Will The "Inspired" KJV Please Stand Up!

Sister Granny, there are some here who do care. Sadly though, the evidense shows that it's not in those who love the mv's and utilize double-standards and blatant hypocrisy.

I wish I could say that I have always been the way I am, but it took much prayer and study (aka seeking God) before the convictions I have were ingrained into me. What God has convicted one of, one would be sinning to go against. When you see posts from a Bible believer, you see a post from one with a conviction, and yes sometimes even there the line of decency is crossed, but I would rather have that then a post from a bibles doubter who has as their authoity their own finite and carnal mind, who post not from conviction, but from present preference.

Will some of these see the errors of their ways? Yes I do believe that some will, but that not all will, as before our very eyes we are seeing prophecy fulfilled. We get more ecumenical in mainstream "Christianity, we get new "bibles" in what seems lik every year, we get more loving with the world and the ways of the world, all of which is helping the great falling away prophecied in the Bible. So while we weep and pray for those not yet saved, we also look for and anticipate the soon return of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.


Jim

 

Here is a song that was being first
sung when I was saved. It was being sung
at Billy Graham crusades:

IT IS NO SECRET

It is no secret
What God can do!
What He's done for other
He'll do for you!
With arms wide open
He'll pardon you
It is no secret
What God can do!

GrannyGumbo: //"At the risk of being accused of going "postal",
I'm going to say this one more time...the Bible I've based
my whole life on came from another Bible that was right,
which came from another one, which came from yet another one,
etc..."like begats like".//

Does that mean there can never be another Holy Bible that
is different yet follows this tradition?

It is supposed to be no secret what God can do.
You have this blessed Bible in your hand yet cannot
find a way to tell the rest of us whether we have
that same book in our hands. I've good books on my
book shelve that MIGHT be the Bible of which you speak.
But the book itself keeps the secret, not sharing with
me wheather it is the book you speak of, or not.

This is what this Topic: Will The "Inspired" KJV
Please Stand Up! is all about. Here is documentation
on this board about some of the changes from
the origional KJV1611 edition and the more modern KJVs:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001000;p=1#000012

 

The fact of the matter is that the "real" KJV has been standing for some time now.

http://www.harvestbaptistofmidland.org/home/default.cfm?nav_id=6&par_nav_id=&content_id=&article_id=371&layout=Default&Link_URL=


Here is my answer. My article has been thoroughly debated on the BB before, but some are new.

Follow the fruit.

Lacy

 

Show me a place where I have used a double standard in this debate and I will either prove your charge wrong or repent/apologize. Show me a an example of where I have been guilty of hypocrisy and I will do likewise. Are you willing to do the same?

 

I have prayed and continue to pray that God will show me the truth on this issue. He continues to do so. Over and over He allows me to see KJVO's avoid discussion of fact, use double standards, and base their arguments on false premises. Again and again, He allows me to see KJVO's wriggle and squirm in their efforts to evade the most simple requests- like when you claim KJVOnlyism is from God then refuse to cite scripture that teaches it.

I am a Bible believer and the Bible does not teach KJVOnlyism therefore I don't believe it. And will not until shown real proof that it is true.

On the other hand, I try to avoid crossing the line of decency or become too personal. There have been several occasions where I have publicly apologized here for failures in that regard.

I don't doubt the Bible. It does not teach KJVOnlyism in any way, form, nor fashion. But rather, it demonstrates that different versions of the same truths are acceptable as the Word of God.

The Bible is my authority. I can directly and indirectly support my beliefs from the scripture. You have been challenged repeatedly to do the same but have only compared verses (which means that you decided the standard text from your own mind) or avoid the issue altogether.

I can assure you that my beliefs on this issue are a strong conviction, not a preference. They were strong enough to leave a church that I had worked to build up. They were strong enough to separate from one of the better friends I have ever had.

BUT... they are not so strong that I would not submit to change at the bat of an eye should God providentially send someone into my life that could show real proof that KJVOnlyism is true... or at least answer the questions that categorically disprove KJVOnlyism.

Examples:

1) How were the KJV translators qualified biblically to receive direct inspiration?

2) What was the perfect English Bible in 1600 and why was it different from the KJV?

3) What scripture identifies the KJV as the only acceptable version or that only a single translation would ever be singularly acceptable to God?

4) How did the perfect wording come to past from men who were not inspired, who were not perfect, who used varying texts/translations as a basis for their version, and whose primary underlying text came from an oft revised collation of 6-7 incomplete mss of the NT?

5) If the KJV translators were godly, inspired scholars then why did their church persecute Baptists?

There are many others but I suspect you won't even give direct answers to these questions.

Yes. So is "deceiving and being deceived" and those who gather false teachers to soothe their itching ears... this would be KJVOnlyism.

Interestingly we are not the ones denying the Word, you are.

Do you mean that those who are not KJVO are not saved? Please cite your scriptural support for such an idea. That is something that I am sure none of us want to err on.

OTOH, if that is your contention and you cannot cite scripture for such a contention then I call on you to repent.

 

Dr. Bob,

We'll be waiting a long, long time I'm afraid. Every post that any KJVO has voiced their convictions, they have said that it was personal experience/conviction.

If that is to be the measuring stick, why aren't we all gibbering in tongues, barking like dogs, getting the hundred-fold blessing, burning our bills, clearing out the hospitals, etc, etc, etc...

Personal experience is a good thing, but not when it comes to defining the Lord's will. That is why we MUST rely upon the word of God, the whole word of God, and not just somebody's feeling (and not just in one archaic translation!) about it.

But don't look for any Scriptural evidence from the KJVO camp. It just ain't there.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

I'll try my best to answer a few of these arguments.

I won't split semantic hairs over the terms "inspiration" and "preservation" (It's been beaten to death.) But assuming they are similar, where do you get your doctrine of preservation? In other words, prove from the Bible that the autographs are directly inspired. The Bible says all "scripture" is given but "scripture" always refers to copies and never to autographs. Matt 21.42, Matt 22.29, Acts 8:32, II Tim 3:15-16, etc.

I fail to see why this is such an important question to any MVer. KJV only folks generally believe the same thing (Where was it before?)that MVers believe about the perfect Word (Where is it now?). You hold KJV onlyists to a higher standard than you do yourselves.

Don't most MVers believe that all (most)the MVs and Greek/Hebrew/Latin, etc. manuscripts contain the Word.

We believe it was scattered in 1600. MVers believe it was, and still is.

Where was the perfect Greek text before the cannon was established (I mean, how perfect can a Bible be without all the 66 books?)

What is the perfect English Bible today? (Whatever a typical MVer would answer, put that in for my answer to where "Where was it in 1600?")

What scripture identifies the 66 book, closed cannon commonly now accepted by all of Christianity. I mean what if we were debating 66-Book onlyism? My arguments are the same. Follow the fruit!

No writer of the autographs claimed to be writing scripture. None claimed to be "inspired", or for that matter, "perfect". Why do you hold the translators to a higher standard than the original writers?

Most of the Bible was written by murderers.

Do you realize that a great many verses in the autographs were translations when they were penned. OT Hebrew verses were translated into NT Greek verses right off of Luke, Paul, Peter, etc.'s pens. Why would this be a problem for God? If the "original" Greek translations (autographs) were inspired, then why not an English translation?

First, name me a translator who personally persecuted a Baptist.
Secondly, 1611 was (I believe) the last year a Baptist was killed by the Church of England. As the KJV grew in influence, what happened to persecution?
Thirdly, If (for arguments sake) God was going to preserve a perfect Bible, in any language, could a doubter not make some similar argument about anyone God chose to use. In fact, there are many (I encounter them every week when soul-winning) who doubt that God could use Peter, Paul, Moses, etc. and who believe there is no way to know for sure whether what we have is "reliable" or not. I must confess that I find the MVers position on inspiration and preservation very close to the unbelievers' position. (And I've debated both this month.)

Lacy

 

Thanks Phillip for the kind (Christian) words. It's nice to see a MVer minus the bile.

Lacy

 

I see ya failed to read KJVO's like our friend Precepts and the wonderfully kind and gentle Jim Ward.

 

The above sentiments could have been said by a GBO in 1611. Why do you chose to restrict Almighty God to the 1611? (or is it 1769?)

 

It's even more rare to see a KJVO minus the bile.

 

Nice non-answer.

If you want to follow the fruit, then what qualifies as such?

Converts? The JW have plenty every day, most from Baptists.

Strong doctrine? The average Mormon can run circles around the vast majority of Christians (and they use the KJV...imagine that).

A heritage of tradition? Go talk to the Pope and his Roman Catholic Church.

What do you classify as 'fruit' exactly?

True, many millions have been led to the Lord by the preaching from the KJV. But, then, it has been around for almost 400 years. Would you consider that a head-start or what? And what do you do with those who have come to faith because of the preaching of one of the MV's? Are they to be discounted? Or are they not really saved?

So, define fruit.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Perhaps we tend to ignore the railing when we agree with the position of the railer. When I look at these boards, I seldom want to post because of the fleshly, often immature manner in which men of God debate. There is plenty of "bile" to go around. Scoffing is not a virtue.

1 Peter 3:9 Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.


Lacy

 

It's not a non-answer. There is no scripture that says "thou shalt read only the KJV". But there is no scripture that says, "Thou shalt not consider 'Bel the Dragon' or 'Judith' scripture." either.

You come up with a list of fruit that substantiates the existing 66-Book onlyist position and then put the KJV up against any MV based on the same criteria.

Lacy

 

This spoiled fruit found earlier in
this topic from a KJVO:

" ... I think y'all don't want to know the truth,
but enjoy the thrill of agitating."

Thar I be a sittin' a bit
by that there shore and a fishin'.
Lo & behold, a psycie-o-logical
PROJECTION done gone by!

Oh well, confession is good for the soul.