Please provide scriptural support for KJVOism.

[Thermodynamics]

Could it be the 1611 holds true to the earlier Bibles in earlier times as well? YES!

Hi there Harold, I hope that you are doing well (and I really mean that).

The AV does use the same manuscripts that were used in all Bibles and by almost all Christians from the 1st Century until the 19th Century. It is also in a direct line of English Bible from the first English translations until that time. It uses majestic and lyric language that gives it a form and beauty that no other translation can claim. It has remained in use longer and been used by more people than any other English translation. It has had an impact on the English language that nothing other than the works of Shakespeare can rival. On a personal level it has provided me with comfort and hope during some very difficult times in my life, there is no other English translation that I would trade it for.

Having said all of that, it is not perfect and it is not a preservation of the originals.

 

[robycop3]

The simple truth is that there's NO Scriptural support for the theory behind the KJVO doctrine. But there's plenty of MAN-MADE support.

THIS is the foundation book for the current KJVO philosophy:
http://www.temcat.com/Wilkinson/AuthorizedBibleTOC.htm

(The link is legal; the copyright on this book is long-expired.)

Virtually every pro-KJVO work copies from this book, or copies from someone else who's copied from that book. Dr. Wilkinson was a 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official. Why should a BAPTIST accept a doctrine derived from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book?

 

[robycop3]

All one has to do is consider each verse in context as it is found within the KJV and they can see for themselves.

Of course confusion steps in as one consults other versions to see what they arlready have in front of them.:smilewinkgrin:

I knew Ps 138 would stump you.

Harold, one can do the same with any other valid version. No one is stumped but YOU, cuz you KNOW there's really NO Scriptural support for KJVO, but you just don't wanna admit it.

 

[ccrobinson]

Psalm 138:2
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.

Harold, is this the verse in Psalm 138 that's supposed to tell us David is talking about the King James Version of the Bible?

 

[Salty]

Could it be the 1611 holds true to the earlier Bibles in earlier times as well? YES!

Here comes the contentious:smilewinkgrin:

If that is the case, then why was the KJV revised?

Why are we not still using the previous editions?

 

[Harold Garvey]

Thats what I'm asking, show me a Biblical reference (as John also asked) that makes the KJV the only inspired version. And my statemen was a lot more than just an opinion - it is a fact.

OK, show me where other versions say there are multiple inspired versions and I'll show you the subjectivity of the men over those INSPIRED words in the ones which are found in the KJV which do show this, [inflammatory comments snipped]

 

[Harold Garvey]

There is no Biblical support for a specific translation to be found anywhere in the canon of Scripture unless one is willing to twist and turn such Scripture.

The fact remains that one doesn't have to twist any Scripture to know the KJV is the one which is best understood.

The job of a Christian I believe should be to support and share the doctrine found in Scripture and to spread the good news that Christ has come and has died for our sins. It is not our job to defend a translation or set of manuscripts and Christ never charged us with preserving Scripture, He has promised to do that for us.

But what about all the other doctrines that should become important after salvation? Especially the doctrine of the preservation of the very Scripture to be without dissimulating additives by men subjecting the word of God to their carnal preferences!

Having said that I do believe that a Christian should want to find a good, accurate translation that is based on sound manuscripts. For that reason I believe that the study (and debate) of translations and manuscripts is a good and healthy exercise, it is just not something that should take up the majority of our time and energy. I also believe that it is better to have a so-so translation based on less accurate manuscripts that you will read than it is to have a great translation based on the most sound manuscripts that you will not read.

Nice rationale, but that leaves the reader to become subjective and pick and choose what he likes.

We find the KJV to give the saved person what he NEEDS.

God did choose the foolishness of preaching to save them which believe, not having a level of reading comprehension.

Placing the word of God under the authority of a man's comprehensible reading abilities is gross error.

Ok, so now tell me, "What about that one lone person who has no preacher?"

Pack your bags and go find him, just like Jesus said to do.:thumbsup:

 

[Harold Garvey]

If that is the case, then why was the KJV revised?

Why are we not still using the previous editions?

Wait, did you mean to couple revision to editing like this and it not go unchallenged?:sleep:

Men revise something they wish to change. God encourages men to edit men's mistakes.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[annsni]

The simple truth is that there's NO Scriptural support for the theory behind the KJVO doctrine. But there's plenty of MAN-MADE support.

THIS is the foundation book for the current KJVO philosophy:
http://www.temcat.com/Wilkinson/AuthorizedBibleTOC.htm

(The link is legal; the copyright on this book is long-expired.)

Virtually every pro-KJVO work copies from this book, or copies from someone else who's copied from that book. Dr. Wilkinson was a 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official. Why should a BAPTIST accept a doctrine derived from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book?

Which, of course to the KJVOlier, means that the book is the only book out there to read. It's not being made to make money as all of the other books on Bible translation are. Since there's no copyright, there's no one making money so we know it's best!

 

[annsni]

The fact remains that one doesn't have to twist any Scripture to know the KJV is the one which is best understood.

But what about all the other doctrines that should become important after salvation? Especially the doctrine of the preservation of the very Scripture to be without dissimulating additives by men subjecting the word of God to their carnal preferences!

Nice rationale, but that leaves the reader to become subjective and pick and choose what he likes.

We find the KJV to give the saved person what he NEEDS.

God did choose the foolishness of preaching to save them which believe, not having a level of reading comprehension.

Placing the word of God under the authority of a man's comprehensible reading abilities is gross error.

Ok, so now tell me, "What about that one lone person who has no preacher?"

Pack your bags and go find him, just like Jesus said to do.:thumbsup:

[violation of this rule - The MV crowd will not refer to the KJVOs as "cults," "heretics," "sacrilegious," etc...nor refer to the KJV in derisive terms such as "King Jimmy's Bible," "Pickled Preserved Version," etc. - snipped]

 

[DHK]

Could it be the 1611 holds true to the earlier Bibles in earlier times as well? YES!

Here comes the contentious:smilewinkgrin:

No it isn't. But your contention is that the KJV has remained the longest surviving English translation of the Bible: from 1611 to the present 2001, and therefore that is proof that God's hand is upon it. That is evidence enough that God has inspired it, and that we should not use mv's. Isn't that correct?
A four hundred year old Bible should be our standard.
Let's see how that logic stands up.

Jerome's Latin Vulgate was translated in 400 A.D. and was used as the standard Bible, the authoritative Bible right up until 1530. His translation was used as the authoritative translation for 1,130 years!! That beats 400 years by almost 3 times as much. Surely then, if any Bible would have been inspired it should have been the Vulgate. By your reasoning we all need to learn Latin and go back to using the Latin Vulgate as our "inspired word of God," for it alone has passed the test of time. It also must be the Bible that we would force upon other nations, just as many KJVOers would like to force the KJVO on non-English speaking nations as well.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Same Old Tire Arguments

Gentlemen (and Ladies if any are present) I have read all the most recent threads regarding the issue of "proof" that the AV is what us (and I am one) KJV Onlyists profess it to be. I will readily admit (news flash....here it is!!) THAT THERE IS NO VERSE IN ANY VERSION OF THE BIBLE,KJV INCLUDED,THAT CLEARLY SAYS "THIS IS IT...THIS IS THE VERSION" EXCLUDING ALL OTHERS. There...I said it....you can all go home and feel better now and if you choose to use any of the MV's then ...well...we'll all give an account of ourselves at the Judgement Seat of Christ...so I hope I'm right in what I believe and I hope you are too (even though I think you aren't):smilewinkgrin:. That said ,let me just add this....I personally believe that the arguments you folks who embrace the MV's use to prove we KJV'ers are nuts and cultists are just more of the same old arguments of the same type that the folks who are trying to justify their own personal sin use. ie, the folks who smoke tobacco products frequently say things like "there is no verse in the Bible that says it is wrong to smoke.." or the crowd that likes worldly Hellywood movies will say there is no verse in the Bible that says "thou shalt not go to the movies",etc. You can see where I'm going with this. Anyway,while there are not specific verses that clearly say such things there are clear principles of logic and Biblical common sense that should make us seek to live in a way that gives our Lord the benefit of the doubt in our personal lives and leads us in the ways of righteousness and holiness if we have Christ in our lives. The matters regarding His Holy Word are no less important and probably more so since the Word is God's revelation to us of His Truth and the foundation of our faith(if we have any at all). No...there is no verse that says that the KJV is "the one"...but the testimony of time and the fruit that it has borne over the years,the simple logic of the manuscript evidence,the clear comparisons of the KJV vs. the modern translations and how they stack up one against the other under the many verse by verse comparisons that I have personally read,plus the caustic,overbearing aire of superiority in the attitudes of many of the proponents of the Critical Text and the resulting MV's (the same attitudes they love to accuse us KJV'ers of) have led me to the conclusions that I hold to. I will never turn away from my KJV and I will never recommend anything but a KJV. I further believe that the ultimate fruit of the MV's will be the One World Church of the Anti-Christ in the fast approaching end-times. That is my opinion and I know it may not be a welcome one here, but I'm not calling any names or singling out anyone or any specific "version". The only one I have even mentioned specifically is my old "black-backed",God blessed King James Authorized Version. It is the Word of God and of that I have no question. I'm just sad that the devil has been able to steer so many away from it in this generation. We were far better off before any of the supposedly smart people raised any questions about this issue. Bro.Roger (C4K)...be nice and let this one stand on it's merits...there will be those who may take it personal but I haven't mentioned names. As dear old Bro.Roloff used to say.."if the shoe fits,lace it up tight!"

:type: Bro.Greg Perry Sr.
Pickens,SC

 

[wfdfiremedic]

From what I can tell, it seems most seem to say they are KJVO, when really they mean they are MT preferred or, MT only. I would also find it interesting to discover from a KJVoist:

1. Why they would not accept the NKJV
2. Why they would not accept the Majority text translation

from my perspective, there is noting that truly seperates these 3 translations.

Note: I have started reading numerous articles as to why the MT deserves more attention.
Thanks,
Chris

 

[franklinmonroe]

Gentlemen (and Ladies if any are present) ...

Brother Greg, thanks for that very cordial post.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... 1. Why they would not accept the NKJV
2. Why they would not accept the Majority text translation ...

I don't mind if people prefer the KJV, even to the exclusion of all other English versions. I admit that their KJV-exclusionism doesn't make much sense to me. They offer their reasons why the KJV is best, and I have found none to be compelling. I read the KJV quite a bit myself and it has some advantages, but also some disadvantages. Ultimately, I think they would dismiss the NKJV and MT-based versions because they are only comfortable with a text that has a long & glorious tradition.

My experience has been that it is the 'KJV-Perfectionists' that are in error. These extremists cause division among the saints and bring embarrassment upon the Church by frequently demonstrating sinful behavior (lying, hateful language, etc.). Ultimately, they would condemn the NKJV and MT-based versions because they just aren't the ('perfect') KJV text.

 

[Salty]

.... They offer their reasons why the KJV is best, and I have found none to be compelling.

I would replace the word "reasons" with "opinion"

 

[Askjo]

The KJV is the RECEIVED Bible because the KJV is the translation model predicted in Scripture.

 

[Mexdeaf]

The KJV is the RECEIVED Bible because the KJV is the translation model predicted in Scripture.

Nice hypothesis- you have any proof for that statement?

 

[annsni]

The KJV is the RECEIVED Bible because the KJV is the translation model predicted in Scripture.

Is that 1st or 2nd Opinions??

 

[Salty]

Is that 1st or 2nd Opinions??

Actually it is Hezekiah 66:6