Why I am KJV Only

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
Phillip quoted:

It does strike me as funny how the KJVO crowd uses statements such as: "you have the audacity" blah, blah, blah.
--------------------------------------------------

Phillip,

Correct me if I am wrong, but did you not post this immediately after your post addressed to me personally in relation to the quote where I made the statement of your "audacity" ? Do you not also consider me part of the KJVO crowd? Maybe my use of the word slander was inaccurate, but you still were making light of me in this quote, implying that I should not have used this word, because my belief is based upon emotions. I do not apologize for using this word, audacity, because that is what was meant, and I stand by it. Now you can say the same of me and it would be true, if you wish, concerning all my statements to you made about the gap theory
as it would be appropriate as well. I had not the audacity to speak on something that I misunderstood, and all my comments to you regarding it should be stricken.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

This is hardly a free speech issue, Michelle. You can make your point using different language, language that doesn't cross the line into profanity. Think about it--if some of us here consider all faithful translations to be God's word, then to us it is profanity when anyone uses words like corrupt, perverse, Satanic to describe what is holy to us.

Just like its profanity when anyone says the KJV is corrupt.

Show us. Find the historical fundamental tenets that fundamental churches are founded on. Which one of those does using modern versions going against?

On second thought, I'll help you out. I know you've got a lot of responses to make. Here are the tenents of fundamentalism that came out of the Niagra conference, the conference that started the whole ball rolling:

</font>

• The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts.</font>
• The Trinity.</font>
• The Creation of man, the Fall into sin, and total depravity.</font>
• The universal transmission of spiritual death from Adam.</font>
• The necessity of the new birth.</font>
• Redemption by the blood of Christ.</font>
• Salvation by faith alone in Christ.</font>
• The assurance of salvation.</font>
• The centrality of Jesus Christ in the Scriptures.</font>
• The constitution of the true church by genuine believers.</font>
• The personality of the Holy Spirit.</font>
• The believer’s call to a holy life.</font>
• The immediate passing of the souls of believers to be with Christ at death.</font>

So, which historical tenent of fundamentalism don't I adhere to as someone who believes that all faithful translations are the word of God?

 

What hank is asking is for you to raise the bar. It doesn't matter what other people do, you are only responsible for what you yourself do. So, why not forget the pettiness and just engage the material without the emotional outburts - that goes for both sides. One of the things that you have been asked to do is provide conclusive proof of what you say. You haven't done this yet. You say you will stay away from the MV's and won't read them. So, I see that as basing what you believe on the hearsay of someone else - not on a word for word reading for yourself. I use to do the same thing. One day, I was looking at a Bible version comparison chart and grabbed my KJV and MV's and started looking up the passages for myself. I was startled to find that the chart was full of mistakes. Not only did I find the MV's were misquoted, in some spots the KJV was misquoted as well. A few hours later, I came to the conclusion that the chart author was full of balony. When I cataloged all the errors I found, I had to dismiss this guy as a credible source. I ended up throwing out many such charts by various authors because they were almost identical. So, when I say that I am no longer KJVO, it isn't because I'm stubborn or blind to the truth, it's because of detailed word for word study and comparison of each Bible version in question. I would suggest getting a NIV, NASB, ESV, and, using your NKJV along with a good concordance and a lexicon, do a complete word for word study for youself and not simply go on hearsay. That way, even if you don't change your mind, you will be your own primary source instead of someone else.

 

OK michelle, but like I said the BB is not a democracy. If one goes to far then the "dictatorship" will step in (just like the KJVO posting boards) and banish the offender.

They (KJVO) are not hesitant or embarrassed to toss out an mv-er. Eye for eye is the modus operandi on posting boards (even those not under the Law).

Personally I have agreed with quite a bit of what some KJVOs have had to say but I prefer to challenge them and hold the KJV to the very same criteria with which they demonize the mv's.

It usually ends with an ad hominem attack from the KJVO person (but not always).

HankD

 

Michelle: Apology accepted on gap-theory. No problemo. As to my other post. I was simply stating what you stated. If it was in the wrong pretext, I too apologize.

Let us focus on the subject at hand and get away from those issues.

Somewhere under the topic of Bible Versions I posted questions for KJVO believers. I would greatly appreciate it if you would read those questions and provide me with an answer to them.

If you can do this, then we will all have concrete evidence as to what you are believing.

These questions have been asked many times and have mostly gone unanswered (with a few exceptions). They are not being asked to intimidate anybody, they are being asked to find out why you believe the way you do.

I humbly ask you to find that thread, I'll go and see if I can find the original title, read the questions, quote them and answer them one by one. If you will do that then we have grounds for discussion without personal issues getting in the way.

I had to ask many questions about the gap-theory and I got many answers. Finally, one person on this board, who had put up with my come-backs for almost a year, persuaded me that the gap-theory was wrong. But, she did it by specifically answering the questions that I had that were blocking my way to understanding her beliefs.

Does that make sense?

Those questions, have not, to date been answered satisfactorily by a KJVO believer. We MVers cannot and will not become a KJVO believer until we obtain answers to the problems we have with KJVO. So, do not take them as attacks on KJVO, take them as issues that must be dealt with to make a person believe in the KJVO position.

Please?

 

Michelle, I placed a post for you on page 19 (uggh) of the "Questions for KJVOS". This brought the thread up closer to the top of the list where you could easily find it.

If you could simply read my questions posted as the very first post on the front page and answer them specifically, we might be able to start discussing why you believe your position to the point that we can get over the issues we have with it.

You may read all of the posts, but it is very long and often gets off-track. All I am looking for is a specific answer and where you obtained that information for each question.

Thanks, Phillip

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Russell55,

--------------------------------------------------
russell55 quoted:

This is hardly a free speech issue, Michelle. You can make your point using different language, language that doesn't cross the line into profanity. Think about it--if some of us here consider all faithful translations to be God's word, then to us it is profanity when anyone uses words like corrupt, perverse, Satanic to describe what is holy to us
--------------------------------------------------

That is my point, I should not have to change my language, nor the word I use, because it offends you personally. Many others here use terms and allude to things that are offensive to the KJVO side. I would never tell them what they can or cannot say. The word corrupt, or corruption is offensive to you and others here, because you do not yet see it. I have seen it, and I proclaim it. I cannot call it anything other than what it is. I do not believe the modern versions to be faithful translations of God's preserved words, and not even that of it's own underlying text, as it is and has been clearly evidenced. I will not cater to the compromising, tolerant, and politically correct society of today, and ecspecially within those of the same faith. Truth needs to be boldly proclaimed, and if the truth hurts, there is probably a good reason why it is hurting. It would not hurt me one bit, for someone to say the KJV is corrupt, because I know that it is not. How can something hurt someone, if the accusation is not the truth? Were you hurt when you first realized that you were a sinner? What about now? If someone said to you that you were sinning, would it hurt you? If you really were sinning, it would hurt you. If you were not, it would not hurt you. Just as if, I told someone who is an unbeliever that they are a sinner, they would be offended, and consider this to be hurtful and offensive. Just as homosexuals feel offended and hurt when their act of homosexual activity is pointed out as a sin. The truth hurts. If it didn't hurt, then there would be no way for one to recognize the need for a cure or remedy.

As far as your comments regarding the fundamentals of faith, I do not question your personal fundamentals of faith. The fact of the matter is, however, that those churches who are fundamentalists, use the KJV from the pulpit, and those churches who are liberal, use the modern versions in the pulpit. Even though they may claim to hold to the fundamentals of the faith, they do not in reality. I have witnessed this within my own community, and not just me, but others also.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

My pastor is about as conservative as you can get. THAT is exactly the reason I changed churches about four years ago, because he would NOT compromise his beliefs. He has many college hours and a LOT of self-education also. He understands that many people in the church simply like the KJV, but during Bible study he will use a newer translation to clarify the words and phrases.

Like Doctor Bob said, in study classes, the students spend more time defining the terms in the KJV than they do studying the "Word".

I ask you to please consider answering the questions. I am anxious to see your answers. Really! We can go from there. Who knows, you very well may convince me.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Phillip,

Thank you very much for accepting my apology. I am very sorry for what I have done. Even though we disagree on this, I do consider you a brother in Christ Jesus our Lord, and all others on these posts. I also apologize to them, for what I have done to you.

Regarding answering your questions, you had posted about 6 or 7 questions quite a few weeks ago, which I spent a good 2-3 days answering as best as I could for you. You did comment on a few things I had said, but that was that. Do you not remember? I started a new topic, as to the answers to your questions, because of the length of my answers. I quess they were not good enouph, or convincing enouph for you. That is fine. I am not an expert or scholar in this field. Maybe it is one of them who will convince you, but I fear you would not even be interested in any of their writings on it, and no I am not talking about Ruckman and Riplinger. There are others who have written and given much information concerning this issue. What it really comes down to, and many do not like to hear it, and scoff at it, is the conviction of the Lord upon your heart when viewing the evidence given. One must really desire to know the truth no matter what, and focus upon God and his promises, and his truth, and leave out those things of the world. It takes much prayer and desire to know the real truth regarding this issue. One thing I want to make clear, is I do not tell you or anyone else they must use the KJV. I try my best to convince others that the KJV is the preserved word of God for english speaking people today, and we can trust it 100%. Ask yourself, can you really trust the modern versions 100%? If you did not have any knowledge of, or access to the KJV, could you put your whole trust in any of the modern versions out there today? IF you were to only choose one, and must not acknowledge whatsoever anything in the KJV (prior learning/readings from), out of the great assortment of versions, which one would it be and why?

I will look at your questions, that you most kindly moved up to make it easier for me to find (thank you!) and I will try to answer your questions, if I have not already answered them.

Til then...

love in Jesus Christ our Lord,
michelle

 

In response to your statement that it would not hurt you to see someone call the KJV corrupt. Well, it may not you and I'm an MVer. But, it certainly would me. Because they would be referring to the Word of God. We MVers do NOT believe the KJV is corrupt. It is the Word of God just as is the NASB and others. Just wanted to make sure that it was real clear that we do NOT think the KJV is corrupt.

As the Word of God the KJV is equal to most of the MV's. In understandability in modern English, it may be inferior, but that does not take away the fact that it is the Word of God.

Just as ancient texts in Greek are very low on my list of understandability, because my knowledge of Greek is not anywhere near that of other people who are well educated in the language on this BB. But, I recognize that it does contains the "Word of God".

 

Michelle, I may make a comment, but I always take into consideration what the person says, no matter who they are, or what they believe. If we humans were right more than 50% of the time, we could go clean out Las Vegas (I'm not condoning gambling--just making a point that being right 51% of the time would make us worldly rich, if we knew how to use it.)

I do not remember where your answers were, if you know where they might be or you posted in that area, please send me a link and I will be glad to go back and read them.

Otherwise, we might just start from scratch with the questions posted......?

 

Michelle: The fact of the matter is, however, that those churches who are fundamentalists, use the KJV from the pulpit, and those churches who are liberal, use the modern versions in the pulpit. Even though they may claim to hold to the fundamentals of the faith, they do not in reality. I have witnessed this within my own community, and not just me, but others also.

Now, does this make a given BV corrupt, even if it were 100% true? Newp! If it WERE a fact, then the KJV would be as corrupt as any ever written, since it is/was the BV of choice for many a cult. The prob lies within the PEOPLE, not the BV.

 

Michelle, the local Pentecostal church, as well as the Mormon church across town, both use the KJV. David Koresh (Branch Davidians), Jim Jones (Jonestown mass suicides), Marshall Applewhite (Heaven's Gate cult mass suicides), and many other cult leaders have used the KJV exclusively.

Meanwhile, my own pastor, a rock-solid fundamentalist with degrees from two fundamental Baptist colleges, does not.

Let's see, can I discern any inherent flaws in your above statement?

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,

Hank,

Thank you for your kind words, and advice. I hope I did not make you think I did not appreciate them. I do very much.

Pretty soon, the dictatorship will kick me off, I am sure, as they have done with many others, and who will be left to debate? If one gets all worked up over the words or word someone uses pertaining to something, when will it end? What if the dictatorship decides they don't like someone referring to the modern versions, as versions, but Bibles? Or the critical text as critical? Words are so important to those holding to the mv position, however this same attitude is not taken with the integrity and preservation of God's holy and pure word of truth. They indeed, hold us to higher standards than that of the very words of God. This is ironic indeed. I am a fallible human being, and as is evident, make mistakes. God's word of truth, however is and should be put to a higher standard, and this is not what has been done with the modern versions. They claim that it is offensive to call the modern versions corrupt. Offensive to whom - God? or them personally? or both? Well, have they corrupted God's word of truth? Is this not what the debate is all about? So why then, if they truly believe what they believe is the truth, why then be offended? Why tell us to soften our words regarding the truth of this debate? I have been accused of teaching and believing a false doctrine. This is a serious accusation, and biblically they should separate themselves from me. Do I believe this is true of myself? No. I have been misunderstood in my position, and all those things that come with the KJVonly label, have been applied to me. Do I let this bother me? No. I understand it and accept it. They are free to accuse me of what they wish, and can label me what they wish. I have been called a pagan by the jewish people. Is this true? No. Do I let it bother me? NO, for this is not the truth. If the modern versions are not corruptions of God's preserved words of truth, then why does this bother them? If their belief on this is true, then God will deal with me in this matter. They are not my judge. The Lord is my Judge. WE are commanded to judge righteous judgement. Every word I speak, and everyone else speaks, we will all have to give an account of. I know that on that day, that my referring to the modern versions as corruptions of God's word of truth will be vindicated. That is the truth. The evidence shows it.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
Phillip quoted:

Just as ancient texts in Greek are very low on my list of understandability, because my knowledge of Greek is not anywhere near that of other people who are well educated in the language on this BB. But, I recognize that it does contains the "Word of God"
--------------------------------------------------

Phillip,

God's words of truth are preserved 100% and are accurately provided for the english speaking people, and has been for every generation as God has promised. I do not view the bible as containing the word of God, but that the Bible IS the word of God. I can believe 100% that every single word in it is from God speaking directly to me.

Is this what you are saying? I do not want to misunderstand what you are saying again. Are you saying that you believe that the Bible only contains the word of God? And if so, how then do you determine what is his word, and what isn't? Or are you speaking of the ancient manuscripts containing the word of God? Do you believe that the Bible is the very word of God? Or do you believe it only contains the word of God? If you believe the Bible is the very words of God, which one do you then believe is it? You can't pick and choose what God's preserved word is. God has preserved his words as he promised, every single one of them, and they all (versions - I am speaking for the english speaking peoples of today) can't be it. Why? Because the modern versions have ommitted much of what has been long understood, taught, believed, preached, lived for centuries within Bible believing churches. So please tell me, which one is God's preserved words of truth for you?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle,

I can assure you that the "dictatorship" does not exist. I have been on this board many years and Dr. Bob and the other moderators have their opinions, but do NOT take advantage of anybody on the board unless they break the written rules.

As long as you stay away from personal attacks and other such things, you will be left alone.

Certain people are banned, but not because of their beliefs. When you say somebodies belief is "satanic" or something of that nature when it is not an obvious issue of our Baptist doctrine (the Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ--only Begotten Son, God the Father, Holy Spirit, Salvation through Christ, on and on) then you have nothing to worry about.

Now, Dr. Bob will warn a person when they start getting out of line. We ALL get out of line now and then. Most of us are able to cool down and come back and be decent posters, some do not, these are the only ones he will shut off. Plus, he will shut me off just as fast as he will shut you off. If I started saying you were "demonic" for believing in your belief, you could bet he would be right here making a warning.

The board is fair and has a reputation for being fair. It does NOT tolerate personal attacks which are beyond a Christian like atmosphere. It does; however, encourage good healthy debate of issues such as KJVO and MV so that we may all learn from one another.

I have truths you may learn and you have truths I may learn, and we all grow in Christ together. You just cannot take the debates personally or they can eat you up.

I think if you will just relax and try to enjoy the debate and the learning experience it generates and do not be angry when people disagree with you.

I hope this helps a little. I for one, enjoy reading your posts. I realized you were probably new to this debating and therefore you have been given some leeway, I would imagine, because like I said, the board is fair and understanding.

As Dr. Bob once said, he can warn a person and they will either become a good poster or they will eventually leave after suspension or then again come back as a good poster.

So, just don't take things personally, even though this is difficult because you have strong feelings about your beliefs and I think things will work out fine.

I am not speaking for Bro. Bob, nor do I know him beyond posting on the board, but I do know that he is blatantly fair with all those concerned. He cannot and will not tolerate personal attacks from either side and he will call me down just as fast. He knows when people are serious and want to get their point across without a personal attack and we may do so within those limits.

I hope that helps in both the way you view the board and the "Wizard behind the curtain".

 

If someone says the KJV is perverted, it doesn't bother you? Just because you know that's its not perverted doesn't mean its not profanity for them to talk like that about God's word, does it? Every time someone speaks profanely about something sacred, it OUGHT to turn our stomachs. If it bothers our heavenly Father, it ought to bother us.

Because I believe that the NASV, for instance, is a faithful translation of God's precious word, it turns my stomach when someone calls it satanic or perverted or corrupt. I believe they are profaning God's word with their words, and I HATE to see anyone cross that line. Again, its not a free speech issue, but an issue of respecting other believers rights not to have things they hold sacred profaned. You ought to be able to speak the "truth" as you see it without crossing that line.

Would you please share one historical fundamental from the list not really upheld by a church in your community that claims to be fundamental, but doesn't always use the KJV. If you've seen it as you claim, you ought to be able to support it with evidence, right?

I can vouch that my church doesn't always use the KJV from the pulpit, yet they hold firmly to every single one of the fundamentals. If they didn't, I wouldn't be there. So there's one exception to your "rule".

 

Michelle,
I do have your list of answers. Someone posted and moved it up. I completely forgot that you did that. Okay, great. I remember starting to read and respond and we got off track. Let me read them completely and then I'll get back with you.

I do owe you an appology. You have done well to provide answers. Thank you very much!

Believe me, all this work has made me forgetful of what I have posted on the board, between that and church things, it has been very very busy and I just flat forgot. Sorry again and thanks.

Phillip

 

Give us more than the Holy Spirit told you stuff. Just today on the news was a lady who killed two of her childreen by stoning them and claimed God told her to do it.

Give us some facts that support your claim about the MSS that underlie the modern versions that you disagree with and call them corruptions. Even Bruce Metzger tells how the text became corrupted in one of his books. That is the very reason we have textual critics today to sort out the corruption from the text. That is exactly the reason why the text is better today than the text of the 12th century manuscripts used to translate the KJV. Therefore that leaves the better text as that which underlies the modern translations.

In a nutshell I am open to you proving me wrong. So show me the evidence.