Is KJV Only A Heresy?

GrannyGumbo has denied that editions prior to and after the KJV are God's Word. Take a brief search of her posts[TomVols]

"Until I came on Board here, I knew of no such prior "editions" other than whatever the KJBible's ancestors were & I believe they were pure. I have said that I believe WITH ALL MY HEART, that the KJBible is the ONLY one for us to use today. I welcome anyone to check-out any of my posts, as I am not ashamed of anything I have ever written.

If I have ever offended anyone, please accept my apology, but I will not now or ever back down from what I know without a doubt, the Lord would have me to believe. I do not feel I have said anything to deserve the 3 reprimands, but apparently you did, for you to report me to the administration for discipline.

EVEN SO, COME, LORD JESUS!

 

I think herein lies the major problem -- there are some things you did not know about. In other words, you have formed a dogmatic opinion without being fully aware of the facts of the case.

The prior editions of the KJV differ in words and substance. They add and take away words that cannot be attributed to spelling errors. Now I have no problem calling all editions of the KJV the Word of God, but I don't see how you can do this since they are different.

 

I see. They are not only stupid, they are dishonest and afraid to speak up. I have noticed the KJVOs are really afraid to speak up about what they believe. Why, if they were not afraid to speak up, this thread would run to 2 or 3 pages instead of just the 4 or 5 posts it has now!

Good grief! Make up your mind! Either the KJVOs are divisive, or they are afraid to speak up! Which is it?

 

Words, yes. Substance? That is yet to be substantiated.

Different in substance. I suspect the above may apply to you as well as to GrannyGumbo.

 

I see. They are not only stupid, they are dishonest and afraid to speak up.
</font>[/QUOTE]Please don't put words in my mouth. I explained precisely why I don't think they would speak up, and I did not say they are "stupid" or "dishonest". I said speaking up on the issue of which edition or where the word of God was before 1611 is hard because of the paradox that needs to be answered. My statements were clear. Why are you trying to misrepresent me about this?

And why are you so reluctant to answer these two simple, direct questions?:

let's stay on topic. In the term "KJV-only", do you happen to notice the "only" part?

If I said "Only the NIV is the word of God", wouldn't the question "Where then was the word of God before 1978?" be a valid question to ask me?

Brian

 

The differences listed by Scrivener include differences of substance. They are not all that way and what is "substantial" for some may not be considered such by others. However, I have formed no opinions without having a decent (though not infallible) grasp on the facts and I am certainly not dogmatic about it. I simply do not care what version people use. Nor do I consider their choice a matter of orthodoxy.

 

Words, yes. Substance? That is yet to be substantiated.
</font>[/QUOTE]Interesting, this. Just yesterday I came across a thread on another discussion board where you recently said (highlighting added):

"I am a strong KJV believer, however, I also know there have been 421 translation changes from 1611 to the 1769 edition, which most of us use. Of those 421 translation changes, 285 of them are so minor as to be unimportant. For instance, "towards" is changed to "toward" - "burnt" is changed to "burned" - "amongst" is changed to "among," etc.

However, the remaining 136 changes are changes of substance. I have listed some of those changes. Can anyone on this forum who believes there have been no changes in the KJV from 1611 to the present please explain how there changes don't count? Also, for anyone on this forum who believes in "perfect preservation" so that no word can be changed, can you tell me which of the readings, the 1611 or the 1769 is the "perfectly preserved word of God?""

Click here and scroll about half-way down

Brian

 

If you would bother to note the source of my statement you would see I was using the wording of Dr. Waite. He chose the word "substance" to differenciate it from changes of "form" only. As I clearly noted, even the so-called "changes of substance" are not substantial to the point of changing the meaning of the text. Of the 136 changes so noted, only about a dozen of them can be attributed to something other than printer's errors, and even then the word choices are clearly synonymous.

 

Which is the same wording as being discussed here.

Not all of them, as you noted in your post.

Hey, by the way, if I said "Only the NIV is the word of God", wouldn't the question "Where then was the word of God before 1978?" be a valid question to ask me?

[ July 22, 2002, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

Hey, by the way, if I said "Only the NIV is the word of God"[BrianT]

"So~IS this what you ARE saying? IS this the ONE you choose as your Sword?

 

I'll answer you question after you answer mine.

 

And would have as much biblical support.