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

Are you really a KJVO, or are you KJV preferred, as being the best English version?

 

Baptists who are and defend KJVO have forgotten their roots.

 

Naaa....I'm Guilty

Yeshua....I guess you can label me whichever you want to but I'll plead guilty to the "only" label because I genuinely don't believe there is anything better in the English language than the Authorized King James Bible. I love it and it is the ONLY Bible I will ever regularly read,study or memorize from...OR recommend to anyone else. I guess if you want to assign me to someones "camp" then I would fall in line with most,if not all, of what Dr.D.A.Waite and the Dean Burgon Society teach and preach on the subject as I understand it. I believe Bro.David Cloud would also be of that same persuasion or close to it as well. I guess we just believe that God "finished" his english work for the end-times. I've yet to see or read anything I personally thought was better. I guess Roby,maybe you and others will be hollering "Show me SCRIPTURE for that!!!" well...I don't have any that specifically says that in the way you all demand...but neither do I have any that says thou shalt not smoke cigars and watch TV..etc..etc.. but there are times when you just know in your heart what you need to do...or not.

Bro.Greg

 

If there can be only one English Translation then the KJVO crowd picked the wrong one.

The 1560 Geneva should have been it. :tonofbricks:

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

That could be a number of grounds for favoring the Geneva Bible over the KJV. I can only guess at what that poster may have had in mind.

The Geneva Bible was the loved, accepted, and believed English translation of English-speaking believers and the common people before the KJV ever existed.

In a number of places, the Geneva Bible is clearer, better, or more accurate than the KJV when compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

The Geneva Bible may have be one English source of teachings or doctrines favored by Baptists and Congregationalists while the KJV was altered to try to oppose those doctrines. There is evidence of Episcopal bias to favor Church of England Episcopal church government views in the KJV.

The Geneva Bible did not borrow or follow renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament as the KJV did.

The Geneva Bible was favored by the more godly Church of Scotland of that day instead of the more compromising Church of England.

 

This is my guess!

As a dedicated KJV guy, my personal guess is that if God had wanted the Geneva Bible (or any other english-language version)to be the predominate translation in use for english-speaking believers living in the end-times He would have seen to it that it was/is. As it stands, He has obviously blessed the use and vast proliferation of the King James and inspite of all the "madison avenue" marketing techniques applied to the sale and promotion of the Modern versions, the King James Bible is still the most widely distributed/sold translation of the Bible in history by even the most conservative estimates I have ever seen or heard of over the years. While the "Originals" that so much attention is heaped upon don't even physically exist anymore....I seriously doubt that the same will ever be true about God's Book.....the KJV. I sincerely believe it (the KJV) will even be a thorn in the Anti-Christ's side when he arrives on the scene (IF...he's not already here!!). Even so, come, Lord Jesus!:love2:

Bro.Greg

 

Do you hold modern version as "satanic inspited/tools of the devil" as those authors you cited do?

 

Its ironic that botht he geneva and KJV translators know that neither version wa sperfect, and that they would have welcomed modern versions that would supplant/update their works, for they wanted the word of god into English, NOT had to be theirs doing it only!

 

Following The Rules...!

Yeshua...first of all...PLEASE tell me your 1st name (at least). I'd feel more comfortable conversing with you NOT addressing you by the same name as our Saviour....I mean no ill will by that. My name is(obviously) Greg. And yours is....?

Anyway...to answer your question....I will refrain from referring to the Modern Versions as anything other than the Modern Versions...or MV's for sevearl reasons. #1 It is against the posting rules on this board to say such things about any version of the Bible....although I suspect (but I'm not sure) that and exception might be made for the JW's "New World Translation" which I don't think could be considered anything BUT a false so-called Bible published by a satanic CULT. In any case, while I don't care for any of the Modern versions I will respect the rules of the BB since I have nothing to gain by resorting to name calling. If the Authors of the books I have mentioned have indeed used those terms in their books then I will say they had the luxury of literary "license" to be able to do so in their own publications. However...if they were to join the BB and post here they would have to abide by the rules of this Board if they desired to stay.

IF and I say IF you want my private "take" on the matter then I would be happy to give it privately....PM me any time you please. I believe God has obviously and particularly BLESSED the KJV over the course of the last 400+ years in a way that He simply has NOT blessed any of the MV's. I don't see that changing. I do see much compromise and gathering apostasy in our day and in most of the places, groups, and denominations where that is happening there has been a general abandonment of the "old paths" of fundamental Christianity and in most cases an abandonment of the use of the King James Bible as well. I believe the gathering One World Church that is on the horizon will have nothing to do with the KJV. I wish someone actually could prove me wrong....but I don't think that is going to happen. That is just my humble opinion. As to your original question, as I said...I will continue to try my best to obey the BB rules whether the authors and/or preachers I read/listen to do or not. By the way...I don't personally recall hearing/reading the authors in question referring to MV's that way...But they may have. I know some do.

Phew....sorry for the book...I got wound up!

Bro.Greg:thumbsup:

 

Wonderful...!

I think it is wonderful to know that these men were honest and HUMBLE enough to not to proudly boast of any particular perfection in their work. They had no idea just how much God had supernaturally guided and protected the work they had accomplished.....and so it always is when God blesses and guides the work He wants accomplished. That He can guide and use imperfect men and women to accomplish His mighty works is never anything short of miraculous and unexplainable except to say...God did THAT! Praise His Holy Name and thank God for His Precious Word.

Bro.Greg:godisgood:

 

You worded that very carefully so that it supports your argument. The bolded section is the key. The KJV (which I deeply love and respect and use in message preparation weekly) had a 350+ year start over the recent MV's. I have not looked at the stats, but the last I looked into it the NIV has had a higher sales record over the last 20-25 years. Of course it has been sold or distributed more than any other Bible. For this stat to be fair we would have to look at the stats in the year 2350.

Another reason is that the KJV is only protected by 'copyright' in the UK. Anybody anywhere can print a copy of the KJV. In some ways that is good, but in other ways it can be dangerous because anyone can print anything and call it a 'KJV Bible.'

I am NOT an NIV fan. I support the traditional text body of texts. I believe in translating word for word as much as possible. But we have to be careful when using stats to argue God's actions. They can be manipulated any way that we want.

I think I could safely say that the most popular translation used by conservative Christians over the last five years is the ESV. That would not be an argument for God blessing it.

BTW, I will say that you are debating like a Christian gentleman and I appreciate it. That is not the norm here. Thank you.

 

A Simple Thank You Is In Order...

Roger....overall, I have to take your post as a compliment to mine and I thank you for the sense of gravity that you (always) bring to the conversations here. I would very much enjoy meeting you one day either here...or in heaven (and so we shall...at least THERE).

I'll echo your comment regarding the NIV and add that there is too much reliance on the idea of Dynamic Equivalency which I detest as a method of translation even with my limited knowledge of the matter.

As to the ESV...I know it is highly touted among the Bob Jones folks that I am surrounded by since I live in the Greenville area. It seems to illustrate that there always seems to be a divide between the common folk (and I are one:smilewinkgrin and the "scholarly" crowd. I just don't get the sense of an "otherworldly" power in the wording of the new Bibles that I have always gotten from my KJV....whether I could understand it ..or not.

Regardless....I see much ecumenicism and compromise among the professing "church" these days even by the most conservative estimates and observations. It always seems to me that the ones that are the most radical....and (waaaay out there) are almost always quoting verses from the most "popular" Modern Versions such as the CEV, NIV, NKJV, NLT...and yes.... even the ESV....but rarely from any edition of a KJV anymore.

I believe the Bible is the root and foundation upon which our faith is founded and grounded by the operation of the Holy Spirit in our lives. I believe very strongly that the "foundations" are under relentless attack by Satan in our day. I do believe, just like Ken Ham argues that Genesis is the foundation for everything else we as Christians build our faith upon (and THAT is another thread), anyway (almost got sidetracked there!:smilewinkgrin I do believe that it matters which Bible we use because without the true Word of God...in our hands...we have nothing upon which to build our faith.(Romans 10:17). Roger, there are false Bibles out there. We might disagree on which ones they are but we must be on guard because it is undeniable that Satan has in the past and will in the future seek to corrupt,pervert and belittle the revealed Word of God. It is a big part of the battle that will continue to rage until the blessed day that he is thankfully cast forever into that flaming Lake of Fire. He hates God, he hates us,and he most definitely hates that Book.

Carry on Brother.

Bro.Greg:type:

 

On what scriptural basis can you assert that God supernaturally guided the making of the KJV in any way different that the making of the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva or the making of later English translations such as the NKJV?

Are you referring to the guiding of the Holy Spirit available to all believers or are you implying some kind of supernatural guidance that would be the same thing as the miracle of inspiration?

 

A Miracle?

Yes...I do believe that the Preservation of the Word of God (Psalm 12:6-7) is as much a supernatural miracle as the Inspiration of the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16)....Do I have a translation (KJV or any other) "specific" verse to give you......NO...there...I said it even if no one else will. For me it is just another matter of faith. In this case, my faith is in the particular "version" of the manuscript evidence that I have chosen to embrace to support my convictions/beliefs about this matter(KJV Only). Truth be known...the same is true of you and the Modern Version adherents. Ya'll don't have any specific verses EITHER. I guess the whole debate is a draw!:smilewinkgrin: Peace Brother!...or is it Sister? These "incognito" screen names are confusing!

Bro.Greg

 

the translators for the KJV NEVER claimed to have inspiration from God to do their work.... Why would the KJV only have it, why not the geneva or Bishop or the Vulgate fior that matter?

 

KJV1611 worship blinds its zealots to the inconsistencies & glaring contradictions within their own doctrine. For example, KJVonlyists claim that there is no need for any of the post-1611 versions because we already had the inerrant written Word in English. Using that same line of thinking, the KJV1611 was also unnecessary. The Geneva Bible predates the KJV by decades. It's inerrancy & inspiration has never been refuted by KJVonlyists.

I was raised KJVonly, but once I chose to study the history of the Bible in all of its forms without the IFB blinders, I could not justify those beliefs I once held. I am no longer a KJVonlyist for the same reason I am no longer a futurist. Both views would require me to be willingly ignorant of to many truths & the historical record.

 

A possible corollary to this are some questions I've posed time and time again to KJV 1611 ONLY advocates. NEVER yet have I received a reasonable defense of their logic of asserting that ONLY the 1611 KJV is THE inspired WORD of God such that ANY and ALL other translations--by that very assertion--therefore WHOLLY AND COMPLETELY SATANIC CONTERFEITS WHOSE SOLE PURPOSE IS TO PROMOTE HERESY:


As far as I can tell, ALL KJV 1611 ONLY advocates will agree with the premise Romans 10:17--"...faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by THE WORD OF GOD" (emphasis mine).

Therefore, a prerequisite for one's eternal salvation MUST, of necessity, come by hearing THE WORD OF GOD.

Now, since ONLY the 1611 "Authorized" KJV is THE WORD OF GOD, no one can possibly be saved without hearing about the death, burial and (bodily) resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ except from the "Authorized" 1611 KJV.

Several quandries arise from such a logical conclusion, and the silence of any honest "Authorized" 1611l KJVO advocates is deafening:

1) How were people who died prior to AD 1611 saved, since obviously there was NO WORD OF GOD prior to the publication of the "Authorized" 1611 KJV?

2) If people who died prior to AD 1611 were saved, what WORD OF GOD did the Holy Spirit use to tell them of the death, burial and (bodily) resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ?

3) If there was such a WORD OF GOD in existence prior to the publication of the "Authorized" 1611 KJV, did that WORD OF GOD stop becoming THE WORD OF GOD once the "Authorized" 1611 KJV was published?

4) If such a WORD OF GOD did not stop becoming THE WORD OF GOD after the "Authorized" 1611 KJV was published:
a) Are we to assume that there was at least two WORDS [?] OF GOD in existence after AD 1611?
b) If there were not at least two WORDS [?] OF GOD in existence subsequent to the publication of the "Authorized" 1611 KJV, why did GOD deem it necessary to wait until AD 1611 to give us English-speaking people THE WORD OF GOD?

What a pity, just think, if they'd only waited until AD 1611 rolled around to die, they would have then FINALLY heard of the death, burial and (bodily) resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ!!

 

And Again.....

Again...I'm NOT claiming that the KJV is INSPIRED....only that the perfection achieved in and of the Inspiration of the originals is carried on in the on-going supernatural PRESERVATION of the Word as it is transmitted from age to age and language to language just like Psalm 12:6-7 said it would be. Also...I know that the translators didn't claim that...but I also would like to note that the "work" of inspiration was a work of the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21) and it was a work that was testified ABOUT those men AFTER or AS they spoke not of themselves but by others. There is nothing that indicates that the "holy men of God" themselves knew the import of the words they were speaking at the time. In other words they were not bragging about what they said. They may have been bold men but you can probably say that they were humble as well if they were indeed "holy" as the scripture says.

Bro.Greg:type: