Why I am King James Only.

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by ChelleBell, Jul 24, 2006.

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

    ChelleBell
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    [FONT=TimesNewRoman, serif]Why I am King James Only.[/FONT]


    [FONT=TimesNewRoman, serif]Several years ago I posted this on this Board. I could not find my original post so I am going to repost my position “Why I am King James Only”. I did not save an original copy so this will not be a word for word reproduction, however, my reason and logic have not changed. [/FONT]




    [FONT=TimesNewRoman, serif]To put as simply as possible:[/FONT]


    [FONT=TimesNewRoman, serif]It stands to reason that if God were going to give his word to man, he would want men to have it. [/FONT]


    [FONT=TimesNewRoman, serif]If God wanted men to have his word, which men did he want having his word? On one hand you have cruel and unmerciful men of religion (the Vatican) and on the other, you have compassionate men who are willing to die for their love of God and his Word. [/FONT]


    [FONT=TimesNewRoman, serif]If His word was indeed for and with the common man, then Gods Word is in fact “The Received Text” from which we have the 5th (? I think) revision of the 1611 translation of the King James Bible, and various language. [/FONT]


    [FONT=TimesNewRoman, serif]If you correct the King James, using any of the small number of texts from the Vatican, or one of its derivatives (NKJV, NIV, NRSV etc. etc.. you are saying that God let down the martyrs. [/FONT]


    [FONT=TimesNewRoman, serif]You can quote all the dead guy and set up all the straw men you want, I will ignore you, however if you want to discuss the logic behind my post, feel free. [/FONT]


    [FONT=TimesNewRoman, serif]Larry... Posting under his wifes user name because of lost password. [/FONT]​
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    This thread has the potential of getting out of control quickly. I will let it go, but if it gets ugly it will be closed without notice.
     
  3. OrovilleTim

    OrovilleTim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not being "challenging" as I really don't care to get into the KJV vs. everything else (I actually 'prefer' it myself,) but I have always wanted to ask a question...

    What about other languages?

    Well, more than a question... here's another...

    Do KJV only people expect everyone to learn English to read the Bible?
     
  4. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yet, the KJV translators used quite a bit of the Latin Vulgate. Perhaps we should reject those parts?
     
  5. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Other questions that needs to be asked, "Did the English language come into being in 1611? Did God fail all the English speaking people prior to 1611?"

    The statement that your stand and statement are logical have set logic back many years.

    Bro Tony
     
  6. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    Not at all, except for the extreme radical element of KJVO, which constitutes about 1% of all KJVOs. The most often misunderstood statement made by KJVOs is "We believe the KJV to be the preserved Word of God for English speaking people."

    I can't, for the life of me, figure out how anyone can conclude, from this statement, that we believe that everyone has to learn English to read the Word of God. What this statement means is simply that we believe the KJV is the preserved Word of God in the English language. The Word of God is preserved for Spanish speaking people in a Spanish translation. The Word of God is preserved for French speaking people in a French translation, and so on...

    A KJVO could just as easily say, "We believe the Spanish Reina-Valera is the preserved Word of God for Spanish speaking people." Or, "We believe the Louis Segond Version is the Word of God for French speaking people."

    That does not mean that everyone must learn Spanish or French any more than it means that one must learn English in order to read the Bible.
     
  7. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,127
    Likes Received:
    221

    Tony, that is a great question!
    If I am not mistaken, It seems as though the Pilgrims refused to use that new revised version called King James. Am I correct?

    Salty

    PS, if the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul, then its good enough for me:saint:
     
  8. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,127
    Likes Received:
    221

    C4K, what makes you think this would get ugly. We are Baptists! :tongue3:

    Oh, now I see what you mean:laugh: :smilewinkgrin:

    Salty
     
  9. ChelleBell

    ChelleBell
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    “This thread has the potential of getting out of control quickly. I will let it go, but if it gets ugly it will be closed without notice.....C4K”






    C4K, when I see someone cracking the whip this early, it makes me wonder. Is it something I said or the reaction that you expect from others on the board? I know that for some, it's more like they hate the KJV rather than love another version.


    Already there are people who are posting questions that would have been answered had they read my post.




    Thank you for keeping this topic on the high road.​
     
  10. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    English speaking people had the Word of God in English since the time that Christianity was introduced into Britain.

     
  11. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,207
    Likes Received:
    1,315
    Which is why He preserved the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts in the language He inspired His word in.
    Except no modern version is based on the manuscripts considered best by the Vatican. The official Latin versions, approved by the Vatican, were all based on the Western textform. No modern
    version is based on the Western textform.
    That would depend on what you mean by "received text." If you mean the TR which underlies the KJV, there is no such thing. In fact there are over 30 texts, all called the “TR” and all are different. The “TR” which underlies the KJV was not produced until 1894 when Fredrick Scrivener reverse engineered a Greek text to support the KJV by picking and choosing from over 40 different sources, thus the "TR" is itself an eclectic "pick and choose" text.

    The NKJV is based on the same textforms as the KJV. It is a KJVO myth that it is based on a different textform.
    Well, so far the only straw men I have seen are the ones you posted. Lots of "it stands to reason" followed by very little, if any, critical reasoning.
     
  12. NateT

    NateT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2000
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    You wanted responses to your logic? I see two areas for response:
    [FONT=TimesNewRoman, serif]
    This is close to an ad hominen attack. Not all men from the Vatican were "cruel and unmerciful." It is presumptuous to assume that that God would not use "cruel" men to bring about his own means. (cf. Gen 37-50, Joseph tells us though his brothers meant to harm him, God meant their actions for good.)

    Secondly, God did not give his word to either the Vatican (4th Century) or to those compassionate men who wrote the KJV (17th Century) but to his followers in 1st century.

    Third, that someone was willing to die does not prove your case here, as there were Vatican martyrs as well.
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=TimesNewRoman, serif]
    That a man dies for something does not immediately validate it as a worthy cause.

    Secondly, God is not bound to honor the martyrs. Cf Matthew 7.21-23 where Jesus says that not everyone who does a good deed (including dying?) will be recognized by him. Because it is possible that he never knew them. It is possible to die for Jesus and be lost.

    I think purely from a logical standpoint, these arguments can't stand. It relies too much on the assumption that God only uses those who are perfectly Holy to accomplish his purposes. If your initial premise is true, and it can be demonstrated that even some of the men who translated the Bible to the 1611 had mean streaks, then it brings the part they translated into question.


    [/FONT]
     
  13. OrovilleTim

    OrovilleTim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just in case you were talking about my question(s), I re-read your post. It is still not clear if it is me you are referring to. If it's not me, I'm still curious for answers from your point of view.

    It's not a case of "they hate the KJV rather than love another version" for me, as I love the KJV personally as I grew up on it and am most comfortable with it. But I also have others, including Spanish language ones and have wondered what a KJV only person would say about other languages. I've just not attended a KJV only church since I was a member of a Missionary Baptist church out in Arkansas, and I never questioned it then as I never cared to have another version.
     
  14. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    My edit tool is not working at the moment. The charge "they hate the KJV" is unjustified and inflammatory. Since my edit is not working for some reason I will close the thread if this kind of comment continues and reopen it when I figure out why my edit function is not working
     
  15. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    ChelleBell said:

    If God wanted men to have his word, which men did he want having his word?

    To use your phrase, it stands to reason that if God has children "from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages" (Rev. 7:9), then he wants all of them to have it.

    If His word was indeed for and with the common man, then Gods Word is in fact “The Received Text” from which we have the 5th (? I think) revision of the 1611 translation of the King James Bible, and various language.

    The "common man" neither knows nor cares about the "Received Text" or the number of revisions of the King James Bible, which he probably does not understand properly in any case.

    If you correct the King James, using any of the small number of texts from the Vatican, or one of its derivatives (NKJV, NIV, NRSV etc. etc.. you are saying that God let down the martyrs.

    This is an irrelevant appeal to emotionalism. (Those poor martyrs, no one is reading their Bible translation anymore!)
     
  16. OrovilleTim

    OrovilleTim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    0
    Um, for the record in case it was missed, I was quoting that statement, not making that charge.
     
  17. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Far from hating the KJV, I prefer it. It's a good translation that is beautifully written. However, it's the work of men, and as such, is imperfect. Even the KJV translators expected others to build upon their work, and they left us some niftly little notes that bring into question certain passages that have been omitted from most editions.
     
  18. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can without hesistation say that you will not find any of the regulars on this board who "hate the KJV". You will find many who have a great problem with the man-made doctrine of KJVOism. Be careful to see the distinction between the two.

    Bro Tony
     
  19. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    This may be off topic, but the issue was raised about the KJV being the preserved word of God for English speakers. What is the preserved word of God for other language speakers? say Spanish or French or Korean. I've always wondered.
     
  20. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    Read post #6 on the first page; it may answer your question.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...