Is this all it really takes ...

TC...No...To become KJVO, one must believe that it is the ONLY version people should use, or the only version you personally would use. I believe C4K has stated that he is KJVO, but he is not the "militant" KJVO. He doesn't tell people, or even imply that people who use the other versions are incorrect. I personally use the KJV, but not exclusively, though I did for 35 years, and preached KJVO doctrine until 1999. The person who's quote you used is a very misled person. I believe the person to be saved but feel very sorry for them because of the confusion and dissension and doubt they are spreading. But, with hope, one day, possibly God will open this persons eyes to the truth of error in the militant position.

I too have noticed that many KJVO churches will proudly brandish the AV1611 sign with the Bible or shield and sword, and say they commit to using it, but when questioned...it is common to find that many don't even know anything about the 1611 KJV, and no study has ever been done on the subject, including the updates, revisions, etc. It's a shame, but it is all too common.

AVL1984

 

So TC, you let man alter your belief in the King James Bible?

I also stopped pushing the KJB on people. You can give your experience and the truths in the KJB, but you cannot drive someone to believe it, only the Holy Spirit can do that. But, I will not back down from saying that the King James Bible is God's infallible, inerrant, inspired word.

 

Rapture Ready:But, I will not back down from saying that the King James Bible is God's infallible, inerrant, inspired word.

But if you say the KJV's the ONLY such BV, you're simply wrong.

 

Rapture ready, which version of the KJV is the perfect inerrant inspired Word? Please, enlighten us.

AVL1984

 

The OP contains the quote from another post that reads:

Now, I have repeatedly asked in several threads for scriptural support for single-translation-onlyism. No one has responded with any. The only response I get is "it's already been given", and never find any such support when looking in previous posts, or after reading my own copy of the KJV (which I've had since childhood) cover to cover numerous times. Now, I'm a faithful Christian, and I desire to live my life scripturally. So, if I ask fervently for scriptural support, I fail to understand why no scriptural support is ever given, even though I eagerly await such scriptural support with a hungry heart and open mind. Do the KJVO's care so little for me that they prefer I live in darkness?

I want to live my life as scripturally as possible. So please, if there is scriptural support for single-translation-onlyism, please post it. Lacking scriptural support, I must otherwise conclude that it is not a scriptual doctrine.

 

Exactly. Some people clearly do not know the difference.

 

Amen, Brother RaptureReady -- Preach it!

I believe all three of my different
King James Versions are God's infallible, inerrant, inspired word.
I also will not back down that my
Christian Standard Bible (CSB)
/Holman, 2003/ is God's infallible, inerrant, inspired word. Not to mention the
nKJV, NIV and other fine Bibles that i've
used over the 52 years that I've been
a Christian.

 

The Holy Spirit is NOT a deceiver!

 

Rapture ready, which version of the KJV is the perfect inerrant inspired Word? Please, enlighten us.

AVL1984 </font>[/QUOTE]The King James Bible was done in 1611. I have a 1769 edition not revision.

 

You know, this all sounds great, but there are alot of things that we don't do and it's not because of a Bible verse. Just because there is no one verse that says one-version only does not mean that it did not happen. I still cannot understand how someone can understand someones preaching when they preach from another bible than what they have. To me, that creates confusion. What say ye or should I say, what say you for those who do not understand the old English.

 

The Holy Spirit is NOT a deceiver!

</font>[/QUOTE]Exactly, therefore, who are you listening to to say God's word is not perfect?

 

Merely a point of view.

I have never seen someone listening to me preach from my KJV confused by reading the verse in their NIV - never.

Has anyone actually experienced real confusion by having more than one version in a service?

[ September 28, 2004, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

What????

I own a red car.
I like red. So I bought a car that color.
I own a car. It is red.

Which of these confuse you? The same message is said in different ways. Bible versions are no different. There are many way to get the same message across using different words with sentences of varying lengths without compromising the author's original intent. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh really, Mark 9:46 NASV: Omitted with a marginal note referring to verse 43 which says, "Verses 44 and 46, which are identical with verse 48, are omitted by the best ancient manuscripts." (The "best ancient manuscripts" are Codex B and Codex Aleph, both of which are the worst of manuscripts with the most errors and have proved to be the most unreliable.) KJV: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

If you were to read this from the KJB and another version, don't you think you would get confused?

 

RR said "If you were to read this from the KJB and another version, don't you think you would get confused?"

No.

 

Oh really, if I said, "Get thee behind me Satan" what Bible would you pick up to see if Jesus really said this? Don't say NIV or NASB because it's not there.

 

Oh really, if I said, "Get thee behind me Satan" what Bible would you pick up to see if Jesus really said this? Don't say NIV or NASB because it's not there. </font>[/QUOTE]Did Jesus say "Get thee behind me Satan" or did He say "Get thee hence Satan"?

If you cross reference this event in the KJV you could really get confused.