The KJV is sufficient for me

As a merely technical matter, Paul did not go on to write anything in the next chapter.

No, I am very wrong there Paul sure didn't write Peter's epistle.

Ernie
BLUSH

[ November 02, 2001: Message edited by: Ernie Brazee ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S. Baptist:


You ask for "evidence", here it is:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


OR ... the KJV has added verses not in the originals??

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:


Some have given verses where words have been translated differently. They have given verses where textual variants exist. No one has yet to show a verse where a doctrine has been changed. Every doctrine is still there and in many cases it is clearer in the MVs than it is in the KJV. In this the burden of proof is on you: Show where a doctrine has been changed, not a word or phrase because of a translational choice or a textual variant. Much of the latter has been done; none of the former.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again! I will show you, but you do not understand that through a word or a phrase; doctrine has been changed. You will not understand, and I still do not think you will understand, but here goes. Here are just a few:
1. John 3:15. "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

Do you know what the "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) manuscripts do to the three words, "should not perish"? They REMOVE them. So, in the two false Greek texts, there's no hell in Jn. 3:15. What versions follow these corrupted Greek texts? The NIV follows them, the NASV follows them, and the NKJV in the footnotes, follows them. So do the other modern versions and perversions. For them, there is no hell in Jn. 3:15. Is this not a major doctrine?

2. John 6:47. Let me see if you can accurately lead a soul to Christ using exclusively Jn. 6:47 as rendered in the new versions. Note John 6:47 in the KJV, where the Lord Jesus declared: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."

That verse is as clear as a bell, on how to receive "everlasting life." But, the Westcott and Hort Greek text, following the "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) manuscripts, takes out those two vital and precious words, "on me." Because of their reliance on these false Egyptian Greek texts, the NIV also removes "on me." So does the NASV. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do the other modern versions and perversions. If you're trying to lead a soul to Christ with those new versions and perversions, using Jn. 6:47 exclusively, you'll never lead them to Christ, because "on me" (Christ) is gone from that verse in their perversions! All they say is something like this: "Whoever believes has everlasting life." Believes what? Their verse doesn't say. Their verse merely says "believes." ... That's major false doctrine in my judgment, and it stems directly from false Greek texts and false English perversions!

3. Romans 1:16. Here's what it says in the accurate KJV: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."

The heretical Greek texts of "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) remove the two words "of Christ" in this verse. Because of this, the NIV also removes these words. So does the NASV. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do the other modern versions and perversions. This certainly is doctrine. "Gospel" means "good news" or a "good announcement." What "gospel" could be inserted there instead of the "gospel of Christ"? Was it the good news about a pay raise? Was it the good news about a new car, a new hat, or a new house? No! It's the gospel or good news about Christ. That's doctrine! That's theology!

4. John 7:8. Was the Lord Jesus Christ a liar? If you believe the false Greek text, "Aleph" (Sinai), and some of the versions, He was. Note Jn. 7:8: "Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come."

According to the Greek text "Aleph" (Sinai), the word "yet" must be removed. The NASV omits it also. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do some other modern versions and perversions. Why do I say this removal of "yet" makes the Lord Jesus Christ out to be a liar? Because He went up to the feast in question. If He told his brethren that He was NOT going up to the feast, and then later went up to that feast, He would have told a lie, would He not? This certainly is a major theological doctrine. As in all of the other 356 doctrinal passages [which are corrupted in the modern versions and listed in Jack Moorman's book], the KJV has superior theology here. The perversions are inferior in their theology and doctrine! Stay away from them!
This portion taken from: http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVersions/kjckjv1s.htm

I don't know why I put web pages on here I think the modernists are afraid they might actually see the KJVO's side, and never check them out, but there is a lot of great info on this site. I am sure you will come back and say they are wrong, but it is enough for me. Praise God for His complete Word for the English speaking people, the KJV.

 

Thanks for the link toolman.

Stephen

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stephen:
Thanks for the link toolman.

Stephen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your welcome!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by toolman:
2. John 6:47. Let me see if you can accurately lead a soul to Christ using exclusively Jn. 6:47 as rendered in the new versions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you really witness using one verse? I find the Bible in context so much better:

John 6:47-51 (ESV)
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. [48] I am the bread of life. [49] Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. [50] This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. [51] I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

 

You make this easy. Thanks. In each of the following refutations below, I have listed passages in the MVs where the doctrine in question is clearly stated. I will state up front, that my purpose is to demonstrate that your accusations are false and that you are lying about the Word of God.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>John 3:15.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you know that “should not perish” does not even have enough support to make the textual apparatus in UBS3 or TC2? That is significant. Do you know that it does not have enough support to be discussed in the technical commentaries on the book of John?

Did you further know that “hell” is not in John 3:15 in the KJV? It says “should not perish” not “should not go to hell.” If you are going to argue particulars, then you need to be particular and say what the KJV says.

Did you further know that the doctrine of eternal punishment is all throughout the MVs including in the very next verse (John 3:16, 36; 5:24; Rom 6:23; Rev 20:11-15, and I could go on and on ).

You are flat out lying when you say that doctrine has been removed from MVs. It may not have the exact words as the KJV, and it may even have some textual variants that the KJV does not have. But it is a lie to say that hell has been removed from the MVs.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>John 6:47.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would I lead a soul to Christ using John 6:47 exclusively? I bet you can’t do it. Why? Because John 6:47 says nothing about the sin problem which is why we need to be saved. It says nothing about the death and resurrection of Christ which is what saves us. You must go outside of John 6:47. Besides in the context of John 6:47, it is clear what the belief is. This is a totally false argument. John 6:47 follows John 6:46 where the one who comes from the Father reveals the father. If you believe that, then you can have eternal life. This is an example of where you have followed a deluded mind who wants to question and doubt the word of God.

Is the doctrine of belief in Christ missing from the MVs? Consider John 1:12; 3:16, 3:18; 8:24, Acts 4:12 and again, I could go on and on. Clearly the doctrine is still there.

You are lying when you say that the doctrine of belief in Christ is removed from the MVs.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Romans 1:16<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The gospel in Scripture is always the Gospel of Christ. Was Christ denying that the gospel was his in Matt 11:5 where he doesn’t add “of Christ?” What about Mark 1:15? Mark 13:10? Mark 16:15? Acts 8:25? Rom 1:15? Rom 11:28? … once again I am bored listing verses that refute your very statement yet I could list so many more.

The Gospel of Christ in the MVs? Rom 1:9; 15:19; 1 Cor 9:12; 2 Cor2:12; 2 Cor 9:13; Gal 1:7, and many many more.

You are lying when you say that the gospel of the MVs is not the Gospel of Christ. It is a doctrine and it is in every single MV without exception.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>John 7:8<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you read v. 8? It says “Having said these things to them, He stayed in Galilee.” It appears that once again you are lying. He did go to the feast eventually, but when they went, He stayed in Galilee. Why? Because, according to the NASB, “his time had not yet fully come.” You are lying when you say that Christ went to the feast in opposition to his statement.
__________________

I have read most of the web pages you list and probably a good number you have never seen, as well as books, articles, and newsletters. I find them humorous at times and foolish at times and infuriating at times to see the lengths that some people will go to deny the Word of God to people in their own language.

Consider now your original statement that the MVs remove doctrine. In each of the first three cases where doctrine was questioned, I listed a small number of passages from the MVs where the doctrine in question is explicitly stated. I have therefore shown you to be lying when you say that the MVs remove doctrine. I do not deny that some verses read differently. However, that is a far cry from “removing doctrine.”

 

Looking back over history, I can see one "common denominator" that all "Great men" of God
have had, and that is "persecution" for the "word of God".

From the Apostles on down to the present age, all who have played an important role in
"spreading the Gospel", writers, translators, all have suffered persecution/death for their
actions.

Kinda makes ya wonder, why hasn't "modern day writers/translators" suffer the same
persecution, why doesn't Satan hate them as much as he hated the others???

I don't hear anyone demanding they be "killed", as a matter of fact, it's quite the opposite.

I hear acceptance of their "modern translations" from a "Secular world" who knows "no
God".

God freely gave his word, but they try to capitalize on it for "worldly gain" by "Copyrights".

You must have "their permission" before you can preach/publish "God's word".

Is it any wonder, Satan isn't angry/persecuting them???

 

If you think people who are standing for the Word of God are not being persecuted, just take a look at those of us who are standing for the Word of God in here -- refusing to let it be hijacked. We are virtually being driven from the faith. Alas, what shall we do. Of course, I am speaking tongue in cheek here. This is a typical baseless argument, completely devoid of the facts, that "preaches well." The old "woe is me" .. .the Elijah syndrome ... Am I the only one left standing? There are yet 7000 of us who have not bowed the knee to Baal. We just don't feel compelled to worship in a language that is not ours.

If you doubt people are being killed for the word, then just study current events. In this country, virtually no one is suffering. In foreign countries, missionaries are being imprisoned, captured, and threatened with their lives. I can assure you it is not because of their KJV. They do not even use it.

If you think the world is accepting modern translations, then you are not ministering in my community where we use a modern translation and have a very hard time getting people to accept it.

You continue to lie about the copyright and profit issue. People make money all the time off the KJV. I have a Cambridge wide margin that cost almost one hundred dollars. Don't try to tell me no one is making money off the KJV.

You lie about needing permission to preach. Tomorrow I will stand and preach the Word from 1 John 2:21-27 in a NASB95 edition and I do not have anyone's permission to do so. I didn't have to ask anyone and I needed no one's written approval.

As long as you continue to ignore the plain truth, you will continue to post these kinds of lies. While that may not seem very kind to you, I am not interested in allowing errors to be repeated and fostered without confronting those who propagate them. I have gentleness and patience with those who are willing to deal in truths, even if they don't agree with me. I lose that very quickly when people knowingly spout untruths.

 

Pastor Larry,

I have asked and asked and have never received answers to the following questions from the KJVO crowd. Am I out of line or are these legimate questions regarding the King James Version?

1. The KJV that is read today is NOT the version of 1611. In fact, I have a 1614 KJV and I doubt most of these people could even read it--it has been changed so much. With so many changes in the 18th century how can it be "inspired"?

2. Did not the original KJV contain the apocrypha? If it was inspired by these Holy men why would they translate a portion that is not part of the canon?

3. How about translational errors in Chinese, Vietnamese, Spanish, French, etc. Are these all wrong or are they okay if they were translated from the KJV? My guess is--that will be the answer, but just in case it is then why would these translations be any more inspired than a MV? Do we have to learn how to read and speak English (old religious English at that) before we can become a Christian?

4. WHERE does it say that THE preserved version is the KJV. Why could it not be the NASB. (I'm not saying there is a preserved English version--simply making a point) The KJV has ONLY been around a few hundred years. What did all of these people do before this?

5. It is well known that much of the KJV was taken from the Bishop's Bible rather than a direct Byzantine translation. Does this mean the Bishop's Bible is also without translational errors and if it is why not use it instead of rewriting it?


I have been studying intently in my parallel Bible and cannot--literally cannot find doctrinal differences between the MVs and the KJV. In fact, once I read the MV, often a light comes on and I can understand the KJV better. I see absolutely NO watering down of the scripture, in fact; it appears that it may be strengthened in places. The ONLY place I have had problems is the "Living Bible" and as we all know, it is a paraphrase and I do not trust it, by itself.

God Bless you for standing up for what is right, Pastor Larry.

 

Would like to say hello to everyone since this is my first post here. Let me start by saying that I was raised a Baptist and have a high regard for that organization. Although I am certainly not a bible expert, I was well grounded in the bible. I am sometimes surprised by people I have discussions with by how little they know about the bible even though they were raised in church. This is not meant as a criticism, only an observation.

I have recently begun to read this type of web site and found this one from another similar board. This discussion has been fascinating and very informative for me. I have enjoyed every message in this thread as I am one who enjoys learning something almost no matter what the subject matter, although science and religion are my favorites. I for one appreciate the time and effort that must be made to support and contribute to this type of site. Let me also say that I have several Baptist friends that I have a high regard for since I know they are sincere in their beliefs.

Let me preface what I am about to say by stating that I know I will be castigated by the ones that have participated in this discussion. I don’t doubt that my comments will be used to demonstrate how not using the KJV allows people to go astray. However that is not my intent and my beliefs were not formed by reading MVs since I had not read one at the time. I will say that my post may unite everyone else.

Now to what I wanted to comment on. I have read this same discussion/argument at other sites and even on this site and I find this fascinating. It is exactly the same discussion that is in the evolution vs creation debate, only with the participants and details changed. The experts in the field debate with the lay people about the subject. When the lay people cannot answer a question, they resort to "well if you would just believe, you would know what I am talking about." They also resort to the Satan is the cause of this argument.

Everything I have said about enjoying the thread being true, this seems to me to be a case of straining the knat and swallowing the camel as I have believed for a long time that words and books just get a person thinking and the Holy Sprit gives the wisdom to understand what God wants for mankind and an individual. At the risk of being burned at the stake, I believe God is just as available to us now as he was to Peter and Paul if we ask.

Maybe this is not the place I should be posting this message, however I thought it was something each of you might find interesting. I also wanted to thank everyone for their time and efforts.

I would also like to make one other comment. The Quakers, of whom I am not a member but have attended their churches every time I get a chance, have made the comment that the Catholics replaced the Holy Sprit with the church and the Protestants replaced the Holy Sprit with the bible. Although I do not believe this for all individuals in the church, I think the overall concept has some merit and am interested in your comments.

 

HankP:

Thsi question really needs to be brought to the Theology Forum. But revelation ceased with the close of apsotolic writing.

God has given us His word as final authority. Baptists have written hsitorically against the errors of the Quaker's "Inner Light" revelation. It is true that the Spirit is given to lead us into all truth, but that illumination never contradicts his inscripturated word.

It is true that "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him." James 1:5 (ESV), but that wisdom does not contradict God's word, for "so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." Isaiah 55:11 (ESV) God has given His word and it cannot be superceded, for "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind, Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" Numbers 23:19 (ESV)

Also, "...even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. [15] So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds." 2 Cor. 11:14-15 (ESV)

1 John 4:1 (ESV)
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

[ November 08, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

Chris

You are quite correct. Thanks for pointing that out.

Hank

 

Pastor Larry really hit on the bottom line for all of this debate when he talked about people getting the Bible in their own language.

When I read some of the KJVO arguments I am reminded of the early Roman Catholic Church that insisted the Bible be read only in Latin, because this was the "official," preserved Word of God.

I am also reminded of the thousands of languages who do not have even one book of the Bible in their own language. I imagine the KJVO doctrine does not preach too well in other countries.

 

A man who owns only one watch
... knows what time it is,
But a man who has two watches
... is never quite sure.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ps104_33:
A man who owns only one watch
... knows what time it is,
But a man who has two watches
... is never quite sure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is this poppycock about? Should anyone who owns 2 watches throw one in the creek? And since 2 watches are very unlikely to run out of the energy which makes them run (whether electronic or mechanical) at the same time, then the man who has 2 of them is much less likely to lose track of time.

Watch and pray!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ps104_33:
A man who owns only one watch
... knows what time it is,
But a man who has two watches
... is never quite sure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A man with one watch is sure of the time in his own mind; unless he has set it by The Time Standard, he does not know if it is accurate or not.

 

Confucius (or was that Ps104_33?) says:

A man who owns only one watch
... knows what time it is,
But a man who has two watches
... is never quite sure.

A man who owns two running watches
... always knows what time it is,
But a man with one stopped watch
... misses his job interview.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ransom:
Confucius (or was that Ps104_33?) says:

A man who owns only one watch
... knows what time it is,
But a man who has two watches
... is never quite sure.

A man who owns two running watches
... always knows what time it is,
But a man with one stopped watch
... misses his job interview.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the man with two running watches is still unsure. the man with one stopped watch is quite sure..... twice a day