Why AKJV only?

[BrianT]

Alexandra, I'm sorry you are feeling like people are trying to intimidate you. People are wrong to do this, and I apologize if I have done this myself.

Please people, let's stick to the issues raised, and minimize the comments about someone's motivation, intellect, attitude, etc. "The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves."

Yes, this is sometimes hard when you address the same argument for the 387th time. But for some people, this is fairly new, and maybe they've never heard the answer before, or maybe they don't understand it yet.

 

[Ransom]

Askjo said:

Originally posted by Ransom:
The NIV deny the deity of Christ? It is the English translation that is clearest on the deity of Christ.

Clearest? Oh Nooooooooo!

Well, you've certainly convinced me of the error of my thinking. I shall burn my NIV forthwith. Who wants to join me?

 

[Alexandra Spears]

I still stand by the AKJV being the inerrant Word of God. I've heard all the "proof" that it's been shot down and that "proof" is not proof at all.

BTW I have it set to posts within the last 30 days.

It seems funny that the AKJV translators were hunted down and no one cares about the modern versions. Tyndale was martyred for translating the AKJV. Catholics went after King James and his people for the same reason. That right there should raise a red flag.

You know, the NIV says to mark those who cause division. The AKJV says to mark those who cause division AMONG THE BRETHREN. We are not to fellowship with those who are of darkness, but the NIV refutes that with that verse!

NIV says don't get angry. AKJV--don't get angry WITHOUT CAUSE. (But it doesn't advocate taking revenge.)

Did you know that homosexuals were involved in the NIV translation? That's why you won't see it condemning "sodomites" but rather "temple prostitutes."

If telling the truth is arrogant...well, call me arrogant then. I don't just blindly follow something. I remember back when I was 12-13, I had the NKJV (New Testament) on tape. I listened to it while reading the AKJV, thinking they were the same. I remember getting lost--like hey! Where are you at! It seemed to skip over some things, I don't remember 17 years later....

So how can you say the modern versions are inerrant? They're not.

Reminds me of the analogy of a marching band where only ONE was in step...it can happen! Truth is not decided by a majority vote.

 

[Ransom]

Alexandra Spears asked:

Who's ready to take the NIV challenge?

Not me. You haven't dealt with your last slanderous accusation against the NIV, that it denies the deity of Christ.

After you have defended that false accusation adequately, then we will be ready to deal with your next false accusation.

You can tell there is no substance to the KJV-only system by the way they throw out myriads of accusations in the hopes that sooner or later one of them will "stick."

 

[Bro. Curtis]

People were killed back then for having the original Hebrew, Aramic, and Greek texts, also. Anyone outside the church office who read the Bible was hunted. Not just the KJV translators.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Alexandra Spears:
You know, the NIV says to mark those who cause division. The AKJV says to mark those who cause division AMONG THE BRETHREN. We are not to fellowship with those who are of darkness, but the NIV refutes that with that verse!

Well, let's look and see what the truth is. The following quote is straight from the NIV:

2 Corinthians 6:14 - 7:1 14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." 17 "Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you." 18 "I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty." NIV 2 Corinthians 7:1 Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.

So it appears that the NIV does command separation from darkness. Once again, you have said something that simply is not true.

But let's examine another one of your statements in this same paragraph. You said: The AKJV says to mark those who cause division AMONG THE BRETHREN. I have taken the liberty of actually quoting the KJV and NIV at a relevant passage.

KJV Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

NIV Romans 16:17 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.

Notice how neither says anything about these divisions being "among the brethren." Notice the standard is not "among the brethren" but "contrary to the teaching with you have learned." In this respect, you have brought upon yourself the need for marking. You are indeed teaching contrary to the doctrine that has been revealed in the word of God and the doctrine that has been passed down for 2 millenia.

NIV says don't get angry. AKJV--don't get angry WITHOUT CAUSE. (But it doesn't advocate taking revenge.)

Both the KJV and NIV command us to get angry (Eph 4). There is an appropriate place for anger (a cause) that does not involve sin. This is clear in teh NIV. You have once again simply said something that is not true.

Did you know that homosexuals were involved in the NIV translation? That's why you won't see it condemning "sodomites" but rather "temple prostitutes."

This is yet another false statement. There was a homosexual who was a English style consultant. Ken Barker (the executive editor of the NIV) has addressed this issue and shown your charge to be inappropriate and a misrepresentation of hte truth. Doing your homework (studying like those Bereans you mentioned) would have cleared this up before you posted it.

So how can you say the modern versions are inerrant? They're not.

They are inerrant, just as the KJV is inerrant.

Reminds me of the analogy of a marching band where only ONE was in step...it can happen! Truth is not decided by a majority vote.

Then why do you follow the TR which is based on teh Majority text type??? Why do you argue that the English version with the majority of years is the only correct one??? It seems your whole argument is inconsistent.

Again, a simple study of the relevant facts would put to rest all of these false accusations and attacks against the word of God.

 

[Ransom]

Alexandra Spears produced the following factoid:

It seems funny that the AKJV translators were hunted down

Is it a historical fact that the translators of the KJV were "hunted down"? Can Alexandra or anyone else provide documented evidence that any members of the six translation committees that produced the Authorized Version were persecuted for their work?

Tyndale was martyred for translating the AKJV.

Tyndale was martyred in 1536, nearly 70 years before anyone had the idea for the AV. Learn some history. Real history, that is, not the revisionist kind touted by KJV-onlyists.

 

[Alexandra Spears]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Alexandra Spears asked:

Who's ready to take the NIV challenge?

Not me. You haven't dealt with your last slanderous accusation against the NIV, that it denies the deity of Christ.

After you have defended that false accusation adequately, then we will be ready to deal with your next false accusation.

You can tell there is no substance to the KJV-only system by the way they throw out myriads of accusations in the hopes that sooner or later one of them will "stick."

How about the NIV referring to Joseph as Jesus' father? When they're at a festival and they're looking around for 12-year-old Jesus? That denies the virgin birth.

Looking down at my notes, I meant the NASV, as seen in this link here: NASV Note that Scriptures are used to back it up.

You want more proof? Grab a pop and sit down for an hour. Just because I provide links, btw, does not mean I don't think for myself. You're not born with info, you acquire it.

NIV says no Calvary

NIV says Jesus in danger of the judgment

Why isn't the word "sodomite" in the NIV?

Former NIV reader, now reads KJV

VARIOUS CONTRADICTIONS AND OMISSIONS--Must Read!

I'd read the last one. Feel free to grab an AKJV and any of the versions listed and see for yourself--I invite you to.

 

[Ransom]

Alexandra Spears said:

How about the NIV referring to Joseph as Jesus' father?

How about it? Joseph was the husband of Jesus' mother and his male guardian. In every legal and social sense, if not biological, he was Jesus' father. The relationship between them was that of father and son. It is normal and natural to refer to such a person as "father."

When they're at a festival and they're looking around for 12-year-old Jesus? That denies the virgin birth.

The virgin birth that the same author affirms only a few sentences previously? Don't insult my intelligence.

Looking down at my notes, I meant the NASV

I am more familiar with the NASB than the NIV, and so I know all the more that you are dealing in falsehoods.

 

[Alexandra Spears]

Well if someone is new to Christianity and reads the verse calling Joseph Jesus' father, they are going to get the wrong impression, aren't they?

You're dealing in falsehoods, not I. Read the links I supplied--especially the last one.

 

[Ransom]

Alexandra Spears said:

Well if someone is new to Christianity and reads the verse calling Joseph Jesus' father, they are going to get the wrong impression, aren't they?

Only if you assume they are stupid, which it appears you are doing.

Normal people read books in the normal fashion: begin at the beginning and contine until you reach the end, then stop.

 

[Alexandra Spears]

Not stupid, confused...like waitaminnit, it says here that he was born of a virgin, now it says Joseph was His father? Contradiction. And we wonder why people complain the Bible contradicts itself....

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Alexandra Spears:
Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the text).

A translation of the Bible is not the final authority. Not the NIV, not the KJV. If one asserts that a specific version is the final authority, then that makes a specific version authoritative over the texts they were translated from, which is unbiblical, herretical, and idolatrous.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by Alexandra Spears:
Not stupid, confused...like waitaminnit, it says here that he was born of a virgin, now it says Joseph was His father? Contradiction. And we wonder why people complain the Bible contradicts itself....

still not a good reason to dumb down God's Word.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Alexandra Spears:
How about the NIV referring to Joseph as Jesus' father? When they're at a festival and they're looking around for 12-year-old Jesus? That denies the virgin birth.

Obviously not much thought went into this before you posted it. Luke 2:48 in the KJV denies the virgin birth when Mary calls Joseph Jesus's father. Understanding the realities of procreation, I would think Mary would certainly know whether or not Joseph was the father. Believing in the virgin birth in no way prevented Mary from calling Joseph his "father." Here is a yet another place where simple study would have prevented such a mistake.

But let's continue through this list.

NIV says no Calvary

The Greek word here translated Calvary is one that will sound familiar to you if you say it outloud The word is "kranion." The English word is "cranium." It means skull. What the KJV was get dynamic on us. Instead of translating the word for what it really is (as it did in the three other uses of it (Matt 27:33; Mark 15:22; John 19:17), they gave another word. This shows inconsistency on teh part of the AV translators. THe word means "skull" and should have been translated as "skull."

qb]NIV says Jesus in danger of the judgment

[/qb]The Bible does not say that angry people are in danger of judgment. Eph 4 makes it clear that it is possible to be angry without sin. Additionally, the NIV testifies explicitly to the sinlessness of Christ. Therefore, reading the NIV removes all doubt about whehter Christ is in danger of judgment.

Why isn't the word "sodomite" in the NIV?

Because the idea of the word used in the Bible is the idea of temple prostitute. The NIV clealry condemns homosexuality (Lev 18; Rom 1; 1 Cor 6:9-10; etc.)

]Former NIV reader, now reads KJV

Many NIV readers are former KJV readers, myself included. I grew up on teh KJV and was saved from it. When I began reading the NIV and the NASB, the Bible came alive all over again. The clarity of truth and doctrine was refreshing. So to cite some former NIV reader who was mislead by false statements as proof of anything is tenuous at best.

VARIOUS CONTRADICTIONS AND OMISSIONS--Must Read!

These are various contradictions and additions that were created by the KJV. The problem here is a textual one. This chart misleads many without bothering to be honest enough to explain why these differences are there. Yet even with all these issues, there is not one doctrine changed or perverted.

Feel free to grab an AKJV and any of the versions listed and see for yourself--I invite you to.

I have ... and beyond that, I studied to see the truth. Therefore, I rejected your position because it is not in line with what Scripture teaches.

 

[Alexandra Spears]

Well, you just pointed out how those new versions contradict themselves. Thanks.

I have a book called "Defending the King James Bible," by Paster D. A. Waite.

You know, if you say the KJV adds to...you're looking at it from the wrong side. The modern versions DELETE, so of course it seems like the KJV adds to.

The KJV is the only inerrant Bible for four reasons:

Superior TEXTS
Superior TRANSLATORS
Superior TECHNIQUE
Superior THEOLOGY

You know I have to laugh at people who say I'm committing the "heresy" of "biblioatry." That's like someone saying I'm a heretic for saying Christ is the ONLY way to the Father, instead of people like Billy Graham and Mother Theresa who say there are numerous ways.

[ July 20, 2003, 10:06 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Alexandra Spears:
You know, if you say the KJV adds to...you're looking at it from the wrong side. The modern versions DELETE, so of course it seems like the KJV adds to.

Ah, so you do recognize the subjective relativity of starting with either the KJV or the NIV to determine if the other has "added" or "deleted". The solution is to start with *neither*, but instead compare *both* to the manuscript evidence.

For example, consider the rebuttal "quiz" I posted in response to your "NIV challenge". Direct question: what do you do with the questions I posted? How do you answer them? Why don't they count?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Alexandra Spears:
You know, trying to intimidate and doing the name-calling bit when someone tells you something you CANNOT disprove is pretty infantile IMO.

I've actually had one such person dare to PM me and call me arrogant. What is so arrogant about telling the truth? I'm sorry some of you won't listen to simple FACT. I'm sorry you won't take the attitude the Bereans had and actually take the time to research things. Instead some of you have to resort to name-calling and half-truths.

I really feel sorry for you.

It seems funny that the AKJV translators were hunted down and no one cares about the modern versions. Tyndale was martyred for translating the AKJV. Catholics went after King James and his people for the same reason. That right there should raise a red flag.

Name one of the translators that were hunted down for translating the KJV. The truth is that they weren't but if you are honest enough to go through the exercise of researching the evidence, you might find out something about the credibility of your sources.

As stated before, Tyndale died well before the KJV was conceived. Yet you state above that you are being intimidated and called names simply for telling the truth. How does this line up with claiming Tyndale for a martyred KJV translator?

If I am not mistaken, King James I considered reconciling with the RCC until persuaded not to do so for political, not doctrinal, issues. In fact, Bishop Andrewes who supervised the KJV translating committees leaned toward Catholic, not protestant, doctrines. In one sermon, he preached that communion was both sacrament and sacrifice.

As to your claim that we cannot disprove what you are posting, let's deal with one at a time and you will see that we indeed can. Your tactic so far has been evasion by jumping from one false statement to another without ever dealing with the rebuttals on any issue.

Like the paragraph of yours above dealing with a snippet of history- it is just plain false. I doubt you're lying but someone in the chain of disinformation that ended with you lied about this history.

Think about it for just a moment or two to get started. The first English settlers arrived in America in the early 1600's, right? Why did they come here? Who were they running from and why? If King James and the leaders of the Church of England who were responsible for the KJV were icons of godliness, what did the early colonists have to fear in England? Would you uproot your family knowing that you would never see home, friends, and relatives again without a very good reason?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Alexandra Spears:
One Bible is inerrant. The rest aren't. How hard is that to understand? Proclaiming the truth doesn't make me a heretic or guilty of "bibliolatry."

Yes, one Bible is inerrant. But the KJV is not the Bible, it's a translations of the Bible. No translation is inerrant in comparison to the texts from which they came.

If only one version of the Bible were really inerrant, then please explain the existence of non- English versions.

That's like calling someone against homosexuality a "homophobe."

Or someone who believes that only the original texts are perfect a version-phobe?

One huge mistake supporters of the modern versions make is not believing Satan would mess with the Word of God. He's fooled people into accepting inferior texts.

The KJV was once a modern version. It still contained and still contains translational errors.

Satan is the author of lies and believe you me he's using people to attack the KJV!

I see little attack of the KJV. However, I see a great amount of attach on so-called "modern versions". I assume that "modern version" means any version that's not the KJV. I guess the Gutenberg is a modern version, then, as would be my mothers' Dutch pulpit Bible which was printed in the late 1690's.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Well, as usual Alexandria, a KJVonlyist, has conveniently ignored a question. Pastor Larry ask about Luke 2:48. To make it easy, let me quote the verse for you:

Luke 2:48
48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
(KJV)

Pastor Larry says, "Luke 2:48 in the KJV denies the virgin birth when Mary calls Joseph Jesus's father."

Alexandria, why don't you answer this question? Dop you have an answer, or are you waiting for one of your "KJVonly teachers" to give you an answer?