Questions From A KJV-Onlyist

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

--------------------------------------------------
gb quoted:

2 Timothy 2:15, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.”
--------------------------------------------------

gb,

Yes, I agree 100% with the scriptures and try to live it to the best that the Lord allows me. I do my best to show myself approved to God, not men, and accurately handle the word of truth. You might do well to take this advice, believe it, live it, and share it. I know what the Lord has convicted in my heart, and as I have said many times before, and given many scriptural references for, that the scriptures and evidence is what he has convicted my heart from. I am sorry you do not understand this. Others on the other hand, have not given one scriptural reference for the approval of those things that would alter God's preserved words of truth. Nor have they shown that they are obediant to God's word of truth, to separate from those things that would add to God's word, as many claim the KJV had added verses/words. No, instead they accept it, and touch the unclean thing and continue the use of and approval of something they think has altered God's word of truth. This is being disobediant to God.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

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

--------------------------------------------------
gb quoted:

Why go beyond the direct translation to suit your personal agenda and interpret as well. Are you not against that?
--------------------------------------------------

gb,

That may be the difference between you and I? I am not on here sharing the truth with all for a "personal agenda". Secondly, the interpretation and meaning of that orginiol Hebrew word means "virgin" in the english language. Young woman is only part of that meaning, and doesn't give the reader of today that full meaning. God preserved the rendering of this english word virgin for hundreds of years. I stand in faith of God's providence of the preservation of his words of truth in the translation into english, which has stood for hundreds of years. The translation of that word to "young woman" in the english language is an altogether new thing, and has not been shown to be believed, taught, lived, preached for hundreds of years within the churches. I am sorry you cannot see the danger that this alteration could cause.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

I will let GB answer for himself on your advice. I think you need to take it just a bit easy on the "touch the unclean thing and continue the use of", remember our agreement not to step on the other person's Bible. Since I believe the KJV is the Word of God this is not a problem for me, but you must also realize the ESV is also the Word of God. If it were not it would not carry all of the gospels, doctrine, etc. the same thing you find in the KJV.

 

I again disagree. The word "alma" translates as a "lass" a "damsel" or a "maiden." It carries the idea of a maiden who is veiled, hidden, and kept private. I shouldn't have to tell you the meaning of "maiden" nor the use of the term "maiden head" in English.

Every English bible translates the word as "virgin" until the RSV, which is the work of rank modernists many of whom denied the virgin birth of Christ.

The ASV, often called "The Rock Of Biblical Honesty" translates the word as "virgin."

The NASB, probably the best of the modern versions based on the Alexandrian text type, translates the word as "virgin" with a marginal note indicating "Or maiden."

Even the NIV, the most free wheeling of the newer translations, translates the word as "virgin."

 

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

--------------------------------------------------
Phillip quoted:

but you must also realize the ESV is also the Word of God. If it were not it would not carry all of the gospels, doctrine, etc. the same thing you find in the KJV.
--------------------------------------------------

Phillip,

I must NOT also realize that the ESV is also the word of God! Who are you to tell me that I must? I do not consider it such, I consider it unclean, for it has been altered (defiled the purity of God's word), and therefore I am obeying God and separating myself from such. You might do well to separate yourself, (as God has commanded) from the KJV to which you believe added to God's word. You are disobeying God by not separtating from it, and for approving it and touching an unclean thing. We are commanded to separate, not COMPROMISE.

Please, do not tell me that I "MUST" accept anything that has altered the very words of God. I will not, and do not, whether you like it or not. God has commanded me to separate from such. This is what I am doing.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle has blasphemed the word of God by saying that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." is "unclean."

Michelle also says that the words of John the Baptist in John 1, "“Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" are also "unclean."

Such blasphemy! Such hatred for the word of God! That is down right Satanic!

 

Michelle, Easy does it. I don't want you to step over the rules here, I want to be able to continue to discuss with you.

Michelle, there is NOT a translation in any language today that is 100% word for word of the original manuscripts. First, if there was, we wouldn't know what it is. There are many, many Greek and Hebrew manuscripts ALL of which vary in wording. Scholars have attempted to put together the manuscripts in the best way possible to recreate (as closely as they can) what the originals say. Since the originals do NOT exist then we will just have to live with several manuscript streams that are all different, including the different Textus Receptus versions.

You cannot take the KJV and work back-wards. We know for a matter of fact that the KJV in 1611 has words that were changed and revised many times up through at least 1769 if not in the 1800's. So, therefore the Bible you hold as the KJV is only 200 years old and not 400 years old. If it were to be 100% accurate, then what did people do BEFORE the King James came on the scene.

Remember when we talked about having to add Words to translate other languages? Well, if that is the case, then obviously God is preserving HIS WORDS, which means His Message, His hope, His grace, His Lordship, etc.

No man-made translation is going to be 100% accurate, but they can contain the "inerrant Word of God" -- His faith and message.

Show me just one scripture where individual Words will be preserved. Also, show me one scripture where it says it will be preserved in English.

The fact is, His Words are faithfully preserved and when you talk about my ESV you are talking about My Bible -- God's Holy Word. It certainly doesn't preach about Satan, now does it?

As for you comment on the KJV, that I should abandon it because it has words added. NO, it also contains the inerrant Word of God. Individual words, and we have reviewed many of those, which most are simply translational differences, the ones that aren't are few and mean nothing to our doctrine.

Just because a Bible is OLD does not make it 100% accurate "wording", but it can still contain the Word of God.

If the OLD was best, then the Vulgate would obviously become the one; but I don't feel it is a great translation, do you?

For those who lived between 1000 AD and 1700 AD, what was their Word of God?

I won't tell you anything you have to do except obey the rules of the site, which you will have to or loose you privileges and I don't want to see you do that. A fast way to do that is calling a Bible names.

We are NOT spreading doubt or confusion here, we are simply stating facts that must be dealt with by Christians. You will notice that there is even debate amonst us as to which documents are the most like the originals---we simply do not know. Otherwise, we might start worshiping a book which would be idol worship. It is the "Words of God" the is important and they are definitely maintained in many translations.

 

I have called on the carpet to answer this charge a couple of times. (No scriptural support for KJV onlyism.)

It is a straw man. Plain and simple.

There is also no "scriptural support" for the position that "ALL (or most) English versions are God's Word" or that "No Bible is perfect" or that "Our 66 book cannon is closed" or that "The apocrypha is not scripture". The Bible doesn't "say" that The Book of Mormon is false. Where does the Bible specifically "say" that the JW (a god) Bible is wrong. I'm sure they have "respected scholars" too.

We have external evidence and internal (scriptural-howbeit secondary) evidence for our positions on ALL of these issues. It is a matter of interpretation and faith. (Both of which are limited by this old flesh.)

You ask me for something that doesn't exist on either side of the debate.

Lacy, the Flying Monkey from Oz

 

As compared to what? The evidence for the God inspired originals or as compared to your claims of KJV perfect wording based on some supposed extra-biblical revelation you have received?

Before you, as a Christian, call something "unclean" don't you think you should consult with God first? Where in the KJV does it say that the KJV is the only valid English Bible? Where does it say that any English version besides the KJV or a version translated from a different text is "unclean"? If you cannot cite these scriptures then your claims amount to the assertion that God has given you new revelation that goes beyond what was given to the writers of scripture.

Why do you persist in putting words into God's mouth?

You keep posting this idiocy. We keep answering it... you must be willfully ignoring the truthful responses.

The KJV and other faithful versions teach the same doctrines and reveal the same God. Those with an extreme bias will go out of their way to try to create rather than explain/understand supposed contradictions. This has been the tactic of true liberals and Bible-haters for over a century now. KJVO's employ the same tactics in their efforts to disprove modern versions of God's Word as liberals used 100 years ago in efforts to disprove the Bible even in the originals.

Further, you and all other KJVO's would use arguments to explain away apparent problems in the text of the KJV than any we would use to explain differences between the KJV and other faithful versions. This is a classic double standard in violation of clear scriptural principle.

We are also told to prove all things and hold to the truth. That involves accepting and accounting for facts in a reasonable way.

Why are you avoiding the all important issue... the words of the KJV were not given by God.

No. You are profaning what God has called holy. You are condeming what God is using to save and sanctify millions because you vainly demand that God must have preserved His Word only in the way you prescribe. You need to look at scripture and the facts of textual history then employ scriptural principles to reconcile your beliefs to these.

The first principle you might want to consider is the use of one set of scales. In other words, no double standards.

 

According to Strong’s Concordance the number for word virgin in Isaiah 7:14 is 05959 and the Hebrew word is ‘almah.

The word 'almah is used in the KJV 7 times: as virgin 4 times, maid 2 times, damsels once. Here are the verses in the KJV:

Genesis 24:43 - Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the "virgin" cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;

Exodus 2:8 - And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, Go. And the "maid" went and called the child's mother.

Psalms 68:25 - The singers went before, the players on instruments followed after; among them were the "damsels" playing with timbrels.

Proverbs 30:19 - The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a "maid".

Song of Solomon 1:3 - Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the "virgins" love thee.

Song of Solomon 6:8 - There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and "virgins" without number.

Isaiah 7:14 - Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a "virgin" shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.


Just to set the record straight, KJV Warrior, which of the Modern Versions translates the word in Isaiah 7:14 as "young woman?" Here's a list of the verse in the KJV, NIV, NASB, NLT, NKJV, and the ESV. ALL of them translate the word as "virgin." Please check all the facts before posting any KJVO "talking points."

KJV:
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.


NIV:
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

NASB:

14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.


NLT:
14All right then, the Lord himself will choose the sign. Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel--`God is with us.'

NKJV:
14Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

ESV:
14Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

As for Michelle and her remark regarding "You are disobeying God by not separtating from it, and for approving it and touching an unclean thing. We are commanded to separate, not COMPROMISE."
Who are you to stand in judgement of Phillip because of the particular version of the Bible he chooses to read. I realize that you are a fairly new Christian, but take it from someone who spent over 4 years in a KJVO church. The pride and self grandizement that come as a result of the belief systems in these types of churches is extremely dangerous. Once you elevate yourself above other Christians because you dress a certain way, avoid certain things, and read a particular version of the Bible, you begin to see yourself as being loved by God more than those who don't think the same way. I'm not attacking you but a belief system that I see as divisive and counter to the mission of the Church. I have seen more than one person nearly destroyed spiritually by this nonsense. Clearly, if someone denies the Virgin birth of Christ, the Deity of Christ, the Bodily resurrection of Christ, and the Acsension and Return of Jesus Christ, then you should separate yourself from them. But to separate yourself from someone who merely reads a version you deem to be "corrupt" is adolescent at best. It's like teenagers who don't associate with someone because they don't wear the same clothes. When are you KJVO's going to realize we're on the same team.

Shawn

 

Ahhh, did it again. Should have used the "review button", please pardon all of the grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors above.

 

There it is. The reason I am KJV only. Preservation by deism. God wound the clock in the "autographs" and atrophy set in the first time it was copied. This is the unscriptural view.


Show me one verse that says God is bound to the autographs. I can show you many where he writes the Word over and the absolute integrity of the "original" is maintained. It doesn't seem possible, but neither does a young woman, (er virgin) conceiving, or God being both 3&1, or Christ being "God with us". My God set the clock, runs, operates and maintains the clock, and if he likes, tears it up and rebuilds it again just like new.

Lacy

 

We have the example of scripture where more than one version of events and teachings is given. We have the fact that God gave people in acts the supernatural ability to understand the spoken Word in their own tongue. We have the fact that the Bible calls things scripture that are neither the originals nor the KJV.

No. We simply have the facts that until the printing press all NT mss varied from one another to some degree or another and that even the careful Jewish scribes acknowledged errors in copying by putting what they thought the true readings were in the margins. BTW, the KJV sometimes follows those readings... at least according to Skan.

The last person, John, biblically qualified to write scripture died about 1900 years ago. The canon is closed. The apocrypha was noted for not having the proper authentication to be considered scripture going all the way back to the time of Christ.

Yes it does unless you don't understand the meaning of "the end". The Book of Mormon introduces doctrines and teachings that are not preserved in the providentially provided evidence for the autographs.

It doesn't. Scholars who know Granville Sharp's rule say so.

No. It is a documented fact that the NWT was put together by people with very little if any original language knowledge. This actually came out in a court case in sworn testimony if I am not mistaken.

No you don't. You have not answered many critical questions such as why did God leave man without His Word for so long? Although I must give you credit for creating the most elaborate scheme of self-deception on this issue that I have ever seen. The idea of preservation by restoration is certainly imaginative... not godly, not biblical, not factual but none the less creative.

That much is true. None of us can see the truth perfectly on this issue since God in His providence chose to leave some things obscure.

However we can see the issue well enough to say certain things are false. KJVO/TRO are false.

 

There it is. The reason I am KJV only. Preservation by deism. God wound the clock in the "autographs" and atrophy set in the first time it was copied. This is the unscriptural view.</font>[/QUOTE] It is not unscriptural. It is an historical fact. Denying fact doesn't make you faith full nor scriptural.

God chose to preserve His Word in a way that you don't want to accept. This is not equivalent to "atrophy".

That is done in all faithful translations.

What you can't show is that God wrote the KJV. The KJV is a translation/revision derived from a collated Greek text. The scholarly efforts involved are well documented.

Even if you were going to claim that these scholars were inspired but didn't know it (which is an incredible stretch), you still haven't resolved the fact that none of them qualify as writers of scripture. None of them were apostles, prophets, nor holy men of old. These are the only ones biblically qualified.

 

There it is. The reason I am KJV only. Preservation by deism. God wound the clock in the "autographs" and atrophy set in the first time it was copied. This is the unscriptural view.


Show me one verse that says God is bound to the autographs. I can show you many where he writes the Word over and the absolute integrity of the "original" is maintained. It doesn't seem possible, but neither does a young woman, (er virgin) conceiving, or God being both 3&1, or Christ being "God with us". My God set the clock, runs, operates and maintains the clock, and if he likes, tears it up and rebuilds it again just like new.

Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]I will go ahead and put my two-cents in since you are responding to my poast.

You are incorrect and misunderstand what I am saying.

God has NOT allowed "atrophy" to occur in regards to "His Word". He has preserved it extremely well and it is found in many English translations and many foreign translations as well. The Bible is the best preserved book from ancient times that there is. The reason this is? You should know, God preserved it.

Do not be misquoting me and saying that my view in unscriptural when there is absolutely no scriptural or historical evidence that God would ONLY preserve his word in a form of English that is difficult to understand today.

Sure, people say that kids need to be taught better English. That is a straw-man in itself. The fact is, we need newer translations to provide better understanding of God's word today.

Tell me, nobody has answered this question satisfactorily. Which is the true unadulterated word-for-word translation in your point of view, the KJV1611 or the KJV1769, or one in between?

What English Bible was word-for-word correct before 1769? (or 1611 if you so choose)?

 

[personal attack snipped]

[ April 20, 2004, 01:16 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

 

Skanwmatos:I again disagree. The word "alma" translates as a "lass" a "damsel" or a "maiden." It carries the idea of a maiden who is veiled, hidden, and kept private.(Clipped for brevity)

Several months ago, I asked a local rabbi about "alma" & he told me that there's nothing wrong with "virgin", since in the old days, virginity was an integral part of being an "alma", & it could be safely assumed that ANY alma was a virgin, especially one to whom GOD HIMSELF refers.

 

Michelle:I must NOT also realize that the ESV is also the word of God! Who are you to tell me that I must? I do not consider it such, I consider it unclean, for it has been altered (defiled the purity of God's word),

PROOF, PLEASE? ?

Just saying, "It aint the KJV" won't cut it.


and therefore I am obeying God and separating myself from such. You might do well to separate yourself, (as God has commanded) from the KJV to which you believe added to God's word. You are disobeying God by not separtating from it, and for approving it and touching an unclean thing. We are commanded to separate, not COMPROMISE.

There are no two English BVs alike, old or new. Where's your PROOF that this is right & that is wrong? Your dartboard?

Please, do not tell me that I "MUST" accept anything that has altered the very words of God. I will not, and do not, whether you like it or not. God has commanded me to separate from such. This is what I am doing.

HOW DO YOU KNOW that the KJV isn't the one that's altered?

 

[personal attack snipped]</font>[/QUOTE]That was certainly gentlemanly. What a sweet Christian spirit. Man do I feel edified.

Lacy

[ April 20, 2004, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

 

Do you believe there was a word-for-word correct Bible before 1769 (1611 if you so choose)? If you don't then why insist that I must?

Lacy