Please provide scriptural support for KJVOism.

Of all the countless threads and all the countless posts from both sides, has anyone ever changed the other's mind? Then, why continue to argue it? I have some friends who are Roman Catholic. Their beliefs are wrong, and I can show them from Scripture. Doesn't matter. They believe they are right. Nothing I can show them will change their mind. It is what they believe. Same with this topic. People who are KJVO are gonna stay that way. People who are MV, are gonna stay that way. Hence the "beating a dead horse." After a while, it just gets tiresome. I, myself, don't believe that being a KJVO will lead them to Hell. They may be wrong, but I don't believe their salvation is in jeopardy because of it. You all seem obsessed with it. Their are much more important "hills to die on".

 

I believe KJVOism is a direct descendant from LVO (Latin Vulgate Only).

The Church of Rome for almost a millenia decreed that the Latin of the Vulgate was the "language of heaven". Better than the Hebrew and Greek because the Magisterium had made infallible pronouncements on difficult passages and consequently we have a "perfect" Bible

The English translation of the Vulgate (yes a translation of a translation) is the Douay-Rheims. Of course one has to be sure to acquire a copy that is nihil obstat with an imprimatur along with copius Magisterium notes included (I have one such, the Confraternity Version).

The Rheims NT English is in about 90-95% agreement with the King James English of 1611. In some places it is 100% aggreement. This presents a difficulty for some KJV adherents because the Rheims NT was published in 1582.

Example

KJV John 11:1 Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha.
2 (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)
3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.
4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.
5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.
6 When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode two days still in the same place where he was.
7 Then after that saith he to his disciples, Let us go into Judaea again.
8 His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?​

Rheims:
John 11:1 Now there was a certain man sick, named Lazarus, of Bethania, of the town of Mary and of Martha her sister.
2 (And Mary was she that anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair: whose brother Lazarus was sick.)
3 His sisters therefore sent to him, saying: Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.
4 And Jesus hearing it, said to them: This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God: that the Son of God may be glorified by it.
5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister Mary and Lazarus.
6 When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he still remained in the same place two days.
7 Then after that, he said to his disciples: Let us go into Judea again.
8 The disciples say to him: Rabbi, the Jews but now sought to stone thee. And goest thou thither again?​

The KJV also inherited the Apocrypha (contains popish heresies) and the johannine Comma (which I believe is apostolic) from the Douay-Rheims.

The KJVO leader is Dr. Peter Ruckman and his female counterpart Gail Riplinger.

The most offensive teachings of the KJVO leadership is "secondary or translational inspiration" and "advanced revelation" where even the supposed "errors" in the KJV are in reality revelations made by the KJV translators of which they were unaware.

I suppose this could be believable if the Church of Rome passed on apostolic succession to the Church of England. Then, by the laying on of hands CoE Bishops would/could pass on the gift of apostolic translational inspiration to the KJV translators.

But if this were actually true, these KJVO adherents should therefore join the CoE seeing that by their works of double inspiration it is the true apostolic church (which BTW, persecuted Baptists and anabaptists).

Personally, I hold to the KJV as the singular most accurate and important English translation of the Scriptures.
It is however still a translation of the Scriptures made by mortal men who officially spent several centuries editing and correcting it via the Church of England.

Which leaves us with the final difficulty: Which of the different KJV revisions is authoritative since we have been told concerning the MV's "things that are different are not the same".

HankD

 

JohnV, I have asked this question for the last almost-30 years & have received everything from silence to utterly-ridiculous answers. So don't be surprised that some KJVOs will tryta see just how far they can stretch Scripture to attempt to make it justify their doctrine.

I utterly reject KJVO for the same reason YOU have so far - cuz I am Sola Scriptura, not believing any doctrine of worship invented by man & not found in SCRIPTURE, either directly or by unmistakable implication. And KJVO fits that bill - invented by man, not even hinted at in the KJV itself.

 

The subject will lay for a while, and then someone starts popping off about "corrupt versions" and such crap and away we go. We all know the score, but whenever a troll comes stomping through it gets everyone all stired up again.

 

Originally Posted by Salty
How could writings from 400 BC and before be used to justify preserving the KJV 1611?
Another words, how can a version written int he 17th century be "preserved" in the 2nd - 16 th centuries?



That is really not a difficult question to answer. It is preserved because we have over 5,500 MSS, some of them dating right back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Remember that John wrote Revelation in 98 A.D., or thereabouts. John must have lived a little past that date or into the second century. Thus some of these MSS are very close to the time of the apostle John. There is no other ancient writing that has so much documentation to verify its authenticity. No doctrine is altered or contradicted or omitted. We can say authoritatively that God has preserved His Word up to this present century, and will continue to preserve it.

 

Just for the record.....

Just for the record I am not one of those KJVO's that believes in the idea of "double inspiration",rather,I do believe that the bible does teach the doctrine of the "preservation" of the inspired scriptures (Psalm 12:6-7 & 2 Tim.3:16-17)and in that work of preservation that God performs (using men as His instrument WHETHER THEY KNEW IT OR NOT)He has preserved for us,in English and other languages(of course),His INSPIRED,INFALLIBLE,INERRANT Word ERROR-FREE. Of course you all know by now that I personally believe that in English that Word would be the Authorized King James Bible. God is perfect and by HIS very nature He must have(and has) insured that His Word (which He magnifies ABOVE HIS NAME) be preserved from generation to generation perfect and error-free. That is the hill I am willing to die on. I thank God I don't have to try to compare a multiplicity of "versions" to arrive at the truth. I'm also thankful that since it's not likely I'll ever have the ability to read and study greek and hebrew,I don't have to attain to them or depend on the "scholarship" of somebody else in order to get to know my Lord better or "be more spiritual". I do NOT believe that the greek and hebrew originals(which no longer exist anyway) were ever in any way better than the 1769(I'm almost certain that this is the one I have) "version" of the King James Bible I hold in my hands. Thank God...He has given me exactly what I need by preserving,error-free,His perfect Inspired Word.

Have a Nice Night Guys,:wavey:
Greg Perry Sr.

 

Same here. I just pick up which ever is onmy desk or lap at the time.

God bless, Gregory. Have a great night.

 

So are you suggesting that the 1769 version is the pure word of God and the 1611 and those which followed until 1769 were adulterated and were not pure. I am wondering what you do with the words that do not translate from Greek and Hebrew to English that do have a bearing on the correct meaning of a word. I am curious how you deal with first and third class conditional sentences and also prohibitive imperatives?

 

Actually you are depending upon the scholarship of the KJV translators. They were pedigreed Greek and Hebrew scholars who also depended heavily upon the work of those who went before them as do most of the other Bible translators including the modern versions. The KJV men also "diligently compared" other ancient translations to get the "sense" of the Scripture where there was "an obscure" passage.

As to the ability to study Greek and Hebrew, I didn't think I had that ability or the diligence, but here is a promise:

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.​

It worked for me Gregory and I'm sure it would work for you should you ever care to do so. You seem to be a person gifted with a bright mind and strong faith as well.​

The study of the original languages of the Scripture should add a new dimension to anyone's biblical education.
We certainly need those who are willing to work in the Traditional Text these days.​

The KJV, as marvelous a work as it is, is not the end of the line for God's translated Word to the English speaking world. ​

HankD​

 

If You Really Want To Know...

gb...if you really want to know what I do with the issues you have raised ......(and I'm sure this answer is probably NOT going to satisfy you)....my answer is....NOTHING.....I'm going to do N O T H I N G. The reason for that is simply this....I don't regard those things as problems because I have no DOUBTS about the Book I hold in my hand. I simply regard those kind of issues or questions as invalid in regard to the Word of God. I view my Bible as a believer and I don't question its veracity or its accuracy. While you are "smoking over" the issues and questions you have raised I'll just be one of those "ignorant" and (very) contented Bible Believers that just seem to drive the critics crazy:tongue3:. Besides that, I'm a high school graduate with about (3) semesters at a Bible college in Jacksonville Fla. nearly 30 years ago. I don't even know what "conditional sentences" or "prohibitive imperatives" are....and for the record...neither do I CARE. What I do wish to know,from one day to the next,is HOW to live my life in a way that is more surrendered,and more pleasing to the Lord who gave so much of a terrible price for my salvation. The battles I fight deal with crucifying this vile flesh I'm clothed in and being filled with the Spirit of Christ so I can be fruitful for Him. As for Greek and Hebrew and the "archaic" old english of my King James Bible, well,I don't speak or understand greek or hebrew (they are dead languages as far as I'm concerned) and any problem I've ever encountered with the King's english I've always been able to clear up with a good old Websters dictionary and the occasional use of a Strong's concordance. I think I'll be just fine,thank you very much !

:godisgood: Blessings,
Greg Perry Sr. :thumbsup:

 

An Additional Note About Greek & Hebrew

Hank,
You must have been posting your reply while I was responding to gb's post and after reading it I feel it necessary to add a few more thoughts in regard to the "Greek and Hebrew" issue. I do not wish to be in the slightest way disrespectful toward those who have devoted themselves to the study of the original languages. I do respect them and admire anyone who is willing and able to master them or even gain a minimal understanding of them. You rightly point out the outstanding academic qualifications of the AV translators and from all I've ever read about them they were outstanding and highly skilled not only in Greek and Hebrew but also in the English of their day. The overriding truth in that is that God was in control of them,just as He was in control of the "original" penman (some of whom weren't "academics" at all).That said,the point we definitely differ on is that I DO believe that the KJV IS the "end of the line" for God's translated Word in the english-speaking world. I think I've now said all I really need to say on the matter for now. As it stands I think I may owe Johnv an apology for inadvertently "hijacking" his thread. Sorry John....though as I stated in my 1st post in this thread, I readily admit that there is NO VERSE in the KJV or any other "version" or translation that states "THIS IS THE ONE". I just believe that God's written Word has to be Perfect (like It's Author)....or it is NOT His Word. If your Bible has errors and mistakes in it then it is no better than the Koran or any other religious writing. That is my humble opinion....and always will be.

Blessings,
Greg Perry Sr.:type:

 

It is nice to be naive and to have a blind faith and believe like that, but we know that reality teaches otherwise. By a simple reading of these threads it has been posted more than once how there are significant differences just between the Cambridge and Oxford editions of the KJV. That being the case, the KJV is not perfect and without error, as you would like to claim. You can naively claim that. But scores of mistakes between editions of the KJV have already been documented. God is perfect. He doesn't make mistakes--spelling, grammatical, etc.--no mistakes whatsoever. The only perfect Bible ever written was written by God through the prophets and the apostles (2Tim.3:16; 2Pet.1:21). The holy men of God referred to in the Second Epistle of Peter were not the KJV translators.

 

Again...when one gets away from PERSONAL PREFERENCE as the reason for being KJVO or any other One-Version-Only, then one is in error. We have NOTHING FROM GOD that indicates HIS choice of a particular version or translation, but we have plenty of MAN-MADE theories for such; all of which I reject as man-made additions to the precepts of GOD.

 

I find it interesting that you seem to care about how you live but do not care enough to know God's word in a deeper way so that you can really know what it says. Right now I am meeting with a student I met a few weeks ago that grew up in the church and went into atheism. Within a few hours I was able to point him back on the right track and point out how the information he had read was wrong and where the flaws were. A lot of what I spoke to him about had to do with the seemingly contradictory words and why they appeared that way when they really were not. Last year in college he had some atheist friends who showed him articles, etc. and it caused him to wander away from the faith. Having facts and truth steered him to God while his friends had ignorance and presented it as truth.

That is commendable and all of us should be that way. Everyone is going to deal with people whom God steers their way. Maybe the issues we are discussing have never been an issue for those you have dealt with. Most of the non-Christians I deal with are thinkers and often their thinking gets them in trouble and I am able to use their thinking to steer them towards God. I have watched Christians who were disabled become enabled and get on fire for Christ. I have also seen non-Christians walk away with the truth and refuse to believe such as Mormons who come to my door.

I do not see studying scripture and living the Christian life as mutually exclusive but rather as being compatible and required of all Christians. Obviously in the early church there were about 2% who could read and the others could not. We see who how God used each person, each with their limitations. God uses us in our circles of influence and we must please him. That is different for each person but we must not claim to believe and teach something we are ignorant about. If we teach ignorance then we leave behind damage for our listeners. If we are prone to teach something we know little or nothing about then we are prone to also exaggerate and lie. Gossips are good at exaggeration and lying in ways that others may not know about. Leaders who are gossips lead people away the truth.

1 Peter 3:14-16, "But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame."

Living for Christ and making a defense are not incompatible but rather are easier for those who know their Bible well.

If you look in your own Bible, in most cases a first class conditional sentence and third class conditional sentences are translated with the same word "if". They are very different though. One has the meaning of "since" and the other as "if".

 

I see it as attitude as well. I am unable to see how anyone can cling to any ism and know scripture without a refusal to acknowledge and confront certain parts of scripture. No ism is scripture in its totality.

 

I was trying to understand the original question. Now I think I got it. I agree with DHK its easy to answer. The fact is that all the MSS are from different locations with different cultures on different parchment or leather and they all say the same thing. However, is the question asking about inerrancy? And If the AV 1611 people are correct (which I don't believe they are) theoretically by their summation the autographs could have been full of error but the translators inspired by the Holy Spirit actually corrected those issues? Of course they don't believe that because there has to be an inerrent copy for all ages. So theoretically again is there a pure lineage? I think they think this with the Case of the TR however, studying the history of it we see multiple problems. I don't know why Ruckman and others are so dogmatic about it.