Question To KJV Only Advocates

Fish,

Thanks for the response, but I don't see that it answered the question. You alleged that a multiplicity of newer versions is basically a tactic the Devil uses to create confusion. Following that line of thought, why should the KJV be exempt from inclusion in that critique? After all, several English translations exist from prior to the KJV. The KJV was itself, upon initial publication, a "newer" translation. Why could it not then be said (accordingly to your allegation) that the KJV was a link in that string of newer translations that the Devil was using to foster confusion? Why aren't we all using Wycliffe's translation? After all, it was the 1st English translation; and presumably then any other English translation following it was part of Satan's nefarious plan. If you exempt the KJV, why not any other translation after it? On what basis (other than purely arbitrary self-interest) do you conclude that the KJV is the exception to your stated allegation?

 

Originally posted by Ransom

Yes but, the english language has not changed to the point where we need ten or twenty new english translations.

Originally posted by LarryN

Back to my original question, which Bible is the one I should be using?

Your servant
Fishnbread

 

God only has one word yes? the Bible is one whole story and though it may be spoken in different toungs the message should stay the same, Am I correct?

Your servant
Fishnbread

 

"Back to my original question, which Bible is the one I should be using?"

Your servant
Fishnbread

-------------------------------------

I'm happy to answer your question:

You should be using whichever translation of God's Word you feel led by the Holy Spirit to use. If for you that means exclusively using the KJV- then more power to you, I would never oppose that choice. I use the KJV extensively (although not exclusively) also.

Now that I've answered a question of yours, how about returning the favor?

 

You are mistaken to say, "college." It is Heritage Baptist University.

 

Do you know of a web site with the order
information for this book or do you know the
order information? </font>[/QUOTE]Check Heritage Baptist University's link: HBU

 

Amen, Brother LarryN -- Preach it!

Fishnbreak: "So your telling me GOD had over twenty different versions made in english, FOR WHAT PURPOSE?"

I've already shared the purpose. BTW, those 20 different
English versions were BEFORE THE KJV. Those
twenty different versions are the KJV (only three
are still in print: KJV1611, KJV1769, and KJV1873).
Since the first KJV there have been well over 300
different English versions.

Mainly, English keeps changing. English is a dynamic
language. English was never frozen into some perfect
language.

Fishnbreak: "God is not the auther of confusion brother, ... "

The meaning of this phrase is discussed in dozens of
theads here in this forum alone. I doubt you know what
it means, why there are two meanings and what both of them
are and why the one you have been taught is probably
the WRONG ONE.

 

As i said originally, Fish...PRAY about the Bible versions matter.

The KJV is mentioned so often because a cultic myth was made about it. As I also said before, the creation of this myth is not the fault of the KJV nor its translators.

The origins of this myth are clear. It came from a book, our Authorized Bible Vindicated, by SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson. Though earlier theologians mention that,in their opinions, the KJV was the best English translation, it was just something they said in passing, while Wilkinson's book was wholly dedicated to exalting the KJV. Problem is, his book is filled with errors, a common one being that Psalms 12:6-7 are about God's preserving His WORDS. A simple reading of the AV 1611 proves this guesswork wrong, as the translators' marginal note, "Heb.him, I. euery one of them" plainly shows those translators believed V.7 applied to the PEOPLE of the previous verses.

At any rate, Wilkinson's book, which was far from a best-seller was heavily copied by one J.J.Ray, who in 1955 published God Wrote Only One Bible. This book was hawked with the power of modern media and sold substantially more than did Wilkinson's work. Then, in 1970, Dr. D.O.Fuller's which Bible? was published, a work that copied heavily from both Wilkinson and Ray, including most of their errors. Fuller even went so far as to try to conceal Wilkinson's CULT AFFILIATION! (All three of those books are readily available, and if you read them, be prepared to check out the veracity of their assertions!)

From those three works, a myth was built up around the KJV, a myth which is man-made and totally-false. It asserts that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible version & that it's completely inerrant, perfect in every way. That assertion has been proven incorrect with many examples, most of which can be found in this forum. In fact, virtually every facet of the KJVO myth has been disproven here. However, we must keep repeating our disproofs for the sake of the "newbie" and the hit-n-run KJVOs that park here for a few days till their falsehoods are blasted & they move on in search of someone-ANYONE-who will believe their trash.(However, there are a few "imbedded" KJVOs who continue to fool themselves while vainly trying to defend the KJVO myth.)

Again, please don't hold the foolishness of a few men against the KJV. It's as valid as any other version, and the quaintness of its 400-yr-old English as compared with modern English makes verse memorization easier. If you feel led to use the KJV, fine. But bear in mind that the KJV is NOT the only valid English version, and if you feel steered to use a modern version or versions, fine. Personally, I use the KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, and study from the Geneva Bible(the KJV's immediate predecessor) and several other older and newer versions. Why so many? Because I wanna learn all I can about the Scriptures from a broad spectrum of sources. Maybe I could learn Greek and Hebrew, but it would take years of constant study to learn the subtleties and nuances of those languages, without which I couldn't learn any more about the Scriptures than I can from reading English translations.

God has different works for each believer, as well as certain works for every believer. While I'm always prepared to witness whenever/wherever I'm given the opportunity, I use certain BVs for certain jobs. For example, when evangelizing in one of the many "rest homes" in the area, I have the KJV ready, as that's the version most familiar to older Americans, but when I visit a jail I have the NIV with me, as most of the inmates are somewhat younger than I.(I'm 57.)(and, while visiting a jail, DON'T FORGET THE CORRECTIONS OFFICERS! !) But that's among the things God has for ME, while He may have something entirely different for YOU, which includes your using only one certain Bible version, or several versions.

Therefore I cannot correctly recommend any one Bible version for you or anyone else. That's a matter between the individual and GOD.

 

Robycop3 wrote:

"Therefore I cannot correctly recommend any one Bible version for you or anyone else. That's a matter between the individual and GOD."

If you REALLY believed what you wrote, then you would shut up instead of posting "foolish and unlearned questions" (2 Tim 2:23) regarding "hare" and "the white of an egg" and truly leave it up to the individual as a matter between him/her and God.

Such hypocrisy!

 

LOL and a sound doctrine is built upon scripture.

Umm where is the scripture that says KJV and which KJV?

 

Fishnbread said:

Yes but, the english language has not changed to the point where we need ten or twenty new english translations.

So what? Does the English-speaking world now need the permission of the KJV-onlyists to do an English translation of the Bible to ensure that they don't go over quota?

I would prefer to praise God that I live in an era when more people are educated enough to translate the Bible, able to collaborate almost instantly world-wide, capable of publishing the results in such a way that nearly anyone can afford a copy, and there are no laws stopping anyone from doing this, unlike in King James' day.

If you want to continue to live in the Middle Ages, that's your prerogative. Don't demand that the rest of the Church accept your level of mediocrity.

 

AV1611 Jim: 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?

Quite easily!

Several of the NT quotes of the OT by the apostles match the LXX exactly, while others do NOT; yet, they don't match the Masoretic Text, either. If you don't believe it, please take the time to do the homework.

 

Sounddoctrine 04: Robycop3 wrote:

"Therefore I cannot correctly recommend any one Bible version for you or anyone else. That's a matter between the individual and GOD."

Yes, I wrot that...& I'll stand by it.

If you REALLY believed what you wrote, then you would shut up instead of posting "foolish and unlearned questions" (2 Tim 2:23) regarding "hare" and "the white of an egg" and truly leave it up to the individual as a matter between him/her and God.

If you REALLY believed the KJVO myth, you'd try to PROVE IT CORRECT instead of hiding behind a "statement of faith". THAT kind of faith is NOT SCRIPTURAL; it's a BLIND faith. Talk is cheap; anyone can say anything. I can say I saw a purple elephant water-skiing in the Ohio River, but would that make it so? If I spread that story from books, pamphlets, & speaking engagements, wouldn't there be a few who'd believe it?

Common sense would tell people that there are no naturally-occurring purple elephants known, and no one had ever taught a 15,000-lb animal to water-ski, so therefore my statement was a tall tale, and would REMAIN a tall tale unless I could PROVE it was true. Yes, I would have the BURDEN OF PROOF, especially if the story was as outlandish as my above example.


Same with the KJVO myth...It's all guesswork and a tall tale, but the KJVO authors depend upon people like YOU to fall for their lies & to make moter "milk" for their cash cows by buying & recommending their products. And, it's VERY outlandish in the face of its having absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT. Would you believe a purple elephant water-skiied by FAITH? Or would you require PROOF?

And as for the "hare/egg white" thingies...WHASSAMATTUH WID DE KURREKT TRANSLATION OF DE HEBREW?

 

Actually the Living Bible says something about that silly in Job 40:15

There's that "no scriptural support argument again. Why is it not inconsistent for one side to demand something neither side has? Why?

Roby you missed his argument entirely.

lacy

 

quote:Originally posted by robycop3:
If you REALLY believed the KJVO myth, you'd try to PROVE IT CORRECT instead of hiding behind a "statement of faith". THAT kind of faith is NOT SCRIPTURAL; it's a BLIND faith. Talk is cheap; anyone can say anything. I can say I saw a purple elephant water-skiing in the Ohio River, but would that make it so?

Lacy Evans:Actually the Living Bible says something about that silly in Job 40:15 [Big Grin]

And I don't consider the LB as a valid translation. No valid version would have the phrase bearing the acronym "SOB" in it unless that was the EXACT HEBREW TRANSLATION. (For our British readers...that phrase is one of the most offensive scatologies in American English; some American courts have ruled that calling someone that name is justification for the called person to fight!)

BTW, the New LB has removed that phrase, but to me it's still not a reliable translation.

quote:Same with the KJVO myth. . .

. . . And, it's VERY outlandish in the face of its having absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT.

There's that "no scriptural support argument again. Why is it not inconsistent for one side to demand something neither side has? Why?

Why? Because the Scriptures were in existence long before the KJV was, and the KJV, along with several other English versions, was in existence long before the current KJVO myth was started in 1930. This myth was solely the invention of men, but any doctrine ABOUT Scripture MUST BE SUPPORTED by Scripture to be valid. There's no mystery about the origin of the KJVO myth, and there's no Scriptural reason for anyone to believe it.


quote: And as for the "hare/egg white" thingies...WHASSAMATTUH WID DE KURREKT TRANSLATION OF DE HEBREW?

Roby you missed his argument entirely.

Actually, HE missed MINE. Many KJVOs say the KJV is absolutely perfect, and we use such arguments to burst their bubble every time they inflate it.

 

Seven questions for MV-ers:

1. What is the scriptural support-alone for only having 66 books in the Bible?

2. Was the pure, inspired, preserved words of God in existance between the time the original autographs were destroyed and before the AV 1769 was published?

3. If so, where were they specifically, and in what form were they?

4. If not, why not?

5. Do you currently have in your posession "scripture"?

6. Was there, at any time before the AV1769, a single volume of the NT containing the pure, inspired, preserved words of God?

7. Is there today, anywhere, a single volume of the NT containing the pure, inspired, preserved words of God?

 

I happen to believe that God's Word, even every last word, is preserved out there somewhere in the MS tradition, or can be ascertained from the available MS evidence we have. For the OT, I believe there are places where our Hebrew MSS have undergone corruption so long ago that the original reading is not found anywhere among them, but that ancient LXX manuscripts sometimes hold clues unlocking how the Hebrew was corrupted. However, I think these places are relatively few in number and for the most part the Hebrew text was copied about as carefully as one can imagine throughout history.

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

TCassidy: I'll wait for the MV-ers to post a response before responding to your post.

 

Sounddoctrine 04:TCassidy: I'll wait for the MV-ers to post a response before responding to your post.

I believe TCassidy's answer is representative of the answers others may give.

Recently I posted just THREE of the many KJVO claims with evidence showing they're not true. I have yet to see you post any KJVO claims that ARE true, despite our repeated asking.