KJVO Authority

Good question, scripture does not say word for word not to smoke,but you know (I hope) that it is wrong according to 1st Cor 3:16 to do such things.Now,according to your logic,if it ain't in the Bible it don't count,right??? </font>[/QUOTE]1 Cor 3:16 does not teach anything about smoking. The "you" there is plural and it is referring to the body of believers corporately as being a temple of God. The verse you would be better suited to use is 1 Cor 6:19-20 where it is referred to individuals. Your KJV is the only version that still takes note of these singular and plural pronouns. You of all people should not have missed that.

But you missed the bigger point, as Scott pointed out. Smoking is wrong based on biblical principles that are clearly defined in Scripture. KJVonlyism is clearly refuted in Scripture and it is furthemore inconsistent with the biblical doctrine of revelation.

So you missed the boat on two counts ...

 

[The KJV] is easy to read (it is on a 5th grade reading level

I just asked my SEVENTH grader what "we do you to wit" means. She doesn't have a clue. Also, she says "to let" means "to allow", and "to suffer" means "to be in a state of pain". Now, the KJV says that "to let" means "to hinder", and "to suffer" means "to give permission".

Now, when the KJV says "Suffer the little children", while the NIV says "let the little children", it become clear to me which one is more apt to be understood by a fifth grader.

BTW - before you rag on my daughter's school, she attends a private Baptist-affiliated Christian school.

 

N4C said: [I am still disappointed. Why is a KJVO not putting his thinking above God when he chooses the KJV and yet a MVer does when he chooses a MV?]. I believe this, as does every KJBO because of the very reason Timothy stated at the beginning of this post. With the thousands of differences in versions today stemming from corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts, Godless textual criticism, and blind scriptural interpretation, it is easy for someone to justify their position based on a corrupt MV. For example, the NIV uses the term “homosexual offenders” (1 Corinthians 6:9). Now I have seen some of the slanderous propaganda thrown about regarding King James, but I say the proof is in the pudding. The NIV leavens the word of God here making those that offend homosexuals as the ones who are wrong. The KJB calls them rightly as “abusers of themselves with mankind”. A sodomite is a nasty abuser of himself with his fellow man. This particular blasphemous version (the NIV) promoted by Pastor Larry and others is not fit to even be called a Bible. It could certainly be used by the sodomite churches to justify their position. This is a clear example of a translation committee putting their “mind” above God. If you follow this nonsense, then certainly the scripture is fulfilled that when the blind follow the blind, they both fall in the ditch.

There are literally thousands of verses that differ substantively in MVs from the KJB. Which is correct? Before 1973, when the NIV came out, there had only been one Bible for all practical purposes for 362 years. There was not any issue of variant readings. There certainly were not Bibles that taught you to doubt their reading as the MVs do today. Imagine that, a Bible that teaches you to doubt some of its readings? Who benefits when God’s word is doubted? Don’t people have enough trouble believing it without it calling itself into question? Does it not encourage you to set your mind up as the final authority by doing this? Sure the KJV had marginal readings briefly after its origin, but anyone who has studied this realizes that these reading do not call large sections of scripture into question, nor do they cast doubt on their authenticity. By definition the MVs are the source of this setting up your mind as the final authority. My faith is in the fact that God preserved His word in a version that he has blessed for 400 years.

You said: [But I must ask, how does one come to the conclusion that the KJV is the only Word of God without using his mind?]. The obvious answer was that this problem was created by MVs. No one had to do this for nearly 400 years. Someone who does not accept the KJB as God’s preserved word must set his mind up as the final authority by simple necessity. With thousands of variant readings it is an absolute necessity to stay afloat in the sea of questions and doubt brought about by MVs.

You said: [Why is it okay to say a MVer's final authority is his mind when a KJVO makes a decision, just like the MVer?]. The decision they make is a final one, one guided by the Holy Spirit. The decision is to quite using your mind as your final authority when versions disagree. This is not using your mind to critically analyze the flood of doubt cast on God’s word by MVs, it is using it to make the decision to place your faith in God’s preserved word, and not the sea of doubt created by modern apostate scholars that are all puffed up with themselves. Anyone who accepts MVs as valid by default must set their mind up as the final authority when determining God’s will in matters of faith and practice.

 

Scott said: [KJVOnlyism is likewise wrong because it violates biblical principles].
Larry said: [KJVonlyism is clearly refuted in Scripture].

Hogwash.

 

Larry said: [1 Cor 3:16 does not teach anything about smoking. The "you" there is plural and it is referring to the body of believers corporately as being a temple of God. Your KJV is the only version that still takes note of these singular and plural pronouns.]

You missed this one sorely Larry. Paul is talking to the believers at Corinth about their individual sins and certain recompense in this life and at the judgment seat of Christ.

1 Corinthians 3:11-19
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

It seems that God has taken you in your own craftiness. Know ye (MVrs) not that the Spirit of God dwelleth in YOU? If any MAN defile the temple of God, HIM shall God destroy. The body of believers corporately is *not* the temple referred to here, obviously. You did get one thing right, the KJB is the only version that correctly translates singular and plural pronouns. This is immensely important for a correct understanding of thousands of passages in the Bible, and an element completely foreign to the new versions.

 

How about "homosexual offenders" John? How does you seventh grader deal with that one?

 

So when Scripture calls things other than the KJV the Word of God, it is lying?? Surely you jest ... Are you thinking here?? Apparently not from your recent posts.

Consider your next post on 1 Cor 3. I can only think that you didn't read the chapter. Paul is talking about building teh church and the foundation that it is built on. He has talked about the metaphors for building such as buildings and farming. His point is how people got saved (e.g., I am of Paul, Apollos, Peter, etc.). He is saying that those are wrong foundations for building the church. The only right foundation is Jesus Christ. But when someone (him-singular) destroys the church (you-plural), it is the temple of God they are destroying. This most emphatically does not refer to individuals. It refers to teh corporate body and the effect that an individual who builds wrongly may have on it. What you have said comes out of 1 Cor 6 and I agree. But that has nothing to with the issue of translations and it has nothing to do with 1 Cor 3.

Then you move on to 2 Cor 6 and try to make a point that is clearly not the point of the passage. The homosexuals are the offenders. You really reached here to try to make it be the homosexuals who are being offended. The passage is clear. If you were not trying to make ridiculous charges, you would have never said something like this. You know better. BTW, do you know how many times the KJV uses hte word homosexual?? not one. Does that mean that it approves of homosexuality? It must by your line of reasoning.

You need to study these passage before you come back with these caustic, ridiculous comments that are not based on truth.

[ March 28, 2003, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Ah yes, what a refutation of the charges.

Neal </font>[/QUOTE]I'm glad you enjoyed it. It is certainly on your level. I try to provide refutation commensurate with the facts offered for the argument.

 

You said: [There is no reason given other than you THINK that everything else is a perversion. Please notice, you are using your mind, so that must be your final authority. When the KJV came out in 1611 there were those who thought it was wrong as you do MVs. Again I ask, why is your use of your brain justified whereas I can't use my brain without being accused of putting myself above God?].

At least one of us is using our mind, I’m glad you pointed out it is I.

You said: [That is the silliest thing I think I have ever heard in a Bible version debate. Do you really believe that is what the NIV is saying? What is a person called if he commits an offense? An OFFENDER. Thus, it is clear that the NIV is talking of those who commit homosexual acts, not the ones who offend them. ].

No, the silliest thing is the nature of your thread. The NIV has changed this verse to only apply to male prostitutes and homosexual offenders (gay rapists). Only those who seek to justify such foolishness cannot see this.

You said: [No they can't, because that is a completely wrong reading and understanding. I can't believe you actually believe that is what it is saying.].

I do, believe it.

You said: [That is not really true. What of the ASV, RV, and RSV just to name a few?].

I guess you are so simple you do not consider how widely something is distributed. I know I should be more specific for those who can’t understand the 4th grade English of the KJB.

You said: [Then don't use the KJV. My friend, you must live in a bubble. The KJV had all kinds of marginal notes giving alternate readings. So your KJV has failed your own test you have set up.].

No bubble here dude, you just haven’t checked out the facts. Alternate readings yes, I mentioned that, how about marginal notes that cast doubt on whole sections of scripture like the woman taken in adultery in John? If I wanted to recommend a Bible to help someone doubt God’s word it would be a MV for sure.

You said: [Again, you have made a decision using your mind to place your faith in this view. You have to think about the whole issue and make a choice. You have decided to trust in the KJV alone and all others are wrong. Thus you have used your own final authority to arrive at this, your mind.].

You guys just can’t get it can you. I do not have a dozen renderings to choose from, you do. Get it. I doubt it.

You said: [Actually, the obvious answer is that the KJVO crowd has created this problem.].

This is so sickening. Make thousands of changes to the Bible and then say the KJBO crowd created the problem. Brilliant. Well I’ve got news for you, your belief that has literally butchered the word of God in the 20th century stinks to high heaven (I mean that literally). These thousands of changes are an obvious perversion, and you are part of the problem.

You said: [That statement is at the heart of my whole point. Your assessment is absolutely subjective. The same argument can be made by someone who uses the NKJV, NASB, NIV, or ESV. So why is your subjective opinion any more valid than someone else who feels the Holy Spirit led them to make a final choice on the NASB?].

Most all MVs are from a different family of texts, come from a faithless form of textual criticism, and very subjective forms of interpretation. The KJV is completely unique and is the antithesis of this. It is clear both views are not correct. Only one view is right. See you at the judgment seat.

You said: [Ahh....one of the major problems with Christianity today. No wonder the world laughs at us and calls us stupid, unlearned people. News Flash: You don't have to stop thinking once you become a Christian!! ].

God chose the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. People come to Christ by the hearing of his word, not some of your intellectual mumbo jumbo. If you think your wise in this word you had better become a fool that you might become wise.


You said: [Ah, yes. Rather than engage the evidence and facts, simply turn around and stick your fingers in your ears and maybe it will all go away. Do you follow Berkeley's philosophy? If you don't perceive something then it really doesn't exist?].

That’s exactly what you want isn’t it, the facts, but you want your facts. Everybody has got facts darling. I’m not sticking my fingers in my ears, I call a spade a spade. These modern versions with all their variant readings are of the Devil, and those who cannot see this are deceived by Satan. Simple. Or is this something you do not percieve?

You said: [Could you please list all of these scholars that you know personally and are friends with them? Since you have such a grasp on who they really are I assume that you know them rather well personally.].

By their fruits ye shall know them. I guess you would have asked Christ if he knew them personally?

You said: [You just don't get it, do you? The exact same argument can be leveled against the KJVO crowd. Why is your side more valid than the other side. This is what I am getting at. I don't care about your opinions, I want to know on what authority I should accept your opinion over someone who has decided on the NASB.].

You’re the one who doesn’t understand simple English. If you have 50 MVs with variant readings, you must decide which is right. Get it. I read the KJB and believe it. Unlike many I have compared and decided not to make my mind the final authority. Yes, I know, I used my mind to make this decision, yes I get your subtle twist to distort the truth. I will say it again, if you have 50 MVs with variant readings, your mind is your own final authority as to which is correct. That is the sense in which this assertion was originally made by the KJBOs. I can tell you what authority you should use, your own. You are your own authority aren’t you. I cannot prove my position, and you sure can’t prove yours. We will know when we meet God, for He is the final authority.

 

It's nice to see I struck a nerve Neal. You have obviously run out of anything meaningful to say (didn't stop you from posting though). I think you get it now. Polyversionist Mind = Final Authority. Or did Christ use his mind when He argued with Satan? Did Paul use his mind when he gave NT commandments? How about that one about women keeping silent in the church? You come on with all this stuff about KJBO not being able to address your question. No KJBOs addressed it because it is nonsense. I take by faith God preserved his words. I take by faith I can know his preserved words by their fruits. That’s scripture. When thousands of material changes are made after hundreds of years of God's approval, do you really think the discovery of a couple of unused, corrupt manuscripts, and the modern science based approach to textual criticism is going to have me waste time using my mind questioning what is God's word and what is not? No, you can waste your mind on that rot. I am going to put my faith in something other than archaeological and textual criticism sciences. This is the key difference Neal, your approach is to use your mind to determine the correct rendering when passages differ, my approach is to place faith in the Bible, the one God preserved for centuries and used to bring forth much fruit. The very idea that KJBO’s are the problem. Please, get off your high horse. Of course KJBOs use their minds to make decisions, every man who ever walked on earth did. But not everyone continues to use his mind as his final authority. Note this Neal, this is key for your understanding. NOT EVERYONE CONTINUES TO USE HIS MIND AS HIS FINAL AUTHORITY. Some take a faith based approach and believe what God said in His word about preservation, you know, the preservation of words, not general messages. This involves superceding the rational thought of the mind. You know what I mean don’t you?? Rational thoughts like: “there are so many differences in extant manuscripts, how could anyone believe, based on the facts, that God preserved his literal words miraculously”? See how that defies the rational mind. Placing your faith in the literal preservation of God’s literal words is a superceding of the mind. Yes it is a decision. Yes decisions are made by the mind. Yes, yes, we all get that. The core issue here is your continued reliance on your mind to decide issues regarding scripture that God has already told us to take by faith, and told us to make spiritual judgments about concerning fruit. When I first read the subject of this thread I thought how stupid. Then you kept on taunting KJBOs. I thought is this guy really serious. Listen, if you haven’t got it yet, after all this discussion, you’ll never get it. But you know, I believe you get it, you’re just being willingly ignorant for argument purposes aren’t you.

 

Where in the Bible does it say that "faith" is something existing apart from the thing called "mind"? "Faith" does not exist in a vacuum, does it? It strikes me that what some call "faith" is really nothing but a similitude of what New Agers and Word of Faithers call positive thinking. If the KJV does contain even ONE imperfect rendering of either the Greek text or the Hebrew text underlying it the argument of the KJV Only proponents collapses. And the KJV does contain a certain amount of renderings which are not perfect in the sense of beyond improvement. Does this make the KJV something less than "the word of God"? I would not say so.

I think one reason for the fallacious KJVO heresy (KJV-absolutely-100-per-cent-beyond-improvement) is their heretical belief of Bible regeneration, or should it be called Bible salvation. Some of them are like the Pharisees who Christ Jesus the Lord rebuked, who believed searching the (OT) Scriptures somehow secured for them eternal life.

"Ye are searching the Scriptures, because in them ye think to have life eternal...." (John 5:39).

I would not be surprised if Christ was here in person today and addressed some KJV Onlyites in similar words, e.g. "Ye are searching the KJV, because in it ye think to have eternal life...."


The KJV renders the verb form of John 5:39 erroneously - "Search...". It is not an imperative (verb of command) but a present tense indicative, active, thus "Ye are searching". This would prove the KJV contains error of translational nature, and thus the extreme KJVO position is collapsed. The KJV translators were NOT here faithful to the Divinely inspired FORM of the WORD for "to search", but imposed their OWN subjective INTERPRETATION, thus making it look like the underlying word is imperative, when it is not. That is stealing God's word from a neighbour, which is SIN.

Harald

 

TomVols,would you please make room in your PM inbox.

 

Neal,

You said: [Yes, you can know people by their fruit. I have seen the most un-loving, hate-filled speech amongst Christians come from the KJVO crowd here on the board. If you really do have the truth, you are being a terrible steward with it.].

Now Neal, are you going to judge me already. Am I a terrible steward compared to you and other MVrs? Here are some of your quotes from just this thread:

1) That is the silliest thing I think I have ever heard in a Bible version debate.
2) My friend, you must live in a bubble.
3) The threads usually degenerate when the KJVO crowd start attacking people rather than issues, much like you are trying to do.

I am using the same debate tactics you are and you judge me as a terrible steward. Interesting.

 

Harold,

You said: [Where in the Bible does it say that "faith" is something existing apart from the thing called "mind"? "Faith" does not exist in a vacuum, does it?].

The Bible says we follow many infallible (not convincing) proofs. I believe that. But the Bible plainly says that by wisdom the world knew not God, that the preaching of the cross is foolishness to them that perish, that to the Greeks Christ crucified is foolishness for they seek after wisdom, that God chose the foolish things of this world to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:18-29). This type of language against the wisdom man, the wisdom of man’s mind if you will, is prolific in God’s word. The Bible says if any think he is wise in this world let him become a fool that he may be wise because the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. God takes the wise in their own craftiness because He knows their thoughts are nothing but vanity (1 Corinthians 3:18-21). The very definition of faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). We must all (myself included) beware of our own wisdom based on the facts compiled by vain, fault ridden men. Faith most definitely involves putting man’s faulty wisdom concocted in his corrupt mind on the shelf and trusting in the promises of God.

You said: [It strikes me that what some call "faith" is really nothing but a similitude of what New Agers and Word of Faithers call positive thinking. If the KJV does contain even ONE imperfect rendering of either the Greek text or the Hebrew text underlying it the argument of the KJV Only proponents collapses. And the KJV does contain a certain amount of renderings which are not perfect in the sense of beyond improvement. Does this make the KJV something less than "the word of God"? I would not say so. ].

The only thing we have that stands between true faith in God and some New Age garbage is the absolute authority of God's preserved Holy word. Once that is discredited, or even diminished, the flood gates will be open for such last days perversion. I agree that we cannot say that God will never replace the KJB, but I don’t believe he has yet. I believe the flood of MVs with their supposedly better manuscripts, textual scholarship, and translation methods, introducing enormous variability in the biblical readings, have gone a long way to making biblical interpretation more in line with New Age beliefs.

You said: [I think one reason for the fallacious KJVO heresy (KJV-absolutely-100-per-cent-beyond-improvement) is their heretical belief of Bible regeneration, or should it be called Bible salvation. Some of them are like the Pharisees who Christ Jesus the Lord rebuked, who believed searching the (OT) Scriptures somehow secured for them eternal life. ].

The word is preservation. Preservation is a belief that when a language dies, such as the Greek has, that God has promised, and will keep His promise, to preserve it in a language the people can understand. This is not heresy, it simple faith in the promises of God.

You said: ["Ye are searching the Scriptures, because in them ye think to have life eternal...." (John 5:39).

I would not be surprised if Christ was here in person today and addressed some KJV Onlyites in similar words, e.g. "Ye are searching the KJV, because in it ye think to have eternal life...."].

I hope not, but if he does I will repent. I pray my MV brethren have the same perspective and are not wise in their own conceit.

You said: [The KJV renders the verb form of John 5:39 erroneously - "Search...". It is not an imperative (verb of command) but a present tense indicative, active, thus "Ye are searching". This would prove the KJV contains error of translational nature, and thus the extreme KJVO position is collapsed. The KJV translators were NOT here faithful to the Divinely inspired FORM of the WORD for "to search", but imposed their OWN subjective INTERPRETATION, thus making it look like the underlying word is imperative, when it is not. That is stealing God's word from a neighbour, which is SIN.

What about John 7:52? We have the very same situation there and all the MVs agree with the KJB in that instance.