Update on "Why I am KJVO" 7/20/01

[Larry]

Update on Why I am KJVO




I would like to report that my position has changed somewhat. My desire is to walk in the light and love truth. In the process of time, as I learn new things that contradict my earlier position, the love of truth necessitated that I change my position.


I originally posted a thread titled "Why I an King James Only" back on 7/20/2001 and I wanted to update you all on how my position has changed....slightly.


The original thread http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=16410

quote "Why I am KJV only
I have been a member of Baptist Board going on one year and have not posted on this topic (although I have followed it) because I have been there and done that. In all the time I have spent on the Internet I have never seen anyone change his or her mind about Bible Versions and I figured that it was a waste of time.
The other day a man named Chet posted on the Bible Version Board and his post mad it clear to me that I should at least post something on this page so if by chance someone acutely was struggling with what the deal is with Bible Versions, they may see this. I do talk to people about Bible Versions face to face but I'm not very good at doing it on the Internet.

Before I get started a want to say that Ruckman and Riplinger are not representative of all KJVO people and they have serious flaws in their works.
You can go to the following address to read articles on Ruckman, Riplinger and James White that go into detail. http://www.whidbey.net/~dcloud/fbns/examining01.htm

When I got saved I had a huge appetite for the word of God. The preacher of the church I joined used the KJV and said that it was the word of God so that's what I read. He also used the Greek and Hebrew from Stronges so I got a Stronges and before long I to was "digging nuggets from the original languages" I went threw several note books retranslating the KJV. When I say huge appetite, I mean it. I would spend almost every waking hour (that I wasn’t at work) studding.

That went on for about a year when I got a computer and a program with several different translations and "The Greek and Hebrew"… man I was on cloud nine, I could look at how other translators handled words and then come up with what the better reading would be. Then I came upon Matthew 17:21, when I tried to find it in the newer Bibles and it wasn’t there so I checked the Greek, it wasn't there! No explanation just a blank. By that time I had a pretty good start on a library so a started digging. I found out that the verse was not considered to be in the original manuscripts.

Talk about jerking the rug out from under a guy… I felt like it was no use studying the bible anymore… if that was added at a later date what else had been added? After about a week of agonizing over this something strange happened. A man came in the office and said "I was just driving down the interstate (about five miles from my office) and thought I would stop and see if there were any jobs to be had in this area" I told him that we were not hiring and wished him luck. He was about to turn around and leave when the thought hit me that he was a long way from the interstate and maybe the Lord had led him to me so I could give him a Gospel Tract. He looked at and said I have something in the car for you and came back with a tact called "An Eye Opener" handed it to me and left.

The tract told about how modern Bible versions were based upon a different set of manuscripts than the KJV and listed, I think, two hundred verses that were missing words or even the whole verse. For the next two or three years, I studied everything I could find on bible versions, I got on the Internet and found tuns of stuff on Bible Versions and began debating others on the Internet. In that time I have had men with Drs degrees argue me right down to the ground, with quotes from dead men and fifty dollar words, but I always came back to one simple conclusion…the new bibles are translated from manuscripts that are different from the KJV, they say different things and if the new bibles are correct that means that God let all those generations of Christians, that didn’t have the NIV etc, down by not preserving his word.

For me it’s a matter of authority, I may have to dust off an English Dictionary from time to time but most of the time the context of the verse and the way the word is used in other places is all I need to know to understand what it's saying, but I know that what I'm reading is true.

I know that the posts that follow this will slam me and no doubt some will be very convincing but for me it's a faith thing." end quote




About a year ago (Nov of 2006), I was reviewing a video that dealt with KJVO and the speaker quoted 2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. The speaker said that the scriptures Timothy had known were copies of copies and that they were still called holy. No problem so far, I have heard that before... I agree, God preserved his word through the translation. Now for the position altering information. The speaker maintained that the TR was a collection of thousands of manuscripts and that the KJV translators used many different manuscripts and sometimes they used words that had no manuscripts to back them up "God forbid" was an example. OK... now I had heard proponent of modern versions say the same thing before and it did create pangs of inconsistency for me, but the overall facts remained, the modern versions didn't even use the TR and as I said in my 2001 post

"the new bibles are translated from manuscripts that are different from the KJV, they say different things and if the new bibles are correct that means that God let all those generations of Christians, that didn’t have the NIV etc, down by not preserving his word."​

Did God let Christians die for words that were not correctly translated? No way, I'm sticking with the KJV. Any way, the fact that the KJV translators chary picked from the available TR and added "God forbid" created a bit of a problem for me. Either there is no word of God for us today and all we have are errant translations of errant copies OR God did preserve his word through the KJV Translators.


Those are the only two choices left for a man who loves truth! I now stand in the camp that says God did preserve his word, through the KJV Translators.


I know that that places me in the most despised class of KJV only but that is where I am. You can watch the same video I watched on http://www.gradypublications.com/Default.asp?c=245146
under "Seven Signs of Pseudo King James Only ism"

 

[robycop3]

Grady is a known purveyor of bunk. His main purpose is selling boox, truth be dipped.

Have you ever stopped to consider there's NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO? That's a problem few KJVOs will admit, and one they cannot get around.

Have you ever stopped to consider the KJV DOES have errors such as "the love of money is *THE* root of *ALL* evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10? And we've recently discussed the error of "Easter" in Acts 12:4. Rather than repeat those discussions ad nauseum, lemme refer you to the archives of this board.

And men didn't die for the KJV...the AV translators worked under the auspices of the KING OF ENGLAND, not exactly a weak ruler incapable of protecting them. But earlier translators such as Wycliffe and Coverdale worked at peril of their lives, while Tyndale and Rogers DID give their lives for the Bible in English.

KJVO is simply untrue.

 

[Larry]

So you would agree with: "there is no word of God for us today and all we have are errant translations of errant copies " ?

"And men didn't die for the KJV...the AV translators worked under the auspices of the KING OF ENGLAND, not exactly a weak ruler incapable of protecting them. But earlier translators such as Wycliffe and Coverdale worked at peril of their lives, while Tyndale and Rogers DID give their lives for the Bible in English."

Are you sure about that?


PS: I hold no allegiance to Grady. I do my best to follow the truth where it takes me.


PPS: It's bad form to accuse someone of being a purveyor of bunk and not offer proof. I suppose you do have proof and have confronted him on it?

 

[4His_glory]

I now stand in the camp that says God did preserve his word, through the KJV Translators.

What about those of us who do not speak English? Does that mean that my Spanish Bible is not the Word of God since God only preserved through the KJV translators. BTW when I preach in English I use the KJV (which I love).

 

[Larry]

It is my understanding that there is a Spanish Bible that is not based upon Known and obviously corrupt manuscripts. I have no reason to believe that God did not preserve his word in Spanish also.


Dose your Spanish bible say that a virgin shall conceive?

 

[StefanM]

So you would agree with: "there is no word of God for us today and all we have are errant translations of errant copies " ?

First off, no translation is perfect. It is impossible to completely translate every nuance of meaning from one language to another. We can get the gist of it, and we can, through in-depth study, pick up the rest most of the time. Sometimes the meaning will still elude us because we are fallible beings.

Secondly, the vast majority of the Bible is not in question. No one is trying to undermine our confidence in the text. However, there are instances in which the manuscripts have significant differences. In those instances, we must attempt to figure out which one is correct. Yes, we can make errors in this regard, but that is our fault, not God's. When a text is not in question, we can consider it to be an accurate reflection of the autographs, and, as such, we can trust it fully.

Thirdly, I'm not willing to operate under your assumptions because I find the thought offensive that God would leave the vast majority of his children without a "perfect" translation until 1611 (and then only for English speakers), if it were his intention to provide a perfect translation. For me, I simply say that if God were so concerned about the preservation of the texts, why did he wait until 1611 when he could have simply preserved the autographs?

 

[Larry]

Stefan, I just cant see how you live like that. If there are errors, you assume that you know where they are. What about Baptism, you know that people are persecuted today and some die, because they insist upon being baptized according to the scripture, in Muslim country's. There are only a handful of verses that support immersion, how do you know they are not in error? Why don't someone tell them that there have been errors found in all translations and, there is a possibility that they are throwing their lives away?


I wont try to answer for God on what happened before 1611, I do have faith that whatever he did was right.


If I didn't believe every word was true, I guess I would have grounds to take the whole thing as just old stories and live my life however it felt right.

 

[Ed Edwards]

//Any way, the fact that the KJV translators chary picked from the available TR and added "God forbid" created a bit of a problem for me. Either there is no word of God for us today and all we have are errant translations of errant copies OR God did preserve his word through the KJV Translators.//

Logical error detect.
These are NOT the only two choices.
Such a logical error is called:
"False Dichotomy"

'Dicho-' is a Greek prefix meaning 'two'.
'-tomy' is a Greek suffix meaning 'to cut'.
So 'dichotomy means 'to cut into two parts'.

When one's logic comes to such a
false dichotomy, one need to inspect one's
Axiom. You have a false axiom in your
set of 'obvious truths'.

Here is my Axiom:

God Has Preserved His inerrant and
perfect Written Word in multiple versions, translations,
and editions.

I suggest your error Axiom is
"God has preserved His inerrant
and perfect Written Word in one and
only one translation, version, and edition."

If you like, I'd be glad to share about a
dozen of my writings were the KJV1769
Edition has a word that is misunderstood
leading to (sometimes humorous,sometimes
minor) doctrinal errors. This is NOT due to the fact that
there are Modern Versions, but due to the
fact that words in the same language have
different meanings in 1769 than they
do in 1920 (when the current 'Fundamentals
of Christianity' /also known as 'Fundamentalism'/
were denoted in writing.

BTW, I do consider hyper-KJVOism to be a
Liberal theology steeped with modernism

 

[tinytim]

You mention the TR.. but what about the Masoretic text...the text underlying the KJV OT....

What are you going to do with the fact that Jesus didn't read from it?
He used another version... probably the LXX

So are you going to use a version Jesus didn't use?

 

[StefanM]

Stefan, I just cant see how you live like that. If there are errors, you assume that you know where they are. What about Baptism, you know that people are persecuted today and some die, because they insist upon being baptized according to the scripture, in Muslim country's. There are only a handful of verses that support immersion, how do you know they are not in error? Why don't someone tell them that there have been errors found in all translations and, there is a possibility that they are throwing their lives away?

1) I trust that the text in front of me is correct unless there is textual evidence to the contrary. My faith is not contingent on a perfect translation but a perfect God.

2) Regarding immersion, the meaning of baptizo itself indicates immersion. Even the Roman Catholic church admits this, but they believe that the Church has the authority to allow other methods. In addition, I am aware of no textual variants that would cause me to wonder about the baptismal texts.

Your argument essentially says that if there is any doubt about the textual validity of any one rendering in the Bible, then you can't trust any of it. I find that notion unacceptable. If I found an old Bible with some missing pages, I might not be able to tell you what the missing pages say, but I'd certainly be able to tell you about the rest. When the text is clear, I have 100% confidence in it. When the text is unclear, we must remain diligent to try to determine what is the best reading.

Despite what some KJVO polemic states, the use of textual criticism simply does not affect doctrine. It is not as if I am wondering about whether or not Jesus is the Son of God. That is abundantly clear. And the whole of scripture declares that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, no matter one's opinion on the textual issues of 1 John 5:7.

 

[Larry]

"Here is my Axiom:

God Has Preserved His inerrant and
perfect Written Word in multiple versions, translations,
and editions."

​

And I suppose that you are just the guy to help the laity know which words are inerrant, when there is a contradiction. That kind of sets you above the laity, but below God?


If I decided that your Axiom was a third option, would you be willing to teach me just what words are truly the word of God?

 

[Ed Edwards]

I also believe in the Baptist Distinctive Doctrine:

The Competency of the Believer.

I conducted
a poll that proves by the folks in
this Versions Forum of the BB (Baptist Board) that:

A group of similar minded people can agree
on what is and what is not an inerrant Bible.

Here are some versions rejected:

1. New World Translation (so called SDA Bible)
2. The Message

Here are some versions accepted:

1. KJV1769
2. KJV1611
3. NIV
4. nKJV
5. HCSB

BTW, both the nKJV and the HCSB are based
on the Majority Texts NOT the Critical Texts.
This despite both versions being damned along
with the NIV, ASB, etc. as being based on modern
Greek Texts -- in fact, there is a difference.
Said difference is frequently avoided by
"Black & White"-ists who throw out the the nKJV
and HCSB baby along with the NIV & other
MV bathwater.

My other Axiom:

If there seems to be a discrepancy between two
translations or within one translation - God
DID NOT make a mistake.

Coming from that Axiom is this truth:

Chances are the
preceiver of the discrepancy has made a mistake
and it should and (by the Doctrine of Soul
Compentcy) will correct the error.

The purpose of this Versions Forum is
NOT to damn the Bible of others. The purpose
of this Versions is for Baptist Christians to compare
understandings so that each Competent Baptist
can figure out what the real meanings of any
particular scripture might me.

I also note it a lot more likely that with good translations
like the KJVs made from the TRs,
it is more likely that a misunderstanding of the
(for example) 18th Century /1701-1800/ meaning
of a word has been made than that a translator error
has been made.

 

[StefanM]

The NWT is not the SDA Bible. It is the Jehovah's Witnesses' "translation."

 

[Ed Edwards]

"Here is my Axiom:

God Has Preserved His inerrant and
perfect Written Word in multiple versions, translations,
and editions."

...

​

And I suppose that you are just the guy to help the laity know which words are inerrant, when there is a contradiction. That kind of sets you above the laity, but below God?
...

Nobody before you promoted me to a high exhaulted position
over my humble Axiom.
I suppose there is a first time for everything? Since I retired
I think it wouldn't be wise for me to get a big head as I
can't afford new, larger hats for each season.

 

[Ed Edwards]

The NWT is not the SDA Bible. It is the Jehovah's Witnesses' "translation."

You are correct. My bad. I should have looked inside my book.

BTW, Bro. StefanM, I really don't appreciate people who quote
the NIV without having a copy of it. Some people damn
the NIV so bad they won't touch one. But they fail to properly
quote the book they get the alleged NIV.

BTW, God requires me to check every scripture I read on
Bulletin Boards (bbs) in the original book. So it helps if
people who quote the Bible cite which Bible they got
it from. Thank you for your help.

 

[Larry]

"....The purpose
of this Versions is for Baptist Christians to compare
understandings so that each Competent Baptist
can figure out what the real meanings of any
particular scripture might mean"

​

What books would I have to read to become a “Competent Baptist”

"Nobody before you promoted me to a high exhaulted position
over my humble Axiom.
I suppose there is a first time for everything? Since I retired
I think it wouldn't be wise for me to get a big head as I
can't afford new, larger hats for each season."

​

You haven't been promoted just yet. I'm exploring the possibility of your Axiom as a third option. You are one of the “Competent Baptist” so couldn't you offer a ruling on verses, from different versions, that contradicted each other?

Could you perhaps set forth a set of rules, for discerning the true word of God for us lay people to follow, as we try to become Competent Baptist? I'm a quick study and I do have some experience, from a dozen or so years ago, with Greek.

I do have to admit that I haven't studied any Greek sense the time I looked up the root words for Nicolaites in the Greek. I ran into trouble when I compared the nico in Nicodemous (nico= ruler) and nico as in Nicolaites. How could nico mean ruler in Nicodemus and Conquer in Nicolaites... shoulde'nt it translate nico = rule giver for the laity? The whole thing just sowered my stomach for such things because It seemed to me that the Catholics had got hold of whoever defined Nicolaites, because they are big on having a priesthood to tell the laypeople what God says.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Greetings Larry,

Since you have taken this new position on secondary preservation, could you explain to me if God preserved I John 5v12 perfectly in 1611 or some later edition of the King James?

1611 - Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life.

Later editions - He that hath the Son hath life: and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

Which version of the verse is the perfectly preserved word of God?

 

[robycop3]

Larry:So you would agree with: "there is no word of God for us today and all we have are errant translations of errant copies " ?

No; I agree with "no translation of God's word is 100% perfect; all are God's perfect word translated by imperfect men" & "variety of translations is profitable for the Finding Out of the Sense of the Scriptures".

"And men didn't die for the KJV...the AV translators worked under the auspices of the KING OF ENGLAND, not exactly a weak ruler incapable of protecting them. But earlier translators such as Wycliffe and Coverdale worked at peril of their lives, while Tyndale and Rogers DID give their lives for the Bible in English."

Are you sure about that?

As sure as one can be, for one who wasn't there at the time. The story of the making of the KJV, as well as that of the martyrdom of some previous English Bible translators is well-known.


PS: I hold no allegiance to Grady. I do my best to follow the truth where it takes me.

Well, it aint to be found in GRADY'S hooey.


PPS: It's bad form to accuse someone of being a purveyor of bunk and not offer proof. I suppose you do have proof and have confronted him on it?

I've taken time to read his book & watch a coupla videos, in order to "know thy enemy". How about YOU? His book, and his lectures speak for themselves about bunk and false dichotomy.

I can give you one brief example of grady's bunk, which I hope you've noticed in his materials...he fefers to us freedom readers as "Nicolaitans". This shows he doesn't even know what a nic is...quite a gross error for a "learned" man!

If you place your trust in such a man for "knowledge", you're heading for a real problem!

 

[robycop3]

Stefan, I just cant see how you live like that. If there are errors, you assume that you know where they are. What about Baptism, you know that people are persecuted today and some die, because they insist upon being baptized according to the scripture, in Muslim country's. There are only a handful of verses that support immersion, how do you know they are not in error? Why don't someone tell them that there have been errors found in all translations and, there is a possibility that they are throwing their lives away?


I wont try to answer for God on what happened before 1611, I do have faith that whatever he did was right.


If I didn't believe every word was true, I guess I would have grounds to take the whole thing as just old stories and live my life however it felt right.

I mentioned two very obvious errors: "Easter" in Acts 12;4, & "the love of money is *THE* root of *ALL* evil" in 1 tim. 6:10. How many goofs does it take for something to not be "error-free"?

 

[4His_glory]

It is my understanding that there is a Spanish Bible that is not based upon Known and obviously corrupt manuscripts. I have no reason to believe that God did not preserve his word in Spanish also.


Dose your Spanish bible say that a virgin shall conceive?

I don´t understand Larry. You said that God prserved His Word through the KJV translators and then you also say that God prserved His Word in Spanish. So are you admitting that there really is more than one translation in which God prserved His Word?

If so, why can not more than one English translation be the preserved Word of God?

And to answer your question. My Spanish Bible does not say "a virgin shall concieve and bear a Son." But rather "He aquí la virgen concebirá, y dará a luz un Hijo... Its Spanish not English. (OK sarcasm is done now.:smilewinkgrin: :saint: )

In all seriousness it says the same thing.