Featured Some Questions For KJVO Folks

Some here seem more interested in complaining about those who use the KJV exclusively, than in studying the Scripture themselves.

I choose to use the KJV only, my church chooses to use the KJV only, the Christians I fellowship with regularly chose to use the KJV only.

I don't care what any of you think or say.

The best thing those here who use the KJV exclusively can do is ignore Rippon, Logos, Maxdeaf and Robocop concerning this issue and let them complain to each other.

 

I totally agree with your statement. I have no beef with those who use that version exclusively. I use it mixed with others. By the same token, those who use it exclusively have no beef with those who use other versions. I do not know why it is even an issue. In other words, why don't others keep their noses in front of their own Bible and not worry about others. Good post Robert.

 

If I went back in a time machine and zapped King James out of existence before he published the English Bible, what on earth would you post about?

 

Cain's wife? :tongue3: :tongue3:

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

Not really a "faith issue", as its more an issue with logic and textual criticism, and the KJVO starting off from a wrong assumption as regarding what it means to have a "bible!"

ONLY the originals were inspired of God, ONLY they were perfect, w/o errors, and the concept of perserving to us the Word of God relates totheGreek/hebrew texts we have today, as they are essentially copies of those originals, regardless which text used!

transaltions are to be seen as being infallible, NOT inprired nor perfect in all areas, but are trustworthy and to be relied upon!

 

That is a bogus, false accusation. There are no complaints made against those who want to read and use the KJV exclusively. I read and use the KJV myself, and the KJV is preached from exclusively at our church.

The sound, scriptural objections are to posts that try to suggest or imply that a modern, man-made KJV-only theory is taught in the Scriptures when it is not. The proper responses also concern answering the making of incorrect, false claims concerning the KJV and concerning other translations by KJV-only advocates. In addition, the use of unscriptural and unrighteous divers measures and the use of fallacies in KJV-only claims is properly exposed.

KJV-only advocates keep showing that they close their eyes to the truth. They will post the same incorrect and refuted claims over and over, showing that they are unwilling to learn the truth.

It is wrong to suggest that believers who disagree with your KJV-only opinions do not study the Scriptures.

Where is the consistent, sound, scriptural case made from the Scriptures for KJV-only opinions?

 

The name's Mexdeaf, thank you.

Strawman argument- no one complains about those who use the KJV exclusively. You are welcome to use whatever version you wish. I have many friends who use the KJV exclusively.

We will, however continue to point out the fallacies and outright distortions that underlie the KJVO teaching. We're not against your Bibles, we are against man-made false doctrine.

You may go back to ignoring me now.:thumbs:

 

No one is disputing that at all. I was replying to the earlier post by Ach which highlighted atheists criticizing Christians for having too many versions of the Bible. Anyway, God bless and back to our regularly scheduled quibbling.

 

And yet the TRANSLATIONS out of Hebrew and Aramaic from the OT into NT passages where the apostles translated them to Greek were what Paul referred to as Scripture. So if a translation can not be inspired, the NT was never inspired in the first because it is full of translations within itself.

And if God didn't preserve copies, then Jesus incorrectly stated that "this day is the scripture fulfilled in your ears" in Luke 4 when quoting from a COPY of Isaiah 61 that was based on other copies from other copies.

Logos repeatedly states that the preservation and inspiration are limited to the WORDS of the apostles and prophets, and ignores that God put the commandments in stone, commanded His words to be put in a BOOK (Jer 30:2) and judges from heaven OUT OF BOOKS. Rev 20:12. Thus having something in writing seems to be pretty important to God but not important to KJV critics.

 

Where is the sound scriptural case for the defense of the NIV, ESV, NASB, CEV, Living Bible, Good News et al... how many books have you written about the "mistakes" in THOSE Bibles while claiming you have no biased against the KJV? Give me a break. Any Bible believer with common sense can see right through this. KJVO critics have been answered numerous times in numerous publications, they just don't want to admit it.

You act like KJVOs of today are the only believers in history that ever criticized a bible based on a different text. And your complaints about the KJVOs sound exactly the same as the complaints that the Catholics leveled against the KJV translators for CRITICIZING THE RHEIMS that you erroneously stated they relied on.

 

You are misinformed. I did not say that the KJV translators "relied on" the Rheims, but I accurately pointed out the well-established fact that the KJV borrowed some renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament. You were even given the first-hand testimony of a KJV translator [John Bois] who acknowledged or confirmed that the KJV was influenced by the Rheims. You show how KJV-only advocates close their eyes to the truth.

The Roman Catholic translators of the 1582 Rheims criticized and attacked the pre-1611 English Bibles such as Tyndale's and the 1560 Geneva Bible [not the KJV that did not yet exist].

Some Roman Catholics praised the KJV in some places for making a number of changes to the pre-1611 English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops'] that agreed with Roman Catholic accusations against those earlier English Bibles.

An example of where a rendering in most of the pre-1611 English Bibles was changed to agree with a rendering advocated by Roman Catholic Gregory Martin is at Mark 10:52. At this verse, Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whiitingham’s, Geneva, and Bishops’ all have the rendering: “Thy faith hath saved thee,“ which the KJV changed to “thy faith hath made me whole.” William Fulke cited Martin as writing: “In so many places of the gospel, where our Saviour requireth people’s faith, when he healed them of all corporal diseases only, why do you so gladly translate thus, ’Thy faith hath saved thee,’ rather than thus, ’thy faith hath healed thee,’ or ’made thee whole?’ Is it not, by joining these words together, to make it sound in English ears, that faith saveth or justifieth a man” (Defence, p. 425). Hammond observed: “An important doctrinal one is Mark 10:52, where Martin taxes the English Protestants with perverting their translations to make it seem as if the gospel proclaims salvation by faith” (Making, p. 152). Concerning Mark 10:52 in his 1688 book, Thomas Ward, a Roman Catholic, also claimed “they translated it rather ’saved’ than ’healed’ to insinuate their justification by ’faith only’” (Errata, p. 61).

Concerning the removal of the words "by election" at Acts 14:23 from all the pre-1611 Protestant English Bibles in agreement with the 1582 Rheims, Thomas Ward, a Roman Catholic, claimed in his 1688 book that “they thought it now convenient to pretend something more than a bare election; to wit, to receive an episcopal and priestly character, by the imposition of hands” (Errata, p. 69). Ward suggested that perhaps one reason the words by election were removed from Acts 14:23 was “that they might more securely fix themselves in their bishoprics and benefices; thinking, perhaps that bishops consecrated, might pretend to that jure divino” (Ibid.). Ward asserted that “they thought good to blot out the words ’by election‘” (p. 26).

 

One KJV-only author Jack Moorman admitted that “a few phrases and single words” in the KJV were taken from the Rheims (Forever Settled, p. 188), but many KJV-only advocates want to ignore the truth or stick their heads in the sand.

 

That's okay - and that is what is great about this country: you CAN do that without risk of being burned alive or being thrown in prison.

My question to you - if you want to answer it - is this: what is the Scriptural basis for this exclusivity?

Regards,
BiR

 

You have already been proven wrong here, but you persist in error. The scriptures themselves show both a copy and a translation are scripture.

Acts 8:26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.
27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

The Ethiopian eunuch was reading Isaiah, but he was not reading the original autographs, he was reading a copy in Greek, yet the scriptures themselves call the text he was reading "scripture". Not only this, but he was convicted and persuaded by this Greek scripture to believe on Jesus as his Saviour.

So, this view that only the original autographs are scripture and carry the power of God is refuted by the scriptures themselves.

 

Yeshua, I hafta agree with Winman here, based upon sound evidence. First...Jesus Himself clearly read aloud from a vorlage copy of Isaiah in Luke 4:16-21, calling it "this Scripture", and His other quotes of Old Testament passages don't match the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text used to make the English translations of the OT. Second, most other OT quotes found in the NT match, or line up closely, with the Septuagint.

 

Winman:

Faith...or GUESSWORK?

We have PROVEN...not GUESSED AT...the man-made, cultic, dishonest origin of the KJVO myth, as well as pointed out that it lacks SUBSTENCE AND EVIDENCE, the prerequisites for BIBLICAL faith.(Heb. 11:1)

Thus, the exclusivity of the KJV is proven false.

 

MMRRPP! WRONG!

Studying the Scriptures closely is how we Freedom Readers know there's NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth. YOU should know that as well if you've studied them closely as well.

So? You're missing out on a lot.

Likewise. You have the right to choose to be wrong.

ACTUALLY,

The best thing a KJVO can do is study the PROOF of the man-made, cultic, dishonest origin of the current KJVO myth, check out our points for veracity, and act accordingly in dumping the KJVO myth. (not the KJV itself.) unlike the KJVO advocates, we Freedom Readers deal in FACT, not SPECULATION, SKEWED OPINION, AND GUESSWORK.

 

At least you are a good liar.