Scriptural proofs for KJVOnlyism

[neal4christ]

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Alas, and so many KJVOs do not abide by this verse. Do they promote peace? Many times I have seen them mean spirited and speak in very unChristlike terms. And talk about confused! They have bought into a totally man-made doctrine, KJVO! It is truly sad.

Neal

 

[Johnv]

God gave us his word in English...I'll stick with the KJV and be satisfied with the truth found there.

So you place the English over the Greek and Hebrew? Isn't that heretical? And what do you do in places where the English contradicts the Greek and Hebrew? Do you stick with the English, or the Greek and Hebrew? In places where there is contradiction, which is infallible?

 

[Johnv]

Sadly many ignore the Holy Spirit and cling to man's truth.

Yes, you're right. Many KJVO's do exactly that.

 

[Alcott]

There are only about 268 words in the A.V. that are not currently used in English (wot, wist, etc), or have changed meaning.

This shoots to [snip] such frivolous ideas as the Anglican Version had divine inspiration as the perfect and final English translation. The same God who 'inspired' it could not keep the language in which it was written the same so that the perfect, final translation would not have to have word changes? and thus it would not be perfect and final? That's preposterous.

[ February 15, 2003, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]

 

[Ernie Brazee]

Originally posted by Johnv:
God gave us his word in English...I'll stick with the KJV and be satisfied with the truth found there.

So you place the English over the Greek and Hebrew? Isn't that heretical?

Nope, never said that, u did.



And what do you do in places where the English contradicts the Greek and Hebrew? Do you stick with the English, or the Greek and Hebrew?

Can't read Greek or Hebrew so don't have a problem with that.



In places where there is contradiction, which is infallible? QUOTE]

What contradiction? Can't recall where there is any misunderstanding if one compares scripture with scripture. Oh, it helps to prayerfully study the word also. And again I would refer to the passage previously quoted, that has a lot to do with the confused minds of the MVers.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
man has given us the MVs which are the source of confusion,

Having ministered for over seven years in a context where MVs are almost exclusively used (95%+), I have never seen this confusion. The only confusion I have ever experienced stems from teaching like yours ... That is the sad part. Your teaching is confusing God's people.

 

[Pioneer]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
How about 2 Thess 2:7 for starters. "Let" today means "allow." In 1611 it meant exactly the opposite, "restrain." Thus, the KJV gives the exact opposite idea of what the Holy Spirit intended you to understand. The MVs have the proper reading with "restrain" (NASB, ESV, NKJV) or "holds it back" (NIV).

I think you need to take your own advice and QUIT POSTING MISLEADING STATEMENTS.

My English Dictionary (Doubleday 1975) gives as one of the definitions of the word 'let' the following - anything that obstructs or hinders. I would say that the KJV gives exactly what the Holy Spirit intends for you to understand. It is your definite lack of understanding that causes you to make such stupid statements and deceive the hearts of the simple.

 

[neal4christ]

It is your definite lack of understanding that causes you to make such stupid statements and deceive the hearts of the simple.

Walk up to a simple person on the street and quote II Thess. 2:7 to them and see if they know what it means. See what a 'simple' person thinks.

Neal

 

[neal4christ]

anything that obstructs or hinders

So 'restrain' does not mean this? And you don't have to go to a dictionary to figure it out.

Neal

 

[Steve K.]

I thank God for this discussion board! It keeps alot of the pro MV folks out of my way in the real world. TheKJV is the one true perfect preserved inspired word of God.

 

[neal4christ]

I thank God for this discussion board! It keeps alot of the pro MV folks out of my way in the real world. TheKJV is the one true perfect preserved inspired word of God.

Were you making a point or something?

Also, can extreme KJVOs really function in the 'real' world? Most that I have heard of or seen have problems relating to people. If someone doesn't agree with them they throw up their hands, call them some names, label them a heretic, and won't have any fellowship with them.

Neal

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Pioneer:
I think you need to take your own advice and QUIT POSTING MISLEADING STATEMENTS.

My English Dictionary (Doubleday 1975) gives as one of the definitions of the word 'let' the following - anything that obstructs or hinders. I would say that the KJV gives exactly what the Holy Spirit intends for you to understand. It is your definite lack of understanding that causes you to make such stupid statements and deceive the hearts of the simple.

Nice response, well articulated and certainly in keeping with biblical standards of decency. Let me ask you this: If you told your daughter you would "let" her go to the mall, what do you think she would understand?? ... You see its really simple. When you are not pressed to arrive at a certain conclusion, it is very easy to see the truth. "Let" in colloquial English means to allow. And everybody knows this.

I agree that in 1611 "let" was exactly what the Holy Spirit meant for you to understand. But language changes and "let" means something very different now. Try your usage in your next discussion with your boss ... see if you and he are on the same page. And then tell us why its different for God.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by KING JAMES AV 1611:
I thank God for this discussion board! It keeps alot of the pro MV folks out of my way in the real world. TheKJV is the one true perfect preserved inspired word of God.

Another typical post from Steve, just like all the others. It has a funny statement and no Scripture. Funny from someone who claims to be defending the Bible. Why doesn't he use the Bible to show us this???

 

[Pioneer]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
"Let" in colloquial English means to allow. And everybody knows this.

"Colloquial" means informal language suitable for ordinary conversation. That is the problem with modern textual criticism. It treats the Bible as an ordinary book without taking into account its divine origin.

 

[HankD]

"Colloquial" means informal language suitable for ordinary conversation. That is the problem with modern textual criticism. It treats the Bible as an ordinary book without taking into account its divine origin.

In my view that's not exactly correct Pioneer.

Though the Bible is God's Word and has divine origin, He gave His Word in the "koine" or "common" language of the people.
Elizabethan English is not the "common" English spoken today and actually not then (1611) either.
The KJV translators were enamoured with the pomp, ceremony and ritual of the Church of England (which they inherited from the Church of Rome along with several heresies - for example, transubstantiation, paedo-baptism as well as a "sacred" language - Latin).
To them, Elizabethan English seemed the "proper" form to translate the Scripture into, but this (imo) was not God's original plan.

The living Word, the Logos, did not come to us in pomp ceremony and ritual...

The Scripture was originally given in the "common" language of the "common" man.
Yes, that has its exception, the Book of Hebrews.
But this exception establishes the rule.

HankD

 

[Bartholomew]

THE REAL ANSWER

You ask for scriptural proof of KJVOnlyism. KJVOnlyism, as I use the term, states that God preserved a perfect Bible with no errors in all of its words, and that the Authorised Version is at least an example of one of these Bibles. You should know exactly where the Bible teaches this, for it is in precisely the same book, even the same chapter, as the following Scriptural teachings:

1. Textual criticism must be used to discern which words are really God's words.
2. Codex Vaticanus is an accurate manuscript.
3. God would only preserve his word in a multitude of imperfect manuscripts.
4. The NIV is the word of God.
5. Any "faithful translation" is the word of God.
6. There are 66 books in the Bible.
7. Only the original was inspired.

Since all you MV'ers are so Biblical, and constatly state the above ideas (or similar ones), you will remember exaclty which passage I am referring to.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Pioneer:
"Colloquial" means informal language suitable for ordinary conversation. That is the problem with modern textual criticism. It treats the Bible as an ordinary book without taking into account its divine origin.

Colloquial deals with common usage. And modern textual critisim does not fail to take into account its divine origin. It does recognize what the KJVOnly crowd fails to: Its divine origin does not necessitate its miraculous preservation. It leads to providential preservation as history and Scripture show.

You didn't answer my question though: I said, If you told your daughter you would "let" her go to the mall, what would she understand??

Why are you against having God's word in the langauge we speak?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
THE REAL ANSWER

You ask for scriptural proof of KJVOnlyism. KJVOnlyism, as I use the term, states that God preserved a perfect Bible with no errors in all of its words, and that the Authorised Version is at least an example of one of these Bibles. You should know exactly where the Bible teaches this, for it is in precisely the same book, even the same chapter, as the following Scriptural teachings:

1. Textual criticism must be used to discern which words are really God's words.
2. Codex Vaticanus is an accurate manuscript.
3. God would only preserve his word in a multitude of imperfect manuscripts.
4. The NIV is the word of God.
5. Any "faithful translation" is the word of God.
6. There are 66 books in the Bible.
7. Only the original was inspired.

Since all you MV'ers are so Biblical, and constatly state the above ideas (or similar ones), you will remember exaclty which passage I am referring to.

Bartholomew,

did you see the title of this thread?? It was a request for scriptural proofs for the KJVOnly position. In other words, Where did God tell us to use only the KJV? Your seven points (of varying worth or worthlessness) do not list one passage where God tells us to believe what you think we should?? Why are you so hesitant to tell us where God says we should use only the KJV?

 

[AV Defender]

Your seven points (of varying worth or worthlessness) do not list one passage where God tells us to believe what you think we should?? Why are you so hesitant to tell us where God says we should use only the KJV?

Well, now that I think of it,the KJB was translated under the authority of a King,see Ecclesiastes 8:4;the modern"bibles" were not.And God said He would Show His Word unto Jacob(Psalms 147:19),James is the English word for Jacob.

 

[Alcott]

And if you don't belong to this king's church, why don't you? Perhaps one possible reason is that the second king James of England (1685-1688) was Catholic. So which are you-- the first English Jacob, who was Anglican, or the 2nd, who was Catholic?