Jesus wasn't KJV-Only :)

Hello Bro. Glenn,

Very true. It is written either in the bylaws or the Articles of Faith (or both)in one form or another. In our's it is written,

"That the Scriptures, comprising the Old and New Testaments(of which we consider the King James Translation to be the best), are of full and divine Authority, and are to be accepted as the only rule of faith and practice."

So it would be a slap in the face to get up in the pulpit and start reading from the Living Bible. No one put a gun to anyone's head and said join this church. And when you join a church, such as a Primitive Baptist Church, they make it very clear that the KJV is the set standard.

What I was trying to get at... That those that say the KJV is the best and modern versions are poorer (because of their source text) are not Onlyists. Onlyists say that all modern versions are satanically inspired. Which that idea contradicts the scriptures themselves (Matt 12:24-28).

I know that there is a very fine line between those who are solidly pro-KJV (and that is their only text) and those who are Onlyists... But the line ain't invisible.

Stevie

[ July 13, 2002, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: absturzen ]

 

Forever Settled In Heaven well since this of such concern to you I advise you to drop Elder Webb a line and tell him what you discovered. He would not want to publish an article that is in error and would only be to glad for you to show him his error so he can correct it. I would be interested in the outcome and if you can show him where he has erred he will change it!... I know this Elder to be one of honor and we are not to big to confess openly when we are wrong!... Brother Glen

 

Well my thoughts and that is all they are is that Jesus did not speek out of the KJV but he did speak out of the TR. Yes I know the TR was not around when Jesus was but that is because God choose men to write the Bible and it was God breathed with the TR. I do not need to question the TR because I cannot find anything that is in error.

I am not going to go on and on with this I always tell myself to but out because most of the time this goes no place at all. As for me and my house we will keep using the word of God the KJV.

A fool for Christ sake,
Shark1611
http://members.tripod.com/~Shark1611/index.html

 

Brother Stevie said:

... I don't see a line and I'm talking about... THE CHURCH... The militant church only the PBs know!... This is from Elder Robert Webbs Article previously mentioned...

Position of the Primitive Baptist Church

We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy
Scriptures. Plenary means "total" or "every word." The word
"scripture" means "that which is written." When the Apostle Paul
wrote that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God", he
meant the written text. When the Apostle Peter wrote that "holy
men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," he meant
that which was spoken (even if penned by scribes). The word
prophecy means "the sayings of God" and thus we may include both
Old and New Testaments in the expression ". . . no prophecy of
the scripture is of any private interpretation." - II Peter 1:
20.
Elder Sylvester Hassell expressed the following belief (p.
508 of History of the Church of God): "The seventeenth century
was the century of the publication of the King James or
Authorized Version of the English Bible (in 1611), the best and
noblest of all the translations of the Bible ever made in any
language."
We believe the King James Version is the inspired Word of
God, dressed in English clothing. As such it has divine
authority, and should be accepted as such. We also believe God
is able to direct its translation again if that is necessary for
the welfare of His Church... To ALL PBs this Article is self explainatory... Brother Glen

 

and since u apparently know him so well n posted his stuff on this Forum, why wldn't u urself ... ?



n do remember to keep us all posted on his open confession!

 

shdn't u n ur house be using the TR instead?

if God chose Erasmus to breathe His TR, why shd u exchange it for a KJB?

 

Forever settled in heaven you email me your exact question and I will see he gets it and will post his answer for all to see. If he is wrong he will say so and thank you for showing him his error but if he is right he will show you yours!... Brother Glen

 

Greeting again Brian,

Good luck finding a readable copy. Good replicas are $$$ and the only moderate price for one is a photocopy version. I know you were speaking hypothetically, but just for FYI here's links to those replicas.

CHEAPO 99 DOLLAR COPY
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/71899912?item_no=1599&event=SRC

BIG DOLLAR COPY
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/71899912?item_no=1507995&event=SRC

NOW BACK TO THE QUESTION...

Well, being as I am, I would say that it is "the inspired written word of God." Again it is in the doctrine, meaning, and purpose that makes it a "bible". But, just because it is a bible doesn't make it the best bible on the market. This is stumbling stone for many on both sides of the fence.

I have chosen the KJV as my personal standard and I have joined a church that uses that bible as the church standard. Do I use other versions in my personal studies? Yes, I do cross references with NIV, RSV, and NASB (I do like the NASB with the OT). I also use Vines, Matthew Henry, Calvin's Institutes, Interlinear bible, and a bunch of other commentaries to see what they thought. But I'd have to say the KJV is the bible I treasure. It's the keeper for me.

Stevie

[ July 14, 2002, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: absturzen ]

 

If I am wrong I will also apologize and have done so before because that is the only way we learn truth from error!... Brother Glen

 

i didn't have any question--i pointed out 3 things about his article, which u thought he wld respond honestly to.

well, i said if that's so, to go right on ahead n share it w him.

don't see the need to email any specific questions in pte--i've posted publicly what needed to be said.

 

Bro. Glenn,

Exactly my point,

"...the best and noblest of all the translations of the Bible ever made in any language..." (I can't speak about other languages)

The Best and Noblest but not the only one. That is the dividing line. We (pro-KJV) that are not onlyist don't denonce other versions as bibles...only that the KJV is Best translation and that's the one we stick to.

In Christ,
Stevie

 

Brian,

I've seen the on-line stuff but something like that I like to have in my hands (nostalgia, I guess.) I got one of the 1611 replicas(real neat). I wish it used the old type set but it was in modern roman. Can't have everything, at least not on my budget.

That ucpress.com link looks interesting. thanks! I might have to check that out.

I didn't even think about ebay at all (duh )

Thanks
Stevie

 

that's wonderful, absturzen!

while we can disagree about the details (e.g. i can agree that the KJB is Best n Noblest for a particular purpose/audience, but not each n every one), it's important not to denigrate other translations as "PERversions" or worse.

as the KJB translators themselves put it, they are the very Word of God.

we need more of u pro-KJBers to come out n point out the KJBOs who attack God's Word in other translations, such as the Neo-Burgonites, Neo-Waldensians, n Pentup-Pensacolics.

 

I am strongly pro-KJV (because of the Beza-Stephanus TR behind it) and 1 John 5:7 which I use as an MV litmus test (Yes, I know the Greek manuscript evidence is very scarce and I don't think we need to chase that rabbit again).

I have formally studied Greek and Hebrew (no Aramaic or Chaldee) and presently teach a Sunday School class, I use MVs to try to catch the flavor of legitimate variances in word nuances. My experience is that some MV translators seem to have a surprising insight into biblical language idiom.
I don't EVER want to call any MV a perversion because at very least it CONTAINs the Word of God.

That's generally (FWIW) where I stand concerning MVs but that's an aside.

The intent of this post is to respond to the fact that John Burgon was mentioned (a champion of the KJVO). Not all KJVO folk know that Burgon stated in his publication "The Revision Revised" that the KJV needed correcting here and there (paraphrase).

HankD

 

Brother Stevie I disagree with what you said and am myself 3rd generation Old Line Primitive Baptist as far as I know and maybe before that!... These brethren on here don't understand what I'm talkin about but you do. The Primitive Baptist Library deems the King James Bible as the Word Of God and that is good enough for me. Do they claim any others as such... NO... Only those of the ancestors of the KJV! Try as you might you can't separate the church from the KJV and there is no choice! There was another brother on here that took the same stand you did. This Ringlinger person who they keep refering to couldn't understand our position on the KJV if we told them and wouldn't believe us if we did!... There are a lot of our brethren leaving the Old Paths and by some of their comments I understand why... I am Old Line... Hardshell... And Hardheaded Primitive Baptist... The KJV and the PB Church are in the same boat and you know what I mean!... The KJV is not a preference for PBs... Brother Glen

 

So Glen, do you deny that faithful MVs are the Word of God?

 

My stand is the stand of the Primitive Baptist brethren who are true to the church!... Since you are not of the Primitive Baptist brethren my stand is neutral with you and all the other brethren not of our ranks!... The brethren that claim the title of Primitive Baptist they know where I stand and what my statements mean! They also know the significance of the date 1832 which some to have seems to have forgotten!... I don't need to explain that date to them!... I leave this forum in peace to you brethren not of us... To those of my ranks my peace has been disturbed!... Brother Glen

 

Brother Glenn,

I know exactly where you're coming from. And you're right; folks outside of the PB probably wouldn't understand. I too am from a long line of Primitive Baptists. I even have an ancestor that was an Elder in the later 1800's.

Anyway, hope I didn't offend you in anyway. I just didn't want the Primitive Baptists to be labeled with the unorthodox extremists that are out there concerning this issue. I don’t mind being label as a “nut” for; believing in immersion upon confession, practicing foot washing, believing in the Doctrines of Grace, and believing in His complete and total sovereignty. I am proud of those type of “nut” awards and wear them proudly on my chest so the world can see. I just don’t want anyone to put us in the ranks of the Ruckmanites because that is not what we are about.

PS. We need the Old School “Hardheads” as you put it; I love them all.

Your Brother in Christ,
Stevie