What's wrong with the NKJV?

No. It simply means that the first person who received revelation of this supposed truth was a lost cult member... and that from all apparent evidence, KJVOnlyism originated with him.

The orthodox view, with some minor variants, that the rest of us hold runs at least back to the early church fathers... probably even before the canon of scripture was universally recognized and received as the 66 books we now accept.

 

Prove it!

 

So answer this question, "Is there a Book which I can hold in my hand today that is God's word, perfect and without any error?"

If so where/what is it?

 

BTW, Pure Words, Harvest et al. I am sincerely surprised that this was your only objection.

Before you respond further though, it might be helpful to know that the original "Fundamentalists" accepted and used the ASV, which if I am not mistaken is based on the Westcott-Hort text of 1881. In fact, Volume 1 of "The Fundamentals" defends and endorses lower criticism like that of WH... while condeming higher criticism.

The list of men you must reject as heretics in order to be consistent in your KJVO views is like a "Who's Who" of fundamental Christianity, ie. Spurgeon, Moody, John Rice, RA Torrey, AT Pierson, GC Morgan, CI Scofield, etc.

If genuine fundamentalists prior to Wilkerson's book were decidedly not KJVO, how can you call yourselves fundamentalists when you reject the orthodox teaching in favor of the fallacy of a heretic?

 

Error of doctrine/revelation or error in the sense of being the textual equivalent of the originals?

 

True. They are all heretics when it comes to the issue of Final Authority.

the issue did not come to the forefront until the 50's/60's because almost all saved Christians believed and used the KJB. When people started trading the KJB in for modern perversions is when men like Peter Ruckman started to sound the horn.

Anyway, truth is not dependent on man. The truth is the truth regardless of how many "godly, double-separated, fundamantalists" do not believe it.

 

So answer this question, "Was there a Book which men could hold in my hand in 1605 that was God's word, perfect and without any error?"

If so where/what was it?

Remember, KJV-onlyism!

 

So answer this question, "Was there a Book which men could hold in my hand in 1605 that was God's word, perfect and without any error?"
[QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I would point out that you did not answer my question.

but I will answer yours.

1) Yes
2) I do not know where exactly. I do know that the bible says that it would be in the local churches, "the pillar and ground of the truth."

 

So answer this question, "Was there a Book which men could hold in my hand in 1605 that was God's word, perfect and without any error?"
</font>[/QUOTE]I would point out that you did not answer my question.

but I will answer yours.

1) Yes
2) I do not know where exactly. I do know that the bible says that it would be in the local churches, "the pillar and ground of the truth."</font>[/QUOTE]I will answer yours. The KJV! Nobody had the word of God earlier, because it didn't exist, because the KJV was the CULMINATION (highest point, best), meaning EVERYTHING else was inferior, and thus imperfect, and thus could not be the word of God. It was NOT in the local churches or anywhere else - they only had English 'bibles' that lied in Psalm 12:6-7 and other passages, or Greek 'bibles' that were wrong for containing 'pascha' in Acts 12:4.

 

It is a serious question. Can you give a straight answer to it?

 

Pure Words said:

I have never seen a KJVO refer to anyone that believed what they believe prior to the SDA Wilkerson

1) Dean Burgon.

The same Dean Burgon who wrote favourably of some of the Revised Version's translations?

And the same Dean Burgon who wrote that the KJV's translation of Luke 23:42 as "into thy kingdom," instead of "in thy kingdom," was "nothing worse than a palpable mistranslation" (ibid. 72)?

If Burgon admitted even a single error of translation in the King James Bible, he was no King James Onlyist.

 

So answer this question, "Was there a Book which men could hold in my hand in 1605 that was God's word, perfect and without any error?"
</font>[/QUOTE]I would point out that you did not answer my question.

but I will answer yours.

1) Yes</font>[/QUOTE]If they already had a Bible perfect and without any error, why was the KJV necessary? What did the Church of England scholars change to make an errorless, perfect Bible... better?

 

That was a straight answer. What's wrong with it? I've even used your own arguments.

 

No it wasn't. Answer my question with either a YES of NO!

 

Because only the KJV is the word of God, the CULMINATION (highest point, best) of scripture. All else previously was less than perfect, and thus imperfect, and thus in error, and thus not God's word. Thus, God's words perished until 1611, and this is evident by the fact that every available Greek manuscript that has Acts 4:12 has "pascha". Unless you know of a manuscript that has another reading - but not that it would matter because it wasn't at the CULMINATION, only the KJV has that spot.

 

No it wasn't. Answer my question with either a YES of NO!
</font>[/QUOTE]HELLO! MCFLY! I said YES. The KJV! I thought that was perfectly clear. The KJV and only the KJV, and not any other Bible, especially anything from before 1611 in which Psa 12:6-7 was a COMPLETE LIE.

 

PW, Are you going to answer my question?

 

After you answer my original question I will answer your second one.

 

Oh My Gosh! I can't believe how childish some sound here. Are we all christians here? Who cares what bible one chooses to use? God can still use that person. That bible can still show someone how to get saved.
I too agree that the KJV bible is the only bible for our time now. That doesn't mean God wont make another bible after the KJV. I believe all the bibles previous to the KJV are the pure words of God also. (the ones that come from the correct manuscripts.) I just believe the KJV is for us now.
I just don't really see the point of arguing over which one is right. Use the book you feel is the correct one for you and if God wants you to use another one. Maybe he'll show you that someday.
When someone is standing there with there fingers in their ears and noise comming out of their mouth you are not going to get anywhere, so why bother? Is arguing about something like this benifiting others? A person can use a NIV and still live a very Godly life and do a lot for the Lord. I dont really think its our business what bible someone uses. If they have questions about if their using the wrong bible then it would be approiate to tell them, but not going back and forth trying to slam each other. I dont think that is of God
-Heather