Why is it so important to use the KJV only?

Seems you already have........

 

I get to where I just have a pointer to where we have already
refuted these things right here in the BB's own
Version/Translation Forum.

I also remember trother Tegart who now has
Westcott & Hort defence center at:

http://www.tegarttech.com/wh/index.html

This just trys to difuse the some 35 sites
that exist now with the same misquotes of
Westcott & Hort (the Antichrist & his
Prophet - or so it seems).

Here is the maximum wierd statement made
on this Forum:

Jesus, the Living Word of God, is
the same as the Bible (KJV1769 only, of
course), the Written Word of God.
God only has ONE WORD and both Jesus
and the Bible are God's word.

 

I've often said there's nothing wrong with PREFERRING the KJV or any other valid version above all others. But I HAVE said & will CONTINUE to say, long as God allows, that there's PLENTY wrong in saying this or that version is the ONLY valid version out there.

The current KJVO thingie is entirely man-made. Its history is easily traced to SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. In this error-filled book, Dr. W gathered a series of pro-KJVO arguments expressed here & there by earlier authors & put'em all in one volume without bothering to check out their VERACITY. Other authors copied very heavily from W to the point of committing plagiarism had W chosen to pursue it. They, also, failed to examine W's points for VERACITY. Several of these successive authors copied from each other, thus establishing the KJVO "party-line" that most KJVOs, especially those among the Fundamentalists, follow today. The first of any importance was someone called J. J. Ray who published God Wrote Only One Bible in 1955.

Just try to Google "j j ray" & see if you can find out anything about that man. (There are quite a few other J.J. Rays who have nothing to do with this subject.)All we know for sure is that someone using that name published the above book in 1955 , establishing an org called "Eye-Opener Publications" We can find out very little about it. Why all the secrecy? Why use a pseudonym? What was he afraid if? Most likely it was his plagiarism. He most likely wanted to place a paperwork barrier between himself and Wilkinson.

Following him in 1964, there was Dr. Peter Ruckman with his Bible Babel. While copying Wilkinson & Ray some, he went off on his own tangent, with his own goofy ideas such as "the English corrects the Greek & the Hebrew since it was re-inspired by God." Then in 1970 came Dr. David Otis Fuller, who copied heavily from both Wilkinson and Ray. (Wilkinson had died in 1968.) Fuller even went so far as to try to cover up W's cult affiliation. His book was Which Bible? Fuller, of course, had more modern media to work with & thus was able to spread KJVO more than his predecessors.

Thus, the party line was established...Wilkinson to Ray & Ruckman to Fuller to a host of others such as Vance, Melton, Hyles, Grady, Reagan, Watkins, etc. A calling card of the party line is their use of Psalm 12:6-7 as "proof verses" for the preservation of God's word-an error proven as an error by a marginal note in the AV 1611 itself! Never mind there's not one quark of evidence linking those verses to the KJV alone, if they WERE "preservation" verses.

One authoress who took in some of the party line, but established her own line of propaganda is Gail Riplinger. Her proven misquotes of other authors, her assertions made entirely from her imagination are legion. She has several college degrees...in interior design. Since this thread is not about Riplinger or any other KJVO authors, lemme close with discussing them with this URL in which some of her goofs are exposed by rabid KJVO David Cloud:

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/newage.htm

Neither KJVO nor any other doctrine of One-Versionism is supported by Scripture. Since we as Baptists are supposed to take our doctrines ONLY FROM SCRIPTURE, I don't see why a few Baptists, especially a few Fundamentalists, believe the KJVO doctrine, which is wholly and clearly MAN-MADE, and doesn't have one word of Scripture supporting it, not even from the KJV itself!

Readers, I believe you are quite free to use any valid Bible version(s) you choose. If you prefer the KJV alone, fine. you can use the KJV alone without the dead bird of KJVOism tied to your neck. You don't have to be burdened with ANY Onlyisms around your neck!

The LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, and lack of any other real evidence, sinks the KJVO ship into the Dead Sea. Readers, don't believe a word of it! Be as the Bereans, & SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES to see if it's true or not. Clearly, it's man-made. Clearly, it cannot be supported by evidence.

 

If that were so, there'd be lotsa dudes/dudettes who lived before 1611 in trouble.

 

Why use the KJV? Why mess with perfection? It doesn't get better than the KJV. Doctrines are preserved in other translations as well. Just be careful, as many have omitted verses and are unreliable. (Not all but some)

 

bapmom, is there the first word of Scripture in the KJV itself indicating it's the only valid edition of God's word? Is there the first line in the AV translators' comments that shows they believed they were making the be-all, end-all English Bible translation?

I,too, believe the KJV is God's written word for English readers. However, I do NOT believe it's the ONLY VALID VERSION of His word. There are older and newer versions just as valid. No one can prove the KJV is "THE" version in English because it just isn't true.

 

Amen, same here. I've grown up in Christ over the years (thankfully) I have also become familiar with the achaisms of the KJV. With the giftedness that God has given me I am able to help others understand what their bible is saying despite the way it is written .

I love the KJV, and would defend it to the end of my days. But it isn't my mine translation.

 

Thank you for noting that not all MVs are bad.
In fact, I define MV = Modern Version, to be any version
translated into Modern English which dates from
the year 1600. So the KJV1611 Edition is an MV,
the KJV1769 Edition is an MV, the KJV1873 Edition is an MV.
These MVs use source language sources that have had
words & verses ADDED to them.

 

To my knowledge, no faithful Bible version has every "omitted" any verses.

Perhaps, the word 'omit' is not well understood. According to the online American Heritage Dictionary it is defined as "to fail to include or mention; leave out: omit a word; to pass over; neglect; to desist or fail in doing; forbear."

Or perhaps the Greek manuscript situation is not well understood. Many Bibles are based upon a Greek text that is shorter than the Majority Text or the TR. But the translators did not fail to include verses that were in their text. They did not leave out verses. They did not neglect verses. They did not omit verses.

There are ways to express the differences between the versions without setting up the KJV as a standard and resorting to the inaccurrate term "omitted".

 

I prefer KJV to any other versions and use it as the main Bible for my study and daily readings. It doesn't mean that I don't read any other Bibles. I was saved while I was reading one of the modern Bibles like NIV.
The main reasons for choosing KJV as the main text are :

1) I believe the Underlying Basic Texts for KJV are better and more accurate than others for modern versions, which means Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus have preserved the Words of God in the best manner.
Nothing in the world takes place without the will of God or the indirect providence of God. The inspiration for the translation may be far less than the inspiration for Bible writers, but the Holy Spirit still worked there as He helps us every day.
Regardless of any argument, I trust Erasmus and his work more than Westcott and Hort and their work.

2. I get much more spiritual understandings which I can apply to my life, from KJV than from other Bibles.

When I read Acts 9:5-6, we notice " it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks, and he TREMBLING and ASTONISHED said what will thou have me to do?" in KJV, which is not found in MV's. I was deeply thrilled to find the reaction by a sinner to the Words of God.
I would ask many people whether they had this kind of experience.

When I read Colossians 1:14 in KJV, we read " In whom we have the redemptiobn through His blood" Modern Bible says simply,
" In whom we have the redemption"
I don't say that Modern Bibles say we obtained the redemption without His blood. But His blood is too precious and important to be omitted and it conforms to all the other Bible statement.

When I read Ephesians 3:9,
"mystery which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ"
The Creator-ship of Jesus Christ is clearer here in KJV than in Modern Versions which omits "by or thru Jesus Christ". In this case more than 500 manuscripts support KJV while only a few support MV's.

3. As for NKJV, I would say it is far, far better than any other Modern Versions/Translations. It is basically based on the same texts as KJV, but modified reflecting Septuagint and many revisions. I have not counted all the verses that altered from KJV, but heard that it modified KJV in about 1700 verses.
I personally made some study on hundreds of verses and shortly want to show you some.
Acts 12:4 - KJV states Easter, NKJV states Passover. I know there are lots of controversy about which is correct and we dealt with this issue separately in other thread some time ago. P Jensen made a lot of study in his Cosmologie der Babylonie about the customs of worshipping Ishtar, goddess of Middle East which was actually Astatrte or Ashera.
Hebrew word Pesach or Greek Paska were used for this Ishtar festival which was just few days later than Passover-Pesach.
Otherwise we cannot understand why Acts 12:3-4 say that it was already Days of Unleavened Bread and Heroth wanted to hand over Peter after Passover, because Passover must have passed if it was already Day of Unleavened Bread since Passove was the first day of Day of ULB.
NKJV or any other modern versions don't give this much doctrinal lessons while KJV do.
One may not agree with my explanation about Ishtar(Easter) festival, but one thing no one can deny is that NKJV is not the same as KJV in this regard.

Recently I had a debate about who pulled up Joseph from the pit and sold to Ishmeelites in Genesis 37:28.
KJV states "there passed by Midianites and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit and sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites for twenty pieces of silver"
NIV and NKJV say " his brethren"
Problem is that there is no word for his brethren or Brethren in the sentence of the original language Hebrew. Both versions NIV and NKJV added the words which do not exist in the original Bible.
Now the question is who are they?
NIV, NKJV may have thought that Midianites were the same as Ishmeelites as we read Gen 37:36 saying Midianites sold him to Egypt.
Jews know the history and they know Midianites were totally different from Ishmeelites which were part of Egyptians. Moreover, Joseph's own confession is very much important.
" I was stolen away out of land of Hebrews" (Gen 40:15) Why does he say so? 37:29 say Reuben returned to the pit and found Joseph nowhere there. If his brethren sold Joseph, why didn't Reuben know about it?
I have made a lot of study on this matter. If you want to have it, PM me. It is about 500KB.

KJV gives a good spiritual lessosn in so many verses, while other versions are like simple story telling novels in some of such verses.

4. There is an apparent problem with KJV due to the inconvenience of the language and I believe it shows the laziness of our generation, but the spiritual advantage excels the inconvenience of language update problem. Actually nothing comes without pain, especially in the field of spiritual matters.
But if children or any foreigners with limited English skills have problems with KJV archaic language, I would recommend NKJV.

This is my view and I don't force anyone, but I am sure that I will not regret about my choice of Bible at any time, even at the Seat of the Judgment.

 

Intersting Comparisons:


Gospel John 3:7
NIV
You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'

NKJV
Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'

Both of above sound like:
Nicodemos, don’t be surprised that I said to you (Nicodemos) must be born again.

KJV John 3:7

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Don’t be surprised that I said to you Nicodemos, you all human beings must be born again!





Luke 22:31-2

NIV
31 "Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."


Who is "you" in Satan has asked to sift you as wheat ? Simon ?
For whom did Jesus pray for? For Peter or for 11 Disciples?


KJV shows the Answer:

31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you , that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Satan desired 11 Disciples!
Jesus prayed for Peter!


Not Simon, but 11 disciples all.

 

One more....

Exodus 16:28

NIV
Then the Lord said to Moses, "How long will you refuse to keep my commands and my instructions?"


This sounds like :
Then the Lord said to Moses, " Moses, How long will you continue to refuse my commandments and instructions?"

KJV explains.

And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?



The LORD said to Moses, How long will ye, the Israelites refuse to keep my commandments and laws?

 

Thanx for giving some of your reasons, Eliyahu. But an in-depth view shows an equal # of reasons to use other versions for other purposes. Gladta see you're NOT KJVO but KJVP, which isn't incorrect.

I generally use the KJV, or at least start with it when evangelizing an elderly person, and a newer version when working with younger people or immigrants for whom archaic English would be very difficult, but I honor every request to use a certain version.

 

Eliyahu:

 

I use exclusively the KJV for one reason and one reason only.
One must have a standard rule.
For example. If you were to use the metric system of measuring a board and I were to use the SAE system, we would both end up with different numbers. though the board is no different in length, I will have 6'7" and you might have so many centimeters and a fraction. this is because the two systems are different in their increments of measure. The board does not change but your RULE is different.
Same with sinners. We must have a common RULE or we end up with different increments of measure. And we CANNOT walk together except we be agreed. If you say 3 meters 13 centimeters, and I say 11 feet 3 inches, we are but strangers to each other.
As with any analogy when trying to explain spiritual things, mine will also break down at a given point. However, I think you can see, Amy, why it is so important TO ME to use the KJV exclusively. It is for the sake of having a common rule.

(For you other people who have replied to this thread, save your comments to me. I was addressing Amy)

 

Although I don't promote ONLY the KJV, here are just a few reasons why the KJV is important.

It has been tried in the fire and has been found worthy.
Those who brought it forth (humanly speaking) went through great pains to purify it over several centuries.
God has blessed it, used it and through it He has spread His Word around the inhabited earth through His missionaries.
Every believer loves it (including those who use MV’s, well this one anyway).

HankD

 

I belong to an NIV Church that is going to be an
HCSB Church soon. Others will be happy to be
in an KJV1769 Edition Church, but I won't be cooperating
with them.

 

HankD, gotta ask...

If I don't love the KJV more than my NKJV or NIV or NAS, does that mean I'm not a Believer?