I used to be KJV-only, now I'm not and boy how the Lord has blessed my Bible studying

You presume that I take a Ruckman KJV position and you would be wrong. Translate from the Masoretic/TR into whatever language you like so long as it is accurate.

CHad

 

He that speaketh gutter language should washeth his mouth with soap, then speaketh such pure terms as "pisseth against the wall" (I Samuel 25:22, KJV) and "teats of their virginity" (Ezekiel 23:3, KJV).

 

No joke, I have actually heard at least one staunch KJVo say when I asked "What about other languages?": "They are okay as long as they are accurately translated from the KJV."

 

That's the one I prefer.

HankD

 

You presume that I take a Ruckman KJV position and you would be wrong. Translate from the Masoretic/TR into whatever language you like so long as it is accurate.

CHad </font>[/QUOTE]You do realize that the KJV was translated HEAVILY using other English texts such as the Bishop's and Great Bible (the reason the verses are so similar). Yes, they did use certain manuscripts, but when the manuscripts disagreed they primarily went to the Vulgate to settle the issue.

At least one of the main TR's used today was at least a partially "reverse engineered" Greek/Hebrew text designed to match what the source would have been for the KJV.

That certainly does not mean the TR is not as good as other manuscripts, but it does cause a problem when reviewing manuscripts for accuracy. You might consider other compilations of the Byzantine Majority Text if you wish to go that route. Just a thought.

 

Gregory Perry, Sr.: I've been a confident KJVo man since 1980 and was a "preferred" prior to that.I've seen nothing in here that shakes my conclusions,convictions or faith in the position I hold.

No prob, until you say the KJV is the ONLY valid English BV.


Some of you guys(on both sides of the issue)are pretty intelligent and have a lot of formal education and that is fine.I had just enough college to know that anyone who perseveres through 4 or more years of it has every reason to feel proud of their accomplishment(and thankful they survived the experience).

All I have is high school, some tech schools, and the "school of hard knocks". But it doesn't take rocket science to recognize a false doctrine when one sees it.


I just believe though that many times the result of education is that confidence in "scholarship" replaces "simple faith" in the Word of God.At that point a certain blindness sets in and it becomes difficult to discern the difference between what is right and wrong.

That would be the BLIND FAITH of the KJVOs in their baseless doctrine.(Not questioning anyone's salvation, as many KJVOs often do, thereby showing their stupidity)


I think that is the result of "modern textual criticism" that clouds the issue of final authority and seeks to degrade peoples confidence in the King James Bible which IS,without question,the Word of GOD.

And IS, without valid question, NOT the ONLY true version in English of God's word.


The proliferation of modern versions in our day is,in my opinion,(which I already know most of you will reject)an attempt by modern scholarship to usurp authority and redefine it to suit their own purposes.

Actually, it's an attempt to render God's word into the language of today, same as were the efforts of Tyndale, Coverdale, the AV translators, etc. for the language of THEIR times.


God Inspired His Word in the Original writings and then set about to Providentially Preserve it for every age and for the English speaking people the result was the King James Bible.

That was only ONE of the results.


In the early church when most spoke Greek or Hebrew people ONLY understood it as the Holy Spirit REVEALED it to them.The same is true in the English speaking world today.The natural or carnal man will NEVER understand the Word of God any better unless the Holy Spirit opens their darkened hearts and minds to it.

True, regardless of what versions in what languages one uses.


All these new versions accomplish nothing except to cloud the issue of God's Final Authority....and the devil must just love that.

Actually, the devil loves the controversy and doubt he's been able to shed by causing CHRISTIANS to question the validity of several versions of God's word. These people refuse to see that KJVO is nothing more than a false doctrine, started by a cult official, based upon nothing, not supported by the KJV itself.


I'll go to my grave(unless I'm raptured out) believing that THAT one Book(KJV)is all I ever needed to find,know,and live for God.

And I'll go to mine thanking and praisisn Him for saving me after all my sins, for making His word available to me in the language He chose for me to use.


I'm also thankful to God that He saw fit to continue His providential work of preservation and update the unusual spellings of the 1600's english into the far more readable spellings found in my 1769 edition of the KJV.

But you're not very thankful that God is STILL AT IT, providing His word in the languages He's chosen for us to use now.


Even I have to agree that it is far more readable....and thank God it isn't the perverted "gutter" english of the current day.JMO folks....carry on with your controversy!

Seems as if YOU use the same English as I. Does that make us both perverts?

Just face it...The KJVO myth is a vacuum, founded upon empty space.

 

C4K: Do you think if the Lord tarries then in 2205 NKJV onlies will be saying, "I am glad that the Lord preserved His Word in the beautiful English of the 20th century instead of the perverted, gutter English of today?"

Many a KJVO, such as Mr. Perry here, state God has providentially preserved His word and caused it to be rendered into English. However, they stop at the KJV, saying it is the culmination of God's work.

What I've asked for on many occasions is PROOF that God retired in 1611 and no longer updates His word, and that he quit supervising the languages. I guess asking for such proof is like asking for Gatorade in gehenna.

 

Roby;
I would like PROOF that God didn't get it right and I would also like to know WHEN you think He will.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

^^^^

Huh? God got it right when the original manuscripts were written. The fact that the copies have errors in them doesn't mean that God is in the business of 'correcting' them nor is God in the business of 'preserving' (mmmm.... pickles ) the KJV. You are begging the question, av1611jim. You want proof, eh? Prove your own 'KJV-only' assertions first!

 

C4K asked:

If English is dead, what will people do for the Word of God?

You'll just have to ask your bishop.

 

Then there will be the 2020AV_Rap_Bible Only group. Did, I really say that?

 

LRL171,

"Pickles"? Gee, you sound like a friend who posts on here from time to time. He goes by "Orvie".

I dunno what he's gonna do, not that his favorite KJVO is no longer with us...if you understood, then you'd understand...

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Trotter,

I think I was actually referring to Ed Edwards' past topic about the 'providentially preserved' Pickle version! I say this as a 'jab' at the lunacy of KJV-onlyism. It was meant to be humorous, picking at the inherent 'blissful ignorance' of those who adhere to the KJV-only her... here.... here-say. The product of KJV-onlyism is a providentially preserved pickle version, known as the 'inspired' product of the KJV-onlies.


mmmmm. Pickles

Providentially Preserved Pickles.....
mmmm, mmmmmmmm, mmmmmmmmmmmm! Good!



[ February 13, 2005, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: LRL71 ]

 

Trotter, repeat after me "It was only a nightmare, it was only a nightmare!"

 

So are you saying that Paul was unable to serve God because of his intellect and education? I've never seen God ever use ignorance.

Got news for you! There were some English translations before the KJV.

 

I have seen repeated questions from Roby,LRL and others in here asking us KJVo's to supply scripture to back up our assertion that the KJV is "it" for the english-speaking world of this generation.Well....I'll admit that there is no verse found anywhere in a KJV that says that specifically.There...I SAID IT.However,I think it only fair to reverse that SAME QUESTION on you MV adherents.You can't supply any either.CAN YOU?...well...CAN YOU?Nope....I don't think so.The truth is we both hold the positions we hold based on manuscript and historical evidence that we as individuals choose to accept or reject.NOW...if I'm wrong in this opinion then prove me so.But....if you can give me no more than the opinions that you have adopted as your version of the truth then I'll stay where I am.I believe the "tenets" of Modern Textual Criticism are every bit as false and flawed as you claim the KJVo position to be.I also know that you won't be convinced by anything I say about it since most of you don't believe I am "qualified" to speak on the matter.I will state for the record that I am posting my opinion...nothing more.But...I feel my opinion is correct therefore I'll stand by it.The more I get into my Bible..the more I'm sure I'm right.God Bless you all...I mean that sincerely.

Greg Sr.

 

Scripture does not need to be supplied for opinion. Scripture does need to be supplied for doctrine. If one holds to KJV-onlyism (or MV-onlyism, or Green-shirt-onlyism) as a doctrine, that person needs to demonstrate how that doctrine comes from something that has the authority to define doctrine. For Baptists, that's only the Bible.