Spread of the "Only" Sect

ScottJ;
Precisely my position!
Though our parameters of just what constitutes a diversion from doctrine might differ.
In His service;
Jim

 

You might be surprised how narrow I am as well.

Though many here differ and I have personally seen people grow using the NIV, I wouldn't recommend it, don't use it, and seldom look at it except in reference to this debate or on a calendar or something.

 

Actually AV161Jim you would be surprized at how close many of us here on the board are to you doctrinely.
I am KJV Preferred(1-3). It is the Bible I use most of the time for almost everything.My background is Independant Baptist/Southern Baptist.
I did'nt know there were many Baptists who did'nt believe pre-trib, pre-mill,eternal security,creationist teachings until I came to this board.
So I don't think most of us are that far apart doctrinely.The only time a problem comes in is when someone makes the KJV a doctrinal issue.No one on the KJVP/MV side of the issue has found any scripture pointing to the KJV of the Bible to be God's only word to the English speaking people.Even when we look into prophetic scripture we do not hear from God saying He will give us His perfect Word in English in the year 1611 AD or any other year for that matter.
So the versions issue should not be a bone of contention between believers.

 

Actually, Jim, I also yse the KJV quite a bit. However, I remember God isn't limited to just the one version. He'd been providing His word in the most current English before the AV was made, and He did NOT retire in 1611. He still provides his word in OUR English. I use the 400 year old version as well as the 4 year old one.

 

I, too, use the KJV as my Bible of preference. But, I have no problem using the MV's.

 

Yes, we all know that according to you fellows God ,<attack on posters deleted>

Moderator note - your post was edited because you questioned other poster's view of the omnipotence and omniscience of God

[ December 18, 2004, 02:40 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Could you identify that person please? Or point me to a website?

Agreed.

 

Yes, we all know that according to you fellows God ,<attack on posters deleted>

Moderator note - your post was edited because you questioned other poster's view of the omnipotence and omniscience of God </font>[/QUOTE]If you believe that the KJV is the ONLY correct word-for-word Bible there is, then answer two simple questions for me, Mr. BibleThumper.

1. What was the complete and exactly perfect word-for-word Bible in 1605?

2. Which version of the KJV is the perfect word-for-word Bible?

I wish to find out which generations had to do without the Word of God.

 

Originally posted by robycop3:
Maybe YOU should quit advocating a myth about Scripture not supported by Scripture.

There are two undeniable truths about KJVO:

1.) It's entirely a man-made myth, started by a known cult official.

SteveC:Could you identify that person please? Or point me to a website?

I'll be more than happy to do BOTH, Steve!

First, the person was Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson(1872-1968)a SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST teacher/preacher/official, whose book,Our Authorized Bible Vindicated was used as the beginning of the current KJVO myth, although I believe he wrote it for other purposes. Here's a URL to a SDA site w/some info about BW. Since you're a Christian, I assume you'll easily sift through the SDA baloney to see the truth.
http://www.geocities.com/mike_pars/authorised_version/info_wilkinson.html

BW also wrote The Attitudes and Teachings of Mrs. E.G. White Toward Different Versions of the Bible.

(FYI, Mrs. E.G.White, AKA Ellen Gould White, and simply EGW, was the main founder of the Seventh Day Adventist cult.)

BW was president of Columbia Union College. Its library is named after him.

BW's book is full of errors. Here's a URL to a site describing some of them:

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_wilkinson_incred_pr.htm

Now, Wilkinson was followed in 1955 by J.J.Ray, who authored God Wrote Only One Bible in 1955. That title alone should raise some eyebrows, since God wrote more than one language. To say he copied from Wilkinson is a gross understatement. And Ray was followed in 1970 by Dr. D.O.Fuller, who wrote which Bible, first published in 1970.

http://www.christianity.com/CC/article/0,,PTID34418%7CCHID629816%7CCIID447152,00.html

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_great_which_bible.htm

BW's ideas were quite in line with EGW's twisted, entirely stupid and incorrect ideas about Scripture:

Wycliffe’s Bible had been translated from the Latin text, which contained many errors. . . . In 1516, a year before the appearance of Luther’s theses, Erasmus had published his Greek and Latin version of the New Testament. Now for the first time the Word of God was printed in the original tongue. In this work many errors of former versions were corrected, and the sense was more clearly rendered. (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, 245)

I reckon, in her blinding brilliance and erudition, EGW discounted the ORIGINAL writings of the Scriptures by the men to whom God actually gave them, crediting Erasmus with finally "getting them right". In her office as Grand Imperial Poobah and Big Kahoona Prophetess for the SDA, she knew just how the Scriptures were SUPPOSED to read, and no one before Erasmus had gotten the New testament right, not even God's prophets and the Apostles who'd walked with Jesus to whom He'd given the Scriptures.

I hope this answers your questions about the origins of the current KJVO myth. We see it was conceived by a cult official following his "prophetess" and promoted by several dishonest authors who followed.

I pointed to several articles written by Doug Kutilek only because they're short, easily-understood summaries containing the basics of the origin of the KJVO myth, and they don't ramble on about small technicalities. I do NOT believe he's the be-all and end-all anti-KJVOism author. Please feel free to verify the assertions made by Kutilek in his articles. I assure you I did NOT take his statements as true without taking the time & trouble to check out his sources for myself, and I don't expect you to automatically take MY word for it either. You know I'm an avowed enemy of the KJVO myth because I KNOW it's false, so you might think my info is biased. That's why I recommend checking out any of the above statements for yourself.