What would you like me to say? The thread title just says the KJVO is alive and well here. So what?
You did not address the topic. Please do so.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
KJVO is alive and well here at the BB
- Thread starter Piper
- Start date
What would you like me to say? The thread title just says the KJVO is alive and well here. So what?
You did not address the topic. Please do so.
You believe incorrectly. You choose to believe human, non-scriptural, and non-true claims for the KJV.
I am just curious. Do you ever talk about anything else?
The KJV is not a living entity. It is a product of 15th century scholarship and has been beneficial to English speakers in knowing Christ Jesus as Savior. As time has past, better translations for today's spoken English have emerged. Better scholarship has been brought together to translate more accurately to this generation.
I am grateful for the legacy of the KJV but it is foolish to say it is the only valuable English translation. It is an open lie to say it is inspired by God as equal to the original text.
37818
Well-Known Member
Unless you deny the word of God is living and active, and deny a transportation of the word is the word of God. You are wrong.
The Spirit of God and the Word of God is living. A particular English version is not living over a different English version.
37818
Well-Known Member
Either translation of the word of God is the word of God or it is not a translation of the word of God.
God uses the translation. It is not inspired like the original document.
Attempting to make an English translation equal to the original is a terrible idea.
You seem to like to jump to wrong conclusions. I have researched and written about several matters, and I have made some posts about other matters in different areas at these forums. Before I studied this matter of Bible translations, I had researched and written concerning Christian education or Christian schools. I had researched and written concerning creation and against macroevolution. I have researched and written concerning abortion. In this forum concerning Bible translations, I focus on matters that relate to it.
The non-scriptural doctrine of KJV-onlyism is a serious problem in some Baptist circles.
God is subservient to men? Is that really the message? Now you have God himself relying on your scholarship and edits.
Only in your mind. Which seems to have an unhealthy fixation with it. I've seen Calvinism cause more of a "serious problem" that has split churches. Never have I seen that with Bible versions. Face it, you're obsessed with this topic, and others can plainly see it. I feel sorry for you and think you need some mental help, to be truthful.
A) - Not a Bible doctrine.
B) - A Christian who believes in evolution needs to revisit the gospel of Christ.
C) - Thou shalt not kill. That is all one needs to know about the abortion issue.
D) Unless the KJV advances damnable doctrines by believing it, why do you think God is dishonored by someone believing his words? Do you think that accepting all translations and paraphrases to the degree you do is a fundamental of the Christian faith?
There are damnable doctines out there. Is KJV one of them?
The KJV as an English Bible translation is not the same thing as human, non-scriptural KJV-only teaching.
Believing human, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions is not the same thing as believing the actual same words directly given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.
37818
Well-Known Member
Not unless the text's copy has all the very same words as God gave them. The translation has the issues of being a translation. So it will be a book by book, word by word issue.
Your problem is that you don't know what words God gave to the apostles and prophets. You said you cannot read Hebrew or Greek and even if you could you cannot know what words he gave. There is no consenus among anybody concerning which family of manuscripts are pure, and they differ. Therefore my view of the words of God is a matter of faith, and so is yours.
Perhaps you have blind faith in the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.
Faith in premises based on fallacies would not qualify as sound biblical faith in what the Scriptures state.
Sound biblical faith would come by hearing, receiving, believing, doing, or following the truth of God's Word (Rom. 10:17, Mark 4:20, Luke 11:28, Luke 8:21). The Scriptures directly connect faith and truth (1 Tim. 2:7 where the KJV has the Latin-based rendering “verity”). Can biblical faith or the logic of faith involve rejecting the truth or would rejecting the truth indicate a dead faith or a misplaced faith in the wrong thing?
Roy Beacham asserted: “It is not biblical faith to trust in human assumptions that are only peripherally associated with God’s explicit revelation” (One Bible Only, pp. 68-69). Faith in opinions and claims of men that are not true would not qualify as biblical faith in what the Scriptures state. Edward Carnell asserted: “Too often faith is used as an epistemological device to avoid the hard labor of straight thinking” (Introduction to Christian Apologetics, p. 65).
Baptist pastor Glenn Conjurske noted: “It belongs to the essence of traditionalism to be obliged to circumvent either the plain statements of Scripture or the plain facts of history and so to sacrifice honesty in order to maintain what is held to be faith” (Olde Paths, Sept., 1996, p. 196; Bible Version, p. 15). Glenn Conjurske pointed out: "We all no doubt have our own doctrinal predilections, but to allow our doctrines to dictate what we regard as facts is as dangerous as it is fraudulent, for it deprives us of one of the most effectual checks against false doctrine. Yet so these men do, and do it avowedly and apparently unashamedly, and dignify the illicit process with the name of faith" (Olde Paths, June, 1996, p. 135; Bible Version, p. 269 ).
Are the claims of some KJV-only advocates that use of the KJV and the KJV-only view are essential to Christian service and sanctification a scriptural teaching?
In his publication The Perilous Times, Ray Blanton wrote: "Until you come to realize that we have an absolute authority, perfect and settled in the King James Version, you are not prepared to serve the Lord! It is a basic essential to Christian service" (June, 1995, p. 7). Were English-speaking believers before 1611 unprepared to serve God? Are believers who only speak languages other than English unprepared to serve God? On his TV program discussing the issue of Bible translation, John Ankerberg asked Samuel Gipp, a KJV-only advocate, the following question: "So if a guy is in Russia and he really wants to get to the truth of the Word of God, would he have to learn English?" Samuel Gipp's reply was "Yes" (Which English Translation, p. 1). Did the word of God come only unto those who speak English (1 Cor. 14:36)?
D. A. Waite declared: "You cannot have the power of Christ if you read these false versions" (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 145). Waite wrote: "Loyalty to Christ and His Words are measured by what version you use" (Ibid., p. 133). Waite commented: "It is my firm conviction that anyone who does not use the King James Bible to preach from, teach from, or study from has something defective in that individual's knowledge of the Scriptures" (Ibid., p. 144). Kelly Gallagher claimed: “It is vital, however to choose the true and complete and pure Word of God because it will affect our walk with God, our doctrine and our spiritual discernment” (Perfect Bible, p. 57). Kelly Gallagher wrote: “This writer has come to the conclusion that all modern versions of the Bible stunt real spiritual growth and discernment” (p. 77). Doug Stauffer asserted: "One loses the opportunity for effective Bible study by using these modern versions" (One Book Stands, p. 96). Edward F. Hills claimed that “only the King James Version can be preached authoritatively and studied believingly” (Believing Bible Study, p. 87). Edward Hills suggested that “these modern versions are much more likely to spread doubt and unbelief” (p. 54) and that they lead young Christians “away from the Bible by introducing them to the logic of unbelief“ (p. 55). Roy Branson asserted that “defending the King James 1611 is not only necessary, but vital to the very faith delivered by our fathers” (KJV 1611, p. 2). G. John Rov alleged that “if you believe that all English Bibles are equal in authority, you have not traveled far in your spiritual pilgrimage in Christ” (Concealed from Christians, p. 93). John Rov claimed: “You can never bear perfect fruit if you have not believed on the King James Bible. No matter how much you have matured in the Lord, you will always lack that critical belief from God’s view point” (p. 166).
When did the opinions and traditions of imperfect men become an essential to Christian service?
Has a new form of denomination begun where KJV-only advocates alone set the rules and determine who is allowed to serve God?
Is the Bible doctrine of sanctification being altered or harmed by KJV-only teaching?
I can say that in all my years of study of the scriptures I have never found a contradiction or a mistake due to the words in my KJV. I do not have to rely on some other person to affirm my faith. What I think you are affirming is one cannot be born again if he does not have a multitude of translations and only leans on his understanding of God and his ways from the KJV. I do not believe that.
You demonstrate that you think incorrectly. You create a bogus strawman distortion that is not at all what I stated. I have nowhere suggested that one cannot be born again if one does not have a multiple of translations. Your strawman bears false witness. I do not believe your bogus strawman.
In effect you rely on one exclusive group of Church of England critics/priests in 1611 since you completely trust their imperfect textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions. You rely upon your own understandings and interpretations of the KJV.
KJV-only author Mickey Carter wrote: "Best authorities in our viewpoint are the King James Version translators" (Things That Are Different Are Not the Same, p. 154). Donald Clarke noted: "The 'best authorities' become the final authority; the Bible must submit its message and authority to their critical scrutiny" (Bible Version Manual, p. 56). Bob Steward stated: "Final authorities are not to be questioned" (Biography of Erasmus, p. 4).
Are the opinions, textual criticism decisions, and interpretations of the KJV translators not to be questioned? Since the KJV translators picked and chose from textually-varying sources, are they placed in a position of standing above their textual authorities?
Does the high praise for the Church of England translators of the KJV which practically makes them into a committee or hierarchy of infallible cardinals or popes prove this claim that the KJV translators should be our final authority?
KJV-only reasoning or a KJV-only view seems at times to grant to the KJV translators an absolute, perfect, infallible knowledge which in reality is attainable only by divine revelation. KJV-only advocates have in effect cloaked the KJV translators with such robes of superiority and infallibility that even a pope could only envy.
Fred Butler, a former KJV-only advocate, asserted: “In a warped way, KJVO propaganda elevate the [KJV] translators to near, divine-like status” (Royal Deceptions, p. 117). Baptist pastor Glenn Conjurske contended: “The main tenet of this [KJV-only] system, which exalts a human and imperfect translation to the place of perfection, giving it an authority equal (or superior) to the original, is a tenet of Romanism, which no Protestant ever believed before the advent of the present generation” (Bible Version, p. 62).
Has the sufficiency of God's Word in effect been replaced with a "unique priesthood" of the KJV translators?
Does a blind trust in the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of the KJV translators suggest trust in fallible, imperfect men? If God's Word was "wholly revealed" to the KJV translators or “wholly understood” and perfectly interpreted/translated” by them, they in effect become the ultimate standard for truth, beyond which there is no other. When an attempt is made to claim that the product of the KJV translators is the final authority, it would in effect make these men who produced it the real final authority.