The Bread of Life (or Why I am KJV Only)

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by James_Newman, Aug 3, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is something that has been on my mind for a while. I had intended to spend more time developing this argument. This may be as close as I can get to a biblical response to the anti-KJVO argument that has not already been presented. Perhaps someone else can put more thought and study into this article. For several years now I have believed that the King James Bible is the perfectly preserved word of God in English for believers in the last days. I have heard many reasons presented why this could not be the case. I am not going to attempt to answer them all, but perhaps may shine a little light on why some of them are invalid arguments against the KJV. Perhaps the foremost would be the simple existence of other bibles. It is reasoned that the KJV could not be the perfect word of God because there are other bibles that existed before the KJV, and others came about after the KJV. Some would insist that there is no real reason to choose a bible other than preference, that as long as the translation is 'valid' (whatever that means) the reader will get the same message from one that he will get from another, and it is only the message that is important, not the words. Perhaps many men who have done great works for God, though they may be few in these last days, have held these beliefs. Many people may have been saved through the preaching of men who used other translations when the Authorized version was readily available. Perhaps this is proof that there is nothing special about the KJV? Or perhaps there is more to that old book than meets the eye.

    No one can argue against the beauty of the language in the King James Bible. One could easily imagine that if God spoke in English, that is what He would sound like. Modern bibles cannot come close, with their utilitarian language geared toward the inhabitants of a fast-paced industrial society where true beauty gives way to the lust of the eyes, and where the simple pastoral teachings of the Bible find little frame of reference. The world we live in hardly resembles the world of even two hundred years ago, yet the KJV still rings fresh in the ears of those who will receive it. The argument that the Bible needs to be continually updated in order for the common people to understand it is a bit dishonest. I am a common person, and I understand the King James Bible. The truth is it is easier to update the bible than to teach people how to read it. People will learn to read when they have a desire to. It does little good to try and spoonfeed a baby who doesn't want to eat. It just ends up all over you in the end. Christians who want to grow will desire the sincere milk of the word, and they will go wherever they must to get it. Those who don't won't. But I'm getting off topic.

    Is there any biblical reason to believe that the King James bible is honored by God above all other English bibles? I think so. The bible says we are to judge a teacher by their fruit. Most would not attempt to argue that the King James bible has not produced much fruit in the last four hundred years. The King James bible has been sent throughout the world, carried by missionaries and preachers to practically every nation. Just the sheer availability of the King James bible has made it practically the most common book in the world. How many revivals have been started by the preaching of the old King James version? Some might say that any bible could have been responsible for any fruit the King James bible may have produced. I might reply that any Israelite could have killed Goliath. But they didn't. Perhaps a better question to ask is, is there any biblical reason to believe that God believes all bible versions are equal? I doubt many would cleave to this idea. Surely there are 'bibles' that are not qualified to be held up as the authoritative word of God! No good fundamental Baptist is going to grab a Jehovah's (false)Witness New World Translation off the pew when the pastor says 'open your bibles'. Why not? It's a bible isn't it? But it's not a good bible, they would say. It stands to reason that if there are good bibles and not-so-good bibles, then there must be a BEST bible.

    So where in the bible do we find one bible that is better than all the other bibles? The same place we find almost everything in the bible: in Old Testament types. God uses types in the bible to teach us truths just as easily as He uses open revelation. What is a type? I think this definition is fairly accurate, so I will just paste:
    Typology is a special kind of symbolism. (A symbol is something which represents something else.) We can define a type as a “prophetic symbol” because all types are representations of something yet future. More specifically, a type in scripture is a person or thing in the Old Testament which foreshadows a person or thing in the New. For example, the flood of Noah’s day (Genesis 6-7) is used to typify baptism in 1 Peter 3:20-21. The word for type that Peter uses is figure. - http://www.gotquestions.org/typology-Biblical.html
    Some types are clearly revealed by scripture, such as the brazen serpent being a type of Christ.
    John 3:14
    14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

    Other types may not be so obvious. But the bible is full of symbols and types waiting to teach a lesson if they are found. Should we be surprised that God would teach us truths about His own word through types?

    Deuteronomy 8:3
    3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

    I believe it is obvious that manna is a picture of God's word. Otherwise, this would be a strange statement to make, that God suffered them to hunger, and fed them with manna that He might make them know that man lives by every word of God? We find out in the New Testament that manna is a picture of Christ.

    John 6:48-51
    48 I am that bread of life.
    49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
    50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
    51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

    This is perfectly fitting, when we consider that Jesus Christ is the Word.
    John 1
    1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

    There are many applications that can be made with this type.

    Exodus 16:16
    16 This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded, Gather of it every man according to his eating, an omer for every man, according to the number of your persons; take ye every man for them which are in his tents.

    Man of God, you ought to be going to the word each day and gathering of it for your house, just as God commanded each man to gather for those in his tent.

    God provided this manna to meet their every nutritional need. It was a perfect food that kept them healthy for forty years. They had no need of any other meat. This was angel's food!

    Psalms 78
    24 And had rained down manna upon them to eat, and had given them of the corn of heaven.
    25 Man did eat angels' food: he sent them meat to the full.

    Alas, some people are never satisfied.
     
    #1 James_Newman, Aug 3, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 3, 2006
  2. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Numbers 11:4-6
    4 And the mixed multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?
    5 We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic:
    6 But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes.

    The people wanted something else to eat. They lusted after flesh, they were tired of the same thing every day. Even though it was plentiful and tasted good and provided for all their dietary needs, they complained that their soul was dried away. I guess manna just wasn't speaking to them the way it once had. Well, God heard this and in His providence, He decided to give them what they wanted.

    Numbers 11:18-20
    18 And say thou unto the people, Sanctify yourselves against tomorrow, and ye shall eat flesh: for ye have wept in the ears of the LORD, saying, Who shall give us flesh to eat? for it was well with us in Egypt: therefore the LORD will give you flesh, and ye shall eat.
    19 Ye shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days;
    20 But even a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you: because that ye have despised the LORD which is among you, and have wept before him, saying, Why came we forth out of Egypt?

    And God was good to His word. He sent so much quail, I can't even imagine what it must have looked like.

    Numbers 11:31-32
    31 And there went forth a wind from the LORD, and brought quails from the sea, and let them fall by the camp, as it were a day's journey on this side, and as it were a day's journey on the other side, round about the camp, and as it were two cubits high upon the face of the earth.
    32 And the people stood up all that day, and all that night, and all the next day, and they gathered the quails: he that gathered least gathered ten homers: and they spread them all abroad for themselves round about the camp.

    Now quail is good food, don't get me wrong. Quail is what God sent them the night before He first gave them manna. But some people had an adverse reaction to this quail.

    Numbers 11:33-34
    33 And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague.
    34 And he called the name of that place Kibroth-hattaavah: because there they buried the people that lusted.

    They didn't all die that day, probably just the ones that really complained against God. But does that mean the rest of them were not affected? I doubt it.

    Psalms 106:14-15
    14 But lusted exceedingly in the wilderness, and tempted God in the desert.
    15 And he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul.

    So what does all this have to do with me and the KJV? Well, I believe that it is apparent that God sent the King James bible at a time when the people were hungry for the word of God. They may not have even realized they were hungry at the time, but it later became evident that there was a famine in the land. According to John Taylor Gatto, in his book 'The Underground History of American Education', there were few people who even knew how to read before the KJV was published because most people didn't have anything to read anyway. One certainly didn't find bibles on every coffee table collecting dust like they do today. But when the KJV was made available in mass quantities to the public, it awakened a desire to know the word of God and people everywhere learned to read so they could read the King James bible for themselves.

    Well the King James bible was working out well for just about everyone. But some people were not happy with it. Eventually enough people complained and God sent us so many bibles, you can't hardly walk through the bookstore without tripping over them. ASVs and RSVs and NIVs and NLTs and whatever Vs and Ts you can imagine. One can imagine that someone who was tired of the same old dry manna of the KJV might be really excited to have such a buffet spread out before them. But I won't touch it. Even if it doesn't choke me to death, it's bound to send leanness into my soul.

    Where was the perfect bible before the KJV? Where was manna before God sent it down to the Israelites?

    Deuteronomy 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

    Didn't God send all these bibles just like He sent the KJV? Didn't God send all the quail just like He sent the manna?

    Psalms 106:15 And he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul.

    I'm not going to tell you that I can prove the King James Bible is manna and the new bible versions are quail. I'm just saying you better be sure they aren't. You ought to examine yourself and be sure of your motives for rejecting the KJV as the authoritative word of God, Because God is going to examine them for you. Some people may get by on quail, because they do it innocently, not knowing any better. Maybe it's what they were given when they sat down at the table. But some people are going to choke on it, by design. And if you don't, its not going to nourish like the good wholesome manna would.
     
  3. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Interesting perspective - The KJV is manna.

    As you said there is no Bible evidence for it, but it is an interesting viewpoint.
     
  4. Brandon C. Jones

    Brandon C. Jones
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    0
    I must admit I'm lost as to what this means: "But some people are going to choke on it, by design" By whose design? Why?
     
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I am curious as to how the poster can decide that manna is a type of the KJV. It seems like conjecture at best.
     
  6. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think I would say it is evidence that God has a preference as to what we eat. Whether or not that extends to what we read is an exercise left to the reader.
     
  7. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for sharing your view. It is interesting to say the least.

    I think you have to be very careful utilizing typology in the manner in which you have. The problem is with that type of typology you can take anything and find a type in the OT that you can fit around it. Can be very dangerous.

    For example, we can look at the variety of ways in which the Lord communicated with His people throughout the OT. I can state that God must like variety in His communication. Therefore a variety of translations of His Word are perfectly appropriate.
     
    #7 PastorSBC1303, Aug 3, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 3, 2006
  8. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    I appreciate your view and your sincerity. I do think you are suffering from some false information, the most important being that those of us who are not KJVO are against the KJV, this is not true many of us are KJV preferred and use the KJV as our primary Bible. We simply recognize there are other valid translations.:wavey:
     
  9. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    With all due respect...Mr. Newman, you're right back to Square One. There's simply no indicator that points to the KJV as "manna" to the exclusion of all others. While your view IS interesting, it's still guesswork.

    Mr. Newman:So what does all this have to do with me and the KJV? Well, I believe that it is apparent that God sent the King James bible at a time when the people were hungry for the word of God.

    There were several perfectly-fine English Bibles in use in 1610, with the Geneva Bible being "the peoples' choice". it was affordable to most British families, and many a po'boy learned to read just so he could read a Bible. That phenom was NOT limited to the AV 1611 times.

    In fact, the AV 1611 was priced well above the average man's means.

    In conclusion: While the KJV=manna & the MVs=quail perspective is new(to me, anyway) and interesting, it must fall into the same bin as the other KJVO arguments do. You admit yourself that you cannot prove it. It's a guess, at best. At least you TRIED to make your case by Scripture, & I commend you for such, but there's simply no Scriptural pointer for any one version, and that concept has failed.
     
  10. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess I should have made that clear. Mr Gatto was referring to American literacy, not the entire English speaking world. However I would love to see some statistics on how many common Englanders were reading at the time. I doubt it was even a majority, compared to the almost universal literacy that appeared in the United States.

    I would also point out that the Israelites did eat before they ate manna.
     
    #10 James_Newman, Aug 3, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 3, 2006
  11. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I would like to point out that the problem is Scripture's not pointing to just one version in any language, besides the originals the Israelis had. It appears your view is based more upon PERSONAL PREFERENCE than upon any other reason to use the KJV alone. So far, the ONLY other valid reason I've seen to use only the KJV is the availability factor. If the KJV is the only version available to someone, it stands to reason that person would use only the KJV, and after so long, that person wouldn't be satisfied with any other version. Not always true, but quite possible.

    However, there's still no tangible reason to be KJVO, no reason drawn from Scripture.
     
  12. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Robcop3: // In fact, the AV 1611 was priced well
    above the average man's means.//

    While the daily wage for a day worker (12 hours you know,
    depending on sunlight) was a penny,
    the AV1611 was sold for Three Pounds (probably
    like 120 pennys) or about a year's wages.
    One Pound when to the Crown, the family of the
    King of England.


    ---------------------------------------
    THE PENNY & the KJV

    Rev 6:5-6 (KJV1611 Edition): And when hee had opened the third seale,
    I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld,
    and loe, a blacke horse: and hee that sate on him
    had a paire of balances in his hand.
    6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the foure beastes say,
    A measure of wheate for a penie,
    and three measures of barley for a penie,
    and see thou hurt not the oyle and the wine.

    In 1611 the penny (a small British copper coin) was a day's wages.
    In 96AD, when the Greek was written, the 'denarion'
    was a day's wages (a small Greek copper coin).

    So this scripture is predicting a time of famine.
    You can barely feed your family (a day's wages for a day's food)
    OR you can barely feed your live stock (a day's wages for
    the barley for the animals). So you have to choose between
    feeding your family now or in the futrue.
    Forget anything more than the basics, like oil or wine :(

    (BTW, 'beast' here is a good being so really should read
    'living being'.)
     
  13. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Surely you jest.
     
  14. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Originally Posted by Ed Edwards referring to Rev 6:5-6:
    // (BTW, 'beast' here is a good being so really should read
    'living being'.) //



    Try to figure out this jest:

    Rev 4:6-11 (KJV1611 Edition):
    And before the Throne there was a sea of glasse like
    vnto Chrystall: and in the middest of the throne,
    and round about the Throne, were foure beastes
    full
    of eyes before and behinde.
    7 And the first beast was like a Lion,
    and the second beast like a Calfe,
    and the third beast had a face as a man,
    and the fourth beast was like a flying Egle.
    8 And the foure beasts had each of them sixe wings about him,
    and they were full of eyes within, and they rest not day
    and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty
    ,
    which was, and is, and is to come.
    9 And when those beasts giue glory, and honour, and thankes to him that sate on the Throne, who liueth for euer and euer,
    10 The foure and twentie Elders fall downe before him that sate on the Throne, and worship him
    that liueth for euer and euer, and cast their crownes before the Throne, saying,
    11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receiue glorie, and honour, and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are, and were created.


    The four 'living beings' (not BEASTS) are the Worship Leaders
    in heaven (v.9). IMHO this is GOOD.

    Strong's sez of the word translated 'beast' or 'living being':

    G2226
    ζῶον
    zōon
    dzo'-on
    Neuter of a derivative of G2198; a live thing,
    that is, an animal: - beast.


    From the Greek 'zoon' we get the English prefix 'zoo-'
    like in zoology (study of living things), zoo (place
    where animals are kept), etc.
    My pastor told me that. He has a Bachelor's Degree in English.
     
  15. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]

    but now that we've been thru Gilgal n crossed the Jordan, isn't it time to partake of the roasted grain of the NIV n Good News Bible rather than the manna of Sinai?
    :laugh:

    Amen? :thumbsup:
     
    #15 Forever settled in heaven, Aug 3, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 3, 2006
  16. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Apparently James you, as well as most KJVO folks, just cannot get through your heads that no one is rejecting the KJV as the authoritative word of God. What we are rejecting is the faulty KJVO myth that claims the KJV is the only authoritative word of God, limiting God's power to provide His word in translations that are understandable for each and every generation. As language changes, there is a need for newer translations that are in the current language of the people.

    Actually, that argument is not at all dishonest, James. Language changes, and with a living and changing language comes the need to update the words of the Bible so that newer generations will understand them. You were probably raised on the KJV, so you, like me, don't have a problem with most of the KJV. But there will always be new Christians who have never been exposed to the archaic KJV language. These people need the word of God in a translation that they can understand and read easily - not a translation that is confusing for them. When you come down to it, the argument that the KJV language doesn't need to be updated is the dishonest argument.

    Well, James, that is certainly something that has never been "obvious" to anyone else I have ever heard on the subject. Seems to me like your own private interpretation.

    Your private interpretation is also erroneous in that manna was never intended to last forever. It was intended to get the Israelites through a time when they could not supply their own needs because they were not settled. Likewise, the KJV was intended to get Christians through a ceertain period. Now that this period has ended, then there is something else to take the place of the KJV. Using your private interpretation, it could be said, as was already pointed out...

    Amen and amen!
     
  17. Trotter

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nice article, James. A different perspective, to say the least. Total conjecture and opinion, but at least you got your thoughts out.

    As has been said above, and said many other times throughout the many debates here, NO ONE is against the King James Version. NO ONE. No one is condemning it, debasing it, or discrediting it.

    However, as you have seen before, many here are opposed to the King James Version ONLY myth. While you have presented your thoughts as to why you hold to it, you did not present any biblical basis for KJVO. Without a biblical basis, the whole support for KJVO is left with nothing but personal preference and the circular reasoning of some rabid authors.

    Good to know your personal thoughts on the matter, but there is still nothing to support it.
     
  18. Burrito Breath

    Burrito Breath
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jamez; doan u geev up

    Bro Jamez; me 'n Jose like U already.

    Dey say we King Jamez Only (expect for Spanglish verzon) doan use logic.

    I say we doan need no stinkin logic.

    Bah logic humbug!


    I be wid U Jamez! Whatever I like is RITE!
     
  19. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    You guys are all so funny. Whats the flavor of the week at Mardels, anyway?
     
  20. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me re read your post Ed.
     
    #20 James_Newman, Aug 4, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 4, 2006
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...