Why King James Only?

[Genevanpreacher]

4 hours ago, Alan said:

Brethren,

Everything that DaveW said is true.

Here is a link to an article on the Apocrypha: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha for your further study on the issue. If you read the whole article carefully you will notice that it is an historical fact that the Geneva Bible also contained the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testament.

Also, I re-read the, "Introduction and The Translators to the  the Reader," to both the 1611 and 1769 versions of the Authorized Version and in neither of those forwards did the translators admit that the apocrypha was inspired.  The translators deliberately put the Apocrypha between the two testaments because they did not consider them inspired scripture.

Lastly, Genevanpreacher is only telling us a partial truth concerning the items in the original Authorized Version. I re-checked my copy of the, "Holy Bible, 1611 King James Version, 400th Anniversary Edition," and included in that version (besides the original foreword and 'Dedicatorie," was the following:

1. The listing of the 12 months of the year.

2. An 'Almanacke.'

3. "To finde Eafter (Easter) for euer.'

4."The Table and Kalender, exprefsing the order of Pfalmes..."

5.  "The Genealogies of the Holy Scriptvres."

6. "An Alphabeticall Table of Canaan."

As with the translation of the Apocrypha, none of the above 6 itmes was considered, scripture. All of the itmes added to the translation of the Old and New Testaments, was a historical,  or a practical,  benefit to the reader. Individuals who teach that the King James translators included the Apocrypha between the testaments for any other reason except for historical reasons only is in error. Individuals that do not tell the whole truth concerning the insertation of other, non-inspired, material for the benefit of the reader, is trying to mis-lead the reader. In my understanding, this is deception.

Alan

You forgot the list of feast days (in number 4 above) that we should do those bible readings during, Alan. (That alone would scare any KJVO into thinking Catholics were in charge of this part.)

Does that make you deceptive?

No. It wasn't important to the discussion. 

So no source for the translation still?

I have no idea either. I was just asking and was curious. 

Since when does 'not claiming' something is inspired equal anything? There is no place in the 1611 edition where they state they think/believe/express that the Apocrypha are not inspired. I own the facsimile edition, and the reprint you use and neither say anything negative about the Apocrypha.

And, in every English translation since Tyndale  -before the KJB - the Apocryphal books were between the Testaments!

You are quoting Mr. Chick, Alan. He was wrong. There was NO big conspiracy to get the Apocrypha into the common persons hands.

They already had them.

For 51 years+!

Edited June 13, 2016 by Genevanpreacher

[Alan]

On ‎2015‎年‎5‎月‎20‎日 at 11:51 AM, Jordan Kurecki said:

Read the book "For the Love of the Bible" by David Cloud. really sums up a big issue that exists with all of the modern versions.

The original purpose of this thread started by Jordan was, "Why King James Only?" The side-tracking of this thread to the issue of the Apocrypha in order to insinuate fault with the King James was unfortunate.

The admonition of Jordan to read, "For the Love of the Bible, by David Cloud is commendable.

"For the Love of the Bible," is an excellent source of material concerning almost all of the aspects of the different translation, translators, versions, and up to date information.

In chapter one of the book Brother Cloud lists five facts as headings for five different aspects of the defense of the King James bible being the preserved Bible. I will list the five sub divisions of chapter one. All of these sub-divisions are referred to as, "Facts."

     Fact # 1  Modern text flows from a stream of apostasy.

     Fact # 2 The manuscripts preferred by modern translators represent a rejected text.

     Fact #3 The doctrines of inspiration and preservation promise a dependable Bible.

     Fact #4 The TR is fuller, more theolgically conservative than the critical text.

     Fact #5 The rejection of the Received Text and the JKV has resulted in a multiplicity of modern texts and versions which have eroded the authority of God's Word.

     Fact #6 To reject the Received Text and the KJV is to reject the old paths.

Bro. Cloud procedes to prove his points one by one in an scholary manner.

I throughly recommend the book and also suggest that we use it as a standard for the discussion in this thread.

Alan

[Ukulelemike]

I think I will pick one up. Sounds like a good addition to my library.  One I also really like for it's simplicity is David Sorenson's "Touch Not the Unclean Thing". It isn't very long, but gets right to the point. I also appreciate a great list of hundreds of languages the TR has been translated into, all the way from the early translations of the early to mid 2nd century, and covering the many Asian, European and native American languages it has been behind. I have seen many people's eyes opened from this simple book.

[Genevanpreacher]

On 6/13/2016 at 10:36 PM, DaveW said:

Now he is promoting the Apocrypha as part of the Bible.

Note this again folks - his own words using the apocrypha and the way it reads in "his Bible" to criticises the KJV.

He is herein operating his previously stated purpose of drawing people away from the KJV, and by introducing the Apocrapha as Scripture, as he is implying here, he opening up the path to instruct in various false doctrines.

The Apocrypha is not the inspired Word of God, and although it was included in the text of the KJV the translators noted that it was not inspired.

It is an historical fact Dave that it was a part of the Bible. And I am stating just that.

When one compares the criticism on the Apocrypha, for reasons that it should not be 'in' the Bible, people usually use the KJV Apocrypha as their source.

When also comparing the previous Apocrypha from my 1560 to that list, those 'problems' don't exist.

Just stating the facts here Dave.

I don't find the Apocrypha any more 'inspired' than the notes of a study bible. But I do think they are important. And unless one would read a different one than the 1611's they will never know.

Again - I am not claiming 'inspiration' for the Apocrypha, other than normal inspiration,  that God wanted it in there for a purpose, not the 'inspiration' you are thinking.

If you have a source for the KJV translators claiming it was not, that is fine. No problem with me.

But it is not mentioned in a negative light in the Preface, nor what follows the preface, in the original 1611 KJB.

They did think it important enough to have references to it in the rest of the Bible though.

Thanks.

[Genevanpreacher]

On 6/13/2016 at 10:36 PM, DaveW said:

Now he is promoting the Apocrypha as part of the Bible.

Note this again folks - his own words using the apocrypha and the way it reads in "his Bible" to criticises the KJV.

He is herein operating his previously stated purpose of drawing people away from the KJV, and by introducing the Apocrapha as Scripture, as he is implying here, he opening up the path to instruct in various false doctrines.

The Apocrypha is not the inspired Word of God, and although it was included in the text of the KJV the translators noted that it was not inspired.

It is an historical fact Dave that it was a part of the Bible. And I am stating just that.

When one compares the criticism on the Apocrypha, for reasons that it should not be 'in' the Bible, people usually use the KJV Apocrypha as their source.

When also comparing the previous Apocrypha from my 1560 to that list, those 'problems' don't exist.

Just stating the facts here Dave.

I don't find the Apocrypha any more 'inspired' than the notes of a study bible. But I do think they are important. And unless one would read a different one than the 1611's they will never know.

Again - I am not claiming 'inspiration' for the Apocrypha, other than normal inspiration,  that God wanted it in there for a purpose, not the 'inspiration' you are thinking.

If you have a source for the KJV translators claiming it was not, that is fine. No problem with me.

But it is not mentioned in a negative light in the Preface, nor what follows the preface, in the original 1611 KJB.

They did think it important enough to have references to it in the rest of the Bible though.

Thanks.

[Genevanpreacher]

On 6/13/2016 at 10:32 PM, Alan said:

My comment was good and spiritual. Did not the Apostle Paul state, "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." Romans 14:21 Your continual postings of placing doubt on the preservation of the word of God, the King James Version of 1611, is causing some of the weaker brethren to doubt the veracity of the scriptures. Every day there are guests that come on OnLine Baptist. They look at the different posts and try and determine whether or not to join and participate. Some of these guests are recently saved and you are causing those, and others, to doubt the veracity of the scriptures and give verbal ammunition (false), to the haters of the KJV.

Furthermore, have you not ever read proverbs? "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. " Proverbs 6:16-19 In causing doubt on the veracity of the King James Bible you are sowing discord, or dissension, among the brethren, and a disrepect to those who love the King James Version of the bible.

Alan

Just a small comment Alan.

When you defend the KJV against the other versions in front of others, do you personally feel like you are sowing discord among the brethren you are speaking in front of?

I would think not.

What are you doing?

You are pointing out the strength of the truth that you believe. Hoping others see it that way. And you are trying to help them see that the KJV really is better than those other versions.

No. I am not sowing discord among the brethren. I would like to think that I am not the one who is causing the sowing of discord, but one who is trying to re-sow the facts that have been believed for centuries before some started teaching 'laxed' teachings by stating "we know the text doesn't say that, but it means that" type of doctrines. Of which some churches are full of.

That's all.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Genevanpreacher

[Alan]

1 minute ago, Genevanpreacher said:

No. I am not sowing discord among the brethren. I would like to think that I am not the one who is causing the sowing of discord, but one who is trying to re-sow the facts that have been believed for centuries before some started teaching 'laxed' teachings by stating "we know the text doesn't say that, but it means that" type of doctrines. Of which some churches are full of.

Genevanpreacher,

You are mistaken in your belief. You are sowing discord. You need to really think what you are doing. Besides the animosity towards the KJV that you have shown on this website you have sown animosity towards the KJV on you own website.

Alan

[Alan]

On ‎2016‎年‎6‎月‎13‎日 at 10:45 PM, Ukulelemike said:

I think I will pick one up. Sounds like a good addition to my library.  One I also really like for it's simplicity is David Sorenson's "Touch Not the Unclean Thing". It isn't very long, but gets right to the point. I also appreciate a great list of hundreds of languages the TR has been translated into, all the way from the early translations of the early to mid 2nd century, and covering the many Asian, European and native American languages it has been behind. I have seen many people's eyes opened from this simple book.

Ukulelemike,

Thank you for letting us know about Savid Sorenson's, "Touch Not the Unclean Thing."

Brethren,

In answer to Jordan's original question, "Why King James Only."

As a personal testimony. In my early days being a Christian one day while attending the base chapel in Thailand (during the Vietnam War),  I started reading Christian material that the chaplains put out. Among this material was the translation, "Good News for Modern Man." Due to my newly being saved I thought it was just one of the books that they put out the the table. Afterwards, I discovered that it was a New Testament Bible. I read some of it and then compared it with my King James New Testament (the book of Matthew). Quite frankly, even as a new Christian, I saw the difference in wording, in style, and in meaning.

At that point I decided to learn more of the issue of different versions, the manuscript issue, and the reasoning behind the new versions. About a year afterwards I did the same to the NASV, and the RV, in more detail. As I read the diffferent versions I did indeed discover that the different versions did teach different things. As I read more on the manuscript issue I did find out the manuscripts used for the Revised Version (1881) and the following versions were from heretical teachers making, and using, corrupt manuscripts (see 2 Cor. 2:17).

Furthermore, a lot of these versions have definate denominational bias. This includes the New King James Version put out by Falwell for the fundamentalists.

I would really encourage those brethren who are not settled in the issue of these new version to read, and study, David Clould's book, "For the Love of the Bible," and David Sorenson's, "Touch Not the Unclean thing."

Alan

Edited June 14, 2016 by Alan
grammer spelling

[OLD fashioned preacher]

From the OB "Guidelines": The Administrators and Moderators of this site believe that the KJV is Gods preserved Word for the English speaking people

 

I realize that the rest of this refers to quoting from the KJV exclusively but the predominant portion of the guideline section is what I pasted above.

The inferiority, superiority or equality of the KJV is not the issue of this post -- even if the TEV was superior, the above copy/paste is the appropriate statement.

Whether the T.R is superior,inferior or equal to the KJV is not the issue -- see the previous sentence.

Whether the Great Bible, etc is equal.........

 

 

[DaveW]

39 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Just a small comment Alan.

When you defend the KJV against the other versions in front of others, do you personally feel like you are sowing discord among the brethren you are speaking in front of?

I would think not.

What are you doing?

You are pointing out the strength of the truth that you believe. Hoping others see it that way. And you are trying to help them see that the KJV really is better than those other versions.

No. I am not sowing discord among the brethren. I would like to think that I am not the one who is causing the sowing of discord, but one who is trying to re-sow the facts that have been believed for centuries before some started teaching 'laxed' teachings by stating "we know the text doesn't say that, but it means that" type of doctrines. Of which some churches are full of.

That's all.

This is a KJV website.

Your purpose for being here as stated in this thread, in your earliest interactions, and in many threads between, is to cause people to turn from that position to one which YOU SAY better shows those doctrines that YOU say are baptist doctrines.

You ARE here to sow discord, for you know full well what the position of this site is, what the position of the majority of members is, what the position of the site owner is, and you wish to cause doubt of that position, have regularly attempted to cause doubt and to belittle both that position and the KJV.

If one of us came to your favourite liberal, calvanist, anti-KJV site and went about rampantly promoting the KJV would you NOT consider that sowing discord and causing trouble?

Edited June 14, 2016 by DaveW

[Genevanpreacher]

On 6/13/2016 at 10:32 PM, Alan said:

Your continual postings of placing doubt on the preservation of the word of God, the King James Version of 1611, is causing some of the weaker brethren to doubt the veracity of the scriptures. Every day there are guests that come on OnLine Baptist. They look at the different posts and try and determine whether or not to join and participate. Some of these guests are recently saved and you are causing those, and others, to doubt the veracity of the scriptures...

Really Alan? Have people indeed contacted you and made such comments? Anyone?

Am I causing brethren to turn from truth?

Please, Alan, answer. 

And just because people may 'wonder' about what statements I have made, as indirect as they may be, doesn't mean I am affecting people negatively. Nor causing what you claim.

2 hours ago, DaveW said:

This is a KJV website.

Your purpose for being here as stated in this thread, in your earliest interactions, and in many threads between, is to cause people to turn from that position to one which YOU SAY better shows those doctrines that YOU say are baptist doctrines.

You ARE here to sow discord, for you know full well what the position of this site is, what the position of the majority of members is, what the position of the site owner is, and you wish to cause doubt of that position, have regularly attempted to cause doubt and to belittle both that position and the KJV.

If one of us came to your favourite liberal, calvanist, anti-KJV site and went about rampantly promoting the KJV would you NOT consider that sowing discord and causing trouble?

Excuse me Dave, but to what site does the honor of being my favorite?

This should be good...

I hope you refer to the one of two other sites I have visited in the past.

Oh, be sure and check the dates on the last postings Dave. Notice how much I 'favor' them.

Thanks.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Genevanpreacher

[DaveW]

2 hours ago, DaveW said:

This is a KJV website.

Your purpose for being here as stated in this thread, in your earliest interactions, and in many threads between, is to cause people to turn from that position to one which YOU SAY better shows those doctrines that YOU say are baptist doctrines.

You ARE here to sow discord, for you know full well what the position of this site is, what the position of the majority of members is, what the position of the site owner is, and you wish to cause doubt of that position, have regularly attempted to cause doubt and to belittle both that position and the KJV.

If one of us came to your favourite liberal, calvanist, anti-KJV site and went about rampantly promoting the KJV would you NOT consider that sowing discord and causing trouble?

 

[Genevanpreacher]

 Ok. I messed up here...

Edited June 15, 2016 by Genevanpreacher

[Genevanpreacher]

29 minutes ago, DaveW said:

 

Yes I understood what you were saying.

Anything else?

Edited June 15, 2016 by Genevanpreacher

[Alan]

35 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Really Alan? Have people indeed contacted you and made such comments? Anyone? Yes. I have had brethren, on Online Baptist, contact me. I will go no further in this matter unless those brethren go public.

Am I causing brethren to turn from truth? As I stated previously, it may cause weaker brethren to doubt the veracity of the King James Version being authoritative. Therefore, it can be a stumblingblock.

Please, Alan, answer.