Why I am not KJVonly

Wrong, you took your side. "Why I'm not" ring any bells?

 

And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will. (2 Tim 2:24-26 NIV)

You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men? (1 Cor 3:4 NIV) Might this not in our day and time just as easily say, "I follow the KJV," and "I follow the NIV?"

 

John,

If you wouldn't mind, send me a private message or an email so I can contact you off the forum.

Thanks,

 

Okay, I'll bite. I'm no longer KJV only because after studying the issue, the facts and truths do not support that position. That's the short version. For the longer version, see my book.....

 

Are there any other former KJVOs out there? Just curious.

 

there's an archive, if there's none living
http://www.post1.com/home/amarillo/escape.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
Are there any other former KJVOs out there? Just curious.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[ September 08, 2001: Message edited by: Forever settled in heaven ]

 

I love this. I just want to get my facts straight. Someone posts a thread explaining why they are not KJV only. To be a KJV Only is to be a divider an a enemy of God. Then there is a refusal to take the time to converse on the issue started, that it's not worth it. HUH!

Next, someone says that she is taking sides. For having an opinion he is worldly. HUH!

And finally there is a posted web page that equates KJVO's with ecumenicals and probably even Hitler if I read futher down the page. And why do KJVO's get bashed in this articles? Because of a stance against homosexuality. As Tony the tiger would say, GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREAT!

Being a KJO myself I have learned a lot from this thread. I am a hidious monster for preferring a Bible version that so many people hate and I am damned to hell because of it. I must repent for my worldly ways, for I am a disgace to my own Lord and Savior.

 

&lt;&lt;Being a KJO myself I have learned a lot from this thread. I am a hidious monster for preferring a Bible version that so many people hate and I am damned to hell because of it. I must repent for my worldly ways, for I am a disgace to my own Lord and Savior&gt;&gt;

Dear Bro Bob,

The reason people (on both sides of the KJVO issue) react the way they do when the term "KJVO" is mentioned is the same reason that Vietnam veterans react to the phrase: "INCOMING!!" the way they do.

The Church is shell-shock over this issue.

As far as I can see, no one here "hates" the KJ Bible.

Lets do a test:

Will everyone who hates the King James Bible please let us know who you are?

INCOMING??

HankD

 

Bob, I think you have missed the point. No one here hates the KJV. A number of us love the KJV but simply prefer MVs because of the greater ease of understanding and greater ability to effectively minister.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To be a KJV Only is to be a divider an a enemy of God. Then there is a refusal to take the time to converse on the issue started, that it's not worth it. HUH!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be KJV Only is to be a divider because it establishes a mere preference as doctrine . There are no biblically stated reasons for KJVO and as a proof of that, just look through these threads for the number of verses that identify the KJV as the "Word of God." There is not one. Perhaps you can be the first to cite one. Furthermore, to say that no one is taking time to discuss the issues ignores the amount of discussion that is going on. No one here has any problem with someone who uses the KJV. THe problem is when people create new doctrines that never existed and then call people Bible deniers and apostates for not holding to this newly created doctrine.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And why do KJVO's get bashed in this articles? Because of a stance against homosexuality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whatever articles you are here referring to I am not familiar with. However, most of the people in this forum who prefer MVs will take a firm stand against homosexuality (with the exception of a few who have already been duly noted in other threads). This is a red herring that is far from the issue.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Being a KJO myself I have learned a lot from this thread. I am a hidious monster for preferring a Bible version that so many people hate and I am damned to hell because of it. I must repent for my worldly ways, for I am a disgace to my own Lord and Savior.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are not a hideous monster for preferring a Bible version. The problem is that you have set your preference up as a test of orthodoxy and it is an unbiblical test. This again is a lot of smoke with no fire. The "Woe is me for taking a stand" approach to argumentation is weak and wholly without substance. Please stick to the issues you earlier said you wanted people to discuss. You claim to have learned a lot; perhaps you could pursue learning about the history of transmission and translation, the philosophy of translation, the differences in textual families and why there are textual variants, etc. There is much to be learned by us all.

 

Bob,

I love the KJV.
I love people who say that for them, it's the only translation they will ever use. That's a wonderful personal decision.
I hate the sin of those who mistakenly claim that the KJV is God's "official Bible," and all other translations are of Satanic origin, and that users of them are going to hell, etc., and all the tripe that has appeared in this forum. For those not emotionally wrapped around the KJV, the arguments for it's exclusivity as the Word of God are among the most silly and unfounded I've ever heard.

 

TomVols asked: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Are there any other former KJVOs out there? Just curious.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am a former KJVO. I was at one time a very outspoken highly defensive KJVO without any real solid knowledge as to why. Just that the other translations were different. I really started to question my position the more I studied the KJV, finding that there were questionable text in the translation. When I came here I started reading this forum and realizing just how ignorant I was on the issue. I posed a couple of questions, and was recommended the great book “One Bible Only”. I highly recommend that book, and “The King James Only Controversy” to anyone.

I have kept up with the big thread here that is 13 pages long. That spoke volumes to me. The attitude of some of the post were astonishing. And the fact that some of the KJVO propionates did not have an answer to the questions but literally avoided them. Especially the fact of the difference in the 1611 to now. All the KJVO never quote from 1611, yet advocate that version. Attitude speaks louder than words. I could say more about some other observations, but I won’t.

I would like to say this from my heart, there are some people here who have certainly caused me to rest in the fact that the other versions are worthy to be read, and studied. Christ Temple really seems to know what he is talking about. Thanks Chris. And Pastor Larry has impressed me greatly (in all threads not just the KJV ones) I really appreciate him sharing his knowledge here. And John Wells said something in a post a while back that really made me feel at ease. And Dr. Bob Griffen really opened my eyes to the fact that the KJV is somewhat archaic. I read in that 13 page post(somewhere) that we don’t need to read Greek and Hebrew and that non-KJV’s are lazy. I see it totally different. I feel God gave us the brains and tools to study the original language, to not study these is being slothful. And you need a dictionary to study the KJV, because the difference in the vocabulary then is different than now. There is a lot to be said for what Dr. Griffen says, it has an archaic language.

With all that said, one person made the point that the KJV is easier to read than the NIV. This is based on Gail Ripplinger. Well I will say that is wrong. I have been reading the NIV, and am currently going through the NT. I think its awesome! It comes to life! Call me dumb or uneducated or whatever, I like the NIV.

Just my thoughts based on TomVols question,

With love,

Chet

[ September 10, 2001: Message edited by: Chet ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chet:
TomVols asked:
I am a former KJVO. I was at one time a very outspoken highly defensive KJVO without any real solid knowledge as to why. Just that the other translations were different. I really started to question my position the more I studied the KJV, finding that there were questionable text in the translation. When I came here I started reading this forum and realizing just how ignorant I was on the issue. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the post, Chet. Your honesty and integrity is a breath of fresh air.

(BTW, although I am being sanctified and strive to be like Jesus, I have not yet attained the spiritual maturity to be called Christ Temple , though that assuredly is what I, with every true believer, am!

 

I know that there are a lot of people that are against the KJV of the Bible. I have no problem with that at all. I am a KJVO at church. I use other versions at home for cross reference to see where everyone else is comming from. But By prefference I am a KJVO and a fundamentalist so I get it from two different sides. I do not mind getting doctrinal disagreements at all. It does get mildly irritating when people start taking personal shots at each other, and it is comming from all sides. This is very unproductive and has no educational value what so ever and I wish it would stop.

 

Hello. I am new at this board. But not so new as regards the KJV issue. I could say I am a former KJV only man. But I believe God the Holy Spirit lead me to a reasonable standpoint on this issue. This through reading some sound articles and actually comparing the King James to the Textus Receptus. When I learned what the Greek original actually says in instances where the KJV translates erroneously or weakly I was ashamed of myself and felt I had been deceived or mislead somewhat by the KJV only defenders, such as Riplinger, D A Waite, D W Cloud, Ruckman etc., whose works I had read to a certain extent. After having compared to some degree the 3 manuscript families I know of, TR, Majority, and Alexandrian, I would without hesitation say the Textus Receptus is the one Greek text which most of all honors the triune God, the Alexandrian being the least honoring of them. Having established this one would have to find out what or which TR-based translation(s) most accurately translate the original text. There are not many to choose from. Right now I come to think of the KJV 1611, Geneva Bible, Young's Literal Translation, Webster's Translation, Tyndale's NT, Jay P Green's MKJV, Green's LITV, probably also Wesley's NT. All these are available either through some well equipped booksellers and/or through the internet as downloadable.
Tyndale might be very hard to get hold of. I found my own through a used book dealer via the internet. Also a new one named the VW-Bible, found on the internet, I believe is TR-based. Of the aforementioned Wesley's and Tyndales are deficient, Wesley's lacking the OT, and Tyndale's lacking parts of the OT. I come to think of one Majority text based NT which is quite accurate, except for a few instances where the theological bias of the translator has led him to translate erroneously, crucially so. It is called Analytical Literal Translation (ALT), and the translator is Gary Zeolla. It is to be found at Darkness to Light's website. I do not personally agree with the man's soteriology and judge him a heretic on this point, but his NT could be worth checking out. And if I remember correctly the NKJV's NT is based on a Majority text. Debates have raged as to which is better, NKJV or the old KJV. I won't go into that here. I just state that the NKJV translates more accurately in quite a few instances in the NT, and probably vice versa. Then I will come to the Alexandrian text based NT's. I come to think of a few worth mentioning, Darby's Bible, ASV, RV, NASB. Of these four I have found all on the internet except the RV. The mature and discerning student of God's Word may well profit to some degree also by these translations, of course having in mind the instances where words and phrases are omitted. A wise, mature and discerning reader may well handle using many different versions without any problems whatsoever, and receiving spiritual benefits therefrom. But many are frustrated at the many versions flooding the scene. I would not condemn those who prefer the old KJV to all other versions, but they should be aware of the instances, especially in the NT, where the KJV is in error or translates weakly or otherwise inaccurately. Knowing these places guards them from falling into error and heresy (provided they are indwelt by Christ's Spirit). I cannot bear with the KJV only extremists, such as Ruckman, Waite, Riplinger, Marrs etc. who most of them deliberately twist the truth and teach falsehood so as to deceive gullible persons into their extreme camp. The KJV 1611 may well be a version God has blessed, and I believe He has. But I would not say it is perfect as a translation, nor that it is the most accurate. Now I come to think of two NT's which could be worthy of mention. One is Wuest's Expanded translation, the other is New English Translation. Both have their deficiencies but have some gems in them not found in such horrible versions as NIV, Living Bible etc. NET is on the internet. Yet I have to mention the interlinears. I have two which are TR-based; Ricker Berry's and J P Green's interlinears. Both are quite accurate and good. Then I have the NKJV interlinear NT, which is also good, apart from the omissions of course, due to the Majority text. Then I have A Marshall's NT interlinear, Paul R McReynold's NT interlinear, and Comfort & Brown's NT interlinear. Of these 3 the one by McReynold's is the least preferred. The other two are quite good, having in mind the deficient Alexandrian text underlying them. One of the most useful tools in studying the Greek NT is "Analytical Greek New Testament" by Friberg & Friberg. Although it utilizes an Alexandrian text it is priceless in that it grammatically analyses each word in the Greek. Still better is Perschbacher's Analytical Greek Lexicon, which also has the words from the TR not to be found in the former analytical tool. As to the OT I firmly believe in the Bomberg text, which underlies the KJV, YLT, LITV and some others. I know of only one interlinear OT which uses the Bomberg text, and that is Green's interlinear OT. His "The Interlinear Bible - Hebrew Greek English" is quite unique. Although I cannot bear with the man's soteriology and some other things about his ministry I must say he has done quite an excellent work with this interlinear Bible. It is probably over $50 from most sellers but is well worth the price. If I would have to recommend only one entire Bible I would probably recommed his interlinear Bible, seeing it is based on both the Bomberg text as well as the TR, Scrivener's if I remember correctly. Closely followed would be (in this order) the VW-Bible, LITV, MKJV, YLT, KJV, Geneva Bible, NKJV, ASV, Darby, NASB. To those entangled in the KJV only error I would exhort them to take a good look at the issue from both angles and honestly examine the versions and compare them with the Greek NT. They will, if being honest, see that the KJV has translational errors and weaknesses in it, as all others, more or less. I believe each version clearly translated by using the dynamic equivalency method, such as NIV, are bad versions, and are best avoided in favor of the better ones. The ones translated using the formal equivalency method are clearly to be preferred to paraphrases and dynamic equivalency versions. The KJV only extremists such as Riplinger and Ruckman et.al. have not been blessed by God at all, to the contrary they teach salvation by works, damnable heresy, and many KJV onlyites follow their pernicious ways, the blind leading the blind. KJV onlyism is not the same as doctrinal orthodoxy. Anti-KJV people are also many times in error and heterodoxy when it comes to the doctrine of Christ, see 2 John 9. Even one who takes the middle ground can be in error. Only God the Lord is mighty to keep His precious Israel, the elect, from being deceived by the many wolves in sheep's clothing, who inwardly are burdensome (ravening - KJV) wolves, burdensome in that they are merit-mongers, work-mongers, legalists, hawkers of Jesus the Lord, peddlers of the Gospel of Christ.
Such are not to be received into the house nor are they to be saluted, but to be avoided and marked. Peace be unto all the effectually called of God.

Harald

 

Harald:

If your post is for real (I do have some doubts) I say praise the Lord, that you have worked your way out of KJVOism.

However, your assault on my friend and fellow-Calvinist Gary Zeolla ("I do not personally agree with the man's soteriology and judge him a heretic on this point,") betrays you've got more serious problems than being a KJVO: understanding the gospel for one. How this lines up with your very Calvinistic sign-off, "Peace be unto all the effectually called of God", makes me think you are mixing together some internet-found Christianese in a stew pot of Baptist spam.

Apologies if I'm mistaken; you may need to make your posts shorter to make yourself clearer to all.

[ September 28, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob Landis:
I know that there are a lot of people that are against the KJV of the Bible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who are you referring to? Someone on this board?

This charge keeps being thrown out but the people who throw it out have yet to identify anyone is "against" the KJV of the Bible.

 

Mr. Temple said; ”…makes me think you are mixing together some internet-found Christianese in a stew pot of Baptist spam.”

I take it you consider my input but a bunch of cliches. I admit much of what I wrote and may write in the future may sound like cliches and nothing less and nothing more. I personally hate using cliches and pompous words and am many times angry with my imperfect posts. But I hope some will forbear with my choice of words. My native tongue is Swedish and I am no ”Doctor” in the English language, nor an expert in expressing myself accurately enough to please the majority of such who read these things. What I said concerning the KJV issue and concerning texts and translations is my honest opinion and what I have come to learn through the years. And if I remember you did not find any big fault concerning that data. I could have avoided mentioning Zeolla being a heretic, but I feel responsible to warn others, especially as I mentioned his web site and his name in connection with his ALT version. I could have used more ”positive” language when referring to him, but this was the word I chose, and I know it is strong language. One being a so called ”Calvinist” does not mean one is a true child of God. In fact, the majority of those calling themselves Calvinists are unbelievers. The word heretic could quite properly be defined as one who self-willingly chooses what to believe (and teach, propagate etc.). I wish it had never come to this, but since Temple brought the indirect charge I have problems with the gospel I will briefly show where Zeolla is in error. He is a public person, having set up a web page and authored some books plus this translation. He is not beyond scrutiny. The Word of God exhorts me to test the spirits, 1 John 4:1. My Bible also tells me to mark those that teach doctrines contrary to the truth, Romans 16:17. First, Zeolla has in the following instances translated erroneously:

3:22 but the righteousness of God [is] through faith [or, trust] in Jesus Christ to all and upon all the ones believing, for there is no difference [or, distinction].
3:26 for a demonstration of His righteousness in the present time, for Him to be righteous and justifying the [one] [or, declaring the [one] righteous] [who has] faith in Jesus.
--ALT (Romans)

2:16 having known that a person is not justified [or, declared righteous] by works of [the] Law but by means of faith in Jesus Christ, we also believed in Christ Jesus, so that we shall be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of [the] Law, because no flesh [at] all will be justified by works of [the] Law! –ALT (Galatians)

In all 3 verses he has deliberately chosen to translate ”faith IN Jesus (Christ)”, although he knew it could have been rendered otherwise, which it should have. All 3 verses are among key verses as regards the doctrine of justification before God. On Rom. 3:22 I found the following versions translate accurately, according to the Greek; KJV 1611, Tyndale, Darby, LITV, YLT, VW-Bible, and probably also Geneva, MKJV and Webster’s translation. They read ”faith of Jesus Christ”. New English Translation I feel has got it even better, ”faithfulness of Jesus Christ”. All NT interlinears I mentioned in my first post above also have ”faith (McReynolds has ”trust” ) of Jesus Christ”. The Latin Vulgate also agrees with the above translations. Luther similarly translated this verse wrongly, as Zeolla, most probably biased by his faulty soteriology, thereby falling into the ditch. Zeolla also seems to strongly affirm that justification before God is ”through faith (or, trust) IN Jesus Christ”, as Luther did. Probably this is why he willfully chose to translate it contrary to the Greek sense, so as to suit his faulty understanding of justification. One does not have to be a Greek scholar or student to see that he and Luther, as well as many other versions, have clearly gone against the Greek text, and against God and His Word. These should have heeded Rev. 22:18-19. On Rom. 3:26 he is also in error, translating ”[who has] faith IN Jesus”. The original would have it as ”faithfulness (or, faith) of Jesus”. With this agrees Darby, LITV, Young’s Literal Translation, VW-Bible. NET has ”the one who lives because of Jesus' faithfulness”. The Finnish ”Biblia” version from mid-1700, as well as an old Swedish NT from 1879, also both faithfully translate according to the Greek. Also the old Spanish Version Valera translates correctly in this verse. So obviously God had granted some wisdom to enable some translators to translate His Word correctly on these crucial passages. Needless to say Zeolla has it wrong also on Gal. 2:16 in the similar manner. So also Luther. And when I read Luther’s comments on Gal. 2:16 I see his faulty understanding of justification is exactly corresponding to his faulty translation of the same verse. From the following quote from Zeolla it should be clear he is the one who is on a faulty foundation; ”If your God is not the God of Isaiah, then your god is a false god. There is only one true God - the thrice, holy One of the Bible. Bow before THIS God. Confess your utter sinfulness before His absolute holiness. Repent of your sins. If you DO, God promises He will forgive you of all your sins.”{emphasis mine}Also a drawn picture of an alleged Jesus found at Zeolla’s website in the article ”The Nature of the Resurrection” (written by Gary Zeolla), strengthened my doubts as to this man’s state. What makes Zeolla differ from heretics such as Jack T Chick, and Peter Ruckman, who both also display and use forbidden pictures of an alleged Jesus Christ, Jehovah manifested in flesh. Zeolla goes against both the OT and the NT in making an image of an alleged Jesus of Nazareth, the God-man, and this picture has been on the site over a year. ”You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above”- 2 Moos. 20:4. ” Take careful heed to yourselves, for you saw no form when Jehovah spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a carved image in the form of any figure: the likeness of male or female” - 5 Moos. 4:15-16. ”… because, although they know God, they do not glorify Him as God, nor are thankful, but become vain in their reasonings, and their ****** hearts are darkened. Professing to be wise, they become foolish, and change the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man…” - Room. 1:21-23a. ”Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine is like gold or silver or stone, something engraved by art and man's devising”. - Acts.17:29. All quotes from VW-Bible. What about you, Mr. Temple, what is your understanding of the gospel? What are the conditions for salvation, is it ” Bow before THIS God. Confess your utter sinfulness before His absolute holiness. Repent of your sins. If you DO, God promises He will forgive you of all your sins.”, or, as you yourself said in a post of yours at this board; ”I think Scripture is clear that one must ACCEPT Christ as Savior and Lord IN ORDER TO BE saved.” {emphasis mine}?? Or might it be something else? Are you an independent fundamental (arminian) Baptist? I hope I am wrong.

respectfully,
Harald

[ September 28, 2001: Message edited by: Harald ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In fact, the majority of those calling themselves Calvinists are unbelievers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What in the world??? Surely you jest. How in the world can you possibly know this?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First, Zeolla has in the following instances translated erroneously: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don’t know who this fella is that you are talking about. I am more concerned with what you are saying about the views expressed so I will comment on those.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In all 3 verses he has deliberately chosen to translate ”faith IN Jesus (Christ)”, although he knew it could have been rendered otherwise, which it should have.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On what basis “should” it have been rendered otherwise? The plain sense of the text leads to an objective genitive usage and hence is translated properly. As Moo, in what is probably the best available commentary on Romans, says, “The linguistic argument in favor of the alternative rendering [the one you suggest] is by no means compelling. … little in this section of Romans would lead us to expect a mention of Christ’s active obedience as basic to our justification. … pistis in Paul almost always means faith; very strong contextual features must be present if any other meaning is to be adopted. But these are absent in 3:22” (p. 225). There are no compelling reasons to take it as you have. The Greek is accurately translated as an objective genitive.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Zeolla also seems to strongly affirm that justification before God is ”through faith (or, trust) IN Jesus Christ”, as Luther did.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you disagreeing with this? I think it is pretty much what Paul spends the book of Romans arguing for.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Probably this is why he willfully chose to translate it contrary to the Greek sense, so as to suit his faulty understanding of justification. One does not have to be a Greek scholar or student to see that he and Luther, as well as many other versions, have clearly gone against the Greek text, and against God and His Word. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it would help here if one was a Greek student. You should know that the objective genitive is an appropriate translation. We might discuss whether it is the appropriate one but it is most certainly not “against the Greek text, [or] against God [or] His Word.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>”If your God is not the God of Isaiah, then your god is a false god. There is only one true God - the thrice, holy One of the Bible. Bow before THIS God. Confess your utter sinfulness before His absolute holiness. Repent of your sins. If you DO, God promises He will forgive you of all your sins.”{emphasis mine}<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps you can enlighten us here. What is your objection? That God is one, the true God? That we are utterly sinful before his absolute holiness? That God promises forgiveness for those who will repent?