Questions From A KJV-Onlyist #2

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Ed Edwards, Apr 30, 2004.

  1. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    This subject exceeded the allowed length of
    a full topic (300 posts, 20 pages)
    Original starting post of the fisrst topic was by Baptist In Richmond:

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

    Granny Gumbo provided a link to a website in another thread.

    The initial topic was unrelated to the KJVO question, but I was looking around and found these questions on the site.

    Follow this link for the source of the questions.

    The website is addressing these to a very specific audience.

    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are those of you 'brethren', so you call yourselves anyway, who would deny me my belief on the King James 1611 Bible being the inspired, pure and preserved words of God.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here we go:

    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Let me ask you to answer the following questions about my position:

    1. How many people am I leading to Hell because I believe the AV1611 is infallible?

    2. How many young Christians will grow up with a stunted knowledge of the Bible, if I teach them to read it with the belief it is infallible and the very words of God?

    3. What is wrong with holding up the AV1611 and telling Bible-believing Christians, "You can trust every word"?

    4. How much of my reward will I lose for trusting God to keep his "WORDS" to every generation?

    5. If I am not allowed to believe the AV1611 is infallible, then which version should hold that distinction?

    6. If no version can hold that distinction, what do you suggest I tell my grand-children the next time they read Psalm 12:6-7?

    7. If I am forced to learn Hebrew and Greek before I can study the "words" of God, will you pay for our lessons?

    8. Please tell me why you still "preach from" the AV1611 but do not believe it is infallible?

    9. Which Bible do you use in your private studies and which one is the "best translation"?

    10. Why can't you just leave us "ignorant brethren" alone with our belief in the infallibility of the Scriptures and let us retain the title "Bible-believers", while you could use the title "Bible-correctors and interpreters"?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Would any of you "brethren" like to answer these?

    BiR
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Romans 6:17 (KJV1769):

    Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses,
    contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.


    Can somebody explaine to me a strange new
    doctrine? I learned this about 52 years ago
    when i became a Chritian:

    There are two "word of God":
    1. the written word of God, the Holy Bible
    2. the living word of God, Christ Jesus

    The strange new doctrine says that there
    is one and only one Word of God.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Ken4JC

    Ken4JC
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
    In that I think you are right, Jesus Christ is "that which is perfect is come" 1 Cor 13:10 I believe that the KJV is the ‘preserved word of God’. I do not think that you will even understand the KJV unless the revelation of the “WORD of GOD” Jesus Christ calls you to this book. Many people get the wrong view of the 1611 translation of the KJV I use the 1833 edition of the 1611 Authorized translation. The 1769 have paragraph marks that end in the last chapters of Act’s and this bugs me so I prefer the latter 1833 edition. I do not think of my Holy Bible as an icon or think to worship, it is a tool that God has placed in my hands to help me to follow the will of the Father in the guidance of the Holy Ghost to remember and emulate my King, Lord and Great High Priest Jesus Christ. :D
     
  4. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did you mean cretin? [​IMG]

    Lacy
     
  5. Ken4JC

    Ken4JC
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
    Be nice Lacy :D we all can't be perfect like you.
     
  6. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    In that I think you are right, Jesus Christ is "that which is perfect is come" 1 Cor 13:10 I believe that the KJV is the ‘preserved word of God’. I do not think that you will even understand the KJV unless the revelation of the “WORD of GOD” Jesus Christ calls you to this book. Many people get the wrong view of the 1611 translation of the KJV I use the 1833 edition of the 1611 Authorized translation. The 1769 have paragraph marks that end in the last chapters of Act’s and this bugs me so I prefer the latter 1833 edition. I do not think of my Holy Bible as an icon or think to worship, it is a tool that God has placed in my hands to help me to follow the will of the Father in the guidance of the Holy Ghost to remember and emulate my King, Lord and Great High Priest Jesus Christ. :D </font>[/QUOTE]Where do you get scriptural proof that the KJV is the preserved Word of God in English? Is it "word-for-word" preserved and if so how do you explain the revisions?

    Why would we as English speaking people be the lucky ones to have the preserved Word of God, or do you believe it is found in all other languages too?

    What was the preserved Bible in English before 1611?
     
  7. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here we go again. (Brother Ed needs to start chronicling the MV straw men too.)

    Where was the preserved Bible (any language will do) before April 30, 2004? If you don't believe there is one, then why ask KJVOs the question?

    [sarcasm]Where was the perfect preserved New Testament in 500 BC? You mean God left us without a witness? How terrible for God to wait 4000 years to reveal his Son to the world perfectly. Oh yeah, and it sure was racist to only give the Old testament in Hebrew. what about the millions of history's non-Hebrew speakers?[/sarcasm]

    Lacy
     
  8. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here we go again. (Brother Ed needs to start chronicling the MV straw men too.)

    Where was the preserved Bible (any language will do) before April 30, 2004? If you don't believe there is one, then why ask KJVOs the question?

    [sarcasm]Where was the perfect preserved New Testament in 500 BC? You mean God left us without a witness? How terrible for God to wait 4000 years to reveal his Son to the world perfectly. Oh yeah, and it sure was racist to only give the Old testament in Hebrew. what about the millions of history's non-Hebrew speakers?[/sarcasm]

    Lacy [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]EXACTLY my point. If a KJVo cannot answer this, then there is no need for a perfect 100% word-for-word translation to exist today. God Preserved His Word. The KJV is a GOOD translation of His Word. It contains His Word, but so does the NKJV. and if you are KJVo because of the TR, then the NKJV can now be your book of choice. I can respect being KJV preferred due to belief the TR is the best manuscript stream. What I cannot accept is that God only allows one translation to be the ONLY Word of God.

    Even Michelle says she would accept a Bible that was translated accurately from the TR; Skan has shown that the NKJV is such a book. So, what's the problem?

    The problem in reality is not the underlying manuscripts, it is the "KJV" itself. Now THAT, my Christian brother is where the problem lies.

    [sarcasm]It is racist for us to think that His Word is preserved in the English language. I don't read in the Bible where He promised that, do you?[/sarcasm]

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Ken4JC

    Ken4JC
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmm revisions or editions - lets see (small correction for me I did not have the date information under finger the actual EDITION is 1873) one Word for word Authorized translation in 1611, and a few natural Editions. No Revisions till the ASV/RSV that started this drudge of MV's Unless you go to the Pope then that lose lady has produce revisions like VD on Times Square NYC and most of the MV are direct creations of this street walker that calls out for the money of old fools. Now let’s see about the preserved Holy Bible in the Church – Jesus the Baptist Preacher (or Rabi) seemed to have a version of the Holy Bible to read from, even as a child Jesus spoke from the Holy Bible. King David had a Holy Bible. You know it seems that God has never had a problem providing his people a Holy Bible preserved and clear to those who love Him and seek his will in every age. Today We have the KJV, it is funny to me that the only people who want another bible have problems with God and the Word He has spoken to us. If you can’t understand the KJV maybe you are not ready for the Bible and need a relation with God first. I have talked with first graders that have no problem with the Holy Bible at all, so it is not a question of intelligence or relevance. But then you would rather attack the only foundation in this age that we can truly offer our children and you wonder why they turn to Islam, Wicca, or Neo-Pagan systems! Shame on you.
     
  10. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is all very interesting (read: blah blah blah blah blah blah) but you didn't answer the question. I will post it again in case you forgot it.

    What was the preserved Bible in English before 1611?
     
  11. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmm revisions or editions - lets see (small correction for me I did not have the date information under finger the actual EDITION is 1873) one Word for word Authorized translation in 1611, and a few natural Editions. No Revisions till the ASV/RSV that started this drudge of MV's Unless you go to the Pope then that lose lady has produce revisions like VD on Times Square NYC and most of the MV are direct creations of this street walker that calls out for the money of old fools. Now let’s see about the preserved Holy Bible in the Church – Jesus the Baptist Preacher (or Rabi) seemed to have a version of the Holy Bible to read from, even as a child Jesus spoke from the Holy Bible. King David had a Holy Bible. You know it seems that God has never had a problem providing his people a Holy Bible preserved and clear to those who love Him and seek his will in every age. Today We have the KJV, it is funny to me that the only people who want another bible have problems with God and the Word He has spoken to us. If you can’t understand the KJV maybe you are not ready for the Bible and need a relation with God first. I have talked with first graders that have no problem with the Holy Bible at all, so it is not a question of intelligence or relevance. But then you would rather attack the only foundation in this age that we can truly offer our children and you wonder why they turn to Islam, Wicca, or Neo-Pagan systems! Shame on you. </font>[/QUOTE]Like Skan says; what is was the English Bible before 1611?

    As for your remark if I'm ready for the KJV, I can understand it a lot better than your answer to the question; or should I say: lack-thereof.
     
  12. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    My guess is that most of the KJVo attitude that I have seen would drive children to Islam, Wicca, or Neo-Pagan systems; but you are going to have to provide some heavy duty evidence to show even one case of a "non-contrived" situation where a single child has converted to Wicca or Islam due to the NIV or any other mainstream MV.

    Look at what the KJV did at Mount Carmel Texas, Salt Lake City Utah and Gyana; and I'm not saying it was the KJV's fault because in my book the KJV is one of the best translations there is.

    Don't dump your contrived opinion here unless you can provide some evidentiary support to back it up.

    Shame on you for making false statements that don't hold water.
     
  13. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've been a Christian for 52 years and one month.
    I've lived the history of KJVO-ism (not
    read it in a book).

    Here is Ed's short history of the New King James
    Version (nKJV):

    The KJVOs said that if an alledged Bible was translated
    from the Textus Receptus, then they would take
    a serious look at it. At least with the right
    source from which to translate, somebody might
    get the translation right (right is defined as
    just like the KJV1769 or maybe KJV1762).
    Recall that the KJV1611 was translated by Church
    of England folk and the KJV1769 had the spelling
    updated (like re-spelling "he" /KJV1611/ "s-h-e" /KJV1769/
    in Ruth 3:15) by parties unknown. Anyway
    some mainstream American religious (Presbertian, Methodist,
    Baptist, Christian, etc) folk worked together to make
    a new translation from the TR. The nKJV specifications
    were written by KJVOs.

    KJVOs didn't like it. It took them some ten years after
    the nKJV was released to figure out why they don't
    like it the most -- it is the devil's pawprint on the
    title page. Later reprints of the nKJV say:
    ... oops, my later reprint is at work and i've an early
    print. I'm not going to look up the details on the
    internet right now. Anyway, the nKJV is condemned
    for something (the Christian symbol on the title page)
    that is NOT PART OF THE TRANSLATION.

    This indicates to me that the KJVO crowd cannot be
    pleased, they reject their own specifications and
    go back on their own word. Of course, we should be
    careful to not construe the KJVOs as all homogenous --
    there are varities of KJVOs. We shurely should not
    paint them all with the same brush.

    [​IMG]
     
  14. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ken4JC:Hmm revisions or editions - lets see (small correction for me I did not have the date information under finger the actual EDITION is 1873) one Word for word Authorized translation in 1611, and a few natural Editions.

    Are all editions word-for-word alike?


    No Revisions till the ASV/RSV that started this drudge of MV's Unless you go to the Pope then that lose lady has produce revisions like VD on Times Square NYC and most of the MV are direct creations of this street walker that calls out for the money of old fools.

    Can you VERIFY? Or is this a mere pontification based solely upon unlearned opinion?


    Now let?s see about the preserved Holy Bible in the Church ? Jesus the Baptist Preacher (or Rabi) seemed to have a version of the Holy Bible to read from, even as a child Jesus spoke from the Holy Bible.

    And a comparison of Luke 4:16-21 with Isaiah 42:7 & 61:1-3 shows Jesus at that time used a DIFFERENT version than the one translated into our OTs.


    King David had a Holy Bible. You know it seems that God has never had a problem providing his people a Holy Bible preserved and clear to those who love Him and seek his will in every age.

    And David was about 400 years removed from Moses, as WE are about 400 years removed from King James. History and archaeology prove that the Hebrew language of David's day is different from that of Moses' day. Wonder if David was limited to an old version of God's word?


    Today We have the KJV, it is funny to me that the only people who want another bible have problems with God and the Word He has spoken to us.

    The problem is with the archaic language. Did the English of 1611 use the English of Chaucer? Not according to the hundreds of thousands of extant English works of the time.

    The British of 1610 already had the Geneva Bible, which was only some 50 years old at the time, written in the English of the day. Were the motives for making the AV any more noble than those for making a BV in the language of THIS day?


    If you can?t understand the KJV maybe you are not ready for the Bible and need a relation with God first.

    Typical KJVO lie. Most of the KJVOs I've seen have this propensity for making such stupig statements as this one. No wonder you folks are such laughing-stocks. No one believes you.


    I have talked with first graders that have no problem with the Holy Bible at all, so it is not a question of intelligence or relevance. But then you would rather attack the only foundation in this age that we can truly offer our children and you wonder why they turn to Islam, Wicca, or Neo-Pagan systems! Shame on you.

    What WE attack is the totally-false myth that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation. If YOU wish to attempt to show KJVO is anything more than just another man-made false doctrine, you're gonna hafta come up with some SOLID EVIDENCE. Making stupid, ignorant rants questioning the faith of we who reject such myths as KJVO does nothing to further your cause, and would get you immediately banned from any group I moderate. So far, you're batting ZERO.
     
  15. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ed Edwards: Of course, we should be
    careful to not construe the KJVOs as all homogenous --
    there are varities of KJVOs. We shurely should not
    paint them all with the same brush.


    Maybe not the same BRUSH, but with the same PAINT, colored WRONG.
     
  16. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was thinking more along the lines of tar and feathers?
     
  17. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just love this Bible Versions/Translations
    forum where we like-minded Modern Version
    users can share our grace with
    like minded fellow Modern Version users.

    I'm really enjoying my new Holman Christian
    Standard Version (HCSV) now known
    as the Holman Cristian Standard Bible (HCSB).
    I'm just hoping that the Old Testament
    will soon be at
    Crosswalk Bible and Bible Tools

    [​IMG]
     
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    tee hee.

    Love you brother Trotter.

    I really like our camaraderie here and our
    fellow ship among modern version users.
    I especially love Brother Phillip cause
    he likes way old modern versions [​IMG]

    My favorite modern version is my
    KJV1769 edition. It is way easier to
    read than those two KJV1611 reprints
    that i have. And the comments by Tim LaHaye
    are really profound. Much better to
    have Tim LaHaye notes than that
    bothersome Apocrypoha.
    Like many of the KJV1769s, there is no
    where inside the Bible where it says
    that it is the KJV1769 edition. No reason
    to bother ignorant parishiners that there
    are some variations in both the source
    and the modern translations. They need us
    to tell them what is what anyway -- even
    up to the legnth of their skirt and/or hair.

    Anyway, I ramble.
    Good to see you still participating, Brother
    Trotter. BTW, you can turn off the
    heat under the tar for the time being.
    Thank you.

    [​IMG]
     
  19. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Well, Ken - will call you down in public for open rebuke. In one post (April 30, 8:30 pm) you managed to break about every guideline for dealing in a Christ-like manner with this subject:
    You are new here so need to understand a strict policy. DEAL WITH THE ISSUES, not calling others names or questioning their salvation or spiritual condition because they don't believe ONLY the KJV (whichever revision).
     
  20. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    What i like here the best is the
    fellowship of likeminded believers.
    In this case "likeminded" means we who
    have all three of the easily available
    King James Versions:

    1. KJV1611 edition
    2. the unknown KJV (doesn't say what it is)
    3. KJV1873 edition

    I wonder which one is the King James Bible (KJB)?

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...