A Few Questions For Those Who Are KJV-Only.

[John81]

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

I'm KJB all the way. I think I've read every post in this thread. As of yet, I've not seen the answers you say have been provided. If I have missed them could you please direct me to the specific posts? Thank you.

[Guest Guest]

Try pages four and five John. There were plenty of reasonable answers given there, Crush just rejected them. Considering he now admits to starting this thread because he believes KJVO to be a false teaching, that is hardly surprising.

[John81]

Try pages four and five John. There were plenty of reasonable answers given there' date=' Crush just rejected them. Considering he now admits to starting this thread because he believes KJVO to be a false teaching, that is hardly surprising.[/quote']

I read pages 4 and 5 but I didn't see anything there that proves the KJB is THE Bible. The closest I saw was saying the KJB is a correct translation of the TR and other right manuscripts; but with that there is no proof put forth the TR and those other manuscripts are the right ones or that they were translated correctly.

I'm a KJB man. I firmly believe God directed me to exclusively use the KJB. However, beyond that personal direction from God in my own life, I've not seen anyone put forth actual proof to support KJO. If such exists, I would truly love to read it.

[Guest Guest]

I read pages 4 and 5 but I didn't see anything there that proves the KJB is THE Bible. The closest I saw was saying the KJB is a correct translation of the TR and other right manuscripts; but with that there is no proof put forth the TR and those other manuscripts are the right ones or that they were translated correctly.

Well, considering the KJV is the ONLY currently produced English translation of the TR(the others are based on the CT) it isn't usually considered needful to prove that the other bibles don't line up with the TR since they don't even claim to. However, if you would like to know more in depth about the differences between the TR and the CT, this book is a good place to start.

http://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&dq=The+Revision+Revised&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPP1,M1

I warn you though, it is pretty long.

[pneu-engine]

Ok Crush,

Let's get this thing started. What we are going to discuss is your premise that the KJV-only stand is non-Biblical. Do you agree that I have stated your premise correctly?????????????????

First, however, I am going to give you and all who read this my testimony:::::::::

I also used to include pretty much all of the MVs in my trust in God's pure and holy Word. It was a friend from church that told me That I could not have it both ways::: I.E. since the MVs and the KJV contradict each other they both cannot be right. My premise was that they all contain the Word of God and since people are getting saved from MVs aren't they OK????? Doesn't that in itself prove that God Himself approves of them (the MVs)??????? I told my friend that God preserved His Word well enough that no matter what man in his sinful state can do to God's Word people can still get saved. My friend told me that is not what preservation means at all. Preservation of the Word of God by God Himself means that He preserved it in all of its perfection, because He is perfect. There are no errors at all in the KJV. Granted, it is only a translation of the T-R and the Masoretic texts, but a perfectly 100% reliable translation. (((((((i.e. we cannot translate backwards and get the T-R and Masoretic texts))))))))))That got me to thinking, sure 'nuff. :thumb My friend told me to pray about it and ask God (the Holy Spirit) to show me the truth of the matter as to whether God kept His promise to preserve His Word, or didn't He???????????????. Needless to say I did not want to doubt God so I began reading His Word (my KJV) in earnest with these thoughts in mind. It is truly a wonderful thing how the Bible (the KJV for all English speaking peoples) is its very own best commentary. It wasn't long at all before God revealed Himself in all of His Holiness to me thru His Word. Right away I thanked Him for having mercy on me for my error.

So you see, Crush, why I believe that the KJV and the MVs cannot share equal ground. They contradict each other.

[Guest Guest]

But pneu-engine, he will just say that he sees no contradictions. He already denies the ones he has been shown even when they clearly and directly contradict.

[pneu-engine]

I'm a KJB man. I firmly believe God directed me to exclusively use the KJB. However, beyond that personal direction from God in my own life, I've not seen anyone put forth actual proof to support KJO. If such exists, I would truly love to read it.

John,

A good place to start would be to do an exhaustive parallel study of many MVs along-side the KJV. I imagine David Cloud has already done this. I know there are examples of this in the appendix of the Defined King James Bible. That appendix is wonderfully informative, BTW. I highly recommend it.

[pneu-engine]

But pneu-engine' date=' he will just say that he sees no contradictions. He already denies the ones he has been shown even when they clearly and directly contradict. [/quote']
...and that does groan me, but i'm hoping and praying that he will open up to the Holy Spirit of God who can and will reveal the truth to him, if he (Crush) is willing.

When he sees how the NKJV left out so many words, and very crucial words they are such that entire meanings of verss are changed, my hope then is that he will understand the severe contradictions the NKJV introduces.

[pneu-engine]

I'm a KJB man. I firmly believe God directed me to exclusively use the KJB. However, beyond that personal direction from God in my own life, I've not seen anyone put forth actual proof to support KJO. If such exists, I would truly love to read it.

This is very interesting, John, and puzzling as well.

You say that God directed you to use the KJV exclusively. Then you say that you have not seen anyone put forth proof to support a KJVO stand. What I find so interesting and puzzling is that you indicated that God, himself directed you to the KJVO stand and yet you want us to provide proof of such a stand, further indicating that you want to know it if such a stand is warranted. Any time that God tells us to do something he always tells us why, even though the reasons may not come immediately. . With that in mind what reasoning and assurance did God give you that convinced you to be KJB-exclusive (<<<<---your word)???????????????.

This is somewhat like mining for diamonds. It takes some work in digging to find those rare gems, and they are not going to be found by kicking the dust in the middle of a busy street.

[kevinmiller]

But those reasons may be in God's purpose for one person but not another. I think John's point is that he hasn't seen a Scriptural reason to be KJVO, which is true. God may lead you to that standard but perhaps a different version would help another person grow more.

[pneu-engine]

But those reasons may be in God's purpose for one person but not another. I think John's point is that he hasn't seen a Scriptural reason to be KJVO' date=' which is true. God may lead you to that standard but perhaps a different version would help another person grow more.[/quote']
My hope is that John can speak for hmself.

Re. your statement that God would want one individual to be KJVO but have a different reasoning for another doesn't make Biblical or logical sense. But, to give you the benefit of the doubt show me scriptural poof of your premise. As far as scriptural reasons to be KJVO, how about the verse that tells us that "Every Word of God is pure....". This is one of the most crucial issues for the KJV. i.e. That it is a Word for Word translation of the preferred manuscripts.

[kevinmiller]

Re. your statement that God would want one individual to be KJVO but have a different reasoning for another doesn't make Biblical or logical sense.

Sure, it does. It's just like any other standard. God said that some things are unclean for some people and not for another. Some people esteem one day above another. Some people abstain from meat offered to idols. That is between them and God but doesn't apply to everyone.

[Pastor Matt]

It is clear that this thread is no longer a question for only the KJV folks. It was also stated why this thread was started, which is misleading from the OP.