-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A KJVOnlyism...
- Thread starter preacher4truth
- Start date
markthebaptist
New Member
I see that their are 41 posts including this one on this thread..I cannot believe you actually take this fellows reasoning and apply it as a blanket review of all the KJV onleys...
preacher4truth
Active Member
It's actually no different than the "reasoning" of G.A. Riplinger. Don't blame blanket statements on others, the KJVO's of your ilk accomplish this well enough on your own.
I recall when her book "New Age Versions" came out, KJVOnlists bought it hook, line, and sinker, caused rifts in College over this, had their soapbox reinforced, imprudent passion reignited, and went on tangents.
But this is typical of these types, who believe things without being wise to look into them, but are quick to believe alarmist and fantastical whims. A couple of instances; One of these KJVOonlyists presented me with the "Proctor & Gamble" "is of the devil documents," and she, her husband and others were all worked up over this at the start of the services. They then asked me if I would warn the entire church, now! I told her I would look into it first. As it turned out, it was false alarmist propaganda.
I was also (later) warned to look into G.A. Riplingers book (when I was a KJV preacher, never using another text) because the devil was in the printing business and was making satanic Bibles.
As time went by, Riplinger sympathizers became aware that this was a work of a woman, as they assumed it was a man, and some turned upon her works for this reason. Others dismantled her theories and showed her lies to others and left her. Many KJVOnlists still adhere to her drivel, when much of her credibility and works have been proven to be a farce, inaccurrate, and not truthful.
After years of things like the above, hatred about a version directed at others who use other versions, a caustic attitude, personal (not biblical) agendas, and much other nonsense, I looked into changing versions, and did so. It was time for me to leave this behind, this hatefulness, the guilt trip, warnings of others using versions who were on their way to hell (for using another version), and other condemnations that men place upon others all for a version of the Bible. This was a good choice on my part, although I do hold a lot of respect and value toward the KJV to this day. By the way, reading another version through has shown me much that I missed using the KJV alone, and has brough other things to light from the Word of God.
I don't give anyone grief over reading or using the KJV, God bless them as they do, it's a wonderful version! Those accusing others of such are simply not telling the truth, as this is not my position, yet I believe persons feel comfortable and proud to live in a fabricated notion that they are being "persecuted" over the KJV. One person tells others he has been maligned for reading the KJV here on the BB. This is unfounded and is a false accusation, no one has done any of the sort.
I find this self-martyrdom of great interest which some use in relation to their choice of a version. This same attitude is seen within some of the more extreme KJVOnlyist churches.
The issues I have with KJVOnlyists is contained to those I've mentioned above. if a person doesn't like the fact I use the NASB, that's just frankly too bad.
Anyhow, here's a passage we all should practice:
The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. Proverbs 14:15
Last edited by a moderator:
P4T, I have never read Riplinger's book, and I agree there are tons of goofy ideas out there, but that doesn't mean there is not SOME truth to these things. I think that the symbol the NIV used was a very poor choice, symbols have meaning, and folks are going to notice these symbols.
Funny, but it was only recently that I noticed Apple's symbol was the apple with a bite out of it. I suppose this represents knowledge, but I could see some as believeing it was some sort of reference to Satan.
Unfortunately, the occultists have used so many symbols, it is difficult to find a symbol that is not seen as evil.
Nevertheless, before adopting some symbol to place on your product, one should investigate it.
And it could very well be that some know and intentionally use these symbols, you can't rule that out. I mean, look at the covers to Rock albums, it is obvious they are intentionally using occult symbols.
Funny, but it was only recently that I noticed Apple's symbol was the apple with a bite out of it. I suppose this represents knowledge, but I could see some as believeing it was some sort of reference to Satan.
Unfortunately, the occultists have used so many symbols, it is difficult to find a symbol that is not seen as evil.
Nevertheless, before adopting some symbol to place on your product, one should investigate it.
And it could very well be that some know and intentionally use these symbols, you can't rule that out. I mean, look at the covers to Rock albums, it is obvious they are intentionally using occult symbols.
Last edited by a moderator:
preacher4truth
Active Member
The Jehovah's Witnesses have some truth too. Yes?
Any person that produces a slough of lies to rake in money from a certain market within Christendom, causing heresies within the same, namely KJVOnlyists, should be condemned for such things.
G. A. Riplinger employed a sinister tactic of the cults, throwing in some truth, mixed with lies, and people will believe it and pay for it, and willingly deceive themselves and others with these lies.
The statement "there is some truth to it" is a deceptive, false, imprudent, unwise, ridiculous compromising statement. Truth is either pure or it is not truth. We're not talking a theological work, we're talking in context of a book made to deceive others, one which uses lie after lie to make fantastical and delusional conclusions filled with error.
Employing anything including compromising denial to shed a positive light upon an sugar-stick issue one empathizes with, that goes against conscience is a ludicrous stance, and is no stance for real truth. Doing so is to overlook and turn a blind eye to the lies one admits is there because of ones personal liking of the issue. This is called employing self-deception.
The fact any person knows a source to be filled with error and lies, while still arguing to support it is definitely making commentary in so doing on their integrity and character.
What is ironic is that the 2 modern versions that she takes to task most, NIV/Nasv, actually do more to cite and suport the Deity of Chrsit than her "authorized Bible, KJV"...
As both of those "Satanic" versions actually get it right concerning Jesus being called God by Peter" Our Great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ"
Boy, who is getting angry?
All I'm saying is that I wouldn't put a swastika or crescent moon and star on the cover of a Bible. I would be very careful of any symbol on it. It's not like these publishers are unaware of occult symbols. It's plain common sense.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
preacher4truth
Active Member
:laugh:
That's actually kind of scary!!! Not one emblem, sign, symbol, nada on my NASB. I must have the TRUE Bible. :thumbsup:
On a serious note, I am happy that I was not tainted with the KJVOnlyist agenda having come from a church at salvation that was indeed IFB, but did not believe in this mess. I was never convinced at any point, though some made attempt, that the KJV was the only true Word of God. I'm enjoying the NASB and thinking some about the ESV also.
By the way, I recall some talking about the NKJV (which I do own) and the symbol thereof being a subtle "666." How utterly ridiculous.
preacher4truth
Active Member
You're angry? Don't be, instead, be like me and be calm. But I concede rightfully that you needed an out, so you use an accusation, label and name calling as a convenient excuse.
Swastikas, crescent moon, stars? Where does this nonsensical banter come from, you? Why do you regularly come up with fantastical sensationalisms as your "proofs" and apology, and use them also in a caustic fashion against others?
Again, no one has accused, slandered, "presecuted", ridiculed, nor made fun of you for reading the KJV as you've falsely alluded to. I'm certain that you find some delusional comfort in accusing of this, although such has never happened here on the BB as you've falsely alleged.
Anyhow, you said way more than that, you actually endorsed Riplinger, while at the same time admitting she has lied. Most KJVOnlyists do such, in other words, accept fantastical claims without proof or practicing prudent investigation. Thus there is a sizable market those like Riplinger prey upon.
Go back and re-read what I said. You're clearly in error and empathize with a person who has knowingly lied, misrepresented, and fabricated statements, and you do so because it happens to be a pet doctrine of yours; KJVO.
Versions becoming a doctrine preached about didn't come from Biblical revelation, but rather from man made traditions. You're preaching about a version here on the BB, no need to say it doesn't happen in your church.
This is what you are propagating, man-made doctrines revolving around a version. Nothing but error will come from your teaching here.
Last edited by a moderator:
I forgot, you are young. I grew up in the 60s and 70s and remember that symbol on the Led Zeppelin IV album. We all knew that Jimmy Page especially was into the occult and bought the mansion once owned by Aleister Crowley, the famous Satanist, or at least myself and all my friends did.
The NKJV came out just 3 years later when this album was still selling millions. Everybody on the planet would immediately recognize this symbol. I recognized it the first time I saw it.
You just don't get it, that was a very poor choice of symbols to put on a Bible. They were asking for trouble. It was dumb at the very least, and suspicious at the very most.
Last edited by a moderator:
preacher4truth
Active Member
First off, winman, this thread isn't about symbols and what not, is it? That's right. Go start your own thread with your ideas about symbols? Thanks.
Yes, this thread is about the absurdities of KJVOnlyisms.
You've endorsed Riplinger, a known liar, and justified her lies. Secondly, you have mentioned you are ridiculed for reading the KJV. This is absolutely false, no one has ridiculed you for this on the BB.
If you desire to share some more KJVOnlyisms with us, go for it, as far as derailing the thread for other sensationalistic and fantastical beliefs of yours, start your own thread, OK?
Thanks.
Yes, this thread is about the absurdities of KJVOnlyisms.
You've endorsed Riplinger, a known liar, and justified her lies. Secondly, you have mentioned you are ridiculed for reading the KJV. This is absolutely false, no one has ridiculed you for this on the BB.
If you desire to share some more KJVOnlyisms with us, go for it, as far as derailing the thread for other sensationalistic and fantastical beliefs of yours, start your own thread, OK?
Thanks.
Because you incorrectly associated the symbol with the occult or rock music does not prove that the publisher of the NKJV did.
I already informed you that an edition of the KJV printed before the NKJV was published used that symbol as a symbol of the Trinity in the Bible, and that edition of the KJV may have been the source from which the publisher of the NKJV got it. What is suspicious about using the same symbol that had been printed in an edition of the KJV? It is an old symbol for the Bible Trinity of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
You also ignored the facts about the actual pagan symbols printed in the 1611 edition of the KJV.
Riplinger is a known liar. The issues with her books are not accidently incorrect. Here's one example.
On pages 454-455 in her book, New Age Bible Versions she has a statement followed by a chart.
"A second attempt to arm her (Ephesians 6:17) in her joust with the devil, found the NASB’s sword sheathed hiding the key words, “on Thee.”
The chart:
NASB: "The steadfast of mind Thou wilt keep in perfect peace."
KJV: Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee. Isaiah 26:3
The problem is that she didn't quote the entire passage but only a part of it.
Here's what it really should look like
NASB: The steadfast of mind Thou wilt keep in perfect peace, Because he trusts in Thee.
KJV: Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.
First, we notice that the "missing" words are only missing because Riplinger didn't quote them. How convenient! Second, while the KJV has the words twice, the first time is in italics which is because the Hebrew only has the words one time, not two. Now, there's nothing wrong with the KJV's rendering at this point as they did it to make it clear. The issue is that the NASB reads in a way that it's not necessary. It's a lie to say that the NASB removed something because there is nothing missing. Riplinger only made it appear this way.
Maybe she isn't a liar and just cannot read. Either way, it's not good.
On pages 454-455 in her book, New Age Bible Versions she has a statement followed by a chart.
"A second attempt to arm her (Ephesians 6:17) in her joust with the devil, found the NASB’s sword sheathed hiding the key words, “on Thee.”
The chart:
NASB: "The steadfast of mind Thou wilt keep in perfect peace."
KJV: Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee. Isaiah 26:3
The problem is that she didn't quote the entire passage but only a part of it.
Here's what it really should look like
NASB: The steadfast of mind Thou wilt keep in perfect peace, Because he trusts in Thee.
KJV: Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.
First, we notice that the "missing" words are only missing because Riplinger didn't quote them. How convenient! Second, while the KJV has the words twice, the first time is in italics which is because the Hebrew only has the words one time, not two. Now, there's nothing wrong with the KJV's rendering at this point as they did it to make it clear. The issue is that the NASB reads in a way that it's not necessary. It's a lie to say that the NASB removed something because there is nothing missing. Riplinger only made it appear this way.
Maybe she isn't a liar and just cannot read. Either way, it's not good.
After listening to one of her speeches on the internet I realized that she is too articulate to just be illiterate. That only leaves the other choice. :laugh:
After all she is good and fast at covering up her "stories" that don't fit any other truth.
Last edited by a moderator:
He degrees in Home Economics are very valuable to critiquing the Greek and Hebrew of the bible you know.
ashleysdad
Member
He degrees in Home Economics are very valuable to critiquing the Greek and Hebrew of the bible you know.
Why critique the greek and hebrew? After all, we have the KJV! We don't need the greek or hebrew! The KJV corrects the greek and hebrew!
'Good enough for Moses and Paul, good enough for me!"
I am KJVP. But the older folks in our church are KJVO. But our youth minister is using the ESV with the youth.
Either none of the old folks know or care. I hope it doesn't become a problem.
So as not to cause a problem, I preach from the KJV from the pulpit. I know of a KJV church north of us where the preacher asked in a business meeting if he could preach from the NKJV and they voted "yes".
I just wish the subject would come up so we could discuss it.
Either none of the old folks know or care. I hope it doesn't become a problem.
So as not to cause a problem, I preach from the KJV from the pulpit. I know of a KJV church north of us where the preacher asked in a business meeting if he could preach from the NKJV and they voted "yes".
I just wish the subject would come up so we could discuss it.