Baptist churches that claim to use the "King James Bible AV 1611"

[MichaelNZ]

Why do so many Baptist churches claim to use the 1611 King James Bible when they really use the updated spelling version produced in 1769?

For example, this site, which lists websites, talks about being "AV 1611 compliant". However, at the top of the page is the following quotation from Psalm 12:

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever" (Psalm 12:6-7)

This quotation comes from the updated spelling version of the KJV. Here is the relevant part from a scan of the original 1611 print:

"The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes: as ſiluer tried in a fornace of earth purified ſeuen times.Thou ſhalt keepe them, (O Lord,) thou ſhalt preſerue them, from this generation for euer." (Psalme XII, 6-7)

There are other sites for churches that claim to use the 1611 KJV yet when you see quotes from the Bible they are actually from the 1769 spelling updated version. Why then do they claim to use the 1611 AV?

If you claim to use the 1611 KJV, then I'd recommend just saying the KJV unless you've got long s and r rotunda and old spellings.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

If you claim to use the 1611 KJV, then I'd recommend just saying the KJV unless you've got long s and r rotunda and old spellings.

Thanks for pointing out the r rotunda - I had never even noticed it when looking at Gothic fonts, just knew to read it somehow. I learned something new today as I looked it up.

 

[Yeshua1]

Why do so many Baptist churches claim to use the 1611 King James Bible when they really use the updated spelling version produced in 1769?

For example, this site, which lists websites, talks about being "AV 1611 compliant". However, at the top of the page is the following quotation from Psalm 12:

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever" (Psalm 12:6-7)

This quotation comes from the updated spelling version of the KJV. Here is the relevant part from a scan of the original 1611 print:

"The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes: as ſiluer tried in a fornace of earth purified ſeuen times.Thou ſhalt keepe them, (O Lord,) thou ſhalt preſerue them, from this generation for euer." (Psalme XII, 6-7)

There are other sites for churches that claim to use the 1611 KJV yet when you see quotes from the Bible they are actually from the 1769 spelling updated version. Why then do they claim to use the 1611 AV?

If you claim to use the 1611 KJV, then I'd recommend just saying the KJV unless you've got long s and r rotunda and old spellings.

Are there really TWO groups of KJVO folks?

Those holding to JUST 1611, and those holding to JUST KJV editions?

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Me, me, me!!!!!

Are there really TWO groups of KJVO folks?

Those holding to JUST 1611, and those holding to JUST KJV editions?

I'll claim membership in the second group and just say that we are faithful to the first group even with the updated/corrected spellings throughout which I believe with all my heart (1611 through 1769) are faithful to the inspired originals ( and I'm not talking about the "critical text"). Can I prove that....nope....I'm not that smart. I just know which version of the "manuscript evidence" I personally believe. I also do believe God's promised work of preservation is potentially still going on today as His Perfect Word is still being translated into languages that have never before had a copy of the Word available to them as the end approaches. What I would like to know is how many people groups/languages are still lacking a copy of the Word of God that they can read and understand? Some of you scholarly types ought to set about getting THAT done and quit arguing about this matter of English translations. We have more of those than we need and frankly,the miraculous way the Holy Spirit works to enlighten men and women's hearts, one Book for us(in English) was and is plenty enough! I'm thankful for even the limited understanding of His precious Word that He has blessed me with! That is my humble opinion. :thumbs:I shall now recede back into the shadows from which I came.:laugh:

Bro.Greg

 

[robycop3]

Well, actually, Mr. Perry, it's QUITE important to fight against the impugning of some English translations of God's word by those who insist their pet translation is the "official" one, and all others are corrupt. Their hooey might make a new Christian doubt the 100% veracity of the Scriptures if the version he/she first read is not the pet version of whatever "one-version-only" they were exposed to.

Very few of us are capable of translation the Scriptural mss into other languages, and, while translating a translation into yet another language is better than the target language's having no translation of its own, it won't be as accurate a translation as one made from the ancient Scriptural mss.

As God gives various believers different tasks and abilities, we should stick to what He has given us. And for most of us here, it involves combatting the "one-version-only" hooey, which, by-n-large, consists of KJVO stuff.

Some churches claim to use the "King James 1611 Edition" while using a later edition because they simply don't know any better.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Yeah...OK

Well, actually, Mr. Perry, it's QUITE important to fight against the impugning of some English translations of God's word by those who insist their pet translation is the "official" one, and all others are corrupt. Their hooey might make a new Christian doubt the 100% veracity of the Scriptures if the version he/she first read is not the pet version of whatever "one-version-only" they were exposed to.

Very few of us are capable of translation the Scriptural mss into other languages, and, while translating a translation into yet another language is better than the target language's having no translation of its own, it won't be as accurate a translation as one made from the ancient Scriptural mss.

As God gives various believers different tasks and abilities, we should stick to what He has given us. And for most of us here, it involves combatting the "one-version-only" hooey, which, by-n-large, consists of KJVO stuff.

Some churches claim to use the "King James 1611 Edition" while using a later edition because they simply don't know any better.

Roby....I've followed your "ministry" on here and other boards with interest for several years now and you and I are not going to change either of our minds. Neither do I see any point in engaging in argument or debate. As I said...I believe the "evidence" for the positions and convictions I hold....honestly and without malice...and respectfully....I'm absolutely sure you believe the "evidence" you believe in the same way. Personally, I try to avoid name-calling and "labeling" (which comes close to libeling) because while I am a KJV Only advocate, I'm NOT a Ruckmanite or any other kind of "ite". I don't throw around disrespectful words like your "hooey"...or others I have seen on here from time to time. I just believe I have a perfect Bible that doesn't just "contain" the word(s) of God...but is, in fact, The Word of God..."supernaturally" preserved without error in the english language. That is what I will go to heaven believing. If I'm wrong the Lord Jesus Christ will correct me at His Judgement Seat. I will continue to tell people here that they have the perfect Word of God and can rely on it with absolute confidence and without the confusion of a myriad of differing translations. The Holy Spirit knows how to open the eyes and hearts of men and women, boys and girls to the truths contained in His blessed old book. Have a nice day brother.:saint:By the way....
YOU Said....
"Some churches claim to use the "King James 1611 Edition" while using a later edition because they simply don't know any better."

I do agree with this statement even though I would qualify that by saying that I don't believe it is entirely improper to say you are using the "1611" while using the later revisions of the KJV since they do maintain the faithfulness of the "original" translation in the revisions and updates to spelling that were later accomplished. I do believe way too much "hay" is made of this "1611" thing. I don't see much point in continually hammering away at this thing. I got a better idea. Let's dig into Ephesians 5:15-21 and Galatians 5 (preferably in a KJV:thumbs(the whole chapter!) and figure out how to walk with our God daily in a Spirit-filled state of revival as much as possible. I just think maybe God might mercifully use us (his church) to change this sin-sick world if we could ever get focused on the "mission". Amen?
Bro.Greg

 

[Fred's Wife]

Roby....I've followed your "ministry" on here and other boards with interest for several years now and you and I are not going to change either of our minds. Neither do I see any point in engaging in argument or debate. As I said...I believe the "evidence" for the positions and convictions I hold....honestly and without malice...and respectfully....I'm absolutely sure you believe the "evidence" you believe in the same way. Personally, I try to avoid name-calling and "labeling" (which comes close to libeling) because while I am a KJV Only advocate, I'm NOT a Ruckmanite or any other kind of "ite". I don't throw around disrespectful words like your "hooey"...or others I have seen on here from time to time. I just believe I have a perfect Bible that doesn't just "contain" the word(s) of God...but is, in fact, The Word of God..."supernaturally" preserved without error in the english language. That is what I will go to heaven believing. If I'm wrong the Lord Jesus Christ will correct me at His Judgement Seat. I will continue to tell people here that they have the perfect Word of God and can rely on it with absolute confidence and without the confusion of a myriad of differing translations. The Holy Spirit knows how to open the eyes and hearts of men and women, boys and girls to the truths contained in His blessed old book. Have a nice day brother.:saint:By the way....
YOU Said....
"Some churches claim to use the "King James 1611 Edition" while using a later edition because they simply don't know any better."

I do agree with this statement even though I would qualify that by saying that I don't believe it is entirely improper to say you are using the "1611" while using the later revisions of the KJV since they do maintain the faithfulness of the "original" translation in the revisions and updates to spelling that were later accomplished. I do believe way too much "hay" is made of this "1611" thing. I don't see much point in continually hammering away at this thing. I got a better idea. Let's dig into Ephesians 5:15-21 and Galatians 5 (preferably in a KJV:thumbs(the whole chapter!) and figure out how to walk with our God daily in a Spirit-filled state of revival as much as possible. I just think maybe God might mercifully use us (his church) to change this sin-sick world if we could ever get focused on the "mission". Amen?
Bro.Greg

Amen! :thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Logos1560]

today's KJV is not the 1769 Oxford

Why do so many Baptist churches claim to use the 1611 King James Bible when they really use the updated spelling version produced in 1769?

they are actually from the 1769 spelling updated version. Why then do they claim to use the 1611 AV?

Actually they are not using the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV. That is a common mistaken assumption. The 1769 Oxford edition still used a character that looked like an "f" for a long "s."
That was not changed to an "s" in KJV editions until the 1800's around 1811. That were still a number of non-standard spellings in the 1769 Oxford edition that were later changed. The 1769 Oxford has "LORD" over 70 times where almost all present KJV editions have "Lord," and that change was made in the 1829 Oxford. There would be around 200 or more differences between the English text of the 1769 Oxford edition and a typical Oxford edition today. Most present KJV editions are based on the 1769 Oxford, but they are not identical to it. A few present KJV editions are based on the 1873 Cambridge edition of Scrivener instead of on the 1769. The 2005 and 2011 Cambridge editions by David Norton are also not based on the 1769.

Changes were made in Oxford KJV editions as late as the 1880's and in Cambridge KJV editions in the early 1900's.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

A Few Questions For You.....

Actually they are not using the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV. That is a common mistaken assumption. The 1769 Oxford edition still used a character that looked like an "f" for a long "s."
That was not changed to an "s" in KJV editions until the 1800's around 1811. That were still a number of non-standard spellings in the 1769 Oxford edition that were later changed. The 1769 Oxford has "LORD" over 70 times where almost all present KJV editions have "Lord," and that change was made in the 1829 Oxford. There would be around 200 or more differences between the English text of the 1769 Oxford edition and a typical Oxford edition today. Most present KJV editions are based on the 1769 Oxford, but they are not identical to it. A few present KJV editions are based on the 1873 Cambridge edition of Scrivener instead of on the 1769. The 2005 and 2011 Cambridge editions by David Norton are also not based on the 1769.

Changes were made in Oxford KJV editions as late as the 1880's and in Cambridge KJV editions in the early 1900's.

Dear Bro.Logos....First of all...if you don't mind giving it...would you do me the honor of telling me your real 1st name? Next....I'm curious, of the revisions/updates you have spoken of, which publisher (in your obviously educated opinion) between Oxford and Cambridge has the more sound and faithful/reliable printing of the Authorized King James Bible in terms of its accuracy to the original languages? Also, which one is more true and accurate to the original 1611 translation from which it descends? For the record, I do NOT believe in "inspired" translations nor do I believe that the 1611 Authorized KJV or any edition of it since offers any progressive or "advanced" inspiration over the Original Languages from which it was translated (as I'm pretty sure folks like Dr.Ruckman teach). I DO BELIEVE that the work of preservation (of that original inspiration)is both doctrinally sound and in some cases still on-going even in our day. By saying that I mean ONLY in cases where the scriptures are still being translated into other languages (other than english)that as yet have no completed scriptures in their language. I believe that God supernaturally protected not only the Inspiration of His Word, but also the faithful work of transmitting/translating it down through the years even until today. I also believe that Satan still continues to attempt to counterfeit the translation and preservation of God's Word today just as he did in the past. Ok...I'm done...gotta go eat before I cave in. Anyway....logos...which one ya think?

Bro.Greg:type:

 

[Yeshua1]

Actually they are not using the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV. That is a common mistaken assumption. The 1769 Oxford edition still used a character that looked like an "f" for a long "s."
That was not changed to an "s" in KJV editions until the 1800's around 1811. That were still a number of non-standard spellings in the 1769 Oxford edition that were later changed. The 1769 Oxford has "LORD" over 70 times where almost all present KJV editions have "Lord," and that change was made in the 1829 Oxford. There would be around 200 or more differences between the English text of the 1769 Oxford edition and a typical Oxford edition today. Most present KJV editions are based on the 1769 Oxford, but they are not identical to it. A few present KJV editions are based on the 1873 Cambridge edition of Scrivener instead of on the 1769. The 2005 and 2011 Cambridge editions by David Norton are also not based on the 1769.

Changes were made in Oxford KJV editions as late as the 1880's and in Cambridge KJV editions in the early 1900's.

wasn't there a revision done 1894?

didn't Zondervan use a 'corrected text" that was said to be one of the best KJV texts?

 

[robycop3]

Gregory Perry Sr:

I just believe I have a perfect Bible that doesn't just "contain" the word(s) of God...but is, in fact, The Word of God..."supernaturally" preserved without error in the english language. I will continue to tell people here that they have the perfect Word of God and can rely on it with absolute confidence and without the confusion of a myriad of differing translations.

Then you're simply telling them something that's incorrect. There is more than one goof in the KJV, and, since they've already been discussed here ad nauseam, I'm not gonna bring'em up again.

Also, both the man-made origins and the lacka SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth have been discussed here at great length. Long as U continue to hawk KJVO, there'll be Freedom Readers such as I to stand in firm opposition to it.

Yes, I absolutely believe the evidence right under my nose. I believe that GOD, who causes/allows all changes in the various languages, keeps His word in the language style current for the time, in the world's major languages such as English. Again, KJVO has been PROVEN wrong; it relies upon opinion, imagination and guesswork, while Freedom Reading-the use and belief of any and all valid Bible translations in one's best language-is based upon FACTS. Thus, Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Taverner's, "Great Bible", Geneva, KJV, NASV, NKJV, ESV, etc. are all equally-valid versions.

Given the many correct English meanings of many Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek words/phrases, multiple translations are necessary for one to better his understanding of the Scriptures. Otherwise, we are subjecting ourselves to the worx and opinion of just one translator or team of translators.

U R right. My mind WILL NOT change. I see the evidence supporting my view plain as day. I see the origin of the current KJVO myth coming straight from Dr. Wilkinson's goof-filled book. I see the complete lack of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO in the KJV itself. And, as U said, JESUS CHRIST will correct me some time if I'm wrong. Meanwhile, U might think twice before dissing a valid Bible version, as you might be destroying someone's confidence in God's word.

And, BTW, I dunno of any church in the USA that actually uses the AV 1611, no matter how many of them claim they do.

 

[Yeshua1]

Gregory Perry Sr: Then you're simply telling them something that's incorrect. There is more than one goof in the KJV, and, since they've already been discussed here ad nauseam, I'm not gonna bring'em up again.

Also, both the man-made origins and the lacka SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth have been discussed here at great length. Long as U continue to hawk KJVO, there'll be Freedom Readers such as I to stand in firm opposition to it.

Yes, I absolutely believe the evidence right under my nose. I believe that GOD, who causes/allows all changes in the various languages, keeps His word in the language style current for the time, in the world's major languages such as English. Again, KJVO has been PROVEN wrong; it relies upon opinion, imagination and guesswork, while Freedom Reading-the use and belief of any and all valid Bible translations in one's best language-is based upon FACTS. Thus, Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Taverner's, "Great Bible", Geneva, KJV, NASV, NKJV, ESV, etc. are all equally-valid versions.

Given the many correct English meanings of many Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek words/phrases, multiple translations are necessary for one to better his understanding of the Scriptures. Otherwise, we are subjecting ourselves to the worx and opinion of just one translator or team of translators.

U R right. My mind WILL NOT change. I see the evidence supporting my view plain as day. I see the origin of the current KJVO myth coming straight from Dr. Wilkinson's goof-filled book. I see the complete lack of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO in the KJV itself. And, as U said, JESUS CHRIST will correct me some time if I'm wrong. Meanwhile, U might think twice before dissing a valid Bible version, as you might be destroying someone's confidence in God's word.

And, BTW, I dunno of any church in the USA that actually uses the AV 1611, no matter how many of them claim they do.

The error of the KJVO is they fail to realise ONLy ORIGINALS were inerrant/inspired from God, but he has perserved that into the current greek/hebrew texts used to translate into English versions with, so Nasb/Niv/esv JUST as much the word of god in English as is the KJV!

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

An Impasse...

Gregory Perry Sr: Then you're simply telling them something that's incorrect. There is more than one goof in the KJV, and, since they've already been discussed here ad nauseam, I'm not gonna bring'em up again.

Also, both the man-made origins and the lacka SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth have been discussed here at great length. Long as U continue to hawk KJVO, there'll be Freedom Readers such as I to stand in firm opposition to it.

Yes, I absolutely believe the evidence right under my nose. I believe that GOD, who causes/allows all changes in the various languages, keeps His word in the language style current for the time, in the world's major languages such as English. Again, KJVO has been PROVEN wrong; it relies upon opinion, imagination and guesswork, while Freedom Reading-the use and belief of any and all valid Bible translations in one's best language-is based upon FACTS. Thus, Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Taverner's, "Great Bible", Geneva, KJV, NASV, NKJV, ESV, etc. are all equally-valid versions.

Given the many correct English meanings of many Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek words/phrases, multiple translations are necessary for one to better his understanding of the Scriptures. Otherwise, we are subjecting ourselves to the worx and opinion of just one translator or team of translators.

U R right. My mind WILL NOT change. I see the evidence supporting my view plain as day. I see the origin of the current KJVO myth coming straight from Dr. Wilkinson's goof-filled book. I see the complete lack of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO in the KJV itself. And, as U said, JESUS CHRIST will correct me some time if I'm wrong. Meanwhile, U might think twice before dissing a valid Bible version, as you might be destroying someone's confidence in God's word.

And, BTW, I dunno of any church in the USA that actually uses the AV 1611, no matter how many of them claim they do.

As I have said before...argument about this matter always boils down to an impasse sooner or later....and as I stated before IT IS A MATTER OF WHICH MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE AND EMBRACE.

You think the evidence I believe is a lie and full of mistakes. I basically feel the same thing about yours. So once again we just have to agree to disagree.

Now the funny thing is....that in the midst of all this angst...we both agree on ONE THING...oddly enough...that we HAVE THE Word of God TODAY! Interesting turn of events, huh? Like I said....the Lord will make any necessary corrections on both of us at the JSOC. I will say this in relation to the Modern Versions (in my opinion)....most all of them that I am aware of do make more than just a few omissions from the text based on the families of Greek/Hebrew texts they are derived from when compared to the KJV. That has always troubled me. As far as I know the KJV doesn't do that(omit things) from the Greek/Hebrew texts that it was derived from. So I'll stick by my KJV and not worry about it. Your Modern Versions offer me no "advanced revelation". By the way....I don't subscribe to Ruckman's contention that the KJV is "advanced revelation" over the "Originals". As to whose teachings on the subject of translations I follow most confidently (if you wish to know who to blame), I prefer the works and writings of men such as David Otis Fuller, Edward Hills and more recently Dr.D.A.Waite and the Dean Burgon Society , David Cloud and Douglas D.Stauffer. While I would thank Peter Ruckman (back in 1980) for bringing me to an awareness of the translation issue and schooling me on the basics of it..THAT IS WHERE I GET OFF THE BUS with him. The man is smart but he is also way too mean-spirited. Neither do I have any regard for Gail Ripplinger. Women should keep silent in the churches according to the Apostle Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I would also like to thank Bro.James W.Knox of THE BIBLE Baptist Church of DeLand FL. for his valuable and wise teaching on this subject.This is his website....James W. Knox – Preaching of The Cross | The Ministry of THE BIBLE Baptist Chu Anyway...Thanks Roby for your interesting comments... you always bring an interesting and challenging outlook to this debate.....and when I have chosen to participate it has allowed me an open forum to express my view that I have a perfect Bible given to me by my perfect God. If that makes me a heretic in the eyes of some then I am willing to bear that title. What a blessing. Thank God for His Perfect Word!

Bro.Greg :type:

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

WE Actually DO Agree...

The error of the KJVO is they fail to realise ONLy ORIGINALS were inerrant/inspired from God, but he has perserved that into the current greek/hebrew texts used to translate into English versions with, so Nasb/Niv/esv JUST as much the word of god in English as is the KJV!

Yeshua...as I said in another thread, I do agree with your statement about the Inerrancy/inspiration applying ONLY to the Originals. That is correct! Beyond that....the doctrine of Divine (supernatural)Preservation maintains the accuracy and integrity of the inerrancy/inspiration of God's Word down through the ages since the Originals were penned. God would never leave the disposition of His Perfect Word to the uncontrolled hands of fallen, imperfect men or the wiles and desires of Satan. He supernaturally superintends the disposition of His Word to maintain the accuracy,authority and PURITY of it. It is a work that CANNOT be explained (and maybe not even defined) by finite men. He is sovereign over it. Praise God!

Bro.Greg:thumbs:

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeshua...as I said in another thread, I do agree with your statement about the Inerrancy/inspiration applying ONLY to the Originals. That is correct! Beyond that....the doctrine of Divine (supernatural)Preservation maintains the accuracy and integrity of the inerrancy/inspiration of God's Word down through the ages since the Originals were penned. God would never leave the disposition of His Perfect Word to the uncontrolled hands of fallen, imperfect men or the wiles and desires of Satan. He supernaturally superintends the disposition of His Word to maintain the accuracy,authority and PURITY of it. It is a work that CANNOT be explained (and maybe not even defined) by finite men. He is sovereign over it. Praise God!

Bro.Greg:thumbs:

We think that the TR/MT/CT were ALL "intended" over By God, in the sense that any of them pretty much accurately reflect the inerrnat originals, so ANY can be used to transalte off from, so that is why KJV in word of God, but so are Niv/nasb!

Do you know ANY area where either the CT greek text, or versions off it, have deviated form the word of God by introducing false doctrines/heresy?

 

[robycop3]

Mr. Perry, do you have any SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for your view? Does any Scripture declare a certain ms "right" and another one "wrong"? Were you there when any of those mss were made? If not, by what authority do you pick-n-choose among them?

Do you have any Scripture that points to the KJV's being the ONLY valid English Bible translation? We Freedom Readers DO have Scriptural support for the use of multiple translations. First, please compare Isaiah 42:7 and 61:1-3 with what JESUS READ ALOUD and called "this Scripture" in Luke 4:16-21. Then, please note the many Old Testament quotes in the New Testament that line up more with the Septuagint than they do the Masoretic Text.

And again, we have discussed more than one goof in the KJV at great length, proving it is NOT technically perfect.

As Baptists, we all believe in Sola Scriptura] and therefore any doctrine of worship not derived from Scripture is false. For years now. several of us here have been citing the lack of Scriptural support for KJVO, while at the same time pointing out its MAN-MADE origin. The KJVO doctrine simply cannot pass the criteria for a VALID doctrine of worship, and therefore should be discarded. Do you realize you could be sinning by advocating the false KJVO doctrine to others? You COULD be battering the faith of another who has come to Christ by believing the Scriptures as found in the NIV or NASV. The KJVO doctrine simply has NO place in the body of Christian doctrines of worship!

 

[Amy.G]

Now, sinner, if thou wouldst be obedient to Christ’s word, Christ’s word says, “He that believeth, and is immersed, shall be saved.” Mark, I have translated the word. King James would not have it translated.

The word of God to them might as well be the word of King James the First, whose name dishonours our authorised version, for they have never felt that its truths proceed immediately from the throne of God, and bear the sign-manual of the King of kings.

Charles Spurgeon

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Interesting.........

Mr. Perry, do you have any SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for your view? Does any Scripture declare a certain ms "right" and another one "wrong"? Were you there when any of those mss were made? If not, by what authority do you pick-n-choose among them?

Do you have any Scripture that points to the KJV's being the ONLY valid English Bible translation? We Freedom Readers DO have Scriptural support for the use of multiple translations. First, please compare Isaiah 42:7 and 61:1-3 with what JESUS READ ALOUD and called "this Scripture" in Luke 4:16-21. Then, please note the many Old Testament quotes in the New Testament that line up more with the Septuagint than they do the Masoretic Text.

And again, we have discussed more than one goof in the KJV at great length, proving it is NOT technically perfect.

As Baptists, we all believe in Sola Scriptura] and therefore any doctrine of worship not derived from Scripture is false. For years now. several of us here have been citing the lack of Scriptural support for KJVO, while at the same time pointing out its MAN-MADE origin. The KJVO doctrine simply cannot pass the criteria for a VALID doctrine of worship, and therefore should be discarded. Do you realize you could be sinning by advocating the false KJVO doctrine to others? You COULD be battering the faith of another who has come to Christ by believing the Scriptures as found in the NIV or NASV. The KJVO doctrine simply has NO place in the body of Christian doctrines of worship!

Roby...that is an interesting contrast between Isaiah 61 and Luke 4 and I'll at least admit that I'm not exactly sure why the Lord would change the wording between the two except that He is THE LORD and as such is THE AUTHOR of the very Book he was reading from. Neither am I sure how that figures into your argument. All I am sure of is that you believe what you believe HONESTLY....of that I have no doubt. My "scriptural support" for my position is admittedly "general" in nature being founded on passages such as those found in Psalm 12:6,7 , Ps. 33:11, Ps 100:5, Ps.111:7-8, Ps.117:2, Ps.119:89, Ps.119:152, Ps.119:160, Is. 40:8, Is.59:21, Mt.5:18, Mt.24:35, 1Pe.1:23,1 Pe.1:25, Rev.22:18-19 (Bible Preservation)(list taken from Bro.Cloud's Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible) and 2 Timothy 3:15,16,17 (Inspiration). I believe the preservation of the Word of God is as supernatural a matter as is the inspiration of it. I believe because it is His Word...it must result in perfection. I believe that english is the predominate world language in the end-times we live in and that God has seen to His Word being rendered in a perfect fashion for these times. I also belief that beginning in Genesis..Satan has attempted to corrupt and attack the pure Word of God and he is doing no less today. There IS a pure Word of God...and you can be certain that there IS a bunch of corrupted perversions of it thanks to the god of this world and the corrupt nature of the men who handle (and mis-handle) it. The only message I'm trying to convey is that I have the perfect Word of God and that He made sure I could have it in my day. If telling people that they can have absolute confidence in the absolute truth contained in the Book they have in their hand is a sin...then yes...I am guilty. I don't believe it is a sin or I most CERTAINLY wouldn't say it. My faith in God is absolute in this matter....and my confidence in the men He uses must be "guarded" at best due to the fact that we ALL (even after we are saved) still possess a vile old adamic nature this side of the grave.

Roby...Do YOU have the perfect Word of the perfect God? I believe I do and I don't believe I have to possess a whole library to determine what it is (but I do have a very extensive library because I like books!). The weapons of my warfare are primarily my King James Bible and a very handy Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. Beyond that...I pray and depend upon the Holy Spirit to give me the understanding of His precious Word that I have. It is all I need. To answer the question I asked you above....I'm sure you probably do possess the perfect Word of God....you just think you have to possess a plethora of different translations and versions to be able to "have it". Oddly...I guess the end result may be the same EXCEPT...if our contention that many of the Modern Versions are "corrupt" is true...then you lay yourself open to apostasy and outright deception if you "partake" of them. There is a certain safety in the "singleness" of my position. After all...it is the Holy Spirit that opens one's understanding of the Word.....not the size of his/her library. There is nothing in a KJV as far as word meanings that I can't handle with the following: at least a decent 5th grade education..a good english dictionary..and a good concordance. Simplicity is our friend:laugh:.

Carry On!:thumbsup:

Bro.Greg

 

[Yeshua1]

Roby...that is an interesting contrast between Isaiah 61 and Luke 4 and I'll at least admit that I'm not exactly sure why the Lord would change the wording between the two except that He is THE LORD and as such is THE AUTHOR of the very Book he was reading from. Neither am I sure how that figures into your argument. All I am sure of is that you believe what you believe HONESTLY....of that I have no doubt. My "scriptural support" for my position is admittedly "general" in nature being founded on passages such as those found in Psalm 12:6,7 , Ps. 33:11, Ps 100:5, Ps.111:7-8, Ps.117:2, Ps.119:89, Ps.119:152, Ps.119:160, Is. 40:8, Is.59:21, Mt.5:18, Mt.24:35, 1Pe.1:23,1 Pe.1:25, Rev.22:18-19 (Bible Preservation)(list taken from Bro.Cloud's Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible) and 2 Timothy 3:15,16,17 (Inspiration). I believe the preservation of the Word of God is as supernatural a matter as is the inspiration of it. I believe because it is His Word...it must result in perfection. I believe that english is the predominate world language in the end-times we live in and that God has seen to His Word being rendered in a perfect fashion for these times. I also belief that beginning in Genesis..Satan has attempted to corrupt and attack the pure Word of God and he is doing no less today. There IS a pure Word of God...and you can be certain that there IS a bunch of corrupted perversions of it thanks to the god of this world and the corrupt nature of the men who handle (and mis-handle) it. The only message I'm trying to convey is that I have the perfect Word of God and that He made sure I could have it in my day. If telling people that they can have absolute confidence in the absolute truth contained in the Book they have in their hand is a sin...then yes...I am guilty. I don't believe it is a sin or I most CERTAINLY wouldn't say it. My faith in God is absolute in this matter....and my confidence in the men He uses must be "guarded" at best due to the fact that we ALL (even after we are saved) still possess a vile old adamic nature this side of the grave.

Roby...Do YOU have the perfect Word of the perfect God? I believe I do and I don't believe I have to possess a whole library to determine what it is (but I do have a very extensive library because I like books!). The weapons of my warfare are primarily my King James Bible and a very handy Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. Beyond that...I pray and depend upon the Holy Spirit to give me the understanding of His precious Word that I have. It is all I need. To answer the question I asked you above....I'm sure you probably do possess the perfect Word of God....you just think you have to possess a plethora of different translations and versions to be able to "have it". Oddly...I guess the end result may be the same EXCEPT...if our contention that many of the Modern Versions are "corrupt" is true...then you lay yourself open to apostasy and outright deception if you "partake" of them. There is a certain safety in the "singleness" of my position. After all...it is the Holy Spirit that opens one's understanding of the Word.....not the size of his/her library. There is nothing in a KJV as far as word meanings that I can't handle with the following: at least a decent 5th grade education..a good english dictionary..and a good concordance. Simplicity is our friend:laugh:.

Carry On!:thumbsup:

Bro.Greg

Think that we need to see that the bible is NOT the item that we worship, its the One that it testifies as being messiah and king!

NOT saying that you are doing that error, but many in the KJVO movement are!

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

I agree...

Think that we need to see that the bible is NOT the item that we worship, its the One that it testifies as being messiah and king!

NOT saying that you are doing that error, but many in the KJVO movement are!

Yeshua... I agree there probably are some who make that error. I'd be inclined to think that it is probably those who regard the KJV as "inspired" or in some way "advanced" revelation over the original autographs, who step over that line( and I 'd say many of them probably don't do it deliberately). I just believe that the overall "integrity" and "soundness" of the doctrine of inspiration is maintained without error in the KJV and other good translations (in other languages) by God's doctrine of Biblical preservation. There is a difference between "worshipping" something and simply esteeming it highly or revering it. Those are my feelings about that subject.

Bro.Greg