Is the KJV of God or man?

The point plainly made here is that Jesus used another version of Isaiah besides the one translated into the KJV, but the version from which He read or quoted was the one known to the Jews of His time and place. had he not read or quoted the Scriptures exactly as written, the crowd would've instantly accused Him of heresy and of corrupting the Scriptures, and most likely would've attempted to stone Him. At the very least, no one would've believed Him.

 

Anti-Alexandrian said:

I noticed in your profile that you call yourself a "Baptist." My question is WHY??

Anti-Alexandrian, we already know you are incapable of defending KJV-onlyism against the relentless onslaught of reality.

What possessed you to think that tearing off a ridiculous rant about someone's stated denominational affiliation was going to magically change the facts of history and theology to suit your position? You have accomplished nothing for KJV-onlyism. Instead, you have made it all the more apparent that you are a know-nothing, and by implication so are the other KJV-onlyists.

If I were a fellow KJV-onlyist, I would slap you about the chops with a large, ripe fish for making me look more foolish than I already am. And when you consider that this thread actually started with a KJVer thinking Jesus' dilemma in Matt. 21:25 actually has some relevance in the Bible version debate . . . well, believe me, making other KJVers look even more foolish is quite the accomplishment for you.

Silence is an option, you know.

[ November 25, 2003, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Hearkening back to the beginning of this thread, swordsman asked:

Is the KJV of God or man?

This is obviously an allusion to the question Jesus posed to the priests in Matt. 21:25 when they challenged his authority:

They talk amongst themselves, and they realize that Jesus' question has trapped them:

Jesus had impaled the priests on the horns of a dilemma, and they knew it. Either alternative forced them to admit something they didn't want to: John the Baptist had a lot more authority than they did.

Swordsman seems to think that if you ask the same question Jesus asked, only substituting "the KJV" for "John's baptism," then somehow the non-KJV-onlyists will be caught in a similar dilemma. But no such dilemma exists to be exposed. Non-KJV-onlyists stand to lose nothing by admitting that the KJV came from God (since it is a faithful and accurate translation of the God-breathed Scriptures) or from men (since translation is a human work).

Therefore, I submit to you that the question as posed is useless. So, too, has this thread also become, since it has devolved into the usual KJV-onlyist bickering over nothing.

 

So God gave us an example of how 90 words were equivalent to 76 words in scripture! A whopping 18% word count difference... yet you cannot fathom how Bibles with less than 1% difference in word count as compared to the KJV can be considered the Word of God in English? Talk about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

What a remarkable declaration by you. Are you willing to stand by this standard or is it just a convenient evasion?

Yes and God obviously has no problem using different words to express His same Word.

If you want to complain against God's providential preservation and distribution of His Word in MV's then YOU tell God.

OK. Which mss is not "mutilated"? They all differ from each other in some way or another. If you demand a single set of words organized in a specific order in English then why isn't the same rule applicable to Greek? Remember the TR from which the KJV came was not a mss. It was a collated text created from a few "mutilated" manuscripts.

For goodness sake Askjo, surely you can see the inconsistency... can't you? You demand a purely worded translation from God when the fact is that God didn't even preserve a perfectly worded original language manuscript.

 

For Askjo or A-A:

I'm wondering if either of you has any direct experience with churches that make use of Bible versions other than the KJV?

Locally here, in the Twin Cities (MN) area, I know of only 2 Baptist churches of any size or relevance that have stuck by the KJV.
The first once averaged about 2,000 in attendance; it currently runs around 600. Just recently this church switched to using the NKJV.
The second once had about 1,500 at its peak; it now runs around 600 as well. This second church is adamently KJVO.

I've never been one to equate success solely with numbers- but it's clear that both churches are impacting the community on a lesser numerical scale than they once did.

Now in contrast to these two churches: the growing, evangelizing churches around the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro-area seem to be the churches that use newer translations of God's Word.
The church I belong to completed another building project that doubled our square-footage two years ago; and now again we're bursting at the seems. Our pew Bibles; and the version most commonly used from the pulpit; is the NIV.
A few miles across town is a rapidly growing, already quite large church that is well known locally for getting people down the center aisle. They have a Saturday evening service (in addition to their multiple Sunday services) that I'll sometimes attend- just because their worship & people are so joyful and sincere. (Of course I'm in my place at my own church on Sundays!) This church uses the NLT!
I could provide numerous other examples of similar churches.

My point is this: many churches that are effectively spreading the Gospel today do so while making use of newer versions of God's Word. I myself was saved out of a KJV, and used it exclusively for over 30+ years as a Christian. I still read from my KJV- but also from my NIV and my NASV. Contrary to what you may think, I have yet to find a single passage in the newer versions that denies any of the fundamental doctrines. In fact, I'll often find that the Holy Spirit especially speaks to me through the clarity of the passages of the newer versions.

Here's my question then to any KJVO's: What do you make of growing, evangelizing churches that aren't KJVO: would you say that God isn't working through them?

 

I believe that God may work through them because of the saved people in the church. As far as the growth goes, I believe the people are making the growth, not God. Meaning, you tell them what they want to hear and sure you'll draw a crowd, but once their there, tell them about what a down right dirty sinner they are and how they don't deserve to go to Heaven and if they don't accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, they will go to Hell and see how many come back. An example would be Benny Hinn. He professes to have healing power. It draws people to the church/stadium, but what would happen if he stopped doing that stuff, which is not real and preached about Hell and the sinner going there without repentance. I wonder if the crowd would be so happy to come see him then.?

 

I believe that God may work through them because of the saved people in the church. As far as the growth goes, I believe the people are making the growth, not God. Meaning, you tell them what they want to hear and sure you'll draw a crowd, but once their there, tell them about what a down right dirty sinner they are and how they don't deserve to go to Heaven and if they don't accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, they will go to Hell and see how many come back. An example would be Benny Hinn. He professes to have healing power. It draws people to the church/stadium, but what would happen if he stopped doing that stuff, which is not real and preached about Hell and the sinner going there without repentance. I wonder if the crowd would be so happy to come see him then.? </font>[/QUOTE]I totally agree about Hinn: I think he's a fraud. I'm not asking about his type of "ministry" though- I'm talking about ones that preach the unwatered-down Gospel.

The Bible records that Jesus Himself drew crowds in the thousands at times. Therefore I don't see a large crowd of people as being necessarily indicative of watered-down preaching.

 

I believe that the modern versions water-down the Bible. That may be one reason for the why people dress, act, drink, etc.. they don't have the truth preached. Getting behind the pulpit and saying Jesus loves you is great, but for the Christian to grow, he needs meat.

 

But as we have constantly pointed out and proved to you from Scripture, your belief is wrong. Remember, belief is not the test of truth; conformity to truth is the test of truth. The truth is that modern versions do not water down the Bible. They are the Bible. Modern preachers may water down the Bible, but that is a far different issues. More and more, it sounds like the greatest need you have is to be around some good people who use modern versions. Most of your false notions would be easily dispelled.

 

But as we have constantly pointed out and proved to you from Scripture, your belief is wrong. Remember, belief is not the test of truth; conformity to truth is the test of truth. The truth is that modern versions do not water down the Bible. They are the Bible. Modern preachers may water down the Bible, but that is a far different issues. More and more, it sounds like the greatest need you have is to be around some good people who use modern versions. Most of your false notions would be easily dispelled. </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed.

 

You're mixing issues: the Bible, and preaching. I know some "modern version" churches that are on fire for God, and the preaching is prime rib. I've been too KJV-only churches where the same old stale milk is spoon-fed over and over. Your cause-effect implication is just your personal perception.

 

Give us examples of what you consider "meat" and let us endeavor to provide support from MV's without using the KJV at all. If only the KJV is a source for spiritual "meat" then we shouldn't be able to do this.

BTW, if one gets behind a pulpit and preaches wrath but no love plus preaches extra-biblical legalism, they should be rejected just as quickly as those who only preach "love". The true gospel includes both God's holiness and His love, to neglect either is to fail to preach the gospel.

 

You're mixing issues: the Bible, and preaching. I know some "modern version" churches that are on fire for God, and the preaching is prime rib. I've been too KJV-only churches where the same old stale milk is spoon-fed over and over. Your cause-effect implication is just your personal perception. </font>[/QUOTE]Good point Brian.

I am familiar with a church where the same old hobby horses get ridden every service. "Sex, drugs, alcohol, and rock-n-roll" and "gettin' into the word" are common themes... sometimes accompanied by some nice, emotion inducing stories but always superficial. No depth/exposition. No building people up to confront the world effectively themselves.

 

"Watered down" gospel is found in Galatians 1:7-12. Another passage is 2 Cor. 2:17.

I heard that many preachers in Baptist churches rejected the doctrine of Jesus Christ, of Salvation, of Hell and so on because of these modern versions "watered down" Bibles that they used in their church.

 

But as we have constantly pointed out and proved to you from Scripture, your belief is wrong. Remember, belief is not the test of truth; conformity to truth is the test of truth. The truth is that modern versions do not water down the Bible. They are the Bible. Modern preachers may water down the Bible, but that is a far different issues. More and more, it sounds like the greatest need you have is to be around some good people who use modern versions. Most of your false notions would be easily dispelled. </font>[/QUOTE]That's just it, I'm around people ever day that use modern versions and their livestyles are happy-go-lucky. They curse, drink, wear provocative clothes, listen to ungodly music, etc..

 

Scott, that hireling, errggggg, pastor is not interested in feeding the sheep, he is too busy whacking them with his stick.

Let me guess:

Read your Bible
Pray
Give
Witness
Go to church every time the doors open

This stuff is the "meat" that is associated with KJVOs. Is that stuff bad? Of course not. Is it right? Of course it is.

The difference is that this stuff is milk until you actually exposit the word and instruct people in doing those things. Most KJVOs cram them into one sermon. They just regurgitate the same message.

This is why so many KJVOs are, well, KJVOs. They have no solid theological foundation. The wind blows acrostic algebra so they float right along with it.

 

And I've heard that the moon is made of cheese.

 

Nooooo! Wrong! 6,500 watered down words in the NIV! 4,000+ watered down words in NASB! And so on. Are they the Bible? Noooo!

 

Sorry to disappoint you but I have seen the same thing out of KJVO's. The pastor of the church I recently left over this issue has a step son that is adamently KJVO and will argue to the last breath over it. He also smokes dope, thinks there is nothing wrong with pre-marital sex, and spent last summer in jail for breaking into a local store.

Worse yet, I know many KJVO's who are just downright hateful. They come off as judgmental and condescending to both believers and lost people. Sinning Christians turn people off... but it doesn't have to be one of the sins you like to condemn. A hateful spirit is no less sinful than provocative clothes or music you consider ungodly.

The pastor I mentioned earlier... I have seen him in a local convenience store that has prominent displays of beer ads and pornography... buying smokeless tobacco. I know of two young men that he had convinced that they were preachers who are now out of church, not serving God, and into at least some of the things this pastor "preached" so faithfully against. He told them what was wrong but not what was right... he left the house empty after purging the demons. He told them what the enemy was but didn't really equip them for the battle.