How does one become a KJV only?

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DavidH:
I hope you understand that my conviction about this matter is based on authority to determine and rule, not on a scholary dissertation of languages, sentence structure and verb usages.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This may be part of the problem because you have a faulty foundation. You want the fountain head to be the church. However, the truth which the church is to guard is the truth that is communicated in "languages, sentence structure and verb usages" as you say. Therefore, the church must defend the very thing you abhor. And to boot, the majority of the church (or churches) today rejects your position. The church that is defending the truth rejects the position you hold. If the church being the fountain head of truth, you should bring your views in line with it. The orthodox belief on Scripture is that the originals were inspired, the copies partake derivitavely of inspiration so far as they are accurate copies, and translations are authoritative inasumuch as the accurately communicate the message of the original language texts.

God has preserved his word in the multitude of manuscripts. The oft quoted "received text" argument was new in the 15th century. Early on in church history, there was no "received text." Most of the early evidence that we have today was unknown to churches from AD1000-1800. Had they known of it, the "received text" would have been much different.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I may write a post on "how to know if your church speaks the truth of God" in the future.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll save you the trouble. Your church speaks the truth of God if what they say lines up with Scripture.

 

[nam4christ]

gwerty, yours is an honest question and deserves a loving and christian answer. let me appologize for the breatheren who felt it necessary to ugly in their answers. not everyone who holds to the belief that the kjv1611 is the word of god preserved for his english speaking people,share their beiefs in such a negative way. for me it was the result of several events that lead to personal study that left me with the conclusion that the kjv is the bible that god has richly blessed in the english speaking world. can you be saved reading another english version? yes. but, i do not feel one will be the christian he/she could be for our lord by doing so. why? because doctrines in the newer translation weaken many doctrines and the men/women who work on them hold to questionable doctrines themselves. may i offer to you the following authors to help you make your decision? for this is an personal decision that you along with the help of the holy ghost that dwells inside you as a believer in christ jesus, can help you discern. they are: defending the king james bible by Dr. d.a. waite of bible for today ministries located in collingsworth,nj. i am sorry i don't have the address right now but should be easy to obtain. the other is newage bible versions by g.a. riplinger available in many bookstores, final authority by a mr. grey also located in many bookstores. i might also suggest the sword of the lord, a christian publication located in murfreesboro,tn. under the leadership of dr. shelton smith. you need to know that there is likewise a view that runs contrary to what these will teach you,so in the end the decision must be yours. your final authority must be god and his word,"so then faith cometh by hearing,and hearing by the word of god." rom 10:17. The kjv and the others do not read the same and they can not all be right. do you want a bible that is the word of god or simply a bible that contains the word of god? god bless you. nam4christ

nam4christ@yahoo.com

 

[nam4christ]

Harold, Amen!
nam4christ nam4christ@yahoo.com

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nam4christ:
can you be saved reading another english version? yes. but, i do not feel one will be the christian he/she could be for our lord by doing so. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So ... John Piper, J.I. Packer, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, James Montgomery Boice, Alistair Begg, Erwin Lutzer, A.W. Pink, Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, B.B. Warfield, J. Greshem Machen and on an on, are not or were not the Christians they could or should have been because they did not use the KJV? The KJV leads to higher sanctification?

 

[nam4christ]

Cris Temple,
You stated in a previous post " Assuming all you have said is correct,what prevents the KJV from being updated into modern,understandable,more accurate English?"
I believe that this was in response to a post from an David H. This is a very fair question and one that deserves an answer.This attempt has already been made several times over. Most modern English versions are attempts to modernize the KJV. But with each attempt more and more of the Word of God is taken away from us in the name of scholorship.It seems we have reached a time when those who take up this work end up not updating the KJV but altering vital portions of the Scriptures we have come to trust in. These are the same people that destroy the faith of our young people that we send to their schools,destroying the long efforts of the godly pastors appointed over them. Bible memorization is almost an lost art in churches,why? It is easy to see why,when there are so many different versions saying different things. Find us some men who want to update and not just change so we will how smart they are, or how we need them to let us know what are Bibles should say. It would seem that we are sadly lacking in men who will be honest in the task. I think of Dr. Curtis Hutson,long time presidant and editor of The Sword of the Lord, who was askedto participate in the NKJV,who had to remove himself after seeing how they were altering the KJV beyond recognition.
God Bless You
nam4christ

 

[David1612]

Why are you debating the Bible issue. I have been a Christian 28 years and just reading the KJV you know it is the Word of God inspired, without error. Only a fool would think such. Heb 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of
soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

 

[ChristianCynic]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David1612:
Why are you debating the Bible issue. I have been a Christian 28 years and just reading the KJV you know it is the Word of God inspired, without error. Only a fool would think such. Heb 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of
soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only a fool would think Jesus and the apostles did not have the Word of God because they did not have the KJB.

 

[livin'intheword]

Round and round it goes...where it stops? NO BODY KNOWS!

 

[cuffy7]

I'm not a KJV only man per se, but I think it is the most reliable and accurate version there is. I believe that it is THE version that God chose to preserve his word. If the language is too old for you, or whatever, I've got nothing against you using a different translation. But the farther we get away from the original texts--whatever we THINK the author is trying to say--the more we lose the literary art, the poetry, and the TRUE meaning. I think the KJV stays closest to the original Greek and Hebrew texts.

 

[Chris Temple]

Actually, the KJV is the furthest away from the original Greek and Hebrew. It was translated from a few, very late mss, and its highly exalted language is nothing like the language the originals were written in, which was very simple conversational language.

The modern versions (NASB, NIV, ESV) are much closer to the language style of the originals.

As C.S. Lewis said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> There are several answers to such people. In the first place the kind of objection which they feel to a new translation is very like the objection which was once felt to any English translation at all. Dozens of sincerely pious people in the sixteenth century shuddered at the idea of turning the time-honoured Latin of the Vulgate into our common and (as they thought) 'barbarous' English. A sacred truth seemed to them to have lost its sanctity when it was stripped of the polysyllabic Latin, long heard at Mass and at Hours, and put into 'language such as men do use' -- language steeped in all the commonplace associations of the nursery, the inn, the stable, and the street. The answer then was the same as the answer now. The only kind of sanctity which Scripture can lose (or, at least, New Testament scripture) by being modernized is an accidental kind which it never had for its writers or its earliest readers. The New Testament in the original Greek is not a work of literary art: it is not written in a solemn, ecclesiastical language, it is written in the sort of Greek which was spoken over the Eastern Mediterranean after Greek had become an international language and therefore lost its real beauty and subtlety. In it we see Greek used by people who have no real feeling for Greek words because Greek words are not the words they spoke when they were children. It is sort of 'basic' Greek; a language without roots in the soil, a utilitarian, commercial and administrative language. Does this shock us? It ought not to, except as the Incarnation itself ought to shock us. The same divine humility which decreed that God should become a baby at a peasant-woman's breast, and later an arrested field preacher in the hands of the Roman police, decreed also that He should be preached in a vulgar, prosaic and unliterary language. If you can stomach the one, you can stomach the other. The Incarnation is in that sense, an incurably irreverent doctrine: Christianity, in that sense, an incurably irreverent religion. When we expect that it should have come before the World in all the beauty that we now feel in the Authorised Version we are as wide of the mark as the jews were in expecting that the Messiah would come as a great earthly King. The real sanctity, the real beauty and sublimity of the New Testament (as of Christ's life) are of a different sort: miles deeper or further in.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>C.S. Lewis on Modern Versions: God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics

 

[DavidH]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
[/qb]

I'll save you the trouble. Your church speaks the truth of God if what they say lines up with Scripture.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't hate or despise anything. If I've projected that attitude, I am sorry I did so. I do believe what I say and I suppose being dogmatic is construed by some as being negative and harsh. So be it.
When I say that the foundation (or fountain head) is the church I do so under the authority of Ephesians 2:19-21.
God placed the responsibility of protecting the OT scriptures (Romans 3:2) on Israel. It amazes me how we never hear much debate over the reliability of the Hebrew texts given to us by the Jews. Why? In my opinion it was because they did a great job in preserving them for us.
I think we all agree that when the Jews as a nation rejected Christ and when Christ left them (Matt.23:38) he turned His attention totally on the disciples whom God had given Him. Just as God had placed His name on Isreals houseses of worship (Exodus 20:24,Deuteronomy 12:6, IKings9:3)making then (the tabernacle in the wilderness and Solomons Temple) the place where they could worship God, He placed His name on His disciples (John17:6) and gave them His word (John17:14)and gave them authority to do carry out His purpose on earth. That authority has been carried down to the Household of faith, the Church of the living God, (ITimothy5:15) until today.(John17:20)
I think you preceive that the "church" is some sort of all inclusive body of all beleivers on the earth at any given time. I beleive it is as it began--A local body of believers united together in a specific area for the purpose of worship and carrying out the will of God in their lives.I flat out without apology reject the idea of a universal or invisible church.
I personally believe your statement that if the church fathers would have had the texts "discovered" after the received text was put in place they would have used them instead of the Received text needs to be thought through. If you beleive that, you'd have to believe my fathers who were dying at the stake for their obedience to what they beleived to be the words of God were in darkness because they didn't have anything but the copies they used which were inferiour according to your way of thinking.
I realize I'm in the minority in what I believe but that is OK. The narrow way is the right way. I believe that Christanity as a whole has been blindsided by lots of strange doctrines which over the course of time have been accepted, but were never beleived or practiced by our forefathers. I personally don't like spending time trying to defend the Word of God. Spending time immersed in it and letting it straighten me out is far more beneficial than any other thing I could be doing. Making sure what we build is on the foundation laid by the apostles is imparative.
God Bless you,
Dave

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: DavidH ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DavidH:
When I say that the foundation (or fountain head) is the church I do so under the authority of Ephesians 2:19-21.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eph 2:19-21 testifies to the fact that the church is built on revelation from God, not that the church is the fountainhead of revelation. I would use 1 Tim 3:14 where the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. The issue is that revelation preceded the church and came to the church through the apostles in order for God to communicate his will to the church. The church is the defender and promoter of the truth, not the fountainhead of it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It amazes me how we never hear much debate over the reliability of the Hebrew texts given to us by the Jews. Why? In my opinion it was because they did a great job in preserving them for us.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason it is never discussed is because people don't know Hebrew. You ask your average KJVOnly guy about his language background and there may be 5 out of a 100 who have had Hebrew. People who know Hebrew typically don't make KJVOnly arguments. A lot of people know a little Greek (emphasis on the little) and they think it qualifies them to be an expert. A lot of people know no Greek and that is why there are KJVOnly.

If you study Hebrew, you know that the Hebrew text is is much worse condition in someways than the Greek is. There are some very difficult places in the Hebrew text, textually speaking.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think you preceive that the "church" is some sort of all inclusive body of all beleivers on the earth at any given time. I beleive it is as it began--A local body of believers united together in a specific area for the purpose of worship and carrying out the will of God in their lives.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it is just as it began -- the total number of Spirit baptized believers of this age who manifests itself visibly in a local congregation. To deny the existence of the invisible church is to create some huge problems in the text of Scripture. For instance, you say that "the church" of the living God has authority to carry out God's program. Which church? Mine? Yours? Paul does not say "churches" as in many, but "church" as in one. And whose church is the church of the firstborn that is in heaven (Heb 12:23)??

I think the church does have the authority. I think that is wholly unrelated to the discussion of the invisible church.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I personally believe your statement that if the church fathers would have had the texts "discovered" after the received text was put in place they would have used them instead of the Received text needs to be thought through. If you beleive that, you'd have to believe my fathers who were dying at the stake for their obedience to what they beleived to be the words of God were in darkness because they didn't have anything but the copies they used which were inferiour according to your way of thinking.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you need to think through your position as a whole. These men who died were not dying for a text form. They were dying for the Word of God. I never said those men were in darkness. The fact is that the manuscripts that they had were only a very small portion of what we have today. They died for what they had. It was not because they made a choice to reject some of God's word. History has borne out that when new manuscripts were discovered, men of God and the Church at large as accepted them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The narrow way is the right way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not when it is wrong. It is possible to be very narrow and still be wrong. Truth is determined by conformity to reality, not by the number of people who hold a particular view.

You read and love the KJV and I would encourage you to continue to do such. But do not fall for the trap that modern translations are less the word of God. They are the word of God just like the KJV is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I personally don't like spending time trying to defend the Word of God. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree but sometimes when people make false statements or misleading arguments about it, it is necessary to set the facts straight.

 

[nam4christ]

Chris Temple,
you asked me in an earlier post if I felt the list of Christians you provided for me were less than they could be for Christ because they did not use a KJV. I will answer the question this way, I feel they are Christians and sincere men of God, and men used of God. But, each has areas where I must disagree with them. Such as the fact that McArthur Does not believe that the blood of Jesus is important for salvation of fallen man, but rather it is the death of Jesus that is the issue. And that the blood of Jesus merely was shed ran to the ground and disapated like any other humans blood would. This is not consistant with the Biblical record,and I feel that such views find support in many modern English translations such as McArthur uses. There are some areas where I do agree with Mr. McArthur, but, where I do disagree with him can be linked to the English Bible he uses and the underlying texts that support it. I know from other posts that you take exception to the texts that underlie the KJV, so I will not argue the point with you.
It would seem that you always want to show yourself to be the one with the answers,and in an argumenative way. Like the scholars who want us to depend on them to tell us what our Bibles should say. Since they alone know,although they do not really know for they tell us that they are still rediscovering the Bible that God gave us and we carelessly allowed to be lost. Funny, but, I thought that the Bible stated that it was God's responsability to preserve His Word! WHAT A PUNY GOD THEY MUST HAVE! Or are they like the mormons exalting themselves to godhood? The God I serve told me in His Word that He gave me an Bible I can completely trust, and I believe Him! By-the-way I do not have to wait till it is reconstructed I have it now! I feel sorry for those who do not.-Ansel

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nam4christ:
Such as the fact that McArthur Does not believe that the blood of Jesus is important for salvation of fallen man, but rather it is the death of Jesus that is the issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not true. MacArthur does believe the blood is important. And the death of Jesus is the issue. The wages of sin is death, not blood (Rom 6:23).

The Bible says that Jesus had human blood just like you and I have. That is how he paid for our sin (Heb 2:12).

It is important that we understand these issues so that we do not fall into the heresy of denying the full humanity of Christ.

The modern versions such as MacArthur uses do not support a heresy or false teaching on the blood. They teach the same thing that the KJV teaches: that the blood of Christ was human blood and that the blood flowing out took his life which was the payment for sin.

That is the biblical record.

 

[nam4christ]

Pastor Larry,
With all do respect Sir, maybe you shouldn't forget that our Lord is also fully God and that the admixture of God/Man,in Jesus is a mystery beyond the ability of mere human comprhension. I do not forget His humanity,but , nor do I forget that He is God Almighty.

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nam4christ:
Pastor Larry,
With all do respect Sir, maybe you shouldn't forget that our Lord is also fully God and that the admixture of God/Man,in Jesus is a mystery beyond the ability of mere human comprhension. I do not forget His humanity,but , nor do I forget that He is God Almighty.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't forgotten this. In fact, I affirmed it. However, that wasn't the issue you brought up. You seemed to denigrate the full humanity of Christ but suggesting that his blood was something other than actual human blood and you asserted that moderns versions teach false doctrine about the blood of Christ. That is what I was addressing.

 

[DavidH]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
[/qb]

I agree but sometimes when people make false statements or misleading arguments about it, it is necessary to set the facts straight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't want to quote your whole reply so I will just quote a small portion of it so if anyone reads it they will know to what I am referring. This is probably going to be a long letter and my last one.
I'm not opposed to intellect and learning. I'm not educated to the extent you are and the only way I can understand Greek or Hebrew is with the aid of books or another person. Most of my life has been spent buidling and remodeling building. I did go to a Bible college, but by the Grace of God, most of what I was taught there has been washed out of my system.
It wasn't until one day in desperation, as a totally spiritually bankrupted, washed out, confused, devastated and forsaken Child of God, I got on my knees and confessed every sin and short coming I knew of and told My Lord that I was ready to do things His way and that if He would show me, I would follow. That experienced changed me totally. When I opened up God's word, He began to speak to me and I began to understand it as to what it really said, not how I had been taught. It became a living instrument in my hands and a burning fire in my soul. By God's grace, I understand Heb. 4:12 and Jer. 20:9. I'm sorry to say, at times I've run off with truths as Peter did with more zeal than knowledge, but down through the years God has toned me down somewhat. I know by most baptist church standards I wouldn't be allowed in their pulpit because of my personal life situation. Just for the record, I'm not a novice. I'm nearing 60 years and have known the Lord since 1963.
I'm laying all this out to make a point I hope you will understand.
I'm thankful when a man of God speaks God's truths from His word, regardless of what translation they are using. At times knowing the meaning or verb tense of the greek or hebrew text will throw light on a verse that was not immediately visible in the english language. I want to know everything there is to know. God is an intellectual being.
I say all this to get to this point--I'm trying to be really careful as to the way I say things.
I know from your previous posts and from the posts you've contributed to other threads that you believe in a universal body of Christ. (I'm not going to address that issue) You have also stated in more than one post that the only way a person can know the complete mind of God is by understanding the old manuscripts. Then on top of that, you have stated that we must know which old manuscript is the accurate one and this can only be known by a first hand knowledge of the hebrew and greek languages. I got this from your reply to the person asking about fasting.
Now, here is the dilemma I face and can't understand. If all this is true, how can we as common people who haven't had the privilege (or in some cases, we don't possess the ability to learn) the old languages, mature and grow and become the kind of people God wants us to be? If what you say is true, then the only way is for us to shut our bibles and let "those learned in the old languages" feed us everything God has for us to know. We cease to have any individual responsibility since we as individuals do not possess the learning to know what God is saying. My whole point in defending the King James Bible is sitting on the pretense that God expects individuals to read and study His word and grow as a result of doing that. If we don't have a bible we can trust and that contains the whole counsel of God, then we have nothing except the likes of you who have elevated themselves to the point that only you can unlock the meanings to us, and without you we are in darkness.
I believe in Pastor-teachers, by the way and know there is a thin edge between pastoral authority and individual responsibility. But God warns us that shepherds are not to be Lords over their flocks. A shepherd feeds the flock by leading them to the green fields but it's always the sheeps responsibility to eat and I beleive God can give sheep the knowledge to know the difference between grass and weeds.
Personally I think you are a good man who loves the Lord and wants to do His will. Maybe blinded in a few spots, but we all have blind spots. God's grace is sufficient.
When you stand before your people, are you the shepherd or have you set yourself up as the only means the poor unlearned sheep can get feed?
Many times we're quick to condemn the catholics for having the pope and the independents for having pope Hyles or Gray, Falwell etc, and independents are swift to redicule the Southern Baptist for their pope in Nashville, but in reality, anytime a man of God stands before the people whom God has given him to lead and tells them that the only way they can honestly know the truths of God is if they explain to them the true meanings from the Hebrew and Greek texts they are setting themselves up to be the "pope" the people are to follow if they are to make it as Christians. This is sad. We've evolved back to the situation we were in before Tyndale attempted to translate the scriptures into a language of the common people.
My belief is that anyone with the guidance of the Holy Spirit can open the King James Bible and study it diligently and over the course of time, using the means prescribed in its pages, grow and mature and be everything God wants them to be---Lacking NOTHING. The words of the King James have been anointed by God, they are fire, they are arrows, they are a two edged sword. THEY ARE THE COMPLETE REVELATION OF GOD TO MANKIND.
I guess this is all I have to say. I hope you understand what I've tried to say.
God Bless you,
Dave

 

[Pastor Larry]

I understand what you are trying to say, unfortunately all too well. Please understand that my post is intended to correct some unfortunate understandings that you have communicated.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I know from your previous posts and from the posts you've contributed to other threads that you believe in a universal body of Christ. (I'm not going to address that issue)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hold it because Scripture leads me to that position. Many people deny it because they have just bought into bad theology. It seems impossible to me to understand ecclesiology apart from understanding what the invisible church is and why it exists.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You have also stated in more than one post that the only way a person can know the complete mind of God is by understanding the old manuscripts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To my knowledge I have never said this. You will have to show me this one.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Then on top of that, you have stated that we must know which old manuscript is the accurate one and this can only be known by a first hand knowledge of the hebrew and greek languages. I got this from your reply to the person asking about fasting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have again misunderstood. The point about fasting was a question about whether “fasting” should be in or out. The only way to know for sure is to have the autographs. We do not have them. Therefore, we are left with a “pile of manuscripts” of varying ages and qualities that we divide in the “haves” and the “have nots.” Then we must try to decide how strong the evidence is for both piles. Whether it is in or out, there is no great difference. While we would all like to claim “perfection” the reality is otherwise.

You appear to be of the persuasion that all Greek manuscripts agree. They do not. There is no uniform Greek text. They all differ. Of necessity we have to make choices.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If all this is true, how can we as common people who haven't had the privilege (or in some cases, we don't possess the ability to learn) the old languages, mature and grow and become the kind of people God wants us to be?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, it is not all true as was demonstrated. Second, it is not necessary to understand the original languages to understand Scripture. It is necessary to understand the doctrine of inspiration and the principles of textual transmission and translation. When one understands these, he may have a preference for one text type or one translation, but he will not claim perfection, nor will he claim that a faithful translation is not the Word of God or that it is a perversion. Any faithful translation will help a person to grow in knowledge and grace to become what God wants us to be. I recommend that a person use several translations. It is good to have a favorite but a multitude of translations helps give understanding.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My whole point in defending the King James Bible is sitting on the pretense that God expects individuals to read and study His word and grow as a result of doing that. If we don't have a bible we can trust and that contains the whole counsel of God, then we have nothing except the likes of you who have elevated themselves to the point that only you can unlock the meanings to us, and without you we are in darkness.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have not elevated myself to the position of unlocking meanings. I know nothing that you cannot know.

I think the KJV is a great translation. But IMO, it is a mistake to limit yourself to that because there are a number of passages that could be better understood through another translation. In many passages you have words that have simply changed meaning, words that are no longer used. In some cases, the KJV gives the exact opposite meaning of what is intended. When I was a youth pastor, I constantly had teens coming up to me asking what a word meant. I wanted to say, get a modern version and you won’t have to ask; You will know what God wants you to know. But alas, I couldn’t because it was a KJVOnly church. It is the KJV, IMO, that is creating a learned class that all other must turn to for knowledge.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When you stand before your people, are you the shepherd or have you set yourself up as the only means the poor unlearned sheep can get feed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I urge my people all the time to check me out by the word of God. They should be studying on their own to see if what I am saying is true. I never tell anyone that the only way they can understand the Bible is through the Hebrew and Greek. I think the languages help and I think it is imperative for the man of God who is a full time pastor because of the depth of study required.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> We've evolved back to the situation we were in before Tyndale attempted to translate the scriptures into a language of the common people.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree totally. That is why I am opposed to the KJVOnly movement. There are those out there today insisting that it is wrong to have the word of God in the common language. They tell you that you cannot read the Bible in your own language; you need to read it in Elizabethan English, which, no matter how you slice it, is not our language today. You never read that type of English in modern communication. I think one thing that turns people off to Scripture is the feeling that they can’t understand what it is saying because of the words and sentence structure. The Holy Spirit helps with meaning, but he will not teach you a language you do not know, and he will not give you the meaning of words.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> THEY ARE THE COMPLETE REVELATION OF GOD TO MANKIND.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So where was the complete revelation of God before the KJV? This is a faulty statement that may deny the biblical doctrine of inspiration. If the KJV alone is the complete revelation, then most of church history did without God’s complete revelation. However, I believe Scripture clearly teaches that inspiration applies to the original autographs of which man has made copies through the years. There are differences in those copies and there is no way to know infallibly which is the authentic readings. These variants affect neither the doctrine nor the message of God’s word. However, having your head in the sand about these matters will not equip you to grow. It will hinder your growth.

You have clearly misunderstood a number of things that I have said. I hope this has corrected those misunderstandings. I think you also labor under a faulty understanding of what the Bible teaches about itself. I hope that you will take the time to search through these matters more fully. Understand I have no problem with the KJV or those that love it. If you love, read it and live by it. Just understand that it is not the only good translation. There are other translation that can, with equal authority, be called the Word of God.

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It would seem that you always want to show yourself to be the one with the answers,and in an argumenative way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is most often said by those who you always want to show themselves to be the one with the answers,and in an argumenative way.

Besides, it is untrue. I finished second last year in the BB Member of the Year Contest!

[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
Besides, it is untrue. I finished second last year in the BB Member of the Year Contest!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah! I remember that! I even voted for you! But, wasn't it for the Most Argumentitive Member of the Year?