KJV ONLY

Yeah, this pretty much sums up what I consider KJV-onlyism[Ransom]

"GREAT!!! I'm glad I could be of some help!

~'The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it; ignorance may deride it; malice may distort it; but there it is.'---Winston Churchill

 

Yes, and it also lines up with the known facts. This precludes KJVOnlyism from being "truth."

Hmmm... and who would be the emotional reactionaries who avoid evidence that disproves their ideas in this debate? ...and who accepts the facts as they are and tries to explain them in a consistent, logical way?

Yes. This applies directly to KJVO's saying that MV's delete scripture and "attack" major doctrines. I have yet to see that kind of ignorant statement made by a non-KJVO about the KJV. Ignorance is also a term that might explain why direct questions are avoided when the obvious answers destroy someone's false preconceptions.

You mean like questioning someone's faith and doctrinal soundness because they don't ascribe to KJVOnlyism... a false doctrine that can never be proven from scripture?

Yes. On a daily basis the truth is presented to KJVO's on this board... but some of them have closed their eyes to it.

 

Don't forget "tradition and familiarity may bias you away from it"

 

I have read this thread with interest. Many educated opinions have been expressed by many of you. Homework has been done it is obvious. My problem is this:

Why are those of us who do take a strong stand on the King James Version reduced to being called "KJVO's?" It is almost always used in a negative light or to refer to an unlearned opinion. I have not seen us refer to the Modern Versions as "perversions" or to those who do not hold this position as "MVO's." An obvious rebuttal would be, "We don't use the Modern Versions only." I guess the difference is this, we use the King James exclusively and you use a number of different versions.

It is the spirit of the posts that concern me. Some are genuinely seeking truth and learning. Others are interested simply in forcing their views on others. I realize that applies to both sides of the debate. I would love to see a less combatant spirit in this forum. After all, we are all a part of the body of Christ.

If you use a King James Bible, praise the Lord! It is a time-proven, reliable translation. If you use a Modern Version, praise the Lord! But know that the jury is still out regarding the reliability.

Every new version that has come out has been compared to the King James Version. The phrase "It is just as good as the King James" is a common phrase when describing a Modern Version. I simply choose to stick with the one that had stood the test of time. If you disagree with me, I can live with that.

When we get to heaven, we'll round up Moses, David, Paul, and the others authors and let them tell us the truth. Of course, I know then it won't matter. But for now, at least to those of us who use a King James Version, it does matter. Not as a litmus test for fellowship, but for believing by faith that we hold the Word of God in our hands.

That, to me, is what KJV only means.

 

Pastor Bob 63 said:

Why are those of us who do take a strong stand on the King James Version reduced to being called "KJVO's?"

When someone claims that they "do NOT acknowledge anything else today as being a REAL Bible & whatever is/was the ancestors of the KJB are/were real," as GrannyGumbo does, what else would you call it?

If nothing else is a "REAL Bible," then what can you be but "King James Only"?

 

Hi Pastor Bob63,
Just out of curiosity, what jury would that be and who would it be comprised of? Thanks.

 

Well said and worth saying.

 

I am old enough to remember when we learned, memorized and preached from the KJV. Although retired, I still preach, read and have my daily devotions from the KJV.
When it comes to inerrancy, we only claim divine inspiration for the original manuscripts. In this sense, God's word is contained in all translations. At least the essence of God's word. I use Hebrew and Greek in study, but even these are translations and subject to some errors.
The KJV has certain errors. Errors of transcription, mistaken translations and the change in the English language regarding turns of phrase.
The KJV provides the preacher with the best sermon outlines. In explaining the difference in language, he gets to explain doctrines to the people in a roundabout sort of way.
In this sense I am a KJV only, but I also have about 17 translations on my shelves,,including the infamously famous liberal Moffatt translation of the New Testament and even J.B. Phillips.
For word changes, look up the words "hinder", "let" for two examples. For blatant errors, look up the age of Ahaziah...in one place he is 22 and another 42..The answer is obvious in context, but nontheless an error in transcription in the KJV.....sort of knocks divine inspiration of KJV only.

Keep looking up,

Jim

 

Ransom,
I do not mind being referred to as "King James Only." My problem was when we are reduced to the letters "KJVO" and this label always being used in a negative light. It makes us less than those who hold a different view.

Again, it is the spirit of the posts that concern me. One of the fruit of the Spirit is "gentleness." I feel that is lacking here much of the time.

 

Hi Pastor Bob63,
Just out of curiosity, what jury would that be and who would it be comprised of? Thanks.</font>[/QUOTE]The jury is time. The KJV has been around since 1611 (I will admit it has been "revised" a few times since then but not re-translated). The KJV was the Bible of choice, for those who could read English, for the better part of four decades. By its sales, it is still a very popular version today.

The Modern Versions, based on the W/H Text are many in number, each one claiming superiority over the others. The majority of these have been around for less than 100 years.

If you look at the past 100 years succeeding the introduction of the Modern Versions, you'll note that Christianity has continually began to slide to a more liberal theology.

A case in point, and please no one take offense at this, 75 years ago, if this forum would have been possible, we wouldn't have nearly all of the differences in theology that is represented now.

You used to know what to expect from a church that had the name "Baptist" on the sign. Now you can't know for sure until you get inside and hear the preacher.

That's why I say that the enemy threw a wrench in the works somewhere. This wrench has been effective to halt the forward progress of the church. The church today is more worldly than the world was when I got saved in 1976.

Is that the fault of the Modern Versions? I don't know, maybe. For me, I've chosen to use the Bible that was used during the Great Awakening and the Revivals of our early history.

That's my opinion

 

I do not have the ability to edit my posts. I intended to say the KJV was the Bible of choice for the better part of four centuries.

 

A case in point, and please no one take offense at this, 75 years ago, if this forum would have been possible, we wouldn't have nearly all of the differences in theology that is represented now.

Is that right? One of the biggest theological differences among 'Baptists' 75 years ago was the pre-, post-, and a- millenial positions. It still is here. Another one was the status of women in the church and in public life, as well as in the home. It still is here. Another was how Baptist churches should associate with each other-- conventions, associations, unofficial cooperation, or not at all. That one still is here. And then whether Baptist bodies need "statements of faith," and if so what should they include. That issue is still around, and is here in this forum. I don't know whether using the American Standard Bible or the RSV were big issues among Baptists 75 years ago-- likely not, since there is little to be read about it. But this just shows that the KJV can be the only translation among the large majority and there will still be differences in doctrine and practice, and conflicts which lead to split churches, new churches or associations.

You used to know what to expect from a church that had the name "Baptist" on the sign. Now you can't know for sure until you get inside and hear the preacher.

That was and is true in a general way, but it was never as clear as you indicate.

That's why I say that the enemy threw a wrench in the works somewhere. This wrench has been effective to halt the forward progress of the church. The church today is more worldly than the world was when I got saved in 1976.

There seems to be an indefinite meaning in your phrase "more wordly than the world." It seems utter nonsense, though. In 1976 people could still smoke in most public places, for example. What churches today-- or any time-- have allowed smoking during a service or even inside {Baptists, of course, simply have shrugged off smoking outside the building}. By 1976 [snip] and [snip] had made it into primetime television and lurid profanity had become accepted by the "wordly" in more than just 'locker room talk.' That is still not the case in any churches I know about.

Is that the fault of the Modern Versions? I don't know, maybe. For me, I've chosen to use the Bible that was used during the Great Awakening and the Revivals of our early history.

You have chosen to use the Bible that used by those who imprisoned and tortured the reformers, including Baptists. You have chosen to use the Bible of James and Charles of the Scottish Stuarts who claimed a "divine right" to rule 2 countries and one church, simultaneously and without opposition {which by this theory was opposition against God}. You have chosen to use the Bible which was the "authorized" Bible of the American corollary of the one Anglican church in Virginia, the challenge against which became a model for free churches in a free society.

That's my opinion

No kiddin'?

[ August 12, 2002, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Cynic,

It is because you choose to use statements like these when a simple, "I disagree" would be more appropriate and more in the spirit of friendly debate, that I have chosen to no longer respond to your posts.

If/when you feel you can discuss these things without a spirit of meanness or antagonism, I will be glad to converse with you.

I officiate basketball for the public high schools in my area, I get enough meanness and antagonism from the coaches and fans without getting it from a "Christian" Cynic on a Baptist forum.

 

To me, KJV Only means that you believe that the KJV Bible exists as the only legitimate translation of the Bible (English or any other language). You believe that all other Bibles are fakes.

 

It is because you choose to use statements like these when a simple, "I disagree" would be more appropriate and more in the spirit of friendly debate, that I have chosen to no longer respond to your posts.

You're losin your argument, so you're thinkin' up a pretext to throw in the towel, ar ya?

 

[/QUOTE]The jury is time.[/QUOTE]

Does "time" vindicate the Latin Vulgate as
"God's chosen Bible in Latin" since it was
used by just about everybody for about a thousand years or more?

Should our English translations be based upon the Latin Vulgate?

-kman

 

The jury is time.[/QUOTE]

Does "time" vindicate the Latin Vulgate as
"God's chosen Bible in Latin" since it was
used by just about everybody for about a thousand years or more?

Should our English translations be based upon the Latin Vulgate?

-kman[/QUOTE]

During His earthly ministry, the Lord Jesus appealed unreservedly to the very words of the Old Testament text. (Matthew 22:42, John 20:44 ff) He indicated that this text had been accurately transmitted. Not only so, but He also expressed this conviction in the strongest possible manner: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Mat. 5:18

Here our Lord assures us that the Old Testament in common use among the Jews during His earthly ministry was an absolutely trustworthy reproduction of the original text written by Moses and the other writers.

Jesus never refuted any text, any word, or any letter in the Hebrew Old Testament. He didn't say, "Now Moses was misquoted here, it should have said this." He offered no textual criticism whatever. Had there been any changes, I'm sure He would have corrected it, but He didn't. It stands as written. Jesus' stamp of approval is on the Masoretic Hebrew Text. It is authorized by Jesus. He did not authorize the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, some scribal tradition, Josephus, Jerome, the Syriac version, or any other document.

 

i seem to recall that the Masoretic Text was done by the Christ-rejecting scribes after A.D. 500. n it's this Text u've tried to equate w Jesus' 1st-century text without sound evidence.

 

The jury is time.</font>[/QUOTE]Does "time" vindicate the Latin Vulgate as
"God's chosen Bible in Latin" since it was
used by just about everybody for about a thousand years or more?

Should our English translations be based upon the Latin Vulgate?

-kman[/QUOTE]

During His earthly ministry, the Lord Jesus appealed unreservedly to the very words of the Old Testament text. (Matthew 22:42, John 20:44 ff) He indicated that this text had been accurately transmitted. Not only so, but He also expressed this conviction in the strongest possible manner: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Mat. 5:18

Here our Lord assures us that the Old Testament in common use among the Jews during His earthly ministry was an absolutely trustworthy reproduction of the original text written by Moses and the other writers.

Jesus never refuted any text, any word, or any letter in the Hebrew Old Testament. He didn't say, "Now Moses was misquoted here, it should have said this." He offered no textual criticism whatever. Had there been any changes, I'm sure He would have corrected it, but He didn't. It stands as written. Jesus' stamp of approval is on the Masoretic Hebrew Text. It is authorized by Jesus. He did not authorize the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, some scribal tradition, Josephus, Jerome, the Syriac version, or any other document.[/QUOTE]

Nor the KJV.

I thought the Jury was Time? If so, then why aren't we using the Latin Vulgate or an English Translation based upon it? It was used by most of Christondom(ish) for alot longer than the KJV.

If you are saying we should go back to the Hebrew and Greek, great I agree. We should get the best available manuscripts/readings we can and produce translations from them. What is wrong with that?

The Jury isn't "time". The Jury is how faithful a translation is to bring out the underlying Greek and Hebrew that it is translating. We don't have to "wait" to see if a Modern Version is "acceptable". That can be determined TODAY by verifying it is a faithful and accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew.

-kman

[ August 13, 2002, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: kman ]

 

With the exception of the Septuagint, the rest of the items in that list came *after* Christ. But in regards to the Septuagint, Christ often quoted from it. Not always, but sometimes. For example, Luke 4:17-19, where Jesus read from the book of Isaiah, what he read contains some wording and phrases not found in the Masoretic, but in the Septuagint. A few weeks ago we discussed this. See the thread Jesus wasn't KJV-only.