Question To KJV Only Advocates

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Martin, Jun 3, 2005.

  1. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a question for those who believe the King James Version (yr ?) is the only correct english translation of the Bible.

    How do you, from Scripture alone, support your claims?

    Let me clearify what I am looking for here.

    I am not looking for a comparison between the KJV and other "modern" english translations. Such a comparison is faulty because it starts with the presupposition that the KJV is the only correct english translation. Thus such an argument is circular.

    I am not looking for someone to tell me that it is the "authorized version" since, historically, that has nothing to do with the claimed superior nature of the translation.

    I am not looking for a debate about the various text types from which the KJV vs. modern texts are taken. Such a debate is not within the scope of KJV onlyism since some "modern" translations use basically the same text (including new manuscript finds since 1611).

    I am not looking for spurious arguments about how everyone who translated the NIV was "evil" or how the NKJV translators are out to "fool people with their false perversion of the KJV text". Such arguments are wrong because many of the textual scholars who worked on these translations are Godly Christians who, like Martin Luther, wanted a English Bible in the modern language.

    What I am looking for is solid, textual reasons for the claim that the KVJ is superior to all other English translations. What does that mean?

    That means that I am looking for a solid, Biblical (only) arugment for KVJ onlyism. I am not so much looking for "chapter and verse", since that would clearly be impossible. What I am looking for is a solid defense of the KJV only position.

    Martin.
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Prediction.

    Psalm 12v6-7 will be misused and a fight will ensue.
     
  3. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Better prediction;
    There will be a fight regardless of what is offered. ;)

    Why "fight" about it at all?

    Isn't a better use of our time spent uplifting each other irrespective of one's faith in which Bible?

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  4. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Amen my brother!

    The majority of those on the strongly KJV side feel like they have Bibical principles that they follow.

    The majority of those who have a string preference for the KJV and is supporting text feel like they have Bibical principles that they follow.

    The majority of those who accept some of the modern versions feel like they have Bibical principles that they follow.
     
  5. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    But the problem is KJVOism is a false doctrine that has caused division in the church. We can not ignore it by just taking a blind eye to its lies and deceptions.

    To be KJV preferred is not to be KJVO. The difference is night and day.

    Why fight? Very simple:

    2 Timothy 4:1-5 (NASB)

    1 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom:
    2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.
    3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,
    4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
    5 But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

    KJVOism is a false doctrine and it is a myth based on distortions and lies.

    Sorry but that is the hard truth a.k.a known as old fashioned preaching to weed out bad doctrines and errors. The truth seems to be something Christians today do not want to hear. When the truth about KJVOism comes into the light I hate to see people sugar coat it like there is nothing wrong with this modern false doctrine.To ignore KJVOism is to be part of the problem.

    We should follow the bibles advice and reprove and rebuke with patience and instructions. When KJVOist are presented the facts (like the AV1611 for example) it is up to them to accept these facts or seek teachers that will tickle their ears. KJVOism is a myth.

    There is nothing wrong with being KJV preferred.
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    This "fight" from both sides, is ripping fundamentalism apart at the seams.

    If my brother Jim chooses to put absolute faith in the King James version of the Holy Scriptures I have confidence that he is trusting the Word of God.

    There are posters here who carry the philosophy to an extreme, and that is dealt with regularly here.

    We all know that there is not a verse that says "..and to those amongst thee who speakest in the English tongue, thou shalt use only the Authorised Version, all others are an abomination unto me..."

    This question has been posed ad naseum. The answers always satisfy one side and never satisfy the other.
     
  7. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    But claiming the the KJV is inspired is wrong. Sorry but it is wrong.

    As a said there is nothing wrong with KJV preferred. Having faith in the KJV is 100% fine.

    Having faith in the KJV myth is 100% wrong. Jim is KJVO #4(as he has said before...correct me if I'm wrong) therefore he is wrong and we need to stand by our facts and correct our dear brother with facts and love. To love our brothers is to correct them when they are in error and show them the facts.

    KJVOism should have been dealth with 30 years ago and not ignored.
     
  8. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    The point is that this thread is nothing new. The same old arguements will be produced, the scene will get ugly, personal attacks will ensure, and as a result the thread will need to be closed after page five.

    Those on the strong KJVO side feel just as strongly that the other side is in error.
     
  9. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    You said:
    But the problem is KJVOism is a false doctrine that has caused division in the church. We can not ignore it by just taking a blind eye to its lies and deceptions.


    ==Correct. I know of whole churches that have split over this issue. I would be perfectly happy to ignore this issue. However the KJV-only folks keep pushing the issue. There will be no fight here. Hopefully only a discussion, a Biblical discussion, about this issue.
    _____________________________________

    You said:
    To be KJV preferred is not to be KJVO. The difference is night and day.

    ==Correct again. I have no problem with people who prefer the KJV, thats fine. What I have a problem with is when people take personal preference and turn it into doctrine. That can be about styles of music, Bible translations, or anything else.
    ____________________________________

    You said:
    The truth seems to be something Christians today do not want to hear. When the truth about KJVOism comes into the light I hate to see people sugar coat it like there is nothing wrong with this modern false doctrine.To ignore KJVOism is to be part of the problem.

    ==Thats true. I have seen KJV-only folks go to some wild extremes to defend their doctrine. From denying the greek and hebrew, to saying that anyone who does not use the KJV is lost. Joseph Chambers, a KJV only person, was once asked on his radio show if he would accept a english translation other than the KJV if it was based 100% on the same text as the KJV. He said yes, but then proceeded to back away from that yes. Then there is the book by G. A. Riplinger (Gail Riplinger...who has influenced many on this issue including Joseph Chambers) "New Age Bible Versions". This book is one of the hallmarks of KJV onlyism today. It has been shown, by several scholars, that Riplinger mis-quotes people. She claims that all "modern" Bibles are the result of "new age" thought. She claims that many of hte people who translated the NASB (etc) are evil men who hold to unorthodox Christian beliefs. For example in the introduction of her book she actually claims that:

    "The New Age movement's expressed goal of inflitrating the evangelical church and gradually changing the Bible to conform to its One World Religion is evident in the current new versions...This has taken place because the editors of the new versions, as well as the authors of the Greek editions, manuscripts, lexicons and dictionaries used in their compliation, hold beliefs which an orthodox Christian would find shocking"

    That is a conspiracy theory that even Dan Brown would envy. Not only is there no historical or factual truth behind the above statement, on the face of it clear that the whole statement is driven by wild conspiracies (not history). This is why KJV-onlyism is a real problem. If it was just a matter of preference then I would leave it alone. But statements like that made by Riplinger are not uncommon among KJV-only people. Sadly many people believe what Riplinger and Chambers, and others, say and write. They are being mis-lead by Christian conspiracy theories.

    ________________________________


    In Christ,
    Martin.
     
  10. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would propose that this is not about people's feelings. After all the mid-evil Roman Catholic Church felt that it had to persecute the reformers. This issue has divided churches. The divisions are not coming from those who accept so-called "modern versions". Rather the divisions are being caused by those KJV-only advocates who, like Gail Riplinger, make wild (unhistorical) accusations condemning everyone who disagrees with them. If this was about preference I would leave it alone, but it is about more than that. It is about a unhistorical, unBiblical teaching (KJV-onlyism) that is misleading many sincere people into various legalistic bondages. We must respond.

    Martin.
     
  11. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    You said:
    Isn't a better use of our time spent uplifting each other irrespective of one's faith in which Bible?

    ==Jim. I would point you to Gail Riplinger's book, "New Age Bible Versions". In this book she levels very serious accusations against those who were involved in translating the various "modern" translations. One of the most serious is that "modern" translators are hiding information, in thew texts they use, that will be used to support the one world religion of antiChrist...

    "The few Greek manuscripts underlying new versions contain yet unreleased material which is an exact blueprint for the antichrist's One World Religion. A complete translation of these is being called for by new version editors and New Agers alike." -pg3 See also the other statement of hers I quoted in reply to David J.

    These are serious, serious charges that must be answered. From my perspective these charges are nothing more than tabloid conspiracies and little more than trash. If I had my way I would totally ignore Gail Riplinger and allow them to live in their world of conspiracy with Dan Brown and the UFO hunters. However many, many Godly Christians are being misinformed by the views of Riplinger. Many churches have been divided by KJV onlyism, and Riplinger's writings are just adding fuel to the fire. The cancer of KJV-onlyism is spreading and doing serious damage to the church. Therefore there must be a serious, historical, theological, and textual discussion about this issue in the church. Riplinger's book is not even a start.

    This is not an attack upon people who prefer the KJV or the KJV itself. This is a challenge to those who, like Riplinger, want everyone to believe that all "modern" translations are perversions and that the KJV is the superior English translation. That is who this challenge is aimed at. I am looking for Biblical support for their views.

    So back to your statement, "Isn't a better use of our time spent uplifting each other irrespective of one's faith in which Bible?"

    My answer is twofold.

    First we cannot over-look false teaching in order to have fellowship. Fellowship without proper doctrine is not Biblical fellowship.

    Second, as I have said above, I would love to see this issue go away. However with the kind of claims being made by Riplinger and others that will not happen any time soon (nor should it). Such accusations must be answered, the truth must be defended, and error refuted.

    So while I would love to say that we can ignore this issue and spend time "uplifting" other Christians I am forced, rather, to defend the faith. As Jude also said...

    "while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints" -vs3

    Martin.
     
  12. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    As far as I know we have no Riplinger/Ruckman ilk here.
     
  13. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    "As far as I know we have no Riplinger/Ruckman ilk here."

    ==Hope you are right. I was reading through some of the posts on this forum and saw some pretty wild "KJV only" statements.

    Martin.
     
  14. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Martin;
    FYI: I own Riplinger's book, and several of Ruckman's books. So, for what it's worth, I am well aware of both of their wild claims.

    Nevertheless, in spite of extreme errors of they who support KJVo, I am still adamant about my King James Bible.

    I suppose that there are some feller's "on the other side of the aisle" who make wild and unsubstantiated claims. Yet, would you abandon your position simply because some have been shown to be wrong about it?

    I think not.

    As brother Roger has pointed out: this question is nothing new in this forum. It will not solve anything. And I highly doubt if it will change anyone's mind concerning their position.

    On a side note: How are things going in your evangelism efforts? :D

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  15. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    You said:
    I suppose that there are some feller's "on the other side of the aisle" who make wild and unsubstantiated claims. Yet, would you abandon your position simply because some have been shown to be wrong about it?

    ==The KJV only position is dividing Churches. I don't know of any NASB only movement that is doing that (or any NASB only movement anyway). This is a serious, serious problem. You can dismiss the writings of Riplinger as "wild claims" but what you can't dismiss is the influence and damage of her (and others) wild claims. That is the problem. Apart from that this discussion would be a waste of time, but because of that this is a needed discussion.
    __________________________

    You said:
    As brother Roger has pointed out: this question is nothing new in this forum. It will not solve anything. And I highly doubt if it will change anyone's mind concerning their position.

    ==Nothing is new under the sun my friend. Every new heresy is nothing but old heresy in new clothing. This is not about pulling any mini Riplinger over to the "other side", this is about a public discussion of the issues involved. Again I await Biblical support from the KJV-only camp on their position. So far I await in vain....

    ___________________________________

    You said:
    On a side note: How are things going in your evangelism efforts?

    ==They are going fine, how about yours? Effective evangelism cannot be ignorant of apologetical issues. Down here in rural North Carolina KJV-onlyism is a major problem (even among non-Christian/non-churched folks). The attitude that "if the KJV was good enough for Jesus and Paul..." is very much alive and well. That is the grounding for my concern here. Riplinger, and others, preach their messages and many people listen to them and believe them. That is a major, major problem. A popular Bible teacher down here, who shall remain nameless, uses the KJV only to "stay out of trouble". I even know of nationally know teachers/preachers who do the same. This is a major, major problem that can't be ignored.

    This is a problem, if for no other reason, because people are taking personal preference and turning into truth claims and/or doctrine (ie...legalism).

    Btw nobody has answered the question: What is the Biblical (only) evidence for KJV-onlyism? Or even where is the Biblical support for one superior "TRANSLATION"?

    Martin.
    _____________________________
     
  16. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    While the point of this thread may be nothing new, it is a valid point for discussion. There is no need for it to involve personal attacks. Each side should be willing to present the Scriptural principles that they think supports their view and that they are willing to have applied consistently.
     
  17. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good point Logas. It's kind of like when liberals want to claim that we do not need to talk about abortion because every argument has already been presented. Basically they are telling us to shut up. We can not ignore and sugar coat *KJVOism. KJVOism is a false doctrine that is deadly to the child of God.

    *Please note that I said KJVOism and not the KJVOist. Average KJVOist are not in the same league as people like Ruckman, Riplinger, Waite, etc…Those who push the KJVO myth with lies and distortions fall under another category that the Bible condemns.

    KJVOist should review the evidence and ponder KJVOism. As a KJVOist when I read the AV1611 something inside of me went off and a red flag was raised. I searched for answers and read all kinds of materials. The best source I found that convinced me that KJVOism was false is the AV1611.

    It’s dangerous for us to ignore KJVOism. Yes there are many good Christian people caught up in the myth. KJVOism on the surface sounds legitimate because of the way it presented with the emotions and conspiracy theories. So I don’t fault anyone who gets caught up in this myth. I myself was a KJVO for over seven years. I do find fault with someone who has been presented the facts (like Psalm 12:6-7 as found in the AV1611 for example) and cling to the KJVO deceptions rather than accepting the facts.

    The bottom line that many KJVOist ignore is there is no scripture to support KJVOism. All the double weasel talk in the world can not cover this known fact. KJVOist should admit that it is a personal preference and stand with us against people like Cloud, Waite, Ruckman, Riplinger, Reagan, Chick, Fuller, etc… because these people advocate a lie. God is not the father of lies and He is not the author of confusion. When KJVOism claims that only the KJV is the perfect Word of God then it is both a lie and causes confusion because of the many revisions that KJV. This is a fact and not an opinion.

    The Holy Spirit will never lead anyone to KJVOism because KJVOism is a lie. However the Holy Spirit will lead someone to the KJV because the KJV is a fine translation. Please note that I made a difference between KJVOism which is a lie and KJV which is a proven valid wonderful translation of the Word of the Most High.

    I simply don’t understand why KJVOism must attack fine bibles like the NKJV, NASB, and ESV while blind eying its own problems like Peter Ruckman, Riplinger, etc…

    As for me I will stand up to KJVOism until the Lord takes me home. I will not bow down and ignore the problems of KJVOism just because some good Christian brothers and sisters are KJVO. I still have many friends who are KJVO and they know my stand BUT unlike KJVOism I do not attack them BUT I do attack the KJVO myth when it is discussed.
     
  18. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Bro. martin, I hope you persist in asking your question. KJVOs...the gauntlet has been cast & it's up to YOU to pick it up. The KJVO has made the statements, published books supporting his view, proclaimed that view orally & electronically, & introduced it into the churches. In THIS venue, it's time for him/her to either substantiate the set of doctrines THROUGH THE BIBLE, or admit they can't.

    I maintain that the KJVO myth is COMPLETELY WRONG because it's NOT SUPPORTED BY SCRIPTURE in any way, shape, form, or fashion.

    That's all Bro. Martin is asking for...the same thing I've asked for over the years...a simple Scriptural proof that lends some truth to the KJVO myth.

    Bro. Martin, please don't hold your breath waiting for a truthful answer from any KJVO. While not intending to come down upon any individual, lemme say that THE KJVOS, SO FAR, HAVE NEVER ANSWERED THIS QUESTION DIRECTLY! NONE of them have EVER simply said, "There's no Scriptural support for my view". They've offered up every preservation verse in the Bible...NONE OF WHICH OFFER THE SLIGHTEST SUGGESTION OF WHICH TEXT OR WHICH VERSION TO USE, as well as followed SDA official Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson in wrongly claiming that Psalm 12:6-7 are preservation verses, when the AV 1611 itself proves this assumption wrong. And even IF those Psalms were about preservation, they don't offer the slightest hint as to what version or text to use.

    Bro. Martin, I hold the position that NO doctrine about Scripture can be correct if it's not supported by Scripture, either empirically or by implication.

    Well, I'm gonna "shut up" & get off this thread & see what the KJVOs have to offer.
     
  19. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    The thread was titled "Question to KJV Only Advocates". I would really like to answer it. (If the questions were not intended to be more of the usual, hostile, rhetorical ones usually asked here.)
    I don't. But neither does anyone else. There are no verses that say that the autographs were inspired either. All of us should base our beliefs on Scriptural principals and Biblical precedents, when no direct verse is there.

    1) The Bible promises us that the Word will be preserved. (Psalm 12v6-7)

    2) The Bible shows clearly and consistently, God's method of preserving things. (see: http://www.kingdombaptist.org/article428.cfm )

    3) The Bible gives us a definition of inspired "Scripture" which pertains exclusively (at least in context) to copies and trranslations. (2 Tim 3:16,17)

    4) The Bible gives us a clear way to look critically at any "prophet" who claims to speak the Word of God. (The same test can apply to inspired Scripture, the cannon, and the Christian revelation in general.)Matt 7:15-20
    This "fruit test", IMHO, overwhelmingly proves the KJV to be inspire scripture.

    Those are my main arguments. But I will also answer some other statements you made.


    It might be circular, but I will say this. It is the same method anyone uses when picking a version "preference". Nobody REALLY compares the NIV, NAS, etc. and the NWT, LB etc to the "originals" because there are no "originals". While I would never start an argument there, it certainly counts for circumstantial evidence.

    Indeed, this is the same argument that ALL fundamental Christians use when defending our 66 book cannon. There is no Scripture that says, "Thou shalt not regard The Gospel of Peter, etc. as scripture but shalt regard Song of Soloman so."
    We base it on History and fruit. We base it on the fact that historically the church has "authorized" those and only those 66 books.

    See above.

    While I respectly disagree with most of that, I would not make it an issue.

    My main argument is the absolutly overwhelming preponderance of the fruit of the KJV when compared to all other translations in history.

    I believe I have Biblical precedents for believing that god will preserve Scripture, that his method of preservation is resurrection, not atrophy, and that fruit will overwhelmingly point to the particular prophet upon whom his favor shines.

    Is there a Biblical precedent for preservation by atrophy?, for "going to the originals"?, for multiple choice exegesis?

    Lacy
     
  20. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The doctrine of the preservation of the Scriptures does not actually support exclusive-only claims for the KJV. It is a fact that the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles [more of a revision than an original new translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages]. Does your view of preservation accept those earlier English Bibles as being the Scriptures in the same sense that is claimed for the KJV?

    Where in the context of 2 Tim. 3:16-17 does it state that the definition pertains exclusively to translations? How do you know whether the Scriptures that Timothy was taught were copies,
    were translations, were the original epistle written by the apostle Paul, were spoken words from the memory of his mother and grandmother?

    The definition of 2 Timothy 3:16 states specificly how "all Scripture is given," not how all Scripture is preserved or how all Scripture is translated. The definition may validly be referring to the original giving of the Scriptures by direct revelation and inspiration from God. Without reading KJV-only assumptions into the verse, how does the verse state that it is exclusively referring to the translating of men under the illumination of the Holy Spirit (who were not being giving any direct revelation or direct inspiration)?

    Your "main" argument [the fruit test] does not prove a KJV-only view. A consistent and scriptural view of Bible translation would be true both before and after 1611. According to your argument, which translation was the word of God before 1611? According to your argument and the actual historical evidence, does the fruit test support the KJV before around 1660?

    The KJV is actually part of the fruit that comes from the work of William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, the translators of the Geneva Bible.
    The KJV is a branch of the same tree as Tyndale's, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Taverner's, Whittingham's, Geneva,
    and Bishops' Bibles; Luther's German Bible, and other translations. Whatever qualities you claim for the KJV must also be true of the other English translations of which the KJV is a revision?

    Does your KJV-only view seem to cut one branch (the KJV) off the tree from which it came and attempt to make it independent of that tree?
     

Share This Page

Loading...