Who here is KJB Only?

[GodisgraciousR325]

List resasons; KJB onlyist answer.

 

[xlsdraw]

Very few. Part of the originator's admitted purpose in starting this forum was to combat KJVO. They even call it an ism.

Hence, you will find much opposition here. I choose to not waste my time engaging them anymore, as do some others.

 

[GodisgraciousR325]

Very few. Part of the originator's admitted purpose in starting this forum was to combat KJVO. They even call it an ism.

Hence, you will find much opposition here. I choose to not waste my time engaging them anymore, as do some others.

Thanks for replying and what is thy stance on this issue. KJB only?

 

[xlsdraw]

Thanks for replying and what is thy stance on this issue. KJB only?

2 Timothy 2:23.

I stick with the KJV, just like my grandfather.

You will also find virtually zero consensus on just about anything here.

Lots of Reformed and Amills here.

Personally, I am pre-trib rapture, and pre-Millennial fundamentalist Baptist.

 

[GodisgraciousR325]

2 Timothy 2:23.

I stick with the KJV, just like my grandfather.

You will also find virtually zero consensus on just about anything here.

Lots of Reformed and Amills here.

Personally, I am pre-trib rapture, and pre-Millennial fundamentalist Baptist.

Interesting, what is opinon on dispesnational salvation and what is the gospel? Also, about the Godhead.

 

[xlsdraw]

Interesting, what is opinon on dispesnational salvation and what is the gospel? Also, about the Godhead.

We are in the Age of Grace, which is this dispensation. The Tribulation Period will be a signs and faith dispensation. As Jesus said, the Jews require a sign. The Antichrist and False Prophet will perform signs as will God's Two Witnesses. The greatest signs being the resurrection and ascension of the Two Witnesses.

The gospel of course is salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ.

The Godhead is: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Like I said, I share the faith of my grandfather. I have nothing whatsoever in modernism.

 

[GodisgraciousR325]

Do believe the tribulation perid will be faith alone or works as well? ?

Yes, the Godhead is that, but three persons or one person?

 

[xlsdraw]

Do believe the tribulation perid will be faith alone or works as well? ?

Yes, the Godhead is that, but three persons or one person?

The Tribulation Period will be Faith plus Signs. Exactly as the Apostles were saved by faith plus signs. In this current dispensation, it is by faith without the signs.

Three persons.

 

[Scarlett O.]

List resasons; KJB onlyist answer.

This site does not hold a lot of King James Onlyist, but boy are those few adamant about it!!

I was raised on the King James as back in the day, that's pretty much all there was. I do not read it anymore. I believe it is still an adequate Bible and will still get the job done. If people want to use that as their primary or ONLY Bible, I say read it in peace and let it change your life. But don't brow beat others if they don't agree with you.

The simple reason that I don't use it to read, study, or teach from is because English has changed GREATLY since 1611 and yes, even 1769. English has changed to the point that the King James can be difficult to read for many and even the King James translators left 8,000 marginal notes in the 1611 stating that they weren't sure exactly how to translate some words.

Many people think that the King James is Old English. It isn't. The King James is from the early-ish days of modern English.

ENGLISH CHANGES!!

[1] Here is John 3:16 from the true Old English from "about" 1000 years ago. “God lufede middan-eard swa þæt he sealde hys akennedan sune þæt nan ne for-wurðe þe on hine ge-lefð. Ac habbe þt eche lyf.” I don't know about you, but I can't read that.

[2] Here is John 3:16 from about 640 years ago in the Wycliffe New Testament. "For God louede so the world, that he yaf his `oon bigetun sone, that ech man that bileueth in him perische not, but haue euerlastynge lijf.

[3] Lastly, here it is from 1599 in the wonderful Geneva translation. "For God so loveth the world, that he hath given his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life." There. That is at least better.

As better and better for modern English speakers this is, English has changed to the point where newer and GOOD and COMPETENT translations are needed and if the LORD does not return soon as we think, then future English speakers will even need newer translations.

Let me give one final example and reason. I have a Bible app on my phone that gives me a verse-of-the-day. It gives it in the King James. I read it as soon as I open my eyes and meditate on it before I get out of bed. A while back, it gave Romans 12:9. I love Romans and just recently taught the whole book. Here is Romans 12:9.

"Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good."​

Now, I am educated. Very. I have three college degrees. And I have been teaching the Bible to children, teenagers, community Bible studies, my peers, and women's groups for 40 years. I know what "abhor" and "cleave" mean. But because I steadily read the ESV and NIV and a few others, I couldn't remember what dissimulation means. That morning, I had to Google a dictionary site and look up the word before I could understand what the verse meant and meditate.

I shouldn't have to DO that. If I were teaching children, teens, or a generic community class, I would have to define all three underlined words for many. My pastor is King James HIGHLY preferred and quite frequently stops and defines words for the congregation. That's evidence to me that English changes and newer [GOOD] versions are necessary.

Just one more....

2 Corinthians 6:11-13 = "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged."

Brothers.....I rest my case. As a teacher, reader, learner, and one who RESEARCHES translations and their histories, please stop lying to yourself and saying that YOU understand all of this and that only the heathen and ignorant people read modern translations. There are a host of more examples.

If the King James is your translation - fine. Read it. In peace. But don't tell me that it's the ONLY one I can read.

 

[GodisgraciousR325]

This site does not hold a lot of King James Onlyist, but boy are those few adamant about it!!

I was raised on the King James as back in the day, that's pretty much all there was. I do not read it anymore. I believe it is still an adequate Bible and will still get the job done. If people want to use that as their primary or ONLY Bible, I say read it in peace and let it change your life. But don't brow beat others if they don't agree with you.

The simple reason that I don't use it to read, study, or teach from is because English has changed GREATLY since 1611 and yes, even 1769. English has changed to the point that the King James can be difficult to read for many and even the King James translators left 8,000 marginal notes in the 1611 stating that they weren't sure exactly how to translate some words.

Many people think that the King James is Old English. It isn't. The King James is from the early-ish days of modern English.

ENGLISH CHANGES!!

[1] Here is John 3:16 from the true Old English from "about" 1000 years ago. “God lufede middan-eard swa þæt he sealde hys akennedan sune þæt nan ne for-wurðe þe on hine ge-lefð. Ac habbe þt eche lyf.” I don't know about you, but I can't read that.

[2] Here is John 3:16 from about 640 years ago in the Wycliffe New Testament. "For God louede so the world, that he yaf his `oon bigetun sone, that ech man that bileueth in him perische not, but haue euerlastynge lijf.

[3] Lastly, here it is from 1599 in the wonderful Geneva translation. "For God so loveth the world, that he hath given his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life." There. That is at least better.

As better and better for modern English speakers this is, English has changed to the point where newer and GOOD and COMPETENT translations are needed and if the LORD does not return soon as we think, then future English speakers will even need newer translations.

Let me give one final example and reason. I have a Bible app on my phone that gives me a verse-of-the-day. It gives it in the King James. I read it as soon as I open my eyes and meditate on it before I get out of bed. A while back, it gave Romans 12:9. I love Romans and just recently taught the whole book. Here is Romans 12:9.

"Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good."​

Now, I am educated. Very. I have three college degrees. And I have been teaching the Bible to children, teenagers, community Bible studies, my peers, and women's groups for 40 years. I know what "abhor" and "cleave" mean. But because I steadily read the ESV and NIV and a few others, I couldn't remember what dissimulation means. That morning, I had to Google a dictionary site and look up the word before I could understand what the verse meant and meditate.

I shouldn't have to DO that. If I were teaching children, teens, or a generic community class, I would have to define all three underlined words for many. My pastor is King James HIGHLY preferred and quite frequently stops and defines words for the congregation. That's evidence to me that English changes and newer [GOOD] versions are necessary.

Just one more....

2 Corinthians 6:11-13 = "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged."

Brothers.....I rest my case. As a teacher, reader, learner, and one who RESEARCHES translations and their histories, please stop lying to yourself and saying that YOU understand all of this and that only the heathen and ignorant people read modern translations. There are a host of more examples.

If the King James is your translation - fine. Read it. In peace. But don't tell me that it's the ONLY one I can read.

Thanks for replying, yes, I do have to understand that I can`t force someone to read something, I can just give my opinion.

All those words I am pretty sure can be defined by the Bible itself, and I have no issue with those words. Those are Biblical words, we shouldn`t secularize the Bible.

I have no issue with those verses, also, some of these English words have a deeper meaning, also looking at dictionary, that would be the same as looking for a Lexicon to find the meaning.

Anyways, feel free to read any version.