Why I am King James Only.

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.

 

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?

 

Yet, the KJV translators used quite a bit of the Latin Vulgate. Perhaps we should reject those parts?

 

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

 

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.

 

English speaking people had the Word of God in English since the time that Christianity was introduced into Britain.

 

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]

 

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.

 

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

 

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!)

 

Um, for the record in case it was missed, I was quoting that statement, not making that charge.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

Read post #6 on the first page; it may answer your question.