Featured Pro-KJV but not a KJO

Are you suggesting that you do not know of the KJV-only church that was pastored by Peter Ruckman?

Do you not know of the KJV-only church pastored by D. A. Waite?

Do you not know of other churches that are pastored by authors of KJV-only books?

For example, Roy Branson, author of the 1996 KJV-only book entitled KJV 1611: Perfect, was pastor of a KJV-only church in Bristol, Tennessee.

 

We have quite a few KJVO churches around here. I only know of one that would most likely go that far.

 

the KJV is based on the text of the humanist Erasmus! who was very much UN-Reformed!!!

 

The KJV gets a very important texts for the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, wrong!

"and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13)

"και επιφανειαν της δοξης του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου"

It can ONLY mean, "and appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (One Person, the Lord Jesus Christ)

As it does in 2 Peter 1:1, "of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:", where the Greek, "ου θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου", should be translated, "f our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" (One Person, the Lord Jesus Christ)

Futher, their "Calvinistic" bias it all too clear in Acts 2:47, where it reads, "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.". The Greek is, "ο δε κυριος προσετιθει τους σωζομενους καθ ημεραν τη εκκλησια", which should be translated, "And the Lord added to them day by day those that were saved"

Likewise in John's Gospel, they incorrectly translate the Greek, "μονογενης" (1:18, etc), by "only-begotten", whereas the Greek is from ", "μόνος and γένος", literally, "of a single kind", or, better, "unique". If John wished to mean "only-begotten", then he would have used the correct Greek word, "μονογέννητος", which he does not!

etc, etc, etc

 

If you had read my post without rushing to judgement, you would have understood that what I meant was, other than the one I mentioned, I know of NO KJVO churches in MY AREA. But, it seems you like to argue, which I have no desire to do.

 

I figure that KJO don't much like me although I thought one had liberty in Christ and could use any acceptable translation that one wanted and could even be KJO if one so chose. In the '80s, a lot of people told me that the more recent translations had altered Scripture so I stuck with KJV.

Fundamentalism has other points of disagreement with me but they are few in number.

 

one important thing that I have learned in almost 40 years a believer in Jesus. Don't pay much attention to try to be "acceptable" or "pleasing" to anyone, other than the Lord!

 

Can you give us two or three verses where the KJV "translation choice" is better than the NKJV.

Also, why not recommend the WEB version that does not include some of the egregious error in the TR.

 

1 Thessalonians 5:22,
NKJV, "Abstain from every form of evil."
KJV, "Abstain from all appearance of evil."

Colossians 1:15,
NKJV, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."
KJV, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:"

 

That seems to place Jesus being among the creatures though!

 

That is one tenet held by many Kjvo though, that unless one was saved by the kjv being used, not really saved!

 

(

When He became Man, John 1:10, John 1:14, He did become part of His own creation. In His bodily resurrection He became the beginning of His new creation the New Heaven and Earth, Colossians 1:18, Revelation 3:14 per Colossians 1:18 being the firstborn from the dead.

 

Thanks.

I agree, perception or appearance seems the closest choice, for 1 Thessalonians 5:22.
As far as Colossians 1:15, I expect we understand the verse differently. However, I can certainly agree, the KJV is every bit as good a translation as the NKJV.

 

Please see my Post#32

 

He was not a created creature though....

 

Is the second phrase, "firstborn of all creation or creatures" referring to the invisible God, or God in the flesh?

If God in the flesh, would He be the first born of the New Creation?

Could first born refer to being highest in rank, i.e. superior to all creation or creatures?

 

Yes, but the Kjv rendering just make sit seem that he is somehow created!

 

I asked three questions, and Y1 says "yes."

 

When became flesh, He became a created creature in that He became part of His creation, being a real man, John 114. He just never stopped being the Creator, John 1:10.

 

He was born as a real man child. In the resurrection He was the firstborn from the dead becoming the first immortal man, Colossians 1:18, Romans 8:29.