Trying To Understand KJVOnlyism

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by preacher4truth, Jun 4, 2013.

  1. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wish to examine some of the beliefs and conclusions of KJVOers and also allow them opportunity to bolster their defense of this system.

    A little ground work concerning where they may get some of their ideas follows.

    One huge concept of KJVOers comes from the fact that Peter S. Ruckman believes the KJV is an inspired translation, even to the point of it correcting the Greek and Hebrew and is the therefore THE PURE and ONLY Word of God. In fairness not all KJVOers follow Ruckman but there are some who do, and it is consequently truthful to conclude that many of their ideas stem from his system whether they claim allegiance to Ruckman or not.

    With Ruckman’s concept of Double Inspiration (DI) in mind, we can look at a text of Scripture used to support this claim:

    The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times -- Psalm 12:6

    This text somewhat explains and lays down the foundation of how this (DI) took place and becomes a part of their apologetic platform. The theory goes something like this; There were 7 translations that came along, and the KJB was number 7 (so say some, but not all). All these other translations were ok, but Gods Word needed to be purified via man (obviously because allegedly He used man to do so and assisted him via Divine Inspiration) until finally translation number 7 came along, and now we have a pure and perfect Bible in the KJV.

    That is the logic in a nutshell and therefore it has happened according to Psalm 12:6, that is, God’s Word was in fact purified 7 times.

    But how did this translational process transpire, and how did God purify the text to make it perfect and pure? Ruckman’s belief is, that by his own testimony, God came down upon the men of the 1611 AV translation committee and said to them ‘WRITE’ and so they did. He also told them specifically and in context to use the word EASTER in Acts 12:4, so in saying this he is implying that exact Word was inspired by God, so it is now the correct Word. In other words either God corrected Himself, and/or at the very least He corrected the Greek text. All of this is showing that Ruckman had to have had a revelation of some sort, so on this basis his statements must be true. But this is in all totality an arbitrary argument and if any person were to buy into this, in so doing, he or she are simply believing a man’s word with absolutely no other solid evidence of it being true.

    Nonetheless this is still an held belief even with these known factors. Ruckman’s allegations of DI fall nowhere short of prophesying (in a backwards manner so to speak) and/or are, again, at the least to be considered a revelation to some extent. To shed more light upon his beliefs we have this statement from Ruckman: ‘Mistakes in the 1611 KJV are advanced revelations.’ Thus what we find is twofold; Any corrections are considered ‘Double Inspiration’ and any ‘mistakes’ are ‘advanced revelations’. We see that seemingly every hold is barred within the defense of the KJV being the only true Word of God. No matter what argument is brought forth there is an answer, no matter how strange such answers may seem to be to those outside the camp.

    Another defensive strategy used by Ruckman and his followers falls along this line of thought and is used to brush off any opponent:

    Here’s a quote by Ruckman to set the stage:

    "Every major, recognized Christian scholar in this century is an habitual, chronic, intentional, pathological liar... (Gen. 3:1)."

    Apparently no one is allowed to challenge him (nor can they) without rebuke, thus to do so is basically to get an ‘anathema’ pronounced upon said persons. Challenging these beliefs is apparently used as evidence that those who do so are in fact corrupt and not to be trusted. This may lend itself toward their rejection of modern scholars, theological texts, other Christian writings and may limit them in their understanding of theological truth, something that could be beneficial to them if other works were trusted and employed– see Eph. 4:11ff

    But is his indictment fair? It looks as if Ruckman has found a reason for everything, while his main defense is to discredit anyone who opposes him.

    That is the basis of Ruckmans defense and his reason to disregard modern scholarship. It may be important at this point to recognize that much of modern scholarship is based upon the writings of the Church Fathers and is an extension and elaboration of their writings. But even if you aren’t a well-known scholar Ruckman concludes that all are untruthful who would embrace or employ their works. This may be the major reason behind his book ‘The Christian Liars Library’ as within it he allegedly elaborates upon his belief in his statement above, and solidifies his belief that only those who believe in his system are correct.

    He also rejects just anyone calling the Bible ‘Scripture’, because they have no right to call it this unless they subscribe to his beliefs about DI and the KJV.

    These are only some of the maneuvers used by some KJVOers to shut down their opponents. However, even though these things are true, they do not represent each and every KJVOer since there are several differing levels of belief among them. Some are not as strict, but the point here is to create dialogue among all camps within KJVO and to have each show solid evidence for their given beliefs.

    With that said here are some of the conclusions coming from within their belief system:

    1) 'Mistakes' are 'advanced revelation'.
    2) The KJB is purified and perfect and proven so by Psalm 12:6 (with some elaboration).
    3) No Bible can be His unless it is perfect.
    4) God inspired the 1611 translation in the same way He did the original autographs.
    5) If any person is against these beliefs, are a well-known scholar, or not, then it is concluded said persons are dishonest.
    6) No one but those in his camp are allowed to call the Bible Scripture – they have no right to do so.
    7) Some in this camp will therefore not receive any writings by any modern scholars because they are dishonest.
    8) We can see evidence from these held arguments as to why some in this camp will not allow any so-called modern scholars to influence them as by some they are seen as enemies of truth.
    9) It has been held that many who hold these beliefs believe they are the only ones that are of the truth.
    10) There is an ostensible bias against academia among some within this camp unless such academia comes from within the camp itself. Scholars are not to be trusted. ONLY the Bible is to be used &c.
    11) 'Corrections' are 'Double Inspiration'.

    There are also other proofs used by KJVOers and in this example we can see how their minds work in defense of this Bible as being inspired (DI) and as evidence of it being 'the only true Bible'. Such is found and defended within the following argument:

    'How many letters are in ‘KING JAMES’? '''Well there are 9 and 9 is the number of fruitfulness, ‘because’ Paul was saved in Acts chapter 9, ‘and’ a woman is pregnant 9 months, ‘and because’ in Genesis 9 Noah is told to be fruitful.'''

    The clincher? 'Add up the numbers ‘1611’ and you have 9 again.' Thus the concluding thought is this is proof that the KJV is the only true Word of God and is used as evidence of God’s exclusive stamp of approval upon it. This argument seems to extend the meaning and time frame of ‘advanced revelations’ to today.

    In all fairness, even as strange as these claims appear I would like to have KJVOers bolster the defense of their beliefs and give some differing proofs concerning their position.

    What proofs outside of Ruckman thought, (or within) can be shared to defend the KJVO position?

    - Blessings
     
    #1 preacher4truth, Jun 4, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 4, 2013
  2. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since I've only read part of one of Ruckman's books from a friend who was trying to "convert" me to KJVOism back in college, I really don't know much of his stuff first hand. I certainly have never heard of this "proof." It's like the Bible code. Any one could come up with numbers and then find words and chapters that "prove" their opinion. I guess it shows more about those who believe these "proofs" than it does anything else.
     
  3. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Dr. Ruckman's stuff is mostly discredited. A little research will show that R believes the false "serpent seed" doctrine, that is, Cain was conceived by a union between Eve and the serpent who led her to sin.

    The believers of this hooey have made quite a conundrum for themselves, as many of them also believe Cain and Abel were twins. Now, never in the history of man, until this day of artificial insemination, has it been possible for twins to have different fathers, so this would also make Abel of "serpent's seed". However, SCRIPTURE proves this whole doctrine false, as it plainly sez ADAM had union with Eve and cain was produces...and Eve sez she had Cain with THE LORD'S help.

    As for the "Psalm 12:6 thingie", please note that David is COMPARING God's words to silver purified 7 times, which was the purest substance known to David, and was the standard for the silver Tabernacle utensils. This verse doesn't at all state that God's words needed to be purified, nor were they purified. GOD'S WORDS ARE PURE, PERFECT, & FULLY AUTHORITATIVE THE INSTANT HE FORMS THEM!

    Ruckman's take on abortion isn't exactly in line with CHRISTIAN doctrine. you may go to You Tube and search "ruckman abortion" to see/hear him preach his pro-abortion views.

    And he also believes the coming antichrist will be a 10-ft. tall alien with huge black lips who will land a mile-wide spaceship on the Mount of Olives and impart "the mark" with a kiss.

    And his "re-inspiration" stuff is pure bunkum, that has, like the KJVO myth itself, absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT!

    "From such, turn away."
     
    #3 robycop3, Jun 4, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 4, 2013
  4. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Here's the origin of the current KJVO myth:


    In 1930, a 7th Day Adventist official, Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson(1872-1968), published a book he named Our Authorized Bible Vindicated in response to a squabble within the SDA cult. This book is a collection of snippets in favor of the KJV of God's holy word, and is full of goofs, such as the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". Apparently, Wilkinson didn't bother to check 0ut the VERACITY of any of the info he gathered. And he copied PARTS of Dean John Burgon's writings, omitting anything that was critical of the Textus Receptus.

    He obtained a Scottish copyright for this book, which he apparently allowed to lapse many years ago, as interest in his book was mostly limited to the SDA cult, and for only a short time.

    There's no doubt that SDA is a pseudo/quasi-Christian cult, and that Dr. W was a full-fledged SDA official, teacher, and preacher, who often argued for the inerrancy of Ellen Gould White's writings. Several SDA buildings and libraries are named after him.

    In 1955, someone named J. J. Ray of Eugene, OR discovered that book, and wrote his/her own book, God Wrote Only One Bible. Ray copied much of Dr. W's book verbatim in GWOOB without acknowledging him whatsoever, copying many of the goofs in Dr. W's book.. Whether Ray obtained Dr. W's permission to use his book, or simply plagiarized it is unknown. But at any rate, Ray used the power of modern media to publicize his/her book, thus starting the idea of KJVO among some of the general public.

    Now, try Googling "J. J. Ray" in the Eugene, OR. area. The only one I've found whose lifetime fit the 1955 timeline was a used-car salesman, now deceased, who apparently never published a book. Ray's company, Eye-Opener Publishers, only published that one book. Apparently, "J. J. Ray is a pseudonym. Now, why would any REAL MAN OF GOD use a pseudonym? Apparently, "Ray" was concerned that Dr. W might speak out about his plagiarism.

    Then, in 1970, Dr. D. O. Fuller, a Baptist pastor, published Which Bible?(3rd revision, 1972), a book which copied much from both Ray and Wilkinson, including many of the original goofs. Like W and Ray before him, he didn't bother to check out the VERACITY of the material he published. And, while he at least acknowledged W, he made absolutely NO mention of W's CULT AFFILIATION. It was this book which brought the public's attention, especially in Baptist circles, to the other two boox, and to KJVO in general. Soon, a whole genre was developed of KJVO boox, all of which drew a large portion of their material from those first three boox.

    Now, I have not forgotten Dr. Peter S. Ruckman's 1964 works, Manuscript Evidence and Bible Babel. These goof-filled worx was derived largely from Wilkinson's and Ray's books, repeating many of their goofs, such as the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". and copying an erroneous chart from Ray's book. Ruckman referred to the title of Ray's book as "God Only Wrote One Book", which hints at the inaccuracy of Ruckman's work. However, Ruckman's works was not among the "foundation stones" of the KJVO myth, as were Ray's and Fuller's boox, both derived from Wilkinson's book.

    Virtually every current KJVO author, from Riplinger to Bynum to Melton to Grady to whomever, uses material from those first three boox in their own work, often re-worded, but still the same garbage in a different dumpster. About the only newer material in any of these boox is their criticism of newer Bible versions as they came out. We see a pattern of DISHONESTY in KJVO authorship, as many of its authors copy from each other without any acknowledgement, all of them drawing from a KNOWN CULT OFFICIAL'S book! HOW CAN ANY CHRISTIAN, SEEING ALL THIS DISHONESTY AND ATTEMPTS TO CONCEAL OR JUSTIFY IT, BELIEVE KJVO IS FROM GOD?

    These facts are easily verified, either on the Internet or in most public libraries. Unlike KJVOs, we Freedom Readers deal in VARIFIABLE FACT, not fishing stories, opinion, and guesswork. All the boox I mentioned are available online legally, or are for sale at various sites of religious book stores.

    I challenge any KJVO to show us any book written before 1930 that is largely about KJVO, and which can be traced to having started the KJVO doctrine.


    Most current KJVOs spout material from the three boox cited above, WITHOUT EVER HAVING READ THOSE BOOX! Thus, they're speaking from opinion, speculation, and guesswork, having never checked out the VERACITY of the KJVO claims. Thus, the whole KJVO thingie is phony as a football bat, and should be disregarded by all Christians!
     
  5. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello jonathan.borland,

    I've had others attempt to convert me to this way of thinking as have you. I always used the KJV, but never preached about the version. The thing is, I never heard concerning KJVOnlyism 'This is the way, walk ye in it' accept from proponents of the KJV.

    At one church we came to find out there was a clique there that were KJVO. They did much harm to the church. One deacon stood up on a Sunday during our vacation and said 'I don't care what our preacher says, if you use anything other than the KJV, you're going to hell!' A good deacon filled me in on that nonsense.

    I know quite a bit of their 'stuff'. You're correct, it is like a 'Bible Code'. All of it is based upon arbitrary reason, thus it fails.

    When plain teachings are shown forth to some of them, opponents of other persons doctrines pull out the same 'Bible Code' card themselves and say 'What? How can you believe this, is it in code in the Psalms???' (something they themselves can employ to prove their points -- but when the same are faced with plain Scripture, they call such truths 'circular reasoning') Such types cast out and/or discredit those who are more scholarly, or who look to teachers/preachers provided by the LORD, as not being credible and as being dishonest, and reject them simply due to the fact they don't adhere to KJVOnlyism. This is a sad thing to behold indeed. Stemming from said belief systems is the 'I only use the Bible' claim. That too is sad.

    Bottom line? I want to see substantiated proofs of the claim that the KJV is the ONLY true Word of God. I've yet to see it. Thus the challenge to provide this proof. I will listen to anyones argument, but it better be solid and Biblical to prove anything.

    Furthermore I will reject any persons argument using and comparing the KJV to other versions. The KJV isn't the acid test, the MSS are. To compare the KJV against other versions is a fallacy as it is not the standard.

    Thanks for your input.

    - Blessings
     
    #5 preacher4truth, Jun 4, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 4, 2013
  6. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello robycop,

    I didn't know this but I am not surprised.

    Yep. Funny how plain Scripture clears up sensationalist beliefs. And what is more ironic, it seems such feel themselves to be the ones who hold the HIGHEST view of Scripture since they are KJVO and have an inside scoop.

    Well well then! We have in robycop a scholar that can see actual context!!! I agree, who are we to assert His Words needed purified (unless we adopt an idea that it became 'corrupted' but if the KJVOnly's claimed this, then we have God who failed to 'PRESERVE' His Word!!!!!!!!!!!! :applause:

    Can I take a pass here? Please? :tear:

    LOL...uh, well, I won't comment on that! :tongue3:

    I agree. DI is not fact but pure conjecture.

    Thanks for your input robycop! (now I have to look at your next post!)

    - Blessings
     
    #6 preacher4truth, Jun 4, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 4, 2013
  7. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Man alive! Hey bro, I am glad you came along. I bolded a part that stood out, but all the facts stand as well.

    Again, thank you for contributing, you know much more of this history than I (which is no feat, believe me). I've enjoyed your input. Thanks for enlightening at least me.

    I still await substantial proofs for KJVOnlyist teaching.

    - Blessings
     
    #7 preacher4truth, Jun 4, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 4, 2013
  8. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Preacher4truth:
    Thanx, but I'm no scholar; I'm a steelworker. However, anyone who's passed high school English can see that Psalm 12:6 is a comparison; no rocket science needed.

    YOUR choice, of course, but if U wanted more proof of Ruckman's overall character, STRAIGHT FROM THE MAN HIMSELF, there it is.

    Again, YOUR choice, but the PROOF of the above, again, straight from Dr. Ruckman himself, is in his book, Mark Of The Beast, first published in 1994.

    And, oh yeah...Let's not forget Dr. Ruckman's FALSE PROPHECY! HE himself published it directly in his Bible Believers Bulletin.

    He wrote that he and four others were on Janet Reno's "hit list" and would be whacked within 2-3 years. Those men were:
    1. Texas Marrs
    2. Jack Chick
    3. Don McAlvaney
    4. Tom Anderson
    5. Peter Ruckman


    Ruckman said:
    ( Bible Believers Bulletin, May 1997, pages 1, 8, 12, 14, 17.)

    Loox as if he DID miss!

    Now, what does GOD say about prophets? In Ruckmen's KJV He said, "And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, IF THE THING FOLLOW NOT, NOR COME TO PASS, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." (Deuteronomy 18:21, 22, KJV)

    So, who do ya wanna believe, Sportzz Fanzz...Dr. Ruckman, or GOD?
     
  9. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, I believe what you've said robycop...simply chose not to comment on some parts.

    - Blessings
     
  10. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Preacher4Truth:
    Please don't hold your breath waiting; you'll become quite cyanotic!

    Let's make one point clear-In no way do I discourage using the KJV. I believe it's an excellent translation, quite accurate except for a few goofs such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4, or "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10. The KJV is the most-printed(if not, unfortunately, the MOST-READ) book of all time. However, it is NOT the ONLY valid English Bible translation out there, and its English is now archaic and not clearly understood by many readers.

    Glad to see you noticed the PROOFS presented that the KJVO myth is man-made and false, with a cultic and dishonest origin, proving, along with its total lack of Scriptural support, even in the KJV itself, that this doctrine is NOT FROM GOD!

    As an indie fundy Baptist, I believe SCRIPTURE is our ONLY source of the knowledge of God, proof of His existence and power, and that we should NOT believe any doctrine of worship not found in Scripture, either directly, or by clear implication, such as the doctrine of the HOLY TRINITY is easily shown. And the KJVO myth NOT found in Scripture by the slightest quark of the least implication.

    Therefore, KJVO is FALSE!
     
  11. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Robycop,

    How refreshing to hear such things from an IFB.

    - Blessings
     
  12. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now ask him where Cain's wife came from! :laugh:
     
  13. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know the answer to that! She came from her Mommy and Daddy!!!!! :laugh: :thumbsup:
     
  14. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Just ask B4L if God approves incest.

    That's as far as I'm gonna play her silly game here.
     
  15. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Must be an inside story to which I do not wish to be a part.

    Back to the OP.

    - Blessings
     
  16. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    My point is you're praising a person who thinks God created a whole seperate race of people besides Adam and Eve. Roby is considered a nut on most forums. Ask him about where he thinks Cain's wife came from.
     
  17. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    We all have flaws. We all say some correct things and some wrong things. It's part of being in the human race and this side of the Sun.

    Can we get back to the OP? :love2:

    I await proof on this KJVOnlyism system.
     
  18. Gregory Perry Sr.

    Gregory Perry Sr.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    0
    He Is At Least Consistent

    Even though I totally disagree with the "evidence" (so-called) that Roby presents to make or support his case I will at least applaud his personal consistency. He rides his hobby-horse the same way ALL the time. However...just because he says what he says does not make it so. Personally, I recommend the works of men like Edward F.Hills, John William Burgon, David Otis Fuller, D.A.Waite, James W.Knox, David Cloud, Dr.Douglas D.Stauffer, Phil Stringer, Jack Moorman and others who deeply revere the purity and perfection of the Word of God. You need to look at some of these works IF you REALLY and HONESTLY want to know why some of us believe as we do.

    As for Dr.Ruckman, he is a very intelligent man BUT...he is just a man like the rest of us who will have to give account of himself before the Lord. I would agree with him on many things and disagree with him on others. I would say the same for Roby as well though all I know of him is what I know from reading his stuff here on the BB. He may be a nice guy when he is asleep:laugh: for all I know!

    As for Roby, he and Doc Ruckman both share similarities in their dispositions towards those with whom they disagree but they both would be considered good "apologists" for their respective positions. They ARE BOTH capable of being sorta nasty towards those they disagree with. It would be interesting indeed to witness an open debate between the two of them.

    P4T....you can't have a fair understanding of this issue UNLESS you fairly read the evidence from both perspectives. If you try to make a determination about it without doing that then you cannot fairly discern the truth of the matter. Neither side can claim their position based upon scripture alone. There has to be at least SOME examination of the available manuscript evidence. I am KJVO based upon that. Roby is not KJVO based upon that which he has accepted as the truth. One of us is right...one of us is wrong. The interesting thing is...we BOTH profess to believe that the Bible is God's Word.

    Bro.Greg:saint:
     
  19. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which is what I've done. Thus I have a fair understanding.

    What robycop said are truths, and this is why they are offhandedly dismissed. That's not fairly reading it. That's the thing I'm getting at, KJVOers must dismiss evidence, and this is done consistently from what I know and see.

    Still awaiting proof on KJVOnlyism. Proof that it is the one and only true Word of God. :sleeping_2:
     
  20. Gregory Perry Sr.

    Gregory Perry Sr.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    0
    What Makes You SO Sure?

    I've examined the evidence over the course of 30+ years and like many others, have come to a completely different conclusion from you or Roby. How can you be so absolutely sure that what Roby says and presents is the truth? What makes the evidence he presents any more accurate or truthful than the evidence that the men I listed have presented. There are plenty of good and very academically intelligent men and women who would completely disagree with your position.

    Frankly, I don't think you are really trying to understand KJVOnlyism. I think you may actually be trying to draw people who believe their Bibles into pointless arguments. That is my opinion. The conclusion of the matter for me is that, believing as I do, I have absolutely complete confidence that the Book I hold in my hand, the English language KJV, is the Word of God, perfect and without error as God wanted me to have it in the dispensation in which I am alive. It is the final authority for all matters of faith and practice for the Christian life. I don't have any need for other "versions". Sorry....I'm completely content with my KJV. The funny thing is...if the language is so "archaic" then I ought to NOT be able to understand it at all. English was actually one of my WORST subjects in school :tear:...Second only to math! Thank God it is His blessed Holy Spirit which leads the believing hearts of His children to understand His Word....in whatever of the many human tongues/languages it is rendered in. Even the simplest minded can understand it when HE "turns on the light". Thank God for that!

    Bro.Greg:saint:
     

Share This Page

Loading...