KJVs Gathering Dust?

Interesting idea. I have known several KJVO's who could contribute theirs if they weren't afraid people would talk when they showed up at church without one. They don't understand the KJV well enough to read it intelligently but lack the courage to do anything about it.

 

What a wonderful idea, Bro.Glen! We would deeply love to have them. A few years ago, there was a family with 7 children who needed Bibles & we scrounged up all we could amongst ourselves...When we delivered them, the lady got to looking thru' them all & said, 'why these are all the KJBible'...I said 'yes,ma'am, that's the only Bible we use.'..She smiled & thanked & thanked us, saying she had never met anyone before who thought like that..

Daughter #1, who hasn't signed on here yet, always goes to Walmart or Fred's & picks up el cheapo to keep on hand & when someone comes along who needs a Bible she gives them a KJBible. We only use tracts that quote the KJVerses, too. Also, on here, if someone has a post & I see they aren't using the KJBible, I won't read it...

 

It is remarks like this that make one wonder why those who are KJ only get suspended for attacking. An apology is in order, but not expected as the MV people are above having to apologize.

Remarks like these are juvenile, and one shouldn't take them seriously.

 

Hey there, Bro.Ernie! It's good *to see* ya 'back'~it was sad looking at that blank-spot. I would like to thank you for what all you said...I've been aware of the same thing. :-(

 

Yes, Granny, pic is back, but you a a few days af grace. LOL

 

It is remarks like this that make one wonder why those who are KJ only get suspended for attacking. An apology is in order, but not expected as the MV people are above having to apologize.

Remarks like these are juvenile, and one shouldn't take them seriously.</font>[/QUOTE]If I were making this up then you might have some grounds to complain.

Who did I attack? I told the truth about what I observed. I did not say no KJVO reads or studies their Bible... or even most. I said I knew some that could easily afford to make such a contribution because they are not reading it. Whether motivated by the fear of what others might say/think/do or by pride, many people I have known would rather be KJVO than a growing Christian.

Precisely what is it that you think I should apologize for?

What is juvenile about what I wrote?

Why shouldn't we take the issue of Bible reading/study seriously? My point is that KJVOnylism inhibits some people from reading the Bible... my mom being one of them. The lack of Bible knowledge is chronic among Christians. The refusal to use anything other than the KJV when it isn't understood is one contributor to the problem.

Would you agree that a NKJV that is read/studied contributes more to a Christian's growth than a KJV that is left in the car between church services?

You may be offended by the truth but that does not justify an apology... especially since the comment was not directed at you personally much less the KJV as an accurate translation of God's Word.

 

What I find odd, is that I have been in 5 different IFB Churches, mostly because of moving, and when a person studied Scriptures out of their MV and then studied out of a KJB, most, not all, ended up switching to the KJB.

And most of these people would bring their KJB to church so that when Scripture reading was done, everyone read the same thing. We didn't make fun of them and they didn't keep it a secret, either

And travelling throught the USA, and having the privelege of going to many different IFB Churches on Sundays and Wednesdays, 99% were KJB. They were sweet brothers and sisters in the Lord, and loved the lost. There was nothing legalistic about them at all. They had brothers and sisters with a wide variety of dress and hair styles.

So when I get on to this board, and see the controversey about the KJBibles, and IFB Churches, you really got to wonder what in the world is going on.

A little levin....?

 

Rather than respond any further to Scot's infantile remarks, let me make afew observations.

We just finished Junior camp for those in 3rd through sixth grade. One competion was scripture memorization, the winner is an eleven year old girl that memorized 68 verses. KJ by the way. Oh and shes reads it and understands it. The KJ is taught in the Sunday School from 2 years old and up. Even the 2 year olds are able to memorize scripture. so much for not understanding the KJ.

Some of our primary class members could teach Scott a few things from the King James. They read it, they study it and they understand it very easily.

As for people not studying their Bible, from some of the reponses to posts there are many out there who rely on what man says rather than study the Word of God to see what God says.

This includes those who say it easier to understand the mvs.

[ July 24, 2002, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Ernie Brazee ]

 

I have been in 10+ IFB churches. I have belonged to or been a regular attender of 4 (all because of moving). All 10+ of these churches used the KJV as their standard Bible as does my current church. None of the 4 discouraged people from using alternative versions for reading or study which reflects my position as well.

I have no grounds to dispute what you claim. However in my experience, I have known people who became KJVO after being subjected to emotional appeals, pressure, and a distortion of facts. I have never known anyone who "switched" after studying both.

I have never taken another version to church.

I am at 100% and have no problem with this at all.

All of the KJVO churches (not KJV preferred) have tended toward legalism, an unloving spirit, a "notch my gun"/high pressure approach to "saving" the lost(as opposed to sharing the gospel and letting God save), etc.

You're right. When a group introduces an unbiblical doctrine based on their own emotions and opinions, calls it fundamental, and demands that all IFB's accept it, there is good reason to question what is going on.

Everything that you and I wrote is experential and has nothing to do with proving what is or is not fundamental. Fundamentalism is basically the belief that all correct Christian doctrine comes from the Bible and only the Bible... KJVOnlyism is not found in the KJV or any other version and is therefore not fundamental. A KJVO church by definition has ceased to be IFB since they have added a doctrine which is not scriptural... and above this have made it a test of spirituality/godliness or in extreme cases, salvation.

 

What was infantile? Is this your way of offhandedly trying to attack me? If I have done what you accuse then you should have no problem pointing out my error. I promise that if what you say is valid I will apologize to the offended party.

Hardly. I have likewise had children memorize KJV verses. Some parts are very easy to understand while others are not. The Bible was originally written in the language of the people. They didn't have to struggle through it.

Is this meant to be a slight toward me? Didn't this start between the two of us when you made the unfounded charge that I had attacked someone? However since you bring it up, I am sure they could. Just like kids from a primary class that used the NIV could probably teach you a few things from their Bible.

Without any way of verifying this and with a life time of going to KJV churches, I can only express my doubts. Having debated with you before and seen how you deny facts that disagree with your preconceived notions, I suspect that you are overestimating the results.

With that in mind, please cite chapter and verse that says that the KJV is the only Word of God for the English speaking peoples... Are you relying on what men (or women in the case of Riplinger) say rather than what the Word of God says?

...as well as those who call MV's perversions and people who imply that any small child can easily read the KJV with comprehension.

 

It's obvious a couple of you have not read the post about behaving in a Christ-like manner. Just a warning - COOL IT. Some have already been disciplined for this kind of nonsense. What makes you think it won't happen again? Stop the whining and finger pointing and tit-for-tat nonsense. And if you're not a moderator or administrator, leave the decisions about discipline to someone else.

Now, for the question, I'd love to donate my KJVs that I don't use to someone that can use them, but most mission agencies (Even a few IFB ones I know) will not take them because of the archaic language. If anyone knows someone that could use them, I'll be happy to send the extras I have. Besides, I've been doing that for a long time now (Not just with KJV, but with all different versions). The world needs the Word: I don't need a blue billion Bibles sitting around.

[ July 24, 2002, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

erased post per Mr. Vols suggestion

[ July 31, 2002, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: WisdomSeeker ]

 

These statements grossly misrepresent the facts. If were indeed as simple as that, there would simply be no debate.

 

"That is good wisdom which is wisdom in the end."

[ July 24, 2002, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: GrannyGumbo ]

 

The statements may be grossly oversimplified, but they do bear a distinct resemblance to the actual facts of manuscript evidence.

 

Just a couple of questions:

1. If the "restored text" wasn't "preserved" then how do we have it? Isn't it also the "preserved text"?

2. If the restored text is a problem because it was the product of textual criticism, is not the "preserved text" also a problem since it to is the product of textual criticism (using different criteria)? In other words, Erasmus restored the text from less than one dozen (perhaps as few as six according to Kenyon). So in the 1500s, you had a new text, put together from a very few manuscripts, where someone (Erasmus) decided what the Word of God was. BTW, he later succumbed to outside pressure to change what the word of God was.