Trying To Understand KJVOnlyism

[DrJamesAch]

I've examined the evidence over the course of 30+ years and like many others, have come to a completely different conclusion from you or Roby. How can you be so absolutely sure that what Roby says and presents is the truth? What makes the evidence he presents any more accurate or truthful than the evidence that the men I listed have presented. There are plenty of good and very academically intelligent men and women who would completely disagree with your position.

Frankly, I don't think you are really trying to understand KJVOnlyism. I think you may actually be trying to draw people who believe their Bibles into pointless arguments. That is my opinion. The conclusion of the matter for me is that, believing as I do, I have absolutely complete confidence that the Book I hold in my hand, the English language KJV, is the Word of God, perfect and without error as God wanted me to have it in the dispensation in which I am alive. It is the final authority for all matters of faith and practice for the Christian life. I don't have any need for other "versions". Sorry....I'm completely content with my KJV. The funny thing is...if the language is so "archaic" then I ought to NOT be able to understand it at all. English was actually one of my WORST subjects in school :tear:...Second only to math! Thank God it is His blessed Holy Spirit which leads the believing hearts of His children to understand His Word....in whatever of the many human tongues/languages it is rendered in. Even the simplest minded can understand it when HE "turns on the light". Thank God for that!

Bro.Greg:saint:

I'll expound more on this later because it will take a while to type it out but the allegation that the KJVO issue can be traced to Wilkinson is a load of crap. Dean John Burgon refuted Westcott and Hort before Wilkinson was a tick on a dogs ear, and Wilkonson repeated what Frank Nolin wrote in a book called Inquiry Into the 7 Integrity of the Greek Vulgate in 1815.

Since folks associate KJVO with a Seventh Day Adventist, when the evidence is clear that the KJVO issue existed long before Wilkinson was alive, then I guess we can equate all modern version users to Jehovah's Witnesses since the text for their New World Translation is based on the Westcott & Hort text. We can also label them Unitarians since many of them also used the 1885 version of Westcott & Horts Revised Version.

And what about the KJV critics here that are merely repeating DA Carson, James White, Doug Kutilek and James Price? The first major publication against the KJVO didn't come out until late 70s, so can we conclude that since the KJVO is older than the opposition to it, that the KJVO wins by default! And those who are quoting anti-KJVO sources from other anti-KJVOists that merely copied other anti-KJVOists, that they are just as guilty of what they accuse KJVOists of?

I have Ruckman's Manuscript Evidence, and J.J. Rays books right in front of me, and Wilkinson's on the shelf. In Manuscript Evidence, there are 10 chapters with an appendix of notes starting on page 190-239. There are about 100 references per chapter, and I have yet to see one single quote from Wilkinson.

And when they say "we don't accept scholars" what they mean is that only someone who corrects the KJV is a proper "scholar". Nevermind that Bible critics like Custer are from the same university as Ruckman (BJU) but yet one is a "real scholar" and the other is not simply because one holds to the KJV.

I'll be back later to deal with this non-sense.

 

[Greektim]

I'll expound more on this later because it will take a while to type it out but the allegation that the KJVO issue can be traced to Wilkinson is a load of crap. Dean John Burgon refuted Westcott and Hort before Wilkinson was a tick on a dogs ear, and Wilkonson repeated what Frank Nolin wrote in a book called Inquiry Into the 7 Integrity of the Greek Vulgate in 1815.

Since folks associate KJVO with a Seventh Day Adventist, when the evidence is clear that the KJVO issue existed long before Wilkinson was alive, then I guess we can equate all modern version users to Jehovah's Witnesses since the text for their New World Translation is based on the Westcott & Hort text. We can also label them Unitarians since many of them also used the 1885 version of Westcott & Horts Revised Version.

And what about the KJV critics here that are merely repeating DA Carson, James White, Doug Kutilek and James Price? The first major publication against the KJVO didn't come out until late 70s, so can we conclude that since the KJVO is older than the opposition to it, that the KJVO wins by default! And those who are quoting anti-KJVO sources from other anti-KJVOists that merely copied other anti-KJVOists, that they are just as guilty of what they accuse KJVOists of?

I have Ruckman's Manuscript Evidence, and J.J. Rays books right in front of me, and Wilkinson's on the shelf. In Manuscript Evidence, there are 10 chapters with an appendix of notes starting on page 190-239. There are about 100 references per chapter, and I have yet to see one single quote from Wilkinson.

And when they say "we don't accept scholars" what they mean is that only someone who corrects the KJV is a proper "scholar". Nevermind that Bible critics like Custer are from the same university as Ruckman (BJU) but yet one is a "real scholar" and the other is not simply because one holds to the KJV.

I'll be back later to deal with this non-sense.

Bias:

Using not only Burgon's first name but also his title "dean"

vs.

Westcott and Hort (no names or titles)


Just sayin'

 

[preacher4truth]

I've examined the evidence over the course of 30+ years and like many others, have come to a completely different conclusion from you or Roby. How can you be so absolutely sure that what Roby says and presents is the truth? What makes the evidence he presents any more accurate or truthful than the evidence that the men I listed have presented. There are plenty of good and very academically intelligent men and women who would completely disagree with your position.
Frankly, I don't think you are really trying to understand KJVOnlyism. I think you may actually be trying to draw people who believe their Bibles into pointless arguments. That is my opinion. The conclusion of the matter for me is that, believing as I do, I have absolutely complete confidence that the Book I hold in my hand, the English language KJV, is the Word of God, perfect and without error as God wanted me to have it in the dispensation in which I am alive. It is the final authority for all matters of faith and practice for the Christian life. I don't have any need for other "versions". Sorry....I'm completely content with my KJV. The funny thing is...if the language is so "archaic" then I ought to NOT be able to understand it at all. English was actually one of my WORST subjects in school :tear:...Second only to math! Thank God it is His blessed Holy Spirit which leads the believing hearts of His children to understand His Word....in whatever of the many human tongues/languages it is rendered in. Even the simplest minded can understand it when HE "turns on the light". Thank God for that!

Bro.Greg:saint:

Hello Greg,

Robycop brought evidence, and you claim you have as well. Where is it, I see nothing from you Greg? I really think you believe you've brought evidence, I really do, but it is not there brother.

Bro, I don't buy that you've searched out KJVOnlyism for some 30 years fairly. I can't and will tell you why. Well, it is for a simple reason. You yourself have shown that you will only listen to preachers of your ilk, and despise most if not all other types, up to and including ANY Calvinist pastor. This is a well known KJVO standard - separation done wrongly. This is you and how you've described yourself in another thread, something that is known about you, all others to be rejected who are not of your group, they're perceived a threat. But this only proves my point in the OP -- and is an Ruckman like stand and attitude, dismiss, avoid all others, see them as a threat to truth and discredit them.

With these facts I highly doubt you've combed the waves for 30 years in search of truth on both sides of the issue. It's more like you've accepted this issue of KJVO for 30 years and you avoid any who prove it to be a fallacy. In being in this camp many are to be avoided and this you do by your own words.

I will say this though, you are missing out on 30 some years of truth and blessings from others not in your camp that you seem to despise. Your growth in knowledge I believe has been hindered by so doing. There is much blessedness in the works of some that are allegedly and shamefully thought of by this camp as one's to be avoided. You're missing out brother Greg.

Now to your belief that the KJV is perfect and without error. You are most incorrect kind sir. It has some erroneous interpretations which can be proven. This shouldn't diminish your faith in God at all. Men make errors, and God doesn't. The originals were inspired. The KJV is not God breathed therefore it is not perfect. But thank God we still have very accurate translations today. Have you read books that show this, or, do you use the 'Double Inspiration' and 'advanced revelations' argument to hide from this well known fact?

That said, I do highly value the KJV and have used it for years. This doesn't mean I worship it and defend it with myths of perfection and with the false apologetics of KJVOnlyism. So your usage of disliking archaic terms as some sort of proof falls short Greg. I've never complained about it, and I never brought it up so you're fighting within straw man parameters only and would believe somehow you've proven the KJVO in it?

Onto your other points:

That I don't want to understand it. Incorrect. Why bring a false accusation Greg? Is this an attempt to destroy my credibility? Grant others that don't hold to your position the benefit of doubt in their motives. And I do understand it at this point -- that is that there is no proof for the KJVO stance on their Bible. Frankly the points I've seen thus far are sensationalistic myths from Ruckman with no proof or evidence from you.

That I want to draw man away from faith in the Bible. Incorrect Greg. This emotionalistic card is classically used by KJVO's. It is an unfounded accusation used to dismiss the person. Ruckman used similar tactics -- he had to, he had to destroy the credibilty of persons in order to look bullet proof. In my defense of this accusation there is not one thing I've said that takes away faith in Scripture. In your 30 some years nothing should shake your faith in that way.

That this argument is pointless &c Really? If that is true then it is also pointless to promote and write books, give seminars, preach anything that is supporting and propagating KJVOnlyism. Now that is something to ponder.

Now, can we then stick to the facts and leave out your maneuvers of sensationalism, emotionalism, dismissals and attempts to discredit &c and actually talk about real facts that prove your stance? That is the intention of the OP. Instead of going in that direction you've simply attempted to dismiss and discredit me.

Lastly, and to reiterate, you haven't brought one thing to the table to prove KJVOnlyism. With some 30 years of experience and research that you've touted there is still absolutely nothing but your own arbitrary thoughts. You should really think that over -- 30 years and you have nothing to show for it in proving your belief system.

I'm still waiting. This is why I've made this thread so I can see the evidence from the experts, and if you're 30 years in you're an expert and yet haven't offered anything substantial to prove your belief system that the KJV is perfect &c.

- Blessings

 

[Yeshua1]

I wish to examine some of the beliefs and conclusions of KJVOers and also allow them opportunity to bolster their defense of this system.

A little ground work concerning where they may get some of their ideas follows.

One huge concept of KJVOers comes from the fact that Peter S. Ruckman believes the KJV is an inspired translation, even to the point of it correcting the Greek and Hebrew and is the therefore THE PURE and ONLY Word of God. In fairness not all KJVOers follow Ruckman but there are some who do, and it is consequently truthful to conclude that many of their ideas stem from his system whether they claim allegiance to Ruckman or not.

With Ruckman’s concept of Double Inspiration (DI) in mind, we can look at a text of Scripture used to support this claim:

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times -- Psalm 12:6

This text somewhat explains and lays down the foundation of how this (DI) took place and becomes a part of their apologetic platform. The theory goes something like this; There were 7 translations that came along, and the KJB was number 7 (so say some, but not all). All these other translations were ok, but Gods Word needed to be purified via man (obviously because allegedly He used man to do so and assisted him via Divine Inspiration) until finally translation number 7 came along, and now we have a pure and perfect Bible in the KJV.

That is the logic in a nutshell and therefore it has happened according to Psalm 12:6, that is, God’s Word was in fact purified 7 times.

But how did this translational process transpire, and how did God purify the text to make it perfect and pure? Ruckman’s belief is, that by his own testimony, God came down upon the men of the 1611 AV translation committee and said to them ‘WRITE’ and so they did. He also told them specifically and in context to use the word EASTER in Acts 12:4, so in saying this he is implying that exact Word was inspired by God, so it is now the correct Word. In other words either God corrected Himself, and/or at the very least He corrected the Greek text. All of this is showing that Ruckman had to have had a revelation of some sort, so on this basis his statements must be true. But this is in all totality an arbitrary argument and if any person were to buy into this, in so doing, he or she are simply believing a man’s word with absolutely no other solid evidence of it being true.

Nonetheless this is still an held belief even with these known factors. Ruckman’s allegations of DI fall nowhere short of prophesying (in a backwards manner so to speak) and/or are, again, at the least to be considered a revelation to some extent. To shed more light upon his beliefs we have this statement from Ruckman: ‘Mistakes in the 1611 KJV are advanced revelations.’ Thus what we find is twofold; Any corrections are considered ‘Double Inspiration’ and any ‘mistakes’ are ‘advanced revelations’. We see that seemingly every hold is barred within the defense of the KJV being the only true Word of God. No matter what argument is brought forth there is an answer, no matter how strange such answers may seem to be to those outside the camp.

Another defensive strategy used by Ruckman and his followers falls along this line of thought and is used to brush off any opponent:

Here’s a quote by Ruckman to set the stage:

"Every major, recognized Christian scholar in this century is an habitual, chronic, intentional, pathological liar... (Gen. 3:1)."

Apparently no one is allowed to challenge him (nor can they) without rebuke, thus to do so is basically to get an ‘anathema’ pronounced upon said persons. Challenging these beliefs is apparently used as evidence that those who do so are in fact corrupt and not to be trusted. This may lend itself toward their rejection of modern scholars, theological texts, other Christian writings and may limit them in their understanding of theological truth, something that could be beneficial to them if other works were trusted and employed– see Eph. 4:11ff

But is his indictment fair? It looks as if Ruckman has found a reason for everything, while his main defense is to discredit anyone who opposes him.

That is the basis of Ruckmans defense and his reason to disregard modern scholarship. It may be important at this point to recognize that much of modern scholarship is based upon the writings of the Church Fathers and is an extension and elaboration of their writings. But even if you aren’t a well-known scholar Ruckman concludes that all are untruthful who would embrace or employ their works. This may be the major reason behind his book ‘The Christian Liars Library’ as within it he allegedly elaborates upon his belief in his statement above, and solidifies his belief that only those who believe in his system are correct.

He also rejects just anyone calling the Bible ‘Scripture’, because they have no right to call it this unless they subscribe to his beliefs about DI and the KJV.

These are only some of the maneuvers used by some KJVOers to shut down their opponents. However, even though these things are true, they do not represent each and every KJVOer since there are several differing levels of belief among them. Some are not as strict, but the point here is to create dialogue among all camps within KJVO and to have each show solid evidence for their given beliefs.

With that said here are some of the conclusions coming from within their belief system:

1) 'Mistakes' are 'advanced revelation'.
2) The KJB is purified and perfect and proven so by Psalm 12:6 (with some elaboration).
3) No Bible can be His unless it is perfect.
4) God inspired the 1611 translation in the same way He did the original autographs.
5) If any person is against these beliefs, are a well-known scholar, or not, then it is concluded said persons are dishonest.
6) No one but those in his camp are allowed to call the Bible Scripture – they have no right to do so.
7) Some in this camp will therefore not receive any writings by any modern scholars because they are dishonest.
8) We can see evidence from these held arguments as to why some in this camp will not allow any so-called modern scholars to influence them as by some they are seen as enemies of truth.
9) It has been held that many who hold these beliefs believe they are the only ones that are of the truth.
10) There is an ostensible bias against academia among some within this camp unless such academia comes from within the camp itself. Scholars are not to be trusted. ONLY the Bible is to be used &c.
11) 'Corrections' are 'Double Inspiration'.

There are also other proofs used by KJVOers and in this example we can see how their minds work in defense of this Bible as being inspired (DI) and as evidence of it being 'the only true Bible'. Such is found and defended within the following argument:

'How many letters are in ‘KING JAMES’? '''Well there are 9 and 9 is the number of fruitfulness, ‘because’ Paul was saved in Acts chapter 9, ‘and’ a woman is pregnant 9 months, ‘and because’ in Genesis 9 Noah is told to be fruitful.'''

The clincher? 'Add up the numbers ‘1611’ and you have 9 again.' Thus the concluding thought is this is proof that the KJV is the only true Word of God and is used as evidence of God’s exclusive stamp of approval upon it. This argument seems to extend the meaning and time frame of ‘advanced revelations’ to today.

In all fairness, even as strange as these claims appear I would like to have KJVOers bolster the defense of their beliefs and give some differing proofs concerning their position.

What proofs outside of Ruckman thought, (or within) can be shared to defend the KJVO position?

- Blessings

jesus promised that the APOSTLES would have the inspration of the HS to guide and preserve the Inerrant word of God in the originals, NOT that the Kjv translators would have that!

they KNOW the Kjv itself has some mistakes in it, and that differing editions have varying renderings, but they redefine what"perfect" means!

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Oh Well....

Hello Greg,

Robycop brought evidence, and you claim you have as well. Where is it, I see nothing from you Greg? I really think you believe you've brought evidence, I really do, but it is not there brother.

Bro, I don't buy that you've searched out KJVOnlyism for some 30 years fairly. I can't and will tell you why. Well, it is for a simple reason. You yourself have shown that you will only listen to preachers of your ilk, and despise most if not all other types, up to and including ANY Calvinist pastor. This is a well known KJVO standard - separation done wrongly. This is you and how you've described yourself in another thread, something that is known about you, all others to be rejected who are not of your group, they're perceived a threat. But this only proves my point in the OP -- and is an Ruckman like stand and attitude, dismiss, avoid all others, see them as a threat to truth and discredit them.

With these facts I highly doubt you've combed the waves for 30 years in search of truth on both sides of the issue. It's more like you've accepted this issue of KJVO for 30 years and you avoid any who prove it to be a fallacy. In being in this camp many are to be avoided and this you do by your own words.

I will say this though, you are missing out on 30 some years of truth and blessings from others not in your camp that you seem to despise. Your growth in knowledge I believe has been hindered by so doing. There is much blessedness in the works of some that are allegedly and shamefully thought of by this camp as one's to be avoided. You're missing out brother Greg.

Now to your belief that the KJV is perfect and without error. You are most incorrect kind sir. It has some erroneous interpretations which can be proven. This shouldn't diminish your faith in God at all. Men make errors, and God doesn't. The originals were inspired. The KJV is not God breathed therefore it is not perfect. But thank God we still have very accurate translations today. Have you read books that show this, or, do you use the 'Double Inspiration' and 'advanced revelations' argument to hide from this well known fact?

That said, I do highly value the KJV and have used it for years. This doesn't mean I worship it and defend it with myths of perfection and with the false apologetics of KJVOnlyism. So your usage of disliking archaic terms as some sort of proof falls short Greg. I've never complained about it, and I never brought it up so you're fighting within straw man parameters only and would believe somehow you've proven the KJVO in it?

Onto your other points:

That I don't want to understand it. Incorrect. Why bring a false accusation Greg? Is this an attempt to destroy my credibility? Grant others that don't hold to your position the benefit of doubt in their motives. And I do understand it at this point -- that is that there is no proof for the KJVO stance on their Bible. Frankly the points I've seen thus far are sensationalistic myths from Ruckman with no proof or evidence from you.

That I want to draw man away from faith in the Bible. Incorrect Greg. This emotionalistic card is classically used by KJVO's. It is an unfounded accusation used to dismiss the person. Ruckman used similar tactics -- he had to, he had to destroy the credibilty of persons in order to look bullet proof. In my defense of this accusation there is not one thing I've said that takes away faith in Scripture. In your 30 some years nothing should shake your faith in that way.

That this argument is pointless &c Really? If that is true then it is also pointless to promote and write books, give seminars, preach anything that is supporting and propagating KJVOnlyism. Now that is something to ponder.

Now, can we then stick to the facts and leave out your maneuvers of sensationalism, emotionalism, dismissals and attempts to discredit &c and actually talk about real facts that prove your stance? That is the intention of the OP. Instead of going in that direction you've simply attempted to dismiss and discredit me.

Lastly, and to reiterate, you haven't brought one thing to the table to prove KJVOnlyism. With some 30 years of experience and research that you've touted there is still absolutely nothing but your own arbitrary thoughts. You should really think that over -- 30 years and you have nothing to show for it in proving your belief system.

I'm still waiting. This is why I've made this thread so I can see the evidence from the experts, and if you're 30 years in you're an expert and yet haven't offered anything substantial to prove your belief system that the KJV is perfect &c.

- Blessings

P4T....I never claimed to be any kind of a scholar or expert on any of this and won't claim so now. I am merely a Bible Believer who knows which Bible is the right Bible. My beliefs today are the result of what I have read and accepted as true over the course of those 30+ years I mentioned. I don't profess to be smart enough nor "educated" enough to impress or convince yourself or anybody else about anything. Some HERE would consider me to be an ignorant redneck. I really don't care cause I'm not trying to impress anybody. I have a good library and I read a lot but that doesn't make me qualified to be a good debater or apologist on this issue or any other for that matter. I don't have a good very memory nor do I retain tons of facts or huge amounts of information very well in my mind as some here seem to....so...you and others here can and will probably discount anything I might say in support of the positions I take. But know this...I am not intimidated by the air of superiority that seems to exude from many here. I will readily admit that there are many others who are far better qualified and equipped to "fight the fight" than I. Also.. I am a two-finger typist and it literally takes me hours to sit and deliver some of the responses that I do make on here. I enjoy it but it is tiring.
Lastly....and then I'm gonna shut up (I bet you'll be happy about that)...I know I can't prove anything to you or anybody else here. The biggest reason I see is that you are already FIRMLY convinced that you are right and we are wrong. I don't have the credentials or the time to devote to prove you wrong. I admit that. I will however, continue to believe what I do because I have a high regard for the credentials and work of the sources (which I listed in my post) that I have followed after over the years. Your "side" insists that my Bible contains mistakes. I don't believe that. Case closed. At least for me. Have a nice day! Blessings to you too!

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Thank You...

I'll expound more on this later because it will take a while to type it out but the allegation that the KJVO issue can be traced to Wilkinson is a load of crap. Dean John Burgon refuted Westcott and Hort before Wilkinson was a tick on a dogs ear, and Wilkonson repeated what Frank Nolin wrote in a book called Inquiry Into the 7 Integrity of the Greek Vulgate in 1815.

Since folks associate KJVO with a Seventh Day Adventist, when the evidence is clear that the KJVO issue existed long before Wilkinson was alive, then I guess we can equate all modern version users to Jehovah's Witnesses since the text for their New World Translation is based on the Westcott & Hort text. We can also label them Unitarians since many of them also used the 1885 version of Westcott & Horts Revised Version.

And what about the KJV critics here that are merely repeating DA Carson, James White, Doug Kutilek and James Price? The first major publication against the KJVO didn't come out until late 70s, so can we conclude that since the KJVO is older than the opposition to it, that the KJVO wins by default! And those who are quoting anti-KJVO sources from other anti-KJVOists that merely copied other anti-KJVOists, that they are just as guilty of what they accuse KJVOists of?

I have Ruckman's Manuscript Evidence, and J.J. Rays books right in front of me, and Wilkinson's on the shelf. In Manuscript Evidence, there are 10 chapters with an appendix of notes starting on page 190-239. There are about 100 references per chapter, and I have yet to see one single quote from Wilkinson.

And when they say "we don't accept scholars" what they mean is that only someone who corrects the KJV is a proper "scholar". Nevermind that Bible critics like Custer are from the same university as Ruckman (BJU) but yet one is a "real scholar" and the other is not simply because one holds to the KJV.

I'll be back later to deal with this non-sense.

DrJames...Thank You. You are far more qualified and able to answer the charges of those who oppose the truth than I. I am just a simple man without much formal learning and as P4T has demonstrated it is relatively easy for those with debating skills to blunt or dismantle my arguments because mine are based more on "passion" than quoted "fact". You probably have a far better grasp on the actual quotable evidence than I do and more skill in that regard. I have a "passion" for what I believe because I have read enough to form an opinion and know what I believe on the matter....but that does NOT mean I am qualified to argue the point. I just have a hard time sitting on the sidelines and watching the truth being attacked here without making comment to the contrary. I then,out of heart-felt passion, go jumping into the deep end of the pool and have to paddle and thrash my way back to the edge to get out of the deep water.There is nothing wrong with the "water" I swim in...just my skills as a swimmer.

I appreciate your presence here. I wish I was better equipped to defend the truth but at my age I'll probably never be able to learn enough to be of much use given the constraints of time. My prime pursuit now is just trying to get close to the Lord and make sure I don't waste the time I have left here like I did earlier in life. That is a big enough job all by itself.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[robycop3]

Gregory Perry Sr:

ven though I totally disagree with the "evidence" (so-called) that Roby presents to make or support his case

I've not seen one word from you that could even remotely come close to proving the MAN-MADE, CULTIC, AND DISHONEST origin of the KJVO myth wrong that's been presented in this thread.

I will at least applaud his personal consistency. He rides his hobby-horse the same way ALL the time.

That's cuz the TRUTH doesn't change.

However...just because he says what he says does not make it so.

Can YOU prove differently? NEWP!

Personally, I recommend the works of men like Edward F.Hills, John William Burgon, David Otis Fuller, D.A.Waite, James W.Knox, David Cloud, Dr.Douglas D.Stauffer, Phil Stringer, Jack Moorman and others who deeply revere the purity and perfection of the Word of God. You need to look at some of these works IF you REALLY and HONESTLY want to know why some of us believe as we do.

Virtually all of the above except Burgon(D. 1888) have based their books upon the works of Wilkinson and Ray, whom I cited in an earlier post. Anf, of course, Mr. Perry includes Fuller in his menagerie. All are virtual copy-cats of the first three, or of Dr. Ruckman.

As for Dr.Ruckman, he is a very intelligent man BUT...he is just a man like the rest of us who will have to give account of himself before the Lord. I would agree with him on many things and disagree with him on others. I would say the same for Roby as well though all I know of him is what I know from reading his stuff here on the BB. He may be a nice guy when he is asleep:laugh: for all I know!

That's because you haven't bothered to check out the VERACITY of what those men wrote, nor the veracity of their sources. I HAVE! I have most likely read more pro-KJVO material than you have, checked it out for accuracy, and made my conclusions from FACT, not wishful thinking, speculation, or guesswork.

As for Roby, he and Doc Ruckman both share similarities in their dispositions towards those with whom they disagree but they both would be considered good "apologists" for their respective positions.

MMRRPP! WRONG!

Dr. Ruckman has a far-more-vivid imagination than I. Please note what he said about the antichrist, cited above. You can read it for yourself in his Mark Of The Beast. Scripture calls him "MAN of sin, not "ALIEN of sin"!

Again, the evidence is in RUCKMAN'S OWN BOOK! And again, I deal in FACT, not guesswork.

They ARE BOTH capable of being sorta nasty towards those they disagree with. It would be interesting indeed to witness an open debate between the two of them.

Now, I have NEVER gotten nearly as nasty on my worst days, not even when I have gotten up and my Rice Krispies said, "Snap. Crackle, and Go to Gehenna", as Ruckman has been observed to be. YOU CANNOT SHOW OTHERWISE. Sharply disagreeing is not the same as ad-hominem.

P4T....you can't have a fair understanding of this issue UNLESS you fairly read the evidence from both perspectives. If you try to make a determination about it without doing that then you cannot fairly discern the truth of the matter.

Mr. Perry, I bet if you read the three boox I cited, by Wilkinson, Ray, and Fuller, studied Wilkinson's CULT AFFILIATION, observed Ray's outright plagiarism of Wilkinson for yourself, saw Fuller's deliberate attempt to conceal Wilkinson's cult affiliation, and checked out the veracity of the contents of those boox, you'd come away with an entirely-different view of the KJVO myth.

Neither side can claim their position based upon scripture alone.

That's because there's not ONE QUARK of Scriptural support for the KJVO myth. YOU have the burden of proof to establish the veracity of KJVO; I need none to reject it.

There has to be at least SOME examination of the available manuscript evidence.

Were YOU there when any of them were written? Can you tell us WHO wrote any of them, when they were written, or where they were written? If not, you're only GUESSING when you pick-n-choose among them. And we all know KJVO is a guesswork-based false doctrine.

I am KJVO based upon that. Roby is not KJVO based upon that which he has accepted as the truth. One of us is right...one of us is wrong. The interesting thing is...we BOTH profess to believe that the Bible is God's Word.

You are KJVO based upon pie-in-the-sky. I am anti-KJVO based upon FACT AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. I have presented FACT right here in this thread; you have presented opinion and guesswork, derived from the boox of some pro-KJVO booksellers, whose work is based upon the dubious sources of KJVO that were presented above.

All anyone need do is READ THE THREE BOOX I named above to see the cultic, dishonest, man-made origin of KJVO.(Even Ruckman and Riplinger use stuff from Wilkinson's book!) As a Baptist, I do NOT accept ANY man-made doctrine of worship, and KJVO is clearly JUST THAT! (Many KJVOs love to call us Freedom Readers "anti-KJV, Bible-haters, Bible agnostics", etc. etc.)

Now, thru all this, I hold the KJV itself in high esteem, and find nothing wrong with one PREFERRING to use only the KJV, or using it as their main Bible. But I find PLENTY wrong with telling someone else that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation, as that is CLEARLY A LIE, and should NOT be part of a CHRISTIAN lifestyle! NO Christian should EVER deliberately lie about ANYTHING, and it's a PROVEN FACT that the entire KJVO thingie is one big blort of prevarication.

Mr. Perry, the ball's in your court! Time for you to meet your BURDEN OF PROOF for the KJVO myth, or admit you've been wrong.

 

[preacher4truth]

P4T....I never claimed to be any kind of a scholar or expert on any of this and won't claim so now. I am merely a Bible Believer who knows which Bible is the right Bible. My beliefs today are the result of what I have read and accepted as true over the course of those 30+ years I mentioned. I don't profess to be smart enough nor "educated" enough to impress or convince yourself or anybody else about anything. Some HERE would consider me to be an ignorant redneck. I really don't care cause I'm not trying to impress anybody. I have a good library and I read a lot but that doesn't make me qualified to be a good debater or apologist on this issue or any other for that matter. I don't have a good very memory nor do I retain tons of facts or huge amounts of information very well in my mind as some here seem to....so...you and others here can and will probably discount anything I might say in support of the positions I take. But know this...I am not intimidated by the air of superiority that seems to exude from many here. I will readily admit that there are many others who are far better qualified and equipped to "fight the fight" than I. Also.. I am a two-finger typist and it literally takes me hours to sit and deliver some of the responses that I do make on here. I enjoy it but it is tiring.
Lastly....and then I'm gonna shut up (I bet you'll be happy about that)...I know I can't prove anything to you or anybody else here. The biggest reason I see is that you are already FIRMLY convinced that you are right and we are wrong. I don't have the credentials or the time to devote to prove you wrong. I admit that. I will however, continue to believe what I do because I have a high regard for the credentials and work of the sources (which I listed in my post) that I have followed after over the years. Your "side" insists that my Bible contains mistakes. I don't believe that. Case closed. At least for me. Have a nice day! Blessings to you too!

Bro.Greg:saint:

I see. After 30 plus years of study you are bowing out. You've not 'listed in your post' anything from any sources. That's false information and is not seen in any of your posts. All of what you've said is arbitrary.

Yes, my side gives evidence of the KJV having translational mistakes. This is a fact.

Bro, after that much time, you don't need 'debating skills' all you would need after that vast period of time is the ability to offer some solid evidence, quotes, proofs &c. Yet after all this time you can offer none of this whatsoever.

The thing that happens instead is a dismissal and discrediting of opponents as 'proof'.

At the same time, you in essence blame me, that 'I can debate' and you 'cannot debate' and on this premise you bow out.

I believe it is rather this; that you believe in KJVO against reason, and after many years you still cannot provide proof for your system of belief. You don't need debating skills -- you simply need solid evidence and this you cannot provide and at the same time you should be able to after more than 3 decades of studying both sides.

Furthermore, the 1611 contained apocryphal works. Since they (the translators) were under 'DI' then these too must be inspired, yet they are rejected.

The 1611 also contained marginal notes, i.e. "other mss say...." so they did not know, they were only translating, and yet the KJVO camp ridicules other versions for stating the same things, yet all is acceptable if in the KJV. That's a double standard my friend.

Also, there have been revisions of the 1611 since, thus the original 1611 failed in areas, therefore 'DI' shows it was not inspired as corrections needed to be made, and proves 'The 1611' is not the standard nor does it fall under 'DI'.

I still await evidence, and welcome it. Your accusations and discrediting of me (and others) remain unaddressed, therefore I take it you still adhere to no evidence, and at the same time you cannot make an objective answer or proof for your theories.

So far there is no evidence given by you or any other to support KJVO. There is also no answer from you on my many points.

So, do you believe in 'double inspiration' and 'advanced revelation' and use these as your proof or not?

- Blessings

 

[robycop3]

Dr. James Achs:

I'll expound more on this later because it will take a while to type it out but the allegation that the KJVO issue can be traced to Wilkinson is a load of crap.

MMRRPP!WRONG! The load here is the KJVO myth.

And I've often stated, "the CURRENT KJVO myth". You've never chimed in about that.

The evidence is right in those three boox.

Now, there were also remarks made here-n-there prior to 1930 pointing out goofs in the KJV, but the main seemingly-pro-KJV(not "KJVO") stuff bhefore then were attacks against the British RV, completed in 1885, and, by all admissions, is a rather groddy version. That's the version Burgon assailed, and with good reason. The current KJVO myth began after some newer versions were made, with opportunist authors such as Ray and Fuller using Wilkinson's book, which was written in response to a squabble within his cult.

Dean John Burgon refuted Westcott and Hort before Wilkinson was a tick on a dogs ear, and Wilkonson repeated what Frank Nolin wrote in a book called Inquiry Into the 7 Integrity of the Greek Vulgate in 1815.

Wilkinson repeated a lot more than that! His book is a smorgasbord of pro-KJV quotes from many sources.

Since folks associate KJVO with a Seventh Day Adventist, when the evidence is clear that the KJVO issue existed long before Wilkinson was alive, then I guess we can equate all modern version users to Jehovah's Witnesses since the text for their New World Translation is based on the Westcott & Hort text. We can also label them Unitarians since many of them also used the 1885 version of Westcott & Horts Revised Version.

The proof is in the pudding. There was NO widespread KJVO myth until after 1955, when Ray's book came out, hawked with the power of modern media.

And what about the KJV critics here that are merely repeating DA Carson, James White, Doug Kutilek and James Price? The first major publication against the KJVO didn't come out until late 70s, so can we conclude that since the KJVO is older than the opposition to it, that the KJVO wins by default! And those who are quoting anti-KJVO sources from other anti-KJVOists that merely copied other anti-KJVOists, that they are just as guilty of what they accuse KJVOists of?

Differences are:

1.) Wilkinson was clearly a SDA official.

2.) Many of Wilkinson's points are simply false, an example being the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie".

3.) Ray's plagiarism of Wilkinson, without acknowledging W whatsoever, even if it was 100% legal, is a matter of FACT, and was still DISHONEST.

4.) While Fuller acknowledged W and Ray, he was careful to avoid mentioning W's cult affiliation. How DISHONEST was that?

5.) There's simply NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO! And YOU have the burden of proof to establish the veracity of your doctrine.

I have Ruckman's Manuscript Evidence, and J.J. Rays books right in front of me, and Wilkinson's on the shelf. In Manuscript Evidence, there are 10 chapters with an appendix of notes starting on page 190-239. There are about 100 references per chapter, and I have yet to see one single quote from Wilkinson.

Unlike Ray and Fuller, Ruckman doesn't quote W directly, but he DOES copy some of his points in different words. However, Ruckman has come up with enough ridiculous stuff of his own that he needs no help from Wilkinson to be discredited.

And when they say "we don't accept scholars" what they mean is that only someone who corrects the KJV is a proper "scholar". Nevermind that Bible critics like Custer are from the same university as Ruckman (BJU) but yet one is a "real scholar" and the other is not simply because one holds to the KJV.

Again, it's a matter of Freedom Reader FACTS vs. KJVO opinion, speculation, and guesswork.

I'll be back later to deal with this non-sense.

You're right in this...KJVO is nonsense.

 

[Baptist4life]

......KJVO is nonsense.

So is your belief that "God created another whole race of people" without ONE BIT of Biblical support. Scripture states that Eve is "the mother of all living", but you just throw that out and make up your own stories. Cain married a sister or, since people lived hundreds of years then, a distance relative. Please enlighten the members of this forum as to your beliefs about Cain's wife. Come on, roby, tell them how you believe God created another race of people APART from Adam and Eve. Tell them how you believe Asians, blacks, Caucasians etc., came from another DIFFERENT creation of God! Or are you ashamed to admit what you believe? I guarantee it'll open some eyes and also expose your hypocrisy when calling out KJVO for not having any Scripture for that belief, when YOU have an even more, frankly DISTURBING, belief about God and His creation! As I, and others have stated on various forums all over the internet, you are considered a "nut" by most people, and best ignored.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Just Plain Honest...

Bro. Roby...I will be honest with you. You have the talent of making me ANGRY and knowing how to "push all my buttons". It has been my practice to avoid people who do that because I know it is just not possible for ANYBODY to get along with everybody. I already know that I don't have the knowledge or the patience to answer your assaults on my position and frankly I'm not going to try. The best I can say, and it won't change anybody or anything, is that I disagree with your position. You and I both equally think the other has been deceived. I already spoke to the issue of my lack of qualifications and knowledge in my posts to DrJamesAch and P4T. I'm not going to engage in further argument with you because there is no point in it. There is nothing I can say that will make any difference to you. I am tired and angry and sick of you calling my belief a myth and whatever other names you have called it. Over the years, there has been much evidence presented (here on the BB and elsewhere) in support of the belief that the KJV (and the TR from which it came) is the very Bible that God intended for the end-times church to use and much historical, documented spiritual fruit to support that contention. There has also been much evidence presented to support the contention that the CT(and the MV's that resulted from it) have been corrupted and should be avoided. I believe that with all my heart but I can't prove it to you or anyone else. I haven't always believed that but I do now. For the record, I believe Dr.JamesAch gave a perfectly adequate response to your comments about Dr.Wilkinson's book. You go right ahead and enjoy your air of superiority over me. It is obvious that by your use of the title "Mr." instead of "Bro.",you probably don't even think I am saved. So be it....some days I look in the mirror and think incredulously, how in the world could I possibly be. I'm gonna pray for the grace to forgive you....and ignore you. I'll be so glad to hear the sound of a trumpet someday...hopefully soon.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Rippon]

GPS,you obviously believe that God caused the KJV to be the biggest selling translation in any language for so long. Do you also believe that God caused the NIV to be the most popular translation in any language for the past several decades?

 

[preacher4truth]

Bro. Roby...I will be honest with you. You have the talent of making me ANGRY and knowing how to "push all my buttons". It has been my practice to avoid people who do that because I know it is just not possible for ANYBODY to get along with everybody. I already know that I don't have the knowledge or the patience to answer your assaults on my position and frankly I'm not going to try. The best I can say, and it won't change anybody or anything, is that I disagree with your position. You and I both equally think the other has been deceived. I already spoke to the issue of my lack of qualifications and knowledge in my posts to DrJamesAch and P4T. I'm not going to engage in further argument with you because there is no point in it. There is nothing I can say that will make any difference to you. I am tired and angry and sick of you calling my belief a myth and whatever other names you have called it. Over the years, there has been much evidence presented (here on the BB and elsewhere) in support of the belief that the KJV (and the TR from which it came) is the very Bible that God intended for the end-times church to use and much historical, documented spiritual fruit to support that contention. There has also been much evidence presented to support the contention that the CT(and the MV's that resulted from it) have been corrupted and should be avoided. I believe that with all my heart but I can't prove it to you or anyone else. I haven't always believed that but I do now. For the record, I believe Dr.JamesAch gave a perfectly adequate response to your comments about Dr.Wilkinson's book. You go right ahead and enjoy your air of superiority over me. It is obvious that by your use of the title "Mr." instead of "Bro.",you probably don't even think I am saved. So be it....some days I look in the mirror and think incredulously, how in the world could I possibly be. I'm gonna pray for the grace to forgive you....and ignore you. I'll be so glad to hear the sound of a trumpet someday...hopefully soon.

Bro.Greg:saint:

Bro Greg. you have 30+ years and bow out, and accuse others for your inability to answer and claim others, your opponents looking for proof to your claims, as having to be ignored.

That and you are angry? Why? Because you cannot answer after all this time of looking at allegedly both sides. You should be GLAD to answer, yet you have not. You've had more than ample time to provide an apologetic.

In due respect, you should have an answer, and yet you do not. :tear:

You're proving exactly what I am getting at in all you say. Your rejection of anyone who disagrees with your premise is solemnly sad. More of the same: discredit all opponents.

- Blessings

 

[preacher4truth]

So is your belief that "God created another whole race of people" without ONE BIT of Biblical support. Scripture states that Eve is "the mother of all living", but you just throw that out and make up your own stories. Cain married a sister or, since people lived hundreds of years then, a distance relative. Please enlighten the members of this forum as to your beliefs about Cain's wife. Come on, roby, tell them how you believe God created another race of people APART from Adam and Eve. Tell them how you believe Asians, blacks, Caucasians etc., came from another DIFFERENT creation of God! Or are you ashamed to admit what you believe? I guarantee it'll open some eyes and also expose your hypocrisy when calling out KJVO for not having any Scripture for that belief, when YOU have an even more, frankly DISTURBING, belief about God and His creation! As I, and others have stated on various forums all over the internet, you are considered a "nut" by most people, and best ignored.

Go create another thread for this and stop trying to derail this one. Thank you! raying:

 

[robycop3]

Gregory Perry, Sr:

I never claimed to be any kind of a scholar or expert on any of this and won't claim so now.

Neither do/will I. I'm a steelworker, not a scholar.

I am merely a Bible Believer who knows which Bible is the right Bible.

You're just GUESSING. You CANNOT prove the NKJV, NASV, ESV, Geneva, "Great Bible", etc. aren't just as valid as the KJV.

My beliefs today are the result of what I have read and accepted as true over the course of those 30+ years I mentioned.

Apparently, without checking out the VERACITY of what you've read from other men.

I don't profess to be smart enough nor "educated" enough to impress or convince yourself or anybody else about anything.

Me, either. I merely present PROVEN FACT, not manufactured by me, but checked out in advance of posting it.

Some HERE would consider me to be an ignorant redneck.

I don't...I merely believe you've been misled. As all successful demagogues are, some KJVOs can be pretty convincing...until one tries to VERIFY what they say!

I really don't care cause I'm not trying to impress anybody.

Then, why did you jump into this thread?

I have a good library and I read a lot but that doesn't make me qualified to be a good debater or apologist on this issue or any other for that matter. I don't have a good very memory nor do I retain tons of facts or huge amounts of information very well in my mind as some here seem to....so...

In other words, you're the same as mosta us, except you've been steered wrong by some authors who've themselves been similarly steered. The devil is not without his resources.

you and others here can and will probably discount anything I might say in support of the positions I take.

Well, not discount, per se, but easily prove incorrect.

But know this...I am not intimidated by the air of superiority that seems to exude from many here. I will readily admit that there are many others who are far better qualified and equipped to "fight the fight" than I. Also.. I am a two-finger typist and it literally takes me hours to sit and deliver some of the responses that I do make on here. I enjoy it but it is tiring.

It is my earnest desire that you SEE THE FACTS, and chuck all the man-made hooey that makes up the KJVO myth.

Lastly....and then I'm gonna shut up (I bet you'll be happy about that)

Actually, NO. I hope to keep exposing the falsehoods you've been taught. (I,too, was a victim of believing falsehoods for awhile-the garbage taught by Herbie Armstrong.)

...I know I can't prove anything to you or anybody else here.

Yes, it's hard to prove a falsehood to an INFORMED audience.

The biggest reason I see is that you are already FIRMLY convinced that you are right and we are wrong.

WE have the EVIDENCE;YOU have presented NONE. Pretty convincing!

I don't have the credentials or the time to devote to prove you wrong.

And most of all you have no EVIDENCE.

I admit that. I will however, continue to believe what I do because I have a high regard for the credentials and work of the sources (which I listed in my post) that I have followed after over the years.

...DESPITE the FACT that their stuff has been proven WRONG, point by point, over the years, and right here on this board, among others!

Your "side" insists that my Bible contains mistakes. I don't believe that. Case closed. At least for me. Have a nice day! Blessings to you too!

So, you don't believe "Easter" in the KJV's Acts 12:4 was a booboo? Please prove to us that the Easter observance existed in Luke's time/place when he wrote the letter that became the Book of Acts, or that, in those days, the Greek 'pascha' meant 'Easter'!

As I've said oft-times, Mr. Perry, one can use only the KJV without wearing that dead, stinky bird of the KJVO myth around one's neck! While the KJV may be YOUR fave version, it is NOT the ONLY valid English Bible translation out there! Whe idea that it is, is nothing but man-made codwallop, without one quark of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT. Time to actually investigate the EVIDENCE(not rumor or innuendo) for yourself!

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

A few passing comments.....

preacher4truth;1992787]I see. After 30 plus years of study you are bowing out. You've not 'listed in your post' anything from any sources. That's false information and is not seen in any of your posts. All of what you've said is arbitrary.

I didn't (specifically) post "true" or "false" information because I have neither the time nor the memorized information to adequately do justice to the subject. However, what I DID LIST was the names of the authors,pastors, and teachers whom I have read or listed to in support of what I believe. I did NOT list, but have read some of the works or quoted remarks of many of the KJVO detractors such as Kutileck, James White, Custer, Carson, Price and others over the years. I believe what I believe about the KJV in the light of the work of those mentioned...and some others I have probably forgotten. Doesn't change anything...but just sayin'. I'm actually not "bowing out" of anything....I'm just posting comments about this subject according to my own "rules"...not yours. I will try to always stay within the BB rules while here.

At the same time, you in essence blame me, that 'I can debate' and you 'cannot debate' and on this premise you bow out.

Just sayin'....I'm not a good debater. But I do believe what I believe with a certain level of "passion" based on what I have read and/or learned over the years. I maintain the right, as a member of the BB to post what I think here (within the scope of the Board rules) just like you, Roby, and anyone else.

So, do you believe in 'double inspiration' and 'advanced revelation' and use these as your proof or not?

No and No...I believe in divine Preservation that maintains the integrity and perfection of God's perfect Word. I believe He has accomplished that even though the men and/or women He has used to do the work may or may not even realize the extent to which God used them. It is probably good that they weren't/aren't aware of God using them to the extent that He does lest they be lifted up with the most basic sin of man.....PRIDE.

Blessings Yourself
Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[robycop3]

Gregory Perry, Sr:

Bro. Roby...I will be honest with you. You have the talent of making me ANGRY and knowing how to "push all my buttons".

Hey, if it causes you to SEEK AND SEE THE TRUTH, it shall have been worth it. But know ye that I bear you no malice; just some pity that you've been led down a bunny trail by some less-than-truthful authors.

It has been my practice to avoid people who do that because I know it is just not possible for ANYBODY to get along with everybody. I already know that I don't have the knowledge or the patience to answer your assaults on my position and frankly I'm not going to try.

That's cuz you've brought a knife to a gun fight. You've brought NO EVIDENCE.

The best I can say, and it won't change anybody or anything, is that I disagree with your position.

You have the right to be wrong.

You and I both equally think the other has been deceived.

Again, I have brought EVIDENCE; you've brought wishful thinking, speculation, and guesswork.

I already spoke to the issue of my lack of qualifications and knowledge in my posts to DrJamesAch and P4T.

I'm no more qualified than you; perhaps even less so. The difference is, I've investigated both sides' claims for VERACITY, and you have NOT; you've merely accepted what the KJVO authors have written, without VERIFYING any of it!

I'm not going to engage in further argument with you because there is no point in it.

That's right. You'll only lose, long as you keep hawking the KJVO myth.

There is nothing I can say that will make any difference to you.

Correct. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!

I am tired and angry and sick of you calling my belief a myth and whatever other names you have called it.

Just telling the TRUTH.

Over the years, there has been much evidence presented (here on the BB and elsewhere) in support of the belief that the KJV (and the TR from which it came) is the very Bible that God intended for the end-times church to use and much historical, documented spiritual fruit to support that contention.

No, there's been only OPINION AND GUESSWORK presented.

There has also been much evidence presented to support the contention that the CT(and the MV's that resulted from it) have been corrupted and should be avoided.

MMRRPP! WRONG!

There's only been the game of "MAH skoller kin whup YER skoller!"

I believe that with all my heart but I can't prove it to you or anyone else.

That's cuz THERE IS NO PROOF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I haven't always believed that but I do now.

That's cuz you swallowed the KJVO bait.

For the record, I believe Dr.JamesAch gave a perfectly adequate response to your comments about Dr.Wilkinson's book.

No, he didn't. Please read my response.

You go right ahead and enjoy your air of superiority over me.

I don't think I'm superior to you or anyone else, but for now, I'm BETTER-INFORMED than you, as my having presented EVIDENCE as opposed to your GUESSWORK proves. YOU could be JUST-AS-INFORMED as I and the other Freedom Readers are, with a little open-minded study.

It is obvious that by your use of the title "Mr." instead of "Bro.",you probably don't even think I am saved.

How silly! My name is Roby; yours is Perry. And, as you state your first name is Gregory, I assume you're a man, and therefore a "Mister". It's a sign of RESPECT, not contempt! I think calling everyone "Bro" or Sis" is somewhat over-doing it. (Just a personal whim of mine, keeping with the language customs where I live. The only time I use those terms in a religious sense if for preachers or nuns.

So be it....some days I look in the mirror and think incredulously, how in the world could I possibly be. I'm gonna pray for the grace to forgive you....and ignore you. I'll be so glad to hear the sound of a trumpet someday...hopefully soon.

In other words, you've been so badly-whupped here by the TRUTH that you're opting out...which, of course, confirms your cluelessness when it comes to SUPPORTING EVIDENCE for the KJVO myth.

But I won't be ignoring you...I'll support you when you're right, pray that you see the TRUTH, but every time you make a pro-KJVO post, I'll torpedo it, God Willing.

 

[preacher4truth]

Wow. Is this really what it all boils down to? 'I don't know anything, and can't prove my belief system, but the bottom line is that in my ignorance I am more spiritual than you, so thus I am right and you are wrong?'

Seriously?

The claim of being an ignorant redneck is at times in some camps worn as a badge of honor. That is a shame.

Anti-academia is to some a blessed state and is a state not supported by Scripture. Therefore this alleged ignorance is nothing but pure pride. We are called upon to study, read, and rightly handle the Word of truth. This doesn't include using lame subjective proof-texting nor arbitrary reason as an apologetic.

Yet anti-academia is used as an spiritual excuse to assault any person who is deemed 'one of study', on one who has become 'theologically accurate', and then applies to one who is considered 'of modern scholarship' or 'a person of fact' and is used to discredit them.

Try telling this to the puritans who spent much time in study and who gained great insight into the truth of the Word of God, and practiced after this humility of mind, holiness and awe before Him. They were way more spiritually advanced than we are today and spent countless time in study, prayer and in gaining knowledge of God. Read their works and see how academic, wise, and knowledgeable they were. It should and will shame many.

Adhering to fact is not the opposite of faith.

Christ rose from the dead: fact. Believers adhere to this fact. But discredit those who hold to fact and the opponent feels they've won as if they've proven faith is not in substance and in the person and testimony of God and His Word. Factual evidence is deemed not being of 'faith', and as being 'unspiritual'. Ignorance is counted as being 'spiritual' when in fact Paul rebuked the elect for this.

Humility and spirituality aren't acquired due to a lack of knowledge, but are acquired in quite the opposite fashion. Ignorance is acquired by lack of study and nothing else is gained. This type of 'spiritual ignorance' and pride for being such has given the lost world much ammunition against those of faith. True spirituality comes from the practicing of both prayer and serious study, by which the person is truly humbled before God.

I still await proof from the KJVO camp. One that has studied 30+ years should be more than capable of providing adequate proof for an held position.

- Blessings

 

[robycop3]

I didn't (specifically) post "true" or "false" information because I have neither the time nor the memorized information to adequately do justice to the subject.

But you DO apparently have taken the time and memorized enough info to simply accept the KJVO authors' stuff as true, WITHOUT STUDYING IT FOR VERACITY!

However, what I DID LIST was the names of the authors,pastors, and teachers whom I have read or listed to in support of what I believe.

And every one of them uses material from the three boox I cited, even though they word it a little differently insteada quoting it verbatim. And it's all INCORRECT.

I did NOT list, but have read some of the works or quoted remarks of many of the KJVO detractors such as Kutileck, James White, Custer, Carson, Price and others over the years.

Well, I've read lotsa works from both sides of the issue, and INVESTIGATED IT FOR VERACITY! I wanted to be SURE, and not believe something because it "looked good".

I believe what I believe about the KJV in the light of the work of those mentioned...and some others I have probably forgotten.

And their "light" contains much more infra-red than visible beams.

Doesn't change anything...but just sayin'. I'm actually not "bowing out" of anything....I'm just posting comments about this subject according to my own "rules"...not yours. I will try to always stay within the BB rules while here.

Then perhaps you'll see some day how you've been deceived.

Just sayin'....I'm not a good debater.

You're doing all right; but, however, you sorely lack any EVIDENCE. Opinion and guesswork just won't cut it.

But I do believe what I believe with a certain level of "passion" based on what I have read and/or learned over the years.

So do JWs, Mor(m)ons, and other pseudo-Christian cultists who believe the words of men for doctrines of worship, insteada sticking strictly to SCRIPTURE.

I maintain the right, as a member of the BB to post what I think here (within the scope of the Board rules) just like you, Roby, and anyone else.

And I maintain the right to prove you wrong when you ARE wrong.

No and No...I believe in divine Preservation that maintains the integrity and perfection of God's perfect Word.

So does every other Christian.

I believe He has accomplished that even though the men and/or women He has used to do the work may or may not even realize the extent to which God used them. It is probably good that they weren't/aren't aware of God using them to the extent that He does lest they be lifted up with the most basic sin of man.....PRIDE.

And so do we Freedom Readers. However, we do NOT believe God retired from superintending His word in 1611. We believe He still oversees it, and that HE created all languages, and superintends them as well, providing His word in current language, while keeping the older copies available for our benefit.

OTOH, we know the KJVO myth is totally a MAN-MADE thingie, as proven by its absolute lack of Scriptural support as well as its falsehood.

Blessings Yourself
Bro.Greg:saint:[/QUOTE]

 

[DrJamesAch]

Common Sense

Robo's rebuttal to what I said about Wilkinson was merely that "it is a fact" that it's true. Circular reasoning that merely attempts to reassert the original accusation with the evidence for the accusation being that he says so, and it's true because it's a fact, and it's a fact because he said so, and he said so because it's a "PROVEN" fact. Round and round the mulberry bush.

Here's some common sense. The KJV translators had the same manuscripts available to them that Westcott and Hort did (before W&H altered the Greek texts in almost 8000 places). The KJV translators rejected the majority of them. So obviously, the KJV translators did not believe that the same mss used to underlie the current versions were accurate or truthful.

Ironically, many of the KJV translators were Calvinists, but you'll never see a Calvinist admit that who tries to associate the KJV only issue with Wilkerson and the 7DA. Furthermore, the Calvinists here that oppose the KJV based on the erroneous assumption that ANY KJVO movement was based on Wilkerson completely ignore the fact that Calvinism is based on the plagiarism of Augustine, a devout Roman Catholic that persecuted his dissenters the same way Calvin did. So what some Calvinists do is attempt to distance themselves from Calvin by claiming they are "Reformed" or "DoGs". But yet when someone raises the issue and calls it simply "CALVINISM" the Reformers and Dogs, and SoGs alike all come running to the defense of Calvinism.

If they are not Calvinists, then why do they get so defensive when anyone posts a rebuttal to any Calvinist doctrine?

Furthermore, as stated before, they attempt to bootstrap KJVOers to the 7DA Wilkinson, but ignore the fact that for some reason, the Watchtower (Jehovah's Witnesses) chose to use the Westcott & Hort text instead of the TR. The JW "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" is that EXACT same 'bible' as the NIV, NASB, ESV with only their deliberate ENGLISH alterations providing any distinction (like the addition of the definite article in John 1:1 to read 'the word as A god', or change all the references of the cross to 'torture stake', etc..).

The texts were not opposed by anyone but CATHOLICS and nobody attempted to put out a revision until the late 1800s. The scholarship only crowd assumes that they know better than the 50 scholars who were experts in their field that actually had manuscripts available to them that scholars don't have today.

The cold hard truth is that these Bible agnostics don't believe we have the word of God in ANY version in ANY language let alone the KJV. They play smoke and mirrors by claiming they believe they have the word of God, but then they tell you "it's in the original" knowing full well there are no originals, and then have the nerve to call KJVOs "dishonest".

Common sense tells you that if God promised to preserve His word, it must be somewhere. If God said faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, the word of God, not a book that CONTAINS the word of God (like a dictionary) but THE word of God, must be around. If Paul said preach the WORD, then where is it? Can I read it? Can I memorize it?

KJVO critics would have us believe that thousand of manuscripts that alter verses, disagree with each other in places that alter fundamental doctrines of the Bible are ALL THE SAME. Common sense and the law of non contradiction tell you that things that are different are not the same.

Common sense tells you that when a KJVO critic spends their time slandering the KJV while in the same breath telling you it is just as "reliable" as their MV's, but they never give their MV's the same treatment as the KJV, you're dealing with a dishonest crook. They'll spend years telling you what's wrong with the KJV, but can't tell you what's right with their MV.

Common sense tells you that when a scholar or preachers says "a better translation would be" and then pulls out another version that he has nothing he can call a Bible, and can not honestly put any confidence in the one he's got.

Common sense tells you that when a person claims that the KJVOs merely repeated their positions from previous writings and claims that as evidence of dishonesty, and his evidence of those facts is based upon what HE HIMSELF REPEATED FROM KJVO CRITICS and then admits that he's no scholar, you are dealing with a dishonest person. The Bible itself has lasted through the centuries because other believers copied and repeated what the prior manuscripts said. Can you imagine an atheist using as an argument "The Bible is not valid because the manuscripts simply repeat what older church members said". That is such a crappy argument it really doesn't even deserve a response.

Common sense tells you that when a "bible" calls Jesus "the only begotten God seated next to the Father" NASB, or calls Jesus "the only God who is at the Father's side" ESV, which has Jesus as being a separate God from the Father, and yet it's based on the same Greek texts, something is not adding up with the argument that "all modern versions are the word of God".

Common sense tells you that when a "scholar" takes a rendering out of the Byzantine family, and reclassifies to the Alexandrian family to make it appear that that KJV rendering is a minority variant, you are dealing with a crook.

For example, Westcott and Hort altered the Aleph reading of Romans 8:1 to make it agree with the KJV, and then argued that the KJV rendering was from a later 12th century ms, as well as in the minority because took it away from the older readings and then made the reader think it was part of the "best manuscripts" and then included the clause they removed 3 verses later contradicting their own rules of translation.

Another example. Nestle/Alands commentary on Acts 8:37 once had a foot note that admitted to the validity of the last half of Acts 8:37, and then later removed the footnote and put the verse in brackets without any mention of any alleged new evidence that supported his decision to remove the footnote.

Common sense tells you when a man repeats what some other KJVO critic has said, and you have the books that he claims were plagiarized, and point out that he's obviously never even read the books that he claims were based on someone elses work, you are dealing with a dishonest critic.

The best critique the KJVO critics can offer are straw man arguments based on copiest errors from a printing press malfunction and punctuation and spelling issues that have nothing to do with the text, while they ignore thousands of deliberate alterations to the Greek texts by Catholic "scholars". They totally distort history and claim it is fact (and they even use large fonts and bold letters to prove it!!) that the KJVO started with Wilkinson which is mere speculation based on similar arguments for the KJV not because any KJVO author RELIED ON Wilkinson's work or ENDORSED HIS BELIEFS.

Common sense tells you that of course the KJVO debate is recent, because there wasn't any opposition to it until Westcott & Hort put out the RV in 1885. The small handful of dissenters prior to 1881 were PRO CATHOLIC.

Common sense tells you that if the apostles and prophets understood the texts that they had for thousands of years that were never altered, that to claim "we are ever discovering new evidences to help understand the ancient texts better" is not only a misleading argument, but one that only confuses the matter of biblical inerrancy and inspiration.

I am KJVO not only because I have studied the evidence and the history, but because I also have common sense.