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

Robycop3, I wasn't thorough enough in my previous post. I agree with you about verse 6 of that passage. I believe grammatically and logically the text is saying that God's words are very pure and he illustrates this by comparing them with purified silver. I should have referenced verse 7 only (preservation) in my post. Thanks for the clarification.

 

HAHA! This is fun stuff. I looked into the issue honestly, but "onlyism" just wasn't plausible. There's only one "onlyist" in my church, and he doesn't have much to say other than "but yours is missing verses!" Its nice to see this exchange, as severely misled as some of you are

 

Askjo:God preserved His INSPIRED words in apographs (Psalm 12:6-7).

The Psalm 12:7 thingy has been PROVEN WRONG, with the most telling evidence provided by the AV translators themselves. Your insistence upon using that incorrect argument casts doubt upon the veracity of your whole series of posts.


Therefore God preserved His INSPIRED words in most accurate translation for English-speaking people, namely the KJV.

ACTUALLY, He preserved it in a SERIES of translations, old and new, with equal accuracy.


So did God for foreigners who can read their Bible in their mother tongue.

No disagreement here, except there are several other versions issues in other languages, same as is the KJVO myth in English.

 

csmith: Robycop3, I wasn't thorough enough in my previous post. I agree with you about verse 6 of that passage. I believe grammatically and logically the text is saying that God's words are very pure and he illustrates this by comparing them with purified silver. I should have referenced verse 7 only (preservation) in my post. Thanks for the clarification.

May I refer you to the Psalm 12:7 thread on Page 2 of the archives of this forum? Here, it's plainly shown that Psalm 12:7 is about PEOPLE, and that linking it with the preservation of God's WORDS is an incorrect KJVO ploy, taken from the writings of the founder of the KJVO myth, Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson, a SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST official.

 

robycop3
I have read that thread and I agree with you 100%. That is what one of my posts above was saying. I believe the context is clearly "people" and if anyone wants to prove preservation of God's word there are a multitude of other passages available without butchering Psalm 12.

 

I don't know what spirit is behind the KJVO's, but the spirit wants to stop people from reading the Bible by limiting it to a difficult-to-read translation.

 

The previous post pushes the limit of acceptable posting. It meets the letter of the law, but not the spirit. Let us all refrain from this type of post in the future.

 

I do not see how I attack Bibles because of evidences where I counted. Thank you for deleting this fact. When I counted them and gave you an example of this fact, what wrong with the factual example?

 

It was said that the KJV was a hard to read translation. huh? I've been reading the KJV since I was eight never found it all to difficult to comprehend. I just have never understood that argument. I myself actually prefer the KJV over the other versions because the English language back in 1611 was much more precise than it is now therfore I feel that I am getting very accurate view of what the Lord is trying to convey to me.

 

Chris, What does "blasting" mean? If you know, do you think that the use of that word in the KJV makes God's Word more or less difficult to understand?

What does the word "prevent" mean? How would the common reader today understand that word as used in I Thess 4:15? BTW, I have heard KJVOnlies completely misconstrue the meaning of this word because they thought they knew what "prevent" means.

How about "communicate, conversation, let,..."? There are many words that we use with a commonly understood definition today that were not used the same way even 236 years ago when the last "acceptable" revision to the KJV was made.

I have used the KJV all my life and still do. I understand it and most often recognize these problems almost automatically. But God gave His Word in the language of the people originally. The KJV is no longer the language of the American people. No, I am not endorsing gutter language or slang or any perversion of the language... just the proper form of English that we speak in our everyday lives.

 

Chris Mc Gough...

The KJV was made in the English current for 1611. What's wrong with having God's word in the English current for 2005?

 

I do not see how I attack Bibles because of evidences where I counted. Thank you for deleting this fact. When I counted them and gave you an example of this fact, what wrong with the factual example? </font>[/QUOTE]Your facts are skewed by your interpretation. You will not be permitted to attack Bibles by comparing them to another translation.

 

I have no idea what Askjo said but that seems to be an unreasonable limitation.

 

Chris, your argument is noted and it is fine for you to prefer the King James Version for this reason. There is NOTHING wrong with that. But, let me explain why it works for you and not necessarily for others.

I am in the same boat you are. I grew up with a King James in my hand. We were handed New Testaments in the third-grade by the Gideon's who were then allowed to come into our school. I still have mine.

You and I cut our teeth on the 1769 style of English. Therefore, it is easy for us to read and understand.

However, if we expect new Christians to pick up a KJV and start understanding it, they are lost (not spiritually, they just can't read it very well.) They will have to struggle so hard that they will most likely give up and quit reading the Bible.

I even read more of the Bible since I have new versions because it is so much easier to read God's Word in my natural language than an artificial one that I had to learn just to read the Bible.

If you like it--all the more power to you. None of us here will complain if you PREFER a KJV. If they do, we will be the first to disagree with them. But, then again, you must allow those who wish to read the Bible in an easier language the opportunity to have that preference, also.

By the way, the King James you read now is probably a 1769 Oxford version. I would imagine if I were to hand you my 1611 version that you would indeed have more trouble struggling through it.

 

How did a praise break down into KJVO'ism ... again?

For those of you that know my posts - you know that I have defended the KJVO's freedom to hold that position.