what you consider "everything important"] from any version of the Bible). Pick a major (essential) doctrine and I can give you support for it from the NIV, NASB, KJV, etc. This is just another straw man--if not an absolute falshood.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2.Why would God suddenly decide that the 1611 is too out of date and have (I'm guessing)15-20 diffrent versions come out in the last50-100 years? ( again I'm no
historian so the nos. may be off a little).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would God suddenly decide that 1611 is the year that the Geneva Bible was too out of date and needed updating or retranslating? Why would he wait almost a millenium and a half to deliver his perfect word in English to us?

Your questions have no answers like mine do not. They are all rhetorical. The one truth that does explain all of these questions is this: God didn't decide that it was time for translations to be made; he decided when the originals were to be written. Translations are works of imperfect men (although God does use them and they are indeed the Word of God where they accurately convey the meaning of the original)...don't forget that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You will have a hard time convinceing me that with all the heated debates that this subject stirs up that it can be to Gods glory.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Finally, a point on which we agree. To debate, I would add churches split, Christian fellowship harmed, families torn apart (not being melodramatic here), and many other atrocities that have been the direct or indirect result of this man-made doctrine.

Sincerely,

[Rockfort]

&lt; If you have a church that uses more than one version, will that not create confusion
somewhere up the road?, just because of the
FACT that of all the diffrent versions,none
agree 100% on everything important. Now I'm
sure you'll agree that God is not the author
of cofusion. &gt;

I also have wondered why God gave us 4 different 'gospels' which narrate different events and give different details about the same event. For instance, just what did the sign above Jesus' head on the cross read: "This is Jesus, the king of the Jews"-- Matthew 27:37 ; "The king of the Jews"-- Mark 15:26 ; "This is the king of the Jews"-- Luke 24:38 ; or "Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews"-- John 19:19? Was "This is" included? Was "of Nazareth" included? *Things different are not the same*, as 'KJVO's like to say. And if "different versions" create confusion, and God is not the author of confusion, why did He give us the words of the sign differently?

&lt; Why would God suddenly decide that the 1611 is too out of date &gt;

Just when did He decide it was *in date* and the Geneva Bible, Great Bible, Bishops' Bible, et al, were out of date? Was it God who decided that His people will have to wait almost 16 centuries after apostolic revelation before the *right* Word would be given? Face it, bud-- translations are man's endeavors to understand the Word clearly in one's native language. The examples of the 4 gospels and their differing details shows that He does not authorize one, and only one, translation [version], or even just one translation per language.

&lt; You will have a hard time convinceing me that with all the heated debates that this subject stirs up that it can be to Gods
glory. &gt;

What then is your reason for contributing to these "heated debates?"

[PreservedWords]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gina:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
Unless I take the most liberal stance possible and only generally believe in anything, with utter and complete tolerance for anyone and anything that disagrees, someone will label me...
&gt;&gt;&gt;
Amen Gina! You've succintly described the essence of the pro-new versions crowd. What what should they be labeled as?
The issue of an appropriate acronym to refer to the new version proponents has come up. In order to highlight some of salient features of the pro Westcott/Hort camp who superstitiously exalt Vaticanus/Sinaticus, and those who are apalled that God would have providentially preserved His Words as that would hinder their desire for fallible bibles they can keep reconstructing/changing/adding to/and deleting from.

Thus, what about the following:

B.R.A.P.P.'s

This stands for:

Bible Relativists Against Providential Preservation

The Bible Relativists part is a fitting term since amongst
the pro-new version camp nothing grates at their ears more
than the dogmatic, politically incorrect view that in any
given language there could be one translation that is
superior to the others. Their minds saturated with the
relativistic modernism of the day, they abhor the very idea
that their higher/lower critics' license to
change/add to/delete from the Bible would be questioned.
'All versions are true even if contradictory" is their
refrain. Paraphrase it, omit it, dynamic equivalence it,
anyway you want to they tell their modernistic lower
textual critics - just be sure to "do your own thing"
with it. In short, I think Bible Relativists is a
succinct reference for this aspect of their views.

The second part "Against Providential Preservation"
is also appropriate. Nothing wakes up a BRAPP more than to
remind them of Psalm 12:6-7 - where they'll try to jump a
couple verses for an antecedent rather than face the
fact that God promised to preserve His Words. They
would rather we believe that the true Words lay hidden
in the Vatican and the sands of Egypt for 1400 years
until some necromancing heretics named Westcott/Hort
duped gullible Christians into swallowing
the most corrupt texts immaginable.

Thus I feel the term BRAPP is a literal definition of the
new version proponents.

Should some of the most strident new version
proponents be called BRAPP onlyists, or BRAPPO's?
I don't know because their relativism seems in conflict.

[Wayne Rossi]

Dear PreservedWords,

I sort of hope that there is a debate/rhetoric professor reading these columns. Your post is a perfect example of bad and fallacious argumentation.

1. Argument ad hominem (at the man, not at the argument). You criticize proponents of Bibles translated after 1611 as, among other things, unbelievers in scripture and relativists. Not only is this form of attack generally considered the weapon of the person with no real arguments, but your particular attacks are unjustified. Not all believe as you do. Hence:

2. Straw Man arguments. (Setting up a straw man to knock down in favor of your position.) You set up an "all MVs are equal" stance, saying (essentially) that proponents of modern Bible translations do not carefully consider and pray over the question of correctness of any given version of the Scriptures. I do not consider, say, the New English Bible to be up to par as accuracy goes, and I also have a marked liking for the New King James Version and the God's Word translation. An integral part of the modern translations position is that there are quality differences between the versions that we have today, and that we should attempt to find the one that most closely fits God's revealed Scriptures.

3. False dichotomy. One must be "KJVO" or "BRIPPO" in your model. Dichotomies have a tendency to be false, though. There is the entire spectrum of versions and combinations within--I might prefer the NKJV and GW, but I also look regularly to the NIV and KJV, and wish to buy more translations so that I may better study and understand God's Scriptures. One must be for the most loose, biased translation to support modern Bible versions? I think not. This is used to make your faulty position sound reasoned and appealing.

4. Faulty logic. The basic tenets of KJVO can be simplified into a logical argument as follows:

P1: If God has promised to preserve the Bible, then He has Preserved the Bible.
P2: God has promised to preserve the Bible.
C1: God has preserved the Bible. (P4)

P3: If God has preserved the Bible, then the Bible should not contain errors.
P4: God has preserved the Bible.
C2: The Bible should not contain errors. (P6)

P5: If the Bible should not contain errors, versions with errors cannot be considered the Bible.
P6: The Bible should not contain errors.
C3: Versions with errors cannot be considered the Bible. (P7)

(Thus far, the argument is sound and has used simple Modus Ponens.)

P7: Versions with errors cannot be considered the bible.
P8: If several versions differ, only one can be without error.
C4: If several versions differ, only one can be considered the Bible. (P9)

P9: If several versions differ, only one can be considered the Bible.
P10: The Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and Critical Text (the three most important published NTs) differ.
C5: Of the TR, MT, and CT, only one can be considered the Bible. (P13) (Caveat emptor: oversimplified, but workable for the basis here.)

P11: The earliest published text is the Bible.
P12: The TR is the earliest published text.
C6: The TR is the Bible. (P14)

P13: Of the TR, MT, and CT, only one can be considered the Bible.
P14: The TR is the Bible.
C7: The MT and CT cannot be considered the Bible.

This is all logically sound (and very long), which means that if EVERY proposition is true, then the conclusion will be true. The sticking point is P11, of which I can find no logical expression save "The earliest published text is the Bible." There is no scriptural or manuscript proof for the sanctity of the TR, and that is hence the only explanation I find logical. Satisfactory? Hardly.

Unless you can find me a logical framework better than the one I have provided (which took 7 syllogisms to demonstrate), I must ask that you provide me with a solid argument for P11. Providential preservation in no way, shape, or form argues for a particular manuscript, only for the existence of a real, in tact Bible. Solving what I have here labelled P11 will get you the most solid argument you can find for any position--which is why it's so hard. Until then, your argument stands on no foundation. (Psalm 12 does not count, as it does not refer to specific versions.)

5. Poor literary criticism. The "them" of Ps. 12:7 is the weak and needy, not the Words of the Lord. It is also not sufficient proof of the inspiration of a *particular* version. You need to do better than that.

-Wayne

[Dr. Bob]

Kudos, Wayne, for your capable and clear definition of the syllogistic problems with the KJVonly. As a former professor of logic and rhetoric (with that title and 50 cents I can get a cup of coffee at Hardees) I appreciate your post.

May I steal it? tongue.gif

[HankD]

Hi,

I'm new to this board and my feeling is that
KJVO is not a cult because they are saved (in comparison to JW's, Mormons, Christadelphians, New Age, etc...).
Maybe I'm a little prejudice, I feel the same way the KJVO do about the Greek and Hebrew behind the 1611AV as they do about the King's English that Paul used smile.gif
How about I am a PTKJVAAO (Prefer the King James Version Above All Others).
I guess "close but no cigar" oops forgot, we are Baptists (Spurgeon excepted).
Anyway one of my favorite verses in the KJV is Revelation 14:2b
...and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:

Hank D

[Natan'el Bar Tholmai]

What an excellent discussion. Was amazed to see the first post - listing of a cult and its obvious parallels to the KJVonly - AND to see Dr. Cassidy agreeing (on the most part) with Dr. McDowell and Dr. Bob.

And they say miracles never happen!

[Contender]

Romans 14:12: So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

How's this for an arguement?

[jeronimo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tlange:
"How can a translation be superior to its source??" Needless to say, they won't answer me!!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like that question. I wonder what kind of responses I will get when I ask some people this same question.

I guess while I'm here I'll say that I believe that the KJV is one of the best translated bibles, but I will not ever become a KJVO cultist. I know that this issue will never be solved til we all get to heaven, so we better remember to serve God and not get caught up in any debates about this. ;)

[John Wells]

Let's set the stage for the KJVO argument: Around 60-70 AD God's revelation to mankind is completed. What came to be known as the New Testament was written in Greek, and what came to be known as the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Almost 1600 years later the King of England accepted the proposal that a new English translation be made. It became the ninth in the sequence of printed English Bibles and is a revision of the Bishops’ Bible. The KJV was heavily criticized in its early days; but in time, with official pressure, it won the field and became “the Bible” for English-reading people, and whalla . . . we have the only true and trustworthy rendering of God's revelation to mankind (according to some)!

Then, over 300 years later in 1978 the International Bible Society cooperative project of 110 scholars representing thirty-four religious groups published the NIV, aiming at accuracy, clarity, and dignity. It attempts to steer a middle course between literalness and paraphrase while attaining a contemporary style for the English reader. They used papyri which now total ninety-three items and are older than the great codices used for the 1611 KJV. Wider knowledge of the nature of the biblical and related languages has been gained, making for more accurate definitions. New scholarly grammars, dictionaries, and anthologies of texts grew out of these developments.

So which is more accurate, a Bible translated from 25 manuscripts hundreds of years newer than another translation's 5357 older manuscripts?

To claim that the KJV (1611 or any revision) is the only true Word of God is preposterous. The complete Bible has been translated into 293 languages and dialects, the New Testament into 618 additional ones, and individual books into 918 more languages. Are these "the devil's work also?"

God bless,
John

[CorpseNoMore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gina:
Anyone who follows specific teachings is called a cult. Baptists are defined as a cult in books on cults written by non-Baptists. Any religion other than the one you believe in can be classified as a cult, according to it's definition. So now I'm hearing cult within a cult? How peculiar!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Gina, I think you are using the word cult here in it's generic religious-studies form. When evangelicals use the word "cult" we have something more specific in mind. Dr. Bob quoted Josh McDowell, it's in his material that you will notice the distinction between "cults" and "non-christian" religions(Hindus, for example).

So these cults could be more precisely called "Christian-cults," i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc. Meaning that they had their beginning within the general sphere of recognized Christianity, but have embraced heresies so damaging to the essense of the Christian faith, that they cannot be counted as holding to the Christian religion in it's basic meaning, even if they retain some of the forms and language.

This basic view of cults would tend to, in the mind of many, discount Roman Catholicism as a cult, because they are Trinitarian, have a high view of scripture and such things. The problem for the RCC is not that they don't affirm the Christian religion, it's all that they add to it. The question in thier case is how tightly to draw the definitional line.

Thus in your example of Baptists, we prefer the term denomination to denote acceptable disputes within the Christian framework.

Now we come to KJV-Onlyism, a concept definable enough in it's manifestation to earn the distinction of being dubbed an "ism," not just a view. As James White has attempted to demonstrate, the King James Only concept comes in many flavors, all the way from "I like the KJV best" to what is shorthandedly sometimes referred to as Ruckmanism(another grouping that is observable enough in it's display to earn the badge of an "ism.")

I find White's distinctions useful for the purposes of breaking down the issue in some of it's technical parts, but not as permanent classifications. For my way of thinking, KJV-Onlyism, in it's cultic state, is this...

ONLY the KJV is the Word of God, all other translations are NOT!

This one phrase (in my mind) separates the true KJV-Onlies from the KJV-preferred. Now some persons may hold this position in ignorance to it's ramifications, and I don't bear ill will toward them, but lovingly try to persuade them away from it.

There are, however, those who are so dogmatically harsh in this view, and so destructive of the theological componants of what we call bibliology, that they must be vigorously opposed.

The question yet remains, "are they a cult?" It's a hard question to the honest observer, as it is in the case of Roman Catholics, even harder, because they(IFB KJV-Onlies) affirm so many basic doctrines of the Christian faith. It is fair to say some of the behavior is cultic, but are they in a cult?

I cannot answer dogmatically yet, but two issues press the case.

(1) The advocacy of erroneous views regarding the theology of the Holy Scriptures, i.e. advanced revelation... also implying(if not saying) that the KJV is "insired in the same sense that the originals were. (The doctrine of inspiration is a very specific thing.)

(2) Unbiblical separation from brothers & sisters in Christ over the issue, and/or not counting one as a true brother who does not hold to the KJV-Only issue because... (a) one can only be saved from the KJV, or (b) one should be viewed as an apostate who is not KJV-Only.

cordially,

CNM

[MagicDar]

This is so sad to me. God did not intend for his children to cling to an interpretation of his word, he wants us to cling to him. I believe in my heart that when we put a version of the bible so high we miss the point of the scripture being available to us in the first place. Whatever version helps you personally to understand God's word and grow in Him then thats what you use. I feel its a shame that we as christians would exclude any other believer and follower of Jesus just due to what translation he or she uses, when it gets to that point and it has gotton to that point then it is considered worship of a version instead of God. Folks, God wants us to be in unity, this doesn't mean we must agree on all issues with each other but it does mean we are to love and welcome without condition.

Dar

[MagicDar]

I feel its very sad that any church would exclude a christian from worship with them due to the translation of scripture the person uses. This is definately called worship of a version instead of worship of God himself. If one has a conviction on a particular translation then fine use it, but don't condemn others for using what they use, thats just plain wrong.

Dar

[Mike Hall]

Who killed Goliath?

David the son of Jesse?
or
Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim?

2 Samuel 21:19 KJV
And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

2 Samuel 21:19 NIV
In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.

SOMEBODY HELP ME PLEASE!?!?! :D
cause I was always taught that David killed Goliath. He cut the giants head off, he did!

[Mike Hall]

I posted this on another thread:

As Baptist believers, we reqiured to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, Father, Son & Holy Ghost.
The base scripture for this belief is 1 John 5:7. I included verse 8 to make the point.


Lets look at the doctrine of the trinity as provided by the NIV:
1John 5:7
For there are three that testify:
8
the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.


The Father, Son & Holy Ghost are not there.


The KJV Bible has it in there.

KJV Bible doctrine on the trinity
1 John 5:
7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.


The NIV splits verse 8 into two verses: In verse 7, it says:

For there are three that testify (bear witness)

In verse 8, it says:

the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

The true verse 7 has been removed. In the KJB, verse 7 says:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

This is no insignificant verse. This is the clearest statement of the doctrine of the Trinity in the entire Bible. Is this verse unimportant? Would God want it removed?

[John Wells]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cubbies_daddy:
Who killed Goliath?

David the son of Jesse?
or
Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim?

2 Samuel 21:19 KJV
And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

2 Samuel 21:19 NIV
In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.

SOMEBODY HELP ME PLEASE!?!?! :D
cause I was always taught that David killed Goliath. He cut the giants head off, he did!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The actual Hebrew text reads like the NIV! If you will note that "the brother of" is in italics in the KJV which means the authors took the liberty to insert it. There are three possible explanations: 1) a scribal error where "the brother of" was omitted. This seems most likely as 1 Chronicles 20:5 is the parallel counterpart and the Hebrew says "Lahmi the brother of Goliath," 2) Elhanan is another name for David (not likely in view of 1 Chron 20:5), and 3) there were two giants named Goliath.

Some may hasten to claim error on the NIV, but not inserting something that isn't there in the ancient Hebrew manuscript is a weak argument.

Hope this clears up your delemma :confused:

[Mike Hall]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wellsjs:


The actual Hebrew text reads like the NIV! If you will note that "the brother of" is in italics in the KJV which means the authors took the liberty to insert it. There are three possible explanations: 1) a scribal error where "the brother of" was omitted. This seems most likely as 1 Chronicles 20:5 is the parallel counterpart and the Hebrew says "Lahmi the brother of Goliath," 2) Elhanan is another name for David (not likely in view of 1 Chron 20:5), and 3) there were two giants named Goliath.

Some may hasten to claim error on the NIV, but not inserting something that isn't there in the ancient Hebrew manuscript is a weak argument.

Hope this clears up your delemma :confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the quick responce. I don't have a good Hebrew manuscript. As a matter of fact, I don't have any Hebrew manuscript.

Thanks,
Mike

[John Wells]

Dear Mike Hall,

The reason for this omission is quite simple. The clause "testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit" appears in late manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, not in the earlier ones. And in the Greek manuscripts it does not appear before the sixteenth century. Ring up one in the error column for the KJV :D

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cubbies_daddy:
I posted this on another thread:

Lets look at the doctrine of the trinity as provided by the NIV:
1John 5:7
For there are three that testify:
8
the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

The Father, Son & Holy Ghost are not there.

The KJV Bible has it in there.

KJV Bible doctrine on the trinity
1 John 5:
7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

This is no insignificant verse. This is the clearest statement of the doctrine of the Trinity in the entire Bible. Is this verse unimportant? Would God want it removed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These are very reasonable questions.

If you'll notice, the footnote in the NIV says that the omitted part only appeared in late manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, and were not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century.

In other words, it appears that God didn't put it there to begin with. Jerome apparently took it upon himself to add it to the Latin Vulgate. Little did he know how much trouble that would cause many centuries later . . .

Such is true with many so-called "omissions" from the KJV. We must realize that the KJV is not an exalted standard by which all other translations are to be compared. The KJV may have several centuries of seniority, but that doesn't make it flawless. ;)

[ June 26, 2001: Message edited by: Terry Burnett ]

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Burnett:
If you'll notice, the footnote in the NIV says that the omitted part only appeared in late manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, and were not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am sorry, Terry, but you are incorrect. The comma is contained in MSS 61, 629, 918, and 2318, the oldest of which dates to about 1325 (14th century). The comma is also contained in the margin of MSS 88, 221, 429, and 636, the oldest of which dates to about 950 AD (10th century).

As to your assertion, "Jerome apparently took it upon himself to add it to the Latin Vulgate." - that too is incorrect. The comma is quoted by Cyprian in in 250 AD in his "De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate." It is also quoted by Priscillian in his "Liber Apologeticus" in 380 AD.

As I am sure you know Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus, and the work was completed in 383. So, it would seem the comma predated Jerome, and probably came from one of the Old Latin texts, which date to about 150 AD (2nd Century).

smile.gif

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
I am sorry, Terry, but you are incorrect. The comma is contained in MSS 61, 629, 918, and 2318, the oldest of which dates to about 1325 (14th century). The comma is also contained in the margin of MSS 88, 221, 429, and 636, the oldest of which dates to about 950 AD (10th century).

As to your assertion, "Jerome apparently took it upon himself to add it to the Latin Vulgate." - that too is incorrect.
smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thomas,

Okay. You obviously know much more about those manuscripts than I do. But, you do understand that I was quoting from the NIV footnote, which means you are correcting the NIV scholars also. They're not infallible, of course, but surely they would have a legitimate reason for making such a statement, no? ;)

As for my assertion about Jerome, I should have known better. Thanks for politely putting me in my place. smile.gif

In Christ,

Terry Burnett

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
As my Quaker friends might say: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahem, to get back to the original topic of this thread, I would just like to add my two cents worth. smile.gif

I myself do NOT consider KJV-onlyism a cult. I think Independent Baptist Fundamentalism is. :D :D

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: Terry Burnett ]

[Gina B]

Ok, so why not take it a step further? Isn't the Koran a version? Hey, it's somebody's version. Why not accept other versions of G-d?
I will repeat what I brought up on another message board. One Lord. One Way. One Truth. What does the word gospel mean? Should there be more than one truth? Are there many different versions of truth? The word gospel means truth.
And before you say it, I do not bow down to the KJV.
How about this angle? Is anything that changes the truth a cult? If you accept the NIV and the RSV, and whatever ese, where does it end? Is it up to each individual to decide what they believe? Does that make it right? Muslims believe in their god. Mormons believe in theirs. Chinese believe in theirs. They each have their own versions of Truth. It DOESN'T make it right.
Pick one G-d. Pick one Way. Pick one Gospel. And for your own sake make sure they agree.
Gina

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gina:
Ok, so why not take it a step further? Isn't the Koran a version? Hey, it's somebody's version. Why not accept other versions of G-d?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi, Gina. Pretty good post, but to whom are you replying? smile.gif

And pardon my ignorance, but what does "G-d" stand for?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I will repeat what I brought up on another message board. One Lord. One Way. One Truth. What does the word gospel mean? Should there be more than one truth? Are there many different versions of truth?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, there are many legitimate translations of truth. ;)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
The word gospel means truth.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the word gospel means "good tidings" or "good news". smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
And before you say it, I do not bow down to the KJV.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't going to say it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
How about this angle?
Is anything that changes the truth a cult?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Possibly, depending on what you mean by that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
If you accept the NIV and the RSV, and whatever ese, where does it end?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where does what end?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Is it up to each individual to decide what they believe?
Does that make it right?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is up to each individual to discern what the truth is, but NOT to decide what the truth is. There is a difference.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Muslims believe in their god. Mormons believe in theirs. Chinese believe in theirs. They each have their own versions of Truth. It DOESN'T make it right.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Each of those have their own versions of false religion, not truth.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Pick one G-d. Pick one Way. Pick one Gospel. And for your own sake make sure they agree. Gina<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds good to me, until I find out what "G-d" means. smile.gif

In Christ,

Terry Burnett

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: Terry Burnett ]

[Gina B]

1. I am replying to those who use other versions yet would call those who are KJVo a cult.
2. For cryin' out loud! All my life I've spelled it G-d and just this week I've been getting knocked left and right for it! Dr. Bob explained it best under MUSIC, in contemporary music at church, page 4. Your ignorance is forgiven as long as you show me the same kindness. ;)
3. And some translate truth as Buddha. Kabbalah. Whatever.
4. I was taught it meant truth. Can I appeal for both to others who may correct whichever of us is mistaken?
5. You weren't going to say it? Yippee Skippee. You get 2bonus points.
6. What I mean is that translations can change meanings.
7. Your acceptance of watered down truth. My guess is that it may end up leading you into false doctrines, which lead you into hell.
8. There is a difference. Glad we agree.
9. Change one doctrine of Christianity and you no longer have truth. Take out a part, leave out a part, mistranslate a part, ditto.
Last and not least, I better tell you because it sure seems to be stressing you out. Put an o where the dash is. As in KJVO. ;)
Gina

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gina:
1. I am replying to those who use other versions yet would call those who are KJVo a cult.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay. I myself wouldn't go that far, but I do frequently refer to divisive KJVO's as "King James' Witnesses", a elite group which I have described on my website as "an aberrant sect of pharisaic fundamentalists". ;)

From what I've seen, however, you don't seem to fit into that group. smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
2. Your ignorance is forgiven as long as you show me the same kindness. ;)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You got it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
3. And some translate truth as Buddha. Kabbalah. Whatever.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not a translation of truth.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
4. I was taught it meant truth. Can I appeal for both to others who may correct whichever of us is mistaken?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be my guest. My definition came from Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
6. What I mean is that translations can change meanings.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, that is entirely possible.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
7. Your acceptance of watered down truth. My guess is that it may end up leading you into false doctrines, which lead you into hell.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please explain why you think other English translations of the Bible are "watered down truth".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
9. Change one doctrine of Christianity and you no longer have truth. Take out a part, leave out a part, mistranslate a part, ditto.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No argument there. Of course, this applies to ALL translations -- including the KJV. ;)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Last and not least, I better tell you because it sure seems to be stressing you out. Put an o where the dash is. As in KJVO. ;)
Gina<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, but I wasn't stressed, just confused. You're the first KJV person I've ever met who feels obliged to change the spelling of the word "God" to a more modern version. :D

TLB

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: Terry Burnett ]

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: Terry Burnett ]

[Gina B]

More modern? Hee hee hee.

[prophrod]

I have had discussions of interpretation with a great many people who have a kjvo approach to Christianity. Alot of these people do not interpret verses the same. I believe that this is because they have trouble reading and understanding the "english" literature of 1611. The scariest part about all of that is they tend to solely rely on Pastors for thier understanding of the word and never grow beyond that. Those people who say there is no other correct translation and study with people who cannot read 16th century text. Seemingly want to control someone's relationship with God or want to be controlled. Which may or may not be true, but if this is true it is a good foundation for a cult. However, if you personally can easily understand the language of kjv and decide to be kjvo for yourself as an indivisual this is not cult-like.

[Pete Richert]

"Gospel" means good news. We get it slightly confused today because it has been transliterated into English to refer to the Good News of Jesus Christ. We are only slightly confused though, because it almost all the occurances of gospel in the Bible, it IS refering to the gospel of Jesus Christ. I know of at least one place though where Paul uses the word to refer to the good news about Timothy or something like that, in which case it was correctly translated good news and not gospel.

[Gina B]

pure and simple genius, nice to see you on the flip side! tongue.gif
Gina

[Orvie]

Simple, "Gospel" isn't a transliteration. More accurately the word would be evangelize, which is almost identical in the Greek, meaning to preach the Good News. :cool:

[Ransom]

pure and simple genius said:

"Gospel" means good news. We get it slightly confused today because it has been transliterated into English . . .

Actually, no. "Gospel" is English; it comes from the Anglo-Saxon "godspel" - "good spell," that is, "good story" or "good news."

It's a translation of the Greek evangelion, not a transliteration. If anything, it's the word "evangelist" that is the transliteration; English doesn't have an equivalent word meaning "bringer of good news" that is derived from the Anglo-Saxon.

[Roadrunner]

Ransom,

Ransom [pure and simple genius said:
"Gospel" means good news. We get it slightly confused today because it has been transliterated into English . . .

Actually, no.....]

RR- so 'pure and simple genius' is not so much of a genius afterall, huh?

[Roadrunner]

4 wellsjs,
You mentioned the AV was the 9th English Bible. Would you please list the preceeding 8 English Bibles? Thank you.

[CorpseNoMore]

I hate to be such a schoolmarm, but isn't this thread supposed to be about whether the KJV-Only mentality constitutes a cult? :D

[John Wells]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Roadrunner:
4 wellsjs,
You mentioned the AV was the 9th English Bible. Would you please list the preceeding 8 English Bibles? Thank you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>English Translations Efforts to render Scripture into English began with Caedmon’s paraphrases into Anglo-Saxon (A.D. 670). Bede (A.D. 735) is said to have translated the Gospel of John, completing it on the last day of his life. It was, however, John Wycliff and his associates (A.D. 1382) who are given credit for having first given the English the complete Bible in their own language.
Erasmus printed the Greek New Testament for the first time in 1516. Luther made his German translation in 1522-1524; and William Tyndale in 1525 brought out his English New Testament—the first printed one to circulate in England. Making use of Tyndale’s material where available, Miles Coverdale brought out his complete Bible in 1535.
From this point the history of the English Reformation and the history of the English Bible go hand in glove with each other. Coverdale’s Bible was followed by Matthew’s Bible in 1537. Then in 1539, Coverdale with the king’s approval brought out the Great Bible, named for its large size.
With the coming of Mary Tudor to the throne in 1553, the printing of Bibles was temporarily interrupted; but the exiles in Geneva, led by William Whittingham, produced the Geneva Bible in 1560. This proved to be particularly popular, especially with the later Puritans. Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, then had the Bishops’ Bible prepared, primarily by bishops of the Church of England, which went through twenty editions. Roman Catholics brought out their Rheims New Testament in 1582 and then the Old Testament in 1610. The period of Elizabeth was the time of England’s greatest literary figures.
With Elizabeth’s death and the coming of King James I to the throne at the Hampton Court Conference in January 1604, the king accepted the proposal that a new translation be made. The outcome was the King James Version of 1611. It is number nine in the sequence of printed English Bibles and is a revision of the Bishops’ Bible. - Holman Bible Dictionary<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Roadrunner]

wells,
Thank you.

[david reed]

Dr. Bob,
So you are now prepared to say that because I believe that God is great enough
to preserve His word for me in my language,
and That my Bible, the King James Bible, is the inspired Word of God, that I am not a Christian? HEY, WHO GAVE YOU THE BOOK OF LIFE? How dare you! So people like me make you sick, huh? All I can say is that when the books are opened, and you stand before the Judgement Seat of Christ(notice I am giving you the benefit of the doubt)what will be your answer to how faithful you were to the Word of God? Oh, by the way, I don't shun the title. I AM KING JAMES ONLY :D :D :D :D :D

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by david reed:
Dr. Bob,
So you are now prepared to say that because I believe that God is great enough
to preserve His word for me in my language,
and That my Bible, the King James Bible, is the inspired Word of God, that I am not a Christian? HEY, WHO GAVE YOU THE BOOK OF LIFE? How dare you! So people like me make you sick, huh? All I can say is that when the books are opened, and you stand before the Judgement Seat of Christ(notice I am giving you the benefit of the doubt)what will be your answer to how faithful you were to the Word of God? Oh, by the way, I don't shun the title. I AM KING JAMES ONLY :D :D :D :D :D<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spoken like a true gentlemen who is patient with those who differ and in full control of his emotions. [read slight sarcasm here].

Perhaps I should not comment because this is not addressed to me and Dr. Bob is quite able to speak for himself. However, this type of response really gets to me. It is wholly without redeeming merit for this discussion. You have dealt with no issues (not even one). You have shown a spirit of animosity toward others.

IMO, you need to reconsider your technique and spirit if you desire to participate here. Disagreement is not a problem. Being disagreeable is.

[ September 11, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

[Dr. Bob]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by david reed:
Dr. Bob, So you are now prepared to say that because I believe that God is great enough to preserve His word for me in my language, and that my Bible, the King James Bible, is the inspired Word of God, that I am not a Christian? I AM KING JAMES ONLY<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thank you for your kind words David.

Let me say a couple things in response. I personally do not care WHAT you believe about God and preservation. You are wrong imnsho, but it is your choice. We Baptists are famous for our tolerance as I noted in your post.

If you could give me just one verse (or phrase) that says God would preserve His Word in English in 1611, then it would change from your belief into God's doctrine. Until then, you believe what you want.

I am diligently searching to find where I said you were not a Christian if you fit the KJVO position. Would you help me find it? I simply quoted in post #1 the list of characteristics of a cult.

The more I see of the KJVonly crowd and their fidelity to man-made doctrine while demanding that all others believe their way (and not use Satan's Bible as I was told on another thread -- I use the Greek and Hebrew and find calling them "Satan's" Bible more than mildly offensive) is more and more cult like.

Thankfully this group will soon be in such a minority that they will have no real clout in historic ifb circles. I know many members of "cults" today who are genuinely born again and I will see them in glory (have an SDA pastor friend that is confused about inspiration, too)!

Thank you, Pastor Larry, for coming to my defense. The attacks of the KJVonly are quickly quenched in the shield of faith. I do NOT want to attack them, just try to make them think . . . and perhaps see the error of their way, if God should illumine their minds.

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
The more I see of the KJVonly crowd and their fidelity to man-made doctrine while demanding that all others believe their way (and not use Satan's Bible as I was told on another thread -- I use the Greek and Hebrew and find calling them "Satan's" Bible more than mildly offensive) is more and more cult like.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's more than offensive, Dr. Bob - its blasphemous. :(

[DocCas]

Psalm 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them. :D

[Ransom]

david reed raved:

All I can say is that when the books are opened, and you stand before the Judgement Seat of Christ(notice I am giving you the benefit of the doubt)

My, how generous of you (and how typical of the KJV crowd).

So is KJV-onlyism a cult? A disproportionate number of its disciples seem to think they have some kind of special "lock" on salvation, which is certainly a cultic tendency.

[ September 12, 2001: Message edited by: Ransom ]

[TomVols]

As a former KJVonly, I can say without hesitation that the KJVonly movement is an immoral cult. The things I saw and heard while part of that faction are unfathomable for those who claim to know Christ and obey His Word.

[david reed]

Dr. Bob,
I am, and forever shall be KJO.
However, I sure could have posted
my reply to you in a much better way.
I believe what I believe, but I realize
that not everybody is going to believe the
same thing. I responded to you with more
emotion than with enlightenment. I have studied this topic diligently for the past
several years, but I have learned my lesson
about arguing over this point in this forum.
I am outnumbered, and I sure don't want to
look like a Rucmanite (which I most surely
am not) because I can think for myself.
also, to anyone else that I may have offended
by my attacking of Dr. Bob, I am truly sorry. redface.gif redface.gif

[Kathy]

Some of the things said here, due in part to what david reed said to Dr. Bob, have shown the same animosity, only on a general level. I would prefer not to name any names, thank you.

So what about those KJV-onlyers who PREFER the KJV over the more modern translations? In my personal opinion, I have a parellel Bible, by the way (KJV/NIV) and I have found that I prefer the KJV over the NIV, and not because I think the NIV is erroneous or anything. I would just ask everyone on both sides to convey their thoughts and opinions in a Christian manner. The argument being made on your behalf loses it's luster when said in a very condescending, "you are an idiot" manner. I am not an idiot or involved in some sort of cult just because I PREFER the KJV over other translations...

Thanks!
Kathy
&lt;&gt;&lt;

[uhdum]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
As a former KJVonly, I can say without hesitation that the KJVonly movement is an immoral cult. The things I saw and heard while part of that faction are unfathomable for those who claim to know Christ and obey His Word.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm currently tryin to somewhat study the whole version controversy...I guess i'm kinda confused by the whole thing. Just a question: How is the KJVonly movement immoral? What unfathomable things did you see and hear? I'm not being sarcastic or hostile, just a sincere question, i've really been confused over this whole issue lately, and just wanted to know. God bless

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by uhdum:
How is the KJVonly movement immoral? What unfathomable things did you see and hear?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Me too. How can a "movement" be "contrary to established moral principles?" People can certainly fail morally, but I fail to see how the KJV "movement" or the majority of its defenders can be considered "immoral." smile.gif

[TomVols]

While there are moral problems with the cult-like tendencies of KJVonlyism, as immorallity typically is part and parcel of any cult-like group, I was referring in general to the churches that are the most staunch supporters of the KJVO philosophy that I have been involved in and aware of (and these were/are IFB). However, let me point out that I am not referring to KJV preferred churches or groups or that philosophy.

If you want specifics, I'd be glad to give them to you privately. The types of behaviors and wickedness I witnessed while affiliated with the movement are too insidious to be mentioned publicly on the board.

[ September 12, 2001: Message edited by: TomVols ]

[TomVols]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:


It's more than offensive, Dr. Bob - its blasphemous. :(<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen, Chris & Dr. Bob. You are both exactly right.

[ September 12, 2001: Message edited by: TomVols ]

[p]

I will try not to get too far off topic here:

Firstly,

Some are asking what was found to be immoral or unfathomable?? about the KJV only movement.

One, it is not absolutely necessary for me to have an opinion about *everything*, even though I may foster a favorite opinion about something.

Also, I premise that a great deal of freedom and liberty is available for anyone who will realize it is not necessary for them to have an opinion on everything.

It is absolutely permissible, when asked an opinion on an issue to say, "I don't know how I feel about that."

(I'm sure the above can be shredded 50 ways from Sunday; I am not going to attempt to defend it.) smile.gif

This is wisdom, take it or leave it.

Sooo, I say that to say this:

It wasn't the position of the contents of the KJV per SE that bothered me about the KJV (preferred or only) movement.

It was more the trappings that went with a branded environment of hyper-IFBism (and this is of the variety circa mid 1970s).

KJBO or KJVO seems to come with a homogenization of an entire pseudospiritual culture which requires that its entire doctrinal/practice stratum be swallowed in one gulp.

That seems to be what I see most often by KJBO proponents, anyhow.

I actually left that environment, and got right with God in August of last year, after being backslidden for some time.

Upon my second look at hyper-IFBism, I saw an organization that seemed to yearn to fasten itself around the personalities, and personal beliefs of charismatic icons (i.e. men/preachers).

By associating with the icon, and their organization, people found themselves wanting to affix/connect themselves with demonstrable "success" and what these icons had "accomplished" (which I still find the merits of said success to be somewhat questionable).

What happened immediately as a consequence of this mindset, in my opinion, was an error of Aristotelian logic:

Correctness = (A Certain Version) + (Certain Practices) + (Certain Appearances)+ (Certain Results) + (Agreeing with a Certain Person)+ (Leaning toward Certain Literature) + (Separation as agreed upon by the Foremost Icons)

Incorrectness = An omission or addition to any of the aggregate factors mentioned above in the "Correctness" equation.

For the purpose of brevity, I will call these centers of hyper-IFBism a shrine.

What happened next was a flood of called young men to a shrine, whereever it was in the country, who with good intent and honesty, only wanted to be right.

And, sad for them, were corrupted by the exhilarating feelings which come from being able to lambaste your fellow believers by use of verbal comparisons, finger pointing, name calling, and other character-destroying devices which we so innocently term "debate."
Oh, and I don't want to leave out the constant "work, work, work, work, work."

In other words, they loved being gung-ho, scriptural or not.

For this reason, when a "new believer" or even someone who identifies themselves as a "believer" meets someone of this persuasion (I won't say Fundamentalist, it is a disgrace to the word), either gently or overtly, they find themselves being quizzed.

"What do you believe about this? What do you say about that? What is your opinion? Does your wife wear pants? Where are your kids hair cut? Do they attend a Christian School? Do you take a bible to work? Are you as right with God as I am?" etc., etc., ad nauseum.

The momentum of the trend in hyper-IFBism of the 1970s has arrived in the poisonous canker sore of the early 2000s. There is no Love. The Greatest Commandment. There is a lot of demonstrable hate.

It was my understanding that true fundamentalism as it goes with Baptists, really only dealt with 5 "fundamental" things on a personal level:

1. Prayer 2. Bible Study 3. The Great Commission 4. Tithing 5. Assembly of Believers into a Local New Testament Church

These I have no problem with, only I would state one thing more:

If you just want to be a Good Christian, you should practice the above 5 things in worship of Almighty God. They are scriptural, Baptist and IFB notwithstanding.

The idea that the KJBO hides its requirement for loyalty with another whole cultural mindset, which glorifies people and not God, to me, and by definition, constitutes a cult.

I may never recover from the damage done in the form of legalism. I ask that you pray for me.

Secondly,

I will try to answer Kathy's inquiry from a personal point of view regarding KJV vs. other translations:

I favor the KJV rendering, but I actually read about 4 translations, and most of the time I read the others more than the KJV.

So, as illogical as that sounds, understand my point is not that of logic, but how I arrive at an amalgamation which I find personally satisfying, and gives me a sense of peace.

My purpose here is not to brag, not at all, I try to cover the whole Bible once every 90 days. I do it not only to worship God, get blessed, get instruction, and have fellowship and be discipled, I also do it to convince myself that there are no principle differences of major doctrines to become a Christian, or even to be a good Christian.

Thus far, I have found the arguments that exist between the two camps to be insignificant, based upon my own observations. Unfortunately, I spent countless years of painstaking study to arrive at this conclusion: There is very little difference. What difference exists, as it goes, is minuscule.

But, at least now, I know for myself.

I also, though not to the degree of Dr. Cassidy and others, studied *some* things about manuscript evidence and textual transmission at Tennessee Temple University and other places.

Yes, I did it because of doubt. I no longer hold these doubts. I am certain that when I open the Bible, I have the English translation of the scriptures inspired by God as descended from the autographs.

(The end of my hopefully helpful answer to Kathy.)

(To the KJBO position smile.gif

Having had to actually translate multiple computer languages, and human languages, (yes, even Greek a long time ago), I already know that a "word-for-word" translation is a fallacy.

This fallacy is only purported by those, who by stating such a thing, evidence that they have NO experience IN another language besides their native tongue.

There is no shame in this, either.

Just realize that if you purport that the KJV is the only word-for-word translated Word of God, we know what's up with you.

You've read someone else's book.

However, I find that when I cannot speak from a position of absolute knowledge, I am only in possession of my opinion, or someone else's opinion, which I have chosen to adopt.

Many of you are entering this KJV versus other Versions debate for the first time.

You are certain you have the facts well in hand, and can positively decimate the opposition in their ignorance.

After having participated in debates like this at least a dozen times over the years, if not more, I already know that the KJBO argument carries no weight, and is only satisfactory for those willing to do but a cursory study of the facts.

Also, scholarship tends to look down on the KJBO proponent who holds his tenets to be true, and even though the scholar has the facts on his side, he inflames the unlearned, thus alienating him further. Because of this alienation, years must transpire, instead of minutes/hours/days, before the KJBO proponent may at last be free of his yoke of propaganda through personal study and revelation.

The facts are empirical, easily documented, and take a little time to grasp. The only person(s) who will be able to satisfy you with the answers you seek are ultimately God the Holy Spirit, and you, through diligent study.

Understand, study is not constituted of unearned allegiance to a person who sounds confident. Study is exactly what it always has been for an accomplished student.

It's real hard work.

In any other venue, such as an institution or school or seminary, this education I am receiving from bonafide scholars would cost thousands upon thousands of dollars.

I am grateful for the huge wealth of knowledge that I find here from actual documentable evidence.

It would have otherwise cost me a fortune I don't have.

Thank You all,

In His Steps,

Alex Peterson
II Corinthians 10:5

[ September 13, 2001: Message edited by: petersonalexw ]

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
If you want specifics, I'd be glad to give them to you privately. The types of behaviors and wickedness I witnessed while affiliated with the movement are too insidious to be mentioned publicly on the board.

[ September 12, 2001: Message edited by: TomVols ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom:

Your email address is blocked. EMail me if you would. I'd like to hear what you are talking about. Thanks.

[Gina B]

I'm liking the wording skills of petersonalexw. Very well put. Can we keep him? ;)
Sorry, I can't cut and paste, but.....
Quoted by personalexw
"THE IDEA THAT THE KJBO HIDES IT'S REQUIREMENTS FOR LOYALTY WITH ANOTHER CULTURAL MIDSET, WHICH GLORIFIES PEOPLE AND NOT GOD, TO ME, AND BY DEFINITION, CONSTITUTES A CULT."
petersonalexw.......what some IFB hyper fundy's do or did, especially in the situation you're referring to, doesn't make the truth less. The cultural mindset does run deep in the IFB's.....people need to start thinking for themselves....doing some learning INDEPENDANTLY along with their churches....to free this mindset. The problem seems to be, when you tell someone they're allowed to question and learn, they associate you with psychic hotline people! :D You MUST choose a leader and follow him to all exclusion....
Gina

[TomVols]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:


Tom:

Your email address is blocked. EMail me if you would. I'd like to hear what you are talking about. Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had to block it when we had the trouble with a KJVonly person sending out attack emails some time back. I have emailed you and will respond that way. smile.gif