Separational Issues

I voted BJU, because separation should be due too unwillingness to compromise. I believe the KJV issue is compromising. I believe that it is the only preserved Word of God in the English language.

 

I believe the KJV issue is compromising as well. KJVO's are adding a doctrine to scripture by saying it is the only preserved Word of God in the English language. That is by definition compromise.

I have separated with a church and a pastor who was a friend over this very issue. I didn't make a big stink- just explained where I thought he went wrong privately, gave him time to consider a response, and left when he came down on the unbiblical side.

 

>I have separated with a church and a pastor who was a friend over this very issue. I didn't make a big stink- just explained where I thought he went wrong privately, gave him time to consider a response, and left when he came down on the unbiblical side. <

Just because you separated, from it doesn't make you right.

You asked, I answered. I am not fighting with you about my answer. I do believe that the KJV is the only preserved version in the English language. Thus it would be compromising if I settled for less.

 

Dr. Bob said:

"Ain't" that the truth!

Although I think the Word of God is the yardstick for any type of separation!

 

I would never propose that it did.

I am right because KJVOnlysim is demonstrably false and unbiblical.

Compromising with what? You would not be compromising against the Bible (KJV). It says absolutely nothing that can be construed as supporting KJVOnlyism. In fact, it contains examples and internal evidence that disproves KJVOnlyism. Such as the differences between the Isaiah Jesus read at Luke 4:18 and the Isaiah translated by the KJV translators at Isaiah 61:1.

You would not be compromising against the historic orthodox position on the Bible. The original fundamentalists held a position like ours- that only the originals were inspired and therefore perfectly worded. They supported and honored translations of the Bible as God's Word... and they are. But they also recognized that even the best of them were the works of fallible men from texts collated by fallible men.

You might be compromising against your own opinion or sentiment. You might be compromising against a fallible human leader that has taught you KJVOnlyism. But these aren't biblical nor factually sound reasons.

I am not fighting you either. Hopefully, you will see something in my response that will cause you to dig deeper. See what the Bible has to say on the issue... and don't read your biases into it. See what great Christians of the past like Spurgeon, Torrey, and even John R Rice had to say on the versions issue.

This is how I discovered that KJVOnlyism was false.

I left the church not because I hate the KJV. It has been my primary Bible my whole life and still is. My reason for leaving the church is that an unbiblical, false, and divisive doctrine was preached from the pulpit and the pastor- my good friend who visited my home frequently, who I held personal confidence with, who I had knocked on doors with,...- not only refused to correct the damage, he endorsed KJVOnlyism.

This occurred after he assured me before our family joined the church that he was not KJV only but rather only KJV. That he preferred the KJV over all others. He himself had quoted (without citing the source of course) from a different version while explaining a passage in the KJV.

I hope this now makes sense to you.

 

Actually Scott I see your response as disrespectful. . I am not a Ruckmanite. I just believe after much research and experience of using falsse writings (NIV and NKJV)I believe the only preserved Word in english is KJV.

Doesn't mean I believe in false doctrine. I just happen to believe in God's Word.

 

I am sorry you do.

I never accused you of being a Ruckmanite. He isn't the only one who is dead wrong and dangerous on this issue. Probably the most dangerous KJVO is David Cloud because he seems reasonably fundamental on most other issues.

How did you determine that they were false writings? What research? What experience?

Quite matter of factly it "does" mean that you believe a false doctrine. There are NO biblical supports for KJVOnlyism. If it is your preference to only use the KJV, God bless you.

If you want to call other faithful translations "false writings" then you have crossed the line into false doctrine.

 

>>>>>How did you determine that they were false writings? What research? What experience?<<<<<<

What research have you got to prove otherwise?

As for my experience, well it is my experience from using the NIV and NKJV that made me come to my conclusion. Never, onnce using those writings did God ever speak to me. That is my experience

I guess the Last Chapter of Mark proves nothing to you. It sure means alot to me.

BTW I only responded to this post cause I thought it was interesting. Not to fight. I am a lady and I am bowing out graceful. say what you want I don't care. I know the Truth and it has set me free.

 

So, Your decision to use only the KJV is not actually based on scripture, but on your own extra-bibilcal revelation.

Sounds pretty new age to me. Sounds to me like the KJV-only position may have been influenced by the new age movement, or perhaps eastern mysticism.

I guess if it works for Benny Hin...

I prefer to evaluate my experience based on scriptural truth, rather than the other way 'round

 

Exactly, superdave. KJVOnlyism is in many ways a modern-day manifestation of Gnosticism.

 

What a shame, I came back to the BB in hopes that there truly was "real" dialog going on but I see that the only thing still going on is bashing.

In stead of bashing each other (modern-day Gnosticism, eastern mysticism, cross into false doctrine, etc) Get off of the computer and go tell your neighbors and city about Salvation. Jesus said the "fields are white unto harvest" and that needed harvest is not being served by this type of childness. (IMHO)

Both sides of this issue can and for healthy discussion disagree but when you belittle each other you do a disservice to our Lord and Savior.

 

A great deal and have posted most if not all of it in the versions forum.

However, that isn't an answer is it? You did not cite any facts or research (which is par for the KJVO course). You tried to change the subject.

There are numerous proofs against KJVOnlyism that all rest on an honest evaluation of the facts governed by biblical principles.

KJVOnlyism fails scripturally. There are examples in the KJV proving it wrong. A plain reading of relevant passages prove it wrong.

It fails historically. It does not line up with known facts.

And, it fails logically. For instance, what was the English Bible in 1610 if anything different from the KJV is not Bible.

One proof against KJVO's lack of history: The orthodox view of scriptures and translations has existed since at least Augustine and probably before. It has indirect proofs in such things as the passage in Acts where those being preached to heard the word in their own language. KJVOnlyism is a very, very recent aberration. Its formal defense originates with a 7th Day Adventist.

Scripture is not determined by YOUR experiences. Your experiences should be judged by scripture.

Perhaps the reason God did not "speak" to you wasn't the version but rather you. Judging by scripture, that would be the likely answer. Perhaps you weren't approaching in faith. Perhaps you were not prepared to receive the things of God.

The larger problem with your response is its premise rather than simply the conclusion. If you judge things based on some kind of emotional response that you render as God speaking to you then you can fall into all sorts of errors.

II Peter is written to prepare Christians to battle false teachers. It specifically cites knowledge, not feelings, as the means of doing this.

Really? I believe Mark had an ending, just not exactly the one recorded in the KJV.

But since that is the test you have chosen to see if I am spiritual or not, does that passage really mean alot to you exactly as it appears in the KJV?

Do you believe that one must believe and be baptized to be saved? BTW, the Anglicans that translated the KJV believed that salvation was necessary.

Do you believe that these signs WILL follow those who believe: casting out devils, speaking in new tongues, snake handling, poison drinking, healing by touch?

Have you done all of these things?

You can explain it all you want but any explanation will be changing the literal meaning of a passage that gives no indication of being anything less than literal.

Like in my church, if I run across someone espousing doctrinal error I will confront them. Especially someone who does it within the body of fundamental believers. The future of fundamental Christianity in America is dependent on adherence to the truth. KJVOnlyism is a direct threat.