Why would you be this?

Then why should this doctrine, which is not taught in scripture and when you don't even know where faith in this doctrine comes from, be preached as God's truth? Why should anyone accept this approach to KJV-onlyism, when this same approach towards anything else would never be acceptable?

 

Brian, do you believe the OT was originally given (for the most part) in Hebrew? Do you believe the NT was originally given in Greek? Of so, what verses do you point to and say, "This is why I believe the OT was written in Hebrew and the NT was written in Greek?"

I suspect it may be a problem of sementics when someone says "I accept it by faith."

When I use a Greek NT I usually rely on Scrivener's 1894 GNT. I rely on it because I believe it is an excellent representation of the Byzantine textform, mildly eclectic, and probably is the best modern day representation of the words of the autographa. When asked why I believe that, I have to say "by faith." Not faith in a chapter and verse of a biblical statement, but faith in the scholarship involved in transmitting the bible from the autographs to the present-day examples. I can't find a single verse of scripture which says "Scriveners 1894 is the Greek NT to use." But then, neither can anyone else find a verse which says "UBS/4 is the Greek NT to use." Or any other representitive of the Greek NT. And the same can be said for the OT. Why beat the "by faith" argument to death when, in the final analysis it applies to all of our positions. Some of our faith is more informed than others, but to some extent we accept all of it be faith, do we not?

 

First let me say that you sound like an educated man. I realize that I am not going to change your mind nor are you going to change my mind. I can live with that. I am not a KJV Only to the point that you see it my way or we can have no fellowship. I do see this subject different from you. As long as you are a born-again, bought-by-the-blood, believer we will be able to discuss this when we get to heaven. Amen?

The reason I believe by faith and preach to others that the TR from which we get the KJV is God's preserved Word today is that the Received Text was used exclusively by the early church and also by many groups thereafter:
1. The Apostolic Churches used the Received Text
2. The Churches in Palestine used the Received Text.
3. The Syrian Church at Antioch used the Recieved Text.
4. The Peshitta Syriac Version (150 A.D.) was based on the received text.
5. papyrus #75 used the RT.
6. The Italic Church in Northern Itlay (157 A.D.) used the RT.
7. The Gallic Church in Southern France (177 A.D.) used the RT.
8. The Celtic Church in Great Britain used the RT.

The Bible was completed in 90-100 A.D. They had the originals right there in their hands. These churches used this text and nothing else.

9. The Greek Orthodox Church used the RT.
We don't agree with many of their doctrines or practices but they used the RT. Why? They are Greeks. They know the Greek language. They recognized the RT as the Word of God.

10. The Erasmus Greek New Testament (1516) used the Receieved Text.
11. The Complutension Polygot (1522) used the Received Text.
A Roman Catholic Cardinal named Ximenes edited it yet it was based on the RT.

12. Martin Luther's German Bible (1522) was based on the Received Text.
13. William Tyndale's Bible (1525) used the RT.
14. The Coverdale Bible (1535) used the RT.
15. The Matthews Bible (1537) used the RT.
16. The Geneva Bible (1557-60) used the RT.
17. The Bishops' Bible (1568) used the RT.
18. The Spanish Version (1569) used the RT.
19. The Beza Greek New Testament (1598) used the RT.
20. The King James Version (1611) used the Received Text.

If was good enough for all these men, it is good enough for me. Again, it is a matter of faith. I'm sorry I can't explain it in a way that makes it clearer.

I don't fully understand the Trinity yet I accpet it by faith. My faith in the doctrine preservation is the same way.

How do I personally distinguish between what God's Word says and my personal opinion? I hope that after all these years studying God's Word and preaching God's Word that my personal opinions line up with God's Word. When they do not, I have no recourse but to alter my opinions so that they do line up with God's Word.

When I get into an area that is "speculative" like, "What will heaven be like?" "How old will be be in heaven?" and such questions, I make my people very aware that what I say is mere speculation derived from what I've read in God's Word. There are some things will not know until we get to heaven.

I don't know about you but I'm looking forward to that day more and more the older I get.

 

BrianT~I was meaning I don't know how or where my KJBible came from---it was just there. There was never anything else before it & it was used in all our families as far back as I can remember. It was just there. I accepted that. (I've never questioned where God came from either). Through the latter years and especially of late, I am aware there are "other" bibles (another Jesus, if you will), but I stick to the straight stick. All your sticks don't even line up with each other, do they? If you had to pick just ONE stick and use it as your standard, which one would it be? Mine is the KJBible.

 

DocCas and Pastor Bob,

I am not opposing accepting something by faith. That is not what I am saying, or what this thread is about. I am asking about something that you accept by faith that has no scriptural support that get preached as "God's truth" instead of "Bob's opinion". *Especially* when it is opposition to factual evidence.

DocCas, I "have faith" that the OT was predominantly written in Hebrew. But there is a large difference here: there is no real evidence to the contrary, it is generally universally accepted by the church, and I'm not preaching it as "God's truth". But some preachers are preaching KJV-onlyism, which has mountains of evidence against it (even you don't agree with it ), and has never been accepted by the church in general, as "God's truth". I am asking why.

Amen.

That's fine. But I could go through the list and show you where each differs from the other (and even many instances where they agree with the "modern versions" in opposition to the KJV!) The "Received Text" has variations throughout it, throughout history.

But none of these men believed or taught that any specific edition of the TR was a true and accurate copy of the originals. And I'm not against the TR. And again, I'm not against you having faith in this, I am wondering by what authority you tell your congregation that the concept of KJV-onlyism or TR-onlyism is God's truth and not just your preference.

Suppose a preacher at your house for dinner, and during the discussion he announces that he believes the Latin Vulgate is the pure word of God, and Knox's translation into English was the only English Bible we should use, because it was a true and accurate copy of the originals - and that his claim is "God's truth". When you challeng him on this, he simply says he "has faith" that this is true. When you pressure him further for something more authoritative than his own personal opinion, he states that the Vulgate was the main scriptures of the Church in general for approximately 1000 years, and that the first English translation of the NT (Wycliffe's) was translated from the Vulgate, establishing that God wanted English versions to be translated from the Vulgate and not the TR. You finish your dinner, obviously disagreeing, but content to let this man have his own opinion. Now suppose, instead of him announcing this over dinner in your home, he instead announces it over your pulpit Sunday morning. This man has just told your entire congregation this doctrine, "by faith", and claimed it is "God's truth". Would you stand for this? How could you possibly refute him? You could publically disagree, but all you offer instead is the exact same package, just with a different colored bow on the box.

What you are doing now is no different from this hypothetical preacher.

It's one thing to have a personal opinion by faith. It is entirely another matter to preach it to a congregation as God's truth.

That's fine. You can have the opinion that only the KJV is the word of God. But you must realize that what you just described is entirely subjective, and that you believe this for no other reason than familiarity. What if the Bible that "was always there" in your family tree was the Geneva Bible? Right here, right now, do you think it would be wrong or right to just accept the Geneva as the only word of God, and that everything else is corrupt and should not be used?

No, I definitely will not. You keep making this worse, Granny. If only the KJV has the right Jesus, the right Jesus didn't exist until 1611. I'm sorry Granny, but your claims border on heresy in my opinion, and you really need to think about this.

I praise God I don't have to make this choice.

Brian

[ July 17, 2002, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

I praise God I don't have to make this choice.[BrianT]

"And I will pray that God will give you peace, BrianT."

 

First, I think there is some confusion about being a KJV Ony preacher. Again, I am not a Ruckmanite.

The KJV has been accepted by the church. Prior to 1900, there was no Bible with the words, "King James Version" on the cover. All that it read was, "Holy Bible," yet it was the KJV. The KJV was the only Bible accepted by the church as a whole.

If a preacher came into my home and made a statement like the one you mentioned, I would have a good, friendly debate with him and tell him that the Latin Vulgate is not a part of the Received Text. It is a part of the Nestle/Aland Greek Text now commonly known as the Wescott/Hort text. I would explain that even these texts do not agree with each other and many times words were added because of conjunture and for no other reason. The translators simply wanted it read that way.

I would not have a man that was not a KJV only man in my pulpit. Call that narrow-minded if you want but I have to stand before God and give account of myself for the way I Pastored the Church.

If I'm wrong about the KJV, what will it matter in eternity. I'll still have used a Bible that is as good as the other versions. If I'm right about the KJV but still hold other versions to the same position, then I have caused others to err and will have to give account. I'm playing it safe.

I don't know if you're a Pastor or not Brian. You may not understand this position unless you are.

 

Hi Pastor Bob,

I presented the hypothetical situation of the Vulgate-only preacher not to see why you would disagree with that preacher, but to show you that you, like him, preached personal opinion as God's truth.

Yes, comparing those two sentences, I am a bit confused: Don't you stand in your own pulpit? But I don't think you are a Ruckmanite, you would have condemned me to hell by now. But most KJV-only believers are not Ruckmanites. If you are not "KJV-only", what other English Bible versions do you use (as "God's word") at your church?

Yes, the church has accepted the KJV. But the church has never accepted KJV-onlyism or TR-perfectionism. The church has accepted that the KJV is excellent, but not perfect, and not the only word of God. In fact, I have been unable to find true KJV-onlyism supported before the 1930s. And even then, it appears the first to support it was a Seventh-day Adventist pastor. I'm not trying to play "guilty by association", but only trying to illustrate the point that true KJV-onlyism is in opposition to millennia of Church doctrine.

You say you're "playing it safe": is saying KJV-onlyism is God's truth instead of Bob's opinion playing it safe? Play it safer.

I am not a pastor. But I understand being accoutable for one's words, and I understand pastors sometimes confuse their own opinion with truth.

God bless, and thanks for the friendly discussion,
Brian

[ July 17, 2002, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

Yes, comparing those two sentences, I am a bit confused: Don't you stand in your own pulpit? But I don't think you are a Ruckmanite, you would have condemned me to hell by now. But most KJV-only believers are not Ruckmanites. If you are not "KJV-only", what other English Bible versions do you use (as "God's word") at your church?

</font>[/QUOTE]I am not a pastor. But I understand being accoutable for one's words, and I understand pastors sometimes confuse their own opinion with truth.

God bless, and thanks for the friendly discussion,
Brian[/QUOTE]

Thank you Brian for the discussion as well. Let me clarify one thing if I can. I am a KJV only man to the extent that I use only the KJV. I believe it is God's preserved Word. I do not use the modern translation because I deem them unreliable.

I am not a KJV only man to the extent that I believe the translators of the KJV were as equally inspired as the original authors. I do not believe that you have to be shown the plan of salvation from a KJV to be saved.

There is a difference in KJV only camps. I wanted you to know where I stood.

I will be the first to agree with you that we Pastors do at times interject our personal opinions. Hopefully they line up with the Word of God the majority of the time. Heaven help us if they don't.

God Bless You,
Pastor Bob

 

Hey Pastor Bob,

I just noticed you're from Xenia, KS. I attended Temple Baptist in El Dorado for a while a few years back. You probably know the church, it is also a KJV-O IFB church. Small world.

Brian

 

Pastor Bob
Thanks for the answers. In my opinion from what I have read you hold to a more to preference of underlying text, I can totally respect that.
If there was a new translation based soley on the text used by the KJV translators, would you use it? This of course assumes the translation is accurate to the text.
I have said this before, but the TR is so tied to the KJV that we will never see a truely new translation based on the TR. Of course this is an opinion, but over the years the best we have seen has been weak updates.

Now I know some would say, if it ain't broke don't fix it, but this is a mere hypothetical question.

 

Yes, I would use it and have no problem with it. It is my opinion that if the new translation were in English, the end result would be a version much like, if not identical to the KJV.

I can confidently support all foriegn translations that are based on the Textus Receptus. God has given us at this church the privilege of supporting 43 missionaries. The overwhelming majority of these are serving non-English speaking people. I can lift up their Bibles and declare them to be the Word of God just like I do my KJV because it is based on and has its origin in the Textus Receptus which I believe is the texts in which God has preserved His Word.

 

Well, I'm not getting involved in this again. I've only been saved 3 years, and I'm 14, so therefore I havn't been to seminary, but ya'll know I stand for the KJV.
But as for the questions of faith, I guess I'll explain why ya'll can't seem to get that part. Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. {I did not quote that directly, but you get the jist of it.}
In so many places, we see the people of God living by faith.
Noah, who had never seen rain, had faith to build an arc in a desert, even though people made fun of him.
Esther had faith {and a whole lot of bravery, I might add} when she went before her husband to plead for the safty of her people.
Job had faith that God still cared for him, even when he lost it all.
Ruth had faith to leave all familiar to go to a strange contry and accept the Lord.
Peter had faith by proclaiming Jesus was Christ when everyone else thought he was a prophet or John the Baptist.
Stephan had faith, when he preached uncompromisingly to the sinners and was stoned.
I could go on and on and on. People must walk by faith all the time. Faith is trusting God even when you don't fully understand it.
We KJVO's have faith that we read, study,and as for the men, preach God's inspired, infallible, and inerrent Word when when we use the KJV.
Other versions contain the Word of God, are do you have complete assurance you have the word of God?
When I pick up my Bible and read it, I have no doubt that I'm reading the word of God. It's a matter of faith. I simply trust it as God's word and for me, that settles it.
Now of course we believe in God, but have we ever seen God? No. {and don't tell me you have, or I'll wonder about your sanity! }
Have we seen the textus receptus? {exuse the spelling, but as you know, that isn't my stong point} No. But I trust that my Bible was translated from it.
Now as I've said before, I'm no theologion, as we all know, but I accept this by faith.
In our Saviour, Abby

 

Yes, I would use it and have no problem with it. It is my opinion that if the new translation were in English, the end result would be a version much like, if not identical to the KJV.
</font>[/QUOTE]Have you seen Green's LITV? It is translated from the TR, and more closely than the KJV is.

You can read it (and download it, and purchase it) at http://www.litvonline.com/

Would you consider this "the word of God"?

Would you allow it to be preached from your pulpit?

Are you going to tell your congregation that there exists an English translation that follows the TR more closely than the KJV?

I'm not asking to be confrontational. But I do think these are interesting questions to ask a KJV-only, TR-perfection preacher.

 

Hi Abby,

That was an excellent, excellent post.

But what if someone has faith in an idea that is in conflict with the idea you have faith in? How do we determine which idea is correct? Do we not then examine the facts, if they are available to us?

For example, one man has faith that the statue of liberty is made of cement. Another has faith that it is made of metal. What should they do?

God bless,
Brian

[ July 18, 2002, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

Pastor Bob,

I appreciate your kind and sensible demeanor in this discussion.

A couple of points. You listed a long line of "users of the Received Text." But I would suggest that it is not so simple. The established facts of extant manuscripts lead us another direction because the texts on which the TR is based are very rare in early church history. In fact, based on the evidence we now have, they were actually the minority text until the 9th century. My point is to say that it is conjecture to say that the apostolic and early church used the Received Text as it stands today. I could just as easily say that the apostolic and early church used the Eclectic text and you would have no factual basis on which to disagree. I think we need to be careful throwing around lists and assertions like that. They simply cannot be proven.

By the same token, it is an unprovable argument that words were deleted from the autographa in the eclectic text. Since we do not have the autographa, such an assertion does not carry much weight. What we can say with certainty is that the extant manuscripts are not in full agreement in any text form. There are many variations (additions/subtractions) in the Byzantine/MajText form itself before you ever considered the other textforms. There can be no absolute factual certainty since God has not preserved his word in such a manner. We can say that we believe the TR is the best representative, or that the MajT is the best representative, or that the eclectic is the best representative. But it seems to me that those positions cannot be held with dogmatism.

As for your statement, I would not have a man that was not a KJV only man in my pulpit., being a pastor, I do understand. However, I am the opposite. I would never have a man who was KJVOnly in my pulpit. There is simply too much at stake and for me, I would not intentionally let my people be exposed to that. They have been taught properly concerning this issue. They understand that any faithful translation can and should be used in the study of word. I will give account for the way that I pastor this church and that encourages me in decisions like this. However, I guess that simply means that we won't be speaking for each other.

As for being wrong about the KJV, I would argue that there is something at stake eternally, at least in terms of sanctification. If we do not expose and encourage our people to use a Bible that is written in the common language of the day, have we not hindered their spiritual growth? My experience has been that those who use the KJV spend a lot of time trying to "figure it out." I often get questions from people wanting to know what such and such means or what so and so was saying in a particular passage. I am always quick to use a modern language version. The KJV is great for those who understand it. For those who do not, it is a hindrance. A newly saved and baptized lady in my church (who was a lifelong catholic) told me one night that she felt guilty reading her NIV because it was so easy to understand. Unfortunately that is the mindset of too many people. They feel the Bible is supposed to be hard to understand.

However, as I say, I do appreciate your kindness and willingness to offer some support for your position. Unfortunately, both are lacking far too often.

 

Thank you for your kind words. It truly is not my objective to be mean-spirited in any way. Pastor Larry, I wish God's richest blessings on you and your church.

At Your Service For HIS Sake,
Pastor Bob
II Cor. 4:5

 

Why would a pastor express a "KJV only" stance from the pulpit?

===========================================

The Greek New Testament that seems to be the Bible is the Textus Receptus.
Other Bible with the exception of the NKJV remove passages that the Church fathers had in their Bible.

 

The problem I have is this--I've got my KJV Scofield--pretty good, huh!?? I study from it--write my sermon around it and its words and phrases! The on Sunday, my "Know-it-all" deacon wants to know some more--but yet he comes with his NIV. He doesn't have the exact same word that I'm looking at in my KJV. So when I am bearing down on a particular word in a passage--he might have another word that describes more or less the same meaning--but yet . . . !And then he says to me after the service "That KJV blah, blah, blah!" I just wish that if I am going to preach from the KJV--that every attend-dee would purchase the same--where we can be on the same page(mentally), on the same word, on the same phrase, etc. Personally, I like the KJV--but I know I ain't gonna go to hell if somebody has another other than mine!