Who gave them the authority to OMIT ?

Your assumptions and judgments are very great. I wonder how many KJVO's you represent?

 

WHOA!!!!!! Already over page 10 within 12 hours?!

Bro. Tim. L, You just joined this discussion forum only 6 days ago. You started another thread debate about Bible translation. It was 23 pages within only 5 days!!

You runs like as rabbit!

Take relax!

First of all,

I am not King James Version Onlyism.

I do not agree with them.

By the way, I want to tell you, I do SUPPORT KJV 100% of course! KJV is the truth Word of God. I thank God for KJV.

I disagree with KJVO pastors saying no person can become saved from reading differebt versions. Person can become saved by reading KJV only.

I strongly disagree with them.

I read at baptist-city.com Late Dr. Hyles' sermon on "Enemy of Soul Winning". He said, a person who read through whole RSV Bible cannot be saved.

That does not make a sense to me. I disagree on Dr. Hyles about Bible translation issue.

I was saved by reading New English Version in the book of Revelation by myself. NNE witness gospel to me how to become saved. On that night August 17, 1988. I read Revelation 20:11-15 - NEV. I understood it very clear. It caused me scare and guilty about going to the lake of fire. So, I decided to bow down and talk to Jesus with sign. I talked to Jesus for about 30 minutes. I asked Jesus to wash all my sins away through His blood(I know the doctrine of Christ's blood when I was a strong Lutheran before), and asked Jesus to came into my heart. I told him, that I do not want go to lake of fire, and miss new heaven, new earth, and New Jerusalem, and miss Jesus too. After I finish pray, I was so overjoyful, then go bed so peaceful.

About 12 hours later, I took driver lincense test. I got test passed 12 hours later after my salvation. I believe Rev. 1:3 promises us if any perosn read that book will receive blessing. I did received blessing from God by read Revelation.

I have been read through WHOLE book of Revelation by myself!! I read Revelation in NEV. I didn't realize that NEV have so many errors and omit verses too many. Yet, NEV do have truths in it. There is no difference between KJV and NEV. Both do have the doctrine of truth.

Today, I use KJV all the times. But, I do have NIV, RSV, NEV, Living Bible, and 1611 A.V. too on my library bookselve!! I do not throw them all away. I just use them for study to compare KJV to use for the doctrine, that's all.

By the way, of course, I know ALL versions have errors and omit verses.

How about KJV? Yes. KJV do have some errors in it. Yet I support KJV 100%. Because KJV is the only one English Bible that was translated come from Greek - Textus Recptus. I consider KJV is more closer to Greek than any Versions.

YET, I consider, NIV, NKJV, RSV, ASV, etc.. is partially Word of God. Because of these do have some truths in them.

My question is, why not you go ride on the time machine travel from 2004 A.D. to year 1004 A.D. go to the Church in Europe, ask for KJV BIble. Everyone in Europe during 1004 A.D. would saying to you, "Sorry, we do NOT have English Bible". How can you ab;e to read Bible in a different language???

Also, another question, suppose you riding on the time machine from year 2004 A.D. travel to year 3004 A.D.(suppose Christ is not yet come). You go to the Christian Bookstore, ask for KJV. One person might saying to you, "Well, we do not have KJV, we have 31th Century King James Verion, don't you mind to read this?" You might saying to a person, "Sure." Then, when you look at 31st Century King James Version, then you might be little bit overwhelm and surprise to see several words are different as 2004 KJV.

Does that mean 31st Century King James Version is NOT the Word of God???

Think about it.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

I agree w/Dr. Bob. Just because he's a moderator doesn't mean he must give up his right to express his views same as anyone else.

Bro. Tim, we've seen you post the same old KJVO arguments that were blown out of the water before the Internet was even thought of. Do you have any new evidence to help convince anyone that KJVO is nothing more than a man-made myth? Remember, ANY doctrine about Scripture, in order to be valid, MUST BE SUPPORTED by Scripture since Scripture is the highest written authority there is. There is absolutely *Z-E-R-O* Scriptural support for ANY version onlyism whatsoever.

The KJVOs, when asked to provide Scriptural support for their myth, often cite the verses stating God has preserved His word. Among Baptists, this preservation is a gimme; otherwise our Bibles are simply books and not the word of God, the operators' manual for Spaceship Earth, are not His commandments for all mankind.

For hundreds of years, God has provided His word to mankind through thousands of versions He has caused to be made in divers languages. He's done so in English for a long time. Now, for the last 70 or so years, we have people telling us that every Bible made in English after 1611 is bogus, but when we ask them to *prove* their assertions, they try every which way to avoid having to try to prove them. They talk the talk but won't walk the walk. Therefore, no one believes them, and they pretend to wonder why. Actually, deep down inside, they KNOW they're promoting a false doctrine, but like the person who knows smoking is unhealthy, they're too addicted to that false doctrine to break away from it.

If there was any truth to the assertions of the KJVO myth, I'd believe it, and admit my opposition to it was wrong, as I'm interested in serving God with as pure a heart as possible, and if I denied a truth just to be "right" in a debate, then I'd be a LIAR. But the Onlyist him/herself proves KJVO to be a myth by making EXCUSES rather than presenting supporting evidence that could raise their doctrine from "myth" status.

Bro. Tim, we'd like to see you present any evidence to support the KJVO myth-IF YOU CAN. Just quoting Scripture about God's preservation of His word WON'T DO, as these verses can apply equally to ANY Bible version. Same with the manuscripts-you CANNOT prove one more valid than the other. Just because one ms has more words than another doesn't necessarily mean it's more valid.We want to see **PROOF** that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible version, to the exclusion of any other; otherwise we must file your posts under "fiction".

 

Erasmus published 5 TRs. 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535.

 

Dear brother DeafPosttrib,

This is an amazing testimony as to how God saved you!

HankD

 

Have we resurrected the Apocrypha straw man again. All you have to do is read the 39 Articles to see what the Church of England thought of the Apocrypha.

 

Talk about not being able to admit you are wrong! Same old falsehood yet again!

 

We want to see **PROOF**

"...blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

 

Are you equating the KJV to Jesus?

 

Talk about not being able to admit you are wrong! Same old falsehood yet again! </font>[/QUOTE]Saying something is false does not prove it to be false. Robycop3 was pretty careful with his language. A belief from absolute ignorance does not constitute a doctrine nor does your one citation of one person who referenced some anonomous KJVO's prove anyone held such a doctrine... Even your source considered the cause of their belief to be ignorance, not a reasoned belief.

Wilkinson (sp?) formulated what has become known as KJVOnlyism. It was later picked up and carried further by certain reactionary Baptists.

 

If you guys keep ignoring the truth, the facts, and the testimony of history, you will soon be just like the KJVOs!

The FACT is that KJVOism predated Wilkerson. You may not like that, and you may lack the character to admit it, but the facts are still the facts. I know that FACT ruins one of your favorite arguments, that of "guilt by association" with an SDA, but the facts are still the facts. Time to get over it and move on with your Christian growth.

 

Bro. Tim:

"Do you want to know where to stand, find
out where the enemy stands and do the opposite.
The Charismatic movement and most TBN preachers
hold to the NIV, oh yea, so does Hollywood Jesus
films ."

David Koresh, Jim Jones, Heaven's Gate, and many other cults use/used only the KJV. Should YOU then not do the opposite of what THEY do/did?

Please don't try to rationalize by saying, "Well, that's a different situation-those people were CRAZY." You're trying to tell us that the Charismatics, etc. do what you believe is bad becaise of the BV they use. Well, why couldn't those I named above do what they did because of THEIR BV, the KJV? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.(That is, unless you're working from a DOUBLE STANDARD...)

 

I disagree Skan, it is not a straw man it is very pertinent. If it is not pertinent then why did they (the KJV translation committee) include the Apocrypha in the first place only to remove it later? Why did they treat it as Scripture in the marginal references and the daily Scripture reading chart both of which were also removed at a later date?

The 39 Articles of Faith have changed over the years. Also not everyone agreed/agrees with them (then or now). There is the High Church and Low Church in the Anglo-Catholic Church. To this day many in the High Church (aristocracy) are seeking re-union with the Mother Church, the Church of Rome.

The Apocrypha is RCC in origin. High Church members (many Bishops) to this day teach and preach the RCC doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist and Baptismal Regeneration as Scriptural.

There are places in the AV which lean toward RCC dogma. (e.g. the term Bishop, a word signifying a ministerial priesthood). The KJV was shrouded in the grave clothes of Rome when first published.
Thank the Lord someone had the good sense to remove them.

HankD

 

With all due respect, Skan...

HOW MANY TIMES have I stated, ***modern***KJVOism began with Wilkinson? I'm referring to the totally-clueless myth that's bandied about today.

Shoot, there were KJVOs as early as the 1630s. But, did they go around spouting their stuff to anybody they could get to listen?

You must admit that the old-time KJVO was a very minor thing, little-known nor cared about even in the "Roaring '20s". I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you know of any whole books written before 1930 that are totally dedicated to advocating a KJV-Only view?

Fact is, KJVO was little-known and even less-believed until the late 1950s and after more modern BVs began appearing. Then, the modern myth came along with all its buzzwords, chants, & mantras, I.E."the MVs omit Scripture, the MVs substitute Satan for Jesus in Isaiah 14:12,things that are different are not the same, the MVs call Joseph Jesus' father in Luke 2", etc. as well as their trash that's not allowed to be posted here. And in modern times, a plethora of KJVO authors has sprung up, spreading the same garbage from a new bag: Riplinger, Ruckman, Marrs, Moorman, Reagan, Gipp, Waite, Hyles, Chick, and several others.

I'm not saying KJVO is new, but the current edition isn't exactly ancient. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings I might have caused you to have, Skan.

 

Erasmus published 5 TRs. 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535. </font>[/QUOTE]Thanx for the correction. Let's see if Bro. Tim will answer and choose what he believes is the "official" one from all the revisions.

 

They didn't. The Apocrypha was never part of the OT text as it is in Aleph and B. It was segregated between the testaments and included as useful information just as the marginal notes and other non canonical matter in all modern bibles.

They didn't. They NEVER treated or considered the Apocrypha as scripture.

The 39 Articles of 1571 are STILL the 39 Articles of 1571.

All the members of the Translation Committees were confessing Anglicans, adhering to the 39 Articles of 1571.

Irrelevant to the issue of the translators in 1607-1611.

Nonsense! The word Bishop comes from the Teutonic and Celtic word biscope/biscobe and simply meant "overseer."

Just because you cannot support your assertion regarding the Apocrypha with facts is no reason to make up ad hominem against the KJV.

 

I have not seen Jesus but I know Him and know of numerous historical accounts as well to believe He was who He said He was and still is. My faith is not an ignorant faith but a faith filled with truth. There are even historical accounts by non-believers that attest to Jesus.

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."

 

Please everyone, if you are going to direct a post to me, don't call me "Tim" anymore.]

Right now, I'm ashamed of my first name on this board.

I've been reading this thread and everytime I see someone write "Bro. Tim" or "Tim", I have to stop and think "is it me their addressing?" Thank God it's not.

If you want to address me use my screen name,
or like QS does, "tiny", or I'll even accept another QS nickname, "weasel".
But please don't call me "Tim" right now.

Bro. Tim, please don't go anywhere until you answer my questions about the different KJVs.

Which one should a New Convert buy? 1611, 1769, or 1873?


And to think BB was becoming boring about a week ago. All we had to debate against was QS.

LOve ya Bro.

 

Dear brother Skan, I respectfully disagree with each of your rebuttals which I don’t feel led to re-rebut. They are just negations of those things which I pointed out and for one other reason which I will address below.

It is not possible to make an ad hominem against the KJV.

Here is an example of an ad hominem below in the emboldened print:

An ad hominem is a remark aimed at the person and/or his or her character.

To turn the statement into a non ad hominem without impuning the "person"'s character it could be changed to "I disagree with your assertion regarding the Apocrypha..."

That it not to say that ad hominems are never warranted. It can be done even with grace.

HankD