For My KJV Brothers & Sisters: List of KJV Churches

Where did I suggest we should forget the KJV and embrace error?? Are you sure you were talking about my post???

Of course you weren't. Truth is, no one here suggested any such thing. You simply cannot make your points without distorting what we actually say.

 

We have a church!

There are 175 Southern Baptist Churches in the area; 3 Independent Fundamental Churches and 301 Baptist Churches listed in the telephone directory as "other". Some of these are listed under Southern Baptist also.

 

Wheather I am wrong or not on a point, it would be nice to be told so in a nice way instead of a mean way. Just in case I came across as a know it all I am not and will check on what you have told me. Scott, I don't believe I've heard of Nestle-Alands & United Bible Society. As for the two men I am referring to I have to get back to you, but by the sarcasim that followed I assume you don't really want to know.

 

I apologize if I was too harsh with you. This is a pretty rough forum and when folks come in making de facto statements like yours... well, they usually know what they're doing and are doing it in a spirit of antagonism. Most commonly, KJVO's come in with guns blazin'... "shoot first and ask questions later" seems to be the order of the day.

I was being a little sarcastic- please forgive me, I shouldn't have.

The two organizations I cited above do research and try to develop a more accurate Greek text of the NT. They use methods that consider many factors such as age, distribution, citation by early church fathers, early version support, etc. They also consider the number of manuscripts supporting a reading but that typically falls below factors like age.

I would like to know who the two men are that you were referring to. I suspect it is Westcott and Hort. But that would be an incorrect assertion on your part. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the two most complete of the oldest group of manuscripts of the NT. This group is commonly called the Alexandrian family. It is greatly despised, criticized, and mischaracterized by KJVO's and militants for the TR.

One interesting thing for you to think about while doing more research on this issue is that, as a general rule, the older a Byzantine manuscript (the family that eventually led to the TR and KJV) is, the more like the Alexandrian family it appears. The families came from a common source- the Alexandrian is just in general older with less generations of handcopying between it and the originals.

My personal opinion is that there might have been some additions to the Byzantine mss and also some accidental omissions from the Alexandrian. The truest text lies between them. That said, there are no doctrines at stake in this debate and very few questionable passages.

Again, I hope you will forgive me. I think that even if we disagree, we shouldn't be disagreeable.

 

Scott,

Thank you for the apology. I intern apologize for not making sure my facts were straight. I heard and read but sometimes I will mix things up if I haven't read them in a while.

Your right about Westcott and Hort being the two I'm refering to. I couldn't remember the names for sure and didn't have my book with me. What do you mean when you say that it is an incorrect assertion? This is what I was refering to be used for all later translations except the KJV. Is this what you mean? Wasn't sure.

Critical Text is Westcott and Hort and the textus receptus is from where we get the KJV. I still have to look into the Byzanine you mentioned to see how it fits in. I have heard it mentioned though.

Thanks and I look forward to your response.

 

We have a church!

There are 175 Southern Baptist Churches in the area; 3 Independent Fundamental Churches and 301 Baptist Churches listed in the telephone directory as "other". Some of these are listed under Southern Baptist also. </font>[/QUOTE]No wonder God sends so many twisters thru there! Naw, just kidding, I was kidding about you and Ed too, but then again, why hoard all that knowledge up and remain in your comfort zone?

 

Where did I suggest we should forget the KJV and embrace error?? Are you sure you were talking about my post???

Of course you weren't. Truth is, no one here suggested any such thing. You simply cannot make your points without distorting what we actually say. </font>[/QUOTE]No, Larry, I just took what you typed literally, I know what you meant, so calm down, take a deep breath, and hold it for about twenty minutes!

 

More sarcasm in the guise of "kidding." More unscriptural behavior from Precepts.

 

Faith that is held in direct contradiction to concrete, objective fact... is called superstition.

No, Satan wanted Eve to ignore what God said and follow her own ideas. We are ignoring what you and others like you say. God never established KJVOnlyism- men did. In fact, whether you acknowledge it or not, the scriptures give clear examples that more than one version is acceptable. The history of the Bible and Christianity validates this example. </font>[/QUOTE]Again the influence of the vatican protrudes! How is "history" of the malicious and arrogant "church" has somehow usurped authority from God?</font>[/QUOTE] I never said anything about the RCC... if you want to play the guilt by association game then you have to face the indisputable FACT that the TR originated with one scholar- An unrepentant, Pope-honoring, Roman Catholic scholar. You also have to face the fact that the evidence he employed was likewise gleaned from RCC sources.

The only person usurping the authority of God is you. You are speaking for God in direct contradiction to the example He gave as well as His providential will as revealed in history.

I am sure it makes you feel better to say that but it is untrue. KJVO is a description of people who believe what you believe. You do not however "just believe the Bible". The Bible does not establish what you believe about versions... that proceeds from the carnal mind of men- probably under influence by Satan. </font>[/QUOTE]No, Scott, you're just simply wrong. I wouldn't attribute the preservation of the Bible to be that of men influenced by satan. Your premise is ludicrous.

I tell you that I just believe the Bible and you try to tell me I don't believe the Bible! When all along it is that I don't believe what you believe the Bible is saying when you add a premise to the context of said scripture when it is never actually stated the way yall twist it to say.

 

Funny, I find your judgemental attitude unscriptural and demeaning on top of that, full of guile and bitterness, evil surmising, inordinate affection, pure and simple hatred.

Larry knows I was only kidding, it is virtually impossible to hold one's breath twenty minutes, ever tried?

 

As I've said several times, you show me where that behavior is found in Scripture, and I'll be glad to back down and admit that I was wrong. Until then, all the claims to the contrary are merely ways to distact from what is happening.

I don't think anyone here on this whole board would say that I was full of "guile and bitterness, evil surmising, inordinate affection, pure and simple hatred." I would probably find that offensive, but I don't take you that seriously.

Your rhetoric is still anti-Christian sarcasm in the guise of "kidding."

 

So if you aren't? Then why did you come in here hijacking the thread with your garbage? That's guile, you're bitter against me. My personality rubs you the wrong way and react with accusations that is inordinate affection rooted in your evil surmising, it is purely hatred towards me for what I am. Get back on topic.

Is this your way of getting the moderator's attention and getting a thread closed you don't agree with again?

 

OK guys, I have a question.
I just bought a greek majority text interlinear NT. I also bought a Critical text interlinear NT.

I was always under the impression that the Majority text agrees with the TR.
After all don't most KJVO go for the "majority" argument instead of the "older is better" argument.

My question is, If KJVOs back the majority text, why do they deny Rev 22:19 should be "tree" instead of "book?"

both the Majority and Critical texts agree that it should be "tree" the TR says "book"

Do most KJVOs believe the TR and the Majority are the same?

 

I'm just bringing to light Truth. You continue to act in an unChristian manner, and I'm just there calling you on that. You show me where that goes against Scripture, then I'll change. As you've been asked several times before, if you can show me where your sarcastic posts are found in the body of Christ using the KJV, I'm be glad to step back. Until then, I will continue exposing the error that others on this board are also exposing, and you will either have to put up with it or change your behavior. Hopefully, it will be the second. Surely you can understand that your sarcasm in the guise of "kidding" cannot be justified using the Scripture. If not, I would encourage you to read more the Bible.

Nope. I'm not threatened by any thread on these boards.

 

It's another double-standard, Tim. There is a thread started by Will Kinney about a week ago that addresses this issue entitled "tree of life or book of life Rev 22:19" or something similar.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Many here clearly do not understand the manuscript issue. The TR or recieved texts ARE THE MAJORITY MANUSCRIPTS and this is what underlines the KJV. There are about 5000 of them from many different regions (Greece,Constantinople, Asia Minor, Syria, Alexandria, Africa, Gaul, South Italy, Sicily, England, and Ireland),from many different ages. The Aleph and B are two types of manuscripts that remained stagnant from the churches for centuries(meaning they were not part of the origional church teachings/writings, because if they were, they would not have become stagnant). Westcott and Hort found them and REVISED OR ALTERED THEM back in the 19th century and these are the same things as the Nestles which underlines all the modern versions. There are places where these texts agree with the Recieved text (TR) but the majority of them do not, and contradict them, and they do not even agree with one another most of the time. This is why many of the modern versions do not agree one with the other, and why they all do not agree with the KJV. I think you might want to take your own advice, Pastor Larry, that you use LOGIC in coming to a healthy and informed decision regarding this issue, if not for yourself, for the benefit of the flock that God has entrusted you with.

Elaine, the Byzantine Text is also called the Syrian text, or the K or common text or the traditional text. This tradition text consists of manuscripts, lectionaries, etc. which were writings and readings of the New Testament that are in agreement with each other, from the second century to the middle ages - 1500 A.D. There are about 5366 manuscripts, which include: P66, P46, P75 (Papri - ancient writings ), Aleph B,C,D (Uncials-latin and greek manuscripts between 300-900 A.D.), 1-2795 (Miniscule), l 1-2209 (lectionaries), and also of the greek texts of the second century - Old Latin, the Syriac, the Coptic, the Ethiopic and others. John Chrysostom, Irenaeus, Tertullain, Justin Martyr, etc. from the 2,3,4 centuries.

Some might also want to know that the man who helped with the translation of the NASV, Dr. Frank Logsdon, made a public and written renouncement to his attachment to the NASV. I will quote part of his statement "I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's frighteningly wrong; .....The deletions are frightening...there are so many...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?....I don't want anything to do with it....You can say the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct!..If you must stand against everyone else, stand."

Reminder, that the modern versions all have the same underlying text of Nestles (westcott and hort's greek New testament) as the NASB.
Don't let those on here diffuse you away from the real truth of this issue. Use your own common sense and logic and look at all of the evidence concerning this issue, and pray that the Lord will give you understanding concerning this.

For those of you who accuse me of saying one cannot be saved reading the modern versions, I say that I never said such a thing. Just because someone else said this, doesn't mean that it is true and does not mean that I believe this just because they can see the problems with the modern versions also. It is dangerous to put all under the same umbrella, because you are trying to mask the truth by the errors of others that hold to the truth regarding this issue. One indeed can be saved in reading the MV's. It is interesting to note however, that one can also be saved in reading the Mormon's Bible, or the Catholic Bible. Does this make it okay for us to condone the continual reading and personal study from those Bibles? NO. God can bless anyone, in any situation, for he is a merciful and loving God, and he knows what he is doing, we do not always know. Should we condone things that are corrupt, just because we see some good come out of it? This is very dangerous and unbiblical thinking. If we desire to walk with the Lord faithfully and truthfully, we would not want, nor desire to touch or condone anything that has or would corrupt the pure and holy word of God. That would be altering or taking away from the bread of life we desperately need for our nourishment and health in these ever increasing wicked days, of the last days.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle, there's one little thing you didn't mention-scholars who make their living analyzing and translating the old Scriptural mss have been arguing back & forth for over a hundred years about the authenticity of the various mss. We must apply the same arguments to the differences between the mss that we apply to differences within a given ms. We say that the Gospels differ among themselves because they were written by different people in different times & places, and several mss contain all 4 Gospels. Well, we MUST apply this same principle to the various mss or we would be using a double standard. Thus, we have no empirical proof that any of these mss is authentic or not, so we must have faith in God that He has preserved and provided His word for us. I have that faith, and I also believe that He provides His word AS HE CHOOSES. Nowhere in Scripture is Onlyism even hinted at. and you KNOW that the KJVO advocates cannot provide any rationale to raise their man-made doctrine from the status of "myth".Therefore the whole magilla is phony as a $3 bill.

 

Michelle, you are just full of misinformation. Allow me to correct some of your misunderstandings.

No, not always. In fact there are dozens of places were the TR departs from the majority readings.

No, Westcott and Hort did not find them. They had been around since before Westcott and Hort. Aleph was discovered in St. Catherine's Monastery on Mount Sinai in 1859 by Constantine Tischendorf. Codex Vaticanus or "B" was discovered in the Vatican Library in the 1400s where it had possibly lain for centuries, although there is one school of thought which believes it may have been a gift to the Pope from an Oriental Potentate in the 14th century.

Codex Aleph and B agree with the TR 99% of the time.

They disagree with each other about .05% of the time. That is hardly "most of the time."

Uh, no. The "papri" are actually the "papyri" and they are not "ancient writings." "Papyri" refers to the material those texts were written on, papyrus or a kind of paper made from the Mediterranean sedge plant.

No, none of those are Latin. They are all Greek.

Once again, no. The "Old Latin, the Syriac, the Coptic, the Ethiopic" are not "greek texts of the second century." They are not Greek texts at all! They are Latin, Coptic (the language of Egypt prior to Arabic), Syriac (Aramaic), Ethiopic (The language of ancient Ethiopia; the language of the ancient Abyssinian empire).

Wrong again! There are several modern versions based on the same texts as the KJV. Most notably the NKJV, the KJVII, the 21st Century KJV, and the BTM.

That's right! Don't let michelle fill you full of false information! Just check out her "facts" for yourself and you will she how terribly wrong she is.

Yes, please! Look at the evidence and don't accept her untruths as fact!

I am sorry, but I must question your last statement. If you truly loved the Lord, who is Truth, you would love all truth and you would not post so much false information.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Robycop, I understand the points you mention in your post, and I also agree to a point. However, there is one fact in here that many who defend the modern versions do not take into account, and that is that evil men have crept in unaware, to decieve and mislead many. To say that all of the available manuscripts are God's word is futile and cause for deception in and of itself. You could then use the same logic and say that all ancient religous writings must be of God. It also takes not only commen sense and logic to filter out what is right and true, but that of the Holy Spirit in understanding these things. Praying about this issue also. Relying upon higher textual criticism is very dangerous. It denies the power and wisdom of God, and elevates man to a position/status they do not deserve nor have the authorization for. I am not saying nor have I relayed any type of doctrine on these threads. I am saying and believe that God has preserved his word for those who love him, and that we also must understand that Satan has always and continues to corrupt God's word of truth, to lead many astray. We are told to test the fruits, to see if they are of God. Can a corrupt tree bringeth forth good fruit? If anyone cares about their walk with the Lord, and knowing God's whole truth, then one must not condone anything or anyone that would corrupt it. To take away from God's word of truth, or water it down, is corrupting the truth. God repeats things in his word many times, for those who love him, because with repitition comes memorization,understanding and adds to the validity and assuredness of the truth he has given. To take away from this, is also taking away from one's full understanding of the meat in God's word, and will affect the person's walk and fruit in their christian life and service to the Lord. It can also lead to further deception. God has said, that those who did not have the love of the truth, he shall send them strong delusion to believe the lie, and take heed that no man deceive you.

It really saddens me deeply, that many will not take heed to the warnings of those corruptions that have been done to God's pure word, and stand in great defense of those things, rather than defending God's pure word of truth, which is found in the KJV, and others who have this same underlying text in other language bibles. I am not believing myths or fables, but facts concerning the translation issue, and standing for the purity of God's word, rather than excusing the corruptions that have been done to God's pure word of truth.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

I'm just bringing to light Truth. You continue to act in an unChristian manner, and I'm just there calling you on that. You show me where that goes against Scripture, then I'll change. As you've been asked several times before, if you can show me where your sarcastic posts are found in the body of Christ using the KJV, I'm be glad to step back. Until then, I will continue exposing the error that others on this board are also exposing, and you will either have to put up with it or change your behavior. Hopefully, it will be the second. Surely you can understand that your sarcasm in the guise of "kidding" cannot be justified using the Scripture. If not, I would encourage you to read more the Bible.

Nope. I'm not threatened by any thread on these boards. </font>[/QUOTE]Matthew 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

Start a thread on your rant, brother, then we can address your problem with me since that is what is controlling your attitude. Otherwise you are hijacking another thread with your garbage , AGAIN.