A Few Questions For Those Who Are KJV-Only.

[futurehope]

I see no loose wording present; it seems quite clear-cut and black and white. Nor do I see any chances for "alternative interpretation".
Everything I can do with a KJV I can also do with a NKJV (I believe that at least the NKJV New Testament, actually, was translated from the Textus Receptus).

If this is your stand point, then please reply to the long list of verses Seth posted that I further clarified after you disregarded his statements. I am very curious as to how you would explain the differences to show that they do say the same things.

God Bless,

Futurehope

[Guest Guest]

Although some folks may get saved thru some perversion bible,the real case in point is three fold-
1.The straight forward attack on Gods word-I stand with Job and ask "will ye contend for God?
2.All the false teaching that derives from false bibles
3.All those who will go to hell as a result
The ends don't justify the means!

Since modern bibles ommit thousands of Gods word, changing serious doctrinal issues.
Thus they lose the ability to provide the whole councel of God and are not profitable for doctrine, ( since it changes doctrine ) for reproof,correction and the full gospel meassage.

And for those who are confused with the language issue-There are good versions that read the exact same as the K.J.V. in other languages.The point in case is the K.J.V. is Gods perserved word in the English and does not exclude Gods ability to carry that perservation into other languages.


For the record I won't apolagise to anyone for telling the Truth!Like or lump it!!!!!

[heartstrings]

Although some folks may get saved thru some perversion bible,the real case in point is three fold-
1.The straight forward attack on Gods word-I stand with Job and ask "will ye contend for God?
2.All the false teaching that derives from false bibles
3.All those who will go to hell as a result
The ends don't justify the means!

Since modern bibles ommit thousands of Gods word, changing serious doctrinal issues.
Thus they lose the ability to provide the whole councel of God and are not profitable for doctrine, ( since it changes doctrine ) for reproof,correction and the full gospel meassage.

And for those who are confused with the language issue-There are good versions that read the exact same as the K.J.V. in other languages.The point in case is the K.J.V. is Gods perserved word in the English and does not exclude Gods ability to carry that perservation into other languages.


For the record I won't apolagise to anyone for telling the Truth!Like or lump it!!!!!

Amen :thumb

[Guest Guest]

I have written up responses to most of the posts I have not already responded to in the last couple of pages in a word processor, and I will post them shortly.
Before I do, however, I have a question:
Which (if any) of the following things do you consider more important than being KJV-only?
1: Being against women in the military, and other related roles.
2: Believing in salvation by grace, through faith, through Christ.
3: Believing in the Trinity.
4: Believing in a literal hell.
Thank you, and God bless,
Crushmaster.

[trc123]

I have written up responses to most of the posts I have not already responded to in the last couple of pages in a word processor, and I will post them shortly.
Before I do, however, I have a question:
Which (if any) of the following things do you consider more important than being KJV-only?
1: Being against women in the military, and other related roles.
2: Believing in salvation by grace, through faith, through Christ.
3: Believing in the Trinity.
4: Believing in a literal hell.
Thank you, and God bless,
Crushmaster.

Youse talkin ta me?

Well, I'd have to put 2, 3 and 4 ahead of being KJV only; but I would put at the same level as those the verbal plenary of the Holy Scriptures.

[Guest Guest]

I have a question:
Which (if any) of the following things do you consider more important than being KJV-only?
1: Being against women in the military, and other related roles.
2: Believing in salvation by grace, through faith, through Christ.
3: Believing in the Trinity.
4: Believing in a literal hell.

All of those that you mention except number one are clearly laid out in scripture. Number one can be assumed from principles and broad teachings in certain passages. 2-4 are clearly more important than "KJV-only" particularly since one couldn't even be saved without number two and it wouldn't be easy to be saved without number three either. However, this does not mean "KJV-only" is not important. This type of question is sort of like asking if it is more important not to get drunk or not to smoke. Scripture speaks directly against drunkeness and while biblical principles must be used to prove smoking is wrong, that doesn't mean God doesn't care about it and it is ok to smoke. Likewise God did not write down "KVJ only in english" but an understanding of the importance of the purity of Gods word and an understanding of the impurity of the MV's and the damage they cause will show that it is an important issue.

[John81]

As y'all know, I love the KJB, but some of the arguments here that point out things against the MVs as a bolster to the KJB could (and are) used against the KJB as well.

When the KJB first came out there were disputes and problems among many with regards to this new Bible. This continues today.

There have been and are yet today many false teachers who use the KJB.

The KJB has been used to promote and defend many things over the years, some biblical and others not.

Better to stick to arguments that truly do bolster the KJB rather than ones that apply to all.

[Guest Guest]

As y'all know, I love the KJB, but some of the arguments here that point out things against the MVs as a bolster to the KJB could (and are) used against the KJB as well.

Like what?

[JerryNumbers]

I would say that anything which took our attention off the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ should make us very cautious. How would the disputes brought about by new versions be God honoring?

Romans 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

1 Corinthians 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

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.

Do the new versions, "make for peace" or cause "contentions"; the new versions may be "lawful" but do they "cause divisions and offences?"

Mark 8:33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

The warning bells are sounding for me to reject the new; they don't line up with the scripture above even within themselves. Did the translators consider contentions and continue anyway? What was their motivation...was it need or want?

Philippians 4:19 But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus.

Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

I'll stay KJV the new seems to cause too much confusion and the KJV provides for my needs.

Good points.

Have you ever been in a Bible class and had several people read from several different versions of the Bible, confusion comes to that class quickly. I had this happen once several years back in a church I had been asked to preach at one Sunday. I believe there were 5 different versions that was read from. Sure makes it hard to follow along., least it does for me.

To me, it seems like most people who use one or more of the MV's already have their mind made up, to me, most of them seem to be going around trying to get those who use and prefer the KJ to move over to their side of this issue. So I don't get invloved in them to heavy.

Until I got a computer and hooked up to the internet in 02 I did not realize such a debate was going around over the MV's, to me there will never be but one version that I can depend on, over course its the KJ. And I surely do not care to hear a pastor use more than one version, seems its getting popular to use several versions to preach from out there in the world. Of course since 02 the debate on this issue has grown by leap and bounds.





1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

James 3:16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.

[deafnva77]

I have written up responses to most of the posts I have not already responded to in the last couple of pages in a word processor, and I will post them shortly.
Before I do, however, I have a question:
Which (if any) of the following things do you consider more important than being KJV-only?
1: Being against women in the military, and other related roles.
2: Believing in salvation by grace, through faith, through Christ.
3: Believing in the Trinity.
4: Believing in a literal hell.
Thank you, and God bless,
Crushmaster.

Sounds like you trying to tell us that we worship the bible more than Christ. That's far from the truth.

Salvation, faith, obedience are all just as important as trusting the Lord that he will preserve his words. Just like how Father, Son, Holy Spirit are all just as important.

And just to let you know, we don't go around saying , use the KJV bible and ye shall be saved. Anyone can share the Gospel of Christ in their own words (as long as it is biblical) to other people. It's part of their witness.


I do tell people that the instruction how to be saved and the life of Christ is recorded in KJV bible.

[John81]

Like the things I mentioned in that same post.

[Guest Guest]

Sounds like you trying to tell us that we worship the bible more than Christ. That's far from the truth.
Salvation, faith, obedience are all just as important as trusting the Lord that he will preserve his words. Just like how Father, Son, Holy Spirit are all just as important.
And just to let you know, we don't go around saying , use the KJV bible and ye shall be saved. Anyone can share the Gospel of Christ in their own words (as long as it is biblical) to other people. It's part of their witness.
I do tell people that the instruction how to be saved and the life of Christ is recorded in KJV bible.

No ma'am, that is not what I am trying to tell you.
I'm just a bit curious as to how important this issue is to you.

All of those that you mention except number one are clearly laid out in scripture. Number one can be assumed from principles and broad teachings in certain passages. 2-4 are clearly more important than "KJV-only" particularly since one couldn't even be saved without number two and it wouldn't be easy to be saved without number three either. However' date=' this does not mean "KJV-only" is not important. This type of question is sort of like asking if it is more important not to get drunk or not to smoke. Scripture speaks directly against drunkeness and while biblical principles must be used to prove smoking is wrong, that doesn't mean God doesn't care about it and it is ok to smoke. Likewise God did not write down "KVJ only in english" but an understanding of the importance of the purity of Gods word and an understanding of the impurity of the MV's and the damage they cause will show that it is an important issue.[/quote']
No sir, I am not denying it is important, if you are indeed KJV-only.
From what I have seen, it is quite important to those who are.

Also, sir, though this is somewhat off the subject, I am about to post my responses - you will see them shortly. Thank you for your, and the other's patience.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

[Guest Guest]

Sodomites (aka homosexuals' date=' queers, gays, fags) do not consider themselves to be perverted. They consider rapists and child molesters to be perverted. This allows them to say that this scripture does not condemn there ways, but rather that God made them that way. Any wonder why the UMC has allowed homosexuals not only as members, but as teachers, deacons and pastors? [/quote']
I imagine, sir, they would also claim they were not Sodomites. Furthermore, if they did not deny they were:
(1 Kings 14:24) - "And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel."
They would not agree what they were doing was an "abomination", obviously.
And, actually, I do agree that translating it "Sodomite" is better than translating it "perverted persons".
Strong's dictionary's definition is:
"q

[Guest Guest]

Which Bible? Unless you deny that contradictions between the KJV and the MV's exist(very few do that because it is so obviously true) then "the Holy Bible" doesn't exist in English unless one version is inerrant. Otherwise we only have incomplete books corrupted by man yet still claiming the title "Holy Bible". That is no standard at all. We could not truly know what was the word of God and what was introduced by man. That wouldn't be good. So much for basing doctrine on "minor details" as Christ did in this verse:
"Matthew 22:31-33 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine."
Here Christ proves the resurrection of the dead by the fact that God says "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" instead of "I was the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob".
That difference in wording is smaller than many differences found between the KJV and the NKJV, yet if that OT passage was changed to "I was" instead of "I am" it would destroy the whole proof of the resurrection in those verses.

To be blunt, sir, when I said "The Bible" I meant "The Bible" - God's preserved Word.
And, no, sir, I do not deny that some contradictions between the KJV and some of the modern versions exist. I honestly do not know of any right off, however, so I would appreciate it if you would show me some of these alleged contradictions.
As to the difference of wording, sir, I would daresay all of that could be explained by looking at the original text, along with a few other explanations. It's really not too difficult, as I did so in a variety of verses to Brother Futurehope.

Unfortunately when this statement is made it is typically a sarcastic remark and the poser of the question is only looking for a verse which says "the KJV is Gods perfect Word in English" while of course knowing very well that no such verse exists. We don't have a verse like that but what we do have is biblical statements of the perfection of Gods word and scriptural promises to keep his word pure. Then it follows that if it is pure and preserved we must be able to know it, otherwise preservation and purity are worthless. Typically that is not enough to satisfy the bible critics, but then neither are the verse against alcohol typically enough to satisfy those who wish to drink, neither do the verses about our bodies being the temple of God convince those who wish to smoke etc. It all no doubt comes under the category of what Abraham told the rich man, "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them".
"Deuteronomy 30:11-14 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it."
This is just one of Gods promises to keep his word knowable to those who seek it.

I am not asking this sarcastically, sir, nor am I looking for a verse which says "The KJV is God's perfect Word in English".
I asked for verses which support the KJVO position. I am afraid I have never seen any.

And, yes, sir, He does indeed promise to keep His Word pure. But I do not exactly see how the KJV only is pure, where as every other translation is "impure". There's simply no evidence for it.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

[Guest Guest]

I would say that anything which took our attention off the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ should make us very cautious. How would the disputes brought about by new versions be God honoring?

To be perfectly honest, sir, most of the disputes brought about by the new versions are caused by people who hold the KJV-only position.
I myself am very strongly KJV-preferred, but I am not KJV-only.

Do the new versions' date=' "make for peace" or cause "contentions"; the new versions may be "lawful" but do they "cause divisions and offences?" [/quote']
They do if you allow them to, sir.

I am not denying it provides for your needs, sir. I am only denying that it is the only version that does.

1: You have yet to prove that only the KJV is, indeed, God's Word, sir.
2: You also have yet to prove that all of the MVs are false Bibles, sir.
3: Only if they are indeed false Bibles.

What would be an example of "changing serious doctrinal issues", sir, if you don't mind my asking?

I agree, sir, it is God's preserved Word - I just disagree that it is the only version which holds that position.
And, sir, I do not want you to apologize to anyone for telling the truth - but I am afraid you did not show how what you are saying is, indeed, the truth.
God bless,
Crushmaster.