#3 KJV-Onlyism Commentary

.

Yes, I really think that if everyone on this board would download and read Floyd Jones' work (and I mean starting at page 1), they would get to see a balanced presentation of the subject. You can write to him also for free tapes. His address is in the download.

He makes an excellent case for Origen as the "fountainhead" of the problem. We all know that men can be very evil, and we might guess that Satan would have his best wolves as sheep in position to attack the Word of God. Thus, the conspiracy theory is not far-fetched. In fact, it is the best way to explain most of the variant readings. But, it is not simple. If you've ever heard a bad rumor about you, you know how difficult it can be to trace it back to its source. Moreover, we're not just talking about one man altering one set of manuscripts from whence the editing can be traced. We're talking about him travelling far and wide with a group of obedient stenographers to create a symphony of false manuscripts.

Thank you, Clint, for the article by Daniel B. Wallace ( http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=676 ). I found it to be a balanced presentation with pro-Isaiah leanings, albeit his conclusion on Mark 1:2 was an honest "I don't know." I also appreciate that you seem to take a posture of not charging either the KJV or the MVs with an error in the verse. Obviously, either God intended the name of Isaiah or he did not, but it is commendable not to form an opinion of whether it was an addition or subtraction until more evidence is on the table. I believe a healthy portion of that evidence is in the aforementioned work ( http://floydjones.org/which.pdf ). Right-click and "Save target as..." for later review.

I think Jones' gist was that Origen made a feeble attempt in Mark 1:2 to confuse the issue of the diety of Jesus Christ, matching his M.O. as more clearly seen in other edited verses. But, whether Origen was the main culprit or not, it should be clear that Satan made an effort in those early years to rid the Bible of the notion of Christ's diety. It is far more logical, in my opinion, to say that these were mainly subtractions (as opposed to additions) relative to God's intended words. The Mark 1:2 case, however, appears to have been a clever addition. For a good parallel presentation which mainly focuses on the subtractions, download Jones' "Ripped out of the Bible" ( http://floydjones.org/ebooks2.html ).

Another note on Zechariah: I don't know if the spirit of Jeremiah was in him, but God may have been hinting that he may have supported oral, yet unwritten prophecies. Note, the Zechariah's use of the word "cried" in Zec 1:4 and Zec 7:7. The theory is not worth forming a new denomination over, however.

Here are a couple more case of the use of the word "spoken" in the NT which non-Christians love to try to poke holes in: Matthew 2:23 and 21:4. No comment.

Here's another riddle mentioned earlier: "Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?" (James 4:5). I didn't feel like solving this one, mainly because I had seen the solution previously. I did a Google search for "lusteth to envy" and up popped www.geocities.com/brandplucked/spiritlusts.html in the #1 spot. It seems our buddy, Will, has already written an entire article on the verse. Thanks, Will.

Here's my take on Hebrews 6:4-6 "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened (i.e. born-again)... If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." I'm not a Greek expert (can't you tell?) but as I understand the aorist tense, it basically says "If they shall fall away (and they certainly will)..." We "fall away" every single time we sin by thought or deed. If 100% perfection is not the standard, then what is? 95%? 99%? What constitutes turning your back on God? In God's absolute view, we do it several times daily, perhaps hundreds. But the solution to our continual falling away is not that we need to be born again again. Note the use of the phrase "to renew them again." (For the solution, see the hope of Heb 6:19.) In fact, he is saying it is impossible to be born again again because Christ was crucified only once. It is finished! And, this is the one and only sacrifice (Heb 10:26)!

Verse 6:4 is the first mention of the word "once" in Hebrews, and we all know how important the word "once" is throughout the remainder of Hebrews, and in this immediate context through chapter 10. It is the central theme of chapters 6-10. He uses the word "they" because it was "they" who had this strange doctrine of needing to be born again again ("laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works"), re-baptized, re-annointed by the laying on of hands, etc. as indicated in verses 1-3.

Since there seems to be a bit of friction on the board, allow me to leave everyone with a few edifying words to rejoice in over the weekend. Hey, we're all on the same team here, right?

The word "once" in Hebrews:

Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. (Heb 7:27)

But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: (Heb 9:7)

Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. (Heb 9:12)

For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Heb 9:26)

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: (Heb 9:27)

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. (Heb 9:28)

For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. (Heb 10:2)

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Heb 10:10)

.

 

--------------------------------------------------
That side that does this is the KJVO's with their "if you weren't saved using this version of the Bible, or if you're not using this version of the Bible you're liberal, not living for the Lord, etc" is false and divisive to the core, intentionally or not. There is a side which has begun to fight back, and that is the side of the MV's. And justly so.
--------------------------------------------------


NOT ONE KJBO person since I have been posting on these boards has ever said such a thing, or implied such things as you have indicate above in bold. Liberal? yes. Most definately liberal, but not those other things. Sometimes the truth is divisive, or seems divisive to those who cannot yet see it and fight it. WE are never told to compromise with error, but to separate from it, and warn others of it. This of course will seem divisive to those who are compromising or blinded by the error and condone it.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Blindly repeating what others have said, or stating your own opinion and then posting long quotes of scriptures (which by the way can be validated by other versions, too) doesn't constitute answering a question. The reason the questions are asked over and over is because you refuse to answer with proof and not circular reasoning. Having worked with many people in becoming deprogrammed from cults in the 1970's and 1980's, I've seen the same type of tactics used by them...answering with what they truly believe to be answers, but that are not truly answers just programmed responses. I find this quite common in the KJVO camps with many. Some will actually be able to give honest answers with research from many background sources, as incorrect as they may be. Yet others just spit out the same nonsense over and over. This seems to be the tactic you use.
--------------------------------------------------


Again, you have ignored what I have said to you, as if I am lying to you. You have misrepresented me and many others here, falsely assuming we are programmed by someone else - part of a cult. How insulting is this? I have told you, that what I BELIEVE is what my LORD JESUS CHRIST has revealed to me. What others believe regarding this, that happen to confirm what it is I already knew and have been shown, is mere coincidence. I do not repeat to others what others have said, but what I know to be the truth in my heart.

You continually mock me for posting "long quotes of scripture" that have nothing to do with this issue. You, nor anyone else has not once shown that what I have posted has nothing to do with this issue. You seem to have something against my use of scripture in order to support my point. My points, and my beliefs come from those scriptures, and that is why I post them.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
You have no love in your heart Michelle, or you wouldn't libel so many of your brothers and sisters in Christ. Your posts are not in love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, but a denegration of other believers. Again, hypocritical to say the least, and very much a misrepresentation of the Lord.

--------------------------------------------------


I have not been the one to slander you and others. In fact you have done a great job of doing this to me, and many other fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord, by saying our belief is cultish, and that what we believe is false, and without any scriptural support to such claims. You claim I have not love in my heart? I am not falsely accusing you brother and I am not slandering you as you are doing to us. You have come into this thread with nothing but accusations against me and others, and false ones at that. Who is the one being hypocritical and judgemental and divisive? Please look in the mirror.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Prove it, Michelle. Don't just spout out accusations. Post your proof. The KJV is far from inerrant, and previous posts in this thread itself prove that. Even the KJV translators did not believe that.

AVL1984
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The proof has been given to you all many times, in many places, by many people. You just refuse to acknowledge it. Your denial of it, doesn't make it not proof. It may not be proof to you, but it is proof and very obvious to those who have eyes to see it. If it weren't we wouldn't then have reason for these debates, now would we?


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
I will limit my time on you and your circular reasoning and insults and continuosly accusing people of slapping a label on people, when it is you yourself that does such...Remember "if you would understand, you would understand".

AVL1984
--------------------------------------------------

And what label have I placed on you and others? Did you not just insinuate, yet again, and insult ME, with a quote that I never quoted, but to which many have twisted what I have said, to misreprent what I said, to present me falsely as a gnostic? And I am to not take this as slanderous?

You came into this thread not discussing this issue or topic, but personally attacking me and others, and our belief. I am merely defending myself and others from your false accusations of us. You came in here doing the attacking brother!


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Did you know that Jesus Christ used a variety of translations of the Old Testament in the quotes we have of His?

Look at the last phrase in Mark 4:12, "they should be forgiven." We have here a direct quote from Christ that is not found in the Old Testament as we have it. The proto-Masoretic Old Testament of Isaiah 6:10 translates, "healed."

The evidence of this change is right there in the KJV. It is not part of a "conspiracy" to "corrupt" the word of God as many claim of differing versions and it is a direct quote from Jesus.

That is just one example. There are many other New Testament quotes that align more with the Septuagint or the Aramaic than the Masoretic. Do you feel Jesus was in error by not staying with the text upon which the KJV translators based their rendering? Or should the KJV translators have changed their translation to match the words of Christ? Or did they, perhaps, recognize that it was not that much of an issue?
--------------------------------------------------


This is speculation at best.


The FACT of this issue is that the texts that underline the mv's show evidence of corruption of God's word of truth, whether it was purposely done or not, it is still corrupt, and should be avoided, and not at all condoned or comprised on by those who love the words of God.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle,

Here is a widely known quote from a well-known KJVO:

Jack Hyles, from Ememies of Soul Winning (1993):

"Suppose corruptible seed is used. Can a person then be born again from it? You answer that question. According to I Peter 1:23 we read, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed...." Then, if corruptible seed is used, one cannot be born again. I have a conviction as deep as my soul that every English-speaking person who has ever been born again was born of incorruptible seed; that is, the King James Bible. Does that mean that if someone goes soul winning and takes a false Bible that the person who receives Christ is not saved? I believe with all of my soul that the incorruptible seed must have been used somewhere in that person's life. If all a person has ever read is the Revised Standard Version, he cannot be born again, because corruptible seed is used, and I Peter 1:23 is very plain to tell us that a person cannot be born again of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible seed, and it explains that that incorruptible seed is the Word of God, and it explains that it liveth and abideth forever."

----------------------------------------------

As for your claim above that no KJVO on this board has ever implied that MV users are liberal or use "liberal Bibles", here is a quote of yours, written as a reply to me on April 14th, 2004:

Either you have a short memory, or else you just told an outright falsehood.

 

--------------------------------------------------
As for your claim above that no KJVO on this board has ever implied that MV users are liberal or use "liberal Bibles", here is a quote of yours, written as a reply to me on April 14th, 2004:
--------------------------------------------------

I guess you also failed to comprehend what was written. Please read what I wrote/said again:


--------------------------------------------------
NOT ONE KJBO person since I have been posting on these boards has ever said such a thing, or implied such things as you have indicate above in bold . Liberal? yes. Most definately liberal, but not those other things. Sometimes the truth is divisive, or seems divisive to those who cannot yet see it and fight it. WE are never told to compromise with error, but to separate from it, and warn others of it. This of course will seem divisive to those who are compromising or blinded by the error and condone it.
--------------------------------------------------


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------

That Isaiah 6:10 and Mark 4:12 differ within the same Book (the KJV) is not speculation. It is a provable fact that anyone who can turn pages and find specific verses can verify.
--------------------------------------------------

I didn't mean, nor imply THIS was speculation. I said and meant the REASONS FOR IT are SPECULATION.
Sorry, I thought this was pretty clear.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Nope, I didn't misunderstand a single thing you wrote. You said that MV users use "liberal Bibles" and have a liberal faith:

Are you really trying to now claim that you didn't mean this to refer to liberal religious views? Do tell us then what "liberal views" you were refering to here? It's entirely obvious what your intention was.

Don't like being proven (by your own words) wrong, do you?

 

--------------------------------------------------
Notice in Luke 4:21 that Jesus Himself deems what He read "Scripture" that has been fulfilled.
--------------------------------------------------

Again, this is speculation based upon the presumption that Jesus Christ was quoting from something other than the Hebrew scriptures. No where in that text, does it say He wasn't. Jesus Christ said that one jot, nor one tittle would pass away until all be fulfilled. Jesus Christ was referring to something pertaining to only the Hebrew texts of the Old Testament scriptures, and validates the Hebrew texts. Another important aspect overlooked by many, is that the Apostles were given God's words to record the New Testament scriptures in Greek, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit as God breathed to them. Assuming this proves the septuigent, and that Jesus Christ himself in these type of passages is condoning versions that have differences in them, IS SPECULATION at best, and in direct CONTRADICTION of scripture truth themselves.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
As for your claim above that no KJVO on this board has ever implied that MV users are liberal or use "liberal Bibles", here is a quote of yours, written as a reply to me on April 14th, 2004:
--------------------------------------------------

I guess you also failed to comprehend what was written. Please read what I wrote/said again:


--------------------------------------------------
NOT ONE KJBO person since I have been posting on these boards has ever said such a thing, or implied such things as you have indicate above in bold . Liberal? yes. Most definately liberal, but not those other things. Sometimes the truth is divisive, or seems divisive to those who cannot yet see it and fight it. WE are never told to compromise with error, but to separate from it, and warn others of it. This of course will seem divisive to those who are compromising or blinded by the error and condone it.
--------------------------------------------------


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope, I didn't misunderstand a single thing you wrote. You said that MV users use "liberal Bibles" and have a liberal faith:
--------------------------------------------------


Larry, yes you did MISUNDERSTAND! I figured that you would not apologize whatsoever for your false accusation and misrepresentation of what I said. I figured as much, as you all think you NEVER DO ANYTHING or SAY ANYTHING WRONG. This is what I said and I will make it even clearer for you:


--------------------------------------------------
Liberal? yes. Most definately liberal, but not those other things
--------------------------------------------------


Now do you see where you are falsely accusing me brother? Or are you still going to deny it? Do you do this because you have some weird agenda to prove that I am a liar? Why? Why does it seem that so many continually try to prove us to be lying? How would you like this done to you?


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

11 pages on this thread, and God knows how many threads total. And yet, though I have asked dozens of times, no one has ever been able to give me scriptural support for adhering to single-translation-onlyism doctrine.

I'm still waiting, with an objective mind and heart in hand.

 

True Believers <G> will say that the KJV is more accurate than the origionals because . . . the Holy Spirit updated the data(?).

 

We agree more than I thought. this is exactly how I view this issue as well. Of course I am liberal <something>

 

michelle said "Again, this is speculation based upon the presumption that Jesus Christ was quoting from something other than the Hebrew scriptures."

No. He WAS quoting from the Hebrew scriptures! That's the point! The scriptures he was reading from differ from what the KJV has in that same passage. This is not discussed to prove the Septuagint or anything, but only to prove that what the KJV calls "scripture" and was "written" is different than what the KJV itself has. The KJV itself disproves onlyism.