This is Must Reading On the KJVO Position!

[Yeshua1]

This is a spurious charge. I have sat under Dr. Price's Hebrew tutelage, gone soul winning with him, sat in his Sunday School class, sat with him in church, eaten dinner with him. I assure you that Dr. James Price could not be further from humanism, but is a godly, good man, and a fundamental independent Baptist. Without even knowing the man, you have defamed him, thus disobeying many verses in the beloved King James Version.

it is nasty posts like yours that drive people away from King James Onlyism. By not being gracious in your Christianity, you defeat your own purpose.

I thought that he did an excellent job highlighting just why KJVO is wrong, and while the area of textual criticism much more complication to those for KJVO care to admit!

 

[Yeshua1]

Only if you accept their definition of "best," which is highly subjective.

he accepted the critical and majority texts it would seem!

 

[Yeshua1]

"Humanistic Scholarship Onlyism" - An Old Sect.

Do you agree with Dean Burgeon? as he was NOT KJVO!

 

[Yeshua1]

You judge me contrary to the KJV: Judge not that ye be not judge.

I was absolutely sincere in what I said, felt no superiority in the slightest. What you read was outrage, not "unseemly...affected and hypocritical religious superiority."

Apparently you don't even know the meaning of the word "sect." A sect is simply a schismatic group of religionists. They may or may not be heretical. If your crowd is not schismatic, I don't know who is. They separate from anyone that does not believe exactly like they do about the KJV. However, they need not. I know some wonderful people who love the KJV as I do, and fellowship with them often, but they are not schismatic. Some of my students are KJVO, but they are not schismatic.

Again, it is a "new" sect. Virtually no one took the KJVO position among fundamentalists until Peter Ruckman came along with his first book in 1970.
Absolute baloney. You specifically answered a text that referenced Dr. Price's book.


I see no need to even answer this.

I really liked the part describing how the traditional viewpoint among Baptists and reformed has been the originals were inerrant and inspired, and while english translations off them are reliable, are not perfect!

 

[George Antonios]

the originals were inerrant and inspired

So we don't have scripture that is given by inspiration of God anymore today?
So the Bible is now simply a natural book then.
And it contains errors.
Great job guys doing the devil's work of sowing disbelief in the actual scriptures that people hold in their hands.
What would we do without our great traditional scholars who help us disbelieve our scriptures?!
Bravo, Bravo! You go guys! You tell those cultists who teach others to believe that there is a perfect Bible, that there is no such thing as a perfect Bible anymore! Yeah you tell them!

 

[MartyF]

And it contains errors.

‘It depends on what you mean by “errors”. There are those who are so literal, they demand that the mustard seed is the smallest seed because Jesus said so.

Therefore, they believe that all seeds smaller than mustard seeds must be called something else.

The insistence of absolutely no “error” turns the Bible into something it is not. The scripture is inspired by God, not written by him. (Except for certain specific sections.)

1 Corinthians 1:13-16

Does God have a bad memory? If the God wrote the letter, God forgets what he did a few months ago.

Insisting on an “errorless” Bible is one of the worst things one can teach to a beginning Christian. Now you may get lucky and that Christian may have a skin-deep faith, never get challenged on the Bible, or is just be blissfully stupid. Or you might get another Bart D. Ehrman.

Insisting that something must be true when it is clearly not will cause many who were to lied to to turn on everything they were taught just like Bart did.

I don’t believe sticking one’s head in the sand is an appropriate response to what some may call “errors” in the Bible. Christians should face the issue head on and not by shouting them down like Antifa.

 

[Logos1560]

So we don't have scripture that is given by inspiration of God anymore today?
So the Bible is now simply a natural book then.
!

You demonstrate that you do not discuss nor answer what other posters actually state. Instead you try to put words in their mouths that they did not say.

It is human KJV-only reasoning that would in effect suggest that God did not preserve well enough the actual words He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

In contradiction to the KJV translators, KJV-only advocates will not accept the preserved Scriptures in the original languages as the proper standard and authority for the trying of all Bible translations.

 

[Logos1560]

Great job guys doing the devil's work of sowing disbelief in the actual scriptures that people hold in their hands.

Does a consistent. just application of your own statement assert that many KJV-only advocates are doing the devil's word when they try to sow disbelief in English Bible translations in present-day English such as the NKJV that people hold in their hands?

Do you try to skip over the truth that the KJV is an English Bible translation in the same sense that the NKJV is an English Bible translation? Would you tell readers of the NKJV to believe it to be perfect?

 

[Garrett20]

How do you stand on this issue of which Greek text is a viable option?

I prefer the Byzantine textform over against the Alexandrian. While not perfect, the Textus Receptus is a better representative of the autographs than the modern eclectic text in my opinion. Burgon himself held to a similar view.

 

[robycop3]

So we don't have scripture that is given by inspiration of God anymore today?
So the Bible is now simply a natural book then.
And it contains errors.
Great job guys doing the devil's work of sowing disbelief in the actual scriptures that people hold in their hands.
What would we do without our great traditional scholars who help us disbelieve our scriptures?!
Bravo, Bravo! You go guys! You tell those cultists who teach others to believe that there is a perfect Bible, that there is no such thing as a perfect Bible anymore! Yeah you tell them!

The KJV certainly isn't perfect. We have cited some of its goofs & booboos many timed before, so there's no need to repeat them here.

But the KJV was perfect for leading many to Jesus, as are several modern translations today. God uses imperfect men (& things) to perfectly accomplish His will.

But to say the KJV is a perfect Bible version in all respects is to tell a lie.

 

[robycop3]

I prefer the Byzantine textform over against the Alexandrian. While not perfect, the Textus Receptus is a better representative of the autographs than the modern eclectic text in my opinion. Burgon himself held to a similar view.

Burgon often criticized those who held the TR to be perfect. he himself used an eclectic collectionj of several texts and manuscripts. While he rightly blasted the RV as a groddy Bible version, he was open to a more-accurate new English translation being made. (He declined to make one, saying it was not the line of work to which God had called him.)

But fact is, GOD preserved the Byz & Alex mss. equally. That should tell critics something !

 

[Yeshua1]

I prefer the Byzantine textform over against the Alexandrian. While not perfect, the Textus Receptus is a better representative of the autographs than the modern eclectic text in my opinion. Burgon himself held to a similar view.

He did not hold to the TR as being the best Greek text, but the received text, as in the Bzt, or what is called the Majority text today! he also would have allowed for revision of both the Kjv and the Greek texts today!

 

[Yeshua1]

Burgon often criticized those who held the TR to be perfect. he himself used an eclectic collectionj of several texts and manuscripts. While he rightly blasted the RV as a groddy Bible version, he was open to a more-accurate new English translation being made. (He declined to make one, saying it was not the line of work to which God had called him.)

But fact is, GOD preserved the Byz & Alex mss. equally. That should tell critics something !

He would have approved of the Nkjv, and would have wanted a translation based off the majority text!

 

[Yeshua1]

So we don't have scripture that is given by inspiration of God anymore today?
So the Bible is now simply a natural book then.
And it contains errors.
Great job guys doing the devil's work of sowing disbelief in the actual scriptures that people hold in their hands.
What would we do without our great traditional scholars who help us disbelieve our scriptures?!
Bravo, Bravo! You go guys! You tell those cultists who teach others to believe that there is a perfect Bible, that there is no such thing as a perfect Bible anymore! Yeah you tell them!

Inspiration ONLY applied to the originals!

was the latin Vulgate a real bible, as Eramus and the 1611 translators used it!

 

[Garrett20]

He would have approved of the Nkjv, and would have wanted a translation based off the majority text!

I remember reading that the HCSB was originally going to be a Majority Text translation until Art Fartad's untimely death in the late 90s. I am still waiting for a mainline translation based off of the MT or the Robinson-Pierpont text. The World English Bible is pretty good, and I use it as a reference frequently. NKJV is my favorite along with the KJV.

 

[George Antonios]

Does a consistent. just application of your own statement assert that many KJV-only advocates are doing the devil's word when they try to sow disbelief in English Bible translations in present-day English such as the NKJV that people hold in their hands?

Do you try to skip over the truth that the KJV is an English Bible translation in the same sense that the NKJV is an English Bible translation? Would you tell readers of the NKJV to believe it to be perfect?

I did not mention the KJB, you did.

 

[George Antonios]

‘It depends on what you mean by “errors”. There are those who are so literal, they demand that the mustard seed is the smallest seed because Jesus said so.

Therefore, they believe that all seeds smaller than mustard seeds must be called something else.

The insistence of absolutely no “error” turns the Bible into something it is not. The scripture is inspired by God, not written by him. (Except for certain specific sections.)

1 Corinthians 1:13-16

Does God have a bad memory? If the God wrote the letter, God forgets what he did a few months ago.

Insisting on an “errorless” Bible is one of the worst things one can teach to a beginning Christian. Now you may get lucky and that Christian may have a skin-deep faith, never get challenged on the Bible, or is just be blissfully stupid. Or you might get another Bart D. Ehrman.

Insisting that something must be true when it is clearly not will cause many who were to lied to to turn on everything they were taught just like Bart did.

I don’t believe sticking one’s head in the sand is an appropriate response to what some may call “errors” in the Bible. Christians should face the issue head on and not by shouting them down like Antifa.

And that folks, is what modern non-Biblical, high-minded, humanistic Christianity sounds like - unbelief in the words of God couched under layers of sophistry.

 

[George Antonios]

Inspiration ONLY applied to the originals!

was the latin Vulgate a real bible, as Eramus and the 1611 translators used it!

I have answered that false humanistic claim often and with verses, and have have often asked you to support your humanistic claim with verses, but you still won't, and simply repeat that humanistic mantra.

 

[Yeshua1]

I remember reading that the HCSB was originally going to be a Majority Text translation until Art Fartad's untimely death in the late 90s. I am still waiting for a mainline translation based off of the MT or the Robinson-Pierpont text. The World English Bible is pretty good, and I use it as a reference frequently. NKJV is my favorite along with the KJV.

I like the Nas/Esv/Nlkv and do remember that the HCSb was indeed to be made off MT, but switched to CT when Dr fartad died!

 

[Yeshua1]

And that folks, is what modern non-Biblical, high-minded, humanistic Christianity sounds like - unbelief in the words of God couched under layers of sophistry.

well, KJVO reads like superstition, as some seem to equate that translation to b e almost like the Originals here among us!