What is the problem?

That is not a problem. The problem are people who believe that the KJV even corrects the TR where it differs from it. The problem are churches where it is preached that you aren´t really saved if you heard the gospel from a NASB or other MVs. These folks are the problem. I personally believe that the TR is the best NT text and use the KJV and a German TR-Translation as my standard Bible.

Be blessed.

Alex

 

It is that BOOK (KJB) that is the problem(Hebrews 4:12);the part about Bible believers being the problem is nothing but incoherant drivel.

 

It's not and no one here has said that it is.

Since each church is autonomous, it is not. Such a church may find its spiritual growth difficult since so much effort must be put into things that are evident in other versions. It is like someone who wants a car deciding to build one rather than buy one that is already made. It can be done, but it may not be worth the effort.

No one to my knowledge has labaled KJVO as such. You most certainly are not true fundamentalists ... never have been, never will be. To say such reveals a misunderstanding of fundamentalism. It would be worth the study to learn what it really is. Fundamentalism expressly disavowed the the position that you hold and we have shown this before.

The problem is that KJVOnlyism (not preferred or exclusive use, but onlyism) has contradicted the biblical doctrine of inspiration, removed the precious soul liberty of the believer, and told countless people that they do not have the word of God in their own language.

The problem is not what version you use. The problem is when you slander the word of God. That is what we reject. We have encouraged you to use the KJV, to love it, study it, and live it. But do not distort the word of God and do not slander it in other versions simply because of your personal preference about a matter God has not spoken about.

 

No it's not. We love the book. And in a little while when I stand and preach from it, I believe that God will do his work through it. My question is why do you limit God to speaking only through an Anglican translation that is 400 years old.

It is not the Bible believers that are the problem. We have no problem with ourselves or with other Bible believers. Our problem is with those who add this man made doctrine of KJVOnlyism (for which you have shown us there is no biblical support). The only incoherent drivel is coming from those who deny God's word. It is not coming from us.

 

Thats great,but,do you BELIEVE it?

KJVonlyism preached in 1857 in the Gospel Standard. Philpots:"The AV we believe is the grand bulwark of Protestantism;the safegard of the Gospel and the treasure of the Church,and we should be traitors,in every sense of the word,if we consented in giving it up to be rifled by Puseyites,consealed Papist,German Neologians,Infidel Divines,Arminians,Socinians,and the whole tribe of the enemies of God and Godliness. To alter our Bible (AV) would unsettle the minds of thousands as to which was the word of God..there would be two Bibles spread through out the land and what CONFUSION this would create in almost every place. " (emphasis mine)

Well it would seem you have a problem with this guy too.

[ April 27, 2003, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

So? This is this particular writer's opinion and either he doesn't know the facts or he ignores them for some reason.By 1880, there had already been several editions of the AV which changed it.

In 1880 another writer, John Burgon, (a defender of the KJV) who is well quoted in the radical KJVO sphere of influence acknowledged that the AV needed correcting. His obection was not to "necessary" corrections to the AV. As already noted, there had already been several editions of corrections to the AV of several hundred words some of which were substantive.

Burgon's objection was to the changes of Wescott and Hort based upon the texts of Aleph and B (primarily) MSS.

This controversy is ongoing. The KJVO stand of "ONLY"ism is a matter of another order of magnitude and is based on something called (for lack of a better term) Re-Inspiration of a translation of the Word of God. Unsupported by the KJV itself or the original language MSS they used. A theory supported only by the RCC and their
once-upon-a-time view of the Latin Vulgate.

I have asked this question before.
If God "Re-inspired" the English AV (also which ONE of the several editions between 1611-1769) through these Anglican churchmen, why aren't the radical KJVO members of the Church of England to whom God has granted such power?

HankD

 

Yes, I have a problem with him, just like I have a problem with you or anyone else who substitutes the man-made doctrine of KJVonlyism for the true understanding of biblical preservation.

 

Get over it, grow up..

 

Joseph Charles Philpot died 1869, so he did not speak those words in 1880. He was a great man of God. He was reported to have read daily from the Textus Receptus, so he was not a KJV Onlyite, although the version he used and loved was the KJV. Philpot was not a "Fundamentalist", but a Gospel Standard Strict and Particular Baptist, and a leader among them alongside William Gadsby, John Warburton Sr. and John Kershaw.


Harald

 

I qouted the wrong date; it should have been April 1857.

 

1. That is not what you believe is it? You believe the KJV is the only bible and everything else might as well be Reader's Digest.

2. Each church is autonomous and may decide whatever they want.

3. Just for the record (for Pastor Larry's sake), I have said that and so has TomVols. It is absolutely true. KJVO have done more damage to the inspiration of Scripture than any modernist ever will. KJVO are liberals because they add to the Scripture and revise history to make their position seem acceptable.

4. The fundamentalists use the ASV in their arguments. Were they not fundamentalists?

[ April 28, 2003, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Daniel David ]

 

Without apology and without doubt. You cannot show one place where I don't believe. You cannot show one place where the book you do believe tells you to believe that. That is a problem for you, not for me.

Yes I have a problem with this guy: He was wrong. I have a problem when people are wrong. This great mass of confusion simply doesn't exist outside of your KJVOnly circles. In our church, there is no confusion. It is you guys, the KJVOs, that are causing the confusion. The KJV Translators expressly denied the truth of this guy's statement when they talked of the benefit of multiple senses. You would do well to stick with them.

 

Versionolatry, that is, saying that any translated version is the only perfect Bible, is imo slanderous.

But preferring one translation over another, even to the point of discounting all others, is not. It becomes slanderous when you offer that version up as having greater scriptural weight than the texts is is translated from. Thus, being a fill-in-the-blank version onlyist cannot be a fundamentalist.

 

1. If using the KJV is not a problem then why is it a problem when a believer decides it is best to use the KJV exclusively?
Simply using the KJV is not a problem. Saying that the KJV is the only true Bible is the problem.

2. And why is it a problem when a church decides it is best to use the KJV exclusively?
That is not a problem either. Telling the congregation that the KJV is the only true Bible is the problem.

3. And why are King James Bible believers being labeled as modernists and liberals?
They are not. KJV onlyists might be, but KJV use in and of itself does not a modernist or liberal make.

4. We are the true fundamentalists!
A KJV user can be a fundamentalist, as can a NIV user, or NASB user, or KJNV user, etc. However, being a version-onlyist precludes one from being a true fundamentalist.

 

I really could care less if either of you "like it" or him or me for that matter;the purpose of that post was to show that there was Bible believers way back then and to show that it is nothing new,and to show the term KJVO to be nothing but a bunch of baloney.

 

False statement. As far as English Bibles are concerned, several versions prior to the KJV are more qualified. By the time of the AV, the "heavy lifting" of the Reformation had been done.

Please identify the objects of this charge- or better yet, please give the source for this quote so we can look at it in context.

The object of his attack could not have been Westcott and Hort... nor any of the producers of modern texts or translations.

Did he say "(AV)" or did you?

Seems he was most certainly wrong about this... ever amazed at how men wise in their own conceit are willing to limit the hand of God.

You might too since he doesn't espouse what you believe in this quote.

 

what is the difference between kjv and tr?

 

The KJV is a mostly accurate translation of the TR.

 

Amen!