How does one become a KJV only?

[Alex Mullins]

The question should read "How does one achieve, attain all wisdom or arrive at the level of being KJV only?"

With a new, easy-to-read "version" of the truth rolling off the presses every six months for the past 100 years, this is not rocket surgery folks.

I can tell you from 31 years of experience , it is wonderful combination of wisdom, discernment, seeking the guidance of and being led by the Holy Spirit and finally after considering all of the arguments, studying the actual differences in the over 200 versions of "God's Word", understanding the sinful nature and desire of the natural man to weaken, pervert and make ineffective this precious Word, since the Garden of Eden.

Why in the world would He inspire holy men to put it to paper and then lose it?

Why would God really want to have over 200 flawed version of His word in the hands of His children? Is He the author of confusion?

What would His purpose be in wanting us to have anything but His perfect, inerrant inspired Word? That would not be in keeping with His nature.

Why would Satan NOT want to get into it, tinker with it, weaken it and make it less effective? That would not be in keeping with his nature!

I thank Him daily for leading me to this truth. Now that I have it I desire to put it into practice in my life. I am learning that applying the truth is much more difficult than finding it.

If someone could anser these questions without personal attacks, that would be great.

The KJV is sufficient for me and speaks to the "common man" in my own language beautifully. I find it easy to read and easy to understand.

Does anybody agree with me?

2 Timothy 3: explains all these "Whys".

God Bless

Alex

 

[TomVols]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If someone could anser these questions without personal attacks, that would be great. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If someone could ask these questions without attacks, that would be great. Besides, what good would answering them do? It's never done any good before.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I agree !!! Thak you for a well thought out post. Excellent.

 

[Daniel]

I deeply appreciate the KJV, but I know it is only a translation of the originals. The best one out, without a doubt, but only a translation. Many of you know that even the apocrypha was in the 1611. That should tell you a lot right there. I know that the KJV-only folks get real worked up, split churches, bust out of Bible college professorships, etc. but it is still only a translation.

 

[Chris Temple]

Thanks for your sanity Daniel

 

[Daniel]

Chris--all I posted was a BALANCED, RESPECTFUL view of the KJV. Long ago I refused to make an icon out of the KJV. Yes, it's the only translation I preach from, teach Sunday School from, preach in Christian school chapels from, etc. BUT I DO NOT WORSHIP THE KJV ITSELF. It is only a translation. Yes, I will go so far as to say that it is God's preserved word for all English speaking people, but it is still only a translation. I refuse to worship a translation. Yes, if given a choice of only one Bible I would choose the KJV, but it is only a translation. I will not worship the KJV in and of itself. Christ Jesus, my Lord, is the only WORD I will worship. Hallelujah!

Thank you for your kind post, Chris. For every one of you there are 10 that would like to "rip my head off" (in Christian love, of course) for what I have just posted and what I posted a couple of days ago. I have come to accept that. I've been in full-time Christian service for nearly 19 years. Nothing surprises me anymore. I knew that KJV-olatry was coming long before it became such a foolishly devisive issue. It won't be going away, either...especially not as long as Pensacola Christian College and Bob Jones University keep their videos and open letters coming off the presses!!

Why can't we be about the Master's business instead of the unnecessary in-fighting. Why are our guns pointed at each other rather than Satan?
Must not God shake His head at our foolishness?

Brethren, can we not stop this madness? I appeal to you in the name of Jesus Christ to put your guns back in their holsters and get back to reaching people for Jesus Christ.

Do I love, admire, respect and even revere the KJV? ABSOLUTELY YES!!! Do I know what it is? Yes. Do I like the newer translations that water down the blood, the virgin birth, certain heinous sins and even the holiness of God? NO--I DESPISE THEM, IN FACT! But will I kiss my KJV like the Catholics kiss the ring of their heiarchal leaders? NO!

Finally, please consider this acrostic:
B eing
A lways
L evel
A nd
N ever
C ertifying
E vil

CAN WE NOT STRIVE FOR BIBLICAL BALANCE? After all, a FALSE BALANCE in an abomination to the Lord.

 

[Maverick]

Alex, good post.

Daniel, I believe you need to do more textual study before you make the "only a translation" comment. It goes far deeper than that. I have no problem if all you do is change Thou art the Lord to You are the Lord, but it is a far deeper issue than that.

See New Age Bible Versions by G. A. Riplinger and Final Authority by William P. Grady
and there are many other such books. Grady does an excellent scholastic study, but does hinder his mission by using some of the Hyles rhetoric to criticize his opponents. Other that that it is great material.

One need only trace the history from 1881 and notice that every denomination that has
switched from the KJV to another version has weakened its doctrines and has lost membership or gone off into deep heresy or rank Liberalism and is making overtures toward returning to Rome. Baptists are not excluded from this insanity.

The 1800's brought us a false creation in evolution, a false economy in Marxism, a false Bible and led to a false psychology. All of this is leading into the false church of the AntiChrist. The Catholics would have never accepted a KJV, but do support all the other versions because much is watered down and the tongues movement has led people from Scripture to emotion and "experience" which allows all kinds of people to unite for the One World Church, which will be headed by the Pope.

Indeed, is it not interesting that the Vaticanus has large parts of Revelation missing since Revelation beats up the RC institution as the Great Whore? Now her Reformation children are becoming harlots like Mommy and returning home.

Alexandrian texts that come from the headquarters of Origen who had seven pplans of salvation are certianly to be trusted as is the codex that has space to put all the missing verses in it should the one who paid for the copy to be made changes his/her mind and put them back in.

Age seems to be a great hoopla as the Westcott-Hort texts are older than the texts teh KJV people used. However, writings of the early Church fathers, lectionaries and other versions far older either have the missing or contested verses in them or as in the writings of the fathers allude to them. If age is the issue, let's get back to the oldest evidences.

I suppose if I wanted to find out about church life in the 1930s, I should go to the 95 year old atheist in the nursing home versus the 85 year old believer since age is everything. Not very logical and neither is using a minority text just because it is older than the majority texts.

It is far more than updating English. It is a clear attack on the Word and pseudo-intellectuals are passing off the error to believers who do not study to show themselves approved in any version. The 1881 group even admitted that they were not qualified to do any textual criticism yet they did it. Gee, wouldn't you want you GP to do brain surgery on you using that logic. Sadly, one of my college professors is wrapped up in this heresy as is BJU where I sent my son for a couple of years. Fortunately, he is still a KJV man. I would not send anyone to my own alma mater because they switched to the Nestles-Alland text in the Greek department as I was graduating.

Do more study. It could save your soul or that of someone you love.

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by Maverick:
Do more study. It could save your soul or that of someone you love.

This is the KJVO tripe that is absolutely mind-blowing!!

After Daniel has stated he cherishes and reveres the KJV, but will not worship it he is considered as an unbeliever. Great shame upon you, Maverick.

If one holds to KJVO as salvific, then one has added to the gospel of grace in Christ Jesus, and stands themselves under the Pauline anathema of Gal 1:8-9.

Bible versions do not save; grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone, is the gospel, not KJVO!

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Maverick:
Alex, good post.

Daniel, I believe you need to do more textual study before you make the "only a translation" comment.

Are you saying that the KJV is more than a translation?

It goes far deeper than that.

You are right. It goes to the point of textual criticism- "What is the most likely reading of the original text?" And, "What translations best represent the originals in English?"

See New Age Bible Versions by G. A. Riplinger...

It is remarkable that those who want to add KJVOnlyism to Fundamentalism have no problem disregarding I Timothy 2:12 when it comes to Ms. Riplinger. I have listened to one of her "lecture series" tapes. She takes the pulpit in front of a group women and MEN in Winston-Salem then proceeds to preach and teach to them for about 45 minutes.

Grady does an excellent scholastic study, but does hinder his mission by using some of the Hyles rhetoric to criticize his opponents.

Sorry, resorting to "Hyles rhetoric" pretty much precludes a work from being scholarly or edifying to the saints.

One need only trace the history from 1881 and notice that every denomination that has
switched from the KJV to another version has weakened its doctrines and has lost membership or gone off into deep heresy or rank Liberalism and is making overtures toward returning to Rome. Baptists are not excluded from this insanity.

Yes. And groups that have turned the honorable AV into an idol have led others out the other door into Phariseeism and false doctrine. We have not seen the end of it yet but if things continue to go as they are KJV may destroy fundamentalism by producing Christians that are afraid to use a Bible they can understand.

BTW, there is probably not a more damaging heresy than the "easy believism" promoted by the Hyles types.

The 1800's brought us a false creation in evolution, a false economy in Marxism, a false Bible and led to a false psychology.

...and according to Dr. Cassidy, it also gave us KJVOnlyism. Go figure...

The Catholics would have never accepted a KJV, but do support all the other versions

Really? I was under the impression that they had their own translation. But it doesn't matter since they tend not to promote the independent study of any version of the Bible.

because much is watered down and the tongues movement

MV's are responsible for the tongues movement??? All the charasmatics I know routinely use the KJV. But once again it matters little since they don't care what the Bible says.

has led people from Scripture to emotion and "experience"

You're saying that KJVOnlyism is based on sound Biblical and historical reasoning??? There is no biblical nor historical evidence for KJVOnlyism. It is completely supported by traditionalism, experience, sentimentalism, and to a great degree fear.

Indeed, is it not interesting that the Vaticanus has large parts of Revelation ....

Isn't it also interesting that Erasmus, a RCC priest/scholar and the originator of the text that would become known as the TR did not have a complete ms of Revelation. In fact, he back translated the last seven verses from his RCC Latin Vulgate into Greek. The result is that the last 7 verses of the TR/KJV do not have Greek or early version support.

Isn't it troubling that this particular part of Erasmus' text teaches salvation by works, Rev 22:14, and that you can lose your salvation, Rev 22:19?

Oh yeah, please remember that this same era produced the Illuminati, Knights Templar, and also solidified Hapsburg control over the royal families of Europe.

 

[Deitrich B]

After Daniel has stated he cherishes and reveres the KJV, but will not worship it he is considered as an unbeliever. Great shame upon you, Maverick.

Oh my goodness, I agree with Chris Temple. Hey Chris check out his other posts, he doesnt think women can be preachers or deacons either. Can you believe this tripe?

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Isn't it also interesting that Erasmus, a RCC priest/scholar and the originator of the text that would become known as the TR

Even Westcott and Hort did not go so far as to claim the TR originated with Erasmus, but stated Erasmus "passed along the commonly received text" of the New Testament.

And RCC historians have written extensivly on Erasmus and the RCC does not claim him as one of her own. They call him a "thorough going Protestant."

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Maverick:

...If age is the issue, let's get back to the oldest evidences.

I suppose you are ready to produce this overwhelming abundance of evidence to support your contention that the KJV is based on the oldest evidences?

I suppose if I wanted to find out about church life in the 1930s, I should go to the 95 year old atheist in the nursing home versus the 85 year old believer since age is everything. Not very logical and neither is using a minority text just because it is older than the majority texts.

No. You would probably want to go to the 500 year old Catholic scholar who used less than 10 late mss and his Latin Vulgate in a hurried attempt to get a Greek text published before the competition...as opposed to the modern critical texts which consider evidence from 1000's of mss and witnesses.

It is far more than updating English. It is a clear attack on the Word and pseudo-intellectuals are passing off the error to believers who do not study to show themselves approved in any version.

The list of non-KJVO "pseudo-intellectuals" includes: John R Rice, CH Spurgeon, RA Torrey, DL Moody, Bob Jones, John Piper, Charles Ryrie, J MacArthur, and the AV translators themselves...I am pretty comfortable siding with that group against the "intellectuals" I have seen in the KJVO movement like Riplinger, Marres, Hyles, Chick, Gipp, etc.

The 1881 group even admitted that they were not qualified to do any textual criticism yet they did it. Gee, wouldn't you want you GP to do brain surgery on you using that logic.

Can you cite that quote? If it is the one I am thinking about, they expressing humility... Contrast that with the fact that Riplinger's academic credentials are touted to the unsuspecting without mentioning that her field of study was Home Economics.

Sadly, one of my college professors is wrapped up in this heresy...

It is not a heresy to believe what Christians have believed for about 1900 years. It is heresy however to dogmatically assert an unscriptural doctrine to the point of dividing Christians.

Do more study. It could save your soul or that of someone you love.

If you truly believe the stuff you have posted then it is you that needs more study.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Even Westcott and Hort did not go so far as to claim the TR originated with Erasmus, but stated Erasmus "passed along the commonly received text" of the New Testament.

...Now Wescott and Hort are authorities??? Are you saying that there is proof that Erasmus' text existed in the same form prior to his collating it?

And RCC historians have written extensivly on Erasmus and the RCC does not claim him as one of her own. They call him a "thorough going Protestant."

We have been through this one before. There does not appear to be any evidence to suggest that Erasmus accepted salvation by grace alone nor that he renounced the doctrines of the RCC.

It matters little what the RCC has written or thought about him after his death. It matters a great deal what he thought of the RCC during his life.

It appears to be a love triangle. The reformation wanted Erasmus to affirm it but he clinged to the RCC but they disowned him.

[ February 25, 2002, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by Deitrich B:
Hey Chris check out his other posts, he doesnt think women can be preachers or deacons either.

Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day

 

[TomVols]

Since we've hashed this to death, can we start wrapping this up? Thanks!

 

[Daniel]

Tom, I agree. It's time to close this one down. When one's salvation is questioned because he doesn't [vulgarism edited] for the KJV-only crowd, that is pretty sad. As I said earlier, let's get about the Master's work. All this other foolishness is a distraction and time-waster. I am going to take my KJV Bible and witness to someone this week. That's the best position I can take on the KJV!!!!! Let's go for it, brethren!

[ February 26, 2002, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Now Wescott and Hort are authorities???

They agreed that the TR did not originate with Erasmus but he simply "passed alone" the text in common use for over 1000 years. Do you dispute that?

We have been through this one before.

Yes we have, and the evidence has been posted again and again. You choose to ignore it. That is your prerogative. I find the evidence compelling. If you want to ignore it there is not much I can do about it.

[ February 26, 2002, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Now Wescott and Hort are authorities???

They agreed that the TR did not originate with Erasmus but he simply "passed alone" the text in common use for over 1000 years. Do you dispute that?</font>[/QUOTE] Yes. Are you saying that Erasmus' text was not different from any before or after it? You can say it is generally representative but can you actually say that Rev 22 and I John 5:7-8 are representative of the Greek which had been passed along for over 1000 years?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />We have been through this one before.

Yes we have, and the evidence has been posted again and again. You choose to ignore it. That is your prerogative. I find the evidence compelling. If you want to ignore it there is not much I can do about it.

</font>[/QUOTE]What evidence? You have yet to produce evidence that Erasmus considered himself anything but a Catholic. He opposed the abuses of the clergy but that is hardly the same as denouncing the Pope and embracing the reformers. I am not opposed to changing my view. In fact, I would very much like to see the evidence of Erasmus' conversion.

One thing strikes me as interesting. You can read Maverick's post and not feel compelled to disagree but then pick at my assertion that Erasmus was what HE said he was.

 

[MShannon]

[ February 27, 2002, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: MShannon ]

 

[MShannon]

[/QUOTE]Oh my goodness, I agree with Chris Temple. Hey Chris check out his other posts, he doesnt think women can be preachers or deacons either. Can you believe this tripe?

[/qb]

Before you say something is "tripe" you should refer to your bible and see what it states.For instance when you say he doesn't think women can be preachers or deacons,he's right.Read 1 Timothy 3:2&12.Explain how a woman can be the husband of one wife? And that particular passage reads pretty much the same in the majority of translations.

[ February 27, 2002, 01:49 AM: Message edited by: MShannon ]