Why so much against KJB-only?

[robycop3]

Precepts: "That's right! robycop3 "preach-it!" but I don't know what it is you're preaching from, but for sure it's not the Bible."

PROOF, please?


"So Ed says "preach-it!", but that's only because he's not sure what the Bible is either, so you can get away with that with him. I mean, he declares all these "KJV's" but doesn't even have the 1762 Cambridge."

And you do? They're all different. Which is the "official" edition?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Precepts:
As by what yall call KJVO logic, NO. The nkjv is not the "real Bible" Falwell and his bunch can't be sure to tell the diference between God and the wicked in Job 24:22 and lucifer and Christ in II Peter 1:19.

Interesting. The greatest
IFB in the word, the most successful IFB
in the world, Brother Jerry Falwell gets
dissed. As near as i can tell IFB Jerry Falwell
is dissed because he is successful.
I'm beginning to see a pattern:

1. KJVOnlyism
2. distain of education
3. distain of success.

Woe unto you, Brother Precepts,
if you win this debate you are [slur snipped]. Fortunately, you are loosing

[ February 21, 2004, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by Precepts:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />ANY doctrine ABOUT Scripture MUST BE SUPPORTED by Scripture, and KJVO has absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT! Indeed, Scripture points AWAY from Onlyism, with JESUS HIMSELF reading from another version in Luke 4.

Cranston, yall are making this up about Jesus supposedly reading form another version. That is really a far stretch of even your imagination, and never knew the universe could stretch that far! Yall have concocted that junk about Luke 4:18 as a means to try and trip people up by saying "it doesn't appear in Isaiah 61:1 like that, so Jesus approved of other versions" Hah! </font>[/QUOTE]First, you must not read your KJV very much, or you're actually using the King George Version instead. It isn't concocted-it's right there in every copy of the KJV I've ever read.

Second, I have PROVEN my assertion from Scripture itself-something we've repeatedly asked the KJVOs to do and they haven't done.

Shoot, you cats can't even explain by whose authority we should all be KJVOs. Now, how about getting back to the basic FACT that there's NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVOism?

 

[Ed Edwards]

I think we can all safely ignore
definining KJVO

Definition of KJVO

By that scale i'm a KJVO#1

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Precepts:
As by what yall call KJVO logic, NO. The nkjv is not the "real Bible" Falwell and his bunch can't be sure to tell the diference between God and the wicked in Job 24:22 and lucifer and Christ in II Peter 1:19.

Interesting. The greatest
IFB in the word, the most successful IFB
in the world, Brother Jerry Falwell gets
dissed. As near as i can tell IFB Jerry Falwell
is dissed because he is successful.
I'm beginning to see a pattern:

1. KJVOnlyism
2. distain of education
3. distain of success.

Woe unto you, Brother Precepts,
if you win this debate you [slur snipped] Fortunately, you are loosing

</font>[/QUOTE]Then why did you call me "brother"?

Should I report your post for calling a child of the devil? I say things satiracly and now you go and get serious. Hmmm?

I'm not against education, just against changing the meaning of God's Word.

I'm not against success, but I don't measure success by man's standards.

You wish "woe" unto me? Fine, but the LORD is my rereward.

Thanks for the SLURR, I'll just count it as "love" and move on.

I won't call you brother anymore, [snipped].

[ February 21, 2004, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

 

[rsr]

What does Falwell have to do with this?

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

I am absolutely shocked and very upset that a couple people on these posts have accused Precepts, and those who stand for the preserved word of God contained in the KJV, to be of the devil!!! Do you know that the Pharisees and Scribes accused Jesus Christ of being beezlebub? OR doesn't your translation tell you this? Have they also left this out? WE come here warning you of the errors and corruptions that have been done to God's holy and pure word, for your benefit because we love our fellow bretheren in the Lord, and we love God's pure word of truth, and then you accuse us of being of the devil? We have NEVER EVER, nor will ever say the same things of you, for if one is saved in Christ Jesus the Lord genuinely, they are of the same body, and are of Christ's and NOT THE DEVIL.

To say we are personally attacking the word of God and then accusing us of helping to weaken the little children is also very shocking to me, and is also a false accusation, Pastor Larry. You may not be able to see that the Recieved Texts, which are God's preserved words, throughout the church history, are God's very words, and that if the minority accounts, disagree with the majority of texts that agree, throughout the many regions, it is logical, that God's word be the SAME in all manuscripts which is the majority agreement, rather than God's word be the MINORITY agreement and stagnent for many years. Go ahead, and read the versions that rely upon the Aleph, and B, which HAVE BEEN ALTERED by Westcott and Hort, who WERE HERETICS, and rely on their works for your walk with the Lord. Can a corrupt tree bringeth forth good fruit? A little leaven, leaveneth the whole lump of dough.

One other thing, if you believe that God would hide or keep his word which he openly gave to all, from those he loves to become lost or stagnant for years, and then all of a sudden bring it to this modern world, I feel very sorry for you and I will earnestly pray for you. Jesus Christ gave the last book of the Bible with John on the island of Patmos around the year 95 A.D. and Jesus told John not to close up the book. God has preserved his word, and ALL OF IT from the day the church started, until this day today, and NONE OF IT HAS BEEN LOST OR HIDDEN, ONLY TO BE REVEALED AGAIN TODAY. My dear brothers, you are being decieved.

If you want quotes from these men Westcott and Hort, who were responsible for the underlying greek texts of the New Testament in the modern versions, you can find information about this at the sitE AV Publications. They offer a book with the writings of these men. Of course, you won't take the time, nor swallow your pride to even go to this website will you? You have already made up your minds to believe the lies (which you think is the truth), rather than the truth - factual evidence.

love in Jesus Christ OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR,
michelle

 

[GrannyGumbo]

love in Jesus Christ OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR,
michelle

"I'm so very thankful to see you're still here. God Bless!"

 

[Pastor Larry]

I am absolutely shocked and very upset that a couple people on these posts have accused Precepts, and those who stand for the preserved word of God contained in the KJV, to be of the devil!!!

Are you equally shocked and upset by yourself and others who make the same accusations against those of us who stand for the preserved word of God in the NIV and the NASB? You should be … or you are inconsistent. These accusations have been made many times. You have attacked God’s word by attacking the NIV and the NASB. That is simply wrong. You should not stoop to such levels.

WE come here warning you of the errors and corruptions that have been done to God's holy and pure word, for your benefit because we love our fellow bretheren in the Lord, and we love God's pure word of truth, and then you accuse us of being of the devil?

Your warnings are based on false teaching. That is what we have been showing you time and time again, day in and day out, using the word of God as our basis. You quote other men as the proof of your position. You parrot the teaching of men. We have used the word of God. We have begged you to show us where God said what you say. Your side has constantly failed for obvious reasons … God never said to believe what you say we should believe.

We have NEVER EVER, nor will ever say the same things of you

You are kidding yourself if you think this is true. These accusations have been thrown out many times.

To say we are personally attacking the word of God and then accusing us of helping to weaken the little children is also very shocking to me, and is also a false accusation, Pastor Larry.

You are attacking the word of God and misleading people. I am sorry that is “very shocking” to you. But the truth is the truth. I wish you weren’t doing it. I wish you loved the word of God more than your philosophies and ideas. But it doesn’t appear that you do. I realize these are strong words, but they are no stronger than what you are using against us. I am tired of the absolute disrespect and even outright hatred shown for God’s word. There are some in here who have made it their mission to attack and try to disprove it. In every single case, those charges have been shown to be false. All you need to do is study the actual evidence.

You may not be able to see that the Recieved Texts, which are God's preserved words, throughout the church history, are God's very words, and that if the minority accounts, disagree with the majority of texts that agree, throughout the many regions, it is logical, that God's word be the SAME in all manuscripts which is the majority agreement, rather than God's word be the MINORITY agreement and stagnent for many years.

But as I pointed out, the “majority text” disagrees with itself in many many places. Even today, there are two published Majority Texts (Hodges/Farstad and Robinson/Pierpont). They are both different. Beyond that, the majority text disagrees with the KJV.

God’s words are in substantial agreement in 100% of the manuscripts. There are some variations in all manuscripts. There are not two that match. It cannot be proven that the received text only was God’s preserved word though all history. Prior to the 10th century, the majority text was in the minority, based on the evidence we have today. Unfortunately, your teaching in this area is sorely lacking.

Go ahead, and read the versions that rely upon the Aleph, and B, which HAVE BEEN ALTERED by Westcott and Hort, who WERE HERETICS, and rely on their works for your walk with the Lord. Can a corrupt tree bringeth forth good fruit? A little leaven, leaveneth the whole lump of dough.

I have seen many more people saved from the MVs than I have from the KJV. Tomorrow morning I will preach on the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ from Hebrews 1, using the NASB as my text. You will hear a very clear, doctrinally correct sermon, and never one time will I refer to the KJV. Why? Because I don’t need to. The NASB clearly teaches the doctrine of Christ. I have read these versions. In fact, I got a big blessing and encouragement this morning from the story of Joseph in the NASB. What a clear reminder to have integrity and to stand no matter the personal cost.

One other thing, if you believe that God would hide or keep his word which he openly gave to all, from those he loves to become lost or stagnant for years, and then all of a sudden bring it to this modern world, I feel very sorry for you and I will earnestly pray for you.

No need to pray for me since I don’t believe that.

God has preserved his word, and ALL OF IT from the day the church started, until this day today, and NONE OF IT HAS BEEN LOST OR HIDDEN, ONLY TO BE REVEALED AGAIN TODAY. My dear brothers, you are being decieved.

It is you who are being deceived. God’s word has been hidden at certain times in history, most notably in the OT monarchy where it was hidden away in the temple for years.

If you want quotes from these men Westcott and Hort, who were responsible for the underlying greek texts of the New Testament in the modern versions, you can find information about this at the sitE AV Publications. They offer a book with the writings of these men. Of course, you won't take the time, nor swallow your pride to even go to this website will you? You have already made up your minds to believe the lies (which you think is the truth), rather than the truth - factual evidence.

Actually, I have made up my mind to believe the truth. I have seen that site before. You think that is new stuff?? Those types of accusations have been shown to be incorrect, based on twisting the words of these men. Furthermore they have been shown to be irrelevant.

Have you read these men’s works for themselves?? If you have, then you would get a very different picture from what these types of sites say. Brian T, on this board, is collecting them and has used their words to show the lies that people are telling about them.

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Pastor Larry, which one of these do you believe? It can't be both, so please tell me, which one of these quotes is it that you believe?

Michelle:
One other thing, if you believe that God would hide or keep his word which he openly gave to all, from those he loves to become lost or stagnant for years, and then all of a sudden bring it to this modern world, I feel very sorry for you and I will earnestly pray for you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pastor Larry:

No need to pray for me since I don’t believe that.


quote:Michelle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God has preserved his word, and ALL OF IT from the day the church started, until this day today, and NONE OF IT HAS BEEN LOST OR HIDDEN, ONLY TO BE REVEALED AGAIN TODAY. My dear brothers, you are being decieved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pastor Larry:

It is you who are being deceived. God’s word has been hidden at certain times in history, most notably in the OT monarchy where it was hidden away in the temple for years.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Hello Granny! It always a pleasure to see you still posting also. May the Lord bless you richly.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Pastor Larry]

Michelle,

what are the two quotes that you want me to compare??? What I believe is this: God inspired his word over a period 1500 years, ending 2000 years ago. Since 1500 BC, God's word has not always been available to man (cf. the monarchy when the Law was hidden away). In church history, God's word has been available in different areas at all times, but it has not always been completely available at all times in all places. Some places, even today, only have part of God's word. That is not problemmatic in the least. God did not promise that his word would always be extant or even complete for that matter.

The discovery of new manuscripts did not change anything in the texts. It only clarified and showed some places where the text had been miscopied over the years. What is remarkable is that manuscript hidden for over 1600 years were essentially the same as those extant. That is a remarkable testimony to God's preserving providence. But providence was not miraculous. God did not prevent hand copiests from making errors in copying. They did make errors. That is clear from comparing manuscripts. AS I said, there are no two manuscripts that match completely. But in those non-matching manuscripts, there is absolute identity of doctrine, which is why we can truthfully say that no doctrine has ever been affected by the manuscript evidence.

I suspect that a great deal of your confusion about this is due to only hearing one side of the argument and not getting a complete look at the facts. I hope you will take the time on this board to back off hte rancor and dogmatism and start comparing your belief to the facts. You will not come up with something that has not already been conclusively answered. It is simply that you have not heard the answer, or have not yet fully reckoned with the answer. Either one is fine, just be willing to adjust your belief to the truth of God's word and his work in history.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Michelle: "Pastor Larry, which one of these do you believe?
It can't be both, so please tell me, which one of these
quotes is it that you believe?"

This is the standard for Brother Pastor Larry.

Michelle: "First of all, I am not a KJVOonlyite ... "

Michelle: "I believe the Lord God Almighty preserved
his word, as he promised, for the
english speaking people in the KJV, ... "

Same standard for Sister Michelle:
which one of these do you believe?
It can't be both, so please tell me, which one of these
quotes is it that you believe?

Sorry if i asked a similar question earlier
in a rude manner.
I see your method of asking the question
is more polite.

 

[robycop3]

Michelle: "I believe the Lord God Almighty preserved
his word, as he promised, for the
english speaking people in the KJV, ... "

robycop: I believe the same thing, but God is NOT limited in English to only the KJV. If you believe He IS thus limited, then BY WHOSE AUTHORITY do you believe that? GOD doesn't say any such thing!

 

[Jim Ward]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Michelle: "I believe the Lord God Almighty preserved
his word, as he promised, for the
english speaking people in the KJV, ... "

robycop: I believe the same thing, but God is NOT limited in English to only the KJV. If you believe He IS thus limited, then BY WHOSE AUTHORITY do you believe that? GOD doesn't say any such thing!

On whose authority do you beleive your beliefs? If you say God, then back it up with book, chapter and verse from the Bible.

Also, if I decide to get active in this forum, then fully expect me to hold you to the standards you seek to hold others to.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Jim Ward:
]On whose authority do you beleive your beliefs? If you say God, then back it up with book, chapter and verse from the Bible.

Also, if I decide to get active in this forum, then fully expect me to hold you to the standards you seek to hold others to.

The difference is that we're not making our *preference* into a *doctrine*. You need an authority to assert a *doctrine*.

 

[timothy 1769]

BrianT,

Do you accept the doctrine that translators can produce acceptable versions of the word of God?

If so, what authority do you have for asserting that the Bible can be adequately expressed in any language other than Greek or Hebrew?

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
BrianT,

Do you accept the doctrine that translators can produce acceptable versions of the word of God?

If so, what authority do you have for asserting that the Bible can be adequately expressed in any language other than Greek or Hebrew?

'Yes' I accept that translators can produce acceptable versions of the word of God, but 'no' I don't think that it is a "doctrine".

 

[timothy 1769]

So would I be justified in condemning those who demand and will read scriptures only in their own language? e.g. English-O advocates.

You must admit most of us are capable of learning Greek and Hebrew if it came down to it.

I think churches allowing all "acceptable" versions are espousing a doctrine, or teaching, whether they want to call it that or not. If KJVO churches haven't a leg to stand on, neither do MV churches. The innovative teaching concerning the "original manuscripts" sure isn't found in the Bible, but that hasn't stopped it from worming its way into plenty of doctrinal statements. Do you object to this practice as well?

BTW, MV churches logically have NO sure doctrine, since their authoritative Bible no longer exists. As you say, doctrine requires authority. Perhaps it is your preference to believe the corrupted Bibles we actually possess are "good enough", but don't try to pass off your preference as authoritative doctrine. Perhaps people believe it because they've looked at history and the available evidence and have concluded that their position seems reasonable. Well, so have the KJVO, except we prefer to not mentally insert "mostly" or "adequately" into the text when it comes to God's promises of preservation. Which attitude is more faithful and God honoring? Do you guys think God preserving his word in one English version to be patently ridiculous? Well, we think God kinda preserving his word somewhat in all "adequate" manuscripts and versions is equally ridiculous.

Ultimately a Bible must be accepted on faith. The leap of faith required of the KJVO supporter is of exactly the same magnitude as that of the MV supporter. I assume when I look at the KJV and history I've found the word of God that God Himself promised to preserve. MV supporters when they look at their Bibles and history do much the same.

If I have to be guilty of error, I want it to be the error of putting too much faith in God's promises. I want it to be the error of humbly submitting to the Bible that God, in his providence, has apparently established for English speaking people. I want it to be the error of fully believeing and submitting to every single word in the Bible.

Faith, Humilty, Submission. Christian virtues all.

Let the KJVO be guilty.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
So would I be justified in condemning those who demand and will read scriptures only in their own language? e.g. English-O advocates.

You must admit most of us are capable of learning Greek and Hebrew if it came down to it.

I don't understand your point.

The innovative teaching concerning the "original manuscripts" sure isn't found in the Bible, but that hasn't stopped it from worming its way into plenty of doctrinal statements. Do you object to this practice as well?

Actually, yes, I do.

BTW, MV churches logically have NO sure doctrine, since their authoritative Bible no longer exists.

Wrong. A Bible, even multiple Bibles, can be authoritative despite differences. Also, your statement means no one had sure doctrine before 1611. Unacceptable.

Perhaps people believe it because they've looked at history and the available evidence and have concluded that their position seems reasonable. Well, so have the KJVO, except we prefer to not mentally insert "mostly" or "adequately" into the text when it comes to God's promises of preservation. Which attitude is more faithful and God honoring?

I believe the attitude that doesn't rip "God's word" away from 80% of church history is the more faithful and God honoring.

Do you guys think God preserving his word in one English version to be patently ridiculous? Well, we think God kinda preserving his word somewhat in all "adequate" manuscripts and versions is equally ridiculous.

Since you think both positions are equally ridiculous, what alternative do you propose?

I assume when I look at the KJV and history I've found the word of God that God Himself promised to preserve. MV supporters when they look at their Bibles and history do much the same.

But the KJV-onlyist must concede either that God *didn't* preserve his word prior to 1611, or that (as some have put it) it was "scattered" across manuscripts and translations - which is what we say is STILL happening and is thus historically consistent and allows the meaning of scripture to remain intact across the timespan of 1610-1612.

If I have to be guilty of error, I want it to be the error of putting too much faith in God's promises.

Then why not go for the gusto? Why not say only a certain edition, published by a certain publisher is "God's word" and the rest are corrupt? Why not say you have so much faith that you think only *your personal copy* is the preserved word of God?

Or better yet: which requires more faith - faith in a single perfect translation that you must be able to "touch with your hands" (like Thomas required) or faith that accepts that God's word is preserved even though you are unable to touch a single perfect translation?

[ February 23, 2004, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: BrianT ]