Why I am KJV Only

Michelle,
Did you see my Word-for-word translations above: This is what a word-for-word translation of John 3:16 would look like. AND this is with the words seperated, which like gb said did not exist:

Let me quote John sixteen in Word for Word translation.

FOR-THUS LOVED - GOD THE WORLD THAT THE SON THE UNIQUE ONE HE GAVE THAT EVERYONE BELIEVING IN HIM MAYNOTPERISH BUT HAVE LIFE ETERNAL."

If you want a Word-for-word translation of what was said, that is it.

Now here is what an Ol Testament Word-for-word translation would look like. I explained it before, I do not have my OT interlinear here, so I will use a Greek translation instead, but you will get the idea of what the Hebrew translators saw when they translate the OT. The only difference is the sentence structure. I use Revelation 2:22 as an example, here is what it would look like if it were translated from the Hebrew:

"WSNDDNTCMMTNRWSFNDGLNTMTHFHM"


Actually, this is not very accurate because there would be no need to pull the words into English without vowels, but if it were brought forth just like the Hebrew (if words were maintained exactly) I think you would have to get rid of the vowels because the Bible didn't have any.

My point is, that no matter how hard we try, translating from One language to Another does NOT preserve Word-for-Word compatibility with the first language. But, the first example of John 3:16 is probably the most accurate Word-for-Word translation. You see, there cannot be a direct Word-for-word translation from ANY language---it has to be thought-for-thought or meaning-for-meaning. Sentence structure was different. Punctuation didn't even exist. All letters capitalized. In Hebrew there were no vowels. On and On.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Phillip,

What God has preserved for the English speaking people for hundreds of years, and in fact from the very beginning of the church, is what is in the KJV, not the modern versions. The modern versions use a different underlying text, than that of the KJV, and many other Bibles throughout history. The manuscripts underlining the greek new text have evidenced that there were at least 10 different men who altered it over time, and not only that, but it is also believed these texts were from the same time period. Many Bible scholars of the Renassaince had access to these manuscripts, but rejected them, because they were not consistent with the believing churches, and ancient fathers writings. There is a very good book about this, which I have recently started reading regarding some of these things, if you are interested in reading it, let me know.

I am not trying to disregard what you are saying about translations, but to be quite honest with you, no one here is a qualified scholar in this area, and this includes many of those today who claim they are. My faith is not in the translation, nor the translators, nor the scholars of the day, but in the promises of God Almighty regarding his words. The evidence is in the history of the believing churches throughout the ages, in different languages, which includes the KJV. Sadly, the modern versions are a "new" thing, and a "new" construction of a Bible that has not existed throughout the history of the Bible believing churches. It indeed, is an altogether "New" thing, based upon the fact that God's word was LOST, and needed to be reconstructed. This is not biblical, and it denies God's promise of preservation.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

But, Michelle, why all of a sudden would the KJV appear in the English language when it is well known there was NO Bible in the English Language for 900 years, and the first one was an interlinear Vulgate? Where does THIS appear Biblically?

By the way, how did the people in the Rennaissance get hold of documents that have only been discovered in the last 100 or so years?

The KJV is actually very new -- About ten percent of the time from now back to Christ was here.

The KJV is actually an MV, which replaced the Geneva and Bishop's Bible.

I never said the KJV is NOT the Word of God. It is, but so is an ESV. There is no Biblical truth it isn't. Besides, your information regarding the history of the ancient documents is mostly incorrect. It is KJVo rhetoric.

 

Life would be easier if we all succumb to your viewpoint. We would never have to deal with anything such as textual notes.

I don’t think that it just came about all of a sudden. Certainly the KJV tranlsators knew about the textual variants. They had to have done some kind of analysis with the few manuscripts they had.

It is a well known fact that when people are presented with all of the facts that the decision they make will be an informed decision. To leave out the information is to hide the truth. I believe that the majority of people know nothing about textual variants and that there are many copies of the manuscripts. So now again we have been given the truth that many copies are available and there are differences in them. My understanding is that the early KJV had textual notes. Why were they omitted in later versions?

I see it as a case of keeping the people ignorant so you can teach them what you want them to hear. I see this kind of thing on the increase among several of the seminaries near where I live. In my short lifetime, I have seen seminaries go from teaching how to deal with the intertestamental books to completely ignoring them. I have a friend who has a doctorate from a well known seminary. For his birthday I bought him a copy of the Mishnah. When I gave it to him he asked me what it was. I was surprised that he could have gone through a seminary and gotten a doctorate and never even heard of the Mishnah. Where I went to seminary the professors would deal with a number of theories say on Genesis and then explain why they felt they were wrong and why one was right. I found that to be extremely helpful. I find it helpful because when someone starts talking about something they read I am acquainted with the theory. I am told by students at the same seminary that the professors do not even mention those other theories at all anymore.

To simply answer your question. I believe God gave the text and man added to it. I believe that for a long time the general church population had information withheld from them that other studied people either knew or knew about. I don’t know what the literacy rate was for those years you mention but I doubt it was close to what it is when compulsory education began. I have personally heard pastors tell me that they refuse to deal with the textual notes in Bibles and tell people to ignore them. That is a case of a proud pastor who is unwilling to admit he doesn’t know or keep the people ignorant.

Michelle, how do you deal with even the textual variants in the KJV? To believe the KJV is 100 percent correct means that you are trusting in the decisions that the translators made at the time. We also know that the KJV has been revised several times. So it seems that those who revised the KJV did not agree totally with the original translation either.

To believe the KJV is inspired is a case of double inspiration. God gave us originals, not copies or translations. He left the translation work up to us. Nobody can claim inspiration for his work or even work he does for God. Even

In 1 Cor it mentions how that the prophets are subject to other prophets. It makes use of the body in keeping things straight and correct. It leaves the body open for correction.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Phillip quoted:

Besides, your information regarding the history of the ancient documents is mostly incorrect. It is KJVo rhetoric.
--------------------------------------------------

I would like to see you provide the evidence for this statement.


--------------------------------------------------
Phillip quoted:

By the way, how did the people in the Rennaisance get hold of documents that have only been discovered in the last 100 or so years?
--------------------------------------------------

How did the men discover it in the last 100 years or so?


--------------------------------------------------
Phillip quoted:

The KJV is actually very new -- About ten percent of the time from now back to Christ was here.
--------------------------------------------------

I would like to see you provide the evidence for this statement. What text do you think underlines the KJV? The Geneva Bible? The Bishops Bible? etc.?


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Okay, lets deal with the last one first. Since I am not good at multi-tasking. I'll get to the others later.

If the Geneva and the Bishops Bible were the underlying text of the KJV, then why did the KJV need to be written if we already had a perfectly good English translation?

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
gb quoted:

Life would be easier if we all succumb to your viewpoint. We would never have to deal with anything such as textual notes.
--------------------------------------------------

This is the point gb, the truth is simple and easy. Why do you choose to believe those things that make it difficult for you? God doesn't intend for us to be confused, but to believe in the simple truth which comes from faith and trust in Him alone and his wisdom and promises, and not man alone in his wisdom and promises.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Hey, gb, are you confused? I didn't think so.....
I'm not confused. Why would we be confused? :D

 

I don't think you understood my point. My point uis that it is very easy to be ignorant. you don't have to deal with much because you don'tknow much. So the truth is simple? Read 1 Peter 3:14-16, "Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand , which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Look at what some people do with those things that asre hard to understand. "Which the untaught and unstable distort."


But the scripture also says that with more knowledge comes more pain. It also talks about making wise the simple.

Again, how do you deal with the textual notes in the KJV?

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
gb quoted:

I believe that for a long time the general church population had information withheld from them that other studied people either knew or knew about.
--------------------------------------------------

This statement really saddens my heart. It really does. I don't mean to be rude, nor sound rude to you when I say this, but it seems as though this statement might reflect your disregard, or unbelief in God's promise to you, and other believers. God withheld the truth and allowed additions to his word for generations only to be found in these last days not his truth? You are free to believe this, and it saddens me for you that you do. I do not believe this, and will never believe this, because God has promised me otherwise. I believe him.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

A lengthy read, but the author is right on target:


7 REASONS WHY KJO SPREADS
IN INDEPENDENT BAPTIST CHURCHES

by Gary R. Hudson

“And their message will spread like cancer"
(II Timothy 2:17a, NKJV).

Recent incoming emails have stirred considerable thought on the question of why King James Onlyism is such a widespread problem throughout our Fundamental Baptist movement. The following seven reasons are the result of a fresh consideration of the problem together with observations spanning a twenty-two year study of the subject.

Reason #1: Ignorance on the true nature and history of the Biblical manuscripts, ancient versions, and translations. Such ignorance is usually a result of pastors and Christian workers who have not given themselves to an accurate study of the facts or have not properly completed their academic training for the ministry. With all the resources and opportunities available in our time, there is hardly an excuse for this type of neglect. Impatience that results in entering the ministry at a premature state (I Timothy 3:6; 5:22), or just plain laziness (II Timothy 2:15), seem to be among the major causes of such neglect. The congregations that are led by men of such deficiencies are as susceptible as their leaders to erroneous and often misleading materials on Bible manuscripts and translations, and even to false information on the King James Version itself. Neither is lack of leadership an excuse for the ignorance of the individual layman who is admonished to personal study (I Thes. 5:21). Accuracy of information is very often all that is needed to clear away much of the confusion that abounds.

Reason #2: It is an “easy” way out. Doug Kutilek has suggested, “It’s easy; you don’t have to THINK or study much. By opting for KJVO, there is no need to learn Hebrew or Greek, to learn anything about manuscripts, or the history of the English Bible or about textual criticism or anything else. Hence--it is the lazy man’s way out of having to seriously think and consider on these issues” (email, 8/31/00). From my own experience as a former advocate of King James Onlyism, I can attest to this. It was commonplace in those days to hear from my colleagues that “all we need and all we use to study and prepare for sermons is a Strong’s Concordance and a King James Bible!” (It was taken for granted that the Greek and Hebrew were of no real significance). More than appealing itself as just a simplified approach, King James Onlyism is a luxury: a convenient “alternative” to the disciplined study of the Biblical languages.

Some KJO pastors have large and thriving churches, and will sometimes point to the “success” of their ministries (baptisms, buildings, big-money offerings, schools, etc.), and say, “See! I have been able to do all of these wonderful works with just a King James Bible and without your ‘original Greek.’” Such men immediately find themselves at variance with the KJV itself and its translators, who wrote, “translated out of the original Greek” at the front of their New Testament. If it was not for the foundational “original Greek,” we would not even have the KJV. Hence, these men actually did not build their ministries without the help of the original Greek. But, this
does not address the worst problem with such KJO claims; the worst thing here is of course the appeal to experience-oriented theology, the same appeal of Pentecostals and Charismatics (Matt. 7:22, 23). (Not surprisingly, these last two mentioned groups also take “easy way outs” to both sanctification and serious Biblical study). Numbers, offerings, attractive auditoriums, and large staffs do not prove one’s theology correct or even one’s methods Biblical. If they did, the Mormon Church is equally a “monument to truth.”

Reason #3: It seems to appeal to Biblical fundamentalism. KJO presents itself as doing “honor to God’s Word” by emphasizing “final authority,” "preservation,” and even Scripture itself. The first level of KJO teaching usually attempts to discredit modern English translations with “verse-comparison charts” that reveal alarming word “omissions” as “doctrinal attacks.” The real reasons for these “omissions” are rarely if ever mentioned, much less the helpful benefits of the newer translations in numerous passages. From this approach, KJOnlys proceed to discussions of how “God promised to preserve His Word” to the point of arguing that we must have it “every jot and tittle somewhere!” Hence, they badger questions, such as, “Which Bible is God’s Word?” and, “Where is the preserved Word of God???” These carefully worded ultimatums are hidden under the false and impractical demand for an absolutely infallible text or translation, supposing that only the most “orthodox” have the “answer” in the “infallible AV 1611.” (For a good treatment on KJO’s confusion of technical and generic terms, see “Holy Spirit Leadership and the Bible Translation Controversy” by Dr. Ron Minton on this website). The fact that the KJO position turns out to be flawed, inconsistent, impractical, non-historic, and even unbiblical reveals problem areas on its paper-trail of “logic.” Somewhere, somehow, on the “road to reason and faith” they have introduced logical fallacies. What “comes out in the wash” is a confused view of the “Word of God” under the guise of “honoring” it (I Cor. 14:33). The KJO position thus masquerades as “Biblical” and “Bible-believing” while actually believing myth (II Tim. 4:3, 4). A Christian who has become infected with KJOnlyism is unable to “stand” and “prove all things” (Eph. 6:13; II Thes. 5:21; Phil. 4:8). KJO in reality weakens the body of believers, renders their “view of the Bible” indefensible, and occasionally even wages assaults on the original language text itself (see article, “Easter in Acts 12:4,” etc., article on this website). It also puts fundamental Baptists in a position of being mocked as fools and unwise. When you have an attack on the original text, poking fun at the faith, and the spread of divisiveness and confusion in the body of believers, Satan is just around the corner.

Reason #4: “It soothes and consoles the spiritual insecurity of weak believers” (Doug Kutilek, ibid.). KJO advocates, particularly pastors, know they are playing-up to the minds of the insecure by presenting it as an “all or nothing” axiom: “Unless every word of my Bible (KJV) is infallible, I can’t trust any of it!” They are actually making a delicate area far more complicated by introducing KJO as a “solution.” The honorable and faithful role of Bible copying and translating is made “suspect,” and the problem of English mistranslation is made into a false dilemma. The KJO advocate cleverly sets up this false dilemma as a straw-man argument. KJO advocates seek for the weak and insecure because they know their teachings prey on such. This point is closely related to the next--

Reason #5: The strong appeal to human emotion. The emotional aspect of King James Onlyism makes its appeal in three areas: (1) fear, (2) pride, and (3) sensationalism.


1. Fear. There is a false fear of “snowballing into apostasy” if any other translation is used except the KJV. There is the fear of rejection and ridicule by “Bible-believers” if one is caught “red-handed” in church or elsewhere with the NIV or some other modern translation. There is the fear of everything from missing Sunday School to the “mark of the beast” if one questions a word of the KJV or uses another English translation. KJO often uses legalistic intimidation to push these issues.


2. Pride. KJOnlyism appeals to a form of exclusiveness and superiority that is found among members of non-Christian cults. It gives its adherents the feeling of having something greater than the average believer, an “edge” on “final authority” that makes them feel “above.” It reminds us of the “tongues” movement and its “baptism-in-the-holyghost initial evidence” exclusiveness: “You may be saved, but have you had ‘the baptism’?” is as divisive and exclusive as, “You may be saved, but do you have a copy of the Word of God?--If you do, where is it?? Which Bible?? Does your translation have mistakes?--Then how can it be God’s Word?? You see, I am not just a ‘believer,’ I don’t just use the Bible, I am a Bible-believer and I believe the Bible!” What they really mean is that they believe in infallible English translation, something no one in the Bible itself ever “believed” or even heard of.

3. Sensationalism. This “hype” usually finds its performance in the style of “sermon delivery” that preaches King James Onlyism. “They’re ATTACKING THE DEITY, THE VIRGIN BIRTH, AND THE BLOOD IN THESE NEW VERSIONS!!” “Why, they’ve HACKED MY BIBLE UP INTO LITTLE BITSY PIECES AND HANDED IT BACK TO ME AS ‘MORE ACCURATE TO THE ORIGINAL’!!” Why, they’re PER-VERSIONS, I TELL YOU, THAT’S WHAT THEY ARE!!” “I don’t know about YOU, brother, but I’ve got a Bible that’s inspired and infallible, WHAT DO YOU GOT??” And on and on it goes, priming the emotional pump. Sadly, there are too many people in our churches who accept what is said on the basis of how it is said, and KJO preachers know that how they say something has a great deal to do with whether or not the people will listen to it. Added to this current of spiraling emotion is the beautiful and poetic language of the KJV itself when quoted, together with “Old English-style” praying offered on the assumption of “reverence.”

Reason #6: Ignorance of our Baptist heritage. King James Onlyism is completely foreign to all of historic Christianity and even to the founders of the Independent Baptist movement in America. The historic view is and has always been the inspiration and inerrancy of the original language text alone and no translation thereof. Ignorance of this historic view is largely the fault of our church leaders who have not accurately expounded our roots. To the contrary, King James Onlyism is presented oftentimes as the “historic position” (see, for example, “David Otis Fuller’s Deceptive Treatment of Spurgeon Regarding the King James Version” by Doug Kutilek on this website; also, “The Unlearned Men” by Doug Kutilek also on this website). The very founders of our fundamental movement, if they were alive today and attempted from the pulpit their accepted practice of referring to the Greek to correct a word in the KJV, would, in some places, indeed be denounced as "apostates” and “Bible correctors.” If this does not reveal the level to which such ignorance has permeated, what does?

Reason #7: It is a political football ($$$). Several traditionally orthodox Bible colleges have become King James Only--not because its leaders necessarily hold to the teaching’s tenets, but because it gets students ($$$). Particularly, it gets people from KJO churches to attend their school, where “the KJV is believed,” etc. Pastors and churches also play this political game (especially in a day when “transfer growth” rather than conversion has become the norm), stealing members of other churches by assuring “a strong stand on the KJV.” Mission boards, too, have played this political football game, assuring supporting churches ($$$) of their “preserved KJV” view, even though these board directors themselves will privately disagree with KJOnlyism. We are living in a sad day indeed when the leaders of our fundamental Baptist movement can be bought and bribed by a divisive, reckless fringe.

CONCLUSION

The time has come for those of us who know and believe the truth to stand up to KJO and determine that we just will not tolerate or coddle it in any way shape or form. Every “cell” of this “cancer” needs to be traced down and obliterated so that it no longer reproduces itself in our ranks. The entire KJO movement needs to be exposed for the fraud that it is. The “politicians” who exploit this issue need to be faced and held accountable for their views. We must not fear what man may say about us or may do to us in this regard. Let it be clearly understood that KJO is a cult, and must be distinguished from true Biblical Christianity. Let the KJO movement become more exclusive and let it distinguish itself outside of and apart from the Church of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, stand. Stand up and fight for the faith (Jude 3)! THAT is the business of being a fundamentalist, and those who will not fight have no claim to the name.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
gb quoted:

Michelle, how do you deal with even the textual variants in the KJV? To believe the KJV is 100 percent correct means that you are trusting in the decisions that the translators made at the time. We also know that the KJV has been revised several times. So it seems that those who revised the KJV did not agree totally with the original translation either.
--------------------------------------------------

I do not need to deal with the textual variants with the texts, because God has used the KJV for hundreds of years with his people. This is evidence enouph for me to know that God's promises are true. Just the fact that the revisions that corrected spelling errors, and printers errors, eventual exclusion of the apocrypha, is also proof positive to me of God's providence in the matter of the preservation of his words. To think that God did all of that and used it for great revivals, and the lives of believers for hundreds of years, and then in this day and age undo that which was done for the english speaking people, is contrary to the promises of God. If these so called additions were not God's pure words of truth providentially provided for the english speaking people, we would not see the blessings we see evidenced from it. We see in evidenced in the KJV a strong and sure testimony of and doctrine of the deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. We now see it weakened in the modern versions. Is this really from God? Would he now weaken this doctrine, that has been so important and crucial for the saints of the past? You can believe he would/did if you so desire. I however, do not. I see he has already done it for the english speaking people, and would not allow things not meant to be in his words of truth to be so long understood, read, believed, taught, lived and preached for hundreds of years by those who believe him and follow him, if these additions were/are not the truth.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

And so we thrash onward and upward.

Regarding the following:

This reason is perhaps the weakest Achilles heel of all the KJVO error for more than one reason but the following is an example concerning one weakness:

“Unless every word of my Bible (KJV) is infallible, I can’t trust any of it!”

Ezekiel 24:7 1611 KJV
For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it upon the ground, to cover it with dust;

Ezekiel 24:7 1769 KJV
For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust;

In 1611 the word “not” was not included in the text. In the 1769 text however it appears. Now since the archetype manuscript of the King James was lost around 1655 there does not exist the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT to verify this variant against.
So we cannot not know infallibly which is the correct text since we cannot refer back to the Hebrew Masoretic text (The English superceding the Hebrew) if one is a KJVO second-inspiration purist.

The KJVO are therefore in the very same position as those who claim inspiration, innerancy, infallibility in the original autographs only (of which we (or they) have none).

Therefore even John 3:16 is suspect because one can not be sure that it says “should not perish” or “might not perish” or “probably won’t perish”, etc.

HankD

[ April 05, 2004, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

The Latin-Italian speaking people had the old Itala-Latin Vulgate versions for over 1000 years and while the Vulgate could be understood it was read, believed, taught, lived and preached by those who believed and followed Him.

Are you prepared to say that the Latin Vulgate is/was the "pure" Word of God.

HankD

 

The Koran has been around, How long?

 

About 1400 years.

HankD

 

Sounds like one serious religious document to me. Especially if you accept the "been around long" theory! :eek:

 

Oh-oh, sounds like there's going to be a run on prayer-rugs.

HankD

 

Michelle wrote:

I guess this means that we should place the 14 books of the Apocrypha back into the KJV, since the Apocryphal books pre-date the New Testament.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
quote:

Therefore, stand. Stand up and fight for the faith (Jude 3)! THAT is the business of being a fundamentalist, and those who will not fight have no claim to the name.
--------------------------------------------------

If all the rest of what this man said, and his opionions expressed in it do not slander the common believing man, I don't know what else does.

Secondly, I will stand, and I will stand for the Bible in our english language that God has preserved for hundreds of years and to that same english translation that holds the doctrine of the Deity of Christ in the strongest and most important matter concerning this issue. It is standing for my Lord Jesus Christ and who he is in the fullest extent given to us, and preserved for us by God Almighty himself, and to whom the modern versions claim God is trying to weaken in these modern days. The cancer of the omittions has and does weaken these very important doctrines that have been preserved, and that the common man has known, believed, taught, preached and lived for hundreds of years to only have the modern man come and tell us these things be not so, as to attack the immune system of the protection provided, and the integrity and purity of God's pure words of truth that He provided for the english speaking people for hundreds of years.

This author is attempting to blind his readers to the truth regarding this issue, that comes down to the fact that many are hiding behind the excuses they give for the ommittions, because they love mans wisdom, rather than believing God and his promises, while attempting to make those who believe God and what he has done and said to be ignorant of the facts, which one does not need to know, unless they are trying to support the omittions. WE do not need to be scholars people to know and believe that God's promises are true, and to believe every word he has is the truth.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle