I would like to ask...

Homebound, I am not making claims I cannot back up. I am not holding on to contrived doctrines, with "by faith" as my only reason. And lastly I am not deviating from the orthodox and accepted view of scripture through the entire history of the church. When someone makes a new claim contrary to the universal position, they need to back it up with more that what you've been providing! Now, I admit that sometimes the universal position is wrong, but the onus is still on the person making the new claim to back it up. Otherwise, someone could claim "The tooth fairy is real!" and when challenged, could simply say "Oh yeah? Prove she *doesn't* exist!" You see, we should NOT simply believe a new teaching without support. Until someone does this, KJV-onlyism will remain a fairy tale.

Seriously, think about it: you're making claims, trying to support your idea of the "final authority", but using your own whims as the "authority" by which to make decisions about what to believe. What, from a logical point of view, is different between this and how Joseph Smith started the Mormons, with his claims of angel visitation and gold plates (which he never provided any evidence for!) by which to make the book of Mormon?

Once we start accepting doctrines "just because", with no support, who can tell what the truth is? We'd be making it up as we went! </font>[/QUOTE]Well I guess I could say because it has been in the family forever. It has been around for over 400+ years now. I've read how it has changed peoples lives and how some people have died to get this book in my hands. I see it ever time I'm in church, how someone reads the Gospel and accepts Jesus as their Lord and saviour. How it has been my pastors Bible for over 55 years of his life and his fathers life and to see that they are still living and serving Christ today. How his boys are in the church serving God. How it pricks a man's heart to bring him down on his knees and ask for forgiveness of his sins. How it seems that it is the only Bible that gets attacked from other bibles. Just by reading it, it gives me the strength to serve Christ and the comfort of the scriptures. It's hard for me to explain and I know that I don't do it justice.

 

Key phrase being "that I know of." There were many changes that had nothing to do with spelling and printing. They changed words and translations. Scrivener showed a number of these. This argument that there were only spelling and printing errors is simply not true.

But even at that, why does a perfect Bible have spelling errors in it? Could the God who provided this perfect Bible not control the human printers?? Come on, now. Think about this for a minute before you answer.

Not necessarily, but it is closer to the source meaning that there has been less of a chance of corruption through hand copying.

 

Homebound, you are your kind are the ones attacking other Bibles. We are not attackign teh KJV. It is you who insists that the word of God is satanic and perverted. It is not us who say those things about the word of God.

Everythign else you said is true about the MVs. They all do that and I am thankful for it.

 

Homebound, I appreciate all those reasons, I really do. But they are all subjective - you're concluding a doctrine about something because of familiarity and experience. I once asked a Mormon friend how she knew her faith was legit and the Book of Mormon was from God - and she gave mostly the same sort of response. The only real difference was that she added the "burning in the bosom", and said about 100 years instead of about 400, but in 300 more years (if the Lord tarries) she'll have that one too. Do those reasons make her doctrines true? No. Why should the same reasons make anyone else's doctrines true?

Your reasons are perfectly good reasons to *prefer* the KJV, and I would have no problem with that at all. But to use those subjective reasons to make a universal proclamation about the KJV, and about the source of all other versions, is not justified.

 

I will end my conversation about this by saying, I'm still growing. I don't know all those MSS things, just what God has placed in front of me. Maybe in years to come I will know allot more. Maybe in 43 years I will still be here to say, the King James Bible is God's preserved, infallible, inerrant, perfect word of God.

 

The texts used by the bible translators, such as the KJV, still exist. You can order a copy of the Textus Receptus, for example, in its original language, from many bookstores.

 

Hopefully in the years to come you will know a lot more and come to recognize that other faithful translations are God's preserved, infallible, inerrant, perfect word of God as well.

 

Since the KJv did cause confusion and disorder when it was published, primarily but not limiuted to those who preferred the Geneva Bible, and God is not the author of confusion, then God is not the author of the KJV, right?

 

Ok,since the KJB was(in your "opinion")causing confusion,then why didn't it fall into oblivion like almost ALL post 1881 "bibles?" In short,why didn't the Geneva oust the KJB?

Wrong!!

 

Because it was agianst the law to use it, right?

As to the KJV ousting anybody, that creates a problem if that is your measuring stick. The NIV seems to have ousted the KJV from the #1 spot and doesn't seem to be moving. Hmmm...

God Bless,
Neal

 

The difference of course is that the NIV is being freely chosen by Christians whereas the KJV gained prominence through the force of the government as it denied religious liberty and separation of church/state.

Of course this says nothing about quality. I happen to think that the KJV is better than the NIV. But the idea that the KJV gained dominance by the choice of Christians much less a divine act of God simply doesn't hold water.

 

Because church and state were one, under one "Head" [and guess Who that was not?] and this one authrity authorized this new translation, with a bias in favor of the Anglican church-state as it was, as opposed to those who wished to either "purify" the church or to separate from it. When some of you guys say "AV"-- Authorized Version-- I don't think you know what it is to which you are referring.

BTW, if it is true that "almost ALL post 1881 Bibles" have "fallen into oblivion," then almost all of this debate would not be occurring. That is a very incompetent contention.

 

24 hour notice is now in place. Let's wrap it up. Clock is ticking.....tick, tock, tick, tock.....

 

Before this gets closed... I use New King James and wondered if the KJV people consider that to be a Modern Version when they criticize those?

Just asking for my own understanding and thanks in advance for your kind answers.

Diane

 

I am not a KJVO, but yes, they do consider the NKJV a modern version and criticize it, sometime even more than other MVs because it is so close to the KJV.

God Bless You,
Neal

 

Thanks for the answer, Neal. I had thought so but didn't want to assume and be incorrect.

Diane

 

it's "DIABOLICAL"--says Waite:

http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/articles/faith.asp

blasphemy knows no bounds in KJBOism.