Why I am KJV Only

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

LarryN,

The problem lies with men, not the Holy Bible. The Scofield reference bible, is not the Holy Bible. For men to attribute truth from a work by men, and then accuse those who do not believe it to be heretical or liberal has been going on since the beginning. My beliefs, are not based upon these things you mention. My belief is in my faith in Jesus Christ and his word of truth. His word is what guides me and protects me. The gap theory is contrary to the plain truth given in the word of God. Is it heresy if one believes in something contrary to the truth? If so, then it should be pointed out, as we are commanded to do. Phillip did not just mention the gap theory, but claimed he believed in it. He was "convinced" by evidence that his "old earth" belief was wrong. He convicted himself of being a heretic. I only pointed out the fact that gap theory is not the truth and is contrary to the plain truth in the scriptures.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle wrote: "I only pointed out the fact that gap theory is not the truth and is contrary to the plain truth in the scriptures."


Why do you think that this "plain truth" then eluded most Christians for the 1st half of the 20th Century? Are Christians today better grounded in the Truth of God's Word?


(Remember, I'm not disagreeing with you.)

 

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

Correction to my last post. I quoted that Phillip quoted "old earth" which is accurately quoted, but I think based upon the topic of discussion was meant "young earth", as the gap theory belief is that the earth is older, rather than younger. I quoted accurately, but the quote itself is in error and should be rendered "young earth".

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

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

LarryN,

This is not the appropriate thread to be discussing the gap theory belief, as I do not want to infringe upon the rules of these boards. I only used what Phillip had brought up as a point to this topic at hand.

You are asking me to answer your question of why "I think" this plain truth of scripture then eluded most christians for the first half of the 20th century. It is for the same reason any heresy or apostacy has crept into the churches - unbelief, or lack of faith and trust in God and his absolute truth. Leaning our ears to those things of the world and of man's theories, rather than trusting what God has said. I believe that many more even today, believe in the gap theory, and to the extreme view of evolution, those that claim the name of Christ Jesus. Nothing has changed, but in fact has become worse. A little leaven will leaveneth the whole lump of dough.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Yes, Jim's testimony was touching, but it doesn't biblical truth. His testimony stated that HE became convinced and convicted that the KJV was the only bible. But that is for HIM. It does not make it so for all.

I have prayed about the whole translation issue for quite a while. Not that I was in doubt, but I wanted to be sure. To this day God still speaks through His word, and it does not matter which translation I read it in. God has revealed His truth in the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, the Amplified Bible, RSV, YLT, Darby's translation, The Message (a paraphrase), JB, and many more. Does the fact that not all of this came from the King James discount it? No.

I do not have a problem with anyone who is KJVO. But I do have a problem when they begin to teach this false doctrine alongside the truth of God, claiming it, too, is the truth. And I really have a problem when ANYONE becomes verbally abusive, or begins to call someones salvation into question because they do not agree on the issue of the KJV.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Michelle,

Although Phillip had not read the entirety of Jim's testimony when he posted his initial reply (and to be honest, I too skim when anyone has written a book ), his reply was to a specific part of Jim's post.

Please note that Jim let it be known that none less than God Himself had let Jim know that he was totally in the right. And not only that, but that if anyone should DARE to try and "sway or change [his] belief are not battling against me, but against Almighty God". Pretty astounding, huh?

I do not beliitle Jim's testimony. It is his, and that is fine. But it ain't mine. Nor is it anyone else's, for that matter. All Jim has done is to tell his story.

I do not agree with Jim on the matter, nor do I agree with his way of coming to his own conclusions (footnotes are there to let the reader know everything that is going on, not to try to trip them up). It is his. But his little disclaimer at the end was WAY over the top. Or do you mind someone claiming divine revelation?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

The "Christian" Taliban

 

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


--------------------------------------------------
Trotter quoted:

But his little disclaimer at the end was WAY over the top. Or do you mind someone claiming divine revelation?

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

Do you also call conviction of the fact that one is a sinner and in need of repentance a divine revelation? If so, then no I do not mind divine revelation. What Phillip has accused Jim of, as well as now you are, is something that is not divine revelation outside of what the word of God has said. You also admit that you also only skimmed through his testimony, which also makes your comments about it irrelevant. Go back, and really read for yourself, what it is he wrote, and then tell me that Jim Ward is guilty of the same divine revelation that those whom are so called modern day prophets claim they recieve. If you are accusing him of this, you are falsely doing so. Sorry, but this is the truth. The Lord has given me the same understanding regarding this important matter concerning his word of truth.

Now please answer the questions I asked Phillip. How do you reconcile in your conscience, those scripture comparisons Jim gave?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord,
michelle

 

God is credited with quite a number of things. Evil has been done in the name of God. Slavery was done in the name of God. The division of the Baptists betweeen the north and the south was in the name of God. The south belived in slavery and the north did not. If the truth were known many think it was really an issue of economics covered with scripture and pointing fingers at each other.

As Christians we are to be subject to one another. We are sharpening one another as we learn and discuss. It is not about personal attacks but about the truth.

Many things are credited to God in ignorance, only to find out the truth later. That is one of the reasons why a pastor is not to be a young in the faith.

Acts 17:11, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so."

The Bereans were commended for examining the scriptures to see if the preacher/teacher was correct. No good teacher will ask anyone to take their word for the truth but does encourage people to examine the scriptures and question him.

 

This is a very interesting testimony Jim and I do appreciate your candor in posting it. I have not completely read it, but scanned to the bottom and let me point out something. I never really thought of it this way before, but our pastor asked us how often we heard somebody say, well the Holy Spirit showed it to me this way, or God told me this is what I should do, or The Holy SPirit answered my question and here is the answer?

This is all fine and dandy, but according to Joseph Smith, an angel of the Lord's showed him where the new plates were buried for the 3rd testament of Jesus Christ.

If you make a statement that the Holy Spirit showed this to you, then "YOUR WORD BECOMES INSPIRED". There is only one little problem with this, "Only the Bible is inspired." Since, today your words cannot be inspired, then you really should not say, the Holy Spirit showed me this, because if that were the case, then at least 100% of Christians who say that are either "inspired by God" or they are WRONG, when they say it. Does that make sense?

It is not a personal attack, far from it. I am simply telling you that because you say that, as part of your testamony, the Holy Spirit showed this to you, I automatically put up my "warning" antennas and go, Ooooops, here is a modern day revelation. This is the reason I do have problems with TV evangelists. How many of them say: The Holy Spirit tells me that there is a person out there with a bad back, I'm going to pray for you right now, blah blah blah. See my point?

I honestly do not mean so be rude here, just making an observation on the finality of your testimony. </font>[/QUOTE]Hi, did you know that the Holy Spirit can show you something? Did you know that when a person is shown something in any situation, that whatever that person says is not inspired, but the words they use are good words just the same? So, if I follow your philosophy, then when I do what Proverbs says and I trust in the Lord with all mine heart and lean not into mine own understanding, then God shall direct my paths, then would that mean that the path I follow is inspired? Um... No. When I read the scripture and I dont understand something, and I pray for guidance, and God sends His Holy Spirit to guide me and help me understand, then what about what I am shown as a result of that? If I talk about what the Holy Spirit has shown me, are my words inspired? No. But are the scriptures inspired? Yes.

Ok, now, just a few more questions. God will give anyone guidance for anything, if they pray about it. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not..."

So, if one receives guidance from God, and he develops new convictions as a result, or he finds something that he previously didn't know or even thought about, then that does not mean that whatever he says about the subject is inspired.

So, when a pastor of a church writes up notes for his sermon for Sunday, and he prays and seeks God's face for what God wants him to preach on, and God shows him, does that make his sermon inspired? No.

Have I shown you the error that you made, yet? Just in case, I'm going to tell you what I think your subconscious logic was doing when you typed up that silly reply:

"I don't agree with what he is saying, so I'm going to come up with a silly little thing that makes me sound like I know what I'm talking about, but I'm really just trying to debunk what this guy is saying, because it chaps my hide."

Well, get some vaseline, buddy, cause you can't always hear what you want to hear.

Now, I've been polite the whole post, except with maybe an exception the last couple paragraphs. So count to ten and calm yourself so you won't get all cranky and post a reply that Jesus wouldn't be happy with.

 

Of course He can. Here's what He's shown me:

1) The KJV does have some minor flaws and is not the equivalent of the God inspired originals. Its inspiration is derived from its faithfulness to the substance of the originals. This faithfulness is validated by its consistency with the 1000's of mss we have testifying to the originals and also its consistency with other faithful Bible versions such as the NKJV, NASB, WEB, Geneva, etc.

2) He has shown me that KJVO's use two sets of balances in violation of scripture when they argue their point. The common KJVO arguments all involve double standards that allow them to attack God's Word in other versions while crying foul when someone applies the same standard to the KJV.

3) All KJVO's at some point will rely on circular reasoning that effectively makes their opinions the final authority.

4) He has shown me that since I do not know the original languages the advice of the KJV translators is good: using various translations gives the best sense of scripture. This is also consistent with the biblical principle of having at least two witnesses on any matter of judgment.

5) He has shown me through scriptural example that two versions of the same thing can both be God's Word- witness the gospels, Kings, Chronicles, etc.

6) He has shown me that on the whole KJVO's display hateful, contentious attitudes toward those who disagree with them and often attack persons and use vitriolic name-calling. The worst case being when KJVO's question the salvation of anyone who isn't KJVO.

God has shown me through scripture and an evaluation of historical facts governed by biblical principles of candor/consistency/honesty that KJVOnlyism is a divisive false doctrine that threatens the health and future of fundamental Christianity in the US.

 

Scott J wrote:

Yeah, if I were a KJVO I know that I'd be the 1st to question the salvation of some of those "saved" pretenders of yore: Men like W. B. Riley, Charles H. Spurgeon, R. A. Torrey, R. V. Clearwaters, J. Gresham Machen, John R. Rice, Bob Jones I/II/III, and the many others who used other versions or actively opposed KJV-Onlyism. Why, I'm sure that Jack Hyles only was saved in the early 80's (after he joined the KJVO camp), since prior to that time he preached against the KJVO crowd!

 

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

I am a bit confused by all the claims that those you label as being KJVO on here, have ever questioned the salvation of others here on these threads. I have not once, since I have been posting here, seen anyone say, nor imply any such thing. Where is this accusation coming from and why? Anyway, this in and of itself, is irrelevent to the truth regarding this issue.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Well, Michelle, live & learn. It's happened frequently.

Jack Hyles (after he did his 180 and became KJVO) encapsulated the premise in his "Incorruptible Seed" sermon, and in the chapter "False Bibles an Enemy of Soulwinning" in his book "The Church" (circa 1993).

 

Jay Will, I appreciate your comments, but let me tell you that Jim and I go back several years, and he's NEVER given a concrete answer to any questions asked of him concerning the basics of the KJVO myth. When asked about Scriptural proof, he posts every Scripture there is about PRESERVATION of God's word-none of which even hint at any such critter as KJVO. No Baptist doubts that God has preserved His word, so he's just skirting the issue.

I shall wait & see if he does answer. Maybe he's been chronologically-challenged as I often am, but the fact that he's posted elsewhere since I asked the questions in this thread is quite telling...

 

I saw an example, albeit more oblique than usual, just recently. I am not trying to evade but I truthfully don't have time to hunt it down right now. I am pretty sure that I know who it was but they post alot so it would take more time than I have.

To answer your question more fully, I have been directly associated with a church that taught that one could only be saved with the KJV. One of the 8 year old kids told my 8 year old that you couldn't be saved "without a King James Bible." At least two people on this board have direct knowledge of this church also.

Many KJVO's apparently believe that even if someone isn't saved with a KJV, they would at some point become KJVO or else they were never saved. I understand this logic. I myself struggle with how a Christian could hold to KJVOnlyism when I am convinced that God has shown me that it is a false doctrine.

I disagree. The Bible identifies behaviors and attitudes that are indicative of a godly Christian. At the very top of the list are love and honesty.

If defense of a position tends to usually involve an unloving attitude and/or a refusal to deal honestly and consistently with facts then that position is probably un-Christian.

 

Of course He can. Here's what He's shown me:

1) The KJV does have some minor flaws and is not the equivalent of the God inspired originals. Its inspiration is derived from its faithfulness to the substance of the originals. This faithfulness is validated by its consistency with the 1000's of mss we have testifying to the originals and also its consistency with other faithful Bible versions such as the NKJV, NASB, WEB, Geneva, etc.

2) He has shown me that KJVO's use two sets of balances in violation of scripture when they argue their point. The common KJVO arguments all involve double standards that allow them to attack God's Word in other versions while crying foul when someone applies the same standard to the KJV.

3) All KJVO's at some point will rely on circular reasoning that effectively makes their opinions the final authority.

4) He has shown me that since I do not know the original languages the advice of the KJV translators is good: using various translations gives the best sense of scripture. This is also consistent with the biblical principle of having at least two witnesses on any matter of judgment.

5) He has shown me through scriptural example that two versions of the same thing can both be God's Word- witness the gospels, Kings, Chronicles, etc.

6) He has shown me that on the whole KJVO's display hateful, contentious attitudes toward those who disagree with them and often attack persons and use vitriolic name-calling. The worst case being when KJVO's question the salvation of anyone who isn't KJVO.

God has shown me through scripture and an evaluation of historical facts governed by biblical principles of candor/consistency/honesty that KJVOnlyism is a divisive false doctrine that threatens the health and future of fundamental Christianity in the US. </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, don't misunderstand me. I was merely pointing out one error in your logic, so you can prevent making that error in a future post. I in no way challeneged your stance on the issues of the Bible versions. Only your erroneous implication that if someone is shown something from the Holy Spirit that their words are inspired as a result.

 

One more thing, just because my name is soulwinner1611 does not mean I take a KJVonly stance. It actually means my birthday is November 16th. I thought you might have drawn some information on that, and I wanted to clarify.

 

Sorry if I over-reacted. Actually, I don't think I implied that. Please see my second post on page 2.

 

It's perfectly all right. And, I guess I should have read a few more posts than just that first one. I apologize for not reading more to get a better idea of the enitre scope of your statements.