For My KJV Brothers & Sisters: List of KJV Churches

Considering the Tree of life is still in the Garden of Eden with that entrance denied by two angels with flaming swords, I believe the translators can distinguish between a Book and tree. I never have seen in the scripture where Adam or Eve stepped back and said, "Look right there, our names are written in that tree we're not supposed to eat the fruit thereof"

Many confuse the Book of Life with The Lamb's Book of Life. The former contains all men and their lives, the Latter contains all them that are pruchased with the price of the Lamb of God's Blood. It's reall disgusting how simple it is to understand and those who claim to have this higher education stumble all over semantics.

Tiny, it's a good question, but I believe it is simply answered by context, even if you have to go all the way back to Genesis to get a comprehension of TRUTH.

 

Originally posted by michelle:
[QB] 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."

Who's to say these evil men aren't the KJVO booksellers? After all, the modern KJVO myth was started from the writings of a SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST. Not that the MV side is squeaky-clean, but at least WE didn't start a FALSE DOCTRINE.

"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."

BUT-for a long time scholars have debated the issue, and cannot prove which is authentic or which is not. Therefore, the modern Bible translators dare not ignore any ms that hasn't been PROVEN not Scriptural.


"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."

The Holy Spirit tells me that He can provide His word any way He chooses, whether it fits OUR criteria or not. Given the dubious origins of the KJVO myth and its complete lack of sustaining evidence, combined with the thoughts placed in my conscious by the Holy Spirit, I must conclude that KJVO is false.


"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."

God gave man a brain, and the power to reason. He meant for us to USE them. therefore I didn't accept nor reject the KJVO myth without careful study. This study and reasoning convinces me that while the KJV is an excellent English Bible translation, it's not the ONLY valid translation, and the doctrine that says it is, is false.

NNE can provide a valid THEOLOGICAL reason for replacing the Geneva Bible with the AV. the GB was made by men who'd risked their lives to translate God's word into English and distribute it throughout the British Isles. Its translators were as eminent scholars an any of the AV men. Their Christianity was above reasonable question. And the GB was only 44 years old when KJ authorized the making of the AV. The "Geneva Bible Onlies" had a much-better case than today's KJVOs do.

The rest of your post, Michelle, has to do with manuscript issues, and until someone can conclusively PROVE that one ms or set of mss are the only "official" ones, we dare not ignore any of them that's in a high degree of agreement with the others. We've proven that JESUS HIMSELF read aloud from a later ms in Luke 4. How can WE dare say that this ms is valid & that ms is not valid without conclusive proof? Once again, I cannot stress enough the fact that God has apparently chosen not to have preserved the originals. This fact alone should speak volumes to the KJVO.

 

So how does that Scripture justify your use of unScriptural posts filled with sarcasm, mean-spiritedness, and name-calling?

Scripture is at the source of what my and others attitude towards your posts that are filled with unScriptural things. We are to confront that which goes against His Word. Your rhetoric is not that which Christ taught or espoused. 1300 posts worth.

 

No yall haven't, all yall have done is twist the scripture to try and say Jesus did, that's all, and it's noty "PROOF" it's just proof that yall have an opinion is all. It's called "spin" Cranston, "spin".

Yall will never come to the knowledge of the Truth of the Preservation of scripture, how sad. We know what we believe and yall still keep arguing, that's really sad.

O.K., SEC, there's some more ammo for ya, keep up the good work, sir, we need some more mud to help with the divisive walls constructed here!

 

So how does that Scripture justify your use of unScriptural posts filled with sarcasm, mean-spiritedness, and name-calling?

Scripture is at the source of what my and others attitude towards your posts that are filled with unScriptural things. We are to confront that which goes against His Word. Your rhetoric is not that which Christ taught or espoused. 1300 posts worth. </font>[/QUOTE]Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

 

They weren't the authors of the two manuscripts. They were two theologians who believed that scientific methods could be applied to restoring the originals of the Bible.

They asserted that older mss were in general better than newer ones. The reason is that older mss were probably fewer generations from the originals.

They believed that a more difficult reading was to be preferred. In other words, a copyist would correct something that didn't look right.

They believed that readings that best explained the alternate were to be preferred.

And they believed that additions to the text or to titles were more likely than omissions.

Most scholars of all stripes today have departed from Westcott and Horts conclusions but those who are developing the "Critical Texts" like Nestle-Aland and UBS still use their methods.

Westcott and Hort were too fixated on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. I also disagree with the assumptions that a more difficult reading is to be preferred and that a shorter reading is automatically to be preferred.

The debate between older versus more numerous is very much overplayed. This disagreements are not significant nor critical to Christian doctrine. Also, one could (I think rightly) assume that both of these witnesses to the originals have been providentially preserved and should be considered. It is the composite of the evidence that matters most.

Yes. But there are other translations made from the TR including the NKJV.

No. The critical texts use W/H's methods or methods like theirs to make qualitative evaluations of the evidence.

Yes. Except that it was first called "textus receptus" about 20 years after the KJV was published... by some publishers as an advertising ploy.

The BT represents over 5000 of the existing 5300+ manuscripts for the NT. The TR is representative of the BT. However the TR contains some unique readings that are not supported by either the Alexandrian or Byzantine family. Some appear to have come from the Latin Vulgate. (Debated on another thread currently).

Most of the Byzantine mss come from much later than the Alexandrian and are probably many more generations of copying from the originals. They were primarily produced by Catholic and catholic Orthodox scribes whose profession was to hand copy the Bible. When it is referred to as the "traditional text", the inference is that it was the preferred text of the "organized" churches... but it was probably the only one available to true Christians operating in the shadow of the catholic churches as well.

There is a lot of info out there on this subject. I was once KJVO. After looking carefully at the arguments from both sides, I realized that KJVOnlyism was categorically false. At the same time, I recognized that the KJV is still a superior translation of God's Word.

All I would suggest that you do is to approach the issue with a heart submitted to the truth, in prayer, and without reservation to changing your views if shown evidence disproving them. This has been my request for about 3 years now in this forum. I have friends and family that are KJVO. It would be much easier for me if I could accept it... but it simply is not true. My repeated requests for proof have been persistently met with evasion or else attack (sort of the flight or fight instinct). Not once has any KJVO person given me a scriptural or historical reason to believe KJVO. I believe I have shown both in my efforts to refute KJVOnlyism.

In the end, God bless you. I hope you heart is sincerely seeking the truth and willing to acknowledge it when it is found.

 

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

Skawn, you quoted:

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.

--------------------------------------------------

in reply to my ending statement: "Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, michelle."
--------------------------------------------------
I do love the Lord Jesus Christ and his truth. I love all truth and this is what I am standing for. Either the information you are recieving and relying upon is incorrect, or mine is, or maybe both in areas. Are you a scholar? I am not a scholar, and maybe I relayed this information unintentionally in the wrong manner, however the truth is that the modern versions have ALTERED God's pure word and have incorporated into it the corruptions of the minority texts which have added to, or deleted/omitted from what is represented in the majority texts, and this is what I warn of and stand for God's pure word no matter what, out of MY LOVE FOR THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND HIS WORD OF TRUTH AND OTHERS IN THE BODY. You on the other hand, are saying that the minority texts of Westcott and Hort are also God's word and condoning the use of them. The minority texts have altered God's word, with additions/omittions that do NOT AGREE WITH THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS, the majority(texts in the majority of agreement)texts.

In the future I will be more attentive to the way I write the information I give, and thank you for pointing those things out. However, it does not change the truth nor the meaning of the post that I posted. You also are not being accurate in saying that the majority texts do not agree with one another in the majority. Where are you recieving this information from? This is why they are called the majority texts, and no they do not always agree word for word, but they do in 80-90 percent of them, and in some areas 99%. You also misunderstood(?) that I never said that Westcott and Hort were the first ones to find these texts. They found them, AND ALTERED THEM in the 19th century and this is what underlines the modern versions. I do not doubt those who origionally found them, and when they found them as you stated being the truth. I have heard/read this also.

As far as the NKJV and others you pointed out, I do not know much about these versions, but I have heard some warnings about them. What text underlines these, I will do more research on. So I will rephrase from my origional statement to "most of the modern versions". Does this satisfy you now? When I refer to modern versions, I am referring to those translations of the Westcott and Hort greek texts or those of the same type as "The Message".

Would you not say that ancient paper (papryi)would have written on them writings that were ancient? Or did someone find ancient paper, and then write on them in modern times? Is this what you are saying/implying? Are you saying that this papryi was not ancient? Please explain. My understanding is that these were ancient writings on ancient paper. The dictionary says this about it:

papryus: 1. a tall water plant of Egypt, 2. a writing material made from the pith of this plant by the ancients.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Westcott and Hort combined the two manuscripts and put it to print and the versions that arrive from it leave out (or downplays) certain things depending on what version you have. These being the Blood, Christ Deity and Salvation.

As for the NKJV if they did us the TR they put it to what they thought it ment and not what was actually written for "easier reading". When the translators of the KJV had to find the best way to translate (not interpret) a certain word they put it in italic so you know if they couldn't find an exact word.

I don't mean this in an aguementitive way, but factual. I have read a few of these versions myself or seen the list of comparisons.

I don't stand for the King James because it's what everyone I know uses, but because of evidence that I have seen. As noone has proved the KJ to you, no has disproved it to me.

Elaine

 

Elaine, it's not about proving or disproving the KJV; it's about proving or disproving the myth that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation. If one says, I only use the KJV", then fine. But when one says, Only the KJV is valid; all other versions are wrong", then what IS wrong is that person's statement.

If YOU prefer only the KJV, no prob, but if you tell me I'm wrong to use any other version(s) then I'm in sharp disagreement because I KNOW BETTER!! I KNOW KJVO is a false, man-made doctrine. I know who started it. I know who spread it. I know it has no Scriptural support. I know that every one of its arguments has been torpedoed.

A mistake often made by KJV users is that we are against the KJV itself. Nothing is further from the truth. But what we are vehemently 100% against is the false doctrine stated above. If we appear at times to attack the KJV, it's to prove the Onlyist wrong again.

 

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

Scott,

Does something that is older, necessarily make it better or more accurate? I mean, ecspecially considering we are talking about the word of God and his people who love him, his word and his truth, would record it and memorize it and carry it on throughout the following generations? Wouldn't there be a consistency? Do you or can you acknowledge the fact that God's word could be altered by evil men who crept in unaware? Do you or can you acknowledge the fact, that if certain texts that are not in agreement with the majority texts (writings) of believers throughout the ages, that they just might be texts written by those claiming to be believers, but actually heretics? Do you realize that gnostisism has existed, even prior to Christ Jesus walk here on earth, and that it existed then, and even unto today? And how similar it is to christianity, yet so very different and dangerous? Do you acknowledge the possibility that there have been men who have infiltrated the churches with heresies leading the sheep astray, and if so, do you not think that thier written works would differ from the true word of God? How does one determine this? Would God want us to condone this and approve of it and accept these corruptions to be his word of truth? God has preserved his word for us through other believers throughout the ages, throughout the different regions. Should we allow those writings that differ from the long accepted and preserved word of God to also be the truth? Or should we discard it? If the majority of the texts throughout the ages agree that a verse says "thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven," to the minority texts that have ommitted it, which one then is the most accurate? Which one is validated? The one that gives the most information that is in agreement with the majority of texts that are in agreement 80-90% on it, or to omitt it based on the 10% that do not include it? IF 90% of the texts do not include somthing, should the 10% that do include make it valid? And if not, then how then can we give any validity at all to those texts that do not agree in the majority as being God's word? We are talking about the writings of believers throughout the ages, from different regions that have agreements in the writings, to those things that are not as being accepted as the preserved word of God. God has preserved his word through his saints throughout the ages, and being in the unity of the Spirit and truth, they will agree one with the other, not disagree.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Yours is, as I already pointed out, which you failed to respond to.

Yes, it does, for the information you posted is NOT the truth! It is filled with error which you have as yet not addressed.

I never said "the majority texts do not agree with one another in the majority." That is a meaningless statement. I said the TR departs from the majority text on many occasions.

From reading the Majority Text (both Hodges and Farstad, and Robinson Pierpont), and comparing it to the various editions of the TR.

Yes, you did.

Wrong again! And you just said, again, that "they found them." They didn't. They had been the subject of much study long before Westcott and Hort produced their Greek New Testament based on those texts. Also, they did not "alter them." They compiled a New Testament based on them and published it.

The TR, just as I stated.

Nice try at a cover up, but your implication that "papri" = "ancient writings" was wrong then and is still wrong, as I pointed out.

Please! If you don't know what you are talking about, keep quiet! The ignorance level regarding this discussion is already much, much too high! Don't make it worse! Listen and learn.

 

Originally posted by michelle:

"I do love the Lord Jesus Christ and his truth. I love all truth and this is what I am standing for. Either the information you are recieving and relying upon is incorrect, or mine is, or maybe both in areas."

Please take the time to verify any "info" before you post it, or at least cite the source. that will save you some embarrassment if your info was wrong.


"Are you a scholar? I am not a scholar, and maybe I relayed this information unintentionally in the wrong manner, however the truth is that the modern versions have ALTERED God's pure word and have incorporated into it the corruptions of the minority texts which have added to, or deleted/omitted from what is represented in the majority texts, and this is what I warn of and stand for God's pure word no matter what, out of MY LOVE FOR THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND HIS WORD OF TRUTH AND OTHERS IN THE BODY."

Your above statement reflects what's basically wrong with the KJVO myth: it's completely unsubstantiated. You SAY this or that's been altered, but just because "it aint the KJV" won't do. You need to *PROVE* that this is so, or that someone didn't *ADD* material to the KJV or its sources. Just SAYING it's altered won't magically make it happen. BY WHOSE AUTHORITY do you claim that the texts were altered? BY WHOSE AUTHORITY do you say this one's right & that one's wrong?


"You on the other hand, are saying that the minority texts of Westcott and Hort are also God's word and condoning the use of them. The minority texts have altered God's word, with additions/omittions that do NOT AGREE WITH THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS, the majority(texts in the majority of agreement)texts."

Would it shock you to know that the Majority Text, the Textus Receptus, & the KJV all disagree with one another if they were all translated into a common language? Here's a link on that subject:

http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/faq/kjv.txt

and here's another:

http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/bryanp/KJV/Inter3.htm

"In the future I will be more attentive to the way I write the information I give, and thank you for pointing those things out. However, it does not change the truth nor the meaning of the post that I posted. You also are not being accurate in saying that the majority texts do not agree with one another in the majority."(snip)

Skan didn't say they don't agree most of the time, he said they don't agree in many places. And there's no denying that the Textus Receptus has been revised many times. All those revisions still exist, as do the writings of Erasmus, Stephanus, & Beza who SAID they'd revised it.


"As far as the NKJV and others you pointed out, I do not know much about these versions, but I have heard some warnings about them. What text underlines these, I will do more research on. So I will rephrase from my origional statement to "most of the modern versions". Does this satisfy you now? When I refer to modern versions, I am referring to those translations of the Westcott and Hort greek texts or those of the same type as "The Message"."

I might suggest you refine your research a little more. "W&H" doesn't necessarily mean, "corrupt", and the newer versions simply take the W&H work under consideration, as they do all the available mss. I don't believe they give that much weight to W&H's work.

"Would you not say that ancient paper (papryi)would have written on them writings that were ancient? Or did someone find ancient paper, and then write on them in modern times? Is this what you are saying/implying? Are you saying that this papryi was not ancient? Please explain. My understanding is that these were ancient writings on ancient paper."

If,500 years ago, someone took a ms that was then 500 years old & made some changes in it, wouldn't both the now-1000 yr-old ms itself and the 500-yr-old alterations be ancient to US? How would WE know if the alteration was superfluous or not?

 

No. Westcott and Hort studied the two manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, and when those two manuscripts agreed, they considered that reading to be correct. When those two Codices disagreed they looked further into the manuscript evidence to try to determine the correct reading. I find their reliance on Aleph and B to be a serious over confidence, and their textual critical methods questionable, but not nearly as egregious as some of the absolute blather we see coming from the KJVO camp!

All translation does that, including the translation of the KJV.

Oh boy! You not only know very little of textual and manuscript issues, you don't even know what the italics in the KJV are for. The italics do not mean "they couldn't find an exact word" but rather means they supplied a word not found in the Hebrew or Greek. They added the words in italics to the text in an attempt to clarify their interpretation of the Hebrew or Greek.

No one had to prove it to me. I believe the KJV is the word of God in the English language. And nobody has disproved it to me either. I use it every day. I love it. I read it. I study it. I teach it. I preach it. I trust it! What I don't do is make up lies about it and post them in forums such as this!

 

Michelle mentioned Logsdon, and his connection to the NAS. I've heard somewhere that his claim about the KJV, etc is a hoax. Anyone know a link to an article? Thanx (seems like I read about it from Kutelik? G. Hudson perhaps? help!)

 

http://www.kjvonly.org/gary/frank_logston_pr.htm

 

The fact is that all faithful translations of any of the available Greek texts teach the "Blood", deity of Christ, and Salvation. There are a few passages where a variation in the evidence resulted in modern scholars rejecting certain readings.

The effort, whether right or wrong, of these modern scholars is to restore the NT to its most pristine form then derive doctrine from the Bible. Most would consider this more logical and honest than determining what doctrine to accept then deciding what the Bible should have said. One view says our beliefs should agree with what God said and that it is a noble undertaking to try and produce the most accurate text possible.

The common KJVO view is that what God said should agree with what they believe and any effort to consider the evidence for the originals is wrong since it might threaten what they already believe.

No. The NKJV is a very good translation that follows the KJV pretty close except in a few cases where they translators thought an improvement was definitely in order.

Basically all translators including the KJV translators put what they think the original words meant. What would a translation be otherwise? For instance, if you have access to a Strong's concordance you can verify that the KJV often translates one Greek word by several different English words. They, like all Bible translators, took context into account and were not immune to the effects of their theological biases on their work.

The NKJV, like the original KJV, includes variants in the margins so that the reader can see them.

As someone else said, the italicized words were added for clarity. Both the NKJV and NASB which I use routinely with the KJV employ the same method.

The problem with these lists is that they start with their conclusion rather than the evidence.

If I said that unless someone was exactly like me then they weren't human, you would scoff at my idiocy. But I might argue that I'm male and you are female therefore I am human and you are not... I have blue eyes so anyone who doesn't isn't human... I am 6'1" so obviously anyone who isn't must not be human... I have a birth mark on my left cheek so that's a requirement for being human too. If I were so determined, I could eliminate every other person on the face of the earth from being human... because I used the wrong standard. Some might be close but I could always find a difference.

The truth is that we are all human because we are of the same kind as the original man. We share his attributes in common although not in exactly the same proportions.

The same is true of Bible translations. Our versions and texts are the perfect Word of God because they "have all the properties or qualities requisite to its nature and kind" (This is a definition of "perfect"). Our Bibles reveal the same God, the same plan, the same revelation, the same Truths.

We don't say that one person is not human because they aren't exactly like someone else. We don't even say that a person isn't human if they aren't exactly like Adam. But it is just as ridiculous to say that a Bible is not the Word of God since it doesn't match the KJV exactly... or even the originals. What we must ask is "Does this Bible by demonstration of the evidence for the originals 'possess all of the properties or qualities requisite to its nature and kind'? For the NASB, KJV, Geneva, NKJV, WEB, and many others the absolute answer is "yes".

If the evidence is flawed (which I am confident you will find it is if you honestly and with discernment consider the other side of the issue) then your conclusion is almost certainly wrong.

Oh... but they have. I believe the KJV. It is the Word of God. Properly handled and divided, it teaches every doctrine and revelation given in the originals. I don't say this in spite of modern versions and scholarship... I say it because of them. These things affirm the KJV... they don't contradict it.

Imagine 8 people witness a wreak. The police take the first statement but some people question that witness's account... then the other 7 witnesses come along and say the same thing with different wording... they validate the testimony, don't they? The police wouldn't toss the first testimony or any of the other 7 seeing they agree with each other. We shouldn't disparage any faithful version- the affirm each other.

I would never want to do that Elaine. I would like to convince you that more than one version is acceptable before God... even if you continue to only use the KJV. What I would like to do is show you that God's Word is what He said... not limited to a particular set of English words used to express what He said.

For example, Galatians 5:14. What "word" is being referred to? Isn't the whole saying that follows? If it were in a different language or worded slightly different would it be less true?

 

http://www.kjvonly.org/gary/frank_logston_pr.htm </font>[/QUOTE]Thanx! I don't think that is the article I originally read, but it suffices

 

Scott,

All versions differ from the other. Am I to believe that God was not able to preserve the Word He wanted us to live by. What version do you use? How do you know it's the Word of God? Why use any Bible because none are of God they are all of faliable man. I am not saying I believe this I am just saying what makes God's Word important or something you base your beliefs on if you can't trust it to be His Word?

Isn't one inspired of God? If they all are then how do I know if Mary is a virgin or if she wasn't? Would I even think she was if I only read the copy where she is called a maid and in verses of prophecy that talk about Christ birth she is just called a woman. If she wasn't a virgin then could Joseph have been the father of Christ?

Am I making since?

I do want to add that I appreciate your being kind and hope my words come across in the same manner.

Elaine

 

And how does that quote justify your unScriptural actions, again?

 

Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.