That is your non-true and non-scriptural opinion. You are advocating a modern doctrine of men that is not taught in Scripture.It meaneth we take the King James Bible as the only 100% pure word of God in English, and we reject all others.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
That is your non-true and non-scriptural opinion. You are advocating a modern doctrine of men that is not taught in Scripture.It meaneth we take the King James Bible as the only 100% pure word of God in English, and we reject all others.
The KJVO group were bashing the superior Geneva Bible way before that date thoughThere was no such thing before 1881.
I think all the KJVO crowd has screws loose in their noggins.I have often wondered why anyone would spend more than a second and a half being concerned
over anything relating to anything associated with the term, "KJVOnly".
1.) "KJVOnly" is the presumed, supposedly, professed position of the proponents of what is termed, "KJVOnly", by them?
HOW IS THAT, EXACTLY? Their "Version" is "perfect", or something too perfectly close to that, to be contained in a "Version",
and yet, it is still stood for and referred to as a "Version"? What gives?
2.) And, then the ones who throw themselves into opposing the "KJVOnly" proponents are opposing those who believe they have a special, "Version"?
WHY?
WHY? WHY?
Because, why acknowledge an inherently, self-sabotaging assertion?
Like, "Hey, somebody said their "Version", was.....HEY, WAIT A MINUTE...!!!!!"
"VERSION"???
THEIR "VERSION" WAS???
Tell me, I'm missing something.
Just another excuse out there in space, to go around and around about nothing?
I don't get it...
I have often wondered why anyone would spend more than a second and a half being concerned
over anything relating to anything associated with the term, "KJVOnly".
1.) "KJVOnly" is the presumed, supposedly, professed position of the proponents of what is termed, "KJVOnly", by them?
HOW IS THAT, EXACTLY? Their "Version" is "perfect", or something too perfectly close to that, to be contained in a "Version",
and yet, it is still stood for and referred to as a "Version"? What gives?
2.) And, then the ones who throw themselves into opposing the "KJVOnly" proponents are opposing those who believe they have a special, "Version"?
WHY?
WHY? WHY?
Because, why acknowledge an inherently, self-sabotaging assertion?
Like, "Hey, somebody said their "Version", was.....HEY, WAIT A MINUTE...!!!!!"
"VERSION"???
THEIR "VERSION" WAS???
Tell me, I'm missing something.
Just another excuse out there in space, to go around and around about nothing?
I don't get it...
I'm not one of them, but I personally know many, many of them.
Basically what they are saying is that the 1611 KJV is the only version inspired by God (don't explode on me here, lol).
They base this on the following.
They believe in the "Infallible Word of God."
If the Word of God is infallible, then which version is it that's infallible?
They say it's the 1611 KJV.
But they do not use the 1611 edition. They use different updated editions of the King James Version.I'm not one of them, but I personally know many, many of them.
Basically what they are saying is that the 1611 KJV is the only version inspired by God (don't explode on me here, lol).
They base this on the following.
They believe in the "Infallible Word of God."
If the Word of God is infallible, then which version is it that's infallible?
They say it's the 1611 KJV.
KJV-only reasoning is inconsistent since KJV-only advocates should know that the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles.Basically what they are saying is that the 1611 KJV is the only version inspired by God
"The following is a table of
New Testament (NT) quotations of the Old Testament (OT)."
What I am interested in seeing is how God Shows His Standard Criteria
for what He Considers to be Equally Inspired, where we see the direct differences,
between the Old Testament verses and where and how they are quoted,
when we see and read them in their New Testament applications.
Then, we can take note and concentrate on the differences between the three versions which we can also see, secondarily, and yet, those versions are all Inspired, also.
God already Demonstrated His Standard for what He Still Considered Inspired,
in all the instances where the Old Testament is quoted in the New Testament.
Are they both True? Then, are each of those three versions True?
Let me ask you this way: Will God's Holy Spirit Testify to their Validity?
Will The Holy Spirit Witness to what they are all saying as being True?
How about this, then? “So shall My Word be that Goeth Forth out of My Mouth:
It Shall Not Return unto Me void, but It Shall Accomplish that which I Please”,
is a Bible verse from Isaiah 55:11.
In those three versions, Will the Holy Spirit take the Words as they are written?
And Bear the Testimony to ANYTHING THOSE BIBLES HIT, ONCE THEY ARE OPEN?
IS THERE A HOLY SPIRIT THAT IS ALIVE, WHICH JESUS SAID MAKES THE BIBLE
"SPIRIT" AND THAT THE WORDS IN THE BIBLE, IN IT'S VERSES ARE "LIFE"?
THE HOLY SPIRIT WITNESSES TO BRING LIFE, OR CONDEMNATION, BY GOD'S WORDS
AND THE HOLY SPIRIT IS ALIVE FOREVERMORE, OMNIPRESENT, AND ON THE JOB.
There has never been a time when the Fruitfull Works of God's Marvelous Light weren't
Operating by the All Powerful Presence of the Holy Spirit, Who Makes it where
God's Words, "Goeth Forth out of My Mouth:
It Shall Not Return unto Me void, but It Shall Accomplish that which I Please".
Thats How God Does things.
You can attempt to criticize God and yet He Turns that all around to be your critic;
"For the Word of God is Quick, and Powerful, and Sharper than any twoedged sword, Piercing even to the Dividing Asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a Discerner (critic) of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Hebrews 4:12.
Do you think God Will have His Word Bounce Off you and Return Void, to Him?
No? You know why? God's Word is Inspired, by the Living, Breathing, Holy Spirit.
The Word and the Spirit always Work Together.
And that Inspiration doesn't always fall along in the same set of tracks.
God is O.K. with that. The Bible is still Inspired and by that, I mean what God Means,
"All Scripture is Given by Inspiration of God, and is Profitable for Doctrine,
for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness:" II Timothy 3:16.
THERE ISN'T ANYTHING THE WORD OF GOD AND SPIRIT OF GOD CAN'T DO,
Except what The Triune Godhead has already Resolved to Not Do, to start with.
Give yourself a break.
The Word of God, in the Gospel Message, is the Power of God Unto Salvation.
While this Bible, which is The Inspired by the Holy Spirit WORDS OF GOD HIMSELF TEACHES US THAT WE ARE NOT TO EVER HAVE FELLOWSHIP WITH THE UNFRUITFUL WORKS OF DARKNESS, “Faith Comes by Hearing, and Hearing by the Word of God” is a Bible verse from Romans 10:17. It means that Faith is a Result of listening to the Message of the Gospel, EMPOWERED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT.
But they do not use the 1611 edition. They use different updated editions of the King James Version.
The 1611 edition has undergone more than just spelling changes and corrections in typical post-1900 KJV editions.They, the KJVO folks are referring to the 1611 KJV authorized by king James in 1604 then published in 1611, with Elizabethan English.
It has undergone mainly spelling corrections, but the core is unchanged.
The 1611 edition has undergone more than just spelling changes and corrections in typical post-1900 KJV editions.
As many as 190 whole English words not found in the 1611 edition have been added, around 60 words in the 1611 edition have been omitted, and many more words have been changed.
There would be over 2,000 changes or differences that would affect the sound, and over 1,000 changes in the categories that D. A. Waite identified as being substantial. In his 1985 booklet, Waite himself had listed and identified the following categories as substantial or changes of substance: “adding a word,” “omitting a word,” “changing a tense,” “changing a word,” “changing number [plural/singular],” and “changing a case” (AV1611 Compared, pp. 4-5, 20-23).
Those editions are not inspired, so they say. Only the original with its spelling corrections, with the core in tact.
Personally, I believe the Holy Spirit can and does speak to man through the Word of God from any edition.
But what do I know?
I should also state that after many years of conversation with these folks, they are more concerned with correct Biblical Doctrine.
Not the translations that lean this way or that way, and we all know there are such versions.
These KJVO folks that I know, hundreds of them, I know which ones I can go into deep conversation with, and who I can't.
I bring up to them the major blunder in the KJV in Acts 2:38 (and other ones) where the KJV translators leaned toward baptismal regeneration.
These type of translations are found in all versions. So I'm at odds in my own ranks with the Brethren, but I know who I can discuss and who I know I can't.
These KJVO folks are God loving believers, but they are outspoken and fly into a rage if you bring up some of things I've mentioned.
I have to handle it with kids gloves, so to speak. Paying very close attention to who I'm talking to.
They, the KJVO folks are referring to the 1611 KJV authorized by king James in 1604 then published in 1611, with Elizabethan English.
It has undergone mainly spelling corrections, but the core is unchanged.
It was authorized for the Church of England.
The problem though is still that some words and terms have totally different meanings today than when translation into 1611 EnglishLook closely at the word changes and tell me what core doctrine has been altered.
They are as the article says, minor alterations.
In the early 1600's a word was spelled this way by one and that way by another.
The English language was a work in progress at that time, more so than later.