Featured Some Questions For KJVO Folks

Ok, I’ll bite....

My faith is in THE BIBLE. And yes, I see my FAITH IN THE BIBLE, as a direct link to my faith in Christ!
And yes I understand, that there are many who have no such faith in THE BIBLE, yet claim to be Christians. But the truth, isn’t up for a vote!

Oh by the way, it just so happens that THE BIBLE in my language is the KJB.
------------------------

This is a valid question. I understand that some people “accept” more changes than others do, but there is a line that I do not cross.

Lets use 1John 5:7 for an example....
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” (1 John 5:7)

Wycliffe Bible(1382)
7 For thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in heuene, the Fadir, the Sone, and the Hooli Goost; and these thre ben oon.

Tyndale’s Bible
7 For ther are thre which beare recorde in heuen the father the worde and the wholy
goost. And these thre are one
(These are acceptable to me.)

The NIV
7 For there are three that testify:
(This is not acceptable to me!)
------------------------

It depends upon the context.
In most cases, I don’t see it as sinful; Only foolish.

It’s foolish for a Christian, to spend time “studying” a Bible, that may be leaving out words or verses here and there.

 

I have read books and articles where other versions than the KJB were used many times. That said, I would usually look up the verse in the KJB.

On occasion, but most sermons I have listened to used the KJB.

They can be, when the NIV translates "sarx" as sinful nature I believe that is a serious error, as scripture says Jesus came in the flesh "sarx".

I am not familiar with Tyndale and the Bishop's Bible. I DO NOT like the differences between the KJB and the NKJV.

Oh, I believe many persons who use the MVs are authentic Christians, I just believe they use a corrupt version of scripture.

However, as was mentioned in another thread, it is difficult for me to imagine a person truly being saved who does not believe the Bible is the word of God. What is their trust in? The words of man? How can that person even believe he is trusting God when he believes the scriptures are simply the writings of fallible men? So, I have difficulty with this concept. We are saved by trusting the Word of God. I am not trusting what men told me about God, I am trusting what God said directly to me.

 

Your assuming the KJV translation is valid, so taht begs the question of other versions being right/wrong!

And is it faith in the KJV or faith in jesus that saves us?

Does God EVER tell us in the KJV to place trusting faith in the bible?

 

Yes, however... my bias certainly shows as Im a little disappointed when it happens, just my ish.

Lots yup

I Cant speak too much into this, as im not well versed in a ton of other translations - However the big thing for me is the verses that are missing in a lot of other translations (ie: Matthew 17:21) also Im weird and think that the "thee, thy, and thou" are EXTREMELY important for properly expressing the authors intentions. "you" doesn't cut it

Officially left my knowledge zone: as far as the NKJV is concerned - Henry Morris talked about how it was a decent translation, but the KJV was superior in linguistics - I would side with him on this. I used a NKJV for a while when I first got saved - Once I moved to the KJV, I have never been able to stomach anything else.

I definitely think they are saved... Just dont agree with their Bible translation.

 

This is one of the scariest things I've read on this forum.

I know you and I can get into a deep Scriptural and theological exchange, but our faith isn't in the Bible our faith is in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is not the Bible and vice versa. It is biblio-idolatry to say our faith is in the Bible.

 

You cannot separate faith in God and faith in His Word (Rev. 19:13).

 

I don't read many Christian books, but the few I have often quote other versions.

I have, but most use the KJB. I didn't plan it that way, it just seems most use the KJB.

I believe other versions can and often do give a different meaning from the KJB such as John 7:8, or Mat 5:22. I have actually noted many dozens of verses that give a different meaning over the years, and wish I would have written them down. I think from now on I will keep a list of these verses that give a different meaning.

I am not familiar with these versions so cannot comment on them. I have read a little about the NKJV and do not like it.

Not sure what you mean by this question. Part of my belief in the KJB is based on the fact that Jesus himself is called The Word of God in scripture, and that Jesus must be perfect to be our Saviour. Therefore his Word must be perfect as well. I believe this by faith, I cannot prove it, so don't write back asking for proof!!

 

That sums it up right there. Thanks.

 

Yes, but in Romans 7:25 the NIV translates sarx as "sinful nature'

NIV- Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in my sinful nature [fn] a slave to the law of sin

Why the inconsistency? Why does the NIV translate sarx as sinful nature here when speaking of men, but correctly translates it as flesh when pertaining to Jesus?

The NIV inserts a presupposition here. Romans 7:25 is actually scriptural evidence that man is NOT born with a sinful nature. Men are "flesh". Adam and Eve were created flesh, and God said they were VERY GOOD.

When you redefine words for one thing, like redefining flesh to say sinful nature.

The devils believe and tremble. You can believe in God and not be saved if you are trusting in your own works or righteousness.

Never said it was.

You could have fooled me, it seems most folks who do not believe in the KJB do not believe in the other versions either, they often say all versions are full of mistakes and errors. How do you trust something full of mistakes and errors?

 

What I don't understand is if the forum rules prohibit attacks against translations, of which I have been infracted for several times, then why is it permissible to attack the KJV and KJVO's??? Even if you all do not believe that the KJV is the word of God only as we KJVOs do, I'm pretty sure you still at least consider it "reliable translation" and never claim that it is NOT the word of God. SO why the double-standard on the rules about attacking translations?

 

First, I am no longer a Moderator on the BV/T Forum. I was several years ago and am just now finishing up with my therapy. In those days, there were multiple heated debates daily.

Secondly, don't confuse statements of preference for an attack on a version. The rules are very clear as to what is acceptable. Intelligent debate about one's opinion of your version's superiority or another version's inferiority is not against the rules unless you resort to childish name-calling or offensive statements about any Bible version or the person holding an opposing viewpoint.

Granted, your position is going to be misrepresented. That is a wonderful time to manifest grace and humilty and express your position in a mature manner. If that doesn't work, simply bow out of the discussion and ignore any attempts to suck you back into it.

 

See what those other translations will do to you!! LOL

Thanks for the response although I do believe that rhetorical titles like this thread themselves are meant pejoratively against KJVO proponents. The ensuing responses from the author make that obvious. Otherwise the rest is good advice.

 

While that may be true, isn't it equally true that there are those who "trust the Bible" but have not trusted Christ?

 

:laugh:
LAUGHED OUT LOUD at this statement....

Grace to you, Pastor Bob,
BiR

 

“Jesus Christ is not the Bible and vice versa.”
THIS.... is one of the scariest things I've read on this forum.....
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)
and
“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)

etc. etc.

 

IMO (and notice that I qualified this as my opinion), it is very dangerous to state that "the KJV is the Word of God only."
1. Do you really believe that "the KJV is the Word of God only?" Are you saying that God's Word is only preserved in Early Modern English for the entire world? Does that mean that someone in Zaire would have to learn English to have God's Word?
2. What about the Geneva Bible, which predates the KJV? I have one and it's very similar to my KJV. What about any translation of God's Word that predates the KJV? Does that mean that God's Word did not exist in the English language prior to 1611?
3. Are you using a real KJV? I am, and have since college. My KJV has more than 66 Books - in my KJV, the Book of Matthew does not follow
the Book of Malachi.
4. Have you ever considered that a KJVO stance could be a potential stumbling block for a newer or less-mature Believer? Is it really worth it to exclude all other translations of God's Word - to the extent that it could cause someone to stumble?
5. Do you wonder what a lost world thinks about seeing a church sign with a KJVO statement on it? After all, I have personally never seen a church sign with "ESV only" or "NIV only."

Bear in mind that I am not calling KJV Onlyism a sin or heresy, I simply hope that you have thought about this belief that "the KJV is the Word of God only," especially given the fact that the Anabaptists that lived in the 1600's certainly did not share your enthusiasm for the KJV.

Have a great weekend,
BiR

 

If Wescott & Hort was used in the translation, I reject that translation.
They definitely "had an agenda", and it was not a good one.