Attack the KJV?

What was this thread started for? If I were to take a sifter to it there wouldn't be anything to make biscuits with, but there would be plenty to feed the yardbirds. Appears to be more of an attack on the "labeled" KJVO's.

I believe what really burns some of the posters in this thread up is when I said that KJVO is NOT a doctrine, but the stand for what is doctrinally found in the Bible.

It's Bible doctrine that makes me stand for the KJB. Maybe more effort towards reaching the lost should be taking place instead of all this bickering. (grieved)

In His Holy Service,

Brother Ricky (Brother, if anyone still calls one of their family that anymore)

 

Please, show us this doctrine from the Bible that makes you arrive at the KJV alone. This is what we have all been asking for. If you have it, show it to us and we can move on and be done with it!

Neal

 

Please, show us this doctrine from the Bible that makes you arrive at the KJV alone. This is what we have all been asking for. If you have it, show it to us and we can move on and be done with it!

Neal </font>[/QUOTE]

 

How should I take your response? You don't have an answer or I just won't be able to understand it? I am sincere. If you can show me that the KJV is it, I will start advocating to others to use it alone and throw out all my MVs. So please, which way should I take your response?

Neal

 

The title of the thread and the question asked in the poll are two different situations. This poll is worthless as far as disputing any claims of attack on the KJV.

Perhaps the question should have been asked, "Do you feel the KJV is ineffective as an English translation due to changes in language form?" Or, "Do you feel the KJV adds to the confusion whn choosing a Bibvle version?" Or, "Do you feel that the KJV needs to be 'put out to pasture'?"

Here are a few quotes that I have on file from Baptist Board members:

These quotes do not address KJV Onlyism, the address the KJV directly. These quotes, although sure to be dismissed by MVers, are a direct attack on the KJV. That is proof positive, not a poll which only leaves one option regardless of your view.

 

Pastor Bob asks:

&gt;&gt;Perhaps the question should have been
&gt;&gt;asked, "Do you feel the KJV is ineffective as
&gt;&gt;an English translation due to changes in
&gt;&gt;language form?"

Absolutely not: as a Purist, I love early Modern English.

&gt;&gt;Or, "Do you feel the KJV adds to the confusion
&gt;&gt;whn choosing a Bibvle version?" [sic]

Absolutely not: the KJV is a fine choice for a Bible version if one speaks English.

&gt;&gt;Or, "Do you feel that the KJV needs to be 'put
&gt;&gt;out to pasture'?"

Once again: absolutely not.
I possess a deep love for the AV, I just do not subscribe to KJV-Onlyism.

Good post, Pastor Bob.

 

I think the original intent was to demonstrate that no one hates the KJV or thinks that it is less than God's word.

In many, perhaps most, cases yes.

Not sure what you mean by this. I think KJVOnlyism brings confusion when someone is choosing a Bible version. I don't think the KJV necessarily does.

For 21st century America, there are better options using the language that we use today.

I think your "proof positive" would be rejected by most of us. While "put out to pasture" or "old and outdated" would not be the way that I would put it, I think the sentiments are very accurate. There are simply better choices for today's church. The word of God should be in the language that we speak. I don't see any evidence as an attack on the KJV in those quotes. But then, I have no particualr affinity or sensitivity in defending it.

 

{Post not on topic}

[ June 06, 2003, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

I agree wholeheartedly with Pastor Bob. This poll is what I call "a poison pawn." If someone is fooled by such an idiotic poll and swallows the lie then he loses valuable ground and may lose the game. Imagine, a moderator (TomVols) setting up this poll to make us King James Bible believers look like fools. Ought to be ashamed of himself.

You are right in that I have never seen anyone actually say they "hate" the King James Bible. But if you read all of the negative remarks made about the King James Bible, you would come away with the impression that some on this board are doing everything in their power to discredit it. I can't say for sure but maybe (and I say maybe) they are motivated by hate.

 

I don't think so Tom, you didn't give us all the information.

attack = (2) To assail with unfriendly speech or writing ; to begin a controversy with; to attempt to overthrow or bring into disrepute , by criticism or satire; to censure; as, to attack a man, or his opinions, in a pamphlet. Websters Dictionary 1913, pg. 97

This, IMHO, has been done on many occasions here on the BB.

 

This has been done very rarely, if even, on the BB. Statements of fact are not attacks. That's the bottom line. Is what was said true??? No one is trying to discredit the KJV or overthrow it. We are talking on a whole different plane.

 

Amen, Brother Pastor Larry -- Preach it!

I love all three of my different
King James Version (KJV) Bibles.

 

Pastor Larry and TomVols,

The problem with trying to separate KJBO from the KJB requires being somewhat deceptive in the way you define your argument. Let me give you an example. Assume that I attended your church (don’t worry Tom, your just outside my driving distance). For this example I am assuming you both preach substantially within the Baptist doctrine set. But let’s suppose I did not like you choice of words, or say, I felt your delivery of the messages, however accurate, were not being understood, or they were not conveying the proper tone and/or emphasis on salient points, furthermore, I did not think the seminary you went to was a good one. So I assemble a group from the Church to discuss the matter. The group I have assembled represents most of the influential families or parties within the Church. After discussing the matter they agree and decide you should be removed from you pastorate. Now, am I against you, or against what you do? If you are honest, you will admit that you are the one I am against. Separating you from what you do is merely an exercise in intellectual gymnastics. In the final analysis you must go, you are the problem.

It is very much the same with the KJB. MV proponents are trying to replace the KJB because they do not like its wording, syntax, and manuscript foundation. KJBO exists for this reason. We believe the KJB is God’s perfect words preserved in the English language. We love its wonderful cadences and magnificent prose, we love the emphasis on the heart (ex. followers not imitators), and the extraordinary power with which it conveys the truths of the eternal creator and reveals God’s wisdom as one grows spiritually. We believe its foundation is a sure one, not as the shifting Hebrew and Greek sand of today, and it has been attested to by the Holy Spirit for 400 years now.

At least Pastor Larry was honest in his post. He admitted what all KJBOs already know, MV proponents are ready to see the KJB replaced and relegated to the annals of history. They have made it clear, whether they like to acknowledge it or not, that the KJB is out. As one might say, not asked to leave, but certainly handed your hat. So there’s the contest, KJB versus all comers. There are many like me who believe very strongly the KJB is not only superior in its choice of words, its wonderful syntax, and its manuscript foundation, but also believe that it has a supernatural blessing from God. Out of the many MV choices out there, all pale in comparison to the KJB.

Please be honest MVrs, if not with us, with yourselves. To you the KJB is just an outdated translation full of archaic words, difficult syntax, poor readings, and it is based on a few late inferior manuscripts. How could you be intellectually honest in saying you believe this, but still are for it? This is inconsistency on an astronomical order. Are you afraid to say what you really believe? We are against you because you are against the KJB. To say your are for the KJB but against KJBO is dishonest on your part. To discredit KJBO you must discredit the KJB. To discredit the KJB you must attack it. It is obvious you already know that, whether you admit it or not.

[This post was questioned, reviewed, and deemed "on topic"]

[ June 07, 2003, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]

 

Actually, I think your thinking is confused.

First, if you came to my church and started havinig private meetings with people about ousting the pastor, you would be high on the visitation/confrontation list. You would need a lot more than your opinion. You would need to show that I have violated Scriptural doctrine or violated my ethical responsibilities to Scripture. You would be considered a divisive person and would be disciplined from the church. Your scenario, aside from being inaccurate, is unbiblical way of handling the matter.

Again, you err, not knowing simple logic and understanding the issue. If you read my posts, you should remember me saying many times that I don't care what version you use. If you like the KJV, then use it and love it and read it and live by it. I think the KJV is an excellent translation. However, it is beyond dispute that its language is dated, its sentence structure is dated, and it is exceedingly difficult for people to understand. That is why I don't use it. I don't think hte textual basis is that big of a deal to the preaching and teaching in the local church. There is not enough difference to swat a fly with.

Saying that the KJV is outdated for this generation is not trying to stamp it out or get rid of it any more than driving a 2003 car discredits a 1956 chevy. To say that something new has come along does not devalue the old. That is simply poor thinking on your part.

My problem with KJBO is entirely different. My problem with them is that they ahve added to the word of God, made a doctrine out of the commandments (opinions) of men. They have shown no valid theological basis that can be substantiated from Scripture rightly used. I am against anyone who teaches false doctrine. I am against anyone who teaches their opinion with the same authority as they teach God's word. The KJV does not do that; the KJVOs do. There is a big difference between the two and you may be one of the few who doesn't recognize that obvious fact.

 

Exactly. This is what many do not understand.

Neal

 

{post not on topic}

[ June 07, 2003, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]

 

Would you recommend the KJB to a young convert?

I looks like you do care what version people use.

Interesting logic. How many 1956 Chevys do you see in museums versus driveways? How many Chevrolet dealer would recommend you drive a 1956 model versus a current model? How prolifically used are 1956 Chevys? So, are you for 1956 Chevys, or new ones?

This can also be said about MV doctrines like “any translation is the word of God”, or “God only preserved his general messages, but not his literal words”. Let’s not go there again. It is clear you are against the KJB, and you do attack it, you just did in your post.