Church version

Depends how you are asking the question. The two meetings I went to in England used the KJV 'only'. The meeting here used to be a hotch-potch but now we have more verse-by-verse bible exposition (and the teachers all use KJV) we are are becoming more KJV 'only'.

There are many, many advantages to having a church standardize upon a single translation and there are many, many advantages to having the KJV.

However we are going through taking the KJV label out of our literature. This KJVOnlyism is clearly becoming cultic and we have to avoid association with it.

DAB

 

Pastor Bob 63 said:

KJVO Churches are NOT a cult because

The International Churches of Christ could affirm every doctrinal point you just affirmed, and yet they are a well-known abusive cult second only to the Church of Scientology in generating complaints from worried family members.

Doctrine is insufficient to define a cult. KJV-onlyism is not cultic because of its doctrine, but because it is "[o]bsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing" (AHD definition #5a).

 

to borrow fr KJBO's line of argumentation, KJBOs will have to DENY that Jesus is Mediator at Jude 25 n DENY that God is our Saviour at Titus 2:13.

so there: 9 outta 9!

 

Askjo said:

A preacher preaching saying, "Lucifer is the Morning Star" The fact is Jesus Christ is the Morning Star. Controversay!

The controversy occurs only when the preacher does not explain this adequately and instead resorts to simplistic hand-wringing such as the above.

The "morning star" is a literary device, a symbol. It stands for royal power and glory. There is no rule - literary, Biblical, hermeneutical, or otherwise - that says a symbol must stand for one thing, and one thing only. Therefore the King of Babylon can be called the "morning star" in Isaiah 14:12, because he was the most powerful man on earth, and Jesus can be called the "morning star" in the Revelation, because he is the King of Kings.

 

Holy Bible not Holy Bibles.

 

Would you attend a church that used only the KJV?

If you're referring to what version they use during worship, I've never made my membership at a church contingent on the version they use.

 

THIS THREAD PROVES WHAT I HAVE LONG CLAIMED.

Although they often moan about "nasty KJVOs", I can see that some of the MV crowd are every bit as nasty back. IT IS UTTERLY DISGUSTING FOR YOU, DR. BOB, TO CALL KJVOS CULTISTS. You ask for one scripture that says the KJV is without error. I will show it you as soon as you show me one verse that says God would preserve his word in a multitude of IMPERFECT Greek copies; and that those copies are the ones we now, in 2003, have access to. Go on: show me the verse. But then, I spent ages asking for that verse on the "Scriptural proof of KJVOnlyism" thread, and never got any. You say the Bible is faulty; I say it has no errors at all. And somehow this makes ME a cultist???

Be VERY careful: "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:2)

 

With whom am I obsessed? Whom do I venerate??? Back up your slanderous allegations with proof.

 

Bartholomew, are you saying that there is an English version that is of greater validity than the Hebrew and Greek from which it was translated? If so, is that not heretical?

 

I am not sure what is being discussed, but I believe you didn't read the whole statement. It says, "person, principle, or thing," so it does not have to be a whom you are obsessed with or venerate, but it could be a principle or thing, which I guess he would be referring to the idea that the KJV is the only perfect word of God rather arbitrarily. You obsess with a translation and the principle that the KJV is it, no other possibilities. I accept your reasoning that MVers can't provide a verse that justifies their position, but you must also accept that they have faith in their position just like you do. That doesn't make you any more right than them, and them any more right than you.

Neal

 

I would say the Authorised Version's translation of those texts into English has greater validity than subsequent translations of those texts into English (even though we can't be sure exactly which text was used to decide the final wording of every passage). However, this is not the point. Dr. Bob accused KJVOnlyists of being CULTISTS (this is NOT the same as simply being heretical - almost EVERY church must be heretical in SOME matter because they teach contradictory things - they can't all be true!). He did so by pointing out that no verse explicitly supports our view that God perfectly preserved his word in the AV. However, since no scripture supports his view that God presevred his word in a multitude of IMPERFECT Greek copies, including Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and/or many others, then he is also a cult memeber by his own definition. Therefore I stand by my previous statement: his accusation is disgusting.

 

No more so than others are obsessed with "the Greek". But even if I am obsessed with God's word, SO WHAT??? I am obsessed with God! And I am obsessed with Jesus! And I am obsessed with his perfect word! Oh my, what a nasty cultist I am!

I totally agree!!! This is my point. If my faith in the KJV makes me a cultist, then Dr. Bob's faith in the imperfect "Greek" makes him a cultist, too.

 

I would say the Authorised Version's translation of those texts into English has greater validity than subsequent translations of those texts into English

Okay, so you're not saying that the KJV is perfect, and you're not saying that the KJV should be of greater weight than the Greek and Hebrew they came from. Then you're not a KJV-Onlyist. You prefer the KJV, but you're not a KJV-Onlyist.

A KJV-Onlyist position states that the KJV is perfect, without regard to the Greek and Hebrew (which, since greater weight is placed on the translation that the origin, is heretical). I don't think Dr Bob is attacking you directly.

 

Yes, I am.

Well, I pointed out that we can't know for sure which text was used to translate every passage, so we can't really examine "the Greek and Hebrew" that the AV was translated from. Also, it wasn't a direct translation anyway, because it took into account other translations into other languages, as well as other translations into English. So "the Greek and Hebrew they came from" doesn't really exist anywhere now, does it? So in that sense, yes, the AV supercedes it, because the AV does exist. But to compare the AV with any Greek or Hebrew (with an English-speaking person), you have to translate the Greek or Hebrew into English. And as I said, I think the AV is has more authority than any other translation.

And how did you come to this conclusion about heresy? Where does the Bible back up this claim? This is my point. Dr. Bob demans "scriptural proof" which neither he nor you can offer for your own positions.

But I find this discussion interesting: I can believe the AV is a bad translation; that it is a fair translation; that it is a good translation; that it is the best translation; and that it is better than anything else that may ever be brought out in English, all without being attacked much. But the instant I say I believe it completely - i.e. I believe it is totally without error - then I become a cult member! Wow! Is this because the scholars hate me to have a final authority which they can't overturn at their whim???

 

No, PRESERVED truth. Your position has "lost" the truth. Besides, who in England or America knew that many of the AV's verses or parts of verses shouldn't have been there until the discovery of such manuscripts as Sinaiticus in the 19th century? So you see, YOUR position actually has "New Truth".

Now, you show me a Bible verse that says God ONLY inspired the originals. I'm waiting. Show me one scripture that says ONLY the originals were perfect, and that ALL preserved copies/versions/etc. had errors. I'm still waiting. Now, who has a "New Interpretation of Scripture"?

I have never come across anyone who is KJVO who believes you have to be KJVO to be saved. But even if some exist, you can't lump us all together and call us a cult. Besides, many of you Calvinists believe that if someone is not living a good life, he isn't a Christian. Since this is contrary to the Bible, we see that many of you teach a "New Christianity".

The word "inspiriation" in 2 Tim 3:16 does not apply to the originals. So it is YOU who has a "New Language".

Since YOUR doctrines of inspiration and preservation are unbibilical, this proves that is YOU who is teaching a "New Theology".

Firstly, I don't revere any of those people. Besides, YOU advocate listening to Greek scholars (who keep disagreeing) to tell us what God REALLY said; whereas the KJVOs just tell people to believe the word of God (the AV). So it is YOU who has "New Leadership" - one which you have to rely on to tell you what the Bible really says!

Well, if he really said that, then I think the majority of KJVOs would disagree. Besides, many of you Calvinists teach that if you just BELIEVE Christ died for your sins as the only way to make you right with God, and don't do anything else, then you're not saved, either. So people like YOU teach new salvation.

Well done: you're part of a cult.

 

Yes, I am. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you mean "perfect" in the sense of "completely suited for its intended purpose?" If this is what you mean, then I heartily agree with you. But if you mean "perfect" in the sense of "flawless, incapable of being improved," then I'd have to disagree. No English translation can be "perfect" in that sense because a living language like English develops and changes. Furthermore, there are numerous places where the KJV's translation is demonstrably inferior to that of other English translations before it and after it. I've already pointed out the examples of "turtle" and "turtledove" in S. of Sol. 2:12 and the voice at Paul's conversion (Ac. 9:7 and 22:9); there are many others. One I just noticed recently in the account of Jesus' baptism in Mark. The Greek participle used to describe the opening of the heavens is σχιζομενους, from σχιζω, a stong verb which carries the sense of something being forcefully divided in two. It's the same verb used in Mk. 15:38 to describe the tearing of the Temple curtain at the moment of Jesus' death. In fact, these two occasions are the only times in Mark's Gospel where the verb σχιζω is used, and they form an inclusio showing that Jesus Christ our Mediator tears away barriers and grants us access to God. English Bible translations before the KJV (the Geneva Bible) and after the KJV (the NIV, NRSV, and NKJV) correctly render the forceful nature of the Greek participle:

"And as soon as he was come out of the water, John saw the heavens cloven in twain, and the holy Ghost descending upon him like a dove" (Mk.1:10, Geneva Bible [1599])

"And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. (Mk. 1:10 NRSV)

"As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. (Mk.1:10 NIV)

"And immediately, coming up from the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove." (Mk. 1:10 NKJV)

Yet the KJV completely misses it, and instead gives us this bland translation:

"And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him" (Mk. 1:10 KJV)

And it does so despite correctly rendering the forcefulness of the same Greek verb in Mk. 15:38:

"And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom" (Mk. 15:38 KJV)

Since other Bible versions before and after the KJV more accurately translate the Greek participle in Mk. 1:10 and retain its connection to Mk. 15:38, and since the KJV doesn't, the KJV is demonstrably inferior in this specific instance, and cannot therefore be "perfect" in the sense of "flawless and incapable of being improved."

[ February 26, 2003, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Archangel7 ]

 

Yes, I do think the AV is without any error at all. You may think certain passages should have been translated differently, but that is not what the AV translators thought. And with all due respect, I think they should have known better than you do. However, this is not the point. Dr. Bob accused KJVOnlyism of being a cult. Since nobody has brought forth any compelling evidence to back this up, I will conclude that it was either an ill-thought-out slanderous accusation, or a lie. Thank you.

 

Bartholomew said:

With whom am I obsessed? Whom do I venerate??? Back up your slanderous allegations with proof.

Not whom, what. You and your KJV-only buddies bend over backwards and in other rather Orwellian directions to maintain the fiction that the King James Bible is without any sort of human error.

The Baptists have to have their own version of Mariolatry, I guess.

 

You are entitled to your opinion, but the facts say otherwise.

In the case of Mk. 1:10 I'm not alone in disagreeing with what the KJV translators thought. The scholars who translated the Geneva Bible before them and the scholars who translated numerous English Bibles after them also disagreed. In this particular instance, those translators knew better than the KJV translators.