Why I am KJV only

It was only a small remnant of Israel that would accept the truth back then and now, and I guess the same holds true with the church. The majority calls out for a new modern way, a new modern Bible, but the few remanant hold to the true and infailible Word of God, the KJV!!!
Ezekiel 34:19
And as for my flock, they eat that which ye have trodden with your feet; and they drink that which ye have fouled with your feet.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Larry, you are completely over your head. You are discussing an entirely different subject than the one we are discussing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or perhaps you are ... since you evidently didn't understand when Chick posted the original comments and asked for debate. I had no problem understanding Chick's point and I tend to believe you probably didn't either.

You wanted to know what difference it makes. I attempted to explain to you that it makes a huge difference, not for translation, but for textual choices and claims being made for certain texts.

The issue is simple: Are these twenty words with no Greek manuscript support accurate or are they not?

What part of the above post did you not understand? I will clarify for you.

 

After reading post after post of those opposed to the KJV it is claear that Satan has succeeded with his revisions.

Let's go right to the heart of the matter and quit beating around the bush.

He has succeeded with confusion.

He has succeeded in watering down the truth.

It is vital that Christ was virgin born. For him to be our sacrifice for sin he had to be sinless, a man born of man would have a sinful nature; therefore, not capable of a sin offering.

Here is the reason for the revisions:

They deny the virgin birth

They deny the deity of Christ

He hasn't succeeded in dividing believers for I strongly question if those who are adamant in rejecting the KJV are really born again, for to be born again one must know the truth and they are rejecting the truth God has given us.

Ernie

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Or perhaps you are ... since you evidently didn't understand when Chick posted the original comments and asked for debate. I had no problem understanding Chick's point and I tend to believe you probably didn't either.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I never claimed I did not understand Chick's question. I questioned why the answer to Chick's question would make any difference. My question has not yet been answered. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You wanted to know what difference it makes. I attempted to explain to you that it makes a huge difference, not for translation, but for textual choices and claims being made for certain texts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As I said before, you are in over your head. I have not made any claims regarding textual choices or made any claims for any texts. Nor do I believe in any sort of "perfect preservation" in any one text or family of texts. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The issue is simple: Are these twenty words with no Greek manuscript support accurate or are they not?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And my question still stands. What difference does it make? What doctrines does it effect? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What part of the above post did you not understand? I will clarify for you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I understood all of it. It is you who seems not to understand the conversation.

[ September 23, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I never claimed I did not understand Chick's question. I questioned why the answer to Chick's question would make any difference. My question has not yet been answered. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chick’s question makes a difference for those who want to claim “superior text” status for the TR. These passages call into question how a “superior text” can have no Greek manuscript support. I told you what difference I believe it makes. Do we admit words into the text of Scripture because they are not doctrinally wrong and make no practical difference or do we admit them because there is adequate (even if less than conclusive) proof that they were a part of the original writing? In this case, it seems that you are arguing the former (that we should admit them because they are not doctrinally wrong and make no practical difference) while I and Chick are arguing the latter (that they should be excluded because there is not adequate proof of their authenticity). I do not submit that they are doctrinally wrong; I submit that they are not what John wrote and therefore should not be construed as authentic to Revelation.

I realize, and have admitted many times if you remember, that you are not in the camp with the typical KJVOnlyites. I appreciate a voice of reason on the other side of the argument; as you well know, they are often few and far between. I do believe there are some inconsistencies in your position but there are some in all positions and I do not have a problem with that...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As I said before, you are in over your head. I have not made any claims regarding textual choices or made any claims for any texts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not in over my head. I know exactly what I am saying even if I do not accurately communicate it without confusion. You have repeatedly made claims that the Byzantine text type is superior to the Alexandrian and Western. That is both a claim about a textual choice and a claim for a text. Are you backing away from those statements? I have no problem with either. I disagree but there are legitimate reasons to hold them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Nor do I believe in any sort of "perfect preservation" in any one text or family of texts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said you did. Again, I have repeatedly and in many threads distinguished between your position and the others. I am here questioning your basis for textual variants.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The issue is simple: Are these twenty words with no Greek manuscript support accurate or are they not?

And my question still stands. What difference does it make? What doctrines does it effect?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I previously said (in the post to which you responded), it makes no great practical difference but it does make a great philosophical difference about textual choices and the superiority of texts. If these are indeed spurious words (as every Greek text would indicate) then can we not change them simply because Erasmus unintentionally mistranslated them?

To my understanding, (and I don’t have my MajText with me right now at home to verify this), the Majority text (Hodges and Farstad) do not read with the TR on this. Again, I could be wrong and if you have that info handy before I get back to my office please correct me.

Am I right that you are a proponent of the Majority Text type as a whole rather than the more specific and narrowly supported (and different) TR? If so (and please correct and forgive me if I am wrong), do you side with the Majority Text rather than the TR/KJV on this?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It is you who seems not to understand the conversation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do I not understand? I think we are talking about whether these twenty instances are authentic, not whether they are doctrinally correct. If you are talking about something else, then let Chick and me know.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They deny the virgin birth<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where??

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They deny the deity of Christ<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where??

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>He hasn't succeeded in dividing believers for I strongly question if those who are adamant in rejecting the KJV are really born again, for to be born again one must know the truth and they are rejecting the truth God has given us. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you have read anything here, you would know that no one here is rejecting the KJV or its truth. Rather far to the contrary, we are affirming the full truth of teh KJV. Please represent your opponents correctly. It is a lie not to.

 

Why do you then compare your modern versions to the KJV? BECAUSE IT IS THE WORD OF GOD!

"For man shall not live on bread alone, but by EVERY WORD out of the mouth of God."
There has to be a perfect Word of God. And satan always tries to imatate God. And that is what he has done with these other versions. If he can get you to change one word he can cause doubt. he just twisted God's holy Word around when he decieved Eve and that is what he is doing to you.

Ezekiel 34:1,2
1And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 2Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks? ...
Ezekiel 34:17-19
17And as for you, O my flock, thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I judge between cattle and cattle, between the rams and the he goats. 18Seemeth it a small thing unto you to have eaten up the good pasture, but ye must tread down with your feet the residue of your pastures? and to have drunk of the deep waters, but ye must foul the residue with your feet? 19And as for my flock, they eat that which ye have trodden with your feet; and they drink that which ye have fouled with your feet.

Why drink from a cistren when you can drink from the well?
I will quote Jack Hyles and say "Keep your stinking feet out of my drinking water."

 

Ernie Brazee said:

After reading post after post of those opposed to the KJV it is claear that Satan has succeeded with his revisions.

Yes, he's got us reading our Bibles! What a dastardly plan! Muhuhuahahahahaha!

Let's go right to the heart of the matter and quit beating around the bush.

He has succeeded with confusion.

No one else is actually confused by multiple English Bibles, but I have noticed that KJV-only advocates are an easily confused bunch, as they are the ones who complain about this so often.

He has succeeded in watering down the truth.

It's worse than that. He's got a whole bunch of KJV-onlyists ignoring it entirely! KJV-onlyism is the theological equivalent of hands over ears, screaming "I CAN'T HEAR YOU! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LALALALAA!"

Now we get into the observational humour:

Here is the reason for the revisions:

They deny the virgin birth

Stop, you're killing me!

They deny the deity of Christ

Too funny!

He hasn't succeeded in dividing believers for I strongly question if those who are adamant in rejecting the KJV are really born again, for to be born again one must know the truth and they are rejecting the truth God has given us.

Aww gee, if I laugh any harder I'm going to wet myself.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
After reading post after post of those opposed to the KJV it is claear that Satan has succeeded with his revisions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which revisions are you refering to? BTW, most of the MV's are not revisions of the KJV.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Let's go right to the heart of the matter and quit beating around the bush.

He has succeeded with confusion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are correct. KJVO's are confused and are creating alot of unnecessary confusion as well as contention within the body of Christ.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>He has succeeded in watering down the truth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yet another true statement. KJVO's start with the truth that the KJV is a great translation of the Bible that God has wonderfully used then add falsehoods such as it being the God ordained version for English speaking people, perfect, equivalent to the originals, better than the originals, etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is vital that Christ was virgin born.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True. However, this belief can be derived from MV's. It is not dependent on the KJV and in fact the belief pre-dates the KJV by 1600+ years.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Here is the reason for the revisions:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Whose reason? If you think it is the reason of the MV translators then you are simply wrong. If you think it is Satan's reason then what proof do you have?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They deny the virgin birth
They deny the deity of Christ<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

False...and...false. In fact while discussing the deity of Christ with a JW, I found the NASB to be far more useful than the KJV.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>He hasn't succeeded in dividing believers for I strongly question if those who are adamant in rejecting the KJV are really born again, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...so you are adding KJVOnlyism to the requirements for salvation. Please cite your scripture support.

I have never known a professing born again Christian to reject the KJV. Acceptance or even preference of MV's is not equivalent to rejection of the KJV.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>for to be born again one must know the truth and they are rejecting the truth God has given us. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which truth? The gospel as communicated by the KJV but also the NASB, NKJV, LITV, etc. or your supposed KJVO Bible doctrine? If holding sound Bible doctrine separates true believers from false sheep then KJVO's have much more to worry about than those who reject their false doctrine.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:
Why do you then compare your modern versions to the KJV? BECAUSE IT IS THE WORD OF GOD!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are wrong on this one. We are not comparing MVs to the KJV. It is the KJV Only side that is doing that. They are starting from a false premise. The KJV is the Word of God but it is not the only word of God. Any translation is the Word of God if it is faithful to the original language texts. In that, a number of versions can be said to be the Word of God.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There has to be a perfect Word of God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this your opinion or did God say this?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If he can get you to change one word he can cause doubt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't speak for others but the only doubt I have is when I read the KJV. I doubt whether the words they chose then accurately convey the meanign 400 years later. I always double check by referencing another good translation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ezekiel 34:1,2
1And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 2Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks? ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you really think this and your second passage is talking about the KJV since Ezekiel predates 1600 by ... oh ... about 2200 years or so. You have ripped this Scripture from its context and twisted it to fit your idea.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I will quote Jack Hyles and say "Keep your stinking feet out of my drinking water."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would not quote Jack Hyles too much. He is not exactly a reputable source.

[ September 24, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Wow, It's been six months since I visited the no man's land here between the trenches and I have to say, NOTHING HAS CHANGED

I love it, still seeing that ridiculous list of verses left out of the NIV and added to the KJV, Someone still using JACK HYLES as a reference for any type of truth, Theological or otherwise, The condescending KJV-centric view of the most vocal minority still not allowing any intelligent discussion, and NO historical, textual or Biblical support. (No I am sorry, the verses stating the sufficiency of the Bible are not Proof of the KJV's superiority, sorry to burst your bubble)

See you in Six months, let me know if you solve this issue before than, I want to know when it will be safe to carry my NIV without a cover on it!

 

Joey M said:

I will quote Jack Hyles and say "Keep your stinking feet out of my drinking water."

"Hammond has spoken; the case is closed." - St. Augustine

 

It's been a couple of months since I posted, and some things never change. Here we are, claiming to be christians and servants of a Holy God, bickering amongst ourselves about none other than the "inspired" Word of God. Those that are reading the posts, who have never accepted Jesus in their hearts and come to a knowledge of saving grace, will probably be deterred in doing so because of the useless rhetoric they read here.

The old addage, "...some lead, some follow and some get out of the way..." should have an addition "... and some argue."

The possibilities for a board like this to enhance the brethren is being turned into everyone's private soap box to argue opinions and validate one's beliefs. YEAH RIGHT, we are edifying each other; and if you feel this isn't the purpose of this board, maybe you should read your bible and find out the purpose of a christian; whichever version you choose to defend and read.

Spam {Pastor Paul}

P.S. Proud JCO servant. {JCO = Jesus Christ Only and user of the King James Version}

Matthew 6: 33

 

...and to Spam'spost I say AMEN and hope this will be the end of a discussion that is going nowhere. There are some who refuse to accept simple reason.

Use what version that you will, you have to answer to God, if you believe strongly enough to face God with your decision, then why argue.

Ernie

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SPAM:
It's been a couple of months since I posted, and some things never change. Here we are, claiming to be christians and servants of a Holy God, bickering amongst ourselves about none other than the "inspired" Word of God. Those that are reading the posts, who have never accepted Jesus in their hearts and come to a knowledge of saving grace, will probably be deterred in doing so because of the useless rhetoric they read here.

The old addage, "...some lead, some follow and some get out of the way..." should have an addition "... and some argue."

The possibilities for a board like this to enhance the brethren is being turned into everyone's private soap box to argue opinions and validate one's beliefs. YEAH RIGHT, we are edifying each other; and if you feel this isn't the purpose of this board, maybe you should read your bible and find out the purpose of a christian; whichever version you choose to defend and read.

Spam {Pastor Paul}

P.S. Proud JCO servant. {JCO = Jesus Christ Only and user of the King James Version}

Matthew 6: 33<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

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


If you have read anything here, you would know that no one here is rejecting the KJV or its truth. Rather far to the contrary, we are affirming the full truth of teh KJV. Please represent your opponents correctly. It is a lie not to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AMEN Pastor Larry, I have no idea where these people get these incredible accusations. (Well, in a way I do, but--talk about twisting words.) If they use the word Lord instead of Christ -- it means that the word "Christ" was LEFT OUT. They don't mention the replacement. This is not a good example, but you get my point.
Thanks for standing up to this.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:

Here is the reason for the revisions:

They deny the virgin birth

They deny the deity of Christ

He hasn't succeeded in dividing believers for I strongly question if those who are adamant in rejecting the KJV are really born again, for to be born again one must know the truth and they are rejecting the truth God has given us.

Ernie<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ernie, let us assume for a minute that you are right. . . would you PLEASE, explain your back-up for your venomous statements
against the mainstream translations? (assuming you are referring to the NIV, NASB, etc.) Don't you worry just a little bit that if YOU are wrong that you are telling people that God's word is from Satan?
I am seriously wanting to hear your specific arguments for your overviews previously posted.
Thank you,

 

&lt; He hasn't succeeded in dividing believers for I strongly question if those who are adamant in rejecting the KJV are really born again, for to be born again one must know the truth and they are rejecting the truth God has given us. &gt;

[ed] people were "really" born again for 16 centuries before your Anglican Bible was ramrodded by the king who claimed he "sits on the very throne of God."

[ September 25, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

Ernie Brazee said, "There are some who refuse to accept simple reason."

Let's see now . . . that would be: Ernie Brazee, BroSmith, Joey M, and other KJVonlyers. If anyone is staring blindly into sound reason, logic, evidence, it's you guys. You are absolutely cultic in your attitudes and behavior!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:
Anglican Bible was ramrodded by the king who claimed he "sits on the very throne of God."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Either King James was right or the Bible is a lie. Proverbs 8:15 By me kings reign, and princes decree justice.

Of course, you have to have some knowledge of the English language to understand that "of God" does not mean "belonging to God" by "by the grace of God." It was "of God" that James sat on the throne of England. Just as Proverbs 8;15 says.

[ September 25, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

Ernie Brazee said:

...and to Spam'spost I say AMEN and hope this will be the end of a discussion that is going nowhere. There are some who refuse to accept simple reason.

I'd have no problem accepting simple reason, if the KJV camp would actually employ simple reason, instead of their usual stock in trade of copious unreason.