Non-KJBO lies

I believe God preserved his words. He preserves them after the KJV in the same way he preserved them before the KJV, and to claim otherwise is to say God changed his promise.

 

You have a point about a church using different versions. The last church I was a member of solved that problem. Everyone used the NIV, therefore there was no confusion.

 

I like using a different version than the pastor. It makes me pay attention better, it makes me think, it makes me really dig into God's word when I get home after an interesting wording difference. If I don't know before hand what version will be used in the sermon, I bring two versions to church so I can be sure of using something other than what the pastor is using.

 

MV's have two primary drivers. First to update the language to contemporary, every day English... just like the originals that God gave were in the every day language of people at that time.

Second, they are to be as accurate to the originals as possible- correcting previous renderings where the textual evidence indicates changes should be made.

Some MV's were made giving respect to the KJV wording where possible because of its familiarity. But few were made as an effort to just update the language of the KJV.

Both the NKJV and Revised Version were intended to be updates of the KJV. However both committees took the opportunity to correct things they thought were poorly translated. For instance the NKJV rightly calls the Holy Spirit a "Him" at Romans 8:16 where the KJV calls Him an "it".

Actually the only [professing] Christians I know who are running around telling people they can't trust God's Word are liberals and KJVO's.

I have absolutely no doubt that the NASB, NKJV, and KJV are all reliable versions of God's Word.

BTW, they are more in agreement than the Bibles used by the early church... Many Bibles at that time were incomplete and contained non-canonical books that local groups had accepted as scripture.

The KJVO says my authority is the AV1611... but wait, you can't refer back to that original either... it has been lost. The one thing we do know for certain is that the KJV that we carry today is not identical even to the original AV1611, much less the God inspired autographs.

This is an ignorant argument on your part.

It is equivalent to saying that it is pointless to take down statements at the scene of a traffic accident since you can't see the original occurence and some minor details of the witnesses might not agree.

In the case of the NT, we have over 5,000 Greek mss, 12,000+ patristic quotes, and 12,000+ ancient versions that affirm rather than contradict one another when taken as a whole.

God perfectly (completely) preserved His Word. He did not see fit to do it in the way you and other KJVO's demand that He ought to have done it. He preserved the message, the doctrines, the revelation, etc. without enshrining a single set of words that vain men would attempt to worship and deify.

Yet even so, the RCC found a way to enshrine the Latin Vulgate for 1000 years- effectively denying people God's Word. Now we have KJVO's who in their zeal to enshrine a vain tradition of men are attempting to enshrine the KJV- and deny many the Word of God in a language the speak and understand.

The words used in hymns is poetic and has nothing to do with proving one translation superior to another.

MV's pre-date CCM, Christian Rock, etc... by at least 100 years.

Your statement is equivalent to saying the KJV caused Mormonism.

Some of them use MV's, many and probably most in smaller ministries use the KJV. The first modern day charasmatics back around 1900 most definitely used the KJV. So by your guilt by association logic, we could also say that the KJV caused the modern charasmatic/pentacostal heresies.

Really? How do you know? I go to a Bible study where at least 4 different versions are in use. We go verse by verse and none of use has a problem staying on the same page. In fact, the argument we borrow from the KJV translators about a variety of translations giving the truest sense of scripture absolutely holds true.

That said, I think it is perfectly legitimate for a church to have an "official" version but where the pastor freely cites other versions for clarity's sake.

Just like among KJV users and KJVO's.

The very second a church proclaims KJVOnlyism it ceases to be "Bible Believing". The Bible nowhere proclaims this belief. And although you didn't mention it, a KJVO church is by definition NOT fundamental.

BTW, our church uses the KJV. It has been my Bible my whole life.

We don't ask for anything different. KJVOnlyism is pure superstition for almost all of its adherents. They believe it but really don't have a solid, tangible reason to believe it. But they believe it so strongly that they are willing to reject even the most concrete proofs against it.

There are certainly some shallow, half-baked but none the less emotionally attractive arguments on the KJVO side. But they fall apart on even the most modest objective critical analysis.

 

RaptureReady:Some people may wish you to believe that God did not preserve his word perfectly for us today. I am here to state that that is a lie straight from hell.

I agree - so far...

God did preserve his word just like he said he would in Psalm 12.

Still agree...except Psalm 12:7 is not about God's words.

The problem we have here is, which bible to believe. I believe with pray, fasting and some common sense, a person will find that the King James Bible is God's preserved word for us today.

I believe that if a person is fully open to God's advice, he/she will find that "Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures".

Sure, it has words that are not used today, but you can pick up a novel, magazine, and/or paper today and some of the words in them are not words we use in everyday language, but you don't see anyone debating them, now do ya.

Difference is, the whole body of writing in the KJV is in archaic English. It was "Good News for 17th Century man".


Everyone talks about how the modern versions are here to update the language of the KJB. Why did they not just do that?

Because the later translators had a LOT more source material to work from.


They did more that update the language, they caused the reader to doubt God's word, just as satan did with Eve in the Garden of Eden. (Gen. 3, 2 Cor.3:11)

An old, and non-valid argument. There are NO two English BVs alike.



Everyone talks about the "originals," well, let's refer back to the originals, wait...the originals are lost, so therefore we cannot refer back to the "originals." You may have a copy of a mss, but it is not the original, so the "original" argument is pointless.

BUT... there are still the oldest we know of.

I can understand how someone can study the documents we have today and get confused or mind boguled about God's word. They try to prove God's word to be true(refering back to the lost "originals") instead of believing God's word to be true.

Anyone can say anything, but God has left PROOF for the truth of His word. And in His word, there's not ONE BLIP of support for the Onlyism myth.

(2 Tim.3:7) If anything, I believe history points back to that good'o book, just look at the Liberty Bell.(Lev.25:10-proclaim liberty)

Actually, that "good' ol book" would be the Tyndale's Bible if history is that meaningful a criterion.

Also, look at those beloved hymns that we sing, take close look at where they got some of those wonderful words from. Here's something to think about, since we have new so-called bibles, we also have new so-called christian music. Kinda like fitting the glove to the hand. Today's christian music goes well with the modern bibles of today.(2 Cor.11)

Most of those hymns were written when the KJV was just about the only English-language Bible in common use. Indeed, they "fit the glove to the hand" as the writers wished to show their hymns were Scripture-based. And, being 56 yrs old, I've seen quite a revolution in music, from the end of the "Big Band" era to the beginnings of rock, to the noise we have now.

Also, those that claim to have signs and wonders today, look at what bible they use. I just about guarantee you that they use another version besides the KJB. Glove to hand again.(2 Cor.11)

BY THAT PREMISE... FITTING GLOVE TO HAND...What was the BV used by Koresh, and by the remaining Branch Davidians? What was the BV used by Jungle Jimmy Jones? What is the BV used by the Mormons? What is the BV used by the Herbert Armstrongites? What is the BV used by the many skinhead, redneck, Neo-nazi, and racist "religious" groups today?

By your premise, the KJV would be the most evil piece of literature ever written!

I do not understand how someone can go into a church service with a NIV or whatever version you use, and the pastor use a NKJV, or maybe a NASV, or maybe a KJB and you all be on the same page. YOU CANNOT! So, do you just seat back and listen and say, well, he is a pastor so he will tell us the truth.

Same way one goes into a church where the preacher uses the KJV & hasta stop and explain passages into everyday English the congregations understands. They're trusting HIM to be right.


I know there are alot of good, honest men of God out there, but there are alot of anti-christ pastors out there as well. Do not be deceived, get into a church that uses and believes the same Bible that you do, whether it be NIV, NKJV, NASV, or whatever version you like, at least you can read word for word what the pastor is preaching and know that he is telling the truth.

That's where your OWN prayer and Bible study should guide you.


Probably the only church that does this is a KJB only church, so, I suggest a Independent, Bible Believing, King James, Baptist church. Is it perfect, no, one reason is because it is made up of sinners like you and I, but the truth is proclaimed throughout the land.

I agree, except for the "KJV part. God is NOT LIMITED to one English version, and neither are WE.

I know that you have a total different view on this, which believe it or not, I understand.

Kewl. What WE don't understand is how any obviously-intelligent people such as yourself can actually believe an obviously-false doctrine about God's word...a doctrine begun by a cult official, a doctrine with no Scriptural support whatsoever, a doctrine full od obvious mistakes and double standards, a doctrine based upon lies, guesswork, fishing stories, fables, misinformation, and double standards.


All I ask is for you to use common sense about our Bible TODAY, not then, but now.

I DO. and, seeing as how God has always provided His word in English in the style current for the time, since He FIRST provided it in English, it's common sense to see He's still doing it. He did NOT retire to a park bench in 1611, but He's still on His THRONE, overseeing and providing His word for us today, in today's languages.

 

We're all in agreement that God has preserved his Word. However, we disagree about what that means. There's no scriptural support for the notion that a sole single translation is now or ever was "God's perfectly preserved Word".

So, when I read from my Dutch Pulpit Bible, am I incapable of having God's perfectly preserved Word?

If there is only one perfectly preserved translation, then it must be concluded that anyone with a translation in another language do not have God's perfectly preserved Word.

I have a copy of "The Diary of Anne Frank", which is translated from German, that was published in the last 5 years. My mother has a copy that translated by a different translator, printed in the 1980's. Some of the words are slightly different, but both are true to the source text. You don't see people debating over foreign novels translated into English. The only time I see people debating Bible translations is when someone asserts single-translation-onlyism as a matter of doctrine.

No, not everyone talks about that. The most common discussion is having a translation that is in the language of the day, without regard to what any other previous translation says (a translation is not authoritative).

I've never doubted God's word, whether I read the Greek, the Dutch Pulpit Bible, the KJV, or the NIV.

This is a false arguement. The source texts that the KJV translators used are readily available today.

That in no way supports the notion that a translation is authoritative over the source texts. However, the arguement over source text authority (such as, MSS vs TR, or TR vs LXX, etc) is a completely separate arguement from the single-translation-onlyism arguement. The MJKV, for example, is more accurate to the KJV source texts than the KJV-1611.

Most hymns were written in foreign languages, like German and French, and given English textual treatments, or lyrics. Most hymns have multiple hymn texts, texts which have been updated over time. That being said, using hymns to support single-version-onlyism is a circular and empty arguement. Hymnal Theology is false theology.

You're clearly not a student of musicology. Anyone with a music degree will tell you how uterlly false our assertion is. Music styles have evolved gradually over time. Sacred music is no exception.

Must cults have historically used the KJV. Your arguement is neither here nor there. It neither supports nor refutes single-versionism claims.

Says who? This is just your opinion, not based on fact. However, if a pastor uses only the NIV from the pulpit, and the congregation uses the NIV, that blows a hole in that arguement entirely. Interestingly, the English speaking people of the 1600's did just what you're saying can't happen. Some used the KJV, some the Geneva, some used the Henry VII translation, and some used the Elizabeth I translation.

This is true, regardless of translation. This is true, even when everyone uses the same translation. This is true of people who use the Dutch pulpit Bible, the Gutenburg Bible, the Arabic Bible, or the Santa Biblia.

Untrue. If I walk in with a 1612 KJV, it will differ from the 1769 KJV likely used at the pulpit.

Reading a bunch of words is not the "truth". Having an understanding of the message contained therein is the truth. Those who get hung up on verbage variances are perverting scripture.

If I use common sense to conclude that single-translation-onlyism is wrong, you'd be telling me to NOT give in common sense.

 

"The lie" is the false assertion that God's Word is only preserved in one Version.

If you are referring to the "seven times," you might want to recheck your math.

You are most certainly entitled to believe that. I, on the other hand, believe that God preserved His Word in numerous Translations. The Geneva Bible is also God's Word. You have no choice but to accept this as true as the "King James Bible" is largely derived from it. Did you think that it was coincidental that the chapter/verse format virtually mirrors that of the Geneva Bible?

I am curious: which Version of the "King James Bible" are you using? Remember: if your King James Bible ain't got the Apocrypha, then you ain't got a REAL King James Bible.

So, exactly how do you justify the complete rejection of all other English Versions of God's Holy Word?

And yet, look at the Pilgrims: they didn't bring the "King James Bible" with them to the New World.

Here's an idea: if you are rejecting every other Translation of God's Holy Word, how about supporting it with SCRIPTURAL proof? You have not offered any Verses (other than your misinterpretation of Psalm 12) that support KJVO.

I cannot believe that some would actually put "KJB only" on their church sign, especially when considering the man for whom this Version was named. Basically, they are telling a lost world: If you don't have the same Version of the Bible we use, don't bother visiting with us.

I would suggest a church that is more interested with one's eternal security rather than which Version of the Bible they are utilizing.

All I ask is for someone to provide the Scriptural support for the complete and total rejection of all other Versions of God's Holy Word.

And just think: I actually use the REAL 1611 Authorised Version - yet I categorically reject KJVO.

 

Hezekiah 23:11 categorically rejects all versions but the KJV.

Although, it only reads that way in the NASB. The KJV translates the verse as being something about a postherd in Egypt, but I digress.

 

The church we are members of now uses the KJV. Although I sometimes take a different version, we read responsively each Sunday morning and I really enjoy this.

 

...still waiting for a single verse that says...

My son who is caught-up in that oneness sect is still waiting for me to show him the one single verse that uses the word "trinity" too.

 

Ooh, good point Granny .

 

How about Godhead?

 

Can't seem to find "oneness" neither.

HankD

 

I told him that, but then he points out all these verses...

 

The word, "rapture" is not in the KJV, but the Oneness cult believes it anyhow. Of course God as One in Three persons can easily be proved, and yes, I believe in the rapture! (which is a Latin word appearing in 1 Thess 4).
GG- There's a book written by an ex-Oneness Penrecostal entitled, "Oneness Pentecostals & The Trinity" by Gregory A Boyd. ISBN 0-8010-1019-5 by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI. May I recommend also "The Forgotten Trinity" by James White.

 

Thank you Pastor Kev! I'll try to get these soon.

 

That boy must be stubborn as a mule if he stands up to you GrannyGumbo. I wonder where he got dat?
Lacy