Biblical Defense of KJVO Beliefs

[Pioneer]

I wish to give a Biblical defense of why I accept the King James Bible as the perfect word of God. This will take several posts so please be patient.

In Matt. 4:4 - the Bible states that we are to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. In order for me to live by those words, I must have those words written down in a book (or have a perfect memory). According to Psalms 12:7,8 God said that His words were 'pure words' and he promised that all generations would have his perfect written word.

I can't read Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Aramaic, ect. but I can read English. In 1611 God moved upon the hearts of men to produce the King James Bible so that the English speaking world would have his written perfect word. Using the original language texts as well as the previous English translations, the King James translators (with God's help) produced a perfect English Bible that has lasted almost 400 years.

[ June 01, 2003, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

[Alcott]

In Matt. 4:4 - the Bible states that we are to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. In order for me to live by those words, I must have those words written down in a book (or have a perfect memory).

I'll lay 8 to 5 on which of those should be the case.

According to Psalms 12:7,8 God said that His words were 'pure words' and he promised that all generations would have his perfect written word.

You may live by 'every perfect word.' Go ahead and hate your parents or children or wife (Luke 14:26). Go on and speak in tongues, heal the sick with your hand, drink poison, and pick up serpents (Mark 16:17-18). These pure words say believers shall exhibit these signs.

In 1611 God moved upon the hearts of men to produce the King James Bible so that the English speaking world would have his written perfect word.

They already had several; Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bilbe, Great Bible, et al. Why would God have any part of a new translation when they already had one?

Using the original language texts as well as the previous English translations, the King James translators (with God's help) produced a perfect English Bible that has lasted almost 400 years.

Not yet. But disregarding your arithemetical error, the Word lasted for many more centuries before your Anglican Bible, and God is perfectly capable of keeping his Word without that particular translation thereof for many more centuries.

[ June 01, 2003, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

[AV Defender]

These pure words say believers shall exhibit these signs.

Not if you do what 2 Tim 2:15 says to do;"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. ."

Why would God have any part of a new translation when they already had one?

That is the same question I've been asking about whats been going on since 1881! Any input on that?

 

[Johnv]

In Matt. 4:4 - the Bible states that we are to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. In order for me to live by those words, I must have those words written down in a book (or have a perfect memory). I can't read Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Aramaic, ect. but I can read English.
What about everyone who can't read English? Or what about the many people who find Elizabethan English to be outdated? Does God's providence not also apply to them?


In 1611 God moved upon the hearts of men to produce the King James Bible so that the English speaking world would have his written perfect word.
God has many times movedthe hearts of men to produce translations so that people would have his written perfect word. I see no biblical reason why the KJV translations were given translational exclusivity.

Using the original language texts as well as the previous English translations, the King James translators (with God's help) produced a perfect English Bible that has lasted almost 400 years.
Not really, it was revised consinually, the most recent being the ASV 1901.

I can't read Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Aramaic, ect. but I can read English.
Elizabethen English, or American English? There's a big difference. For that matter, if one does have a Bible in the original language manuscripts, and understands them, is it not reasonable that their untranslated bibles are "more perfect" than any translation?

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Not really, it was revised consinually, the most recent being the ASV 1901.

Whaa!? Don't sit there and tell that one! Where have you been?? You mean to tell me that the ASV 0f 1901 came from the Protestant Texts of the Reformation?? I trow not!!! It came from the Dark age Jesuit Alexandrian Manuscripts.

Elizabethen English, or American English?

Yes.

There's a big difference.

And??

For that matter, if one does have a Bible in the original language manuscripts, and understands them, is it not reasonable that their untranslated bibles are "more perfect" than any translation?

How so?? That refers back to you're first question;only about 5% of the world understands Greek,what about the other 95%?

 

[TomVols]

The topic of this thread is "Biblical support for KJVO belief."

Interact with this topic only. The moment we go astray, the topic is shut down, NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Pioneer, I can respect your rationale for believing in the KJV, and I share your beliefs. I use a fascimile 1611AV, despite the fact that it contains the Apocrypha. However, the case you make does not exclude all other translations.

You have given a very good Biblical Defense for using the King James version. You have not, however, given a Biblical Defense for KJV-Onlyism.

 

[Alcott]

Originally posted by JYD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Why would God have any part of a new translation when they already had one?

That is the same question I've been asking about whats been going on since 1881! Any input on that? </font>[/QUOTE]That is the question I am asking now about what has been going on since 1603. Any input on that?

 

[Pioneer]

I will no longer interact with modern version advocates on this board. This thread was intended for King James Bible Believers only but the one moderator on this forum came up with this new rule saying that limiting the replies and threads is not allowed except by the moderators or administrators Then he edited my original post saying it was a 'rule violation.'

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

That is the question I am asking now about what has been going on since 1603. Any input on that?

Psalms 12:6-7 whats been happening.But from 1881 on;Jeremiah 36!!

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

MV-Neverist writes:
&gt;&gt;Psalms 12:6-7 whats been happening.But from
&gt;&gt;1881 on;Jeremiah 36!!

Psalm 12:6-7 refers to the KJV?

Jeremiah 36 refers to the time period of 1881 to the present?

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:

Psalm 12:6-7 refers to the KJV?

No! This passages refer to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Askjo writes:
&gt;&gt;No! This passages refer to the Hebrew and Greek
&gt;&gt;manuscripts.

Then how is this a "Biblical Defense of KJVO Beliefs? Remember: that is the subject of this thread.

 

[go2church]

Unfortunatly there is no biblical defense for KJV-onlyism

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by go2church:
Unfortunatly there is no biblical defense for KJV-onlyism

Don't you mean fortunately?

Btw, great defense guys. I wonder why so many people are leaving behind that lie from hell. It probably doesn't have anything to do with truth.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Let's see, this thread is the BIBLICAL DEFENSE of King James Only Beliefs

Since King James, 1611, English Bible et al are not found in the Bible, then how can there be a "BIBLICAL" defense?

It can be logical
It can be deduced
It can be inferred

But it can't be BIBLICAL since it is not in the Bible.

 

[Refreshed]

1Pe 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, [see that ye] love one another with a pure heart fervently:

1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

1Pe 1:24 For all flesh [is] as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:

1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Here we see several points.
1. The word lives and abides forever.
2. The word was not corrupted at the time Peter wrote this.
3. The word has eternal endurance (which, by necessity, needs to be accessible to Christians in order to bring about salvation).

This promise of endurance when viewed in light of:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

necessitates an accessible, inspired scripture to believers, for salvation, and in order to be profitable for doctrine. The case for preservation is strong here in light of some old testament passages:

Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Isa 59:21 As for me, this [is] my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that [is] upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

Thus, we have firmly established the doctrine of preservation, and we must ask ourselves, to what extent. "Why would God give us a Bible, taking meticulous care with every word and then let someone distort it, then let words be lost over time?"(unsure of the source).

For the answer to this, we can go to several New Testament passages.

Luk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Particular attention, in the first verse, is given to the smallest portions of Hebrew writing. The jot being compared by some as the "cross" on the "t" and the tittle being compared to the "dot of an eye."

In the second verse, we are promised continuity in the text.

Thus, we have two biblically-based points proven from scripture.

1. God has promised presevation (since God is omnipotent, we can assume that he has preserved).
2. The preservation extends to the smallest portions of the written word.

One makes the conclusion the the KJV is in the line of preservation based on faith that the KJV is the word of God (which all sides of this debate would agree with). If the KJV is the word of God, the modern versions would be, at best, altered, when compared to the KJV due to discrepencies in several verses (which is agreed upon by both sides), and disagreements on the word-for-word level.

Conclusion: God promised to preserve his word in a specific way and we can assume he did (see verses above). If the KJV is representative of this preservation, the other versions would fail on this count due to the aforementioned discrepencies between the KJV and most modern versions.

Jason

 

[Arubian Baptist]

Dr. Bob Griffin:

Since King James, 1611, English Bible et al are not found in the Bible, then how can there be a "BIBLICAL" defense?

Edited my previous comment cause I will give him a change first.

In your opinion, is any defence impossible just because the words, King James Bible, 1611 etc. etc. are'nt found in the bible?

 

[neal4christ]

I will no longer interact with modern version advocates on this board.

Bye!

God speed. (By the way, could you show me the verse that says you have to break fellowship with modern version users?)

Neal

 

[Arubian Baptist]

{rule violation deleted]

Just a thought...if you know better ones, more suitables, just let me know

[ June 02, 2003, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]