Why so much against KJB-only?

Because quite often folks who are unstable and unsure of themselves bolster their self-esteem assuring themselves that they are "OK" by verbally attacking those whom they consider not "OK".

I'm not saying this is the problem with ALL KJBO folks but some at least.

HankD

 

And the ultimate question for you to answer is "Why do you believe it?" Does the KJV say so? Do the historical facts say so?

If you start with those limitations, you have made the "truth" a non-issue. I recommend you start with a blank slate, see what the KJV says about other versions (nothing BTW), and see what the historical facts are... seek the truth, not an excuse to keep believing what you already believe.

You just contradicted yourself. I don't want to only use one version. The KJV translators said a variety of translations give the best sense of scripture. I agree with them.

That is where you are wrong. Many people are significantly pressured to use only the KJV and to only attend churches that are KJVO. I know people who avoid reading the Bible because they don't understand it and are afraid of what would be said if they admitted as much or used another version.

Yes they can but some are not (for instance the Jehovah's Witness Bible-NWT).

Let me explain how: Imagine you are going to meet two friends for dinner. To the first you say "I give my word, at 6:00 I will meet you at Ryan's in the lobby", to the other you say "I give my word, I will be at Ryan's at 6:00 just inside the front door." Which one did you give your "word" to?

Here's a Bible illustration, look up Galatians 5:14. Which "word" is the fulfillment of all the law? The quote contains several words, which one is it?

The answer is that "word" refers to a saying or message, not a unique set of letters.

We have God's Word in several versions because they accurately and clearly reveal the same truth and message.

One of the repeated requests made by those of us who oppose KJVOnlyism is for KJVO's to show one doctrine in the KJV that is absent from other faithful versions or vice versa. They have never produced one. They have discussed various passages (and not really very many of them) but never whole doctrines.

Tell me this, if your father gave you instructions once and your mother gave you the same instructions 3 times would your father then be a liar because he didn't say the same thing two more times?

Have you ever had a problem in school that you didn't understand? Was it helpful or harmful for someone to use different wording to help you understand? If you wanted to know the "true" way to do a math problem wouldn't you feel safer if someone explained it a couple of different ways so that you could be sure of what you understood?

Actually, there is. Take your KJV and look at the OT passages referenced in the NT. How many of them are absolutely identical? Not many... that makes them "a bunch of versions".

Nope. It is the Bible. The one that God gave when he moved holy men of old. The one whose message, revelation, and teachings are preserved in the KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, WEB, Geneva, etc.

What you just said is also not scriptural. God did preserve His Word and MV's are it- so is the KJV.

If your church is more than 30 years old, you are probably wrong. Although, the invasion may have been without armed resistance.

Always? Liberal? What do you think is liberal?

Nope. New versions are the greatest affirmation you could ask for that the KJV is not wrong. Not a single doctrine taught in the KJV has been overturned by MV's.

When I was 18 I didn't know that Jesus didn't speak King James English. I didn't know there were other versions. But the Bible tells us to prove all things and hold on to the truth so I have tried to never make a habit of assuming what the truth in a matter was. First, I try to check it against the truth of scripture then against any outside facts I can find.

 

So the KJV when it came out in 1611, it declared that every English version already existing was wrong? And the KJV translators were looking for ($$$)?

So when the KJV invaded England in 1611, the churches there became dead and liberal?

So when the KJV came out in 1611, which versions quit being God's Word? Maybe it was the Geneva, or the Great Bible, or Tyndale's, or the Bishops, or Coverdale's. Or maybe you are wrong and they all are equally God's Word - which is what I think. And if they all could be God's Word back then, then the MV's and the KJV can equally be God's Word today.

 

Christ4Kildare: "Hey, does anyone object
to cdg being King James Only?"

If he was, I would not object.
I'm not sure he is King James Only.
He hasn't leaned how to make a fool of
himself in public just to get a bunch of
e-mail addys. He hasn't learned yet
how to be anti-education. He hasn't
learned yet how to be boring. He has
yet to learn how to be anti-success.

Yep, he seems to be a nice person,
probably a Baptist and/or Christian
who will never learn to be one of them
thar KJ-BOs.

 

Cdg: "Am I a hit and run ranter?"

No, you came back. As for just
plain "ranter", tain't no problem,
no sir, no problem at all (if you
will listen patiently to me or
or use that little down arrow in
the lower right AKA: skip right past
my post.

Cdg: "All the versions cannot be God's word."

Actually, they can.
Any apparent discrepancy must be
our problem of understanding, not
God's inability to communicate His
message to us.
Of course, some people don't want to
admit they might not understand God's
written word. But such does happen all
the time, else the process of maturing
would never happen.

 

cdg, you said this

That shows great wisdom. Hold to your views, do not be easily shaken from them. I myself am strongly prefer the KJV. Agree to disagree with those godly people who choose otherwise and enjoy their fellowship.

 

Cdg: " Liberal: in Bible versions- a depart from
the true Word of God to new versons."

Please rewrite that so it communicates some
meaning. Thank you.

Cdg: "I dont think the mv's can be God's Word not
with dynamic equivalence and the NIV having
a sodomite in its editor's group. "

Interesting standards. Do you know what an editor's
group does? They look at the translators rough draft
and recommend ways to make it look good. The translators
do NOT have to take any recomendation. Translators
are the ones who select the words not editors.
So how can any editor taint a version?
Likewise i presume you have no idea what
dynamic equivalence is all about. Why would you
reject each of over 200 English versions because
of one incedent in the translation of the the NIV?

Cdg: "Hello ed, I appreciate your comments but you just
dont now me as well as I know me."

Knowing and understanding are two different things.
I probably understand you better than you understand
yourself. Don't worry though, i'm called to support
God's ministers in prayer. I usually pray something like this:

May all God's best blessing fall unto Brother Cdg, his
family, and his ministry this very day. Amen.

I found out that if you pray for a good success every day
for a month for somebody, you cannot possibly hate that
somebody. Interesting eh?

Cdg: "Wow, KJB-only people must be mean around here."

You betcha. One who claimed to be a preacher of the
word of God got kicked off for badmouthing the other
residents. My second opinion is he got kicked off
for making boring polls (nah, probably not).

Now let me tell you some stuff about me.
In June 1984 i had a windstorm do damage to my
house. With the money i got from my insurance i
tacked on the roof and spent the rest on a home
computer. I was on a bulletin board by July 1984.
What were you doing in Julyu 1986?
So let me tell you what i learned in my soon (July)
to be 20 years experience on bulletin boards).
Rule #1: read before you post.
Some people don't even seem to know that you can
learn a lot about people from their profile
(find "profile" on the top line and click it).
Interesing, 98% of folks find that button but there
may be one of those other 2% reading, well probably not,
if they read, they would find such stuff.)

The nice part about it was in the first two weeks
of Sept 1984 i had this program that popped up a letter
and kept track of how many out of 20 you got right.
My sonne (KJV1611 spelling for "son") turned 2
in the middle of Sept 1984. We both said the name of
the letter and he looked for it on the keyboard.
By the day he was 2 he could say his alphabet.

(I'm over 50, i get to ramble off topic )
Oops, i need to run off to work.

 

I've been using the KJV1769
with Tim LaHaye notes in it for about 3
years to study and from which
to teach my Sunday School Class.

I was using the New King James Version /1985/
(nKJV) before that. Only while studying
from 1 Cornithians 13 I spilled by coffe
on the book. All the pages 1 Chrinthians 13
and back are stained. oops!

 

Ed, Maybe God knocked that cup over and is trying to tell you something?

 

Maybe, but he used my elbow

 

Maybe, but he used my elbow </font>[/QUOTE]Good thing you weren't trying to stick it in your ear at the time, eh?

 

cdg said:

You said "only the KJB". Imagine someone living in 1610. Do they have the word of God? A few months later, a new modern version (modern at that time) comes out which comes to be known as the KJV. It is different than what people used in 1610, therefore according to your comments they "can't stand on all of them. Only one the ???". Yes, you do imply God was lying prior to 1611 - for which Bible in 1610 was the preserved word of God throught the ages, and why was it "corrected" by the KJV? Think about it. If "only the KJB", then nothing prior to it could be accepted or the preserved word of God, for everything available in 1610 differs from the KJV. KJV-onlyism implies that in 1610, either God was lying about preservation, or that the KJV was a deviation from what was preserved. Either way, KJV-onlyism is proven to be false.

 

Just a gentle challenge to study further... What do you based this conclusion on? Did you know that the last large group of "Christians" to make this claim about a Bible version was the Roman Catholic Church (Latin Vulgate)?

Me too.

I am not trying to offend you but as a general rule you should stop and really think when you use the term "to me." Something is either true or it isn't. Either Bible versions agree in what they teach on the whole or they don't. The Post-modern/relativistic philosophy is a growing threat to real Christianity in the US.

Now you're sounding better. Just compare the essential doctrines in the various versions. Some of the specific passages are not the same because of variants (differences between original language manuscripts) in the original language documents but the doctrines are there in the faithful versions. There are many resources available from within conservatism/fundamentalism that disprove KJVOnlyism.

http://www.kjvonly.org/

Don't accept anyone's opinion uncritically. Even someone you trust may have been mis-led by someone else or may just be wrong on a few things.

(Sidenote: There are over 5000 Greek manuscripts to support the text of the NT. No two of them are word for word identical. The text used to translate the KJV was originally compiled from less than a dozen manuscripts... none of which contained all of Revelation. The last 7 verses of the KJV have the Latin Vulgate as their original source. The compiler of this text was the Roman Catholic scholar Desiderus Erasmus)

By their own testimonies, they are saved.

Yes but many of them have family or other reasons not to leave their church.

God didn't say either. God inspired the Bible in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. We have translations. If you have ever taken a foreign language class, you know that a phrase in one language can almost always be translated (accurately) more than one way into English.

The KJV uses blood in a few places where some MV's do not. However, if MV's were trying to take out the "blood" why would they leave it in many more times than take it out?

Usually, the accounts of "the blood" being removed are grossly overexaggerated. For instance, they through out the NKJV because it deletes "the blood". I took the time to research the discrepancies and found that the accuser had counted a deletion in the NKJV when it used "bloody" or "bloodshed" instead of "blood".

If you want the truth in this thing, you must take the time to check out people's claims. People like Gail Riplinger, Peter Ruckman, and Sam Gipp are very deceptive.

Does not sound like it. Just curious, where did he get his education?

What would that have made someone who departed from the Geneva Bible to the KJV in 1611? What would that make someone now who departed from the Geneva, Tyndale's, the Latin Vulgate, or ultimately the original language texts?

The KJV is not the oldest English version. It was not translated from the originals that God directly inspired. It is not translated from the oldest copies of the original language texts. The oldest manuscript used by Erasmus to create his text was copied more than 1000 years after John finished Revelation. It was copied from another hand written mss that was many generations of copying from the original.

The evidence behind the NASB, NIV, ESV, etc. (whether correct or not) dates back to less than 200 years after John completed Revelation. The controversy among textual scholars is basically which should count more 200 or so mss that are older plus the most ancient quotes by early church fathers or 5000+ mss that are more abundant and that have become the "traditional" text used by the Eastern Orthodox (a catholic type church) and the RCC.

These two groups are commonly referred to as the Alexandrian and Byzantine families. Together the constitute the best evidence for the NT, contain no more than 5% variance in actualy wording, and do not contradict each other in substance of message.

Probably... and maybe some day on this as well if you commit yourself to study... if you openly evaluate the evidence you might even come up with the proof that would convince me that you are right!

BTW, I am very conservative and fundamental in my theological convictions. I accept nothing as absolute truth without biblical support... which is why to date I reject KJVOnlyism. It simply isn't taught by the KJV or any other version.

Actually, the church state union made the clergy political as well as religious officials. The king claimed prelacy which means he was the head of state and church. Church of England clergy were often both wealthy and powerful due to the position... that they were appointed to by the king.

It was a much different day.

But not exactly. The NKJV is like the KJV but with more modern language.

All English translations use dynamic equivalency... even the KJV. In fact, the most literal translation commonly available is the NASB.

Another distortion by KJVO advocates. I don't even like the NIV but the woman in question was an English style consultant, left before the work was complete, and only revealed her lesbianism after leaving.

[ February 13, 2004, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Originally posted by cdg:
I am sorry for breaking any rules by using the word perversion(still believe it though).
why? What makes you believe that?

I will not use it again. Am I a hit-and run ranter? And if so why? I do have alot to learn.

Don't we all? Anyone who deliberately quits learning has learned all his/her previous knowledge in vain.

But by the grace of God I will not learn enough to choose another version instead of or along with the KJB.

But, WILL it really be the grace of God? What if He CALLS for you to use another version(s)? For example, I have the musical talent of a clam, but God has used me to arrange singing lessons for some young Christians. He may have YOU to evangelize some immigrants who'd be totally confused trying to read the KJV. When it comes to SERVING GOD, never say'never'.

I guess they all three are King James Bibles. I would use the latest probably.

The KJVO says, "things that are different are not the same". the AV 1611 is quite different from the 1769 Blayney's Edition, the commonly-used KJV edition now.


But do not believe that the others are inferior in text just the spelling is different.

Better check again. In the later editions,where's the preface found in the AV 1611? Where's the list of Holy Days? Where are the Apocrypha? As for the text, KJVOist Dr. Donald Waite has found about 126 differences not attributed to spelling, punctuation, or sentence construction, between the AV 1611 & the Blayney's edition.


Just a version? Sure it would be just a version if it were a version of some other book.

Just the same as any other Bible translation.

Again the word force. Nobody is forcing anyone to use one version. How is my stance legalism? I just use one version and think everyone else should too.

You said it. You indicate in so many words that you believe that anyone using another English version is wrong. What's wrong is the myth that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation.


I do not force anyone to. I dont think anyone called me here. Now are you saying everyone here is fussing or just those that disagree with you?
I only had a simple question. Why are so many worried about so few. Again no one is forced to use the KJB and no one is forced to go to a church where they use it exclusively. Why the big fuss.

The "fuss" is because we *KNOW*-not guess-that KJVOnlyism is a FALSE DOCTRINE. We KNOW the man-made origins of the modern myth. We KNOW it's not even hinted at in Scripture. We KNOW it isn't supported by the history of God's word in English. We KNOW what the very AV TRANSLATORS said, in their preface'To The Reader'-"Variety of Translations Is profitable for the Understanding of the Sense of the Scriptures."(This preface is conveniently left out of later KJV editions!) We KNOW we have a D-U-T-Y to fight false doctrines sush as this one that's invaded our churches.


All the versions cannot be God's Word.
Why not?

If one version says one thing in one and another version says another thing in it then they both can't be God's Word.

By that reasoning, all four Gospels can't be God's word. In the KJV, Mark says both crooks crucified with Jesus reviled Him, while Luke says one of them repented. That's two accounts differing IN THE SAME VERSION. Shouldn't the material within one version be far more consistent than that material as compared to another version?


I could never use so many versions because I would always wonder which is God's Word? Which one is right?

What makes you think that ONLY THE KJV is right, or the others wrong?


I am not calling anyone stupid no more than you are calling me stupid, sinning, or deceived for not using your version. Wait, you are saying I am sinning, deceived (probably thinking I am stupid) for not agreeing with your view.

The'view' existed long before you were born, and it was just as wrong then as it is now.


There is nowhere in Scripture for a bunch of versions either. There must be a foundation for our faith. It must be a Bible.

There must be a foundation for KJVOism to be anything but a man-made myth. So far, none has been presented by its advocates. It's just a myth, whose advocates have tried to build it from the roof down, without any foundation.


Someone might say " Well, my foundation is my faith in Christ". But you couldn't have that faith without the Bible(Romans 10:17). Since all the versions are different, then I cant stand on all of them. Only one the KJB.

By what authority? And if that's your belief, then which Gospel is right? Each of them is different from the others, so, by your reasoning, ONLY ONE can be right.


I think to say God is lying would be unscriptural. I did not say God didn't preserve His Word through the ages. Just that the modern version are not it.

HOW DO YOU KNOW????????


JKB-only did not invade my church it has always been part of my church.

Then it's always had a false doctrine. Not that it prevented it from being a genuine Christian church, but if the false doctrine's still there, you members should work to remove it.


The invading is done around here (where I live) by new versions which always lead to dead liberal churches in my area.

That's the fault of the PEOPLE involved, not the Bible versions. if THAT were the case, we should've abandoned the KJV some time before the American Civil war, as that version has been used by more cults & charlatans than all the other BVs together. Some modern examples are David Koresh, Jim Jones, & Heaven's Gate. If the church membership is spiritually dead, no BV's gonna make it alive. That takes the HOLY SPIRIT.


Maybe its different where you live. The KJB has been around since 1611(some form or version though not the one I carry today) the new versions are just that. They are the invaders.

In 1610, the British had the GENEVA BIBLE, which then was only 50 years old, translated by an eminent group of scholars who had fled for their lives from England, and which was affordable for the common man. Does that make the AV the 'invader' of 1611?


I do not say it is right for anyone to use another version(if I said that or implied that I am sorry). I said I will not force anyone to use a certain version.

But, is your belief CORRECT? Do you have any EVIDENCE to support that belief?

roby-You say that "I parrot",

Yerp-Been there seen it, done that. The KJVOnlyism myth has presented the same ole bunk for quite a few years now, but ITS ADVOCATES CANNOT PROVE ONE WORD OF IT!!!!!!! It's phony as a $3 bill! You've talked the talk-now let's see if you can walk the walk! CAN YOU PROVE ONE WORD OF THE KJVO MYTH TRUE????


my pastor is a "yokel"(not just him but my family and friends) You say I am ignorant and uneducated. You are very insulting and this is how you defend the faith.

If they taught you this false doctrine and themselves believe it, then they DO have a problem. And you may be VERY well-schooled in many things, but what I said is that you're quite uneducated about the versions issue and I STAND behind that statement because the lines you're using have been used by KJVOs for over thirty years. They were proven wrong then, and they're still just as wrong. Evidently, you haven't read the refutations to these incorrect assertions. That doesn't mean you're intellectually-challenged; it simply means you're inexperienced, same as I am in French cuisine or thousands of other subjects. But I'm NOT inexperienced in fighting the KJVO myth.


You apprently have read that book too "How to Win Friends and Influence People". You sound like Mr Ruckman yourself. You both seem to have the same spirit. I do not agree with Dr Ruckman myself though. Most people here have said that KJB-only people imply so many bad things about those that disagree, I really dont see much difference with such people(apperently myself) and roby.

Sorry if I seem harsh, but I've seen HUNDREDS of KJVOs appearing in the different media presenting the SAME OLD GARBAGE that was shot down in the early'70s. It gets OLD after awhile. You people simply CANNOT BACK UP YOUR STATEMENTS!


New versions in their mere existence say that the KJB is wrong. Every new version is saying everyone before it is wrong or less in accuracy. If not why have a new version($$$)?

By your reasoning, Mark says Matthew is wrong, Luke says Mark is wrong and John says Luke is wrong.


I dont like alot of heat though, that is part of the reason I got saved. (actually the only reason I got saved was He came to me). Well, if I have not answered someone's post or question, I am sorry. Post again and I'll try. There have been plenty of posts and junior member 18yr old's are very imperfect. I may not know the answer though. Well I hope everone is having a nice day.
Oh, yeah thank you to eveyone who has posted. I appreciate all the answers. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Wanna answer some questions?

Where was the word of God in English in 1610? Where is the first peep of Scriptural support for ANY one-versionism in any language? Did God retire in 1611 so that He no longer makes His word available in contemporary language as He did for thousands of years?

 

CDG, I don't believe it's asking one too much to ask him/her to provide *PROOF* for a fishing story. You see, God has been presenting His word to all mankind for a long time now, and He's been presenting it in English for quite a few centuries, seeing to it that updated versions were made as needed to reflect the changes He's allowed in the language. All at once we have these cats come along & tell us that God stopped causing His word to be updated, from 1611 onward, and every English version made since then is bogus. This, we believe, is a fishing story.

Why? Because the advocates of this tall tale cannot provide one atom of *PROOF* to verify it. All we have is the OPINIONS of the KJVOnlyists-no EVIDENCE. Just saying "It ain't the KJV" won't do. This is the WORD OF GOD we're discussing, and those who present a doctrine about that word had better be able to back it up. So far, the KJVOs have failed miserably.

I don't have anything against most of those who, because of the devil's deception, hawk this incorrect doctrine. But as a Christian who *KNOWS* this doctrine is wrong, I have a DUTY to fight it.

How do I *KNOW* it's wrong? By its total lack of PROOF, its history, &and its clear man-made origin. God has given us His word for a LONG time now, and just recently within the history of His providence has this doctrine arisen.

If you wish to have any credibility, you should provide a little EVIDENCE for your assertions. None of them originated with you; someone else taught them to you. You should really ask yourself, "How do I KNOW they're right? Where's their EVIDENCE?????" Just taking someone's word for something can lead to an immense amount of folly. I'm not a bit afraid for you to check out anything I say, by whatever source you choose.

Sorry if I sounded harsh before, but my sole intent is to show the KJVO myth false because of its lack of proof. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING we'll ever read is God's word, and if someone's gonna make up some doctrine about it, they'd jolly well better be prepared to back up that doctrine with EVIDENCE.

In Christ,

Cranston

 

Proof? Church History shows the "proof" you seek [snipped]

The mss. that BOMC "bibles" come(that contained the Apocrypha in both testaments as Scripture) from are the same ones the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH uses to make their "bibles";What does that tell you??? Nothing I'm sure....


To sit there and tell us straight faced that "bibles" from those mss. are equal to the MSS.of the Protestant reformation -and the Bibles thereof- is a departure into la-la land,and is blatant denial of Church history and just plain dishonest......

In short,"that dawg wont hunt."

[ February 16, 2004, 01:00 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

 

Cdg: "Ed, I meant that to me the term "liberal" in this
specific area denotes someone who uses modern versions
(if it is not the correct denotation, forgive me)."

I forgive you.

 

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
Proof? Church History shows the "proof" you seek;people have been rejecting the Alexandrian drivel called "bibles" now for centuries..

Not hardly. I suggest you read a few more sources.

The mss. that BOMC "bibles" come(that contained the Apocrypha in both testaments as Scripture) from are the same ones the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH uses to make their "bibles";What does that tell you??? Nothing I'm sure....

Newp! The AV 1611 contains the Apocrypha. Nefore you holler, "They're not included in the TEXT!", ther were considered important to the AV translators, and many a verse of Scripture alludes to them, as you know. And let's not forget the AV's list of "Holy Days" that includes the 'days' of several RCC saints, and includes 'All Saints' Day'. And remember, the TR writer, Erasmus, was a RC. He dedicated his first edition of the TR to Pope Leo X. No matter how you spin it, you cannot remove the RCC influence from the AV/KJV.


To sit there and tell us straight faced that "bibles" from those mss. are equal to the MSS.of the Protestant reformation -and the Bibles thereof- is a departure into la-la land,and is blatant denial of Church history and just plain dishonest......

Not really. What IS dishonest and possibly worse is to tell the peanut gallery that God is limited to just one version of His word, and that all the others are bogus.

In short,"that dawg wont hunt".

But, more pertinent is, "Your hippo won't fly".