Are you KJV Only? TR Only? Which versions of these is the ONE?

[humblethinker]

For those of you who are KJVO and TRO, which versions of these did God preserve for us today?

I have a sceptical friend who finds fault with a God who hasn't preserved his word exactly and precisely as he thinks it should be. I would say that he has an unreasonable requirement to know the certainty of the matter. How would you answer questions like:

"There are so many versions of the TR and KJV and they vary and contradict each other so much. Surely, if His word was so important then God preserved one of each of these, right? And of the manuscripts that Erasmus translated from... are those 'the ones'? When Erasmus translated part of revelation from the Vulgate to Greek, is that legitimate? When He wrote in I John 5:7, is that legitimate?"

 

[Yeshua1]

For those of you who are KJVO and TRO, which versions of these did God preserve for us today?

I have a sceptical friend who finds fault with a God who hasn't preserved his word exactly and precisely as he thinks it should be. I would say that he has an unreasonable requirement to know the certainty of the matter. How would you answer questions like:

"There are so many versions of the TR and KJV and they vary and contradict each other so much. Surely, if His word was so important then God preserved one of each of these, right? And of the manuscripts that Erasmus translated from... are those 'the ones'? When Erasmus translated part of revelation from the Vulgate to Greek, is that legitimate? When He wrote in I John 5:7, is that legitimate?"

God dpromised to preserve to us a faithful/true word, and he has in the greek/hebrews texts extant to us today, to be the basis of the English translations!

the KJV cannot claim to be the divinely God preserved word to us in the English, any more so than Niv/Nasb etc could!

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

In Other Words....

God dpromised to preserve to us a faithful/true word, and he has in the greek/hebrews texts extant to us today, to be the basis of the English translations!

the KJV cannot claim to be the divinely God preserved word to us in the English, any more so than Niv/Nasb etc could!

In other words....what you are saying is...there is no ONE version/translation/edition of a book that calls itself a "Holy Bible" that you as an individual believer can hold in your hand that is,without error,the perfect, preserved, infallible, inerrant Word(s) of the Living God? Is that what you are saying? I might add that the "originals"(which I believe DID meet the requirements just mentioned)NO LONGER EXIST IN THIS WORLD TODAY. We have bits and pieces and fragments of old scrolls and manuscripts but nothing in it's entirety. Beyond that,we as believers,have FAITH in GOD and if we are wise and trusting our God, still believe that God secured His perfect Word, not only in Heaven as He declared(Psalm 119:89) but also here on this earth so we can have access to it. With all that said, I will unashamedly declare that I am a TR/KJV guy through and through(based on the "evidence"I have chosen to embrace). I know what I believe although I do not claim to be an apologist or an expert on the matter and I don't believe I am either qualified or willing to engage in debate or argument about the matter.
I will say this....I believe, that I, as an english-speaking believer, hold a Book in my hand that is error-free and 100% dependable for matters of faith and practice in the end-times in which I, as a believer, walk on this earth. I believe that one of the tests and requirements of a book BEING the true Word of God is that it be error free and perfect if it is God's Word. There is a certain amount of logic that must be applied to this matter.
I offer this, MY OPINION, by saying this...I need a Bible in my hand that is 100% trustworthy in all respects...and I believe I have one. If you,whoever you may be out there in cyberland reading this, don't have that same requirement for the book you hold in your hand, then that is between you and the Author of the Book. I just always want to be confident that the Bible I hold is the authority over ME,rather than me setting myself up as an authority over IT.
In closing this comment,let me just say that I am a product of the EVIDENCE that I have read/studied and chosen/felt led to embrace. So are ANY OF YOU. I reject the theories of the Critical Textualism and Dynamic Equivalence as I understand them and embrace the Majority Text/TR textual evidence/position and the only resulting English translation that results from them, the KJV 1611 translation and it's (corrected spelling) descendents. I currently use the 1769 edition KJV (Old Scofield)(and No...Scofields NOTES are NOT inspired!:smilewinkgrin and I am quite blessed and satisfied with it. My challenge is not which Bible I should use but HOW MUCH I take time to read and study the one I do have. I daily fail to be as faithful as I should about that matter.
I know that what I have just said probably convinces no one nor changes anyone's mind if they take an opposite position on this matter. God bless ya'll anyway. For those who may be interested and want a balanced position on this matter I highly recommend the following website.

The Bible For Today HomePage:type:

Bro.Greg Perry Sr.

 

[Yeshua1]

In other words....what you are saying is...there is no ONE version/translation/edition of a book that calls itself a "Holy Bible" that you as an individual believer can hold in your hand that is,without error,the perfect, preserved, infallible, inerrant Word(s) of the Living God? Is that what you are saying? I might add that the "originals"(which I believe DID meet the requirements just mentioned)NO LONGER EXIST IN THIS WORLD TODAY. We have bits and pieces and fragments of old scrolls and manuscripts but nothing in it's entirety. Beyond that,we as believers,have FAITH in GOD and if we are wise and trusting our God, still believe that God secured His perfect Word, not only in Heaven as He declared(Psalm 119:89) but also here on this earth so we can have access to it. With all that said, I will unashamedly declare that I am a TR/KJV guy through and through(based on the "evidence"I have chosen to embrace). I know what I believe although I do not claim to be an apologist or an expert on the matter and I don't believe I am either qualified or willing to engage in debate or argument about the matter.
I will say this....I believe, that I, as an english-speaking believer, hold a Book in my hand that is error-free and 100% dependable for matters of faith and practice in the end-times in which I, as a believer, walk on this earth. I believe that one of the tests and requirements of a book BEING the true Word of God is that it be error free and perfect if it is God's Word. There is a certain amount of logic that must be applied to this matter.
I offer this, MY OPINION, by saying this...I need a Bible in my hand that is 100% trustworthy in all respects...and I believe I have one. If you,whoever you may be out there in cyberland reading this, don't have that same requirement for the book you hold in your hand, then that is between you and the Author of the Book. I just always want to be confident that the Bible I hold is the authority over ME,rather than me setting myself up as an authority over IT.
In closing this comment,let me just say that I am a product of the EVIDENCE that I have read/studied and chosen/felt led to embrace. So are ANY OF YOU. I reject the theories of the Critical Textualism and Dynamic Equivalence as I understand them and embrace the Majority Text/TR textual evidence/position and the only resulting English translation that results from them, the KJV 1611 translation and it's (corrected spelling) descendents. I currently use the 1769 edition KJV (Old Scofield)(and No...Scofields NOTES are NOT inspired!:smilewinkgrin and I am quite blessed and satisfied with it. My challenge is not which Bible I should use but HOW MUCH I take time to read and study the one I do have. I daily fail to be as faithful as I should about that matter.
I know that what I have just said probably convinces no one nor changes anyone's mind if they take an opposite position on this matter. God bless ya'll anyway. For those who may be interested and want a balanced position on this matter I highly recommend the following website.

The Bible For Today HomePage:type:

Bro.Greg Perry Sr.

saying that God DID indeed preserve the Bible to us today, in the texts of the hebrew/greek! And since those are to be seen as being perserved by God to us, ANY English translation done faithfully and compently off those texts would be seen as being 'the Word of God" to us today!

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Which "Family" of Texts?

saying that God DID indeed preserve the Bible to us today, in the texts of the hebrew/greek! And since those are to be seen as being perserved by God to us, ANY English translation done faithfully and compently off those texts would be seen as being 'the Word of God" to us today!

I guess it gets down to which "family" of texts and which version of the existing "evidence" you regard as reliable and choose to accept now...doesn't it? As far as I know from my investigation of the matter....ALL of the (copyrighted:tearmodern english versions come from one "family" of texts(in spite of what some claim) and the KJV comes from the other...minus all the obvious omissions and question marks about the "authority" of the text found in ALL the others. I'll stick with what I have....it is far less confusing.:thumbsup: I'm not trying to change your mind...not my job brother....but neither will I ever change mine now that I'm sure about it.Have a nice day!

Br.Greg:saint:

 

[humblethinker]

I guess it gets down to which "family" of texts and which version of the existing "evidence" you regard as reliable and choose to accept now...doesn't it? As far as I know from my investigation of the matter....ALL of the (copyrighted:tearmodern english versions come from one "family" of texts(in spite of what some claim) and the KJV comes from the other...minus all the obvious omissions and question marks about the "authority" of the text found in ALL the others. I'll stick with what I have....it is far less confusing.:thumbsup: I'm not trying to change your mind...not my job brother....but neither will I ever change mine now that I'm sure about it.Have a nice day!

Br.Greg:saint:

A man who will not listen can not hear. I was once kjvo and tro. Since the people I held as authorities in this subject were honorable, God-fearing and fair with me personally I accepted their opinion on the matter as true. My reasoning was that since they were good men surely their dogmatism and opinion on the matter was informed. My need for the comfort that their certainty brought me was greater than my sense of personal responsibility and willingness to search out the matter objectively. I now realized I was duped. Some meant to keep us ignorant and then some were unaware themselves. It is our responsibility to make a best effort to understand the truth, especially if we are going to judge other people by it.

But, none of that helps me understand how you would answer my skeptic friend.

 

[Van]

Have you heard the saying, less is more? Recall how God downsized Gideon's army so that the victory would bring glory to God. God has revealed Himself to us through His word. Now we can take away, nullify, what does not seem consistent with our view of God, or we can take God at His word.

Rather than debate generic issues like this text is superior to that text, why not restrict our discussions to texts where there is a doctrinally significant difference.

We could say this is how the critical text reads and then this is how the TR text reads and discuss the merits of one over and against the other.

If we try to keep it simple, we might actually work through our differences and come up with a common understanding of the actual problem. But proxy wars can go on for a very long time. Less is more.

 

[humblethinker]

How do you answer these:

There are so many versions of the TR and KJV and they vary considerably, which version is THE ONE God preserved?

The manuscripts that Erasmus translated from, I think it was just 7 or 8, are those 'the ones' to the exclusion of all the others?

When Erasmus translated part of revelation from the Latin Vulgate to Greek, is that legitimate, to the exclusion of Nestle/Aland's Greek text that was translated from greek manuscripts?

When He wrote in I John 5:7, which is not found in any Greek manuscripts, is that legitimate?

 

[humblethinker]

Have you heard the saying, less is more? Recall how God downsized Gideon's army so that the victory would bring glory to God. God has revealed Himself to us through His word. Now we can take away, nullify, what does not seem consistent with our view of God, or we can take God at His word.

Rather than debate generic issues like this text is superior to that text, why not restrict our discussions to texts where there is a doctrinally significant difference.

We could say this is how the critical text reads and then this is how the TR text reads and discuss the merits of one over and against the other.

If we try to keep it simple, we might actually work through our differences and come up with a common understanding of the actual problem. But proxy wars can go on for a very long time. Less is more.

I see now what you are saying and I have no problem with that approach. The problem is that I think you are preaching to the choir. Most all of the KJVO's I know are closed minded, arrogant and judgmental regarding the issue and would react harshly to 'perversions' in their church.

 

[Yeshua1]

I see now what you are saying and I have no problem with that approach. The problem is that I think you are preaching to the choir. Most all of the KJVO's I know are closed minded, arrogant and judgmental regarding the issue and would react harshly to 'perversions' in their church.

That is best proven by them refusing to accept the NKJV as being a KJV, even though it used SAME Hebrew/greek texts as the KJV translators did!

 

[jonathan.borland]

Question since the OP only asked for responses from KJV/TR only advocates. May those from a different perspective post on this thread?

 

[Van]

If you are a dyed in the wool baptist, yes; if you are a dictatorial elitist no.

 

[humblethinker]

That is best proven by them refusing to accept the NKJV as being a KJV, even though it used SAME Hebrew/greek texts as the KJV translators did!

Yes, and they do refuse the NKJV. For a person to be warned of their incorrectness and yet remain intentionally ignorant in thier disagreement is a sad state in which to be, regardless of how 'faithful' one thinks they are being. What disappoints me is when they are willing to remain ignorant even if their ignorance causes division in a church or among brethren.

 

[humblethinker]

Question since the OP only asked for responses from KJV/TR only advocates. May those from a different perspective post on this thread?

I suppose that's fine with me. I was hoping that they would answer the same requirements with which they condemn the modern Bibles.

 

[Logos1560]

SRB is not the 1769

I currently use the 1769 edition KJV (Old Scofield)Bro.Greg Perry Sr.

Actually you are misinformed. The Oxford edition of the KJV in the Old Scofield Reference Bible is not the 1769 Oxford. There would be over 200 differences between the 1769 Oxford edition and the Oxford edition in the Scofield Reference Bible.

There would be over 70 places where the 1769 Oxford KJV has "LORD" [Jehovah] while the Scofield Reference Bible has "Lord" [Adonai].

Besides a number of LORD/Lord differences, here are some example differences in the book of Psalms:

Ps. 18:47
unto me (1769 Oxford)
under me (SRB)

Ps. 31:8
my foot (1769 Oxford)
my feet (SRB)

Ps. 52:2
rasor (1769 Oxford)
razor (SRB)

Ps. 60:4
feared (1769 Oxford)
fear (SRB)

Ps. 68:2
in the presence (1769 Oxford)
at the presence (SRB)

Ps. 78:66
part (1769 Oxford)
parts (SRB)

Ps. 91:1
most high (1769 Oxford)
most High (SRB)

Ps. 105:12
When there were (1769 Oxford)
When they were (SRB)

Ps. 107:16
gates of iron (1769 Oxford)
bars of iron (SRB)

Ps. 107:38
suffereth not not (1769 Oxford)
suffereth not (SRB)

Ps. 119:78
perversly (1769 Oxford)
perversely (SRB)

Ps. 144:8
falshood (1769 Oxford)
falsehood (SRB)

Ps. 149:6
two edged (1769 Oxford)
twoedged (SRB)

Are you aware that the Old Scofield Reference Bible [before 1991] had some differences from most if not all other KJV editions?

Lev. 14:36
that all that (1769 Oxford)
and all that (SRB)

Deut. 24:10
When thou dost (1769 Oxford)
And when thou dost (SRB)

Revelation 18:14
lusted (1769 Oxford)
lusteth (SRB)

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

The Pot Calling The Kettle Black...

Most all of the KJVO's I know are closed minded, arrogant and judgmental regarding the issue and would react harshly to 'perversions' in their church.

Most of the Modern Version/Critical Text folks I know meet the same kind of description you just put on us except they will say (most of them) that it's OK to "use" the KJV because its a perfectly good english translation even though it is "out-moded" and full of errors. Kinda makes me want to puke when I here something like that....or when I hear a preacher (thinking he's somehow smart enough to correct God's Word) say something like "a better translation of that would be......" etc.,etc. I'm not arrogant, I'm not elitist, I'm not judgmental, and I'm actually not close-minded. I started off my saved life in 1977 with a King James,went to a Living Bible, then to a Phillips translation, then was told an NASV was better than all the others (by my BJU friends) and finally landed back at the King James after being confronted with the evidence FROM BOTH CAMPS. I prayed for God to give me two things...Godly objectivity and the truth...for His Sake...not mine. That's the best I can do under the circumstances. I have a Bible in my language that I have ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE in. I don't know everything...and I'm not trying to convince anyone that I am smart and have all the right answers. However....when I do get to the point that I believe I am right about something and I call it a true conviction.....I do get close-minded and I do get dogmatic....and I don't apologize.I've also seen time and time again that the "fruit" ot the use of modern versions many times tends to lead the users thereof (eventually) into a lowering of Godly standards of such things as conduct,dress,music and associations with the world to name a few. It also seems to go hand in hand with much of the compromise and rampant ecumenicism that we are seeing today. That has been my general observation and has led me to have the OPINION I'm sharing here about it.As for me.... ANYBODY I talk to about the Bible or being saved I recommend that they get ONLY a King James and a Strongs Exhaustive Concordance. I've seen too much and I've heard too many arguments so anyone who wishes to disagree with me..well that's why they call this a forum! Ok I'm done...stepping off the soapbox. G'nite ya'll!

Bro. Greg
(The allegedly close-minded redneck from South Cacalacky):BangHead::saint:

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Actually you are misinformed. The Oxford edition of the KJV in the Old Scofield Reference Bible is not the 1769 Oxford. There would be over 200 differences between the 1769 Oxford edition and the Oxford edition in the Scofield Reference Bible.

There would be over 70 places where the 1769 Oxford KJV has "LORD" [Jehovah] while the Scofield Reference Bible has "Lord" [Adonai].

Besides a number of LORD/Lord differences, here are some example differences in the book of Psalms:

Ps. 18:47
unto me (1769 Oxford)
under me (SRB)

Ps. 31:8
my foot (1769 Oxford)
my feet (SRB)

Ps. 52:2
rasor (1769 Oxford)
razor (SRB)

Ps. 60:4
feared (1769 Oxford)
fear (SRB)

Ps. 68:2
in the presence (1769 Oxford)
at the presence (SRB)

Ps. 78:66
part (1769 Oxford)
parts (SRB)

Ps. 91:1
most high (1769 Oxford)
most High (SRB)

Ps. 105:12
When there were (1769 Oxford)
When they were (SRB)

Ps. 107:16
gates of iron (1769 Oxford)
bars of iron (SRB)

Ps. 107:38
suffereth not not (1769 Oxford)
suffereth not (SRB)

Ps. 119:78
perversly (1769 Oxford)
perversely (SRB)

Ps. 144:8
falshood (1769 Oxford)
falsehood (SRB)

Ps. 149:6
two edged (1769 Oxford)
twoedged (SRB)

Are you aware that the Old Scofield Reference Bible [before 1991] had some differences from most if not all other KJV editions?

Lev. 14:36
that all that (1769 Oxford)
and all that (SRB)

Deut. 24:10
When thou dost (1769 Oxford)
And when thou dost (SRB)

Revelation 18:14
lusted (1769 Oxford)
lusteth (SRB)

Hummm....now that is interesting. It seems like I do remember Dr.Waite saying that there might be some problems with the Oxford editions(if I understood what I heard correctly) so I will check into that. I do know that there are some editions of some "KJV" that aren't true accurate ones. I've heard some of the ones put out by Thomas Nelson may not be accurate. I do want to make sure I have the "right" KJV. The Bible I use daily is an Oxford edition(that I thought was the 1769 revision) It is an Old Scofield Study Bible edition with Dr. Scofields notes contained therein. Thanks for the breakdown on the verses...I'll investigate that. Oh...one thing...the notes on the copyright page say that the one I have was previously published as the "Scofield REFERENCE Bible but now called the Scofield STUDY Bible (with no changes or alterations to Dr.Scofield's notes). Just thought I'd mention that. Again,I will look into the matter of which revision of the Biblical text this is. It has been my understanding that the last real true revision of the KJV was the 1769 edition. I'm going to send some of this information to my friend Dr. Donald Waite and let him review it as well. I know the Dean Burgon Society regularly deals with these type of issues and I am thankful for their learned input.

God Bless All,
Bro.Greg Perry Sr.:type:

 

[Oldtimer]

For those of you who are KJVO and TRO, which versions of these did God preserve for us today?

I have a sceptical friend who finds fault with a God who hasn't preserved his word exactly and precisely as he thinks it should be. I would say that he has an unreasonable requirement to know the certainty of the matter. How would you answer questions like:

"There are so many versions of the TR and KJV and they vary and contradict each other so much. Surely, if His word was so important then God preserved one of each of these, right? And of the manuscripts that Erasmus translated from... are those 'the ones'? When Erasmus translated part of revelation from the Vulgate to Greek, is that legitimate? When He wrote in I John 5:7, is that legitimate?"

How do you answer these:

There are so many versions of the TR and KJV and they vary considerably, which version is THE ONE God preserved?

The manuscripts that Erasmus translated from, I think it was just 7 or 8, are those 'the ones' to the exclusion of all the others?

When Erasmus translated part of revelation from the Latin Vulgate to Greek, is that legitimate, to the exclusion of Nestle/Aland's Greek text that was translated from greek manuscripts?

When He wrote in I John 5:7, which is not found in any Greek manuscripts, is that legitimate?

From a lengthy article on the validity of I John 5:7.

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" is found in 10 remaining Greek manuscripts, at least 7 Old Latin manuscripts, is quoted or referred to by at least 8 church fathers, is in some ancient versions like the Syriac, Armenian and Slavic versions, in the Waldensian Bibles from 157 AD till the time of the Reformation, is in thousands of Vulgate Latin manuscripts, is in the Spanish Reina Valera used throughout the entire Spanish speaking world today, the Italian Diodati, the French Martin and Ostervald bibles, the Russian Synodal, the Portuguese de Almeida and Bíblia Sagrada, pre and post Lutheran German bibles, and all English versions till 1881.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/1john57.htm

May I suggest that you give this link to your "sceptical friend" who "as he thinks it should be"?

A for whatever it's worth comment.

I've given this link to a number of people who discredit the KJB. Seldom if ever, do they respond with a well founded rebuttal to what this author has to say about a specific point under discussion. http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm

Just went back and re-read this thread before hitting the submit button.

Yes, and they do refuse the NKJV. For a person to be warned of their incorrectness and yet remain intentionally ignorant in thier disagreement is a sad state in which to be, regardless of how 'faithful' one thinks they are being. What disappoints me is when they are willing to remain ignorant even if their ignorance causes division in a church or among brethren.

I'm just a layman who has been studing the KJVO controversy for about two years now. What disappoints me are to see comments like this one WITHOUT giving any credit to those who disagree with an opinion. "intentionally ignorant". Back up your statements with a documented rebuttal of the statements at Chick Publications concerning the NKJV. Can you do a point by point rebuttal for this layman who, according to your reasoning is "intentionally ignorant?

Same thing for these:
When the NEW King James Bible departs from the underlying Greek text of the King James Bible. http://brandplucked.webs.com/nkjvdepartsfromtr.htm

NKJV Bible Babel in Proverbs
http://brandplucked.webs.com/nkjvbabelinproverbs.htm

Don't go on Safari with a New KJV Translator
http://brandplucked.webs.com/nkjvsafari.htm

The New King James Counterfeit
http://www.beaconmbc.com/articles/thenewkjvcontroversy.htm

The NKJV: A Deadly Translation
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nkjvdead.htm

K J V V S. N K J V
http://www.sound-doctrine.net/KJB-Vs-NKJB.html

The New King James PerVersion by Dr. Douglas D. Stauffer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EcqHZq3PPk&feature=related

As a layman, it bothers me greatly when people toss around the term ignorant when referring to others who may disagree with them. Are all the people behind the links listed above "willfully ignorant"?

Is it "ignorance" or satan that's causing divisions in the church or among brethren?

In closing, my father could not read or write his name. He never read a Bible verse from any version. He never got discussed the correct Greek rendering of a word. Yet, despite his "ignorance" I have no doubt that I'll see him again when our Lord calls me home. The fruits of his life bore witness to his FAITH in Jesus Christ.

 

[humblethinker]

From a lengthy article on the validity of I John 5:7.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/1john57.htm

May I suggest that you give this link to your "sceptical friend" who "as he thinks it should be"?

A for whatever it's worth comment.

I've given this link to a number of people who discredit the KJB. Seldom if ever, do they respond with a well founded rebuttal to what this author has to say about a specific point under discussion. http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm

Just went back and re-read this thread before hitting the submit button.



I'm just a layman who has been studing the KJVO controversy for about two years now. What disappoints me are to see comments like this one WITHOUT giving any credit to those who disagree with an opinion. "intentionally ignorant". Back up your statements with a documented rebuttal of the statements at Chick Publications concerning the NKJV. Can you do a point by point rebuttal for this layman who, according to your reasoning is "intentionally ignorant?

Same thing for these:
When the NEW King James Bible departs from the underlying Greek text of the King James Bible. http://brandplucked.webs.com/nkjvdepartsfromtr.htm

NKJV Bible Babel in Proverbs
http://brandplucked.webs.com/nkjvbabelinproverbs.htm

Don't go on Safari with a New KJV Translator
http://brandplucked.webs.com/nkjvsafari.htm

The New King James Counterfeit
http://www.beaconmbc.com/articles/thenewkjvcontroversy.htm

The NKJV: A Deadly Translation
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nkjvdead.htm

K J V V S. N K J V
http://www.sound-doctrine.net/KJB-Vs-NKJB.html

The New King James PerVersion by Dr. Douglas D. Stauffer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EcqHZq3PPk&feature=related

As a layman, it bothers me greatly when people toss around the term ignorant when referring to others who may disagree with them. Are all the people behind the links listed above "willfully ignorant"?

Is it "ignorance" or satan that's causing divisions in the church or among brethren?

In closing, my father could not read or write his name. He never read a Bible verse from any version. He never got discussed the correct Greek rendering of a word. Yet, despite his "ignorance" I have no doubt that I'll see him again when our Lord calls me home. The fruits of his life bore witness to his FAITH in Jesus Christ.

Oldtimer,
At this moment I'm on my phone so this reply will be short. I appreciate your pushback on my comments. They are words that I would be encouraged to eat... And hopefully I will... And actually, let me temper them by saying I have talked with one (maybe two) who have been very informed and very gracious (I must say though, while he is KJVO his new testament bible of choice is the actual Greek though and funny thing is that it's the Nestle/Aland and not the Textua Receptus!). I would be glad to engage this conversation with you with the hope that at least there will be another case of eating my words. I've found very few KJVO's who have an interest in talking about the issue in a way gets past their boilerplate answers abd claims and gets into the serious issues of the matter. However, for people on both sides of the issue it may also be an problem of having the time and effort and willingness to change that keeps them from engaging the subject honestly and fully. I am willing to change my mind on the issue, once again, if the evidence seems to warrant it. I was KJVO for 20 years but I think that if someone would have been able to committ the time and resources to discuss the issue from a non-kjvo perspective I could have changed my view much earlier. It took me about 1 year of intense study to get through to a decided stance on the issue once I confronted it (I've found that I may 'obsess' with issues -my wife's words-until I come to a settled opinion in the matter. I recognize that in some ways this is a weekness and I'm learning to live with the tension of other issues for which I have not had the time and ability to address yet. Maybe you can pray for me in that? I recognize that we don't get life from the correctness of our beliefs but from a RELATIONSHIP with God. Let's just say I'm in recovery, trying to live this out every day.) If you are interested in continuing your two year journey and would like me to share with you my experience of my journey through the issue then I'd be glad to. If you don't mind, I'd like to share my story with you so as to help us both appreciate the personal-ness of this issue. This will take a keyboard though as my elbows and thumbs are now aching.

You too Gregory, would you like to join us?

 

[Mexdeaf]

In closing, my father could not read or write his name. He never read a Bible verse from any version. He never got discussed the correct Greek rendering of a word. Yet, despite his "ignorance" I have no doubt that I'll see him again when our Lord calls me home. The fruits of his life bore witness to his FAITH in Jesus Christ.

That in a nutshell is where we should stand- faith in Christ, not in any Bible version.