Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

A Few Questions For Those Who Are KJV-Only.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

[quote="Crushmaster"][quote="HappyChristian"]Yes, people can be saved when using MV's. Although I don't use them, they do [u]contain[/u] the Word of God. And His Word will not go out void.

RE: translation into other languages - many people feel that the KJB must be used to translate. I don't agree with that. If translators use the same manuscripts as was used for the KJB, then things would be fine. One thing we need to remember - the KJB is God's Word for [u]English speaking people[/u].[/quote]
If you don't mind my asking, [b]why[/b] is it God's Word for the English speaking people, and not other versions?
Also, I am a bit saddened I did not get many actual responses to my questions; Brother Matt was virtually the only one who went through the questions and answered all of them. I do still appreciate the thoughts, nonetheless.
I now have a few other questions:
1: Since the Geneva Bible (which was in English, I believe, though it was very archaic-style) was before the KJV 1611 or the KJV 1769 (I believe it was in the 1500s), why do you use the KJV rather than it?
[color=#FF0000]Reasons of accuracy and process of translation. It also tends toward Calvanism and, as we know, the Word of God cannot contradict itself.[/color]
2: Do you consider someone who is not KJVO less spiritually mature?

[color=#FF0000]I often wonder if they don't have the discipline to study the KJV out and actually believe that the MV's will provide them a shortcut to understanding God's word. Many of them are maybe a little spiritually immature as they often aren't even aware of the confusion they support. But they do it in ignorance with good intent in many cases. (Boy that just popped an old Randy Travis song into my head: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions.") I don't believe that I have any right to judge another's spiritual maturity, but, at the same time, we do need to discern what IS right. Question seems to be just a little bit of a trap there Crush.[/color] :roll


God bless,
Crushmaster.[/quote]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

[quote="Crushmaster"][quote="1Tim115"] I believe...The Word of God
I believe the original texts are the divinely inspired Word of God in its entirety, written by men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, and that it is the sole authority for the Christian's faith and conduct. I believe the King James Version of the Bible is the preserved Word of God for teaching and preaching to English speaking people. This is what I will use when I post scripture. I believe other English translations [b]contain[/b] the Word of God including the latest Catholic authorized version, The New American Bible, Saint Joseph Edition. (2 Timothy 3.16-17; 2 Peter 1.20-21)[/quote]
I see. But why do things such as the NKJV only [b]contain[/b] the Word of God? Why is it not also the Word of God?[/quote]

I don't use the NKJV. I've only skimmed the surface of it for some passages. I will eventually look into it. I believe I should know the differences from the KJB to avoid confusion in witnessing. If it in any way waters down the Gospel message or in any fashion appears to question Christ's, God's, or the Holy Spirit's diety then, I will reject it as only containing the Word of God. I'll get back to you on this one...one day.

Further,
I made this statement in another thread just yesterday, in addition to my doctrinal statement...

Besides the above...I cannot submit to memory the newer EVs. It's too much like casual conversation which, most of us discard a great percentage of when someone speaks to us. We have to remember this is God speaking to us and answering questions we have so, casual and discard are not options. The KJB makes me pause and think about the meaning also; in many cases go look up meaning. It causes me to meditate on God's Word and I know that pleases Him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reasons of accuracy and process of translation. It also tends toward Calvanism and' date=' as we know, the Word of God cannot contradict itself. [/quote']
Ahh. In what ways does it lean towards it, sir, if you don't mind my asking?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes (In response to my first question).

2: 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: {17} That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
This passage tells us Scripture is by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness. These, and providing the way of salvation (faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God) are the main purposes for Scripture.
Do the modern versions (please note: I am not referring to The Message; it does not count) lose their ability to do this?

Yes. In as much as the MV's leave out and add to the Word of God' date=' they lose their ability in these matters. Either on one point or another, no matter how minute it is to a human, they have tried to alter God's word and thereby the doctrine and areas that are for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. [/quote']
In what ways have they altered these areas, especially since you did say people can be saved using a NKJV?

I see. But why can the modern versions not do this?

My angle here, sir, is to see why you and others on this topic truly believe in KJVO-ism, and what foundation it is built upon. I also have a new question (I encourage everyone, not just Brother Futurehope, to answer):
What Biblical verses back up KJVO-ism?
Also, for anyone who wishes to answer these, here is a short, ten-question quiz:
Ten Questions For KJV-Only Supporters
Some of you may also find the link I gave Brother Seth interesting, as well.
God bless,
Crushmaster.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't use the NKJV. I've only skimmed the surface of it for some passages. I will eventually look into it. I believe I should know the differences from the KJB to avoid confusion in witnessing. If it in any way waters down the Gospel message or in any fashion appears to question Christ's' date=' God's, or the Holy Spirit's diety then, I will reject it as only containing the Word of God. I'll get back to you on this one...one day. [/quote']
Well, we can do a quick look at that (quoted from the NKJV):
(1 John 5:7) - "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."
(Romans 10:8-13) - "But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith which we preach): {9} that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. {10} For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. {11} For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame." {12} For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. {13} For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."
I see the second passage as telling us the entire Gospel story right there; and the first quote clearly tells us it does indeed not doubt the Deity of any of the Trinity.

I have never experienced the need/want to discard a passage and/or be "casual" about it when I was reading it in a modern version.
Also, here is an article you and others may find interesting: The Doctrinal Contradiction Of KJV-Onlyism
God bless,
Crushmaster.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

How do you feel when you read MV? Do you feel it is God speaking to you, or just a simple bible? do you quote the bible and says, God saith "insert MV verse here" Just wondering because when I read the MV, I feel I shouldn't take every verse for granted on what may have God said because some verses in MV contradict with KJV and other MV bibles . It makes you wonder which bible is REALLY true and the best . I could never understand why everyone think we can just pick up any bible and say it doesn't matter. I just don't have the trust in MV. In my heart, I feel God does preserve his words and that lead me to KJV.


(oh and btw, Most people think NIV is the best bible out there.. but get mad at us we suggest KJV as the best. Go figures :bonk: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Here are some of the reasons why I am KJV only

Why We use The King James Version of the Bible Here at Northwest Baptist Church

Our Church has decided to stick with the old "KING JAMES VERSION" of the Bible. The alarming number of English Bibles is one of the most important religious phenomena of recent years. It is our view that the production of these new translations has served to undermine the spiritual foundations of our country and weaken the message of her churches. The new versions are not really better than the old one. We are going to keep the King James Bible for several compelling reasons.

THEOLOGICAL REASONS
Some new Bibles are dangerous because of the theological bias of their translators. The Revised Standard Version of the Bible was presented to the public as a completed work in 1952. It was authorized by the notoriously liberal National Council of Churches. The unbelieving bias of the majority of the translators is evident in such readings as Isaiah 7:14

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Revised Standard Version)

The difference between this reading and the way the verse reads in the King James Version is very important. The old Bible says that "a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son." The liberal bias against the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is reflected in the R.S.V. translation of this verse. To make matters worse this liberal version translates Matthew 1:23, "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son." This is a correct rendering of the Greek, but with the incorrect translation of Isaiah 7:14 in the same Bible, the impression is given that Matthew misquoted Isaiah. Not only is the doctrine of the virgin birth undermined in the R.S.V., but also the doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible! No fundamentalist Christian would accept as his standard a theologically liberal translation of the Bible like the Revised Standard Version.
The Good News Bible (or, properly, Today's English Version) was translated by neo- orthodox Richard Bratcher, and purposely replaces the word "blood" with the word "death "in many New Testament Passages that refer to the blood of Christ (such as Colossians 1:20, Hebrews 10:19, and Revelation 1:5). Bratcher also replaces the word "virgin" with "girl" in Luke 1:27. His theological bias ruins his translation.
The New International Version (probably the most popular version of resent days) calls into question these same doctrinal issues, as well as teaching the false doctrine of, baptismal regeneration. In Acts 8:26-40 you will find the account of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch, the N.I.V. completely omits the 37 verse which says, "And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Leading the reader to believe that salvation is not a prerequisite to baptism.
Other versions, such as Phillips translation and the New English Bible, were also produced by liberal or neo-orthodox religionists. For this reason, we will not use them.

TEXTUAL REASONS

Many in the pew do not know that most of the more than one hundred new versions of the Bible are not translated from the same Hebrew and Greek texts that the King James translators used! When somebody says that the translation of a certain verse in the King James Version is "unfortunate," usually the problem is text rather than translation. In the late 1800's, a committee of British and American scholars began work on a revision of the King James Bible. It was decided by them that the Greek text of the New Testament used in the Translation of the old Bible was Seriously defective. Although that text represented the New Testament as it had been accepted by most Christians over the centuries, it was spurned because it disagreed with some of the older manuscripts. Almost all of the new versions are actually translations of the new Greek text generated by this committee. This new text is significantly different from the traditional text.
When the reader comes to John 7:53-8:11 even in conservative translations such as the New American Standard Bible or the New International Version, he finds the whole story of the woman taken in adultery set apart with lines or brackets. A note is placed in relation to the bracketed section that says something like this: "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have John 7:53-8:11."
Something similar is done to the Great Commission in Mark 16:9-20. What the textual critics of a century ago were saying, is that a large amount of the New Testament read, believed, preached, and obeyed by most of our spiritual forefathers was actually uninspired material added to the text! If this new text theory were true, it would be revolutionary news to the church. However, the new theory is still very controversial. Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4). Every man needs every word of God! A man's needs will not be met unless he has received "every word" that God has spoken. So said the Lord Jesus. Jesus also said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35). With this promise, Christ assured us that the very words we need in order to live as we should would be preserved throughout the ages, through wars and persecutions and disasters, even through the fiery end of creation!
So-called "textual criticism" is more faith than it is science. If one studies the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament with the belief that God has preserved His Word through the years, he will come to different conclusions than one who studies the same documents with the belief that such preservation is unlikely. Much of the work is guess work and many of the conclusions are debatable. For this reason, thoughtful conservative Christians will decide that it is safer to stay with the traditional text than to adopt the revised one. The only widely used English versions that are translated from the traditional text are the King James Version and the New King James Version.

PHILOSOPHICAL REASONS

Christians ought to be interested in having the very words of God, since this is what Jesus said we need! The King James Version is a translation that seeks what scholars call "formal equivalence" to the original text. Others, however, seek "dynamic equivalence." The "formal equivalence" approach seeks to express in English the meaning of the words in Greek. The "dynamic equivalence" approach seeks to express the meaning of the writer in modern idiom. Anyone who takes seriously our Lord's admonition in Matthew 4:4 will want a "formal equivalence" translation. Most of the new versions do not offer this to us. The so-called "Living Bible" does not even pretend to be a translation of the words. Copies of this book clearly identify it as a "paraphrase" of God's Word. Dr Kenneth Taylor wrote the Living Bible, and freely admitted that it was his paraphrase of the Scriptures. In other words, he was putting the Bible into his own words. When a pastor reads John 3:16 to his congregation Sunday morning, that is one thing. When he rephrases it in his own words in order to explain what the verse means, that is another thing. Preachers make it clear when they are reading God's Word and when they are paraphrasing it. It is acceptable to paraphrase the Scripture in explaining it, but it is unacceptable to confuse the paraphrase with the actual Word! The Living Bible is not a Bible; it is Dr. Taylor's paraphrase of the Bible. Please keep in mind the distinction. Sadly, the result of Dr. Taylor's paraphrasing was not always very helpful even though he claims to hold "a rigid evangelical position" in his theology. For example, in 1Samuel 20:30, he introduced vile profanity into the Holy Writ without warrant from the original text!
The very popular New International Version is a "dynamic equivalency" translation. The looseness of the N.I.V.'s translation is admitted by the publishers and well-known. The scholars who did the translation believe that it is possible and beneficial to put into English what the writers of scripture meant rather than what they actually said. One great problem with this approach is the element of interpretation that is introduced into the translation process. To translate is to put it into English. To interpret is to explain what it means. Experts will say that all translation involves some interpretation even when this is not the object of the translators. However, much more interpretation will go on when the composers of a new version try to convey the thoughts rather than the words. If we let the translators interpret the Bible for us, we might as well let the priest do it! Our belief in the priesthood of the believer calls on us to reject highly interpretive versions.

CULTURAL REASONS

Proverbs 22:28 says, "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set"
In the spirit of the fifth commandment, we are to honor the traditions given to us by the previous generations of our people. Of course, if such tradition contradicts Scripture, we are to reject it in favor of what the Bible says. "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" - Matthew 15:3
We never elevate tradition to the same level of authority as Scripture. But we should give our forefathers "the benefit of the doubt." We should also be careful to preserve all we can that is truly Christian about our culture.
The King James Version of the Bible has played an important and unique role in the development of American culture. It could be said that the foundation of our society was the Holy Scriptures. The theology of the Bible influenced the ideas behind our Constitution. The language of the King James Bible was scattered throughout our early literature. The revivals that formed and changed our culture resulted from the preaching of Bible texts. For many years, Americans knew a certain amount of Scripture by heart. Many or most could quote at least part of the Twenty-Third Psalm, and recognize the Beatitudes, Ten Commandments, and parts of the Sermon on the Mount when quoted. But now the influence of the Bible has waned significantly. One reason for the decline of Biblical influence has been the loss of a standard version of the Bible.
For the first two hundred years as a nation, the King James Version was the Bible to most Americans. Even after so-called "modern" versions became popular, the King James Bible continued to be the version memorized, quoted, and publicly read most often. With the demise of the old Bible, our country has been left without a standard text of Scripture. Who can quote the Twenty-Third Psalm anymore? Who knows how to repeat the Christmas story? The question always arises: "Which version?" Everybody realizes that our nation's spiritual and moral foundations have been crumbling, but few have understood how the multiplication of Bible versions has contributed to the decay. We will stick with the King James Version out of concern for our country's future, if for no other reason! Why should conservative Christians join in the mad movement to throw away the standards that made our country good? Our Constitution is jealously guarded against change by an elaborate and difficult amendment process. If it takes two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states to change one sentence in the Constitution, why should the churches be so willing to accept great changes in the Bible without serious and extensive "due process"?

PRACTICAL REASONS

Believe it or not, some of the features most criticized in the King James Bible are among the best reasons to keep it! For example, consider the "thee's" and "thou's." The King James Version was not written in the everyday language of people on the street in 1611. It was written in high English, a very precise form of our language. In modern English, the second person pronoun is expressed with one word, whether in singular or the plural. That word is "you." Most other European languages have both a singular and a plural pronoun in the second, as well as the first and third person. The first person singular pronoun in the nominative case, for example, is "I," while the plural is "we." The third person singular pronoun (also in the nominative case) is "he," while the plural is "they." Modern English, however, has only "you" for all its second person pronoun uses. High English uses "thou" for the second person singular, and "you" for the plural! In this way, the King James Version lets us know whether the scripture means a singular "you" or a plural "you." "Thou" or "thee" mean one person's being addressed, and "ye" or "you" mean several. This feature often helps us interpret a passage.

"Thou" - designates the subject of a verb
"Thee" - designates the object of a verb
"Ye" - designates the subject of a verb
"You" - designates the object of a verb
A personal pronoun beginning with "t" is
a singular pronoun. (thou, thee, thy, thine)
"Est" - indicates the second person singular. (the one spoken to)
"Eth" - indicates the third person singular. (the one spoken about)
"Shall" - refers to the first person in the future tense
"Will" - refers to the second or third person in the future tense

We also find the italics in the old Bible a great help. The translators italicized words they put into the text that do not appear in the original language. The new translations do not do this. We appreciate the integrity of the ancient scholars in letting us know what was added and what was original, and are disappointed that modern translators have let us down in this area.

The matter of quotation marks is also a question of importance. The King James Version does not use them, because the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts do
not have them. The reader determines where a quotation begins and where it ends by the context, and by other means of interpretation at his disposal. The new versions do not give us the luxury of deciding the extent of quotations ourselves because they have inserted quotation marks according to the translator's interpretations of the various passages. John1:15-18 and John 3:27-36 present examples of places in the Bible where the length of the quotation is a matter of interpretation.
Such features make the King James Version the most helpful translation of the Bible in English for the serious reader. Even the "New King James," which is partially translated from the traditional texts, denies us the practical help of high English, italicized additions, and the absence of quotation marks.
Many publishers claim that the new translations are easier to understand, misleading people into thinking that they will be able to better understand the Word of God but the derivative copyright law insist that:
"To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be
different enough from the original to be regarded
as a 'new work' or must contain a substantial
amount of new material. Making minor changes
or additions of little substance to a pre-existing
work will not qualify the work as a new version
for copyright purposes."

Therefore, all new Bible versions must change the simple one or two syllable Anglo-Saxon words of the King James Version into complex, multi-syllable Latinized words. Consequently, the King James Version reads at the 5th grade level and the New King James Version reads at the 7th grade level. Because of copyright law, there will never be an easier to read Bible than the King James Version.

Here are a few examples, (there are hundreds) of where the NKJV's preference for more difficult words:
...Text...............Hard Word..........Easy Word
.........................NKJV....................KJV
Amos 5:21............savor....................smell
2 Cor 5:2.............habitation..............house
Eccl 2:3................gratify..................give
Isa 28:1,4.............verdant.................fat
Isa 34:6...............overflowing.............fat
Deut 28:50............elderly.................. old
Rom 3:25.........sins that were pre-.........sins that are past
....................viously committed
Rom 7:7...............covetousness...........lust

For all of these reasons, it just makes good sense for conservative, Bible-believing churches to keep the old King James Bible as their standard text. The new versions present to many problems and simply are not fit to replace the English version we have trusted for so long. Lets stick with the King James! The movement to abandon it will move us from clarity to confusion, from authority to anarchy, from faith to doubt. We ought not to make such a move!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you feel when you read MV? Do you feel it is God speaking to you, or just a simple bible? do you quote the bible and says, God saith "insert MV verse here" Just wondering because when I read the MV, I feel I shouldn't take every verse for granted on what may have God said because some verses in MV contradict with KJV and other MV bibles . It makes you wonder which bible is REALLY true and the best . I could never understand why everyone think we can just pick up any bible and say it doesn't matter. I just don't have the trust in MV. In my heart, I feel God does preserve his words and that lead me to KJV.

(oh and btw, Most people think NIV is the best bible out there.. but get mad at us we suggest KJV as the best. Go figures :bonk: )

I feel really no different reading the KJV or, i.e., the NKJV. They are both God's Preserved Word.
As to the last sentence of your first paragraph, I also believe God preserves His Words. Why did that lead you to the KJV, though, if you don't mind my asking?
God bless,
Crushmaster.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I feel really no different reading the KJV or, i.e., the NKJV. They are both God's Preserved Word.
As to the last sentence of your first paragraph, I also believe God preserves His Words. Why did that lead you to the KJV, though, if you don't mind my asking?
God bless,
Crushmaster.


I have too many reasons (I've already listed a few out of many) , but I am not a good explain-er so I would end up rambling, plus you would probably disagree with it and think I'm being ignorance or something (from my past debates with other people.. I got tired of it). my favorite site about KJV so far is this and it might help you: http://learnthebible.org/Bible%20Issues.htm (you'll have to click on the red links or explore around to get more articles)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Bro Matt gave a pretty good answer to the original questions.

For myself, I use the KJB because I believe the Lord led me to do so. I know that when I heeded the call to the KJB I immediately began experiencing spiritual growth like never before. As well, Scripture memorization seemed to be practically easy with the KJB. For me, the Word is really alive when I read the KJB.

That said, I know some very good, dedicated, sound men of God who use MVs. I've listened to and read sermons from MV using pastors whose preaching is just as solid as any KJB pastor.

Still, for myself, none of the MVs seem "alive" to me. I've not yet read the newer one, the one many are now claiming as the "best" translation out there, the ESV.

While I can give my personal testimony as to why I use the KJB exclusively, I must admit I've not yet read or heard any defense of the KJO position that is rock solid. Most are rather circular and many are more about attacking MVs than attempting to prove why the KJB is THE Bible. So, for me, the KJB is THE Bible because I do believe that's THE Bible the Lord directed me to turn to exclusively; not because of any pro-KJO positions I've read or heard.

Good thread though as if someone can put forth a rock solid basis for the KJO position I would be thrilled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Bro Matt gave a pretty good answer to the original questions.

For myself, I use the KJB because I believe the Lord led me to do so. I know that when I heeded the call to the KJB I immediately began experiencing spiritual growth like never before. As well, Scripture memorization seemed to be practically easy with the KJB. For me, the Word is really alive when I read the KJB.

That said, I know some very good, dedicated, sound men of God who use MVs. I've listened to and read sermons from MV using pastors whose preaching is just as solid as any KJB pastor.

Still, for myself, none of the MVs seem "alive" to me. I've not yet read the newer one, the one many are now claiming as the "best" translation out there, the ESV.

While I can give my personal testimony as to why I use the KJB exclusively, I must admit I've not yet read or heard any defense of the KJO position that is rock solid. Most are rather circular and many are more about attacking MVs than attempting to prove why the KJB is THE Bible. So, for me, the KJB is THE Bible because I do believe that's THE Bible the Lord directed me to turn to exclusively; not because of any pro-KJO positions I've read or heard.

Good thread though as if someone can put forth a rock solid basis for the KJO position I would be thrilled.


Very honest post! :goodpost: :amen:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question, though: why are the versions such as the NKJV "impure", when, in contrast, you say the KJV is "pure"?


Because versions like the NKJV change and corrupt the meanings of many scripture passages. In order for a translation to be good it must be faithful to the TR. Since you somewhat favor the NKJV If you would like some examples of serious doctrinal changes in it I will give you a few. I will put the verses from the KJV in blue and the same verse from the NKJV in purple for comparison purposes.

1Kings 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."

NKJV 1Kings 14:24 "And there were also perverted persons in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel.

That certainly gives the sodomites some room doesn't it? They will argue that they are not "perverted persons" at all.

"Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

NKJV "Matthew 7:14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

Think about the doctrinal change that makes. Instead of teaching that the "way" is narrow, or restricted to Christ, the NKJV teaches that the way is "difficult", which goes against other scriptural teachings.

"1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

NKJV 1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Which is it, are we "being saved" in a process as many Pentecostals teach or are we saved when we believe? One version or the other is wrong.

"Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:"

NKJV Acts 24:14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.

Something of a difference between a "sect" and heresy right? I think the context makes it clear they viewed it as heresy.

"Romans 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification."

NKJV "Romans 4:25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification."

Think about it, was Christ raised FOR our justification as the KJV says or was he raised BECAUSE of our justification as the NKJV says. Hopefully that is a rhetorical question. :wink

"Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject;"

NKJV "Titus 3:10 Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition,"

There is a big difference between a "divisive man" and a heretic. Jesus Christ himself was highly divisive. He said:

"Matthew 10:34-36 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."

Hebrews 2:16 "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham."

NKJV "Hebrews 2:16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham."

Huge difference in meaning here too. The KJV teaches here that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, while the NKJV sweeps that aside and completely changes the verse. Both can't be right.

I will put this one verse last because considering the topic I think it is fitting. :wink

"2Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."

NKJV "2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ."

I think it is pretty clear that the NKJV itself is corrupt, who knows maybe that is why they were more comfortable with "peddle"(there would be nothing wrong with ""peddling" btw, that is preaching the gospel). The KJV lines up with the TR, but the NKJV doesn't in many areas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

must admit I've not yet read or heard any defense of the KJO position that is rock solid. Most are rather circular and many are more about attacking MVs than attempting to prove why the KJB is THE Bible.


The KJB is "THE" English bible because it is a faithful translation of the TR and the proper Hebrew texts. The reason we "attack" the other versions as you say, is to show that they are not a proper translation of the TR. They are not even meant to be considering they are based on different texts. By showing the differences we are just showing that both text lines can't be right. One text line is corrupt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...