Does a Multitude of Modern English Bible Versions Promote a Violation of 1 Cor 1:10

[Logos1560]

All your proofs for your position is what other men say or have said. .

That is not true.

My main points and arguments concerning KJV-only teaching come from the Scriptures as translated in the KJV.

The Bible doctrine of inspiration does not lead to a KJV-only view. A consistent Bible doctrine of preservation does not lead to a KJV-only view. KJV-only claims concerning an every-word Bible and word-for-word translating do not lead to a KJV-only view. The KJV-only view's pure stream of Bibles or good tree of Bibles does not lead to a KJV-only view. The Bible doctrine of truth conflicts with a KJV-only view since it demonstrates that it is wrong to believe claims that are not true and that it is wrong to make use of fallacies such as begging the question and special pleading. The Bible doctrine of salvation is negatively affected by some aspects of KJV-only teaching. The Bible doctrines of sanctification and service are negatively affected by some aspects of KJV-only teaching. The NT doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is negatively affected by KJV-only teaching. Bible doctrine concerning traditions, commandments, or doctrines of men contradicts human, non-scriptural KJV-only teaching. My proofs are based on what the Scriptures state and teach.

I do not object to believers reading the KJV and believing the KJV as what it actually is--the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as some post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English. Bible translations have proper, derived authority from the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. I do not object to believers teaching and preaching from only the KJV.

It is when human, non-scriptural opinions and traditions are added to Scripture that I disagree and object.

 

[Logos1560]

God is the God of order, and He established the order or primacy [the state of being first or foremost] with the preserved Scriptures in the original languages serving as the one foundation and authority on which Bible translations would need to be based or built. Almighty God gave or laid the foundation on which Bible translations depend. The Scriptures in the original languages obviously preceded any later Bible translations. No other foundation for Bible translations can be laid than the one God Himself laid when He gave the Scriptures in the original languages by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Eph. 2:20, 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, 1 Cor. 2:13, Ps. 11:3, 1 Cor. 3:11).

 

[Mikoo]

Which in my opinion, is much ado about nothing. That ship sailed a long time ago. It's called beating a dead horse.

About nothing? Are you a KJVOist?

Nope. That ship is still in the dock.

Nope. That horse is still alive. And as long as it is, I am thankful for those who are/continue combatting the divisive and destructive views of KJVOism.

 

[Mikoo]

Division is not a bad thing. It is commanded by Jesus Christ.

Ro 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
19 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

Deceiving? By magic and miracles and visions? No, with good words and fair speeches.

Spoken in Romans under the theme "the gospel of God."

Thank you for that Word of God that supports what I wrote. It is worth repeating.
The KJVOist's views are divisive and destructive to the Body of Christ.

It's too bad you disagree with God's Word. ('Division is not a bad thing.')

 

[Baptist4life]

[QUOTE="Mikoo, post: 2868944, member: 19489"(]
The KJVOist's views are divisive and destructive to the Body of Christ.
[/QUOTE]
Can you provide some proof of that statement? I've been a Christian for over 60 years and I've never seen the KJVO issue divide any church or cause any problems whatsoever. It seems like you and others, who refuse to let it go, are the ones causing the problems. One poster here has made it his life's work to spend the entire day posting about the subject on numerous forums. Check out Carm if you don't believe me. Most of the people I know who use the King James version are perfectly fine to let other people in their church use whatever version they want. Again much ado about nothing. Until you can show me some absolute proof of your claim, I'll take what you say with the grain of salt.

 

[Mikoo]

[QUOTE="Mikoo, post: 2868944, member: 19489"(]
The KJVOist's views are divisive and destructive to the Body of Christ.

Can you provide some proof of that statement? I've been a Christian for over 60 years and I've never seen the KJVO issue divide any church or cause any problems whatsoever.
I have been a Christian for 35 years and I have seen the KJVO issue divide and/or cause problems. So now what?

It seems like you and others, who refuse to let it go, are the ones causing the problems.
It seems like you and KJVOist's (are you a KJVOist?) refuse to let it go. Why are you still on this KJVO forum? Follow your own advice and let it go. KJVOists' are causing all the problems. There would not be KJVOism Forums if KJVOism wasn't alive and well.

One poster here has made it his life's work to spend the entire day posting about the subject on numerous forums. Check out Carm if you don't believe me.
So what? It seems to really bother you what this man does. No one is forcing you to be on this forum. I applaud this man for combatting the divisive and destructive KJVOism views.

Most of the people I know who use the King James version are perfectly fine to let other people in their church use whatever version they want.
So? Is that supposed to prove something? Most people I know know who use the King James version require people in their church use the KJV. In fact, a man I work with called my Bible the devil's bible. He told me all bibles not the KJV are evil. So now what?
Again, no one is forcing you onto KJO forums. Why torture yourself?


Again much ado about nothing.
Sounds just like a KJVOist. Are you one? If you are that explains a lot.

Until you can show me some absolute proof of your claim,
Sounds like what an KJVOist would say. The proof is abundantly clear on this and other KJVO forums and sites.

I'll take what you say with the grain of salt.
I'll take what you say and...actually I don't really care what you say.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Logos1560]

I know firsthand of a Baptist church in Michigan that was split by KJV-only teaching. The pastor was not KJV-only, but a Sunday School teacher started teaching KJV-only teaching. The KJV-only teaching split that church. This example has been mentioned before.

Pastor Danilo Canlas wrote: "The truth is that I did not even permit any of my members to use any translation aside from the King James Version" (King James Bible Society Report, Oct., 1995, p. 1). Edward Scalf stated: "We use only and I do mean only the Bible (KJV) in our services. We ask the people not to bring inside the church anything other than the KJV" (Jeremiah, December, 1995, p. 2). Roy Branson insisted: "Christians should refuse to attend churches where other versions are used, or where the pastor consistently and habitually gives his own translation or 'rendering'" (KJV 1611, p. 35). Roy Branson also demanded: "In our churches, pastors should politely insist that any speaker use only the KJV 1611, and never-not even once-refer to 'original languages,' or 'original manuscripts,' or 'original autographs,' the currently puffed and popular term" (Ibid., pp. 34-35). D. A. Waite declared: "I would not go to a church that did not use the King James Bible" (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 131). In his article entitled "Battle Over the Bible," KJV-only pastor Rolland Star seems to argue that KJV preachers should not fellowship with or work with preachers that use other translations (Flaming Torch, Oct./Nov./Dec., 1999, pp. 13, 17, 18, 19).

Dave Reese attempted to claim that there is no difference between a non-KJV-only fundamentalist believer and a modernist, and he alleged that they would be a “’pretender’ of the faith” (Book No One Can Read, pp. 27-29).

Do not KJV-only advocates have their own agenda which would attempt to require other believers to give up their own Biblical convictions or else these believers will be mislabeled as liberal Bible critics, bible agnostics, or apostates?

Are some KJV-only pastors in effect assuming the unwarranted authority of attempting to demonize or excommunicate the pastors, missionaries, and members of other fundamentalist churches as heretics?

Is it not vain for us to have Bibles in English (including the KJV) if, contrary to our understanding of them, we must believe only what KJV-only advocates believe?

 

[JD731]

I know firsthand of a Baptist church in Michigan that was split by KJV-only teaching. The pastor was not KJV-only, but a Sunday School teacher started teaching KJV-only teaching. The KJV-only teaching split that church. This example has been mentioned before.

Pastor Danilo Canlas wrote: "The truth is that I did not even permit any of my members to use any translation aside from the King James Version" (King James Bible Society Report, Oct., 1995, p. 1). Edward Scalf stated: "We use only and I do mean only the Bible (KJV) in our services. We ask the people not to bring inside the church anything other than the KJV" (Jeremiah, December, 1995, p. 2). Roy Branson insisted: "Christians should refuse to attend churches where other versions are used, or where the pastor consistently and habitually gives his own translation or 'rendering'" (KJV 1611, p. 35). Roy Branson also demanded: "In our churches, pastors should politely insist that any speaker use only the KJV 1611, and never-not even once-refer to 'original languages,' or 'original manuscripts,' or 'original autographs,' the currently puffed and popular term" (Ibid., pp. 34-35). D. A. Waite declared: "I would not go to a church that did not use the King James Bible" (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 131). In his article entitled "Battle Over the Bible," KJV-only pastor Rolland Star seems to argue that KJV preachers should not fellowship with or work with preachers that use other translations (Flaming Torch, Oct./Nov./Dec., 1999, pp. 13, 17, 18, 19).

Dave Reese attempted to claim that there is no difference between a non-KJV-only fundamentalist believer and a modernist, and he alleged that they would be a “’pretender’ of the faith” (Book No One Can Read, pp. 27-29).

Do not KJV-only advocates have their own agenda which would attempt to require other believers to give up their own Biblical convictions or else these believers will be mislabeled as liberal Bible critics, bible agnostics, or apostates?

Are some KJV-only pastors in effect assuming the unwarranted authority of attempting to demonize or excommunicate the pastors, missionaries, and members of other fundamentalist churches as heretics?

Is it not vain for us to have Bibles in English (including the KJV) if, contrary to our understanding of them, we must believe only what KJV-only advocates believe?

We have a statement of faith and a church constitution that defines our faith and works. We do not ban anyone from attending our church and those who carry modern versions are very welcome and they will never be made to feel unwelcome at our church. We are very transparent. We have a church sign that defines who we are. We are an independent fundamental KJV only, pre tribe, premil, and our sign does not say it outright but one must assume by the description that we are dispensational and believe what the Bible says, all of it, about the mystery of Christ, and therefore we teach the truth about the rapture of the church, because we believe the words in the scriptures and can use logic and reasoning and are able to rightly divide the word of God as the scriptures demand.
When one becomes a member of our church it is after he has been in attendance for a while and knows about us from a practical experience and we know something about him. They are given a copy of our constitution and statement of faith and covenant with us to advance the Christian faith by signing off on those two documents.

Maybe no other church has these documents and just receive anyone who wants to join up and then to publicly represent their congregation in what ever activity and behavior they choose.

When I say we are independent, this means we are responsible to govern our own local assembly and have authority over no other congregation at all. How they conduct themselves and what they believe is between them and God. The pastor is the under shepherd and if this gentleman taught in Sunday School contrary to his church constitution and statement of faith then he is wrong and is to be blamed and disciplined. If they do not have these safeguards then they got what they deserved.

Even you, logos1560, probably have some sort of limits on what can be taught in your church besides what is taught in scriptures that the words of God are spirit and life and can quicken those who believes them from the heart.

 

[Baptist4life]

One church ??? One! Lol The way you all post about it constantly, you'd think it was a worldwide epidemic! As I said, much ado about NOTHING. As I also said, and believe, you guys are the ones keeping it going because apparently that's all you've got to occupy your time with. I believe if the KJVO topic went away, some of you would have absolutely nothing to talk about, because it's you entire life. And that's just sad, and strange.


And, NO, I'm not KJVO. I use an ESV. I'm just tired of you all dragging this on for years because you've got nothing else to do, apparently.

 

[Logos1560]

I believe if the KJVO topic went away, some of you would have absolutely nothing to talk about, because it's you entire life.

You believe incorrectly since your assertion is not true. I would be glad if there were no men teaching and preaching non-scriptural KJV-only teaching and writing KJV-only books. Many videos can be found that promote KJV-onlyism.

Do you perhaps have nothing to talk about besides complaining and suggesting that non-scriptural, false KJV-only teaching should not be countered and exposed?

 

[Baptist4life]

You believe incorrectly since your assertion is not true. I would be glad if there were no men teaching and preaching non-scriptural KJV-only teaching and writing KJV-only books. Many videos can be found that promote KJV-onlyism.

Do you perhaps have nothing to talk about besides complaining and suggesting that non-scriptural, false KJV-only teaching should not be countered and exposed?

Logos, you can deny all you want, but all anyone has to do is go browse through numerous Christian forms for the past several years, and they can see that you're obsessed with the topic, and all you do is post and post and post and post and post, daily! Get a life, man! It's sad. Since I do have a life, this will be my last post on the subject.

 

[Mikoo]

One church ??? One! Lol The way you all post about it constantly, you'd think it was a worldwide epidemic! As I said, much ado about NOTHING. As I also said, and believe, you guys are the ones keeping it going because apparently that's all you've got to occupy your time with. I believe if the KJVO topic went away, some of you would have absolutely nothing to talk about, because it's you entire life. And that's just sad, and strange.


And, NO, I'm not KJVO. I use an ESV. I'm just tired of you all dragging this on for years because you've got nothing else to do, apparently.

LOL. So what is keeping you on this KJVO forum? LOL. You are on here doing exactly what you accuse others of. You can't be taken seriously.

 

[Mikoo]

Logos, you can deny all you want, but all anyone has to do is go browse through numerous Christian forms for the past several years, and they can see that you're obsessed with the topic, and all you do is post and post and post and post and post, daily! Get a life, man! It's sad.

LOL. It is you who needs to 'Get a life, man!'.
The obsession you have with Logos is comical.
You must live a sad life.

 

[Logos1560]

Logos, you can deny all you want, .

You choose to believe something that is not true as seen in your non-true statement that I had quoted; therefore, you deny the truth. You fail to prove that I deny any truth.

Are you possibly jealous of the life that I have? Are you obsessed concerning what you try to assume that I do with my time even though you do not actually know?

I did retire last year from a job where I had worked 40 to 48 hours a week. For around eight months, I spent 20 to 40 hours a week working on a project that had nothing to do with the Bible translation issue. After I finished that project, I am now working on a second similar project that takes a lot of time.

Are you possibly jealous or angry that some other believers find my information helpful and edifying? How do your negative comments edify anyone?

I have plenty to talk about besides this importance matter of Bible doctrine concerning the Scriptures themselves. Other Bible doctrines depend upon the Bible doctrine concerning the Scriptures so it should not be neglected.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Thread closed. Instead of bickering and throwing insults and boasting, you all should be with your families today - the day before Thanksgiving.

I have no one. No one but an autistic brother who doesn't talk to me. Get a life.

Thread closed.