Is this all it really takes ...

[TC]

to become a KJVO? From a thread now closed:

The scriptural support for our belief has been abundantly given to you all. Many deny, reject, or say we are taking the scriptures out of context. I can't help you there. Only God can. However, if you take the KJB and open it up, and read from Genesis 1 - Revelation 22:21, and open up one of the mv's from Genesis 1 - Revelation 22:21 and compare the two honestly and with love for the truth and the word of God, it will be quite apparent that the mv's have ALTERED the scriptures. There is the support you are looking for, but you need to open your eyes first, and swallow pride, compromise and excuses and understand and love the truth revealed within.

As said before, I left the KJVO movement when I started reading and comparing the MV's with the KJV word for word in context. Those famous charts and little comparison snippets certain KJVO promoters make didn't make the cut. I found many things lacking in such things - from misquotes to out and out lies. I still prefer the KJV and any other Bible tranlated from the traditional Byzantine texts, but I no longer tell anyone that they should use only the KJV.

<personal reference deleted>

[ September 27, 2004, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[AVL1984]

TC...No...To become KJVO, one must believe that it is the ONLY version people should use, or the only version you personally would use. I believe C4K has stated that he is KJVO, but he is not the "militant" KJVO. He doesn't tell people, or even imply that people who use the other versions are incorrect. I personally use the KJV, but not exclusively, though I did for 35 years, and preached KJVO doctrine until 1999. The person who's quote you used is a very misled person. I believe the person to be saved but feel very sorry for them because of the confusion and dissension and doubt they are spreading. But, with hope, one day, possibly God will open this persons eyes to the truth of error in the militant position.

I too have noticed that many KJVO churches will proudly brandish the AV1611 sign with the Bible or shield and sword, and say they commit to using it, but when questioned...it is common to find that many don't even know anything about the 1611 KJV, and no study has ever been done on the subject, including the updates, revisions, etc. It's a shame, but it is all too common.

AVL1984

 

[RaptureReady]

So TC, you let man alter your belief in the King James Bible?

I also stopped pushing the KJB on people. You can give your experience and the truths in the KJB, but you cannot drive someone to believe it, only the Holy Spirit can do that. But, I will not back down from saying that the King James Bible is God's infallible, inerrant, inspired word.

 

[robycop3]

Rapture Ready:But, I will not back down from saying that the King James Bible is God's infallible, inerrant, inspired word.

But if you say the KJV's the ONLY such BV, you're simply wrong.

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by RaptureReady:
So TC, you let man alter your belief in the King James Bible?

I also stopped pushing the KJB on people. You can give your experience and the truths in the KJB, but you cannot drive someone to believe it, only the Holy Spirit can do that. But, I will not back down from saying that the King James Bible is God's infallible, inerrant, inspired word.

Rapture ready, which version of the KJV is the perfect inerrant inspired Word? Please, enlighten us.

AVL1984

 

[TC]

Originally posted by RaptureReady:
So TC, you let man alter your belief in the King James Bible?

No, I read the KJV and the MV's word for word and compared them. That changed my belief about KJVO. Man's sneaky little charts (you know, the ones focused on one word or phrase pulled out of context) had me believing KJVO. I still believe in the KJV - just not KJVO.

 

[Johnv]

The OP contains the quote from another post that reads:

The scriptural support for our belief has been abundantly given to you all.

Now, I have repeatedly asked in several threads for scriptural support for single-translation-onlyism. No one has responded with any. The only response I get is "it's already been given", and never find any such support when looking in previous posts, or after reading my own copy of the KJV (which I've had since childhood) cover to cover numerous times. Now, I'm a faithful Christian, and I desire to live my life scripturally. So, if I ask fervently for scriptural support, I fail to understand why no scriptural support is ever given, even though I eagerly await such scriptural support with a hungry heart and open mind. Do the KJVO's care so little for me that they prefer I live in darkness?

I want to live my life as scripturally as possible. So please, if there is scriptural support for single-translation-onlyism, please post it. Lacking scriptural support, I must otherwise conclude that it is not a scriptual doctrine.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by TC:
I still believe in the KJV - just not KJVO.

Exactly. Some people clearly do not know the difference.

 

[Dr. Bob]

C'mon, John. It's right there in Genesis 1:1 - Rev 22 (not sure about the last verses, since they were translated from the Vulgate).

What are asking you for? Specific verses that say only one translation = God's Word?

If someone asked me for SPECIFIC verses to support salvation by grace, I would list many.

If someone asked me for SPECIFIC verses to support the trinity, I would list many.

If someone asked me for SPECIFIC verses to support why I am a Baptist, I would list many.

It is not hard to do.

If someone asked me why it is more spiritual to live in Wyoming than in Miami, I would be befuddled. No verse, just my gut feeling.

And so we ask about one-version onlyism, and we get __________.

Expected.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by RaptureReady:
But, I will not back down from saying that the King James Bible is God's infallible, inerrant, inspired word.

Amen, Brother RaptureReady -- Preach it!

I believe all three of my different
King James Versions are God's infallible, inerrant, inspired word.
I also will not back down that my
Christian Standard Bible (CSB)
/Holman, 2003/ is God's infallible, inerrant, inspired word. Not to mention the
nKJV, NIV and other fine Bibles that i've
used over the 52 years that I've been
a Christian.

 

[Craigbythesea]

only the Holy Spirit can do that.

The Holy Spirit is NOT a deceiver!

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by AVL1984:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RaptureReady:
So TC, you let man alter your belief in the King James Bible?

I also stopped pushing the KJB on people. You can give your experience and the truths in the KJB, but you cannot drive someone to believe it, only the Holy Spirit can do that. But, I will not back down from saying that the King James Bible is God's infallible, inerrant, inspired word.

Rapture ready, which version of the KJV is the perfect inerrant inspired Word? Please, enlighten us.

AVL1984 </font>[/QUOTE]The King James Bible was done in 1611. I have a 1769 edition not revision.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
C'mon, John. It's right there in Genesis 1:1 - Rev 22 (not sure about the last verses, since they were translated from the Vulgate).

What are asking you for? Specific verses that say only one translation = God's Word?

If someone asked me for SPECIFIC verses to support salvation by grace, I would list many.

If someone asked me for SPECIFIC verses to support the trinity, I would list many.

If someone asked me for SPECIFIC verses to support why I am a Baptist, I would list many.

It is not hard to do.

If someone asked me why it is more spiritual to live in Wyoming than in Miami, I would be befuddled. No verse, just my gut feeling.

And so we ask about one-version onlyism, and we get __________.

Expected.

You know, this all sounds great, but there are alot of things that we don't do and it's not because of a Bible verse. Just because there is no one verse that says one-version only does not mean that it did not happen. I still cannot understand how someone can understand someones preaching when they preach from another bible than what they have. To me, that creates confusion. What say ye or should I say, what say you for those who do not understand the old English.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> only the Holy Spirit can do that.

The Holy Spirit is NOT a deceiver!

</font>[/QUOTE]Exactly, therefore, who are you listening to to say God's word is not perfect?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Merely a point of view.

I have never seen someone listening to me preach from my KJV confused by reading the verse in their NIV - never.

Has anyone actually experienced real confusion by having more than one version in a service?

[ September 28, 2004, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[TC]

Originally posted by RaptureReady:
You know, this all sounds great, but there are alot of things that we don't do and it's not because of a Bible verse. Just because there is no one verse that says one-version only does not mean that it did not happen. I still cannot understand how someone can understand someones preaching when they preach from another bible than what they have. To me, that creates confusion. What say ye or should I say, what say you for those who do not understand the old English.

What????

I own a red car.
I like red. So I bought a car that color.
I own a car. It is red.

Which of these confuse you? The same message is said in different ways. Bible versions are no different. There are many way to get the same message across using different words with sentences of varying lengths without compromising the author's original intent.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by TC:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RaptureReady:
You know, this all sounds great, but there are alot of things that we don't do and it's not because of a Bible verse. Just because there is no one verse that says one-version only does not mean that it did not happen. I still cannot understand how someone can understand someones preaching when they preach from another bible than what they have. To me, that creates confusion. What say ye or should I say, what say you for those who do not understand the old English.

What????

I own a red car.
I like red. So I bought a car that color.
I own a car. It is red.

Which of these confuse you? The same message is said in different ways. Bible versions are no different. There are many way to get the same message across using different words with sentences of varying lengths without compromising the author's original intent. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh really, Mark 9:46 NASV: Omitted with a marginal note referring to verse 43 which says, "Verses 44 and 46, which are identical with verse 48, are omitted by the best ancient manuscripts." (The "best ancient manuscripts" are Codex B and Codex Aleph, both of which are the worst of manuscripts with the most errors and have proved to be the most unreliable.) KJV: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

If you were to read this from the KJB and another version, don't you think you would get confused?

 

[natters]

RR said "If you were to read this from the KJB and another version, don't you think you would get confused?"

No.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by natters:
RR said "If you were to read this from the KJB and another version, don't you think you would get confused?"

No.

Oh really, if I said, "Get thee behind me Satan" what Bible would you pick up to see if Jesus really said this? Don't say NIV or NASB because it's not there.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by RaptureReady:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by natters:
RR said "If you were to read this from the KJB and another version, don't you think you would get confused?"

No.

Oh really, if I said, "Get thee behind me Satan" what Bible would you pick up to see if Jesus really said this? Don't say NIV or NASB because it's not there. </font>[/QUOTE]Did Jesus say "Get thee behind me Satan" or did He say "Get thee hence Satan"?

If you cross reference this event in the KJV you could really get confused.