Featured Why Not More Doctrinal Unity Among Greek Students

You can choose to believe what you wish, but that does not make all your beliefs to be true and scriptural. You can deceive yourself by believing assertions and claims that are not true. In cases where you may read your own opinions and assumptions into verses that do not state what you suggest, it would not lead to the conclusion that you are solely believing what God says. You are also believing some human, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions that God did not say.

According to your posts, you choose to believe assertions or claims for the KJV that are not true. You think that you are standing for the truth when sometimes you oppose the truth by believing things that are not true. The God of truth does not lead and guide you to believe assertions that are not true.

 

Typical response.....blah...blah...blah.....

 

indeed it is for the Kjvo crowd!

 

You in effect used the same definition of "quote" concerning Scriptures when you appealed to New Testament quotations or translations of Old Testament passages. The New Testament writers often only quoted clauses and phrases from a Old Testament verse or verses and not whole verses and especially not three to ten whole verses, and sometimes they indirectly alluded or appealed to a truth stated in the Old Testament. If you think or suggest that my use of phrases and clauses from scripture passages is not quoting Scripture, would a consistent application of that assertion also be saying that the NT writers and Jesus did not quote it?

The long passages that you quote do not actually state the KJV-only opinions in your comments.

 

I would agree that the matter of the selection of a Bible translation is a personal preference or personal choice. I have not objected to believers esteeming one Bible translation above another (Rom. 14:5).

I disagree and object when believers advocate the acceptance of broad-sweeping assertions for a Bible translation that are not true or when they attempt to pass off personal opinions and traditions of men as being a Bible doctrine. KJV-only teaching goes far beyond esteeming the KJV above other English Bible translations as it condemns them as being corrupt and as it uses different measures/standards for them.
The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense and way that the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English, and also in the same sense and way that post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English.

 

It's been some 150 years and interminable English Bible versions and revisions since the R.V.
What greater light has been shined upon the scriptures that a KJV reader (KJVO or not) did not already have?

 

Do KJV-only advocates seem to assume that they have greater light that the Church of England makers of the KJV did not already have since they advocate non-scriptural exclusive only claims for the KJV that the KJV translators rejected?

 

Do not modern translators have more and greater access to better text sources, and also have superior reference tools to rely upon now?

 

Ok, so I won't get an answer because there isn't one. Thank you.

 

Strong's concordances. Vines word studies. Many other word studies. Commentary after commentary. Manuscript discoveries and more manuscript discoveries. Far more learning. The correction of errors in the KJV. Affordable editions of the KJV. And affordable editions of the Protestant versions before the KJV. We can now see how the KJV was made. Sometimes they followed the correct Bibles before them. Sometimes they took readings from the Roman Catholic Church.

 

Your carnal tactic seems to be to try to attack me personally as you avoid discussing or answering my actual scripturally-based assertions or points. You are not engaging in serious discussion.

I discuss and answer actual claims and assertions that you make.

 

That's your "canned" answer for everything. Blah...blah...blah.... You would make an excellent politician. Spending your life causing others to have doubt about the Scriptures. And don't fool yourself into thinking that's not what your doing. I have friends who YOU personally have caused to doubt the Word of God with your diatribe. Because of YOUR posts, they doubt any and all versions of the Bible. I can't believe you can't see the harm your doing while thinking you're doing something to benefit others. And I repeat what I've told you before, you need to get a life! Your entire life seems to be posting about the KJV endlessly. That's called unhealthy obsession, my friend.

 

That is not what I am doing so your bogus allegation would bear false witness. The truth does not cause others to have doubt about the Scriptures.

I accept all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves. I am properly defending the standard and greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages over the proper, secondary authority of Bible translations.

If someone is caused to doubt human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching, it is not at all the same thing as doubt about the Scriptures. You jump to wrong conclusions. KJV-onlyism is not the same thing as the Scriptures so your assertion is incorrect. Believers are being encouraged to compare human KJV-only teaching to what the Scriptures actually teach. You close your eyes to the harm caused by non-scriptural KJV-only opinions. KJV-only teaching in effect encourages believers to deceive themselves by believing assertions that are not true.

 

Logos, I personally know people who doubt all versions of Scripture because of things that you have posted about mistakes and errors in the King James version. They rationalize that if there are mistakes in the King James version there are mistakes in every version, in fact, you have started that yourself, so therefore because of what you posted they doubt every single version of Scripture. I pray that you would come to realize that you have caused other Christians to doubt any and all versions of the Word of God! I would be fearful of that. To say I'm mistaken is ridiculous, since I personally have listened to people tell me that they doubt the word of God because of what you and others like you posted. So whether you want to believe that or not, you have done serious harm to the cause of Christ! Get over yourself! You are not "right" all the time as you seem to think.

 

Please clarify. What precisely are these people doubting that they shouldn’t?

Is the accusation that people are losing their faith in Christ because someone has said translations or manuscripts are not 100% accurate?

Or is it that they are doubting certain pet “doctrines” due to doubt over questionable words and phrases that may be imprecise?

 

I never said they were losing their faith in Christ. I said they doubt the believability of any Scriptures, since these forums are filled with people like logos continually posting about how ALL Scriptures have errors. They rationalize that if you're not sure of certain passages, how can you be sure of any of it? < That is what you all have caused with your continued posts. Simple see that.

 

There is an obvious problem with some of the positions taken in this thread.

There are those who esteem the KJV perhaps to the point of excluding other translation work as in some manner corrupt.

Yet, I have not read any real work to show that any other translation is to be esteemed less then the KJV. What doctrine do the others avoid and not present factually?

For the record, I DO NOT esteem all work of translations the same. I do not enjoy nor hold that the NIV nor the NLV are of the same sturdiness. Personally, I view them for those who have little desire for the meat and need something less formally intellectual. That is my personal view, and perhaps some may disagree, I really don't care.

However, there are a few translations in which I hold with as much esteem and find them of equal veracity. The KJV, NKJV, NASB pre-1999, Berean study Bible and the Berean Literal Bible, the ESV (though somewhat less out of preference in use).

Of all these, I am truly surprised at the Berean work. Unless I am mistaken, and I am always open for those who show greater understanding, the Berean may become my all time favorite.

So, those of you who hold to the KJV as "only," what great doctrine has the KJV (other than a calvinistic church of england slant) present that the others avoid?

Seriously!

There must be some great doctrine that the others do not present.

And the argument of "trusting the Scriptures" really isn't a truthful statement. I trust the Scriptures over any man's word, any day, anytime.

What I want to see in this thread is someone presenting something factual from the Scriptures that shows some severe doctrinal confusion or misleading will take place using the NASB (pre-1999), the NKJV, the KJV, and the Berean.

Thank you!