What other Doctrines does KJV Only violate

[Logos1560]

Scholars are often a problem in the Christian era. Professors cannot replace preachers, but they try.
.

Do your KJV-only opinions in effect attempt or try to replace preachers with one exclusive group of Church of England scholars/critics in 1611?

Do you think that that one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611 determine what English-speaking preachers should preach so that they are in effect the authority for their preaching?

 

[JD731]

Do your KJV-only opinions in effect attempt or try to replace preachers with one exclusive group of Church of England scholars/critics in 1611?

Do you think that that one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611 determine what English-speaking preachers should preach so that they are in effect the authority for their preaching?

They made only one translation from the source they chose. It was enough.

 

[Logos1560]

They made only one translation from the source they chose. It was enough.

If only one English Bible translation is enough, the 1611 KJV should not have been made since there were already several good English Bible translations already available and already being read. The 1560 Geneva Bible was the widely-accepted, believed, and loved English Bible in that day.

The Church of England makers of the KJV picked and chose from multiple varying sources in their textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions.

 

[robycop3]

Excuse me, but I think you are lying.

PROOF, please ?

Maybe everyone who teaches the KJVO myth isn't lying directly, but they're certainly spreading a lie, even if mistakenly. The KJVO myth IS a lie. Please try to prove me wrong, or admit you were lying about MY lying.

 

[JD731]

If only one English Bible translation is enough, the 1611 KJV should not have been made since there were already several good English Bible translations already available and already being read. The 1560 Geneva Bible was the widely-accepted, believed, and loved English Bible in that day.

The Church of England makers of the KJV picked and chose from multiple varying sources in their textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions.

If we were speaking of translating the newspaper then anyone who knew the language could do it and it would be fine. But the Scriptures of truth have both a divine and a human, a spiritual and a physical, an eternal and time application to them. It is highly presumptuous for anyone to think that they can just pick up a pen and begin to translate without an unction from God himself, and when they get done, present it as the word of God because of human wisdom and ability.

"Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer."

We are told in 1 Cor 2 that the deep things of God must be taught by the Spirit in words he chooses. This, he says, requires the mind of Christ, who said in John 12 the words he spake were not his words but the Fathers.He thought and spake in the words of God while he lived on earth as a man. He is saying we must think like God thinks. We have this capability only if we have his Spirit indwelling us.

If there is a dual context to the scriptures, spiritual and physical, and if seeing it and applying it requires a consistent use of words to convey that spiritual truth, then it would be impossible for the natural man to interpret the spiritual and then translate it so the spiritual context is not compromised. Otherwise, what sense does it make for Paul to say the natural man cannot know the things of God because they are spiritually discerned and understood. This just after he had said the world by wisdom knew not God.

You guys have the wrong idea about the scriptures if you buy into the idea that it is just a matter of translation of words indiscriminately and according to ones own choice. This is the idea we must get from a multitude of English translations, all with different words. There is a real devil and he is behind this breath taking hoax. He has deceived Christendom into helping to deceive the masses.

 

[Logos1560]

You guys have the wrong idea about the scriptures if you buy into the idea that it is just a matter of translation of words indiscriminately and according to ones own choice.

You fail to demonstrate that I have any wrong idea about the Scriptures.

The Scriptures teach that in a multitude of counsellors there is safety (Prov. 11:14, Prov. 24:6) while you may reject that scriptural truth.

Perhaps your own claims may be more in line with that wrong idea since you in effect blindly trust one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England critics' inconsistent, sometimes indiscriminate, sometimes Church of England biased translation decisions. You have not demonstrated that the KJV translators who believed the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration all had the mind of Christ and the Holy Spirit guiding them or that they should in effect be regarded as infallible popes in their textual criticism and translation decisions

 

[JD731]

You fail to demonstrate that I have any wrong idea about the Scriptures.

The Scriptures teach that in a multitude of counsellors there is safety (Prov. 11:14, Prov. 24:6) while you may reject that scriptural truth.

Perhaps your own claims may be more in line with that wrong idea since you in effect blindly trust one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England critics' inconsistent, sometimes indiscriminate, sometimes Church of England biased translation decisions. You have not demonstrated that the KJV translators who believed the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration all had the mind of Christ and the Holy Spirit guiding them or that they should in effect be regarded as infallible popes in their textual criticism and translation decisions

I do not have to prove anything to you. That is your job. I have proven to myself that the KJV is the word of God and that I can know the mind of God through the words I am given in it.

I do not disagree that there is safety in a multitude of counselors, but a translation is not a counselor. All these translations have different words and they do not cross reference to the same scriptures. This is a problem.

I have spent much time and effort demonstrating that words must be believed if one will have sound and correct doctrine. I used Acts 2:38, which all the multi translational people, as well as the Greek scholars denied. I told the truth about Psa 12 and no one believed that either because they did not see the value of words that are present in the Psalm. I mentioned Matt 13 and explained what the words meant and they laughed about that truth. I quoted from Psalm 2 concerning the "ages to come" and the multi translations guys all agreed that Heb 9:26 taught that the age in which Jesus Christ died was the final, or the culmination of the ages like most of the new Bibles incorrectly state.

Modern multi translation people do not believe the words in the text of a KJV or any other Bible. They do not believe the word in the original language. We live in a generation where unprincipled men have taught that words do not matter, it is about the message. This is probably the reason the NIV has this new way of translation called the translation of the thoughts of God. Can you believe that?

It is time for you to repent and begin to believe the words of God.

 

[Logos1560]

I have proven to myself that the KJV is the word of God and that I can know the mind of God through the words I am given in it.

Have you in effect become your own authority so that your own human understanding and interpretations of one Bible translation cannot be wrong?

You are wrong to seem to suggest that disagreeing with any of your human understandings and interpretations is not believing the words of God.

 

[kyredneck]

KJVO is the most benign and harmless minor issue that no one needs rescuing from.

LIKE.

 

[AVL1984]

I do not have to prove anything to you. That is your job. I have proven to myself that the KJV is the word of God and that I can know the mind of God through the words I am given in it.

I do not disagree that there is safety in a multitude of counselors, but a translation is not a counselor. All these translations have different words and they do not cross reference to the same scriptures. This is a problem.

Is it really? You'll have to prove to us where this is actually problematic....

I have spent much time and effort demonstrating that words must be believed if one will have sound and correct doctrine.

One can have sound doctrine and NOT have the KJV. Trying to make translations not based on the same underlying documents as the KJV is problematic....

I used Acts 2:38, which all the multi translational people, as well as the Greek scholars denied.

Did they? Or is this a misrepresentation on your part?


I told the truth about Psa 12 and no one believed that either because they did not see the value of words that are present in the Psalm.

Why? Because someone didn't accept yours and the twisted KJVO's interpretation of the verses about God's words being pure? Christians ALL believe God's words are pure, if they're truly Christian.


I mentioned Matt 13 and explained what the words meant and they laughed about that truth. I quoted from Psalm 2 concerning the "ages to come" and the multi translations guys all agreed that Heb 9:26 taught that the age in which Jesus Christ died was the final, or the culmination of the ages like most of the new Bibles incorrectly state.

Again...please, back this up with TRUE evidence of same.

Modern multi translation people do not believe the words in the text of a KJV or any other Bible.

HOGWASH!


They do not believe the word in the original language.

Again, HOGWASH!


We live in a generation where unprincipled men have taught that words do not matter, it is about the message. This is probably the reason the NIV has this new way of translation called the translation of the thoughts of God. Can you believe that?

Yes, I can believe it...it's called dynamic equivalence...and it's used in certain passages in the KJV as well. See those "italicized" words? They use these because there is no such thing as a "word for word" translation. These are used to help convey the thoughts of the passage...to make it clearer.





It is time for you to repent and begin to believe the words of God.

Maybe it's time to be honest about the other translations. Maybe it's time to get your head out of the sand and realize you're in a cult!

 

[Logos1560]

I do not have to prove anything to you.

Are you in effect saying that you do not believe and obey the first three words of 1 Thessalonians 5:22a ["Prove all things"]?

 

[JD731]

Have you in effect become your own authority so that your own human understanding and interpretations of one Bible translation cannot be wrong?

You are wrong to seem to suggest that disagreeing with any of your human understandings and interpretations is not believing the words of God.

No, my approach to the words in a text leads me to different conclusions than your approach to the words in a text. For instance, I read the words in Acts 2 and accept what I read as fact. These men of Israel, who are being addressed in Jerusalem in AD 30 at the Jewish feast of Pentecost, only 50 days after the feast of Passover, where our Lord was slain by them and rose again from the dead, have seen and heard the sign (the Jews require a sign 1 Cor 1:22) that the Holy Ghost had been poured out by God from heaven as the gift of Life. He gives conditions for them to receive the gift, one of which is to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. These conditions were in place for at least the first 10 years of the Christian age for the Jews, and until the door of faith was opened to the gentiles when the Holy Ghost was poured out on us in Acts 10.

Now, there is not a single person on this forum so far who can follow the logic and accept that the words are true and factual. They will never believe what the words say happened in Acts 10 at the home of Cornelius even though Peter expressly explains it in Acts 11 to his Jewish brethren, the apostles and elders in Jerusalem as God beginning to accept gentiles into the already established Jewish church by pouring out (baptizing them) the Holy Spirit on them. Amazingly, these words have no meaning to most even though they are so simple.

A note one must see. The baptism that the Father did for Israel was with the Spirit, meaning he was poured out upon Israel in such abundance that each one could drink him in and be saved, but before God would establish his kingdom every one of them must drink him in. We read on and see that few did, relatively speaking. The baptism the apostles did was in water, the proper symbol of the Holy Ghost, something every living creature on earth must have to live.There was no baptism in water required for the gentiles because there were no covenant promises where they were concerned. The lone condition for all now is faith in the gospel of Christ. The Spirit is so abundant (like water) that anyone can open their mouths and drink. But they must drink to live.

Accepting words and not doubting what you read will lead you to the same conclusions as mine.

 

[JD731]

I am a Baptist who attends an independent fundamental, KJV only church.. I am a dispensationalist and hold to a pre-trib rapture and a pre millennial second coming of Christ to rule and reign through the nation of Israel over all the nations of earth for the sabbath day, the day of the Lord, which is a thousand years long according to his count.

What are you? And if you are Reformed I have no interest in speaking with you about words that makes sense to everyone but a Reformed person.

 

[AVL1984]

I am a Baptist who attends an independent fundamental, KJV only church.. I am a dispensationalist and hold to a pre-trib rapture and a pre millennial second coming of Christ to rule and reign through the nation of Israel over all the nations of earth for the sabbath day, the day of the Lord, which is a thousand years long according to his count.

What are you? And if you are Reformed I have no interest in speaking with you about words that makes sense to everyone but a Reformed person.

In other words, like most KJVO people...you just want to hear what you want to hear....an echo chamber is what you need....

 

[JD731]

In other words, like most KJVO people...you just want to hear what you want to hear....an echo chamber is what you need....

No, that is not what I said. Now can you see what I mean when I accuse you of not understanding the meaning of words you read? I want to believe what I read. Do you?

 

[Logos1560]

I want to believe what I read.

Really? Then why have you tried to misrepresent, distort, or twist what I have stated into things that I have not stated?

I have nowhere claimed not to believe the words of God; yet you have improperly tried to allege that I do not. You improperly demanded that I supposedly needed to repent and believe the words of God without proving that I did not believe them.

One problem that you have is that you believe that God authored the KJV when the Scriptures do not say that He did. God directly gave by inspiration or authored the Scriptures given to the prophets and apostles while God did not directly author the textual criticism decisions, Bible correcting/revising decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England priests in 1611. Any translating that was part of the supernatural process of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles is not the same thing as human translating after the completion of the NT (after the end of the process of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God). During the process of the giving of the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles, God gave any translated words to them by inspiration as part of the words proceeding from the mouth of God to them.

There is no Scripture that states that God gave the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions in 1611 by inspiration to men who were not prophets and apostles or that the translation decisions of the KJV translators proceeded directly from the mouth of God to them.

 

[JD731]

Really? Then why have you tried to misrepresent, distort, or twist what I have stated into things that I have not stated?

I have nowhere claimed not to believe the words of God; yet you have improperly tried to allege that I do not. You improperly demanded that I supposedly needed to repent and believe the words of God without proving that I did not believe them.

One problem that you have is that you believe that God authored the KJV when the Scriptures do not say that He did. God directly gave by inspiration or authored the Scriptures given to the prophets and apostles while God did not directly author the textual criticism decisions, Bible correcting/revising decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England priests in 1611. Any translating that was part of the supernatural process of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles is not the same thing as human translating after the completion of the NT (after the end of the process of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God). During the process of the giving of the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles, God gave any translated words to them by inspiration as part of the words proceeding from the mouth of God to them.

There is no Scripture that states that God gave the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions in 1611 by inspiration to men who were not prophets and apostles or that the translation decisions of the KJV translators proceeded directly from the mouth of God to them.

There does not need to be. The words taught by the Spirit will affirm them. This is what is written in 1 Cor 2. Take some time and read it.

 

[robycop3]

I am a Baptist who attends an independent fundamental, KJV only church.. I am a dispensationalist and hold to a pre-trib rapture and a pre millennial second coming of Christ to rule and reign through the nation of Israel over all the nations of earth for the sabbath day, the day of the Lord, which is a thousand years long according to his count.

We are more-alike than you think. I'm a member of an IFB church, but we're NOT KJVO, as we don't accept any man-made doctrines not found in Scripture, & the KJVO myth isn't in Scripture by the least quark of the slightest implication. It's a false, entirely-man-made doctrine.

But I also believe in a pre-trib rapture & everything else you wrote in your last sentence.

STILL AWAITING PROOF FROM YOU THAT I WAS LYING IN A PREVIOUS POST ! I see you've not responded so far, likely because you CAN'T !

 

[JD731]

We are more-alike than you think. I'm a member of an IFB church, but we're NOT KJVO, as we don't accept any man-made doctrines not found in Scripture, & the KJVO myth isn't in Scripture by the least quark of the slightest implication. It's a false, entirely-man-made doctrine.

But I also believe in a pre-trib rapture & everything else you wrote in your last sentence.

STILL AWAITING PROOF FROM YOU THAT I WAS LYING IN A PREVIOUS POST ! I see you've not responded so far, likely because you CAN'T !

That was tongue in cheek. See how language works? We must have precise and provable words. You are probably not a dispensational believer. I am going to guess you like the renderings of most modern translations of Hebrews 9:26? Do you believe that Acts 2:38 gives a condition for Israel to receive the Holy Ghost? Do you think the purification of Israel in Psalm 12 is predicted in other prophecies and realized in the great tribulation during the 7 judgement of Revelation? Do you believe the key word in Psa 12 is "arise" and do you think the only time Ps 12:1 can be literally true is directly after the rapture of the church?

I have questions. Do you have answers?

 

[AVL1984]

No, that is not what I said. Now can you see what I mean when I accuse you of not understanding the meaning of words you read? I want to believe what I read. Do you?

Yes, it IS what you said...maybe not in so many words, but that was the clear implication. I'm very good at understanding what words me having had Englilsh as a minor in college. Hmmm...maybe you should try twisting words somewhere else, as well as Biblical doctrines.