• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Why so much against KJB-only?

Jim Ward

New Member
Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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*. </font>[/QUOTE]Brian I have known you and Roby long enough on-line to see that you have made your mv views (your self indulgent preferences) a doctrine. I also know that neither of you wish to be held to the stanmdards you seek to hold others to, and that in itself weakens the shifting sand you all stand on.
 

Jim Ward

New Member
Originally posted by timothy 1769:
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.
AMEN!
 

Orvie

New Member
Originally posted by Jim Ward:
...you have made your mv views (your self indulgent preferences) a doctrine. I also know that neither of you wish to be held to the stanmdards you seek to hold others to, and that in itself weakens the shifting sand you all stand on.
laugh.gif
"self indulgent preferences" Let's take JW's above statement to it's logical conclusion: Before 1611, the choice had to be made between all available MSS, and the KJV(kjb)translators practiced "self indulgent preferences" by including in the AV, "former translations(plural) diligently compared and revised". The KJVO logic is again demonstrated to be a misnomer.
 

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
On whose authority do you beleive your beliefs? If you say God, then back it up with book, chapter and verse from the Bible.
Jim, It is clear from Scripture that God approved the use of versions other than the KJV and endorsed those versions as authoritative, inspired, and fully the word of God.

Therefore, any view that does not accord the same status to other versions is unbiblical.

As for doctrine vs. preference, all of us on this side have routinely said that we are not trying to force anyone to use a particular version. We are not enforcing our preference. We would appreciate it if your side would do the same. The use of the KJV is a preference, not a doctrine. If you think it is the better text or better translation, then have at it. But do not question the orthodoxy of those of us who believe otherwise. We take the position that God takes in his word.
 

BrianT

New Member
Originally posted by Jim Ward:
Brian I have known you and Roby long enough on-line to see that you have made your mv views (your self indulgent preferences) a doctrine.
Nope. Maybe you don't understand what is meant by "doctrine".

I also know that neither of you wish to be held to the stanmdards you seek to hold others to, and that in itself weakens the shifting sand you all stand on.
I don't understand your vague accusation.
 

Precepts

New Member
Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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*. </font>[/QUOTE]Then rip Hebrews 4:12 and II Timothy 3:16 right out of your "book", that is if they say the same thing like yall keep trying to push over on the less informed.

You know, that is the difference, we have the Bible that is quick and powerful, profitable for doctrine, and your "book" is NOT!
 

Precepts

New Member
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.
Nah, no danger of that. You could never have too much faith in God, His promises, or His Bible.
 

Precepts

New Member
Originally posted by Orvie:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jim Ward:
...you have made your mv views (your self indulgent preferences) a doctrine. I also know that neither of you wish to be held to the stanmdards you seek to hold others to, and that in itself weakens the shifting sand you all stand on.
laugh.gif
"self indulgent preferences" Let's take JW's above statement to it's logical conclusion: Before 1611, the choice had to be made between all available MSS, and the KJV(kjb)translators practiced "self indulgent preferences" by including in the AV, "former translations(plural) diligently compared and revised". The KJVO logic is again demonstrated to be a misnomer.
</font>[/QUOTE]Orvie, when God promotes indulgence and is full and total control of self, it's not man, it's God! Yall keep on this "down the rabbit hole" ideal of saying by our standard of practice in believing God preserved His Word and completed it in 1611 somehow denies that he had His Word preserved prior to 1611 is ,well, uh, SSSSTTTTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPID! to coin a phrase.

Yall accuse that, but we never said that, talk about adding words! :rolleyes:
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jim Ward: "Brian I have known you and Roby long enough on-line to see that you have made your mv views (your self indulgent preferences) a doctrine."

robycop:No, Jim, all we do is reject the proven-false KJVOnlyism myth. Rejection of a false doctrine doesn't automatically create a new doctrine.

"I also know that neither of you wish to be held to the stanmdards you seek to hold others to, and that in itself weakens the shifting sand you all stand on."

Actually, Jim what you REALLY know is that you DARE not answer the questions we've asked you truthfully because their answers show your KJVO myth to be false. Not wanting to lie, you create a sideshow to try to lead the readerships' attention fron the fact that you didn't answer. Well, that tactic doesn't work on the Yahoo or Ezboard forums and it won't work here either. We're gonna hold your nose to the grindstone for some straight answers.

Now-BY WHOSE AUTHORITY are you KJVO and BY WHOSE AUTHORITY do you tell me I should be?
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Precepts:Then rip Hebrews 4:12 and II Timothy 3:16 right out of your "book", that is if they say the same thing like yall keep trying to push over on the less informed.

You know, that is the difference, we have the Bible that is quick and powerful, profitable for doctrine, and your "book" is NOT!"

First, in other threads you say you're NOT KJVO. Yet, you describe any BV besides the KJVO as being a "bible-ette". Methinks me smells a double standard or perhaps a little propaganda.

Next, you won't tell us by whose authority you proclaim these things. Methinks me smells sumpin else...
 

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Precepts:
Then rip Hebrews 4:12 and II Timothy 3:16 right out of your "book", that is if they say the same thing like yall keep trying to push over on the less informed.

You know, that is the difference, we have the Bible that is quick and powerful, profitable for doctrine, and your "book" is NOT!
2 Tim 3:16 and Hebrews 4:12 are both in the NASB, NIV, ESV, and NKJV. Therefore, they too are quick, powerful, and inspired, profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness.
 

Precepts

New Member
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Funny, I did.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
To make a legitimate objection you must state why you object, else you'll look like Orvie.
:rolleyes:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
Right, you're wrong. We have to maintain we have the Word of God preserved perfectly to establish and keep doctrine, else it becomes false doctrine.

You allude to as if we say that there was no prior preservation before 1611, that is stupendously wrong.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
Church history is not the mandate over preservation, unless you're catholic, then you've got real problems!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 fail to see where your accusation has anything to stand on, that is not what he just said.
:rolleyes:
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.
Why must we concede? Who is going to "make" us? You have no authority to do so. Your accusing the KJVO position and demanding something that is not possible, but now if the simple pass by, they could be easily duped into believing you. Your mandate is none, just the child screaming while jumping up and down for a cookie.
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?
We believe the serpent used that same logic with Eve in the garden. Your premise is to deny faith altogether, nice try though, you just got caught again!
 

Precepts

New Member
Originally posted by robycop3:
Precepts:Then rip Hebrews 4:12 and II Timothy 3:16 right out of your "book", that is if they say the same thing like yall keep trying to push over on the less informed.

You know, that is the difference, we have the Bible that is quick and powerful, profitable for doctrine, and your "book" is NOT!"

First, in other threads you say you're NOT KJVO. Yet, you describe any BV besides the KJVO as being a "bible-ette". Methinks me smells a double standard or perhaps a little propaganda.

Next, you won't tell us by whose authority you proclaim these things. Methinks me smells sumpin else...
Well, since yall continue to call me KJVO, I might as well play along with the rest of the inmates.

I've got God's Word on it, Cranston: Pslams 12:6,7.
 

Precepts

New Member
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Precepts:
Then rip Hebrews 4:12 and II Timothy 3:16 right out of your "book", that is if they say the same thing like yall keep trying to push over on the less informed.

You know, that is the difference, we have the Bible that is quick and powerful, profitable for doctrine, and your "book" is NOT!
2 Tim 3:16 and Hebrews 4:12 are both in the NASB, NIV, ESV, and NKJV. Therefore, they too are quick, powerful, and inspired, profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. </font>[/QUOTE]Then maybe you can teach Brian that? But now should we look deeper into those versions for substance instead of just the surface?
 

michelle

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

First I would like to say, that many on these posts are only quoting part of what I have said and believe concerning the KJV and God's preserved word. For those of you who desire/care to know what I really said and believe, please go and read my previous posts. I believe that "IF" the modern versions of the Bible were based on reliable texts, and translated in the right manner, that they also would be Gods unaltered and pure word of God (and would also agree with the KJV). I cannot say that however, for the facts and evidence prove/show otherwise. I do not limit God with his ability to preserve his word, but I do acknowledge and realize that God would not "market" his word. How many different modern versions of God's word are available today in the english language? Do we really need so many different versions in the same language? Does this seem consistent with how God has preserved his word in the past? NO it does not. The church has always had his preserved word and all of it (contrary to what you say and believe Larry) in their own language as represented in one text or version of their language, unless it has been corrupted/altered. The Lord Jesus Christ said this about his word:

Matthew 4:4

4 But he answered and said, It is written,MAN SHALL NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE, BUT BY EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD. (notice here that Jesus said "EVERY WORD")

Luke 11:28

But he said, Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. (remember it, take it to heart and do it)

John

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your rememberance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

These are just but a few of the many scriptures that confirm how very imporant the word of God is, and how God has promised to preserve his word of truth. When the Lord says something, he means what he says, for he is faithful and true. To say that God has kept hidden the words of God from those who are his, and who have the Holy Ghost indwelling their hearts, is denying this wonderful truth and promise of our Almighty God and Savior and basically calling him a liar.

May our Heavenly Father and our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ bless you richly with this wonderful truth.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
 

Precepts

New Member
Jim, It is clear from Scripture that God approved the use of versions other than the KJV and endorsed those versions as authoritative, inspired, and fully the word of God.
Where? You take away from the scripture, build a premise, then add something to what is said with no literal proof.
Therefore, any view that does not accord the same status to other versions is unbiblical.
There you go again, usurping authority, or trying to anyway, we just won't let you though.
As for doctrine vs. preference, all of us on this side have routinely said that we are not trying to force anyone to use a particular version. We are not enforcing our preference. We would appreciate it if your side would do the same. The use of the KJV is a preference, not a doctrine. If you think it is the better text or better translation, then have at it. But do not question the orthodoxy of those of us who believe otherwise. We take the position that God takes in his word.
Who's choosing sides? We take the stand, yall try to tear it down and try to force us to choose sides. We already know where we stand, on God's side!
 

Orvie

New Member
Originally posted by Precepts:
I've got God's Word on it, Cranston: Pslams 12:6,7.
Precepts, this is why I've called you "pretext" before, because you force this to fit what you think it oughtta say. Those verses still say nothing about the KJV(kjb). What you think it says is this: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, Thou shalt pickle them in the KJV(kjb)from this generation(oops! that fails pre1611) for ever."
 
Top