When the going gets rough

I may seem stupid, but why can't we all just support and use the version of the Holy Bible that we wish, without the personal attacks? We are all Brothers & Sisters in Christ, sure Brothers & Sisters fight(at least mine did) but we don't use flamethrowers on each other(Satan's fiery darts?) I don't believe in personal attacks, we're supposed to build each other up not tear each other down. I've learned quite a bit from being on BB, the discussions are usually held in a spirit of the Golden Rule. I don't agree with everybody's opinion, and I'm very sure that everybody doesn't agree with my opinions, but I will always give others the right to express their own opinions. Rob

 

No, Rob, it's not a bit stupid to wish for something righteous and noble such as complete harmony among the brethren, but the sad fact is that the devil is constantly inventing false doctrines and finding people to introduce them. One of them is the KJVO myth, first introduced by the devil through a SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST, Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson, in 1930. Until that time, there were several English BVs which "peacefully co-existed", with very little static between the users of each one of them, although the KJV was predominant.

With the introduction of newer versions, & the introduction of electronic mass media, the KJVO myth began to grow. Among the pack of later KJVO authors, there are two who deserve special mention. The first one is Dr. Peter Ruckman. He claims that the KJV is "advanced revelation" that's able to correct the sources from which it was made. This same Dr. Ruckman also claims that the Antichrist will be a ten-foot-tall alien with black lips with which he will impart the "mark of the beast" with a kiss...and that he will arrive in a mile-wide spaceship he'll land on the Mount of Olives. I tend to lump Ruckman's writings with those such as Erik Von Daniken's Chariots Of the Gods or Aesop's fables.

The other is Gail Riplinger. Her first book, New Age Bible Versions, is rife with misquotes, misinformation, and OUTRIGHT FABRICATIONS. But she isn't too bad a writer, and many simply took her word for it w/o sitting down and CHECKING OUT THE VERACITY of her assertions. Be it sufficient to say I did so before the Net was so widespread, but now there are hundreds of sites with articles exposing her bunk. So then my next step was to measure the veracity of the assertions made against Riplinger's work. What did I find? I found that most of the claims against her work were TRUE...that indeed she has sought to fool the public. Therefore, you're safe to believe the allegations against her work as found by using a search engine with the keywords being "gail riplinger wrong".

Most other KJVO authors stick to the old "party line" invented by Wilkinson(Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, 1930) and promoted by J.J.Ray(God Wrote Only One Bible, 1955)& Dr.D.O.Fuller(Which Bible, 1970). Almost every item of the KJVO myth can be found in the works of those three men, with Riplinger's rips being added in the 1990s.

Rob, you & several others have presented a very good point...We shouldn't blame the KJV or its translators for the KJVO myth! Those translators never intended to start any controversy within any church...they were simply making an up-to date English Bible version at the behest of the top officials of the Anglican church, under the auspices and approval of the King of England and Scotland. They knew their work was NOT the be-all and end-all Bible version for the English language. The problems first began when the British govt. outlawed the printing or distribution of any other English version within the realm, thus giving the KJV(and the royal printer) a monopoly. Even this wasn't so bad, as long as the language hadn't changed that much, but inevitably the language left the version behind, making modern versions necessary. Now, while KJVO stayed on the back burner for quite awhile after it was invented, the creation and widespread acceptance of several MVs provided grist for the KJVO mill to enlarge. However, KJVO retained its cardinal problems: COMPLETE FALSEHOODS & NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT! Nothing that contains LIES is of GOD, and no doctrine about Scripture is valid without any Scriptural support. Thus, KJVO was stillborn, and has been floating around long enough to have become putrid.

This is NOT to encourage anyone to throw his/her KJV away...This is to remind everyone that an insidious and devilish FALSE DOCTRINE has grown up around an excellent English Bible version, a doctrine which is NOT the fault of this version nor of the men who made it. Those of you who PREFER to use the KJV only, no problem...but if you insist that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible version, then you DO have a problem.

Rob, we, as Christians, have a D-U-T-Y to fight every false doctrine about our worship and about God's word...and the KJVO myth is as false as they get. While I go after any and all such false doctrines, the KJVO myth is the one I go after HERE.

 

Yes,that's right:But you failed to note that the English Bibles that "peacefully co-existed" with the KJB was of the same texts;not "bibles" from the Egyptian forgeries.

Thank you!!!!!

This is why you trip all over yourself when asked for scripture showing the word of God coming from Egypt..

That dog just won't hunt!!!!!!!!!

The KJB isn't "ONLY valid English Bible version":there are plenty of other versions from the same MSS as the KJB that are just as "valid."

Where you drop the ball is claiming the gnostic/philosopher-tainted Alexandrian forgeries are just as equal..


With that I have a problem..

 

AA - the "debate" on this thread has nothing to do with texts, it is pure and simply about a strict, staunch KJVOism which doesn't deal with texts.

 

I don't have a problem with anyone being KJVP. That is their own decision to make. I find myself using the KJV very frequently, and a KJV is the Bible I carry to church every Sunday because it seems easier to follow along when the preacher is reading Scripture when you're looking at the same version he is reading from. Beside that, this one KJV Bible I have has a larger print size than most of my other Bibles, and it is getting easier for me to read the larger print these days. The problem I have is when anyone from either side wants to choose what version others should use. I heard a good one recently, and when I heard it, I almost got up and left the church service. A member of our church was preaching in the service when he lumped all "modern versions" into the category "perversions" (not my words, just quoting). In his reasoning, if you're reading from anything but the KJV you're in sin and you should stop. It is sad when well-meaning people go so far as to label those who may want to read from another version as being in sin.

 

The "Alexandrian texts are false" hippo won't fly. Apollos, obviously chosen by God to be a mighty preacher, was a Jew from Alexandria. His Scriptural knowledge was great; all he lacked was knowledge of Jesus, which was taught to him by Aquila & Priscilla. His Scriptural knowledge was evidently learned in Alexandria, and we don't see Paul telling him he was wrong.

As for Antioch, we see there was so small band of Jews who wanted Paul dead because they wouldn't accept his preaching of Jesus; they considered him a heretic.

Roger, I responded to A_A's stuff in this thread ONLY because several other KJVOs use the textual thingie as the foundation that in their eyes justifies their myth.

 

Thats ok Roby - this thread is more or less a once off anyway. Giving folks a chance to ramble as long as they abide by the rules.

 

Friend, I went to a kjv only Bible college (although I didn't know it at the time because itwasn't such a big issue then) and all my friends from that period of time want to drop fellowship with me because I am not a KJO. Now I ask each one of them why? I know doctrinely we are the same. I read other versions but come to the same conclusions as my old friends who read only from KJV.

I belive they are drawing the dividing line.

 

Frank Betz: so the number of Scriptures that substanciate the preservation of the Word of God and the LORD keeping His immutable Word intact for the English speaking people is a myth??????

The myth is assigning those Scriptures to any one version when there's NOT ONE HINT OF ANY SUCH ASSIGNMENT TO BE FOUND IN THOSE, OR IN ANY OTHER SCRIPTURES.

 

Frank Betz: so the number of Scriptures that substanciate the preservation of the Word of God and the LORD keeping His immutable Word intact for the English speaking people is a myth??????

The myth is assigning those Scriptures to any one version when there's NOT ONE HINT OF ANY SUCH ASSIGNMENT TO BE FOUND IN THOSE, OR IN ANY OTHER SCRIPTURES.

 

Frank Betz: Nope, Textual proofs substanciate what you call a "myth". It is proven time and time again the corruption of Alexandrian mss.

Wrong, as usual.

All they've proven is that they're a little different among themselves. The Four Gospels, from any set of mss, differ among themselves far more than do the different "families' of mss.


No one has ever said all the A.T are wrong, and Apollos was a great teacher, but not to be followed, but rather Jesus was to be followed through the teachings of Scripture.

Apollos hadn't heard of Jesus until Aquila & Priscilla clued him in.

I did like that you admitted how Apollos was " a great teacher of Scripture, the only thing he lacked was knowing Jesus" or something just like that!! [Laugh]

Were YOU born with the knowledge of Jesus already in your "hard drive"? Didn't someone, sometime, tell you about Him? Just as Paul was before His conversion, Apollos was zealous for the things of GOD, and was operating outta ignorance.(Not stupidity.) faith comes by hearing; hearing, by the word of God.

How could he be considered a scholar and not know Jesus? Wouldn't that suidestep the Holy Ghost? Yes, it would! Heresy!! I say, HERESY!!!

Your erudition continues to amaze me.

 

Frank Betz...Earlier in this thread, I asked some specific questions which you dodged in a now-closed thread. You don't have the excuse HERE that the thread was closed before you could answer.

Let's just deal with one of'em...PLEASE PROVE TO US THAT THE NKJV IS A FALSE VERSION. Just saying "it aint the KJV" won't do, as that's circular reasoning.. Saying, "It sometimes departs from the Masoretic Text" won't do, as that doesn't make any difference. Saying, "It has that symbol of evil, the triquetra, on the cover, same as does a Led Zeppelin album" won't do. Reputable scholars have confirmed that the triquetra was often placed at the ends of letters by early Christians to represent the Holy Trinity. And no KJVO has provided a satisfactory explanation for the smiling MR. SUN found on the covers of several early AV 1611 volumes.

Brushing those excuses aside, let's see some REAL EVIDENCE that the NKJV is false.

I doubt if Psalm or or Carlaimpinge have enough steroids to attempt to answer the questions I asked them, but we'll give'em the benefit of the doubt as per their finding the time.

But YOU, Frank, obviously DO have the time, as you've posted on other subjects, all the while avoiding what I've asked you from your own posts.

Either answer or...you know what the rest of the readership and I will think of YOU......