A Few Questions For Those Who Are KJV-Only.

[kevinmiller]

I agree with Crush, especially with regards to the contention issue. It seems that contention comes about by those advocating a strictly KJV-only position. Now, I'm not shunning contention for the sake of compromise if you firmly believe what you do, but I don't think conflict can be attributed to the modern versions.

Also, I'm curious to know what verses from what modern versions cause doctrinal error and what specific examples there are of it.
And how does a modern version take anyone to Hell?

[JerryNumbers]

Crushmaster,
I going to answer your question with a question about the KJ Bible.

How important is it to stand for truth? To me its very important that is why I use the KJ Bible.

You ask for examples of contradictions, I listed a book that not only I recommended, but someone else did as well. the book cost me $5.00, and it was $5.00 well spent, it has your answers.

But there has been answers in this 8 pages, but you fail to except them.

I'm not going to debate nor argue with you about MV's, I just don't see that ever does any good.

The reason I say it does no good, this one has gone on for 8 pages, and has got no where, you can find several other topics on this subject right here on OB, with even more pages than this has, that never went no where, they all seem more about promoting MV's than anything else.

[futurehope]

Crushmaster,
I going to answer your question with a question about the KJ Bible.

How important is it to stand for truth? To me its very important that is why I use the KJ Bible.

You ask for examples of contradictions, I listed a book that not only I recommended, but someone else did as well. the book cost me $5.00, and it was $5.00 well spent, it has your answers.

But there has been answers in this 8 pages, but you fail to except them.

I'm not going to debate nor argue with you about MV's, I just don't see that ever does any good.

The reason I say it does no good, this one has gone on for 8 pages, and has got no where, you can find several other topics on this subject right here on OB, with even more pages than this has, that never went no where, they all seem more about promoting MV's than anything else.

It is obvious that the point in starting this thread was to advocate the use of MVs and that there is no intention of learning, but merely trying to convince through man's wisdom the use of impure books.

God Bless,

Futurehope

[Guest Guest]

Crushmaster,
I going to answer your question with a question about the KJ Bible.

How important is it to stand for truth? To me its very important that is why I use the KJ Bible.

I agree that the KJV is truth, sir, and I agree standing for the truth is very, very important.
But I do not agree that the KJV alone is, indeed, the truth.

You ask for examples of contradictions, I listed a book that not only I recommended, but someone else did as well. the book cost me $5.00, and it was $5.00 well spent, it has your answers.
But there has been answers in this 8 pages, but you fail to except them.

I have gone back to the original language and have been able to explain virtually (if not) every example of "contradictions", sir.

I'm not going to debate nor argue with you about MV's, I just don't see that ever does any good.
The reason I say it does no good, this one has gone on for 8 pages, and has got no where, you can find several other topics on this subject right here on OB, with even more pages than this has, that never went no where, they all seem more about promoting MV's than anything else.

Promoting MVs, sir? Or promoting not putting so much importance on a certain version of the Bible?

It is obvious that the point in starting this thread was to advocate the use of MVs and that there is no intention of learning, but merely trying to convince through man's wisdom the use of impure books.
God Bless,
Futurehope

"Man's wisdom", sir? I am not trying to advocate the use of MVs. As I have said upon multiple occasions, I am strongly KJV-preferred.
Now, if you wish to argue against the original language, that's fine, sir. Or, if you would like to perhaps disprove my interpretation of those Greek/Hebrew words, that's fine also, sir.

But the fact of the matter is, there is positively no evidence and no Biblical or logical explanation for using, soley, the KJV Bible, because it is, supposedly, the only version of the Bible that is, truly, the Holy Bible.

Here is a question I would like answered, though: why is the KJV, and only the KJV, the true Word of God?
God bless,
Crushmaster.

[JerryNumbers]

Here is a link to a topic on this subject that went on for 39 pages, within these pages you will find the answer to why the KJ is the right Bible to use.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=23324

But even in this topic when the question had been answered why use the KJ Bible those who wanted answers would not accept their question had been answered.

[futurehope]

Crush,

You have, on several occasions, advocated the use of the NKJV (MV). You also mke it clear that you consider yourself a better judge in translating the TR than the original translators as you made sever statements that you thought this word or that word was a "better" choice than the word used in the KJV.

The on fact of the matter here is this:

Your questions have been adequately answered several times, but, like a lawyer, you just try and ask them a new and different way each time - hoping that you will get the answer you want. You didn't start this thread to get true and honest answers at all - as you have made it very clear every time you have chosen to disregard every answer give with "I don't see the contradiction there." And yes, I made clear the first time, but will do so again so that maybe you won't have to re-ask: You have approach this entire thread with the wisdom of a man and not that which comes from above. You have chose to blind your own eyes to the truth for justification of you liking of the NKJV - not because of the accuracy of it, but because you like to use it. This is obviously the reason that this site is a KJVO site and that it has been made clear by the moderators and administration that this is not a topic that is up for debate. You waste your time and ours by trying to get us to "accept" what you feel should be accepted. I pray that God will increase your wisdom and ours alike unto a greater understanding of Him and His Word. In the meen time, I do not intend to waste any more time on this thread. There's no reason it needs to reach 39 pages.

God Bless,

Futurehope

[Guest Guest]

Crush,
You have, on several occasions, advocated the use of the NKJV (MV). You also mke it clear that you consider yourself a better judge in translating the TR than the original translators as you made sever statements that you thought this word or that word was a "better" choice than the word used in the KJV.

I said things such as that (better choice than the word used in the KJV) based on the literal meaning of the word from Strong's dictionary and Thayer's dictionary, sir.
As to "advocating the use of the NKJV", I did a quick search of each page, and all I discovered was this:

Everything I can do with a KJV I can also do with a NKJV (I believe that at least the NKJV New Testament' date=' actually, was translated from the Textus Receptus). [/quote']
I could say the same about an NCV, an NIV, etc.
Furthermore, sir, I once said that neither the KJV nor the NKJV hit the mark on the verse from 1 Kings.
In fact, I do not think I have brought a NKJV to church for over a year.

Sir, I do not mean to be rude, but if they had been adequately answered, it would have refuted what I had said. I went back to the Greek/Hebrew and, using Strong's and Thayer's dictionary, answered the post you did in response to my response to Brother Seth's post about "contradictions" between NKJV and the KJV.
The answer I want, sir, is the truth. I have seen none of the supposed "incorrect doctrines" that stem from modern versions, sir; not one.

[kevinmiller]

Just want to let you know that I agree with you Crush, and many others here do, as well. I also use the KJV almost exclusively.

[pneu-engine]

And also' date=' sir, I have not been shown any inaccuracies contained in the NKJV, ....[/quote']

No innacuracies?????? What about the fact that the NKJV left out MANY THOUSANDS of words as compared to the KJV?????? "...Every Word of God is pure...."

Antecedent, please?????? Do mean that YOU BELIEVE the KJVO position to be false doctrine???????? Say it ain't so.

A side by side comparison will do quite sufficiently, actually. :Green

It isn't our toes you need to think about but God's Word that is being stepped on, and that is very scary indeed.

I wish I had time to thoroughly give you indepth details to the statements I made above, but will get back to that later. Right now I hafta dash off. .

[heartstrings]

Just want to let you know that I agree with you Crush' date=' and many others here do, as well[/u']. I also use the KJV almost exclusively.

I'm not one of them.
I never use any of the MV's.

[Guest Guest]

No innacuracies?????? What about the fact that the NKJV left out MANY THOUSANDS of words as compared to the KJV?????? "...Every Word of God is pure...."

Sir, if can show me some of these "inaccuracies" I cannot explain by going back to the Greek/Hebrew, I ask that you would please do so.

Antecedent' date=' please?????? Do mean that YOU BELIEVE the KJVO position to be false doctrine???????? Say it ain't so. [/quote']
If you can show me how it is not, sir, like above, I ask you would please do so.

[kevinmiller]

I'm not one of them.
I never use any of the MV's.

I know, that's why I didn't say all, or even close to all.

I only use MV's very occasionally for comparison and I have a Bible study book that uses an MV, but I'm not sure which one, maybe NIV. Other than that, I do all of my studying and reading out of the KJV.

[JerryNumbers]

Crushmaster wrote
I started it because I am broken over all the false doctrines/beliefs that are amongst Christianity today. This is just one of the many that is in our ranks.

He has made it very plain why he started this topic, its clear to that his reason for starting this topic seems to go against the rules of this board.

And he could check this all out for himself, but that woudl not suit his purpose of thinking he is exposing false doctrine on this message board.

No matter what you showed him, he would completely disagree, he has shown us the course he has selected to take.

[Guest Guest]

He has made it very plain why he started this topic, its clear to that his reason for starting this topic seems to go against the rules of this board.

And he could check this all out for himself, but that woudl not suit his purpose of thinking he is exposing false doctrine on this message board.

No matter what you showed him, he would completely disagree, he has shown us the course he has selected to take.

Sir, I said:
"I started [the topic] it because I am broken over all the false doctrines/beliefs that are amongst Christianity today. This is just one of the many that is in our ranks."
Brother Jerry, sir, I do not see how that could go against the rules of this board.

And, no sir, I will not disagree with everything he or anyone else shows me in regards to this - if it is indeed the truth, backed with Scripture, and is reasonable and logical.
If it is not, yes, I will not heed it.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

[pneu-engine]

Hi Crush,

I'm back now. Let me get my things together. I moved not too long ago and most of my books are still in boxes awaiting the construction of some book-shelves. Bear with me, ok, and I'll be right there with you on those details that I promised you. :thumb I think the NKJV left out something like 20,000 words of Scripture.