A Few Questions For Those Who Are KJV-Only.

[Guest Guest]

I wrote: "What Biblical verses back up KJVO-ism?"
I see that you are starting to label the stand for the KJV as almost it's own religion. I know, that's probably part of your point. You would like to agree with the liberals who try to say that those who take this stand worship the KJV in and of itself instead of God. Foolishness abounds then? I've not met anyone yet who takes that stand. The scriptures already posted as to the preservation, purity, and infallability of God's word coupled with an understanding of the choice by translators in the texts they chose (TR) verses those which the translators of the MV's chose make this evident. It's using God's word to determine the applicability of external evidences as to the truth in this matter.

I am not saying you are taking that stand, sir; nor any other supporter of the KJV-only doctrine. All I want to see are verses which do indeed support KJVO-ism.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

[Guest Guest]

Ok' date=' I have one basic reason I claim the KJV as the proper Bible to be used in English. It is the only one without contradictions! Now, whether the Geneva and Tyndale Bibles are like that I do not know. But all the MV's are full of contradictions. Yes, they can be used to win people to Christ, but so can a paraphrase of John 3:16. Why stop using the Bible that was used by Billy Sunday, Dwight Moody, Charles Spurgeon, George Whitfield, etc..?[/quote']
I didn't say we should stop using it; I prefer it.
Marcus, if you don't mind my asking, what contradictions exist in versions such as the NKJV, NCV (New Century Version), etc.?
God bless,
Crushmaster.

[Guest Guest]

I've read that the actual manuscripts, or at least many of them, which the translators used to bring about the KJB are no longer in existence. Do you (anyone) know if this is true or not?

The honest answer is know one knows that one way or the other. Only in the Apocrypha did the translators identify there sources.

[Guest Guest]

Doctrine (teaching) goes well into other areas than salvation. This is also true in reproof' date=' correction, and instruction in righteousness. If the NKJV allows for "alternative interpretation" of certain passages of scripture, and I believe it does (Seth has posted many of these), then it allows people to determine for themselves what is right in situations by the way they choose to interpret something. That is the problem with the intentional use of loose wording in the NKJV and other MV's. They provide for gray areas in God's word and it should be black and white clear-cut. God is not a god of loose interpretation, but precise understanding of His word and that comes only from His word being precise and determining in it's wording.[/color']

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).

I see that you are starting to label the stand for the KJV as almost it's own religion. I know' date=' that's probably part of your point. You would like to agree with the liberals who try to say that those who take this stand worship the KJV in and of itself instead of God. Foolishness abounds then? I've not met anyone yet who takes that stand. The scriptures already posted as to the preservation, purity, and infallability of God's word coupled with an understanding of the choice by translators in the texts they chose (TR) verses those which the translators of the MV's chose make this evident. It's using God's word to determine the applicability of external evidences as to the truth in this matter.[/color']

I've already answered this. I apologize if it was any trouble for me to respond to it in a different post.

I have read the questions in this link and won't waste my time on them as they make foolish statements as the support of the KJVO stand point. The first question is referring to another language and it has been made clear that our stance is on the English speaking people. There are also questions that try to "create" contradictions within the KJV that aren't even there. The fact of the matter is' date=' these are intentionally twisted questions written with intentional inaccuracies in order to set a trap of satan for believers in the inerrancy of God's holy word. This questionarre is not only foolish but tends toward the realms of ignorance and idiocy. No offense here Crush, I respect you as a brother in Christ, but you are walking a fine line in accordance to intelligent conversation and the rules of this forum.[/color']
God Bless,
Futurehope

I do not see how the questions were twisted, or made foolish statements; nor do I see how it was in any way a "trap of Satan" for believers in the innerrancy of God's Word. All they are do is questioning the KJV-only stance; nothing more.

As to the last sentence of your post, I also respect you as a brother in Christ. I do not see how am I walking a fine line, however.
All I want are answers and reasons as to why the KJV, and only the KJV, is, indeed, the Word of God.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

[Guest Guest]

[quote]How is it a faithful translation of the TR, sir (I assume you mean Textus Receptus; or, "The Received Text")? Have you ever looked at the Hebrew and Greek yourself completely; at every passage and verse, translating them as you go, comparing it to the KJV? Isn't it possible, sir, that the KJV is in fact in error, and some of the other versions are not?
(Please note: I realize some of these questions may be a bit ridiculous, sir, and you don't have to answer them if you don't want to. I just want you to think about them. Thank you.)
God bless,
Crushmaster.[/quote]

You are right that is a pretty foolish question. The "other versions" are not even based on the TR, they are based on the "critical text" which is very different. Obviously they are not are not going to line up with the TR since their source doesn't.

[quote]in the verses Brother Seth posted, I saw no contradictions nor any confusion whatsoever.
[/quote]

If you don't see a doctrinal difference between Christ being raised FOR our justification as the KJV reads and being raise BECAUSE of our our justification as the NKJV says... well... I don't know what to say. "Not to be harsh" but it is hard to argue with someone who thinks the words "for" and "because" are synonyms. :bonK:

[quote]You, sir, I am sure, believe the Bible to be our Final Authority as Christians. I also do.[/quote]

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:

[color=#0000FF]"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."[/color]

Here Christ proves the resurrection of the dead by the fact that God says "[u]I am[/u] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" instead of "[u]I was[/u] 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.

[quote]Thus, could you please show me verses which support the KJV-only position? [/quote]

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".

[color=#0000FF]"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."[/color]

This is just one of Gods promises to keep his word knowable to those who seek it.

[deafnva77]

[quote="Crushmaster"][quote="deafnva77"] He may get an warning about it, especially when he wrote: "Please note: I realize some of these questions may be a bit ridiculous, sir, and[u] you don't have to answer them if you don't want to. I just want you to think about them[/u]. Thank you." It tell me something.[/quote]
Excuse me, ma'am, but I believe I said that in regards to a few questions I asked Brother Seth. I do not recall saying that about the link I posted.
I could be wrong, though, but that is how I remember it.
God bless,
Crushmaster.[/quote]

I apologize. when you wrote "Think about them" and expect no answers from Seth after asking the question, I thought you were trying to convert . you know, the "Think about it" type of saying that you hear from your parents when they want you to consider your action.

[John81]

[quote="Seth Doty"][quote]I've read that the actual manuscripts, or at least many of them, which the translators used to bring about the KJB are no longer in existence. Do you (anyone) know if this is true or not?[/quote]

The honest answer is know one knows that one way or the other. Only in the Apocrypha did the translators identify there sources.[/quote]

I wish I could remember where I read that. I know I read that last year but I read 29 non-fiction Christian books last year plus dozens of other Christian publications (Sword of the Lord, etc) and countless articles and such on the internet. I'm fairly certain there was a source cited. I REALLY need to have a small notebook and pen with me at all times so I can write down such things instead of relying upon my memory! :Green

If no one knows for certain what sources they used then how can folks be certain they used the right sources (or wrong sources)?

[deafnva77]

http://learnthebible.org/b_i_apochrypha.htm

[Guest Guest]

[quote]If no one knows for certain what sources they used then how can folks be certain they used the right sources (or wrong sources)?[/quote]

Well, from reverse translating, it is obvious that it was translated from the TR line, with Beza's and Stephanus TR compilations being the closest. It is therefore "thought" to be based on them, and that very well may be the case.

[John81]

[quote="Seth Doty"][quote]If no one knows for certain what sources they used then how can folks be certain they used the right sources (or wrong sources)?[/quote]

Well, from reverse translating, it is obvious that it was translated from the TR line, with Beza's and Stephanus TR compilations being the closest. It is therefore "thought" to be based on them, and that very well may be the case.[/quote]

Thank you. I haven't actually studied into this in some years. The last attempt I made I finally got tired of the circular arguments I kept encountering and finally decided that since I knew the Lord had led me to the KJB exclusively that's all I really needed to know at the moment.

[trc123]

[quote="Seth"]
"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".[/quote]


I've been trying to keep up with the various trails of thought on this forum; so pardon me when I ask where are you finding the "I was the God of Abraham?"

I did a cut and paste of both the NKJV and the KJV and I don't see a tense difference:

[b]New King James Version[/b]
31 But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying,
32 ?I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.?
33 And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.

[b]King James Version[/b]
Mat 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
Mat 22:32 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.
Mat 22:33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

[Guest Guest]

I've been trying to keep up with the various trails of thought on this forum; so pardon me when I ask where are you finding the "I was the God of Abraham?"

I am not, I didn't say the NKJV said that, sorry for the confusion if you read it that way. I thought that when I said:

"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."


I was being clear that I was simply making a hypothetical comparison to show that Christ based important doctrines on small details in wording, and how big a difference small, seemingly insignificant wording or tense changes can make. I doubt that the MV's would dare change that particular OT passage given that Christ mentioned it in the NT as he did.

[1Timothy115]

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.

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.

[trc123]

I am not, I didn't say the NKJV said that, sorry for the confusion if you read it that way. I thought that when I said:

"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."


I was being clear that I was simply making a hypothetical comparison to show that Christ based important doctrines on small details in wording, and how big a difference small, seemingly insignificant wording or tense changes can make. I doubt that the MV's would dare change that particular OT passage given that Christ mentioned it in the NT as he did.

OH, okay.......sorry about that, I misunderstood your post.

[futurehope]

I am not saying you are taking that stand, sir; nor any other supporter of the KJV-only doctrine. All I want to see are verses which do indeed support KJVO-ism.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

Then I appologize. But still, you disregard this:

The scriptures already posted as to the preservation, purity, and infallability of God's word coupled with an understanding of the choice by translators in the texts they chose (TR) verses those which the translators of the MV's chose make this evident. It's using God's word to determine the applicability of external evidences as to the truth in this matter.