A new King James Bible defense book

KJV, you're Baptist so you can post anywhere but the Private Baptist Women's Forum (unless you're a gal!)

We do ask that Version Debates be kept within this forum. Some forums all no debate!

Diane

 

I don't know an "MVO". I don't know a single person who says that the KJV, Geneva, and other older versions are not God's Word nor condemn people that choose an older version.

What you apparently are referring to as "mvo" are people whose views on inspiration and preservation fit into the same range as the founding fundamentalists of 100 years ago as well as the Bible-believing, orthodox Christians throughout history going back to at least Augustine if not before.

Your belief is a very recent aberration that closely parallels the RCC's "Latin Vulgate Only" position of 600-800 years ago.

Because you have a pattern whether intentional or incidental of avoiding difficult questions or offering answers that don't address the core issues.

We are asking you meaningful questions in an effort to get you to face the obvious, inherent contradictions within your beliefs. You routinely blow our responses off only to come back a few days later, make the same kinds of statements, and act as if no one has responded to them before. Your habit of repeating the same things rather than answering rebuttals to those "same things" demonstrates that you either aren't reading or aren't giving honest critical thought to the responses.

Because it is important that the fundamentalist movement not be infected with a false doctrine on a critical point of faith.

The two great dangers to fundamentalism in America today are KJVOnlyism and Easy Believism (Decisionalism). KJVOnlyism because it causes the Word to be unnecessarily difficult to read, learn, and know. Easy Believism because it cheapens grace and brings unbelievers into churches.

I don't do this to insult you nor to insenuate that you aren't intelligent- not even close. The reason I do this is to get you to actually prove or disprove what you say you believe to yourself first. You should love the truth and hate error enough that when you are rebutted then you either answer the rebuttal with fact or consider that what you believe is indeed false.

There is no sin in being ignorant of something. Every human is. It is a sin though to propose a view then remain ignorant when shown proof to the contrary that you cannot answer.

You have said on numerous occasions that the KJV is "God's perfect words" or something to that effect. I have challenged you on numerous occasions by saying that the words of the KJV were the choices of Anglican scholars, not God. I understand that you don't like being labeled but you have identified yourself by what you say you believe. Believing that the KJV is "God's words" makes you KJVO.

Your question is based on a false premise- that God's Word is being corrupted in MV's. It is not. God's Word is being expressed differently but it is not being changed with respect to teachings and doctrines. It is still the Word/Sayings of God.

OTOH, we have provided scriptural proof that different versions of God's Word are acceptable.

 

Sorry Michelle, the second half of my post was lost. I will attempt to recreate it later.

 

Michelle, much if not all of what you say that I haven't responded to is in the my posted response that I referred to. Please let me know what I missed.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


Scott,

--------------------------------------------------
Believing that the KJV is "God's words" makes you KJVO.
--------------------------------------------------

So Scott, please tell me where is your final authority, and to which version? Was God manifest in the flesh? What about those versions that have left this out. Which version then represents the preserved words of God? How do you judge? How then do you judge all matters, if you have no worries and no standards of what God's words are? How do you know? You obviously do not believe that every word of God would be preserved. So, please tell me, when does it end, and how are we to know whether the message or saying has been corrupted? How would anyone ever then know? How then could we be sure, that what are doctrines and beliefs are not actually in vain? How? Please now tell me, if you believe the KJV has added to the preserved words of God, why do you still use it? Please tell me why God warned not to add or take away from his words? Please tell me how it was that Eve was decieved by the serpent? Was it really because she misunderstood the message? Or was it because she misunderstood God's specific words? Please tell me.

So you do not believe the KJV is God's words, because if you did, then you would be KJVO too, as your own statement to me implies. What then, Scott, is our foundation of faith and armour to be made of? Only the message? Please tell me, how one can keep oneself from being decieved by false doctrine? How is it that you know that RCC doctrines are heresy, if you do not need to worry on the specific words, but only the message? Where is the foundation of your faith and what is it made of? OH, is it Jesus Christ our Lord? Well, how do you know? You believe only a message, but not specific things pertaining to him, how then could you know for sure? Why is it important for the accuracy of every single calculation,the architects plans when building a house, otherwise it will fall, but not that way concerning God's words of truth? Should we then have a relaxed attitude of the accuracy of and reliablity of the rollercoaster ride, that it is engineered accurately and safe for our very benefit? Why then do many not approach God's word in such a manner, when God has promised it, God has the power and authority and ability to do it, and has done it?

It saddens me, you believe the architects and engineers of the world, over and above that of the preservation of Gods WORDS of truth, which have to do with your very spiritual life. You have no problem putting trust and faith in men, to get you from point A to point B on an airplane, and expect that every engineering detail and Pilots experience is top notch - who are but fallible men, but when it comes to the very pure words of God that he promised to preserve for every generation, and created all things, you can then doubt God can, will and has done this very thing. Very sad indeed.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Maybe I am missing something, but could you show me where any of the versions have left out this doctrine from scripture?

 

Oh, but it is that way concerning God's truth. But not when it comes to worshipping a translation written by Anglican (English Catholics) scholars which was translated from a text compiled by a Catholic priest from just a very few and incomplete sources. There is a difference.

The KJV is God's word, not God's WORDS . The words were penned in other languages, but they were not spoken by God; the writers wrote as they were moved by God. Except for a very few places where God spoke audibly, everything else came by inspiration , not dictation .

Yes, God has promised it. But He did not promise to do it in ONE translation only. If He had, we would be out of luck, since the bible was translated many times over before King James wanted a bible named after him.

What you don't seem to understand ( or you choose to ignore ) is the fact that the majority of us who do not bow before the KJV in reverence do, in fact, love and honor the word of God. But we love and honor more than just a single translation. And I seriously doubt that you could find any more serious students of the bible than many here on the BB who do not scrape before the King James.

It saddens many of us that you blindly follow an Anglican translation, regardless. And, yes, many of us do put more trust into the "architects and engineers of the world" than in the knowledge and spirituality of a collection of non-Christian English catholics four centuries removed from the vast discoveries of manuscripts and archiological discoveries that have proven the truth of the bible over and over.

Yes, it is.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
What you don't seem to understand ( or you choose to ignore ) is the fact that the majority of us who do not bow before the KJV in reverence do, in fact, love and honor the word of God. But we love and honor more than just a single translation. And I seriously doubt that you could find any more serious students of the bible than many here on the BB who do not scrape before the King James.
--------------------------------------------------

So, please tell me, which version do you love and honour - they are all different? The ones that have deleted scripture, or the one that has added it? Both cannot be God's words. Oh, you don't believe God would preserve his words specifically? So, what now will prevent you from believing the scholars when they find manuscripts that have deleted other long standing parts of scriptures, such as "For I am the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes unto the Father but by me" ? Will you also believe them, because these manuscripts are older and therefore most reliable and accurate because they were closer to the time of the apostles? Will you say, ah, that doesn't matter, we still have the doctrines of our faith elsewhere in this version. How far will you let it go? Remember, the serpent in the garden was more subtle than all the beasts of the field. Meditate on this.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle:I read Will Kinneys threads to which he refutes Norris on many points. I agree 100% with Will, and it only confirmed my position regarding this issue.

I suggest you read "the other side" in

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bible_version_debate/

specifically Vonfrehn's posts, beginning at # 1331.

I also highly recommend Sorenson's book. It is not new, it has been out since 2000, so it is a few years on the market. I recently bought a few, and have almost finished reading it. What an eye-opener it can be for those who do not know much about this issue and why it is so important, and I praise the Lord for this book.

I started to read it in 2001, but when I saw it was the sameole, same ole KJVO garbage, I quit. Sorenson even admits he based his "research upon Dr. D.O. Fuller's book,"Which Bible?", which was based largely upon the work of SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST Ben Wilkinson's work. This is the basis for the entire modern KJVO myth. If you,a Christian, wanna believe something begun by a big shot in a KNOWN CULT...

It is funny, how many (although not all) on here claim that we who stand for the pure word of God in the KJV would make claims and assumptions that we do not read both sides of the issue, when they themselves do not, and have no desire to. Amazing.

Then you should be eager to read from the link I posted above. (If the link doesn't work, go to "yahoo groups" & search for "bible_version_debates".)

Will often practices the great KJVO double standard, as has been pointed out more than once on this board by more than one member, and in more than one board. Right now, Michelle, I don't think you're open to any legitimate arguments we have, because you're too eaten up with the bunk from the KJVOs. I hope you find time to REALLY, DEEPLY STUDY the issue, as I & several others here have done.

It doesn't take the IQ of Deep Blue to do it-it takes EFFORT. Shoot, I'm just a common steelworker /heavy equipment operator, husband, father, grandfather, nothing special. If "I" can do it, "YOU" can do it! I hope you make the effort bedore that false doctrine hardens into false DOGMA with you as it has with Will & some of his buddies.

 

Maybe I am missing something, but could you show me where any of the versions have left out this doctrine from scripture?

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
It saddens many of us that you blindly follow an Anglican translation, regardless. And, yes, many of us do put more trust into the "architects and engineers of the world" than in the knowledge and spirituality of a collection of non-Christian English catholics four centuries removed from the vast discoveries of manuscripts and archiological discoveries that have proven the truth of the bible over and over.

--------------------------------------------------

Nah, instead you put all your trust in a critical greek text of liberal, modernist men, involved in the occult and secret societies, who denied the preservation of God's words, and believe only the origional manuscripts written by the apostles and prophets were inspired, and authoritative (to which now are non-existent), and of men who denied the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, believed in evolution, and thought of the resurrection of our Lord to only be spiritual rather than physical and literal. You would rather believe in conflicting versions that came from these men, and to which don't even believe that they have the very words of God but that they are in the continual process of resurrecting what was lost to the churches for generations, only for this modern day man. Not only that but also for some years what was the authority is no longer the authority, and what was not, is now authoritative. These men can't seem to make up their minds on what God's word is even regarding their own critical greek text. Their authority comes from their own wisdom, and not in the promises and reverence of the Lord our God concerning his words of truth. Go ahead and believe these men, for what these men believe you also believe by approving of those versions. You have to, in order to take your stand, otherwise you would see it for what it truly is. Their belief, is your belief also, and it is not honouring to God, but man.

Go ahead and believe this, but know this, you do not honour and love the words of God, for if you did, you would see the very value and preciousness of them, and every single one of them, and you would thank and praise God daily for them, and you would stand against any and all that would try to take them away and/or cause one to doubt them. This you do not do, but excuse it away by claiming the specific " words" are not important, but only the message.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

I see your point, but you choose to ignore mine. Interesting.

How do you know that the KJV is "perfect"? How do you know that it has not added or deleted what God has said? You are relying on the work of four-hundred year scholars.

Which version do I love and honor? Several. Are they all different? Yes. Are they different? Only in the words chosen by the translators. Are the still the truth? Absolutely. Just because I don't idolize the KJV does not mean that I do not know or love the truth of God.

As to how far I will let it go, there is nowhere for it to go. You see, I don't buy into the lies of the KJVOnlyists. I don't have to have someone tell me that I can only believe one translation. Nor do I have to worry about what is and what ain't.

By using different translations, I am able to get a better view of the truth of God. It is like looking at a diamond. You can't really see the depth and beauty of a diamond if is left lying still on the velvet. But, when you turn a diamond, the facets catch the light, reflecting it in every direction. And so it is with the word of God.

Try growing some, instead of drawing your head deeper into the shell of the KJVOnly myth. Or are you afraid that you might find out that the myth can't hold water?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Michelle,

You know the words, but do you know the tune? I mean, you're doing everything but imitate the voice of Ruckman.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Michelle;

I aksed you to provide proof for your statement. Can you give me an answer or do you choose to ignore me? Certainly you can provide proof to substantiate your claims can't you?

 

Michelle:I have repeatedly asked of many of you all, for scriptural support for approving of, and using of those things that would corrupt God's word, and no one has provided it.

Actually, the question is, "Does this or that actually corrupt God's word, or is it just some Onlyist tripe?"

Speaking of Scriptural support, I & many others have asked you & many other KJVOs to provide ONE SENTENCE of Scriptural support for the KJVO myth - & have been bowled over with deafening silence.

And since, in response to your statement that you're NOT KJVO, I asked you what other BV(s) you recommend along with the KJV, and you answered with spin, you're squarely in the KJVO camp.


Not one of you has provided scriptural support, that God would not preserve his words for every generation

To any Christian, it's a no-brainer that God has preserved/presented His word, each part being available from the day it was first written.


or that he would allow his children to believe additions to his words for generations.

Then please explain how an OLDER ms could OMIT something found in a NEWER one unless BOTH were copied from a PRE-EXISTING ms. That's like saying the Model-T omitted an electric starter-unless there was an earlier Ford car that had one.


Why are you and many here avoiding answering my questions?

I can't speak for everyone, of course, but any reader of the various threads can easily see that I've answered everything you've asked directly to me, and a lot you've asked others. However, you've failed to do likewise. You often answer with spin, which is typical KJVO because in reality KJVO is a clueless myth & those who advocate it are clueless as to how to verify it.

Do you believe that you have available today, God's very words of truth accurately preserved for you that are authoritative in all matters of life and faith? If so, which one?

1.) Yes. 2.) in every valid version.


Do you really believe that all the mv's that differ are the very preserved words of God for you? If so, then please tell me, how you judge what is, and what isn't the preserved words of God for you,

If the translaton follows its sources close as language differences allow, with adjustments for clarity in English-and if its sources are recognized as Scriptural mss, it's valid.



if this version has this scripture, and the other doesn't? Please explain this to me and include scriptural support.

FROM THE KJV:

Matt. 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field."

Acts 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

Which do you believe?

2 Kings 24:8 "Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem."

2 Chron 36:9 "Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD."

Which do you believe?

"Things that are different are not the same"-several KJVO authors

The Scriptural evidence speaks for itself....

 

Michelle:So, please tell me, which version do you love and honour - they are all different?

Every valid version, from Wycliffe's to the NKJV, to the latest ones.

The ones that have deleted scripture, or the one that has added it? Both cannot be God's words.

So, which of the four gospels do you believe? They all read differently but yet they're all accounts of the same events.


Oh, you don't believe God would preserve his words specifically? So, what now will prevent you from believing the scholars when they find manuscripts that have deleted other long standing parts of scriptures, such as "For I am the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes unto the Father but by me" ? Will you also believe them, because these manuscripts are older and therefore most reliable and accurate because they were closer to the time of the apostles?

You have yet to explain how an OLDER ms can OMIT material found in a NEWER ms.


Will you say, ah, that doesn't matter, we still have the doctrines of our faith elsewhere in this version. How far will you let it go? Remember, the serpent in the garden was more subtle than all the beasts of the field. Meditate on this.

Seems ole Sneaky Snake is alive & well - he's managed to get some Christians to believe a false doctrine started by a cult official. Meditate on THAT.

 

Michelle: This you do not do, but excuse it away by claiming the specific " words" are not important, but only the message.

So tell us-In the KJV, are you reading the very wordSSS of God, or a translation thereof?

Is "the image of" in Romans 11:4 the very wordSSS of God, or were these words ADDED by the AV translators?

Methinks mesmells de ole KJVO DOUBLE STANDARD being applied again!

 

Sure, it is. He puts down every English Bible version except the KJV. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck. And I have seen the book, I just won't waste my resourses on it.

 

Michelle.....Michelle.......Go back in the middle of this thread and read MY posts. I hope you will then notice that I have been reading this tripe long before you came to this board.