Why I am KJV only

[Larry]

Why I am KJV only
I have been a member of Baptist Board going on one year and have not posted on this topic (although I have followed it) because I have been there and done that. In all the time I have spent on the Internet I have never seen anyone change his or her mind about Bible Versions and I figured that it was a waste of time.
The other day a man named Chet posted on the Bible Version Board and his post mad it clear to me that I should at least post something on this page so if by chance someone acutely was struggling with what the deal is with Bible Versions, they may see this. I do talk to people about Bible Versions face to face but I'm not very good at doing it on the Internet.

Before I get started a want to say that Ruckman and Riplinger are not representative of all KJVO people and they have serious flaws in their works.
You can go to the following address to read articles on Ruckman, Riplinger and James White that go into detail. http://www.whidbey.net/~dcloud/fbns/examining01.htm

When I got saved I had a huge appetite for the word of God. The preacher of the church I joined used the KJV and said that it was the word of God so that's what I read. He also used the Greek and Hebrew from Stronges so I got a Stronges and before long I to was "digging nuggets from the original languages" I went threw several note books retranslating the KJV. When I say huge appetite, I mean it. I would spend almost every waking hour (that I wasn’t at work) studding.

That went on for about a year when I got a computer and a program with several different translations and "The Greek and Hebrew"… man I was on cloud nine, I could look at how other translators handled words and then come up with what the better reading would be. Then I came upon Matthew 17:21, when I tried to find it in the newer Bibles and it wasn’t there so I checked the Greek, it wasn't there! No explanation just a blank. By that time I had a pretty good start on a library so a started digging. I found out that the verse was not considered to be in the original manuscripts.

Talk about jerking the rug out from under a guy… I felt like it was no use studying the bible anymore… if that was added at a later date what else had been added? After about a week of agonizing over this something strange happened. A man came in the office and said "I was just driving down the interstate (about five miles from my office) and thought I would stop and see if there were any jobs to be had in this area" I told him that we were not hiring and wished him luck. He was about to turn around and leave when the thought hit me that he was a long way from the interstate and maybe the Lord had led him to me so I could give him a Gospel Tract. He looked at and said I have something in the car for you and came back with a tact called "An Eye Opener" handed it to me and left.

The tract told about how modern Bible versions were based upon a different set of manuscripts than the KJV and listed, I think, two hundred verses that were missing words or even the whole verse. For the next two or three years, I studied everything I could find on bible versions, I got on the Internet and found tuns of stuff on Bible Versions and began debating others on the Internet. In that time I have had men with Drs degrees argue me right down to the ground, with quotes from dead men and fifty dollar words, but I always came back to one simple conclusion…the new bibles are translated from manuscripts that are different from the KJV, they say different things and if the new bibles are correct that means that God let all those generations of Christians, that didn’t have the NIV etc, down by not preserving his word.

For me it’s a matter of authority, I may have to dust off an English Dictionary from time to time but most of the time the context of the verse and the way the word is used in other places is all I need to know to understand what it's saying, but I know that what I'm reading is true.

I know that the posts that follow this will slam me and no doubt some will be very convincing but for me it's a faith thing.

 

[Rockfort]

< When I got saved I had a huge appetite for the word of God. The preacher of the church I joined used the KJV and said that it was the word of God so that's what I read. >

That is the gist of whatever the rest of your post is about-- no need to read any further. The infallibility of the Pope; the "true church" restored by Joseph Smith; the KJV as the true, infallible, exclusive Word of God... all of these can be slugged quite deep into a person's mind.

 

[swaimj]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...but for me its a faith thing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When you say this, it sounds as though you are saying that you cannot prove your position but you believe it anyway. Am I misunderstanding you?

 

[Larry]

You see…. it's happening already. You know how the animal rights people seem to hate people rather than love animals? Well that’s the impression I get from the non KJVO people… it's like they hate the KJV more than they love the modern Bibles.

Acutely I loved that church and it pained me deeply when, as a matter of conscience, I took my family out of it because they used any Bible they wanted, the KJV just happened to be the Bible that was Gods word at the time I joined. After I got the rug jerked from under me I asked the pastor about it and he said "theirs no real difference both are the word of God" I just couldn't swallow that. They can not say different things and be the same…either one or both are wrong. I didn’t argue with him, I loved him and had a lot of respect for him, it would be another five years before I left the church (an ordinary Southern Baptist Church). Rockfort makes it sound like I got brain washed or something.


I've said my peace and will leave it at that, if I hang around hear any longer someone will probably convince me that a young maiden giving birth is a sign and you know how us KJVO people love to keep our heads in the sand.

 

[Pastor KevinR]

Larry, I respect your sincerity and humility regarding this subject. My experiences were similiar, but I am a former KJVO, and I've accepted the facts that the KJV is a version of the original languages.Not the only version.If you want to stick with the KJV, go right ahead! It won't lead you astray. On the other hand, there are many of us who appreciate the MV's. I love the updated KJV, AKA NKJV.Although it's not perfect, it faithfully (overall) conveys the original languages. In my view the letter "V" demonstrates that the versions are man's translations of God's Word, hence contain man's errors. This in no way means that God has not preserved His Word, as found in most MV's along with the KJV. I know some do not call the AV, the KJV so much anymore, but prefer the KJB "King James Bible". These are all translations, including the AV1611. May God bless your quest for Truth.

 

[HankD]

&gt;&gt;&gt;…but for me its a faith thing.
When you say this, it sounds as though you are saying that you cannot prove your position but you believe it anyway. Am I misunderstanding you?&gt;&gt;&gt;

Isn't that what faith is all about, to believe something you can't prove?

No one can prove that the Bible comes from God, whether from the original autographs or from copies of the same.

For instance prove to me that the Book of Revelation is the Word of God and not the vivid imagination of its human author. Or prove to me that the Shepherd of Hermas is NOT the Word of God.
You may argue one way or another but in the final analysis faith is the deciding factor.

HankD

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Larry:
When I got saved I had a huge appetite for the word of God. The preacher of the church I joined used the KJV and said that it was the word of God so that's what I read. He also used the Greek and Hebrew from Stronges so I got a Stronges and before long I to was "digging nuggets from the original languages" I went threw several note books retranslating the KJV. When I say huge appetite, I mean it. I would spend almost every waking hour (that I wasn’t at work) studding. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Larry:

Praise God for your belief in the Bible as God's word and your hunger for it. Your story is similar to mine.

We are experiential and traditional creatures. The first version I bought (by accident, actually) and read was the NKJV. (My pastor used the NASB). I fell in love with the literary quality of the NKJV. It was, and is, the word of God for me.

Now I know that all the other versions are also the word of God. But the NKJV has a special place in my heart as my "first Bible". I think this is the true source of onlyism - we love and honor that which is near and dear to us. If my first Bible was an NIV - or a KJV - I'd probably feel that way about that version.

So use and cherish the KJV, but don't disparage the other versions. And textual issues are important. But if you trust the texts of the KJV under conviction, know that the NKJV, MKJV, KJ21, all use the same texts.

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HankD:
Isn't that what faith is all about, to believe something you can't prove?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The object of faith may be unprovable in the absolute, but it is never blind faith or it becomes blind fantasy. For faith to be reasonable, there must be evidence that it is true, and there must be a witness to the truth.

Aside from textual studies, the Bible is its own greatest evidence as to its authority. And the Holy Spirit is the Great Witness to its Actuality.

As the 1689 London Baptist Confession states:

"V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts."

[ July 20, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

[HankD]

Dear Chris,

&gt;&gt;The object of faith may be unprovable in the absolute, but it is never blind faith or it becomes blind fantasy. For faith to be reasonable, there must be evidence that it is true, and there must be a witness to the truth.&gt;&gt;

Evolutionists accuse six day creationists of "blind faith" in the Bible. Its all subjective to the fact that when there is no empirical evidence or evidence to the contrary to the premise in question that faith can be exercised.
If there were absolute and conclusive evidence then there would be no possiblity of faith without which we cannot please God.
The world scoffs at the "blind fantasy" of Christians concerning the "pie in the sky" doctrine of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ or expresses total incredulity concerning the belief of the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ. The root of both beliefs is Scripture only.
We may use terminology such as "scriptural evidence", but we need to back up. It is by faith that we first accept the unprovable premise (by the empirical method) that the Bible is the Word of God. From that faith decision we move on to using the Word of God as our "evidence" upon which to build or further enhance our faith.

KJV Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

HankD

 

[Chet]

Larry, I liked your post. It meant allot to me because I think we are similar. I have to say that I respect you, and respect the fact that you posted this knowing you would get some negative feedback. Thanks,

I can't help but say again that I am so unsettled on this issue. I have said that it is a subject that sometimes comes into my head at night and then I can't sleep. I really wish I could be as settled on this as you are. Chris Temple had a good point that what we are first exposed to usually sticks with us. I was first exposed to KJVO. I memorized all my scripture from there, and studied it as if it were the real Words of God. My
favorite book on this issue is D.A. Waite's book. This man has some expect points. But
he has failed to answer some lingering questions. One of the biggest for me is still the question of why the translators translated different words differently. And there are more, like the way they translated the word "aion" the Greek word for age, but the translated world. Like the word "Hades". I can't help but wonder if it is just a "translation". I have unanswered questions.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>when I got a computer and a program with several different translations and "The
Greek and Hebrew"… man I was on cloud nine,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen to that! We are truly blessed to have such programs! My first computer was a 286.
I bought it just so that I could have the Bible program, the Online Bible, which I don't have anymore. And a Word processor and Quicken. That was my hard drive, no more
could fit hehehe. I now use the P.C Study Bible and think its great! The thing about these programs is you can really study the Greek or Hebrew words quickly, and in every place they exist in Scripture.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>talk about jerking the rug out from under a guy… I felt like it was no use studying the bible anymore… if that was added at a later date what else had been added?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know how you felt And what about all the verses that are not supposed to be
there? Something is wrong with this picture Larry, your so right.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the new bibles are translated from manuscripts that are different from the KJV,
they say different things and if the new bibles are correct that means that God let all those generations of Christians, that didn’t have the NIV etc, down by not preserving his word.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is so true. There are differences. Plain and simple. I am not 100% sure God had
intended for us to only understand His Word if we have a Strong's. But then I think that
perhaps that is God's way of giving us the ability to know God's Word, such as words like "Aion". Or whale like I highly question. (One of my favorite things to study is Creationism, and I think this animal could be a dinosaur.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You see…. it's happening already. You know how the animal rights people seem
to hate people rather than love animals? Well that’s the impression I get from the non
KJVO people… it's like they hate the KJV more than they love the modern Bibles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Larry, I couldn't agree more! While I do acknowledge and appreciate what Chris
Temple said, I usually find the same problem. It seems that those against the
KJVOism's, which do vary as Larry has thankfully pointed out, just really avoid the KJV altogether.

Just for some examples for non-kjv's please explain these differences. Read all of these differences here please, too many to post.
There are differences. One of them is right. I say again, I don't know which one, but like Larry, based on evidence from Theology alone, it seems to point to the fact that the KJV is closest. ??

With love,

Chet

[ July 20, 2001: Message edited by: Chet ]

 

[John Wells]

Chris,

You said, "For faith to be reasonable, there must be evidence that it is true, and there must be a witness to the truth."

I like that. I like that a lot! Thank you for that morsel of truth!

 

[Dr. Bob]

Most of us who are not KJVonlies of any type do not hate the KJV. I know you find that hard to believe, but it is the truth.

What we do is love the Word of God more than loving any single translation of it. Hence we have no special tie to the NRSV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, etc. any more than to the AV1611 (whatever revision you use).

We find the problem is with the other side not ours!!

They are contending that ONLY the KJV is to be used, trusted, reliable, etc -- all others are "satanic" (term used often on this forum).

So we point the finger at the "onlies" and decry their bibliolatry of a "version", a "translation" to the disregard of the inspired Greek/Hebrew.

Don't think we'll ever agree until the KJVonly fad wears out and sanity is restored to the body. It took a whole generation for Baptists to get over the error of the Millerites (adventists) and get back to normal. Probably will take the same to outlive the foolishness of Ruckman, et al.

Hope I live to see the day when the pseudo-ifb cultic type of churches braek totally away or die out. God will not leave His people without the truth.

End of sermon

 

[Barnabas H.]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin: Most of us who are not KJVonlies of any type do not hate the KJV. I know you find that hard to believe, but it is the truth. What we do is love the Word of God more than loving any single translation of it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen to that Dr. Griffin!

 

[Chet]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Most of us who are not KJVonlies of any type do not hate the KJV. I know you find that hard to believe, but it is the truth<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

B. J. Halo, Dr. Bob Griffin et, all

I apologize, it just seemed to be the case. Please forgive.

With love,

Chet

[ July 23, 2001: Message edited by: Chet ]

 

[CorpseNoMore]

Chet, are you findingThis Book helpful?

 

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Most of us who are not KJVonlies of any type do not hate the KJV. I know you find that hard to believe, but it is the truth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely. I myself have no animosity whatsoever towards the KJV or anyone who uses it. After all, I study it myself quite regularly, and I preach from it!

What I can't stand is KJVO pharisaism -- self-righteous people who judge innocent Christians purely because of their translation preference.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hence we have no special tie to the NRSV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, etc. any more than to the AV1611 (whatever revision you use).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's right. I really like the NASB, but that's all it is -- a personal preference. I don't expect others to use it, and I don't think any less of them if they prefer to use the KJV or a different translation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We find the problem is with the other side not ours!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the truth also. MV-bashing KJVO's are definitely the antagonists. My own involvement in this debate is purely one of self-defense, and the defense of other innocent Christians who prefer to read a modern translation. I might add that the KJV itself was a "modern translation" in 1611!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So we point the finger at the "onlies" and decry their bibliolatry of a "version",<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I don't view KJVO's as bibliolaters. To them, the KJV appears to be more of an emotional fetish, which often develops into a paranoid obligation to "defend" the KJV against "attacks" from publishers and users of other (non-KJV) translations.

Many of these KJV "defenders" seem to equate users of modern versions with agnostic skeptics who bash God's Word and trash the doctrine of inerrancy. To these KJVO's, non-KJV people are all misguided reprobates, because God allegedly preserved (inspired) His Word in 1611 English, and anyone who dares to "correct" it is of the devil.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Don't think we'll ever agree until the KJVonly fad wears out and sanity is restored to the body.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I concur with your implication that KJVO fervor is insanity.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Hope I live to see the day when the pseudo-ifb cultic type of churches braek totally away or die out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow. I thought I was the only one who felt that way. You're much braver than I am, Dr. Bob!

TLB

[ July 24, 2001: Message edited by: Terry Burnett ]

[ July 24, 2001: Message edited by: Terry Burnett ]

 

[Chet]

CorpseNoMore I am having a hard time finding it. CBD is not able to ship it untill 09/05/01. I have called some local book stores and none of them have it in stock, one of them said the distributer can't get it for a while. So untill then I will keep looking. I do want to read it.

Thanks,

Chet

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chet:
CorpseNoMore I am having a hard time finding it. CBD is not able to ship it untill 09/05/01. I have called some local book stores and none of them have it in stock, one of them said the distributer can't get it for a while. So untill then I will keep looking. I do want to read it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Chet, you can call Central Seminary at 1-763-417-8250 and ask for the Bookstore. They will mail out a copy the same day. You will need a credit card number to order. Enjoy.

 

[Chet]

Thanks, I ordered it today.

Chet

 

[Barnabas H.]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Larry: When I got saved I had a huge appetite for the word of God. The preacher of the church I joined used the KJV and said that it was the word of God so that's what I read.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same here Larry! It is a personal preference that I read my KJV Bible daily. A missionary friend of mine gave a pocket Bible to me (KJV) before coming to the States. As soon as I learned English I started to read it. Memorized Bible verses from it. I grew up on the KJV of the Bible, read and study it daily for the past 40 years, and I would find it strange to switch to an other translation now.

But all it is, a preference my dear. And if you maintain that it is superior to any other Bible translation, then I have to disappoint you because that could be the farthest from the truth! For you see, I used to read a "Károlyi" (Hungarian) translation before I hooked on the KJV, and I can tell that there was nothing wrong with the Károlyi Bible. In fact, it was, in many respect, superior to the KJV, for it was translated in the mid fifteen hundreds - way before the 1611 English Bible.