Questions From A KJV-Onlyist

No, I won't be answering them.

I don't like questions that make assumptions
with which a do not agree.
I believe the KJV is infallable.
The questions assume i do not.
So I can't answer these quesitons.

I believe God has preserved His written
word, the Holy Bible, in most versions
in English. However, i do not worship
any version of the Bible, especially
not of the three KJVs i have, in paper,
on my comptuer desk.

(I do understand that some Bible Versions
like THE READER'S DIGEST BIBLES are
incomplete.)



BTW, i notice the continual mention of the
AV1611. Most KJVOnilists do NOT use
the KJV1611 edition. This AV1611 nomenclature
is very deceptive. It is expected by some
KJVOs that the person who authorized the
KJV is God Himself -- not true.
It is expected by most KJVs that they
have no idea which KJV they use, but it is
the KJV1769 Edition NOT the KJV1611 Edition.

 

Question 5: "what do you suggest I tell my
grand-children the next time they read Psalm 12:6-7?"

Use the context. For example, the "them" in verse
7 has a referant of the people mentioned in verse 5
(not the words of God mentioned in verse 4).

Getting the wrong referrant to "them" leads some
foolish people to make up new unBiblical doctrines that their
forefathers never knew.

 

Wow! Can we expect to run into one of these "preserved" poor people? I'd like to ask a 3000 year old poor person alot of questions. Hey! I just thought of something. I'll bet those folks actually might have seen the "originals". They could be your "expert scholars". The KJV-only issue resolved indeed!

Foolish Lacy

 

Amen, Brother Lacy -- Preach it!

Psalms 12:7 (NLT):
Therefore, LORD, we know you will protect the oppressed, preserving them forever from this lying generation,

What them?
They are preserved "forever from this
lying generation". Did that lying generation
survive very long? I doubt it.

Psalms 12:7 (NLT):

The LORD replies, "I have seen violence done to the helpless, and I have heard the groans of the poor. Now I will rise up to rescue them, as they have longed for me to do." 6 The LORD's promises are pure, like silver refined in a furnace, purified seven times over. 7 Therefore, LORD, we know you will protect the oppressed, preserving them forever from this lying generation,

Indeed, because of the Resurrecion,
these oppressed and these poor are indeed
preserved forever, as promised by God.
"The LORD's promises are pure ... ".

Lacy: "Wow! Can we expect to run into one of these "preserved" poor people?"

Yes, is the answer to your impertinent question.

 

Purely hypothetical... but all those who were hindered because they didn't understand the language or might have been witnessed to by a Christian that failed to properly mature because they didn't understand the KJV.

As many as do not understand the language of the KJV but will be too afraid to admit it.

Nothing. So long as those who read it really understand it and as long as you don't also say that other versions are not to be trusted.

None. But you might lose some for being willfully ignorant, using double standards, intellectual dishonesty, and all of the other unbiblical means used to support KJVOnlyism.

The KJV and all other faithful versions are infallible in as much as they agree with the autographs.

The truth. That it represents God's promise to preserve the oppressed godly.

But if you must persist in a questionable understanding of the verse, then be honest enough to say that it doesn't point to the KJV any more than any other English version. It was written in Hebrew.

You aren't forced to although it would possibly be beneficial. If you can't afford it, just follow the advice of the KJV translators and compare several faithful translations of God's Word to get the true sense of scripture.

It is a faithful version of God's infallible Word. I have no need to apologize to you for using it just because you don't understand the fundamental truths about it and the translation/transmission issue.

KJV, NKJV, NASB, WEB, and a few others on occasion.

The KJV is probably still the superior representative of the traditional text (since the Geneva isn't widely available). The NKJV is a more readable version of the same text. The NASB is the most literal of the popular versions and in my opinion is the best representative of the CT's. The WEB as I understand it came from one of the collated majority texts.

Because your doctrine is false, infectuous, and divisive. And because you use language like what you posted above. Based on your beliefs that are not taught in the Bible, you call yourself a "Bible-believer" and those who disagree with you "Bible-correctors and interpreters". Even though the truth of the matter is that those who disagree with you believe the Bible more than you do on this issue.

That's how I would answer these questions.

 

How convienient.

impertinent (im purt'n ent)
adj.
1 not pertinent; having no connection with a given matter; irrelevant
2 not showing proper respect or manners; saucy; insolent; impudent
3 [Rare] not suitable to the circumstances; inappropriate
impertinently
adv.

SYN.impertinent implies a forwardness of speech or action that is disrespectful and oversteps the bounds of propriety or courtesy; impudent implies a shameless or brazen impertinence; insolent implies defiant disrespect as displayed in openly insulting and contemptuous speech or behavior; saucy implies a flippancy and provocative levity toward one to whom respect should be shown

Coming from you Brother Ed, I take that as a compliment. -Kinda makes me think about pots and kettles.

Foolish Lacy

PS You are right about one thing though. God preserves things by ressurrecting them. (Whether they be promises, er. . . words, or poor foolish people who believe them.)

 

"3. What is wrong with holding up the AV1611 and telling Bible-believing Christians, "You can trust every word"? "
The RCC is quite delighted to learn that finally some Protestants are getting it right, putting the Deutero-Canonical books back into the canon where they belong!

 

1. How many people am I leading to Hell because I believe the AV1611 is infallible?

I don't know. Get a rearview mirror and count.

2. How many young Christians will grow up with a stunted knowledge of the Bible, if I teach them to read it with the belief it is infallible and the very words of God?

No telling, since a significant number will ignore your teachings, whatever they are.

3. What is wrong with holding up the AV1611 and telling Bible-believing Christians, "You can trust every word"?

Nothing, as long as your arm doesn't get tired.

4. How much of my reward will I lose for trusting God to keep his "WORDS" to every generation?

No telling; but God did not speak his words in English to every generation.

5. If I am not allowed to believe the AV1611 is infallible, then which version should hold that distinction?

Impertinent-- you are allowed to believe it.

6. If no version can hold that distinction, what do you suggest I tell my grand-children the next time they read Psalm 12:6-7?

Nothing. If the Bible itself does not tell them something, then it's extrabiblical.

7. If I am forced to learn Hebrew and Greek before I can study the "words" of God, will you pay for our lessons?

Nope. Self-study is free if you know how to do it. But who is going to "force" you?

8. Please tell me why you still "preach from" the AV1611 but do not believe it is infallible?

I do not... "preach from" it nor "believe it is infallible."

9. Which Bible do you use in your private studies and which one is the "best translation"?

I use many in private studies.

10. Why can't you just leave us "ignorant brethren" alone with our belief in the infallibility of the Scriptures and let us retain the title "Bible-believers", while you could use the title "Bible-correctors and interpreters"?

Considering the way you word that question, who is it that is not leaving the other alone?

 

Recall that there is the comic book branch
of KJVOnlyism that believes the KJV1611
was tainted by the RCC into having those
Deutero-Canonical books AND those pesky
translation notes. (I call it "comic book
branch" because i first read about it
in Chick comics). Anyway, this branch
(probably the embarassing branch )
believes that only the KJV1769 is valid
cause it don't haave
the extra books, doesn't have the pesky
translator footnotes (you know, the ones
that show there are 37 variant readings
in the New Testament's Textus Receptus (TR)
alone ) See, the REAL KJV, the KJV1611
edition, isn't and wasn't and cannot be
used to prove KJVOism. The Modern Version (MV)
KJVs like the KJV1769 Edition can be
used by deception to prove the KJVO position.
Most KJV1769s i've seen have no indication in
them that there are multiple versions called
the King James Version.

 

On this page:

Partners in Bible Translation

it says:

"There are 6,809 languages in the world. Wycliffe translators are working in 1,262 language groups and have helped to translate New Testaments into 593 languages. However, there are still 2,737 additional language groups needing Scripture translation programs. The total number of people without any Scripture in their language is 380 million. JAARS, along with its partners, embraces the vision that by the year 2025 a Bible translation project will be in progress for every people group that needs one."

 

I just have to put my two-cents into thread.

I agree with Ed. These are "loaded" questions and loaded questions require explanations for answers rather than a simple "yes" and "no". This sounds like a cross-examining attorney who isn't bright enough to realize the jury can see right through his attack on the witness.

Let me ask you to answer the following questions about my position:

1. How many people am I leading to Hell because I believe the AV1611 is infallible?

Assumes that that you ACTUALLY HAVE a copy of the AV1611. My guess is that you really have a 1769 maybe Cambridge? Or, I think there was another revision in the 1800s and then there is the modern revision called the NKJV. So, in that context, you will not be leading anybody to hell, but you will not be leading many to Jesus since most people can't read the 1611 very well.

By the way, your question is also loaded because you do not lead people to "hell". That is their destination from birth (accountability) until they accept Jesus (if they do).

2. How many young Christians will grow up with a stunted knowledge of the Bible, if I teach them to read it with the belief it is infallible and the very words of God?

Well, first of all you will probably have to buy them some copies of the AV1611 because you don't find them at Wal-Mart. Then you will have to teach them how to read the 1611 version of English.

3. What is wrong with holding up the AV1611 and telling Bible-believing Christians, "You can trust every word"?

If it is an original printing, no it is not wrong, but you probably need to arm yourself or have a bodyguard nearby because you will no doubt be robbed at gunpoint holding such a valuable Bible out in public. That is the reason most AV1611's are kept locked up.

If it is a new "printing" of the AV1611, then there is nothing wrong with it, but like it was mentioned above, you might get tired. But, You can assure yourself that you are holding God's Words. No argument there.

4. How much of my reward will I lose for trusting God to keep his "WORDS" to every generation?

You will only get rewards for those things you do for the advancement of God's Kingdom. If you are adhering to the doctrine that the King James Version 1611 is the ONLY copy of God's Word, then I don't imagine any awards are forth-coming. In fact, if you tell someone to quit reading their NASB and they do, then you might be held responsible for that.

5. If I am not allowed to believe the AV1611 is infallible, then which version should hold that distinction?

Would you like a list? If you so prefer the non-Alexandrian type form then my advice would be either a Cambridge KJV or a NKJV.

Otherwise, you can tell them NIV, NASB, ASV, ESV and a several others.

If they REALLY like the style of English in the AV1611 instead of the more modern KJV, then I suggest you also let them in on the Geneva Bible and the Bishop's Bible.

These all contain the infallable Word of God.

Oh, and you can hold out many other translations in many other languages, too. I don't want to limit you.

6. If no version can hold that distinction, what do you suggest I tell my grand-children the next time they read Psalm 12:6-7?

I would assume that this is what you will say (please excuse me if I get some of the letters wrong, they are extremely hard to read in the olde print:

"6. The wordes of the L O R D are pure wordes fituer trieb in a fornare of earth purifieb feuen times. 7. Thou flalt keepe them, (O L O R D,)thou fhalt preferue *them from this generation foreuer."

Column note were star is: (This is HARD to read):
Hebr,the vilest of the foumes of men are exalted."

You would read all of that above because that note in the column is referenced in my AV1611. Or you could just read the verses. You might want to also read the introduction to the chapter to your grandkids:

"Pfalmes. on the wicked. ---
David deftitute of humane comfort, craueth helpe of God Hee comforteth himfelfe with Gods judgements on the wicked, and confidence in Gods tried promifes."

They might like that also.

7. If I am forced to learn Hebrew and Greek before I can study the "words" of God, will you pay for our lessons?

It won't do you any good to read Hebrew or Greek for two reasons. a) You wouldn't know for sure which manuscript is closest to the original and b) excellent modern translations can be found to cover either manuscript family you wish anyway. The translations I refer to are good and contain the Word of God.


8. Please tell me why you still "preach from" the AV1611 but do not believe it is infallible?

I don't know ANYBODY HERE that preaches from the AV1611. I know a few that preach from the 1769 and the New KJV. If someone did preach from the AV1611 they probably wouldn't keep their audience very long since most wouldn't be able to understand it.


9. Which Bible do you use in your private studies and which one is the "best translation"?

Certainly not the AV1611. If I choose the TR I would probably read a KJ1769 or an NKJV. If I have no problems about which text form my New Testament came from then I would read a NASB, ESV, etc.

10. Why can't you just leave us "ignorant brethren" alone with our belief in the infallibility of the Scriptures and let us retain the title "Bible-believers", while you could use the title "Bible-correctors and interpreters"?

Because YOU are making a VICTIM of yourself with your whining. You may read whatever Bible you choose. You are the one who posted this on the BBS, I'm just answering. But, your understanding of our position is all tainted. We ARE Bible-Believers, we just do not believe that an AV1611 is the ONLY Word of God. I for one think the King James that is on sale today (probably 1769 or later) is also the Word of God.

 

Oh, yeah, don't let me forget. As is mentioned above. Tell your grandkids to ignore the section entitled "Apocrypha." At least that is what it is erroneously called in the AV1611, including the "period after it".

We don't believe those books to be the Word of God.

 

I can't answer for Doc, but it is a "perversion" when it is included in a book as equal to the "Word of God".

Yes, historically, it is interesting reading, but it does not belong where it can be confused with the true Word of God.

Since it is NOT the Word of God, it cannot be trusted as accurate history either, unless compared with other historical documents. It is obvious that many books that did not make it into the Bible are not only NOT the Word of God, but they are historically inaccurate, also.

So, therefore, it should be considered exactly what it is: Writings from a time, long-ago, that may or may not be historically correct. Since I am not a historian, I am not qualified to tell you which parts are correct or not, so from that perspective, I recommend that you consider it as possible fiction, unless proven otherwise.

We do know the Macabees existed and a lot of what they did is probably recorded accurately, but since it was not "inspired" in the originals, we cannot be certain of that accuracy the way we can with the canonized Bible.

 

The bottom line is; A Bible containing the Apocrypha IS a perversion to The Word of God.

In the 1611 version it is not declared as anything other than "just another part of the Bible". Apocrypha simply means "Hidden". Although it is not truly the "apocrypha" per se, it is still NOT the Word of God.

If you are AWARE of that and read it for the historical value, that is fine, but it was an abomination to be published in 1611 as part of the Bible.

 

You can call me Ray, or you can call me Jay, But I'd be careful calling me "foolish".
Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Re-read the thread. It was Ed's word. But it doesn't bother me if it doesn't scare you. I'm "foolish" to both of you because I believe every word. Your choice.

Foolish Lacy

 

Tread gingerly, Brother Lacy Evans, you might offend some
innocent KJVO-persons. You are very close to
saying the different sets of words "Thou fool" and
"foolish" mean the same thing. But in the KJVO-world-order
the message is way different if the words are different.
Tread lightingly as on egg shells.