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

[readmore]

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"

Brother, you have quite a testimony of your quest for truth! Keep up the search...

As Ed said, you have set up a false dichotomy. In effect, the only two options you allow are:

• Every single word must be preserved for it to be the word of God
• Or you can't trust any of it

But where does this belief come from? God's word conveys to us exactly what He wants--nothing more, nothing less. Regardless of exactly which words are used or which language it's in. The NIV, KJV, ESV, etc. all contain God's message of salvation, of Jesus' life, of precious doctrines, prophecy, etc., and yet in many cases they do not use the exact same words.

This is the only way God's word can have been preserved for all people. Before the TR had been collated and gone through the many revisions that resulted in its resemblance to the KJV, Christians used the Vulgate. Is the Vulgate not the word of God because some of the words differ? But didn't it contain the same truth, regardless?

By saying that the word of God must use the exact words as found in the KJV, you must throw away every other medium that God has used to bring His word to the people through all generations, and that is when God is not able to preserve His word.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

What about those of us who do not speak English?

Am I to understand that you can write English but not speak English?

BTW when I preach in English I use the KJV (which I love).

So, you can preach in English - just not speak it?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

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.

When are you going to discard this tired old argument? It has been "admitted" time and again that there is no scripture that says "The KJV is the preserved Word of God for English speaking people." What you have repeatedly failed to admit is that there's NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for your position either.

What we do have is scriptural support for inspiration, preservation, and our responsibility to live by "every word" of God. There is historical and textual evidence to confirm that the KJV is the primary English translation that accurately reflects the manuscripts traditionally received throughout Christendom.

To make this argument about more than this is to read far more into it than is there. We need no further scriptural support to draw this conclusion.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

Am I to understand that you can write English but not speak English?

I have no idea if the person in question can or cannot speak English, but I want to add that it's entirely possible for that to be the case. I taught English in China and the Chinese high school students had grammar down easily, but struggled to pronounce words. Take Latin for instance, it's much easier to learn to write than it is to speak, IMHO.

 

[4His_glory]

Of course I can speak and read English, I was speaking in general terms when I said us.
Ivon is correct. It is easier to write a language than to speak it. I preach better in Spanish than I do speaking it because I write all my messages out. Thought I still pronounce things wrong sometimes.

But I would like for Larry to answer since I am a bit confused. He said that God preserved His Word through the KJV translators, but that there must be a Spanish preserved Word as well. This is contradictory because if the KJV is English (obviously) and if God preserved His Word only in through the KJV translators then the non-English world is left without the Word.

 

[robycop3]

Pastor Bob:When are you going to discard this tired old argument? It has been "admitted" time and again that there is no scripture that says "The KJV is the preserved Word of God for English speaking people."

i'm not...it's a perfectly-valid argument. To believe a doctrine ABOUT Scripture that's NOT FOUND in Scripture by the slightest implication is to place that doctrine ABOVE SCRIPTURE in authority.


What you have repeatedly failed to admit is that there's NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for your position either.

I need no Scriptural support to NOT BELIEVE an obviously-untrue, obviously man-made doctrine.

What we do have is scriptural support for inspiration, preservation, and our responsibility to live by "every word" of God. There is historical and textual evidence to confirm that the KJV is the primary English translation that accurately reflects the manuscripts traditionally received throughout Christendom.

Actually, this "evidence" is opinion and guesswork.

To make this argument about more than this is to read far more into it than is there. We need no further scriptural support to draw this conclusion.

Obviously, God has allowed multiple English translations of His word to be made. Since we believe God is jolly well able to manage His own word, who are WE to declare this accurate translation valid & that accurate translation not valid?

Most of us do not read hebrew, Aramaic, or Koine Greek with absolute understanding & use translations of God's word from those languages. therefore, we are living by every word of some TRANSLATORS and not the actual word of God as He gave it to His chosen penmen. But none of this is lost on GOD. We, His creation, whom he dearly loves, should accept what He's done in out behalf, and not be dissing versions of His word we don't like. And yes, I realize there are some bogus versions out there, but GOD is certainly NOT limited to just one version per language.

KJVO, as the doctrines of purgatory and salvation by worx are, is a wholly man-made doctrine, not of GOD.

 

[Logos1560]

"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."​

"

It is a false accusation to claim that all the new Bibles are translated from manuscripts that are different from those on which the KJV was based.

According to the above argument, did God let all those generations of Christians down before 1611 since no translations before 1611 agree with every word of the KJV? Did God let down German-speaking believers since Luther's German Bible did not agree with every word of the KJV?

Have you ever read the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision? They do not agree with every word of the KJV. The pre-1611 English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops') differ from the KJV in a number of places.

The truth is consistent. KJV-only reasoning would seem to be inconsistent as it cannot be consistently applied both before and after 1611 and cannot be consistently applied to those who speak languages other than English.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Obviously, God has allowed multiple English translations of His word to be made.

God has also allowed multiple "churches" that claim to preach His Word. A precious few are actually preaching the truth.

Since we believe God is jolly well able to manage His own word, who are WE to declare this accurate translation valid & that accurate translation not valid?

The same way that we can declare a church to be a true NT church. If it represents the early church in faith and practice, it can be said to be a valid church. If a translation represents the text that was commonly used through the ages, it can be said to be a valid translation.

It's really very simple.

 

[robycop3]

God has also allowed multiple "churches" that claim to preach His Word. A precious few are actually preaching the truth.


The same way that we can declare a church to be a true NT church. If it represents the early church in faith and practice, it can be said to be a valid church. If a translation represents the text that was commonly used through the ages, it can be said to be a valid translation.

It's really very simple.

Yes, it is...except that the RCC was also an early church.

And there were lotsa texts in early use, and down thru the ages.

Appears that the textual thingie, a stepchild of the KJVO thingie, is a dodo bird that can't fly, either. Thingies, thingies everywhere, all man-made, not supported by SCRIPTURE. That leaves only ONE other source...

 

[robycop3]

Is Larry, or any other KJVO, gonna answer Roger's question?

 

[Larry]

"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?"​

Roger? Translation errors and printing errors are two different things.




Robecop3,


I think you trying to misunderstand. This ain't my first rodeo and I refuse to be bogged down in answering questions that are based upon willful misrepresentation of my original statement. That is a debating tactic and I didn't come hear for that.... I stand by my original statement “Did God let Christians die for words that were not correctly translated?”




Also, your stooping to name calling concerning Grady doesn't help your case at all. Yes, I have read all of his books, and with the exception that I brought up in my first post, and historical things I had no way of knowing about, I agreed with him before I knew who he was...I now agree with him on the KJV being inspired. You offer Gready statements on Nicolaitans as proof that he if full of it? Your proof betrays the sallowness of your stance. I studied Nicolaitans in the Greek, in the early to mid 90's and I just didn't stop at what the Lexicons said, I looked up the root words and how they were used and what they meant in other places... I mentioned that in one of my reply in this discussion.....
Grady is right!




Please people, search your heart, are you being spiritually prideful? Pride is an abomination to God and you should get it out of your heart if it's there! You assume that because I came to a different conclusion than you , that I haven't considered the same things as you? Why dose the original premise of my post get to you, You don't get bent out of shape every time someone has an opinion that differs from your own do you? I know that emotions run high on this issue , but please don't get in the flesh.

 

[Logos1560]

Translation errors and printing errors are two different things.

.

Can you prove that the error was made by a printer? Do you have the original complete manuscript or printed copy of the Bishops' Bible with the handwritten changes prepared by the KJV translators for the printers?

Why is an error supposedly different if it was supposedly made by a printer instead of a translator? What makes an error made by a printer a "different thing?" An error is still an error regardless of who supposedly made it. An error made by a printer can add words, omit words, change one word into another word, or change the meaning just like an error made by a translator can.

Do the Scriptures teach that preservation applies only to translators in 1611 but not to printers in 1611? Do the Scriptures teach that God shows respect of persons to translators by doing something for them that He did not do for printers?

In addition, there is actual evidence available that indicates that all the changes that later editors made to the 1611 edition of the KJV was not just the correction of claimed printing errors. The KJV translators themselves were responsible for some of the renderings that later editors changed since the KJV translators had kept them from the Bishops' Bible.

 

[Ed Edwards]

“Did God let Christians die for words
that were not correctly translated?”

Short answer: Yes.

Longer answer:

1. Christians died defending the
words of their Bible which were NOT
correctly translated.

2. Other Christians died following
some false leader.

3. Other Christians died running
red lights.

4-48. /Left as an exercise

49. It is NOT GOD'S FAULT when
Christians die - it is the fault of those
who slay them.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Somebody write this date down for our posterity. This is a first.

Ed finally wrote something that I both understand and agree with.

Nice job Ed. :thumbs:

 

[Ed Edwards]

Thank you, Pastor Bob!

//Did God let Christians die for words
that were not correctly translated?//

Short answer: Yes.

Longer answer:

1. Christians died defending the
words of their Bible which were NOT
correctly translated.

2. Other Christians died following
some false leader.

3. Other Christians died running
red lights.

4-48. /Left as an exercise

49. It is NOT GOD'S FAULT when
Christians die - it is the fault of those
who slay them.

 

[Larry]

So is this the part where I'm suppose to blow my top and get my post deleted and banned from the BB? Don't worry, I wont reveal your name... Apparently thats a rule? I am posting some of your PM so people can see what I mean about not getting in the flesh.

[PM deleted - they are called "private" for a reason]

 

[Deacon]

Hey Larry, don't get all steamed up, you knew you'd create a fuss when you posted if you've been part of the BB for as long as you have.

Personally I’m always amused that those who most strongly support the KJV don’t read its preface.
Perhaps the archaic language is too difficult to understand???
It would clear up most of these errant beliefs.

I don’t have any problem with you preferring the KJV as your version of choice.
But you wrote: “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.”
This presents us with a false dichotomy!
Once you claim versional inspiration you have excluded most of Christianity through ages past.

And you can be proven wrong so easily: it only takes one error.
Would this mean no one can trust God or his word???
According to you the answer would be a resounding, YES.

Anybody that studies languages knows that the process of translation is a lot of work.
One of the first processes involves examining the manuscript and establishing the text.
Those “thousands of manuscripts” that make up the Textus Receptus (TR) are all different from each other.
The fact is, all bibles are translated from manuscripts that are different from the KJV.
Don’t be foolish by thinking that the translators of the AV didn’t make textual choices.

Once in a while their chose was wrong.
Even strong KJV advocates of the past acknowledged this fact.

Re: 1 John 5:12, the translators probably used the Latin Vulgate.

Qui habet Filium, habet vitam : qui non habet Filium, vitam non habet.
(He that has the Son, has life : he that doesn’t have the Son, doesn’t have life)
1 John 5:12 Clementine’s Vulgate

Then after the text has been established, one studies the words and translates them.

Among others errors in the KJV, 1 Samuel 13:21 presents a considerable problem.
The translators had no idea what a “pim” was, this resulted in a faulty translation of the verse.

Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads.
1 Samuel 13:21 AV 1873

Archeological studies later identified an object and the words' real meaning was discovered.

The New KJV dances around a bit by not translating the word.

and the charge for a sharpening was a pim for the plowshares, the mattocks, the forks, and the axes, and to set the points of the goads.
1 Samuel 13:21 NKJV

Most other modern versions nail it correctly.

and the charge was two-thirds of a shekel for the plowshares and for the mattocks, and a third of a shekel for sharpening the axes and for setting the goads.
1 Samuel 13:21 ESV

So, this doesn’t mean God or his word aren't trustworthy.
It merely means man sometimes makes errors in the translation process.

And if you like the KJV, use it!
If something doesn’t match up, study it out!

In either case we can learn about God and some of the ways he works by looking at the process of translation.

Then most importantly, live out God's word in your life.

Rob

 

[Dr. Bob]

So is this the part where I'm suppose to blow my top and get my post deleted and banned from the BB? Don't worry, I wont reveal your name... Apparently thats a rule? I am posting some of your PM so people can see what I mean about not getting in the flesh.

[PM deleted - they are called "private" for a reason]

I'd say you have it figured out. This WILL get your post deleted and you banned. :tonofbricks:

 

[Larry]

So what's the problem? I didn't post any names. All I posted was text from a PM that I got. Any way, I have posted my position and that's all I wanted to do.


Ps: there was nothing in the text that revealed who sent it.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

It must be made clear that the Private Message feature is not to be used to circumvent the BB posting rules. Personal attacks or private messages designed to fan the flame will not be tolerated.

Larry, in the future, simply notify a Moderator with any PM that would violate a standing BB rule.