Historical Proofs for KJVOnlyism

The NKJV is not the only modern time version claimedly based on the Textus Receptus. Others I come to think of would be MKJV and LITV, both by Jay P Green Sr. Then there is one called VW-Bible, which I believe is also TR based. All of them have been online, and may be so still.

Others, but not modern day versions, based on the TR would be YLT, Geneva Bible, Tyndale's NT, Webster's Bible (actually a revision of the KJV sort of). And of course the KJV. All of these are available today, some only in book form and others also on software.

Harald

 

Perhaps it is because, as demonstrated in the above post, that you merely dismiss any offering of evidence as useless rhetoric. It appears you have the idea that any support given by KJVOs must either be taken out of context or is simply untrue. It does not suprise me in the least that many have chosen to remain silent. Silence does not equal ignorance.

 

Ah yes, thank-you Harald. I forgot those, and I don't know why! I have at least one if not both on my computer. But thank-you, I stand corrected. There are more modern versions based on the TR.

Neal

p.s. what is the VW bible that you were mentioning?

 

I've read about Riley, too. The article I read said:
---
Riley's book divides between THREE conceptions. He sees the OLD conception, the NEW conception, and then what he calls the TRUE conception. By contrasting the OLD conception with the NEW, Riley is not approving of the old. He sees the old conception as extreme. He defines the new conception as the "menace of modernism". He then strives for a balance between the two extremes. It is interesting that Riley defines four main views as the "old
conception":

1. The belief that the Bible was put together in Heaven and handed down
2. The belief that the sun revolves around the earth, instead of the other way around
3. The belief that the creation in Genesis was finished in 6 literal 24 hour days
4. The belief in the absolute innerancy of the KJV"

---

Although no.1 is silly, I believe points 2-4. Besides, KJVO doesn't neccessarily imply you believe there are absolutely no errors in the KJV. It can mean you think the KJV is the best English Version; that the modern ones can't improve it; and that going to look at Greek won't help you understand it. Such views certainly can be seen in history, so offer historical evidence of many aspects of the KJVO position. To go from here to believing that there are actually no errors at all in the KJV is a small step indeed, so shouldn't be called "extreme", and the evidence dismissed out of hand. Finally, I should point out that none of us knows whether the thousands of ordinary believers who just had a KJV in their hands believed it had errors in it; or just tried to believe everything they read. I, like they (I suspect), just try to do the latter.

 

Pardon my interruption, but I don't think people are talking about the same thing here. Believing the Bible is "inerrant" (even if referring to the KJV) is NOT the same thing as being "KJV-only". The main feature of KJV-onlyism is KJV-only - i.e. nothing else, any deviation introduces an error, etc. For millennia, people have believed the Scriptures are God's word and thus "inerrant", but that doesn't make them KJV-onlyists.

 

Neal. Here is a link which goes to the preface of the VW-Bible 2003 edition. At the bottom of that page is a link to the online Bible itself. I have not acquainted myself yet with this version, but have downloaded it to the harddrive. So I do not want to give any comments as to its quality. However I think it may have some good things about it, but perhaps also some weaknesses, as all versions more or less. One would have to compare it to the underlying TR to know the quality of the NT translation.


http://www.a-voice.org/bible-vw/preface.htm


Harald

 

Thanks, Harald.

Neal

 

Thank you Scott J. You demand "proof" for our position when you steadfastly deny to offer any "proof" of your own. Your crtiterion seems to be: if it agrees with Scott J, it is proof. Otherwise it is not. Thank you, Mr. judge, jury and executioner.

 

Proof and truth at a click of the mouse;
http://biblebelievers.com/KJV_Defended_Hills.html

 

So far, you haven't refuted the specific verse problems with the KJV that were listed earlier. Could you please to that to substantiate your KJVO claim?

 

There are no verse problems in the KJV only in the MV's

 

If you want to talk about verse problems feast your eyes on this;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSTRUCTIONS:

Using the New International Version Bible, answer the following questions.

Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the text).


Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies,__________ them that curse you, ______________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you."


According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of demon?


According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?


According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name?


In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.


In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out demons and to: ____________


According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?


According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name?


In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?


In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?


In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?


According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?


In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?


John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?


What happened each year as told in John 5:4?


In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?


In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?


What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?


Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.


Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command?


Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.


First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?


In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?


Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?


Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A______________ and O___________, the _________ and the _______:"



Conclusion: Little space is provided for your answers, but it's much more than needed. If you followed the instructions above, you not only failed the test, you receive a big goose egg.

(Ed. These are all missing in the NIV.) So now what do you think of your "accurate, easy to understand, up to date Bible"?

If you would like to improve your score, and in fact score 100%, you can take this test using the Authorized (King James) Bible.

"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?"
Gal. 4:16

 

If you want to talk about verse problems feast your eyes on this;

Yet another counterattack rather than defense.

I'd comment more, but Napoleon said it's never a good idea to interrupt one's opponent when he is making a mistake.

 

Hyu hyu haw haw haaaa haaaaa!!!!!! I love it when the truth of the KJV shuts people up!

 

KING JAMES AV 1611 said:

Hyu hyu haw haw haaaa haaaaa!!!!!! I love it when the truth of the KJV shuts people up!

It hasn't shut you up, so you can't love the truth of the KJV all that much.

 

"Prove all things hold fast to that which is good" I have proved the KJV and I will hold fast to it.

 

No where in this thread or related threads do I see "proof" that the KJV is:

1 - The only acceptible English translation
2 - A perfect translation
3 - Of greater authority than the Greek and Hebrew it was translated from.

However, I HAVE seen proof on these threads that show:

1 - There are several acceptible English translations
2 - None of them are perfect translations
3 - None of them are of greater authority than the Greek and Hebrew they were translated from