How does one become a KJV only?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Curtis:
Thank you, Scott.

I do believe God has his word preserved for us in the KJV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree but I also believe that God preserves His "Word" for us in some of the other versions. My list would include the NKJV and NASB.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I have not read most other versions, except for comparisons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I primarily use the KJV and NASB. I think they are both reliable and together give me greater understanding of God's Word.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The argument that the language is outdated falls flat with me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> On this, I would disagree. English is a living, evolving language. 'Let, conversation, and prevent' immediately come to mind as examples of words that have changed meanings. A person without above average reading skills could easily misinterpret the meaning of passages containing these words.

I have personally witnessed someone teach that the James passage containing "conversation" was a command not to use foul language. Just recently, I heard a young preacher say that when the Bible says that David was a man after God's own heart, the word 'after' means both 'like' it and 'pursuing' it. He read something into the English that was not there in the Greek.

This is dangerous and the more English changes, the more dangerous it will become. None of the KJVO preachers I know have seminary or other formal training. (I know there are some, I just don't know them) Several of them were not good students in high school and have poor vocabularies as compared to their contemporaries. Their lack of English skills does not couple well with the KJV. The people who need a MV most are often the people least likely to consider one.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I have actually read, on this very board, that people want the KJV replaced. Some have even said that it needs to be replaced. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guilty as charged. At some point in time, it must be replaced as the fundamentalists' Bible of choice or else go through a fairly major revision. The changes in the English language will not cease. As fundamentalists and Baptists, we cannot allow God's Word to be taken out of the hands of His people the way it was with the Latin Vulgate. The RCC may not have become the perversion that it is if the lay people had been able to read and understand the Bible for themselves. One of the most compelling arguments for MV's is that the Bible needs to be in the people's language like the original NT was. Like it or not, we are called to reach people on their level and often that is barely literate.

I have a good education and am not ashamed to admit that the KJV sometimes confuses me while the NASB or NKJV are clear. I can only imagine how bad it is for those with low reading levels. Interlinears have also helped. Apparently, some people would rather say that it means something it doesn't rather than admit that they are not "spiritual" enough to understand it.

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Very good post. Mark 1:10 is a good example. The word "opened" could mean actually torn apart.

But, I am not all that educated. I recieved an electronics degree in the Navy, I am taking a doctrinology course (KJV based), so I am working on it. But I would doubt anybody has a firm grasp on everything the bible says, no matter what version they use.

I look at Mathhew 4:4. The NIV has taken this verse, cut it in half, & rendered the rest of the bible impotent. This is what I think of when I see posts questioning the authority of the scriptures. I would be interested to see one KJVO who would question the authority of the scriptures. It won't happen.

I think as long as there is English, there will be KJV Bibles. There will be KJVOs. & there will be arguments concerning them, also. But I won't go around trying to have your Bibles replaced, if I can get the same respect.

 

Bible versions had never been an issue with me until the early 70's when the NASV hit the shelves. I bought one and loved it and used it for several years.
In the early 80's I set out in study to prove that the NASV was a worthy translation.
After researching and praying and approaching the issue from every angle I became convinced that the King James was the only trustworthy translation of the Holy Scriptures available to us today.
I always thought of myself as a free thinker so it scared me a bit to know I was placing myself in a "narrow way" of scriptural inspiration, but today, the more I study and the clearer glimpses I see of the condition of this world and the lack of solid grounding of most of God's people, I'm convinced more and more of the reliability and need of the King James.

 

Davey, I'll take a wild guess that you were going to a 'KJVO' church and/or reading the pro-KJVO biased literature (it is virtually all biased, one way or the other).

 

How does one become a KJV only? by conviction after much study of course.
btw, querty, there are 2 KJV only stands, Ruckman and Burgeon. which are u refering to? i am in the Burgeon camp

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I would be interested to see one KJVO who would question the authority of the scriptures. It won't happen.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've seen it more than once.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> None of the KJVO preachers I know have seminary or other formal training. (I know there are some, I just don't know them) Several of them were not good students in high school and have poor vocabularies as compared to their contemporaries. Their lack of English skills does not couple well with the KJV. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

D.A. Waite is a Baptist scholar who has written in the defense of the Received Text and the King James Bible since 1971. He obtained a B.A. in classical Greek and Latin from the University of Michigan in 1948; a Th.M. with high honors in New Testament Greek Literature and Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1952; an M.A. in Speech from Southern Methodist University in 1953; a Th.D. with honors in Bible Exposition from Dallas Seminary in 1955; and a Ph.D. in Speech from Purdue University in 1961. He holds both New Jersey and Pennsylvania teacher certificates in Greek and Language Arts, and has taught Greek, Hebrew, Bible, Speech, and English for over thirty-five years in nine schools.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DavidH:
Bible versions had never been an issue with me until the early 70's when the NASV hit the shelves. I bought one and loved it and used it for several years.
In the early 80's I set out in study to prove that the NASV was a worthy translation.
After researching and praying and approaching the issue from every angle I became convinced that the King James was the only trustworthy translation of the Holy Scriptures available to us today.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

David:

Why is the KJV more trustworthy that other Bibles which translate the very same underlying texts - the NKJV, LITV, MKJV, - in unarchaic, understandable, modern language?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ventin:
querty, there are 2 KJV only stands, Ruckman and Burgeon. which are u refering to? i am in the Burgeon camp <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are not KJVOnly if you are in the "Burgeon" camp. Burgeon was a defender of the TR, not of the KJV. However, unlike any self-respecting KJV Onlyite, Burgeon argued that the TR should be revised in a few instances and saw a need for a revision in the KJV as well.

Consider the following quote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For, in not a few particulars, the "Textus Receptus" does call for Revision, certainly ... To mention a single instance:--When our Lord first sent forth His Twelve Apostles, it was certainly no part of his ministerial commission to them to 'raise the dead' (νεκροθς εγειρετε, S. Matthew x. 8). The is easily demonstrable. Yet is the spurious clause retained by our Revisionists; because it is found in those corrupt witnesses--[aleph], B C CD and the Latin copies (from the Revision Revised 107-08) cited in White<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very clearly, Burgeon disagreed with you and disgrees with Ruckman. It is incorrect to cite him in support of your position when he, in fact, did not agree with your position.

KJVOnlyism has grasped at men such as Burgeon and Scrivener because they were true scholars. Yet these men did not support the KJVOnly position. They said it was necessary to revise both the TR and the KJV.

 

[As I find it unnecessary to start a new thread I submit the following here..]

I believe this issue under discussion, King James Onlyism and things related to it, is a quite difficult one. I write whether those reading are in reality quickened individuals or whether in unregeneracy. In this matter I first and foremost see the involved debaters as professing to be Bible-believers. I believe this matter with KJV Onlyism and reactions against it is not an easy matter, nor is it easy to write well with respect to it. First, one has to have in mind that although writing to men the Lord in heaven is watching the debate, as well as my words and those of others. It would be easy to throw some general phrases and cliches or popular platitudes. I hope these are not such, and I hope God would help me to pen down some thoughts that hopefully honor Him as well as contributes something new to this thread, or the KJV Only discussion in general. The Lord knows whether I will succeed. First, I would like to make clear I am not a KJV Onlyist, nor an anti-KJV Onlyite. I believe it is possible to be neither. I believe it is most important to have a right view of and right attitude towards God’s written word, the Bible. That is, that one is orthodox (agreeing with the Bible) when it comes to bibliology and related issues. It is most important to not be contradicting God’s holy word with respect to bibliology, and one should strive to be orthodox herein.

It is not heart-warming to read the posts of some, throwing childish comments at opponents. I believe as some one said, that this Bible version issue and KJV Only related things should be discussed in an orderly and becoming manner, not as immature teens. I believe it is not good or fitting at all to misrepresent the words and views of others on purpose, yet I have nothing against orderly and accurate criticism. I believe one should strive to express oneself accurately and according to truth and fact, as well as with precision. I believe one should be honest. With respect to honesty I wonder why some KJV Onlyists seek to defend King James as having been a godly man, a Christian, when the facts clearly seem to indicate he was a sodomite and an ungodly man. Are all history writers who say he was a sodomite in the wrong? He was also one who advocated or stood for pedobaptism, which is clearly ungodliness. Although the facts indicate that specific king was ungodly it does not mean the KJV is a corrupted or badly translated Bible. But the quality of this Bible version is not defended by maintaining King James was a godly man when the facts seem to prove the other. I wish someone who knows the fact would tell me, was he a sodomite and an ungodly man? Yet, whatever the truth is as to James it does not relate to the quality of the AV 1611 translation. Neither do I find it necessary for KJV Onlyists to maintain the KJV translators were godly men and pious Christians, when the truth is that most if not all of them were stern defenders of infant rantism, pedobaptism. Let the defenders of the AV concentrate on defending their product, the KJV Bible, and let them defend it honestly and truthfully, without lying about the character of either James or the translators. Even if they were Bible-contradicting heretical pedobaptists it does not automatically mean their translation (or more correctly revision-translation) is a weak one. A positive fact that may be proven is that the translators in the main were learned in the Biblical languages, one might even say they were among the greatest scholars around in that day. I also believe it may be proven they sought to give the people an accurate translation, according to the best of their abilities. Whether God helped them may be discussed, and to what degree as well. It cannot be proven they were infallible in their translation efforts, nor that they were inspired or carried along by the Spirit of God as were the original writers of the Scriptures.

I believe the KJV is a good translation. I do not believe in anti-KJV-ism, that is, unwarranted attacking the KJV Bible. I believe as e.g. John Gill, that each translation should be tested against the inspired originals, that the Hebrew and the Greek Scriptures is the ultimate source to go to, and to which translations are to be compared, objectively and honestly. I do not believe it is unlawful or plain wrong to examine the KJV with a view to assessing its accuracy and faithfulness as a translation. But I believe it is dead wrong to attack or criticize or question (”yea, hath God said?” – Satan & his children) God’s inspired words in the Greek and the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as provedly accurate renderings of the same after they have been shown to be corresponding faithfully and accurately to the original words. Such would be unbelief and plain ungodliness and lack of fear of God. And if one should find in the KJV (or any other version) renderings of the original which are clearly erroneous or faulty I do not believe it is wrong to say what one has found. This would not attack God’s inspired infallible words, but show that men are prone to make mistakes. God cannot do wrong or any incomplete thing, men can and do. Let God be true and every man a liar.

I do not either believe in anti-KJV Onlyism as it takes expression at many websites this day. I believe in accurately evaluating KJV Onlyism according to God’s word and sound judgment and actual facts, and leveling well-founded criticism against such misfounded theories/convictions (in some cases clear heresy, sectarianism) as proper is. But I do not believe in devoting entire websites to anti-KJB Onlyism, which in most cases does not present any godly remedy or alternative, just to the contrary in many instances propagating provedly weak and corrupt modern versions and attacking the beloved Textus Receptus, which I believe can be shown is the most complete Greek text of the New Testament today, and which should be used in translation efforts.

I believe it is not wrong to advocate/defend the KJV (or Tyndale or the Geneva Bible for that matter) as opposed to Alexandrian text based modern versions and dynamic equivalence and paraphrase translations, which in quite a few instances are plain perversions of the Bible. But I believe it should be done orderly and in a fitting manner without resorting to dishonesty so as to say King James was a godly Christian when it cannot be proven. If the KJV defender says the KJV is THE Bible for the English speaking people today he should say why it is. If the reason is anything else than that it can be sufficiently proven that the KJV is the most accurate & faithful (with respect to the Hebrew and Greek texts) and/or the only error free English Bible he’d better remain silent If some KJV Onlyist should say to me that the KJV is THE Bible version I should use if I read English I might ask for a ”thou shalt read the KJV” from God’s word or ask that he convince me upon scriptural principles or otherwise by presenting some facts. I might counter and ask ”why not the Geneva Bible of 1560?”, which is reputed as a good Bible translation and one which was loved by Bible believers at least a hundred years after its first appearance. Until I have been shown and proven the KJV is the most accurate and faithful translation of the Masoretic Text and the Received Text I won’t say it is THE only Bible to be used by English speaking people. It might be so, but I cannot honestly say I have this conviction or knowledge at the writing moment. Yet I will neither go against the KJV as a Bible, as one standing on the side of the modern versions which are based on Alexandrian texts. I maintain the KJV is clearly to be preferred to modern Alexandrian versions, which have been proved to contain clear doctrinal errors and thus fail to represent God’s inerrant and infallible words. If I would be given the ultimatum of choosing between the KJV and modern Alexandrian versions I would unhesitatingly choose the KJV because it is based on the right texts and a good and accurate and faithful translation. The others fall way short in many aspects, some more and others less.

I fear much anti-KJV-ism and anti-KJV Onlyism is just a pretense or cover up for unbelief, theological liberalism and modernism. Many such hypocrites deny the absolute inerrancy of the verbally and plenary inspired word of God, as well as denying the fact that each word of the Old and The New Testament is divinely and infallibly inspired. Because of this they advocate dynamic equivalency as well as reject the Received Text in favor of the tampered with Alexandrian text, plus that they deny that God would preserve His words of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. Such manifestly ungodly ones do not stand in nor seek the old paths but are seeking to remove the old landmarks of the fathers, not enduring sound doctrine but heaping to themselves teachers who cater to their itching ear and fleshly heart. If any of God’s own may temporarily have strayed into such apostasy and unbelief I hope to God He will restore them to their senses without delay.

Harald

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
Why is the KJV more trustworthy that other Bibles which translate the very same underlying texts - the NKJV, LITV, MKJV, - in unarchaic, understandable, modern language?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I perfer the KJV over the others listed for several reasons. First, due to the retention of pronouns signifying singluar, plural, objective, and subject usages not found in the other versions. Secondly, verb person can be determined by the endings which cannot be found in the other versions. The KJV has been winnowed for almost 400 years to the point where it is now virtually universally accepted by English speakers as a good and accurate translation. It has become the English standard by which all other bibles are measured (just look at the prefaces to many of the other versions where they compare themselves to the KJV). With the multiplication of versions, it is valuable to me to have one version that everyone uses. I have found that more people will accept the KJV than any other version, so, it is our pulpit bible, our class room bible, and our pew bible.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Harald:
... that one is orthodox (agreeing with the Bible) when it comes to bibliology and related issues. It is most important to not be contradicting God’s holy word with respect to bibliology, and one should strive to be orthodox herein....
...I believe one should strive to express oneself accurately and according to truth and fact, as well as with precision. I believe one should be honest...
... just to the contrary in many instances propagating provedly weak and corrupt modern versions and attacking the beloved Textus Receptus, which I believe can be shown is the most complete Greek text of the New Testament today, and which should be used in translation efforts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I confronted you on a previous post about proving your assertions. Here you say that orthodox doctrine must be biblical then proceed to assert once again that the text (TR)drawn from the least number of mss is the strongest. You say that debate should be orderly, honest, and factual then proceed to call anything non-TR related a corruption without any proof whatsoever.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is not heart-warming to read the posts of some, throwing childish comments at opponents.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is also not heart warming for other posters here to be condescended to.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Even if they were Bible-contradicting heretical pedobaptists it does not automatically mean their translation (or more correctly revision-translation) is a weak one. A positive fact that may be proven is that the translators in the main were learned in the Biblical languages, one might even say they were among the greatest scholars around in that day. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But it is sound judgment to dispense with the oldest mss because they are Alexandrian?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>nor that they were inspired or carried along by the Spirit of God as were the original writers of the Scriptures. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ...nor was Erasmus. I note that your position on the TR has moved from perfect to best.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I believe as e.g. John Gill, that each translation should be tested against the inspired originals, that the Hebrew and the Greek Scriptures is the ultimate source to go to, and to which translations are to be compared, objectively and honestly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ...and if he were alive today, he would probably say that the best representation of the originals should be derived objectively and honestly- comparing the multitude of mss according to their quality in a scholarly way without emotional bias.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And if one should find in the KJV (or any other version) renderings of the original which are clearly erroneous or faulty ... This would not attack God’s inspired infallible words, but show that men are prone to make mistakes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which mistakes do you concede were made on the TR?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I believe it is not wrong to advocate/defend the KJV (or Tyndale or the Geneva Bible for that matter) as opposed to Alexandrian text based modern versions ... which in quite a few instances are plain perversions of the Bible. But I believe it should be done orderly and in a fitting manner <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Do you then think it is wrong to defend the NASB, NKJV, ESV, etc. against their critics?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If some KJV Onlyist should say to me that the KJV is THE Bible version I should use if I read English I might ask for a ”thou shalt read the KJV” from God’s word or ask that he convince me upon scriptural principles or otherwise by presenting some facts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In both cases, I ask the same of you concerning the TR. Do you have scripture saying "thou shalt translate only from the text which will become known as the TR? When I asked you to prove your position by facts, you seemed to be bothered by my request. What are the facts supporting TR-only?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I maintain the KJV is clearly to be preferred to modern Alexandrian versions, which have been proved to contain clear doctrinal errors and thus fail to represent God’s inerrant and infallible words...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why is it superior? Where is this proof you keep talking about without ever getting around to showing?

By the way, even if it were true that there are clear doctrinal errors in all MV's translated from the CT...and it isn't... don't you have this a little out of order? Shouldn't the Bible yield our doctrines rather than our doctrines yielding our Bibles?

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: Scott J ]

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Davey, I'll take a wild guess that you were going to a 'KJVO' church and/or reading the pro-KJVO biased literature (it is virtually all biased, one way or the other).

I'd appreciate it if you would call me either Dave or David.
Actually, you're fairly correct. It's an issue that requires conviction on either side. Those who don't see it as an issue seldom write about it one way or another. So that is a moot point you made.
For the record, at the time I came to the solid conclussion of the reliability of the KJV I was not in chruch at all, except to take my kids occasionally to keep my wife off my back. I thought they all stunk--a view I still hold somewhat to this day.

 

I'm trying to figure out how to quote. If someone can send me a tuitoral or directions to one, I would appreciate it. Thanks

 

Just click on the " " icon above the post. Anything after the the quoted portion will be your own post.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:


David:

Why is the KJV more trustworthy that other Bibles which translate the very same underlying texts - the NKJV, LITV, MKJV, - in unarchaic, understandable, modern language?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


My conviction--and it's just mine and I will not brow beat anyone over the head with it--is the KJ Bible is trustworthy because it has stood as the benchmark since its orginal adoption by those with the authority over such matters as to scriptures.
This is a simplistic answer but here goes. I came to the conclussion of the superiority of the KJ Bible based on God's direction for my life, not through a scholary understanding of greek or rules of intrepretation. In searching for truth, God lead me to the source of truth which is preserved in two infallable containers. One is the Word of God (John 17:17--Sanctify them through thy Word, Thy word is Truth) and the other is the house of God (ITimothy 3:15--But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of the living God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of truth.)Once, by the Grace of God, I was shown from the scriptures that God placed the preservation of His word squarly on the shoulders of the Church of the Living God and was lead to the "faith once delivered to our fathers" and saw that the Bible used by them was the KJ Bible translated from the received text preserved by those who had kept the faith down through the centuries and that it had never been polluted with the handling of Rome, it was easy and imparrative that if I was going to live in and carry on the faith I would use the Word preserved by them.
I hope this makes sense to you. If the fountain head is clean, the water that proceeds from it is pure, but if the fountain head be poluted, anything that comes from it is poluted. God only gives those who are called by His name the authority to mess with the Word of God. It's a spiritual issue, not a scholary one.
I will be glad to discuss this futher if you are interested. To go into complete detail here would take too much space.
God Bless you,
Dave

 

But David,

Assuming all you have said is correct, what prevents the KJV from being updated into modern, understandable, more accurate English?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DavidH:
If the fountain head is clean, the water that proceeds from it is pure, but if the fountain head be poluted, anything that comes from it is poluted. God only gives those who are called by His name the authority to mess with the Word of God. It's a spiritual issue, not a scholary one.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. You have not shown the "fountain head" of the KJV to be pure. Nor have you shown the others to be impure.

2. God ahs not given anyone the authority to mess with the Word of God.

3. The issue about which translations are good and accurate translations is a scholarly issue. One can be spiritual and use any good translation. One can be unspiritual and use the KJV.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
But David,

Assuming all you have said is correct, what prevents the KJV from being updated into modern, understandable, more accurate English?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, this is just one mans opinion but here it is---
From my studies of the issue, and assuming my sources are correct (God knows I'm not a scholar and don't claim to be one) the language used in the KJV is still understandable by the common person. In my opinion, should our english degress to the point that the language of the KJV cannot be understood by the common person we will probably have degenerated to the point of total depravity and any english language bible would be a useless tool.
Could God raise up another country as America and place the responsibility of proclaiming and preserving His Word on the true church there? Of course He could. Then of course He would bring into existance a Bible in that language. I personally don't see this happening, but I'm assuming we are being hypothetical here.
I know we are kindoms of priest and given a volition as individuals but I'd like to ask a question--On who's authority do you base your right to use a particual translation?
I think if a person will start in Genesis and go through Revelation looking for the answer to this question, they would find it and then the issue would come to a close.
Again, these are my opinions, based on the things God has seen fit to show me.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:


1. You have not shown the "fountain head" of the KJV to be pure. Nor have you shown the others to be impure.

2. God ahs not given anyone the authority to mess with the Word of God.

3. The issue about which translations are good and accurate translations is a scholarly issue. One can be spiritual and use any good translation. One can be unspiritual and use the KJV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I beleive this issue will not be settled to everyones wishes in our lifetimes. As long as we are on earth, there will always be disagreements and confussion simply becasue we are humans with wills of our own.
I hope you understand that my conviction about this matter is based on authority to determine and rule, not on a scholary dissertation of languages, sentence structure and verb usages.
The fountain head I refer to is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth, not the translators of the KJV.
Anytime anyone translates, publishes or tinkers in anyway with God's word without the authorty of the Church of The Living God, in my opinion, they are messing with it. I used the word mess to project my feelings toward what those have done who have tried to sell the masses on the need for other translations.
If no one has had the authority to handle God's word, then nothing but the originals in their original form should be used. Obviously they don't exist, but the Church of the living God which is the pillar and ground of truth does, therefore, just as God used those in it (before them, the Jews) to write His Word, (Apostles, Disciples, etc) God uses those in it today to preserve His Word.
Since God only blesses those who are in the Body of Christ where God has placed His name and given authority to carry out His work, only they can ever have any hope of measuring up to the fullness of Christ through maturing into the likeness of Our Lord Jesus Christ and receiving a full reward.
Good, honest, sincere, yearning people use versions other than the KJ Bible and God blesses them simply because they are walking in the light that they have in all truth and honesty, but, if I take into consideration all that God has shown me about doing His will and walking in truth, they will never experience the fulness of reward as those who have obeyed from the heart the pure words given to them by the fathers.
I agree that using the KJV doesn't make a person spiritual. Some of the biggest frauds ever known to man will be standing behind pulpits tomorrow spewing their lies to unsuspecting souls whom they have made captive with their deceit. (Jude 1)
This will probably be my last post on this subject but I may write a post on "how to know if your church speaks the truth of God" in the future.
I know I'm setting myself up to be crucified, but that's OK.
God bless you.
Dave