Featured Trying To Understand KJVOnlyism

I'll expound more on this later because it will take a while to type it out but the allegation that the KJVO issue can be traced to Wilkinson is a load of crap. Dean John Burgon refuted Westcott and Hort before Wilkinson was a tick on a dogs ear, and Wilkonson repeated what Frank Nolin wrote in a book called Inquiry Into the 7 Integrity of the Greek Vulgate in 1815.

Since folks associate KJVO with a Seventh Day Adventist, when the evidence is clear that the KJVO issue existed long before Wilkinson was alive, then I guess we can equate all modern version users to Jehovah's Witnesses since the text for their New World Translation is based on the Westcott & Hort text. We can also label them Unitarians since many of them also used the 1885 version of Westcott & Horts Revised Version.

And what about the KJV critics here that are merely repeating DA Carson, James White, Doug Kutilek and James Price? The first major publication against the KJVO didn't come out until late 70s, so can we conclude that since the KJVO is older than the opposition to it, that the KJVO wins by default! And those who are quoting anti-KJVO sources from other anti-KJVOists that merely copied other anti-KJVOists, that they are just as guilty of what they accuse KJVOists of?

I have Ruckman's Manuscript Evidence, and J.J. Rays books right in front of me, and Wilkinson's on the shelf. In Manuscript Evidence, there are 10 chapters with an appendix of notes starting on page 190-239. There are about 100 references per chapter, and I have yet to see one single quote from Wilkinson.

And when they say "we don't accept scholars" what they mean is that only someone who corrects the KJV is a proper "scholar". Nevermind that Bible critics like Custer are from the same university as Ruckman (BJU) but yet one is a "real scholar" and the other is not simply because one holds to the KJV.

I'll be back later to deal with this non-sense.

 

Bias:

Using not only Burgon's first name but also his title "dean"

vs.

Westcott and Hort (no names or titles)


Just sayin'

 

jesus promised that the APOSTLES would have the inspration of the HS to guide and preserve the Inerrant word of God in the originals, NOT that the Kjv translators would have that!

they KNOW the Kjv itself has some mistakes in it, and that differing editions have varying renderings, but they redefine what"perfect" means!

 

Oh Well....

P4T....I never claimed to be any kind of a scholar or expert on any of this and won't claim so now. I am merely a Bible Believer who knows which Bible is the right Bible. My beliefs today are the result of what I have read and accepted as true over the course of those 30+ years I mentioned. I don't profess to be smart enough nor "educated" enough to impress or convince yourself or anybody else about anything. Some HERE would consider me to be an ignorant redneck. I really don't care cause I'm not trying to impress anybody. I have a good library and I read a lot but that doesn't make me qualified to be a good debater or apologist on this issue or any other for that matter. I don't have a good very memory nor do I retain tons of facts or huge amounts of information very well in my mind as some here seem to....so...you and others here can and will probably discount anything I might say in support of the positions I take. But know this...I am not intimidated by the air of superiority that seems to exude from many here. I will readily admit that there are many others who are far better qualified and equipped to "fight the fight" than I. Also.. I am a two-finger typist and it literally takes me hours to sit and deliver some of the responses that I do make on here. I enjoy it but it is tiring.
Lastly....and then I'm gonna shut up (I bet you'll be happy about that)...I know I can't prove anything to you or anybody else here. The biggest reason I see is that you are already FIRMLY convinced that you are right and we are wrong. I don't have the credentials or the time to devote to prove you wrong. I admit that. I will however, continue to believe what I do because I have a high regard for the credentials and work of the sources (which I listed in my post) that I have followed after over the years. Your "side" insists that my Bible contains mistakes. I don't believe that. Case closed. At least for me. Have a nice day! Blessings to you too!

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

Thank You...

DrJames...Thank You. You are far more qualified and able to answer the charges of those who oppose the truth than I. I am just a simple man without much formal learning and as P4T has demonstrated it is relatively easy for those with debating skills to blunt or dismantle my arguments because mine are based more on "passion" than quoted "fact". You probably have a far better grasp on the actual quotable evidence than I do and more skill in that regard. I have a "passion" for what I believe because I have read enough to form an opinion and know what I believe on the matter....but that does NOT mean I am qualified to argue the point. I just have a hard time sitting on the sidelines and watching the truth being attacked here without making comment to the contrary. I then,out of heart-felt passion, go jumping into the deep end of the pool and have to paddle and thrash my way back to the edge to get out of the deep water.There is nothing wrong with the "water" I swim in...just my skills as a swimmer.

I appreciate your presence here. I wish I was better equipped to defend the truth but at my age I'll probably never be able to learn enough to be of much use given the constraints of time. My prime pursuit now is just trying to get close to the Lord and make sure I don't waste the time I have left here like I did earlier in life. That is a big enough job all by itself.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

Gregory Perry Sr:

I've not seen one word from you that could even remotely come close to proving the MAN-MADE, CULTIC, AND DISHONEST origin of the KJVO myth wrong that's been presented in this thread.

 

Dr. James Achs:

MMRRPP!WRONG! The load here is the KJVO myth.

And I've often stated, "the CURRENT KJVO myth". You've never chimed in about that.

The evidence is right in those three boox.

Now, there were also remarks made here-n-there prior to 1930 pointing out goofs in the KJV, but the main seemingly-pro-KJV(not "KJVO") stuff bhefore then were attacks against the British RV, completed in 1885, and, by all admissions, is a rather groddy version. That's the version Burgon assailed, and with good reason. The current KJVO myth began after some newer versions were made, with opportunist authors such as Ray and Fuller using Wilkinson's book, which was written in response to a squabble within his cult.

Wilkinson repeated a lot more than that! His book is a smorgasbord of pro-KJV quotes from many sources.

The proof is in the pudding. There was NO widespread KJVO myth until after 1955, when Ray's book came out, hawked with the power of modern media.

Differences are:

1.) Wilkinson was clearly a SDA official.

2.) Many of Wilkinson's points are simply false, an example being the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie".

3.) Ray's plagiarism of Wilkinson, without acknowledging W whatsoever, even if it was 100% legal, is a matter of FACT, and was still DISHONEST.

4.) While Fuller acknowledged W and Ray, he was careful to avoid mentioning W's cult affiliation. How DISHONEST was that?

5.) There's simply NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO! And YOU have the burden of proof to establish the veracity of your doctrine.

Unlike Ray and Fuller, Ruckman doesn't quote W directly, but he DOES copy some of his points in different words. However, Ruckman has come up with enough ridiculous stuff of his own that he needs no help from Wilkinson to be discredited.

Again, it's a matter of Freedom Reader FACTS vs. KJVO opinion, speculation, and guesswork.

You're right in this...KJVO is nonsense.

 

So is your belief that "God created another whole race of people" without ONE BIT of Biblical support. Scripture states that Eve is "the mother of all living", but you just throw that out and make up your own stories. Cain married a sister or, since people lived hundreds of years then, a distance relative. Please enlighten the members of this forum as to your beliefs about Cain's wife. Come on, roby, tell them how you believe God created another race of people APART from Adam and Eve. Tell them how you believe Asians, blacks, Caucasians etc., came from another DIFFERENT creation of God! Or are you ashamed to admit what you believe? I guarantee it'll open some eyes and also expose your hypocrisy when calling out KJVO for not having any Scripture for that belief, when YOU have an even more, frankly DISTURBING, belief about God and His creation! As I, and others have stated on various forums all over the internet, you are considered a "nut" by most people, and best ignored.

 

Just Plain Honest...

Bro. Roby...I will be honest with you. You have the talent of making me ANGRY and knowing how to "push all my buttons". It has been my practice to avoid people who do that because I know it is just not possible for ANYBODY to get along with everybody. I already know that I don't have the knowledge or the patience to answer your assaults on my position and frankly I'm not going to try. The best I can say, and it won't change anybody or anything, is that I disagree with your position. You and I both equally think the other has been deceived. I already spoke to the issue of my lack of qualifications and knowledge in my posts to DrJamesAch and P4T. I'm not going to engage in further argument with you because there is no point in it. There is nothing I can say that will make any difference to you. I am tired and angry and sick of you calling my belief a myth and whatever other names you have called it. Over the years, there has been much evidence presented (here on the BB and elsewhere) in support of the belief that the KJV (and the TR from which it came) is the very Bible that God intended for the end-times church to use and much historical, documented spiritual fruit to support that contention. There has also been much evidence presented to support the contention that the CT(and the MV's that resulted from it) have been corrupted and should be avoided. I believe that with all my heart but I can't prove it to you or anyone else. I haven't always believed that but I do now. For the record, I believe Dr.JamesAch gave a perfectly adequate response to your comments about Dr.Wilkinson's book. You go right ahead and enjoy your air of superiority over me. It is obvious that by your use of the title "Mr." instead of "Bro.",you probably don't even think I am saved. So be it....some days I look in the mirror and think incredulously, how in the world could I possibly be. I'm gonna pray for the grace to forgive you....and ignore you. I'll be so glad to hear the sound of a trumpet someday...hopefully soon.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

GPS,you obviously believe that God caused the KJV to be the biggest selling translation in any language for so long. Do you also believe that God caused the NIV to be the most popular translation in any language for the past several decades?

 

Gregory Perry, Sr:

Neither do/will I. I'm a steelworker, not a scholar.

You're just GUESSING. You CANNOT prove the NKJV, NASV, ESV, Geneva, "Great Bible", etc. aren't just as valid as the KJV.

Apparently, without checking out the VERACITY of what you've read from other men.

Me, either. I merely present PROVEN FACT, not manufactured by me, but checked out in advance of posting it.

I don't...I merely believe you've been misled. As all successful demagogues are, some KJVOs can be pretty convincing...until one tries to VERIFY what they say!

Then, why did you jump into this thread?

In other words, you're the same as mosta us, except you've been steered wrong by some authors who've themselves been similarly steered. The devil is not without his resources.

Well, not discount, per se, but easily prove incorrect.

It is my earnest desire that you SEE THE FACTS, and chuck all the man-made hooey that makes up the KJVO myth.

Actually, NO. I hope to keep exposing the falsehoods you've been taught. (I,too, was a victim of believing falsehoods for awhile-the garbage taught by Herbie Armstrong.)

Yes, it's hard to prove a falsehood to an INFORMED audience.

WE have the EVIDENCE;YOU have presented NONE. Pretty convincing!

And most of all you have no EVIDENCE.

...DESPITE the FACT that their stuff has been proven WRONG, point by point, over the years, and right here on this board, among others!

So, you don't believe "Easter" in the KJV's Acts 12:4 was a booboo? Please prove to us that the Easter observance existed in Luke's time/place when he wrote the letter that became the Book of Acts, or that, in those days, the Greek 'pascha' meant 'Easter'!

As I've said oft-times, Mr. Perry, one can use only the KJV without wearing that dead, stinky bird of the KJVO myth around one's neck! While the KJV may be YOUR fave version, it is NOT the ONLY valid English Bible translation out there! Whe idea that it is, is nothing but man-made codwallop, without one quark of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT. Time to actually investigate the EVIDENCE(not rumor or innuendo) for yourself!

 

A few passing comments.....

I didn't (specifically) post "true" or "false" information because I have neither the time nor the memorized information to adequately do justice to the subject. However, what I DID LIST was the names of the authors,pastors, and teachers whom I have read or listed to in support of what I believe. I did NOT list, but have read some of the works or quoted remarks of many of the KJVO detractors such as Kutileck, James White, Custer, Carson, Price and others over the years. I believe what I believe about the KJV in the light of the work of those mentioned...and some others I have probably forgotten. Doesn't change anything...but just sayin'. I'm actually not "bowing out" of anything....I'm just posting comments about this subject according to my own "rules"...not yours. I will try to always stay within the BB rules while here.

Just sayin'....I'm not a good debater. But I do believe what I believe with a certain level of "passion" based on what I have read and/or learned over the years. I maintain the right, as a member of the BB to post what I think here (within the scope of the Board rules) just like you, Roby, and anyone else.

No and No...I believe in divine Preservation that maintains the integrity and perfection of God's perfect Word. I believe He has accomplished that even though the men and/or women He has used to do the work may or may not even realize the extent to which God used them. It is probably good that they weren't/aren't aware of God using them to the extent that He does lest they be lifted up with the most basic sin of man.....PRIDE.

Blessings Yourself
Bro.Greg:saint:

 

Gregory Perry, Sr:

Hey, if it causes you to SEEK AND SEE THE TRUTH, it shall have been worth it. But know ye that I bear you no malice; just some pity that you've been led down a bunny trail by some less-than-truthful authors.

That's cuz you've brought a knife to a gun fight. You've brought NO EVIDENCE.

You have the right to be wrong.

Again, I have brought EVIDENCE; you've brought wishful thinking, speculation, and guesswork.

I'm no more qualified than you; perhaps even less so. The difference is, I've investigated both sides' claims for VERACITY, and you have NOT; you've merely accepted what the KJVO authors have written, without VERIFYING any of it!

That's right. You'll only lose, long as you keep hawking the KJVO myth.

Correct. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!

Just telling the TRUTH.

No, there's been only OPINION AND GUESSWORK presented.

MMRRPP! WRONG!

There's only been the game of "MAH skoller kin whup YER skoller!"

That's cuz THERE IS NO PROOF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's cuz you swallowed the KJVO bait.

No, he didn't. Please read my response.

I don't think I'm superior to you or anyone else, but for now, I'm BETTER-INFORMED than you, as my having presented EVIDENCE as opposed to your GUESSWORK proves. YOU could be JUST-AS-INFORMED as I and the other Freedom Readers are, with a little open-minded study.

How silly! My name is Roby; yours is Perry. And, as you state your first name is Gregory, I assume you're a man, and therefore a "Mister". It's a sign of RESPECT, not contempt! I think calling everyone "Bro" or Sis" is somewhat over-doing it. (Just a personal whim of mine, keeping with the language customs where I live. The only time I use those terms in a religious sense if for preachers or nuns.

In other words, you've been so badly-whupped here by the TRUTH that you're opting out...which, of course, confirms your cluelessness when it comes to SUPPORTING EVIDENCE for the KJVO myth.

But I won't be ignoring you...I'll support you when you're right, pray that you see the TRUTH, but every time you make a pro-KJVO post, I'll torpedo it, God Willing.

 

But you DO apparently have taken the time and memorized enough info to simply accept the KJVO authors' stuff as true, WITHOUT STUDYING IT FOR VERACITY!

And every one of them uses material from the three boox I cited, even though they word it a little differently insteada quoting it verbatim. And it's all INCORRECT.

Well, I've read lotsa works from both sides of the issue, and INVESTIGATED IT FOR VERACITY! I wanted to be SURE, and not believe something because it "looked good".

And their "light" contains much more infra-red than visible beams.

Then perhaps you'll see some day how you've been deceived.

You're doing all right; but, however, you sorely lack any EVIDENCE. Opinion and guesswork just won't cut it.

So do JWs, Mor(m)ons, and other pseudo-Christian cultists who believe the words of men for doctrines of worship, insteada sticking strictly to SCRIPTURE.

And I maintain the right to prove you wrong when you ARE wrong.

So does every other Christian.

And so do we Freedom Readers. However, we do NOT believe God retired from superintending His word in 1611. We believe He still oversees it, and that HE created all languages, and superintends them as well, providing His word in current language, while keeping the older copies available for our benefit.

OTOH, we know the KJVO myth is totally a MAN-MADE thingie, as proven by its absolute lack of Scriptural support as well as its falsehood.

Blessings Yourself
Bro.Greg:saint:[/QUOTE]

 

Common Sense

Robo's rebuttal to what I said about Wilkinson was merely that "it is a fact" that it's true. Circular reasoning that merely attempts to reassert the original accusation with the evidence for the accusation being that he says so, and it's true because it's a fact, and it's a fact because he said so, and he said so because it's a "PROVEN" fact. Round and round the mulberry bush.

Here's some common sense. The KJV translators had the same manuscripts available to them that Westcott and Hort did (before W&H altered the Greek texts in almost 8000 places). The KJV translators rejected the majority of them. So obviously, the KJV translators did not believe that the same mss used to underlie the current versions were accurate or truthful.

Ironically, many of the KJV translators were Calvinists, but you'll never see a Calvinist admit that who tries to associate the KJV only issue with Wilkerson and the 7DA. Furthermore, the Calvinists here that oppose the KJV based on the erroneous assumption that ANY KJVO movement was based on Wilkerson completely ignore the fact that Calvinism is based on the plagiarism of Augustine, a devout Roman Catholic that persecuted his dissenters the same way Calvin did. So what some Calvinists do is attempt to distance themselves from Calvin by claiming they are "Reformed" or "DoGs". But yet when someone raises the issue and calls it simply "CALVINISM" the Reformers and Dogs, and SoGs alike all come running to the defense of Calvinism.

If they are not Calvinists, then why do they get so defensive when anyone posts a rebuttal to any Calvinist doctrine?

Furthermore, as stated before, they attempt to bootstrap KJVOers to the 7DA Wilkinson, but ignore the fact that for some reason, the Watchtower (Jehovah's Witnesses) chose to use the Westcott & Hort text instead of the TR. The JW "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" is that EXACT same 'bible' as the NIV, NASB, ESV with only their deliberate ENGLISH alterations providing any distinction (like the addition of the definite article in John 1:1 to read 'the word as A god', or change all the references of the cross to 'torture stake', etc..).

The texts were not opposed by anyone but CATHOLICS and nobody attempted to put out a revision until the late 1800s. The scholarship only crowd assumes that they know better than the 50 scholars who were experts in their field that actually had manuscripts available to them that scholars don't have today.

The cold hard truth is that these Bible agnostics don't believe we have the word of God in ANY version in ANY language let alone the KJV. They play smoke and mirrors by claiming they believe they have the word of God, but then they tell you "it's in the original" knowing full well there are no originals, and then have the nerve to call KJVOs "dishonest".

Common sense tells you that if God promised to preserve His word, it must be somewhere. If God said faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, the word of God, not a book that CONTAINS the word of God (like a dictionary) but THE word of God, must be around. If Paul said preach the WORD, then where is it? Can I read it? Can I memorize it?

KJVO critics would have us believe that thousand of manuscripts that alter verses, disagree with each other in places that alter fundamental doctrines of the Bible are ALL THE SAME. Common sense and the law of non contradiction tell you that things that are different are not the same.

Common sense tells you that when a KJVO critic spends their time slandering the KJV while in the same breath telling you it is just as "reliable" as their MV's, but they never give their MV's the same treatment as the KJV, you're dealing with a dishonest crook. They'll spend years telling you what's wrong with the KJV, but can't tell you what's right with their MV.

Common sense tells you that when a scholar or preachers says "a better translation would be" and then pulls out another version that he has nothing he can call a Bible, and can not honestly put any confidence in the one he's got.

Common sense tells you that when a person claims that the KJVOs merely repeated their positions from previous writings and claims that as evidence of dishonesty, and his evidence of those facts is based upon what HE HIMSELF REPEATED FROM KJVO CRITICS and then admits that he's no scholar, you are dealing with a dishonest person. The Bible itself has lasted through the centuries because other believers copied and repeated what the prior manuscripts said. Can you imagine an atheist using as an argument "The Bible is not valid because the manuscripts simply repeat what older church members said". That is such a crappy argument it really doesn't even deserve a response.

Common sense tells you that when a "bible" calls Jesus "the only begotten God seated next to the Father" NASB, or calls Jesus "the only God who is at the Father's side" ESV, which has Jesus as being a separate God from the Father, and yet it's based on the same Greek texts, something is not adding up with the argument that "all modern versions are the word of God".

Common sense tells you that when a "scholar" takes a rendering out of the Byzantine family, and reclassifies to the Alexandrian family to make it appear that that KJV rendering is a minority variant, you are dealing with a crook.

For example, Westcott and Hort altered the Aleph reading of Romans 8:1 to make it agree with the KJV, and then argued that the KJV rendering was from a later 12th century ms, as well as in the minority because took it away from the older readings and then made the reader think it was part of the "best manuscripts" and then included the clause they removed 3 verses later contradicting their own rules of translation.

Another example. Nestle/Alands commentary on Acts 8:37 once had a foot note that admitted to the validity of the last half of Acts 8:37, and then later removed the footnote and put the verse in brackets without any mention of any alleged new evidence that supported his decision to remove the footnote.

Common sense tells you when a man repeats what some other KJVO critic has said, and you have the books that he claims were plagiarized, and point out that he's obviously never even read the books that he claims were based on someone elses work, you are dealing with a dishonest critic.

The best critique the KJVO critics can offer are straw man arguments based on copiest errors from a printing press malfunction and punctuation and spelling issues that have nothing to do with the text, while they ignore thousands of deliberate alterations to the Greek texts by Catholic "scholars". They totally distort history and claim it is fact (and they even use large fonts and bold letters to prove it!!) that the KJVO started with Wilkinson which is mere speculation based on similar arguments for the KJV not because any KJVO author RELIED ON Wilkinson's work or ENDORSED HIS BELIEFS.

Common sense tells you that of course the KJVO debate is recent, because there wasn't any opposition to it until Westcott & Hort put out the RV in 1885. The small handful of dissenters prior to 1881 were PRO CATHOLIC.

Common sense tells you that if the apostles and prophets understood the texts that they had for thousands of years that were never altered, that to claim "we are ever discovering new evidences to help understand the ancient texts better" is not only a misleading argument, but one that only confuses the matter of biblical inerrancy and inspiration.

I am KJVO not only because I have studied the evidence and the history, but because I also have common sense.