Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by SaggyWoman, Jun 23, 2002.
Why would a pastor express a "KJV only" stance from the pulpit?
Uhhh, because he's narrow-minded?
This topic is becoming a beaten dead horse. No one has a problem with espousing a preference, but a view of "only one" translation being correct is preposterous.
Because he truly believes it is God's preserved, blessed Word. And easier to understand.
(for me, anyway)
As Pastors, we will stand before God one day and give account for everything we said from behind our pulpit (or from anywhere else). Knowing this, it is my desire to tell my people what I believe to be the truth; that is that the KJV is God's preserved Word for the English speaking people.
As the shepherd of the flock I must guard against all dangers. I feel that the modern versions that omit major portions of God's Word are dangerous.
That is why I preach what I do.
Asked this of my students - here is a compilation of some responses THEY gave for why a Pastor would commit to such a position:
Psychological manipulation of the parishoners?
Lording HIS knowledge of archaic and meaningless words to a congregation that actually WOULD UNDERSTAND the NIV?
Deceived into thinking it is a reinspiration of the Word of God in Jacobean English in 1611?
Likes the Apocryphal books?
Feels God cannot hear a prayer without a "thee" or a "thou"?
Love the ADDED words and phrases of the KJV over the other versions that don't include those evil additions?
Genuinely feel it is the ONLY Word of God?
Racial bigots who elevate English-only world over the majority of the world's population?
p.s. I tend to agree with my students.
Though I am not a KJV Only, and I do prefer another version for my own study, there are times that I feel the KJV is more appropriate.
At a funeral, the stately wording of the 23rd Psalm is unmatched by any other versions and is therefore, in my opinion, more comforting to the mourners.
At Christmas, the 2nd chapter of Luke sounds best to me when read in KJV. The words are so familiar and it's like an old favorite song in a way.
The Ten Commandments seem to carry more weight in the language of the KJV as long as we recognize that "kill" means "murder."
As for espousing the KJVO perspective from the pulpit, one's personal choice is just that. Heaven forbid that our liberty is ever compromised over such an issue!
I was wondering when English became the foremost language. Even in ESL, it is tough to understand KJV. (Nothing against it, mind you.)
Having come from a background that taught KJV only, I can answer the question in one word...FEAR. They are afraid to be considered a liberal, they are afraid what their friends will think, they are afraid of the Roman Catholic influence on the "other" manuscripts, they like a bully are more afraid then anyone else of these and many other things that could be listed. So they cover up this fear up with silly aruguments and unproveable statements robbing themselves and the congregation of an authentic witness before the community at large. None of these remarks apply to those holding to a KJV preference, I totally respect that position, it is the "KJV only for the English speaking notion" that I find evil. Yes, evil because it is unbiblical.
Let me explain something that may be a misconception. When 'I' say the KJV is God's preserved Word for the English speaking people, what I mean is that God promised in His Word to preserve His Word for you and I. That means that somewhere there is a copy of the Word of God that He wants us to have. I believe, through faith, that the KJV is the most accurate, most reliable, translation. Of course I would include the phrase "for English speaking people" because I speak and read English. A KJV Bible would be useless to anyone who could not read it. For those who can, the Holy Spirit promised to guide us into all truth. If you can't understand it, one of two things are happening.
1. You haven't yielded yourself completely to the Holy Spirit's control so He can shed His light on the Scripture. 1Co 2:13 "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." Or,
2. You are not a child of God.
1 Corinthians 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
All of us believe what we do by faith; our belief in the Word of God is no different. It has nothing to do with "racism," "lording over anyone," or "physchological manipulation." How ludicrous!
No English pastor before 1611 did.
Does a Paster have that much control of your life?
I'm new to the board and have been on several boards. Each board seems to have it's bickering points. Bible translations seems to be the "hot topic" here.
Personally, I have PC Study Bible with several Bible translations on it. I like to compare the different translations for clarity. Why would you say use KJV only. I think a mature Christian is smart enough to realize the ture meaning of Scripture as revealed to them by the Holy Spirit.
Isaiah 40:31 But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.
Because that pastor has misunderstood "preservation", and also has confused his opinion with fact. They have good intentions (trying to preach the truth, trying to protect their congregation, etc.) so for that they should be commended. But, I don't think anyone *intentionally* preaches error, and good intentions doesn't make everything OK. It *is* OK to make mistakes, but mistakes should be corrected.
Pastor Bob some questions for you:
1. Are you saying the Holy Spirit only speaks through the KJV?
2. Are you saying by not using the KJV it is an indication of my unsaved condition?
3. Why does the preservation of God's Word only have to be in only one copy?
4. If it does only have to be in one copy, why not "keep" the originals around, that would make things so much easier wouldn't it?
5. "If you can't understand it, one of two things are happening."
When you say "understand" do you mean actual words or biblical concepts revealed by those words?
First of all, I want to thank you go2church for your proper spirit in asking these questions. It is truly not my desire to be argumentative. I simply expressed what I believe and why I believe it. Here are my answers:
1. I do not believe the Holy Spirit speaks only through the KJV. I believe the Holy Spirit can speak through a gospel song, a gospel tract, or anything else that contains the Word of God. I believe the modern versions "contain" the Word of God but is not "the" Word of God preserved for you and I today. The reasons I believe that go back to the Greek texts that each version originated from. I believe the "Textus Receptus" is a true and accurate copy of the originals. I believe that by faith.
2. I am not saying that using a KJV or not using a KJV has anything whatsoever to do with salvation. I believe like Baptist have down through the ages that salvation is by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ plus nothing, minus nothing. What I said was that if a person cannot understand the Word of God, he/she may want to do as Paul suggests 2Corinthians 13:5 "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?"
3. Preservation is a doctrine that, once again, we believe by faith. I believe that God has preserved His Word in the KJV and not in the modern versions because of the differences in the Greek texts from which they originated. The KJV and the modern versions are not the same. They have major differences. That's why they both cannot be God's Word.
4. I couldn't read the originals. Neither could you unless you can read Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. The originals were used over and over again until they wore out. If you and I use our Bibles like we should they will soon wear out. The accurate copies of the originals soon wore out. The copies of the copies soon wore out etc... That is why the doctrine of preservation is so important.
5. When I say "can't understand it," I mean spiritual truths revealed in the Word of God. We have dictionaries and concordances to help us with the words we don't understand. How amazed I am each time the Holy Spirit sheds new light on a passage that I have read dozens of times before. It may be after I look up a word in the Greek or Hebrew and find a whole warehouse of truths. That's when I can't wait until Sunday to share God's Word with my people.
Again, thank you for your kind attitude. I really don't want to argue but I hate it when I am sterotyped because of what I believe. I know good people, saved people who are serving the Lord who do not believe as I do about the KJV. That's between them and God. As Pastor, I have a responsibility to shepherd my flock in a way that God is pleased. I don't care to please man because that is often impossible.
1Thess. 2:4 "But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts."
Hi Pastor Bob,
Thanks for answering those questions for go2church, I was interested in how you'd answer them as well. I'm very glad to see you haven't made it a salvation issue as some more extreme KJV-Only supporters have.
But I have a follow-up question. A few times in your response you said you believe these things by faith. But I don't understand where this faith comes from. Nowhere in scripture are we encouraged to have this faith, so why do you preach it as God's truth when it is only your personal opinion and preference? I mean, it's fine to have this opinion, but shouldn't you be telling your listeners that this is only your opinion?
Because you have this "faith" of your own accord rather than from the scriptures, doesn't it only cause confusion to preach it as God's truth when simple questions cause it to break down? For example, you say "I believe the "Textus Receptus" is a true and accurate copy of the originals. I believe that by faith." But there are several editions of the TR, and they all are slightly different. And the KJV matches none of them perfectly. If any of your listeners were to look into this, they would see that this is true - so if you preach your opinion as "God's truth" instead of your "opinion", will it not confuse them at best, or cause them to doubt you in general at worst?
You ask a fair and honest question. Let me start by quoting a few scriptures:
Hab. 2:4, Rom. 1:17, Gal. 3:11, and Heb. 10:38 all say, "The just shall live by faith."
Rom. 14:23 "And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."
Every major doctrine in the Word of God we believe by faith. It is not a matter of my opinion but of my faith in the Word of God. By faith we believe that God created the earth. Why? Because God's Word tells us so. We believe God's Word.
We believe by faith that trusting Jesus as our personal Savior will save us. Why? Because God's Word tells us so. We believe God's Word.
We believe by faith that God preserved His Word for you and I. Why? Because God's Word says so. Again, we believe God's Word.
I believe that the KJV is that preserved Word of God for you and I who speak English. Is the KJV inspired? No. Are the Originals from which it, and it alone originated inspired? Yes, I believe they are. I believe the copies of those originals were preserved by God so that you and I have an accurate, reliable, trustworthy copy of God's Word today. That preserved copy I believe to be the Texus Receptus from which the KJV was translated.
Do not confuse the KJV with the Textus Receptus. The KJV has been "revised" a number of times. The Textus Receptus has not. The KJV is an English translation of the Textus Receptus. The modren versions are translated from texts other than the Textus Receptus.
Let me be quick to say that I am not a "Ruckmanite." I do not subscribe to the teaching of Peter Ruckman.
What I preach to my people is the truth of God's Word that He has shown me through His Word. If I deal with a subject that is controversial, I try my best not to add my own personal opinions that may be misunderstood. You'll never go wrong sticking with the Bible.
I honestly believe my position on the KJV is a biblical position; that is why I preach and teach that way. Let me say this, I seldom have to preach on this topic. The church I Pastor was Psatored by my predecessor for 25 years. He taught them properly concerning the Word of God.
Actually, this is exactly my point. We believe these things by faith because God's word tells us so. But why do you believe, "by faith" (and preach to others as God's truth), the TR "is a true and accurate copy of the originals" or "God has preserved His Word in the KJV and not in the modern versions" when God's word does not tell us these things?
The TR has been revised more times, and more significantly, than the KJV. I'm sure many know the story of how 1 John 5:7 was not added to the TR until the 3rd edition, and then under protest. Bibles translated from early editions of the TR (eg. Luther's German version) do not have 1 John 5:7. There are several other such changes between editions of the TR. The TR underwent several editions, both before and after the publication of the KJV. And there are numerous places where the KJV differs from all editions of the TR. See http://www.bible-researcher.com/received.html for a list of many of them.
There are English translations that follow the TR more closely than the KJV does, such as Green's LITV.
This is what I'm asking about. Where did he show you these things in his word? And why do these things stand against verifiable facts?
[ July 17, 2002, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]
The Textus Receptus is also known as the Majority Text. It is know as such because 95% of the extant manuscripts agree with these accumulated texts. The Textus Receptus is not a "version" of God's Word, it is a majority of texts written and copied that are in agreement with each other. If a page or a section did not agree with the majority it was discarded or placed on a shelf and was not used. The KJV Bible was translated using these texts that are in agreement with each other.
The texts from which we have the NKJV, NIV, RSV, and others are the 5% that are not in agreement with the majority of extant manuscripts.
It is not really a matter of which version is older or better, it is a matter of which version most accurately resembles the originals.
Again, the doctrine of preservation comes to play in this situation. Let me ask you a sincere question: Do you believe that God preserved His Word? If so, what version is His Word preserved in?
It is obvious from the website that you gave me that all version are not the same. Many have major differences. Which one is right?
I don't understand where this faith comes from.[BrianT]
"I know the Pastor is probably answering this already, but Brian, he said it so well, how I feel about things. I'm not educated like y'all & I've had a real tuff-time answering many of your scholarly questions...(as if ya couldn't figure that one out ...but ever since the Lord saved me nearly 50yrs. ago, I have ALWAYS walked by FAITH, not by SIGHT.(2Cor.5:7KJV). It was a KJBible that was 'just there' then, & it's been a KJBible that's 'been there' since. I don't know where it came from, just as I don't know where God came from... So my "FAITH" keeps me going and going and going....not the many so-called MVs that can be "seen". That's all the homegrown cornpone I have fer ya, today, son. God Bless.
Hi Pastor Bob,
The TR is different from the MT. Similar, but different.
You tell me. The website I gave you listed differences between editions of the TR. The website I could give you that lists differences of the TR from the MT is substantially larger.
I believe God preserved his word. The KJV is the preserved word of God. The NIV is the preserved word of God. The NKJV, NASB, RSV, etc. are the preserved word of God. The Septuagint, Peshitta, and Vulgate are the preserved word of God. The issue is not about the fact of preservation, but the definition of preservation.
I agree, which brings me back to the main question I don't understand your answer to, and brings this thread back on topic: Why do you believe, "by faith" (and preach to others as God's truth), the TR "is a true and accurate copy of the originals" or "God has preserved His Word in the KJV and not in the modern versions" when God's word does not tell us these things, and it stands in oppostion of verifiable facts?
Let me put it another way: how do you personally distinguish between what God's word says and your own opinion on a subject?