Satan’s lie, of King James Onlyism

[robycop3]

If your accusation is to hold true, how many books has Grady published in this endeavor to just make money?

I only know of two, correct me with evidences please?

ONE is enuff, it it selz well.

And again, WHERE IS HIS SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT?

 

[robycop3]

Quote:
Originally Posted by pilgrim2009
William Grady said it well The problem with Grady is that he promotes an obviously-untrue and obviously-MAN-MADE doctrine in order to sell boox, as several others do.

Pilgrim:Your argument is secular reasoning and you are critical of a man you know nothing about.

His worx speak for themselves. He promotes a false, man-made doctrine, KJVO. That's all I needta know. I don't care whether or not he has a picture-postcard family, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by robycop3
[
Wanna prove otherwise? Just show us where Grady supports KJVO with SCRIPTURE!

Clearly you have not read his book I quote.He only has three or four books out of his many years in the ministry.Un-like the big ministers that have their dispensational end-time books by the dozens that makes millions off every book.Now who really is out to make the money?

You totally ignore my comment you quoted. I said, "Show us where Grady supports KJVO with ....SCRIPTURE!

Now, please stick to that subject. Betcha can't show us any Scriptural support for KJVO, and neither can Grady!

Quote:
Originally Posted by robycop3
[
As an IFB, I am sola scriptura : I believe ONLY those doctrines of worship that are formed from SCRIPTURE ALONE, free of man-s private interps, often formed by yanking verses outta context. I believe that just about every Baptist here believes the same.

If your an IFB Dispensationalist how can you make such a claim since dispensationalism takes many verses out of context?

Do you see the term "dispensationalist" anywhere in my post you quoted? Huh? HUH?

Typical KJVO tactic...ADDING words to someone else's commentary. you're just trying to avoid the FACT that you CANNOT support KJVO with SCRIPTURE, so you try to carve a bunny trail for the readership to follow. Well, it WON'T WORK here, Sir! Either produce some SCRIPTURE supporting KJVO or admit there isn't any.


Quote:
Originally Posted by robycop3
[
If a doctrine of worship comes from a source other than SCRIPTURE, it has only ONE other possible source!

You mut be talking about Romes heretical system?

in part, yes. but I'm really referring to the ULTIMATE source of the Roamin' Calf-Lick man-made package of false doctrines.


Quote:
Originally Posted by robycop3
[
Who is that source?

Satan.

RIIGGHHTT!

Quote:
Originally Posted by robycop3
[
Hint:


Quote:
Originally Posted by robycop3
[
He aspires to be like the Most High.

Yes indeed agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by robycop3
[
And we don't find the first quark of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO in the KJV itself. However, the MAN-MADE SOURCE of the current KJVO doctrine is quite apparent! Grady has simply jumped onto this deceptive bandwagon that's headed straight for the abyss.


Hardly.

Hardly NOT.

What is your Final Authority?

Final WRITTEN authority is God's word, any valid version. And KJVO is NOT FOUND in any of them, including the KJV itself. Therefore that doctrine holds NO authority far as I'm concerned, since it's clearly MAN-MADE.

Mine is the cambridge edition of the AV KJ Bible.

So you've bought into the heresy promoted by "Bibleprotector" and his goofy clan at "Victory faith Centre"?




The KJ as a version is a myth as many other things that came along in the 1800`s.

IS IT ? ? ?

Then, please support your position with SCRIPTURE.

Betcha CAN'T!

OTOH, I can easily showya the origin of the current KJVO doctrine, straight from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book.

Here's the text of that 1930 book: http://www.temcat.com/Wilkinson/AuthorizedBibleTOC.htm

Conclusion: KJVO is just another MAN-MADE doctrine, in the same vein as mariolatry, regenerational baptism, Sabellianism/modalism, annihilationalism, etc. , all from the SAME WANNABEHOLY SOURCE!

 

[pilgrim2009]

Well, if you insist.

" King James Onlyism - of Satan's Lie "

BTW, you might want to find a better reason (and citation) to confute the Majority text with the Textus Receptus (considering the two actually differ in more than 1800 places, including more than 1000 translatable places, according to such as the late Professor Zane Hodges, the late Dr. Arthur Farstad, the late Mr. William G. Pierpont, Dr. Daniel Wallace, and Dr. Maurice Robinson) than Rev. 19:11.

[Edited to add] FTR, I do advocate the Majority Text of the New Testament. :thumbs:

Ed

Confusion

Study has indicated that as recently as 1998 there was a record of 293 English translations of the complete NT plus twenty three more abridged New Testaments.Furthermore this same study noted at least 135 English translations of the complete Bible with an additional 99 abridged Bibles not included.


There undoubtedly have been more translations added since then.Some of these translations are quite obscure.Some are out of print.However some are quite popular such as the NIV-NASB-NKJV etc.

Most laymen are unaware that the several well-known versions mentioned above are not from the same Greek Text.Modern Bible publishing companies often gloss over the fact that there is more than one Greek text.Others use creative advertising to market their Bibles.

For example some publishers at times advertise their particular version as being basedupon the earliest and best Greek manuscripts.Others advertise their version as being based upon the text that scholars recommend.

FTR Most Christian laymen have no idea what the best Greek texts are.Moreover many are influenced by the claims of the earliest and the best of what scholars recommend.Sincere Christians often are either unaware that there is more than one Greek text confused about the matter.

The vast majority of modern Bible translations are based upon the critical text.Only a handful are based upon the Received Text that has towered above all others almost 400 years.

Ye shall know them by their fruit.


Steven.

 

[stilllearning]

As I stated in my OP, I am not KJV-Only, I am “Bible-Only”, yet being Bible only and using the KJV, is repeatedly being called “a cult”.

To make the statement........
“we don't find the first quark of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO in the KJV itself.”

Is like saying, “nowhere does the Bible say that we should believe it”.
--------------------------------------
And then in the same breath they spout “Sola Scriptura”:
If they really believed in “the Bible alone”, than which Bible do they stand on???

You can’t profess to believe in “Sola Scriptura”, until you have “a Bible”.
And anyone here, that “needs” more than one translation of the Bible to “try” to find out what God really said, has not yet found God’s Word.

I don’t need the dead sea scrolls, because I am not in a search the Bible;
I am holding it in my hands.

 

[Harold Garvey]

You ignore people, but call yourself a peacemaker? Ridiculous.

Answer not a fool according to his folly is what the Bible says, are you saying I should not follow God's word and from what version do you get your answer?

If you want to carry on a future conversation about my personal preferences, may I suggest you simply pm me and not hijack the thread?

Maybe you should study Job 40?

 

[Harold Garvey]

My final Authority is seated in the heavenlies and he doesn't use the KJV.

really? How can anyone ever take you serious again when they were reading the KJV when the Holy Ghost brought conviction in their heart and they got saved!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you saying that anyone who has a KJV and got saved while either reading it or heard preaching from it isn't even saved????????


You mean everyone I preached to from my KJV and said they got saved could only have made a false profession????????

You have made probably the most ignorant and outlandis statement I have ever read in the debate!

 

[Harold Garvey]

ONE is enuff, it it selz well.

And again, WHERE IS HIS SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT?

I've read much of your rantings and ravings to already know you deny the scriptures that support the preservation of scripture.

The evidences you demand are not available to you on your concepts, but proofs are found in many other places.

I suppose you would want people to have many versions so they could not ever become familiar with any specific passages as we do in the KJV when we stick solely to it.

Your concept then would go right smack in the face of the scripture wear david says he would hide the word of God in his heart so he might not sin against God. We believe that scripture and teach scripture memorization according to that precept. people have a hard enough time memorizing scripture, why is it you expect them to memorize multiple versions of the same scriptures? Don't you want poeple to know the scripture?

 

[Harold Garvey]

RE: Final Authority.

The KJV translators declared the following as final authority in the KJV Prologue speaking of those who had previously translated the Scriptures:



As to the KJV Cambridge Edition(s) being someone's final authority, there is only one's faith which dictates that proposition. Not even the Church of England was KJVO according to the translator's themselves.

Neither did they consider their work flawless as the Church of England spent nearly two centuries (to their credit) making corrections to the English text (From the original language texts).

HankD

Amazing how some discredit the KJV by accusations against the translators and then turn around and justify their claims for modern versions by the very words of the same translators they had just made derogatory remarks about.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Harold Garvey]

Well, if you insist.

" King James Onlyism - of Satan's Lie "

BTW, you might want to find a better reason (and citation) to confute the Majority text with the Textus Receptus (considering the two actually differ in more than 1800 places, including more than 1000 translatable places, according to such as the late Professor Zane Hodges, the late Dr. Arthur Farstad, the late Mr. William G. Pierpont, Dr. Daniel Wallace, and Dr. Maurice Robinson) than Rev. 19:11.

[Edited to add] FTR, I do advocate the Majority Text of the New Testament. :thumbs:

Ed

Actually, Ed, "KJVO" is a lie and satan is the father of all lies.

No one who holds to the KJV as the final authority makes the claim their is no word of God before 1611.

The label is fallacious and of fiction attempting to become fact.

 

[Rippon]

The Sinaiticus: The fact that some pages were written on sheepskin and some on goatskin is a telling sign of its part Christian, part Heathen character.

That line is sooo stupid. The rest of your source is also of the same caliber.

Ruckman,...

Anyone who cites Ruckman as an authority is delusional.

 

[Harold Garvey]

As I stated in my OP, I am not KJV-Only, I am “Bible-Only”, yet being Bible only and using the KJV, is repeatedly being called “a cult”.

To make the statement........
“we don't find the first quark of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO in the KJV itself.”

Is like saying, “nowhere does the Bible say that we should believe it”.
--------------------------------------
And then in the same breath they spout “Sola Scriptura”:
If they really believed in “the Bible alone”, than which Bible do they stand on???

You can’t profess to believe in “Sola Scriptura”, until you have “a Bible”.
And anyone here, that “needs” more than one translation of the Bible to “try” to find out what God really said, has not yet found God’s Word.

I don’t need the dead sea scrolls, because I am not in a search the Bible;
I am holding it in my hands.

Now that you placed that nail in place may I hit it with my hammer!

What you just pointed out is what satan wants people to keep doing: searching for the words of God or to say that God spoke in many different words which do not always hold the same meaning in every use.

 

[stilllearning]

Thank you Harold, for bringing the point home.

 

[annsni]

Now that you placed that nail in place may I hit it with my hammer!

What you just pointed out is what satan wants people to keep doing: searching for the words of God or to say that God spoke in many different words which do not always hold the same meaning in every use.

Who says that those who use other versions are searching for the Word of God? I have an ESV and I know it's the Word of God. That's the version I use for most of my study. To look at how other versions translated a certain verse or word is not saying that the word in the Bible I'm using is not God's Word - but that the translation of the word might have been different depending on when it was translated. "Gay" means something very different in 2009 than it did in 1900 - and it is better to translate "gay" as "happy" or whatever to make it better reflect the language of today. I do not see an issue with that. Do you? Especially if the translators are going back to the manuscripts that we have to find out what the original word was - and to find it's meaning for today??

 

[Trotter]

Not just in different times, but in different places. here's an example:

I was talking to a couple of friends from england online the other day. I said something about having biscuits and gravy for breakfast. At this both of them burst into laughter. To them, biscuits are cookies and gravy is brown and made from roast beef drippings. To me (an old Southern boy) biscuits are, well, biscuits... bread made from flour, buttermilk, and shortening, and gravy is white and made from sausage or bacon grease, flour, and milk.

The same words but with two completely different meanings due to our cultures and locations. This same difference is even more exaggerated when there is a huge expanse of time between the original words and the present. Even if you ony went back to the last major revision of the KJV (as Ann was referring to above) the differences in usage can be astounding. Not only have some meanings died out and new ones arose, but entire words have dropped from the English language (or at least out of anything resembling common usage).

As for translations, how many ways can you say something? Or describe something? The English language now has over a million words in it and a great many of them are adjectives (or can be used as such). I can call something red, or scarlet, or crimson, or any other name of a shade of red, and still be correct. Now compound this with words and phrases that have no direct English counterpart, or words that could have multiple meanings (Hebrew and Greek are chocked full of them) and you can see why one translation may say something one way and a different say it another.

Just because someone, or some group, decides that the KJV is to be their measuring stick does not mean it is mine... or God's for that matter. Had God wanted the KJV to be the measuring stick He would have had the bible authors to pen it in 1611 English. Funny thing, though, is that He didn't. God had those men write it in their own languages and in their own words.

The KJV is no different than any other honest translation... it is man's attempt to move those words of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into the language of the people of that time and place.

 

[Logos1560]

No one who holds to the KJV as the final authority makes the claim their is no word of God before 1611.

The label is fallacious and of fiction attempting to become fact.

Because they may not directly state it is not evidence that it could not be a logical implication of their claims or reasoning. Are you considering an accurate definition of "the final authority?" The final authority is the ultimate authority beyond which there is no other. Do you claim that there can be two final authorites, especially two final authorities that differ or even conflict in some places?

If the KJV is supposedly "the final authority," it could be understand to imply that the final authority did not exist before 1611. According to a consistent understanding and application of the term "final authority," the claim that the KJV is the "final authority" implies that the 1535 Coverdale's Bible, the 1537 Matthew's Bible, the 1539 Great Bible, the 1560 Geneva Bible, and the 1568 Bishops' Bible could not have been "final authority" in their day since they disagree with and conflict with the KJV in at least some renderings.

Are you ignoring the known facts, valid definitions of terms, and the logical consequences and applications of the claim that the KJV is the final authority?

The fact that "the final authority" did exist before 1611 is a good reason for rejecting the KJV-only claim. How can it be claimed that a translation in 1611 is "the final authority" that is in effect superior to the original language texts from which it was translated and to the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision?

 

[EdSutton]

The title of this thread should be reversed.

Well, if you insist.

" King James Onlyism - of Satan's Lie "

Confusion

Study has indicated that as recently as 1998 there was a record of 293 English translations of the complete NT plus twenty three more abridged New Testaments.Furthermore this same study noted at least 135 English translations of the complete Bible with an additional 99 abridged Bibles not included.


There undoubtedly have been more translations added since then.Some of these translations are quite obscure.Some are out of print.However some are quite popular such as the NIV-NASB-NKJV etc.

Most laymen are unaware that the several well-known versions mentioned above are not from the same Greek Text.Modern Bible publishing companies often gloss over the fact that there is more than one Greek text.Others use creative advertising to market their Bibles.

For example some publishers at times advertise their particular version as being basedupon [sic] the earliest and best Greek manuscripts.Others advertise their version as being based upon the text that scholars recommend.

FTR Most Christian laymen have no idea what the best Greek texts are.Moreover many are influenced by the claims of the earliest and the best of what scholars recommend.Sincere Christians often are either unaware that there is more than one Greek text confused about the matter.

The vast majority of modern Bible translations are based upon the critical text.Only a handful are based upon the Received Text that has towered above all others almost 400 years.

Ye shall know them by their fruit.

Actually, Ed, "KJVO" is a lie and satan is the father of all lies.

No one who holds to the KJV as the final authority makes the claim their is no word of God before 1611.

The label is fallacious and of fiction attempting to become fact.

Amazing how irony so often seems to get lost on the Baptist Board.

Ed

 

[RAdam]

I'll just make this quick point. Whatever translation you use, I think that ought to be your exclusive bible. Why? Hopping back and forth between versions is nothing short of confusing. When I've seen preachers use verses from various versions it is simply confusing, and I often wonder how anyone can keep up. For one thing, if you use many different versions how can you possibly memorize a section of scripture? For another, how can you remember the consistency in translating certain words? And on top of that, do you not trust the translation? That's what one essentially says when he looks to see how this other bible has this text rendered.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I'll just make this quick point. Whatever translation you use, I think that ought to be your exclusive bible. Why? Hopping back and forth between versions is nothing short of confusing. When I've seen preachers use verses from various versions it is simply confusing, and I often wonder how anyone can keep up. For one thing, if you use many different versions how can you possibly memorize a section of scripture? For another, how can you remember the consistency in translating certain words? And on top of that, do you not trust the translation? That's what one essentially says when he looks to see how this other bible has this text rendered.

The only confusion is in thinking there should only be ONE WAY to render any translation. I have no problem studying a multitude of translations. Some are better (more accurate) than others in certain places.

 

[Amy.G]

Some are better (more accurate) than others in certain places.

How do you know which ones are more accurate? How does one with no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew make that distinction?

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Study has indicated that as recently as 1998 there was a record of 293 English translations of the complete NT plus twenty three more abridged New Testaments.Furthermore this same study noted at least 135 English translations of the complete Bible with an additional 99 abridged Bibles not included.

There undoubtedly have been more translations added since then.Some of these translations are quite obscure.Some are out of print. ...

These figures are about as close to my own research as any I've seen. Could you please tell me where I could find this study? I am interested in this subject. Thank you.

... Most laymen are unaware that the several well-known versions mentioned above are not from the same Greek Text.Modern Bible publishing companies often gloss over the fact that there is more than one Greek text. ...

FTR Most Christian laymen have no idea what the best Greek texts are.Moreover many are influenced by the claims of the earliest and the best of what scholars recommend.Sincere Christians often are either unaware that there is more than one Greek text confused about the matter. ...

It is to Christians shame that they are not informed of the facts of the transmission of the scriptures through discovered ancient manuscripts, and their subsequent textual criticism, collation, and compilation into printed texts.