Why I am KJV Only

Lookee here, Phillip, I found ya! Can I be a P.I. now? (jes kiddin') I'm sooo glad there is no doubt on your part that my KJBible contains God's word. That's exactly how I see it & that's how I learn what He wants me to do/be. As He knows me inside & out, so may I know Him thusly...I would not have that assurance using your choice.

I'm not too keen about the rest of your post, tho. To me, it seems that you mv'ers are anti...It's okay to say your opinions, but "we" who use the Bible only, aren't allowed to say our opinions, right? Do I have it now? Help me.

 

Granny Gumbo, WE use Bibles also, but as GOD isn't limited to just one, neither are WE.

 

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


--------------------------------------------------
robycop quoted:

Granny Gumbo, WE use Bibles also, but as GOD isn't limited to just one, neither are WE.
--------------------------------------------------

robycop,

Please explain to me, how one now is to determine what is God's words. What if one version has a verse included, but the other has omitted it? How are we then to determine what is it that God said, and what is it that he didn't? How do you explain this to young christians, that see a verse in the KJV, but not in their modern version? Have we now become the judge of what God's words of truth are? Please explain this to me, as I am really curious to know how you handle this.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

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

--------------------------------------------------
robycop:

Michelle, again I ask, "Can you prove that the older mss actually omitted some material and that the newer ones didn't ADD some material?"
--------------------------------------------------

robycop,

Yes I can. Through faith in the promises God has given to us all concerning his words and the preservation of them. along with the severe warnings God has stated concerning adding to and taking away from his words. It has not been until modern times, where long standing verses of scripture have been removed from what God has preserved for centuries, even up until this day, and yes, even forever. Scriptures attest to this. Please show me with the scriptures, otherwise, and furthermore, the justifaction you have from the scriptures that God would now allow things that were added to his word, would be preserved? Please show me, for I am very curious.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Frankly it's not an issue with most young Christians, because unless someone has indoctrinated them into KJVO-ism, they don't hold up one of what are many individual translations (the KJV) to be the ultimate standard of what is or is not the Word of God. They can understand that faithful translations of the Word of God can have minor wording differences and still fully translate (in the new language which they have been translated into) the Inspired text of the Originals- and without changing Doctrine.

 

Granny if we were working together we could change the world. :D Yes, you would make a great PI.

I have no problem with you stating your opinion. I cannot control what the board says and does with its rules. I even don't have a problem with you being against MV Bibles, personally, because I understand you and this is not something that is going to keep either one of us out of heaven.

I gots ta go to court right now and help a client out. I'll be back later this evening for my trip to the wood-shed........... ;)

 

Michelle:please explain to me, how one now is to determine what is God's words. What if one version has a verse included, but the other has omitted it? How are we then to determine what is it that God said, and what is it that he didn't? How do you explain this to young christians, that see a verse in the KJV, but not in their modern version? Have we now become the judge of what God's words of truth are? Please explain this to me, as I am really curious to know how you handle this.[/i]

The scriptures have been used by at least some people ever since God first presented them to anyone. They have been copied ever since they were first written. While all Israel was first privy to them, with the Levites being the "keepers" of the writings, God made the Jews in general the "keepers" of His oracles after the Jews were separated from the rest of Israel at Solomon's death. They were copied many times by many people since that time, but each "book" has been in constant use after it was given. The Jews kept the Scriptures during their successive rule by the Babylonians, persians, Greeks, & Romans, and even after their dispersion in 70-73 AD. During those times, they often made copies of Scriptures in the local languages.

The Old Testament has been considered Scripture since well before Jesus' time & has been in constant use ever since. There's little question on its contents-most of the questions are over interpretation. The New Testament was a different story. The writings of the Apostles who actually walked with Jesus have been accepted as Scripture from the gitgo, especially the Gospels, while other books of not-so-apparent origin such as Hebrews have undergone long periods of questioning before being universally accepted in the canon.

The problem now before us is over certain passages. That's why I use more than one Bible version. There is no certain proof that certain passages such as 1 John 5:7 belong in the Scriptures without question. However, other passages such as John 3:16 are found in every known ms that contains the book of John, & their authenticity is unquestioned.

The answer to a "newbie" as to why one BV may contain a given verse and another may not is simple-different translators using different ms. We've already gone over the explanations about those differences, showing that one must apply the same explanations for the differing narrations in the Gospels to the differences between mss.

 

Michelle:Yes I can. Through faith in the promises God has given to us all concerning his words and the preservation of them.

Then please explain how you judge one ms to be right and another one wrong. And please explain why, in the face of God's preservation, that every English BV is different from any other.


along with the severe warnings God has stated concerning adding to and taking away from his words. It has not been until modern times, where long standing verses of scripture have been removed from what God has preserved for centuries, even up until this day, and yes, even forever.

The authenticity of certain verses such as 1 John 5:7 is still in question, quite legitimately, by people who do NOT want to add something to God's word because it "sounds good", but is found only in a small minority of the known mss. ADDING is as bad as SUBTRACTING from God's word.


Scriptures attest to this. Please show me with the scriptures, otherwise, and furthermore, the justifaction you have from the scriptures that God would now allow things that were added to his word, would be preserved? Please show me, for I am very curious.

YOU seem to have a problem with that, not me. When something is found in a newer ms, but not in an older one, it had to come from somewhere. Are you saying it came from GOD? There's not one squiggle of proof for this.

This is not a new thing. Scholars have been wrestling with this problem for well over a hundred years, & they're no closer to a solution than they were then. You cannot arbitrarily choose one ms & reject the other without evidence.

You see? KJVO is just a guessing game.

OH!

I almost forgot to provide SCRIPTURE! Here ya go!

Jeremiah 36:32, NKJV
Then Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah, who wrote on it at the instruction of Jeremiah[36:32 Literally [from Jeremiah's mouth] ] all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire. And besides, there were **added** to them many similar words.

2 Peter 3:16, KJV
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Peter calls Paul's epistles Scriptures, so they were added then.

 

If one believes the promises of God and recognizes the facts of history as supporting evidence, they will come up with a view that is different from yours.

You say that "by faith" you believe God's promises but deny the evidence for how He chose to fulfill His promises. We accept both.

That is obviously not true Michelle. The oldest mss available are in general "shorter". This is true whether they come from the Byzantine or Alexandrian families.

Where? Where does it say that the KJV says everything right in total and in quality while all others either add or subtract?

How many different accounts are the there in the gospels (KJV) for what the sign on the Cross said? How many are correct and why? Please show me, for I am very curious.

While you are at it, please show us from the scriptures, "otherwise, and furthermore" (whatever that means) where God would allow things to be omitted from His Word in the earliest mss.

 

I have mulled this over some and want to deal with it some more.

OK. The exact phrase "Jesus saith unto him" is used 15 times in the NT of the KJV... Are any of the words that follow this phrase the actual words spoken by Jesus?

What I glean from your disagreement above is that words do not equal sayings do not equal message(s).... am I correct?

If you disagree with my logic above and you believe the KJV then you need to complete the circle. You have denied that "word" when speaking of the biblical text means "message". Do you believe that the whole Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic thing is a farce and that Jesus, Moses, and Abraham actually spoke King James English? If not, then what do you think "word" means when pertaining to Bible versions?

So your claim is that unless the KJV has absolutely perfect wording, Jesus did not fulfill OT prophecy? If so then your claim is ridiculous. Jesus did fulfill OT prophecy and that can be proven from any faithful English version of the Bible.

 

Exactly, Scott J, this all boils down to definition of "The Word of God".

The simplistic definition would be "words", but this is not the case. It is the "Message" that is important. This concept may be very difficult for people to understand if they have never studied a foreign language and they do not realize that Greek is not constructed in a manner in which it can be translated to English -- Word-for-word.

For example, according to Jay P. Green, Sr. who has translated the Textus Receptus to English, the actual words for John 3:16 would be:

so For loved God the world. so as the Son ofHim, the only-begotten, He gave, that everyone believing into Him not mayperish, but have life everlasting

If we want to maintain the actual words in English, this is as close as we can get. (Please, note that I am using the Textus Receptus and not arguing the underlying texts at this point.)

By the way, the punctuation and capitalizations were added later because the Koin Greek did NOT contain punctuation and all letters were caps. The words printed without spacing indicate the meaning of one Greek word.

This is obviously unacceptable and results in grammatical error only because Greek uses a different sentence structure (to put it very simply). So, even the King James authors changed words to make this readable. Therefore, our only conclusion is that the "Word of God" refers to the message and not the individual words per se'.

 

Jesus cried from the cross, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?", and even some of those who actually heard Him misunderstood Him. Most of US would have NO IDEA what His words meant if the Scriptures hadn't given us the translation.(Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34)

I believe that by preserving this event, Jesus is telling us something about His actual words as He spoke them to His contemporaries-that WE couldn't understand them as He spoke them .

 

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

--------------------------------------------------
The answer to a "newbie" as to why one BV may contain a given verse and another may not is simple-different translators using different ms. We've already gone over the explanations about those differences, showing that one must apply the same explanations for the differing narrations in the Gospels to the differences between mss.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So which mss are we now to believe? It seems to you that you have come to an adequate answer to the question, and the problem that arises from this very issue. How then, can one state, believe and live now, in absolute assurity, that every word that is in their Bible is authoritative, if now they question what is, and what is not the very words of God - and have now become the judge of what God has said? How then, are these same people, going to be able to stand in strong and assured faith and testimony and witness to those they are witnessing to? This will not go well with unbelievers, and the absolute truth and trust we have in our Bibles. If the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do?

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

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

--------------------------------------------------
showing that one must apply the same explanations for the differing narrations in the Gospels to the differences between mss.
--------------------------------------------------

Just a reminder to you, regarding this above statement:

God is not the author of confusion.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

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


--------------------------------------------------
Then please explain how you judge one ms to be right and another one wrong. And please explain why, in the face of God's preservation, that every English BV is different from any other.
--------------------------------------------------

God has preserved them for over 400 years. This is the evidence of his preservation and approval , and this is the proof. I don't know what you are talking about with every other english BV. Have the other english translations prior from the KJV, and based upon the Recieved Text differ from the KJV as does the modern versions? I haven't heard, nor read of such a thing. They were based upon the recieved text, just as the KJV, not that of the critical greek new testament based upon mss from the Alexandrian family, that were rejected by the churches.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

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

--------------------------------------------------
The authenticity of certain verses such as 1 John 5:7 is still in question
--------------------------------------------------

Why is this still in question? It shouldn't be questioned at all. God has shown that he preserved this very verse for 400 years within the churches, lives, teachings, beliefs of believers. It is in my Bible, and I believe it, and I know it is the truth, and I know God has preserved it. I do not, nor have I reason to question it. Why do you?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

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

--------------------------------------------------
This is not a new thing. Scholars have been wrestling with this problem for well over a hundred years, & they're no closer to a solution than they were then. You cannot arbitrarily choose one ms & reject the other without evidence.
--------------------------------------------------

Do you not see your own attitude in this? Why do you believe the unbelieving and skeptical scholars, rather than what God has already provided for you and for generations of believers? It is a new thing, and has brought nothing but confusion and division, and that on the part of those who believe the scholars, and won't listen to reason with those who believe what God has already provided and preserved for us. Now you like to have us believe that for generations, we were believing lies, and embelishments, that were "added" to God's word, rather than believing the truth, that these last 100 years, the devil has been working hard to keep the truth from people. Rather believing those that would make those of today doubt what it is that God has said and preserved already. Rather believing those that say the weaker testimony is the more accurate, and for generations people believed, preached, taught, witnessed pure fabrications, and that God allowed it until this modern generation. Do you not see the error in thinking this way?

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

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


--------------------------------------------------

2 Peter 3:16, KJV
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Peter calls Paul's epistles Scriptures, so they were added then.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Do you understand what this scripture is saying? What is it that Peter is speaking of being "hard to be understood"? Is it that they had no understanding of what the scriptures were saying? Such as an example, of those who claim the scriptures in the KJV have contradictions that need to be corrected. This scripture could not speak more clearly about how the modern translators approach the very words of God - they are guilty or wresting the scriptures, and because of the modern versions that they have provided, now make the people guilty of "wresting" the scriptures.

How does one wrest the scriptures? Is this what many are now convinced they must do? And since when do the translators/scholars, or anyone else for that matter, have the same authority as did the Apostles?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

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

--------------------------------------------------
That is obviously not true Michelle. The oldest mss available are in general "shorter". This is true whether they come from the Byzantine or Alexandrian families.
--------------------------------------------------

Again, trust and reliablity in the assumption that older is better and more accurate is shown in this statement. Concluding that the older is more accurate and reliable, than that in the faith and evidence of what God has already provided for generations, is putting more trust in the "oldest manuscripts" over that of the promises of God preserving his word for every generation and the evidence that He has indeed done this. This could be a form of idolatry, beware.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

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

--------------------------------------------------
While you are at it, please show us from the scriptures, "otherwise, and furthermore" (whatever that means) where God would allow things to be omitted from His Word in the earliest mss.
--------------------------------------------------

You still have not provided me with the scriptures where God would allow generations of believers to believe things that were added to his word. Many continually bring up the gospels and how they differ. These gospels were the very words of God written down on paper by the Apostles themselves. Are you now arguing that because God chose to present the gospels this way, that it is okay for us to look at bible translations in the same manner? I think not, and you have no scriptures to provide on this either. Translators, scholars, and men have no right, nor authorization to add to, or take away from what God has provided to then call it the very words of God, and call it authoritative in all of our lives.

God does not allow these things, additions/omittions to his words, and this is what the scriptures say. To believe that because older manuscripts do not contain verses that have been the very words of God believed, taught, lived, preached, etc. for generations of believers to be of God, is not biblically supported. The fact that the omittions were not long standing attests to the fact that this is exactly what they are - omittions. For hundreds of years up until this day, and forever,these verses have been the very words of God preserved, and those older manuscripts do not include them. The evidence that these verses ARE the very preserved words of God are evident, while the manuscripts that show they have been omitted, are evident that they were not recieved by the churches, but indeed rejected. Are you so blind you cannot see this?

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle