Question To KJV Only Advocates

Mr. Perry, BIBLICAL faith is believing in the UNseen from what is SEEN. Isn't that how you were saved? Faith comes by hearing, and hearing, from the word of God. Like me, you heard of Jesus from God's word, and you saw more than enough actual evidence to believe God's word & believe in Jesus as Lord & Savior.


The first Christians who hadn't actually seen Jesus DID see that those who HAD seen Jesus were quite willing to die cheerfully in defense of His name. They also had the written testimonies of His disciples who'd walked with Him, as well as many of them having seen miracles performed by Him through these disciples.

Having established His identity among men, first to some Jews who testified of it to others, as well as their being empowered by Him to do miracles in His name, Jesus did fewer & fewer outright miracles among men as time passed, those disciples and early Christians passed on, and His Gospel was spread among the nations. However, we still have the undeniable fulfillment of prophecy now to give us the seen upon which to believe in the unseen.

Is there anything seen in the KJVO myth upon which to believe in the UNseen about it? Newp! The SEEN things of KJVO are FALSE, while the unseen KJVO things are unseen because THEY SIMPLY DO NOT EXIST. There's simply NOTHING BUT MAN'S GUESSWORK upon which to base the KJVO myth. That's why it's a MYTH. No amount of rhetoric, no number of books, no amount of tall tales will make the KJVO myth a reality. Its man-made origin is not shrouded in mystery. All the attempts by the KJVOs to lend any credence to that man-made myth isn't simply beating a dead horse; it's performing CPR on a "horse" that was STILLBORN, having no "head" formed in its "womb". It's based entirely upon GUESSWORK and no FACT, the invention of a SDA official, spread by two dishonest "Baptists", advocated to day largely by two charlatans, one of whom is a head case, while the other is an outright liar. With such as THOSE supporting it, how can any CHRISTIAN believe it?

There's simply NO LEGITIMATE REASON to be KJVO except PERSONAL PREFERENCE. There's no directive from GOD to be KJVO. NOTHING ABOUT IT IS CORRECT! It's a total invention of some less-than-honest PEOPLE, nowhere sanctioned by GOD. The KJVO has NO RIGHT to criticize the other person's choice of Bible version(s).Your faith in it, Mr. Perry, is based upon a VACUUM.

That's why I'm so adamantly opposed to the KJVO myth; it's simply a BIG FAT LIE!!!!!!!!!!

 

Not really though.

Some of us only have to believe and be honest about common historical facts. Now we are dependent on someone else for history so they may be lying to us about other versions coming before the KJV, the Bible being written originally in other languages, that the Bibles "promoted" as being predecessors to the current KJV really aren't, that Erasmus really just found the one perfect manuscript rather than critcically collating a text, etc, etc, etc.

The difference in what we believe and what KJVOnlyism claims is that we don't have to deny what is generally understood as historical truth.

OTOH, There are false doctrines popping up in KJVO circles as well... not to mention extra-biblical legalism.

Adding to what scripture says or using it as scripture as a whip is NOT superior to "compromise of doctrines and standards" among those who you think of as liberal.

And the less people can read, understand, and apply the Bible for themselves, the more true your statement will be.

And don't even try saying that people can understand the KJV just as easy as MV's. It simply isn't true... and I am one who reads and studies the KJV.

I wonder if the Anglicans around the time of the creation of the KJV said the same thing as they were persecuting our Baptists forebearers and attempting to deny them their beloved Bible... the GENEVA BIBLE?

Greg Sr. [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

Gregory Perry Sr:don't you see brother...we're ALL in the same boat here.We all have to come to the place where we "trust"(or not)the words and writings of others in regards to what we believe about this subject(bible preservation and translations).

Everyone who reads bible translations in any language depends somewhat upon the accuracy of a translator or group of translators. What I do NOT believe are false, man-made doctrines about a given translation or translations.


I just happen to trust and believe a position that you don't.

That's obvious. But ya gotta look long & hard, searching under every rock and up every tree to fand a VALID REASON for such a position, which I reject for a total lack of evidence supporting it.

All we can know or believe about this subject we know from reading and studying the evidence as given to us from the pens and mouths of fallible men.

And, as in the case of the KJVO myth, we sometimes find the products of certain pens & mouths TOTALLY FALSE.


It almost guarantees that we have to look a little deeper into the motives and intentions of the sources we choose to believe.I'll personally stay with what I believe because I believe the men involved are more inclined to have a higher regard for the supernatural work of preservation of the Word of God.That is strictly my opinion...but I am comfortable with it and have been for nearly 20 years.

Despite the KNOWN FACT that the AV translators were trying to curry the favor of the king, and of their superiors in the Anglican Church.


I have read much about this subject but don't profess to be "expert" or any kind of "authority" on it.I believe this is what God showed me and bore witness to me in my own heart.You disagree....so be it.

I basically believe the same things...only that I KNOW God is NOT LIMITED to just the ONE version in English. If this were so, why were all English versions from the AV backwards different from one another? Is it because GOD PRESENTED HIS WORD AS HE CHOSE? If He did that all the way back into the history of the English language, why can't He still do it? What EVIDENCE is there that He ever stopped?


We'll all know the exact truth one of these days.For now...I don't accept your "evidence" any more than you might accept mine.

With all due respect, Mr. Perry, I don't accept your "evidence" cuz THERE ISN'T ANY!


The only other thing I'll say is that in my observance,much of the apparent compromise of doctrines and standards in the modern "evangelical" movement of our day seems to go hand in hand with the general acceptance of the newer versions of the bible and a falling away from the old standard...the KJV.

That compromise has nothing to do with Bible versions. Every correct doctrine rejected is found in every valid modern Bible. OTOH, many a pseudo-Christian cult uses the KJV. The MVs are no more responsible for the compromise of doctrines any more than the KJV is responsible for the formation of the cults that use it.


Personally,I don't want any part of it.Where the "pulpit" goes,the people soon follow.

Many a corrupt pulpit uses the KJV while many a righteous one uses another version or versions. Again, the MVs are not responsible for a corrupt pulpit any more or any less than the KJV is. The corruption or righteousness of ANY pulpit is the responsibility of the OCCUPANT, and his relationship with JESUS CHRIST. It is NOT because of any BV, old or new.


I know that's a broad brush stroke....but in general it is true.

Please prove it has one thing to do with any BV.


We are steadily caving in to this modern culture.

We were born into, and still live in the most modern culture of the time.


I'll stay with what is tried and true.

Then ya better trade your motor vehicles in for horses. They were tried & true ever since man was created.

 

Do you know of a web site with the order
information for this book or do you know the
order information?

 

Wow boys...me thinks I stirred up a hornets nest....but..not to worry...I'll just go on back to the other sections of the forum and look for something more edifying to discuss since this particular subject is just like beating a dead horse.I think I'm right...ya'll think I'm wrong.It's that simple and always will be.I will say for the record that not ONE SHRED of the "evidence" any of you have presented has made even the slightest dent in what I personally believe....and since my posts have done nothing but apparently anger some of you(no names mentioned)I'll put a stop to it myself.I have presented what I believe....many of you vehemently disagree...some of you don't.To those of you who agree with me...God Bless You....to those of you who disagree...God Bless You Too!My confidence remains in the KJV....ONLY."So then,faith cometh by hearing,and hearing by the Word of God."And I'll close this by saying that THAT faith is in God...and His Son,the Lord Jesus Christ.I'm thankful He gave me a book I can trust.

Greg Sr.

 

Can someone please point me in the direction of the true Bible, one of these versions has to be the real one, I want the facts BABY just the facts.

Your servant
Fishnbread

 

Fishnbread:

All of the translations are THE BIBLE;
any of the translations are the true and
preserved BIBLE. Be sure to pick one
out that is in the same language you speak.

Some Bibles just aren't worth very much.
THe Reader's Digest Bible is not much.
The New World Translation (NWT) is not
of much count.

 

Originally posted by ED EDWARDS

I did not say translations I said versions. If they all teach the same thing that being truth why are there so many? if they all give the same message there should be only one english version. clearly there is a difference between a english translation and a alternate version, am I correct?

your servant
Fishnbread

 

Just to be grammatically correct, as one who enjoys reading older English, I believe you meant to say:

"It appears it is thou and ye ... that are causing the division, and not I/we."

Cheers, Bluefalcon

 

Fishnbread: " ... if they all give the same message
there should be only one english version."

This doesn't even make enough sense to be respected
as a variant opinion. It ties God's hands saying
that God cannot allow different wording to mean the
same exact thing.

Fishnbread: "I did not say translations I said versions."

I did not say versions, i said translations.
A version is just a different translation into the
same language. BTW, there are multiple versions of
the Textus Receptus

I have three versions of the KJV on my desk:
KJV1611
KJV1769
KJV1873

I have other translations as well:
New King James Version (nKJV)
New International Version (NIV)
New American Standard Version(NASV)
New Living Translation (NLT)
/others omitted from this post for brevity/

Fishnbread: "If they all teach the same thing
that being truth why are there so many?"

Why are there so many fast food stores?
Don't they all serve eats? I tell the agnostics
confused about the many denominations that it would be
a shame to starve to death with a $20 bill in your
pocket at a corner containing (in three strip malls):
a KFC, 2 Chineese places, One East Indian place,
three pizza places, 1 Juicer place, two burger joints,
etc.

I used to talk to a man in Singapore (a city/country).
He liked the NIV. He lives in an English speaking
country but they don't speak the same English language
that is spoken in like your US middle west or my Okie
talk (of course, we in Oklahoma are the only ones who
speak English without any accent )

Anyway, I respectfully disagree with the teaching that
there is something wrong with versions of the Bible.
God should not limited to one and only one book. God's
method of preservation is to expand the number of translations
and versions into all languages on the globe. In my
city alone there are churches in these languages:
Korean, English, Spanish, Cantoneese (Chineese),
Cherokee (Native American) -- and that is just the ones
off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others.

 

Anyway, I respectfully disagree with the teaching that
there is something wrong with versions of the Bible.
God should not limited to one and only one book. God's
method of preservation is to expand the number of translations
and versions into all languages on the globe. In my
city alone there are churches in these languages:
Korean, English, Spanish, Cantoneese (Chineese),
Cherokee (Native American) -- and that is just the ones
off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others.

__________________________________________________
Languages is one thing. Versions in one particular language is a different cow.
To equate Languages with versions is in my opinion less than accurate.

Can anybody show historically that either the Israelites of the OT (pre-Christ) or the church of the NT (pre-100 AD) had more than ONE version in a given language?

Maybe. Maybe not. I don't really know for sure. I hadn't heard of multiple Hebrew versions of the Scriptures Pre Christ. I hadn't heard of multiple Greek versions of the NT prior to about 200 AD.

In any case, I don't buy this argument. Multiple language translations = multiple VERSIONS in one language.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Originally posted by ED EDWARDS

So your telling me GOD had over twenty different versions made in english, FOR WHAT PURPOSE? that sounds more like a tactic of the devil to me, he can not destroy the TRUE word so he confuses the situation by adding more Bibles into the mix. God is not the auther of confusion brother, his path is straight and narrow, not wide and crooked.



Your servant
Fishnbread

 

that sounds more like a tactic of the devil to me, he can not destroy the TRUE word so he confuses the situation by adding more Bibles into the mix.

Millions of people are being deceived by the Devil . . . by reading their Bibles!



I believe Jesus had something to say about a house divided not being able to stand on its own.

 

FishN: I did not say translations I said versions. If they all teach the same thing that being truth why are there so many? if they all give the same message there should be only one english version. clearly there is a difference between a english translation and a alternate version, am I correct?

Witness Lee makes the same claim in his so-called "Recovery Version" (get your free copy of his NT from the internet!) -- not only for his translation, which is promoted as more "correct" than any other that ever has been made, but also in the notes accompanying his NT translation for his (heretical? nonsensical? cultic?) view that there can only be *one* *true* "local church" for *any* city, regardless of its size, and all others are false...

The argument seems to be the same in both cases, and clearly borders on heresy or cultism. So is this what you are saying? It certainly seems so...

 

So your telling me GOD had over twenty different versions made in english, FOR WHAT PURPOSE? that sounds more like a tactic of the devil to me, he can not destroy the TRUE word so he confuses the situation by adding more Bibles into the mix. God is not the auther of confusion brother, his path is straight and narrow, not wide and crooked.



Your servant
Fishnbread </font>[/QUOTE]So Fish, according to your reasoning, why would the KJV itself be any exception to what you state above?

There were at least 7-8 previous English translations before the KJV in the span of about 250 years. Why would there cease to be any need for additional new English translations in the 400 years since the KJV?

 

Originally posted by LarryN

So you don't find it odd not in the least that in the last seventy years more english version Bibles have appeared than in the last 300, surley the english language has not changed that much since the 1800's. Anyways all I want is the one true english version Bible and thus far all most of you have done is give me reasons why the newer translations are just as good as the KJV, if the KJV is fualty there is no reason to make a comparison between it and the NIV, NKJV, NAS (etc).

Your servant
Fishnbread

 

So you don't find it odd not in the least that in the last seventy years more english version Bibles have appeared than in the last 300

Given that generally speaking, literacy and education, as well as technological innovations in communications, travel, publishing, and data storage have taken a quantum leap in those 70 years . . . no, why should we find it odd?