KJVonly v only KJV

[AVL1984]

I used to preach strictly out of the KJV, and was a very staunch KJV Onlyist. Now, after years of study and looking at all the evidence, I am KJV preferred, but can and do use other versions. I am not KJVO in any sense of the word, and that should be evident by my posts in the past. I would not characterize myself a OKJV either. At one time, yes. But, the Lord opened my eyes to the flaws in the KJVo position, and led me out of the OKJV position. Make sense? Hope so! LOL

 

[gb93433]

In some ways I chuckle inside when KJVO folks ask me what translation I preach from. They will tell me it doesn't read like their Bible. Then when I tell them I preach from the Greek NT. They are lost. They have nothing to say.

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by gb93433:
In some ways I chuckle inside when KJVO folks ask me what translation I preach from. They will tell me it doesn't read like their Bible. Then when I tell them I preach from the Greek NT. They are lost. They have nothing to say.

Do you mean that you translate out of the Greek the passage that you are going to read/preach/etc, or that you literally use a Greek NT?
In Christ,
KJVbibleThumper

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Well people...it's late and I'm tired BUT after spending my time reading this and other threads on the KJVO issue I must say a thing or two.I won't go into a lot of background on myself or why I believe what I believe but I will say that I grow very weary of some of the "educated" folks on the BB clubbing us laymen over the head with their sterling credentials.I am a simple man and not ashamed or afraid to say so.What knowledge I have of the Word of God I got from reading my old KJV and listening to as much good expository preaching as I could bend my ear toward.Beyond that I'm beholdened to the mercy and exceptionally good graces and LEADERSHIP of the Holy Spirit of God for whatever wisdom,knowledge,and understanding of the ways and things of God that I have.Part of that wisdom(that I believe firmly that God granted me)is that the Word of God is the foundation of our faith...Romans 10:17...and as such simply MUST NOT be subject to error.You guys can debate this ALL YOU WANT but I will choose not to,instead preferring to trust that the God who created this universe by simply opening His mouth and speaking it and everything in it into existence(for His own glory and good purposes)can and did preserve His Holy word for me(and you)in the english language in the form of the King James Bible.While ya'll(yep..I'm a southern boy)continue trying to use all that good education to sort out the supposed "errors" in it,I'll just go on about my business believing God and trusting that I have the perfect Word of the Living God right here in my hot little hands.All this debate is simply a waste of God's valuable time....and we are supposed to be good stewards of the time that God allows us while we are here!For all of you "smart" types who want to "expand" your knowledge by using all the latest "versions" I say go right ahead...help yourself.My observation has been that many of the ministries and christian leaders that have "embraced" the newer translations have slipped off into various forms of ecumenisism and compromise.I'm NOT saying the KJV folks are perfect or without fault...indeed...some of them spend so much time parroting THIS issue that it has become a hobbyhorse that they ride.That is equally as bad since it takes their focus OFF the main thing which is supposed to be trying to WIN and DISCIPLE lost men,women,boys and girls to the Lord Jesus Christ.I do submit though that without an ERRORLESS BIBLE you won't have any foundation for true faith or any power.Years ago,when I first encountered this issue I asked God (simply and honestly as I knew how)to lead me by His Spirit to the truth about this matter....and He did!Ever since then,I have had confidence in the KJV as the pure Word of God....and little use for anything else.My best advice to ALL OF YOU(Yes...even YOU Dr.Bob...LOL)is to shelve or DITCH the other books,get a good KJV(non-reference..just straight text)and a Strongs Concordance and find a quiet place on your knees and get back to the matter of letting the Holy Spirit be the REAL teacher....instead of all the "scholars" and godly so-called institutions.The day is late,the laborers are few,the Lord is probably coming sooner than any of us think....and there's a lot of lost people out there that need to hear the Gospel if they are to have any hope of salvation.That's my story...and I'm sticking to it!!!!

God Bless Ya'll

Greg Perry Sr. Psalm 19 !

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Oh Yeah....and another thing...I know that in light of my preceding post I may get labeled as KJVO,ignorant,a cultist,unsophisticated,just plain dumb...or any number of other labels that the intelligencia here on the board may think up.That's fine...ya'll just help yourselves....whats a little more wood,hay,and stubble for the fire at the Judgement Seat of Christ...ehhh?

I just want you folks to know that I do appreciate the open exchange of ideas....and for the record,I don't care for Dr.Ruckman or his mean-spirited tactics and I'm NOT on anybody elses particular bandwagon.I prefer to be known as simply a Bible Believer.Even though I stick STRICTLY by the King James I will admit that the newer english versions do contain enough of the word of God in them that a lost man could read and understand the gospel from them and be saved since THAT is a work of the Holy Spirit....and He can take a seed of the Word wherever it may be found and use it.I just firmly do believe that the newer versions have been corrupted in many places due to either dishonest or ignorant translation or in the use of inferior or corrupt manuscripts as the basis for them.That's my opinion based on the reading and studying I did when I was searching humbly for the truth.This is,in my opinion,as unsolvable an issue as there are always going to be those who will believe either one way or the other.Like the abortion issue there is MUCH polarization and dissent about this and probably always will be til we get to the other side.I do believe that Satan is seeking to undermine the true Word of God and divide the body of Christ in this day and age.I just believe I hold in my hand the final AUTHORITY for all matters of faith and practice for Bible believeing Christians.If we can't demonstrate to the lost folks that we have a sure foundation without error(and they must believe the Bible IS the Word of God to be truly born again or at the very least NOT question it's authority)then how will they ever have a sure source for FAITH in order to be saved?Anyway ya'll,call me what you will....I'll just smile sweetly and go on along my way and continue trying to be faithful to the Lord.Well..it's going on 4am now so it's time to

God Bless you all!

Greg

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
In some ways I chuckle inside when KJVO folks ask me what translation I preach from. They will tell me it doesn't read like their Bible. Then when I tell them I preach from the Greek NT. They are lost. They have nothing to say.

Do you mean that you translate out of the Greek the passage that you are going to read/preach/etc, or that you literally use a Greek NT?
In Christ,
KJVbibleThumper </font>[/QUOTE]Both, depending how much time I have.

 

[LRL71]

Originally posted by Gregory Perry Sr.:
......I grow very weary of some of the "educated" folks on the BB clubbing us laymen over the head with their sterling credentials. I am a simple man and not ashamed or afraid to say so......preferring to trust that the God who created this universe by simply opening His mouth and speaking it and everything in it into existence(for His own glory and good purposes)can and did preserve His Holy word for me(and you)in the english language in the form of the King James Bible......I do submit though that without an ERRORLESS BIBLE you won't have any foundation for true faith or any power.Years ago,when I first encountered this issue I asked God (simply and honestly as I knew how)to lead me by His Spirit to the truth about this matter....and He did! Ever since then,I have had confidence in the KJV as the pure Word of God....and little use for anything else.

The above post is simply the most ignorant statement that I have read in quite a while. Why revel in one's own ignorance and lack of education? Does this give God glory and honor? Methinks that those who stray into false doctrines follow this same path: poor, ignorant me... I can't think but I sure can put my faith into something that I don't understand. Does not the Word of God commend believers who study and prove the doctrines taught in it? The book of Acts (17:11) praises the Berean Christians for examining the Scriptures to see if Paul's teachings were in line-- and Paul was an apostle! Even Paul himself listed his educational credentials to bolster his knowledge of the Scriptures to those who were his detractors (see Acts 21:39, 22:3, 23:6, Romans 11:1, and Philippians 3:5). To insinuate that being filled with faith yet without any understanding, knowledge, or wisdom is inconceivable. How well does one understand the Word of God-- and its doctrines-- without an education? One isn't taught Bible doctrines without having an education that would allow oneself to understand the Word of God. Those of us who have chosen to deepen our understanding of the Word of God through education consider it a valuable excercise of our faith.

Now, to get to the crux of your statement, it is our contention that such statements, like the ones listed above, encroaches on &lt;banned word deleted&gt;. To state that we should 'get a KJV' underscores the arrogance of those who think that they are correct in their stance, yet don't understand the futility of their &lt;banned word deleted&gt; ways. The Word of God was never 'preserved' into the KJV, nor does the KJV hold to the historical Christian doctrine of 'inerrancy'. The KJV, much like any other English translation, has errors. Only the original manuscripts penned by the original authors hold to the standard of inspiration and inerrancy. The bibles we all hold dear to today are 'infallible' in that they convey the Word of God without error in any part to its contents. Due to the transmission of the manuscripts througout centuries of copying, errors have crept into the text of the Bible. This is not saying that we don't have a reliable Bible today since there is a veritable mountain of evidence that the Bibles we have today are completely reliable and infallible. God doesn't lead one into the truth by mere faith alone; faith in God is in trusting what He has said in His Word alone. You can't assert that your KJV is errorless because you want to believe it. You have fallen into error if you have!

[ December 18, 2004, 05:41 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

LRL71...thank you for your kind "clubbing".I posted my conviction..and yes,it IS a conviction with full knowledge that I should expect to have to "duck some darts" being thrown back.I am NOT uneducated(although I don't pretend to be a scholar)having spent nearly two years at Trinity Baptist College in Jacksonville in the early 80's.I wasn't able to finish due to health problems but I enjoyed it thoroughly.I have no problem with getting an education yet,God never called me to continue that.I do have a problem with any kind of school or educator who undermines or attacks the faith of any young(or old) Christians faith in his Bible as being inerrant,inspired,AND preserved.The school I went to didn't do that...and to my knowledge they remain true to that principle to this day.
Brother,you are free and entitled to believe what you wish in this regard...go ahead.I personally DON'T think it is "ignorance" on my part or the part of ANYONE who chooses to believe that the Bible he or she holds in their hands has NO MISTAKES in it.I live in the Greenville,S.C. area where we have Bob Jones U,Tabernacle Baptist Bible College,and several SBC schools so believe me,I've seen the "educated" side of things.The Dean of Students at BJ is the one that led me to Christ back in 77(and he still holds that position at the school)He is a great guy and a wonderful christian but he and I respectfully disagree on this issue without hurling insults back and forth at each other.The sum total of ANY knowledge or "education",wisdom,or learning we get as christians,whether it is in a school,in front of a PC,or on our knees before God with an open copy of His Word,SHOULD BE that we are consumed with a desire to know our Lord more deeply and be better equipped to do what He left us here for...and that is to fulfill His Great Commission,spread the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ to a lost and dying world and try to win as many as we can to Him before He comes back.That being said,I will now do as I said and smile sweetly

and go on about my business.Have a nice day and may God bless you!

Greg

 

[av1611jim]

Amen and Amen Gregory.
I often wonder why one would spend so much time getting educated just to turn around and make conflicting remarks about inerrancy of the Scriptures.
Education is good. Otherwise who could not even read the Bible? But an "education" which teaches you to misrepresent or redefine terms is no education, but rather is an exercise in futility.
On the one side of they mouths they say the Bible has errors, and then out of they other side they try to convince you it is reliable? Double speak, me thinks.
Just what I have observed. Though I do not have ALL the answers, I know this much. My Saviour gave me a perfect Bible in order to know a perfect Saviour.
In His service;
Jim

 

[Phillip]

Let me ask both of you the question I have asked (I believe this is 202 times with no answer.)

If the KJV that you now hold is word-for-word perfect, that is fine.

What was the word-for-word perfect English Bible in 1605?

Let me ask one other:

Which VERSION of the KJV is word-for-word, letter-for-letter perfect?

 

[LRL71]

Oh, brother..... here we go again.....

Original post by av1611jim

...But an "education" which teaches you to misrepresent or redefine terms is no education, but rather is an exercise in futility.

Who is redefining terms here? The same goes to those 'ignorant' folk who distort/twist/corrupt/misrepresent/redefine the doctrines of the historic Christian faith. KJVO's are inherently guilty of falsehood, lies, and error; just look at all of the nonsense their 'KJV Bible defenders' peddle.

On the one side of they mouths they say the Bible has errors, and then out of they other side they try to convince you it is reliable? Double speak, me thinks. Just what I have observed

Conflicting remarks about inerrancy?? Perhaps you don't know anything about doctrines such as inerrancy and infallibility. There was a time which I was "KJV-only", and someone asked me to define what is inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility. The KJV-onlyist cannot be honest with the answers to these questions. The only one who quotes doublespeak and nonsense here are the KJV-onlyists.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Phillip...since your questions didn't come in the form of another belligerent attack like I have seen so many other times I will at least attempt to offer you my honest personal opinion.I really don't think it will necessarily satisfy your questions but it will at least give you the basis for why I personally choose to believe what I do...so here goes....

1)I don't know what bible they were using in 1605 but I am absolutely sure that they got the truth they were saved by from God just as I'm absolutely SURE that God made sure it was available to me in 1977 when I got saved and that was the KJV that God made sure I had at the time.I just trusted what God showed me out of the edition I had and have,as a matter of faith chosen NOT to question it.I didn't even know there was a controversy surrounding the KJV until someone from Bob Jones University tried to suggest to me that I would be better off using a New American Standard because the KJV was full of supposed errors.That threw me into a turmoil at the time until I ran across some information on Manuscript Evidence in support of the KJV and the Textus Receptus.I was still confused so I humbly asked God to show me the truth as He wanted me to know it and give me peace in my heart about it.Well....He DID.....and that is why I don't question my bible.Besides...God has a way of revealing the truth to those who seek Him with an honest heart minus any self-seeking motives...and that's what I strove to have...a humble honest heart before God.I'm sure that even if the people of 1605 had nothing more than bits and scraps of the truth or assorted manuscripts that didn't add up to the whole 66 books of the bible as we know it,God would have still made enough of the truth available to them if they were seeking to find and know the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour.God is a supernatural and Perfect God and has not only inspired His Word for mankind but also protected and preserved it from error.Psalm 138:2 says,"I will worship toward thy holy temple,and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth:FOR THOU HAST MAGNIFIED THY WORD ABOVE ALL THY NAME."(caps mine)We have all heard stories of people that have been saved through reading a New Testament or from reading parts of the Word of God printed in a gospel tract.I just choose to trust that the Bible I have is the right one but I just can't bring myself to trust any of the newer versions just due to the fact that I think that the manuscripts they are ALL based on are in my opinion,from the reading and studying I have done,NOT the reliable ones and are apparently corrupted....and I don't have to be a deep thinking scholar to come to that opinion.What I do have to do if I want God to bless my life is be humble and surrendered to Him.He takes care of the rest.
Now...as for your other question,I'm pretty sure that the KJV that I have is probably the most recent edition..1850 wasn't it??or something like that.I'm sure some of the scholarly types in here could tell me.Anyway,I have seen what the spelling looks like in the original 1611 and I for one am glad that apparently God did lead someone far smarter than me to correct...er...maybe I should say update...the spelling of some of those old words into the newer english that we use.Spelling updates I can accept....it's when the newer translations start changing the meaning of the verses that I discard them.I'm just going to stick with what I personally know is best....my KJV.If that qualifies me as ignorant in some peoples eyes...then so be it...ignorance in this case is BLISS...since to me it is a matter of simply having FAITH that my bible has no mistakes in it and that my friend HONORS the Author of the Book...AND my faith....GOD!By the way...it has been my experience that ANY of the supposed "archaic" words found in the KJV that were difficult to understand could and can be easily understood with the simple use of a good dictionary and a Strongs Concordance.That being the case...why would I want to be further confused and misled by referring to other supposedly more "enlightened" translations for understanding?I'll just stick with the good ole book that I trust.Thanks for your questions Phillip.I hope you can at least understand why I believe what I do.

God Bless You,
Greg

 

[av1611jim]

Phillip;
Question # 1's answer is;
I really don't care what it was in 1605, 1606, 1607...etc.Get it?
It was finished in 1611. Ok? That settles it for me. Maybe not for you. Fine. Keep on searching then brother. You are welcome to it. Have at it. My Bible is perfect. It has a perfect author. Fairly simple if you just leave it there. Then you don't get all the headaches of trying to figure out what God is saying.
For example. Some folks claim this is not in the "oldest and best" MSS.
Ac 16:31
"And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."
Now why would they say that it should not be there? Who knows for sure? Well I do. It is there for a reason, and that reason should be obvious to a christian. So you keep on following after them critics, I'll follow a perfect Bible, ok?
Next question #2;
Don't you mean EDITION? The 1611 is a VERSION the 1769 is an EDITION of that VERSION.
I just knew that's what you meant, huh?

Anyway, to answer your question, I have the World 1913 Edition, the Cambridge 1769, and so many others, I don't really care to list them all. Some will have ALWAY where others will have ALWAYS, or ENSAMPLE instead of EXAMPLE, and so on. Big deal. Get over it. Your question is a non-issue with me and is designed to stir up strife, disputes, and useless questions. It does not serve to edification. Got the picture?
Now, my question for you. Do you have a perfect Bible? If you have more than one version that you claim is equally authoritative then in effect you are saying that all your versions put together are nothing more than what could be found in a good tract, but you don't really have a Bible.
I am sorry if that is offensive. I really am. That is, however, the way I see the issue.
Now, if you are willing to stand on just ONE Book, say it is perfect, proclaim "Thus saith the Lord" with it, (or "This is what God says, for you NIV'ers ) and get out there and win the lost, then Praise God! Is that your mission? Or is it to raise doubtful disputations and try to shatter a man's faith in God's very perfect WORDS. (Note the usage of the plural, I did not use singular on purpose, get that clear.)
Now are we clear? I know we cannot agree here. So what's your point? Should we not rather be MUCH MORE concerned with A LOST AND DYING WORLD, than petty disagreements about this?
Oh, and just in case you missed it. I don't care what the perfect Bible was before 1605. I know your ploy. If I say the Geneva, you will be oh so quick to point to differences and then say NOW which is right. Or if I say the Bishop's, or the Tyndale's, or the Coverdale's and so on ad infinitum. I really do not care! That generation is long dead. It was their problem, not mine. OK?
Whew! That wore me out,

In HIs service;
Jim

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Hey Jim,Thanks for the reply!It is good to know that I'm not the only one in here that likes the concept of simple,humble faith when it comes to the Book.I think it is probably best on this issue to just state your position and let it stand as such.Good education will exalt the Lord Jesus Christ and honor His Word...not go on some endless hunt to revise and supposedly correct it.I know that the position guys like you and I take will never be popular in here and that's just a fact.I'll stand on the belief that strong faith in the Lord requires a PURE Bible as its basis.The KJV is ALL I need!
Psalm 119:130 says"The entrance of thy word(s)(brackets mine)giveth light;it giveth understanding unto the simple."
I have all the "education" I need as far as I know....I read VERY well....and VERY often!

God Bless You Jim,
Greg Sr.

 

[av1611jim]

AMEN Greg. Simple faith in the Author goes along ways for me.
1Jo 5:13
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
Joh 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Says it all don't it?

In His service;
Jim

 

[av1611jim]

Oh, and one more thing...
May God bless you, Phillip, in your quest to know what God hath said.
In HIS service;
Jim

 

[LRL71]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
I really don't care what it was in 1605, 1606, 1607...etc.Get it?

Hide, dodge, defer, and obfuscate.

It was finished in 1611.....My Bible is perfect. It has a perfect author.

Did God write the 1611 KJV? Double inspiration? Sounds like apostacy/heresy to me..... Again, faith in a Bible version isn't faith in anything at all. Once you pin down and corner a KJV-onlyist, he will.....hide, dodge, defer, and obfuscate ..... ahem...

Don't you mean EDITION? The 1611 is a VERSION the 1769 is an EDITION of that VERSION.
I just knew that's what you meant, huh?

Well, if the KJV in 1611 was good enough for Paul.....
Again, this lesson in obfuscation is apparent. If the KJV of 1611 was 'perfect', then why an edition in later years? Contradiction, Methinks.... more like typical KJV-only 'logic'. Besides, the KJV itself was an edition of the English Bible started by Wycliffe's first-ever translation of the Bible from Hebrew & Greek to the vernacular English of the late middle ages. The RV1881 was an edition, as well as the ASV1901, and onto the NKJV, NIV, NASB, and the ESV.

Your question is a non-issue with me and is designed to stir up strife, disputes, and useless questions. It does not serve to edification. Got the picture?

No, we don't paint pictures here. Your answers are the problem of the matter, as they have stirred up error, controversy, strife, and dispute. KJV-onlyism, as even you have defined it for yourself, is paradoxically inferior, full of error, and heterodox in theology. It is heresy!

Now, my question for you. Do you have a perfect Bible? If you have more than one version that you claim is equally authoritative then in effect you are saying that all your versions put together are nothing more than what could be found in a good tract, but you don't really have a Bible.

Likewise, I am sorry to be offensive, but the KJV has errors, both textually and in its translation from the original languages, both grammatically and lexically. All translations are not 'perfect', nor could you derive perfection into the KJV. God did not preserve the text of the NT, nor did he 'preserve' the KJV. The KJV is infallible since it faithfully reflects the Word of God in its translation from the original languages. Only the original manuscripts-- of which there are none surviving-- can boast being both inspired and inerrant. Therefore, since we have copies of manuscripts with errors in them, we do not have a Bible today that is 'perfect'.

I am sorry if that is offensive. I really am.

No, you aren't!

I know we cannot agree here. So what's your point? Should we not rather be MUCH MORE concerned with A LOST AND DYING WORLD, than petty disagreements about this?

The problem is that, with your contentious, heterodox, and error-prone views of inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility, we must contend for the historic Christian faith. Error and heresy must be refuted. This is not a 'petty disagreement' as you would suggest; if it were so petty and inconsequential, then why aren't you out 'saving a dying world'?? It is our contention that you cannot faithfully represent your views honestly. Your views about what constitutes 'errors' in the transmission of the text of the Bible has been completely misconstrued. You demand perfection in the KJV, but when confronted by the 'errors' in the translation, whether contextual, grammatical, textual, or otherwise, the standard you profess that the KJV adheres to is then found to be full of holes. Not one of us who hold to the orthodox, historical Christian doctrines of inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility have said that the KJV is a 'malicious corrupter of God's Word', nor do we intend on doing so. The errors in the KJV are not the kind of errors that detract from the Word of God; it is a faithful translation that is infallible.

Oh, and just in case you missed it. I don't care what the perfect Bible was before 1605. I know your ploy. If I say the Geneva, you will be oh so quick to point to differences and then say NOW which is right. Or if I say the Bishop's, or the Tyndale's, or the Coverdale's and so on ad infinitum. I really do not care! That generation is long dead. It was their problem, not mine. OK?

Again, hide, defer, detract, obfuscate, and dodge.....

Can't you see your inconsistency-- and dishonesty-- in your answer?
You got it right! If 'that generation is long dead', then it is also true of the generation that produced the KJV (and, to an extent, even the NIV of 1977!).

 

[av1611jim]

Sounds like apostacy/heresy to me.....
Your answers are the problem of the matter
It is heresy!
God did not preserve the text of the NT
------------------------------------------------
Interesting.
Wrong. But interesting.
As I said. I really don't care. I know what I have. You evidently do not.
May God richly bless your endeavor to find a perfect Bible. I already have one and will gladly share mine with you until you find your own, OK?
I mean that.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
Phillip;
Question # 1's answer is;
I really don't care what it was in 1605, 1606, 1607...etc.Get it? It was finished in 1611.
I don't care what the perfect Bible was before 1605. I know your ploy. If I say the Geneva, you will be oh so quick to point to differences and then say NOW which is right. Or if I say the Bishop's, or the Tyndale's, or the Coverdale's and so on ad infinitum. I really do not care! That generation is long dead. It was their problem, not mine.
In HIs service;
Jim

You really do not care about the foundation that your KJV-only view must rest upon. That is some admission. If your view has no valid foundation before 1611, it is clearly a false view. That is a serious problem with your inconsistent KJV-only theory since it harms and even destroys the foundations on which the KJV is built. A consistent and scriptural view of Bible translation would be true both before and after 1611. The truth is consistent.

The fact remains that the KJV was officially a revision of the Bishops' Bible according to the rules given the KJV translators. The fact remains that the KJV is more a revision of the earlier English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops'] than it was a new original translation. Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness? Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not "accurate," "correct," "good," "acceptable," "legitimate," or "true" Bibles according to your KJV-only reasoning?

The standard and authority for all believers existed before 1611. God's Word did not need to go through an imagined "improvement process" thru several English Bibles to be finished or perfected finally in 1611 or 1769.

 

[AVL1984]

Logos, you've pointed out one of the main problems with the KJVo viewpoint. Most KJVo DO NOT CARE where their KJV came from. It's almost as if God quit working with the completion of the KJV...and the worst part is MOST will still say they hold to the 1611 Version, which they know little or nothing about. This was one of the MANY things the helped the Lord break the spell that was on my mind about the ONLYIST view.