Why King James Only?

[Genevanpreacher]

4 minutes ago, Alan said:

 

You need to reread your posting Alan. That is NOT what you stated.

 "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 "

[Genevanpreacher]

7 minutes ago, Alan said:

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.

You need to reread your posting Alan. That is NOT what you stated.

Read:

 "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 "

Edited June 15, 2016 by Genevanpreacher

[Alan]

24 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

You need to reread your posting Alan. That is NOT what you stated.

Read:

 "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 "

Genevanpreacher,

I see no problem. Both statements are correct. You are just trying to find fault with whatever I say.

I have bent over backwards, more than the allottted twice (Titus 3:10), in trying to be reasonable with you. The only trouble for my efforts from you is scorning. This thread is for the enjoyment of those brethren who love the King James Version and I will try and only share my reponses to those folks.

Alan

 

[OLD fashioned preacher]

Whoa, reign in, dismount, throw the reigns around this here post, walk inside, take your boots off, have some ice tea.

This thread AIN'T about GP. It AIN'T about Dave. It AIN'T about Alan. It AIN'T about why the Geneva Bible. It AIN'T about why KJV preferred. It AIN'T about why NOT KJV only. It IS titled "Why King James Only" --- let's keep it about why KJVO.

Do threads run off course in OB? Sure, even the game threads do. This one however has built half of a national infrastructure instead of a couple of rabbit trails.

[Genevanpreacher]

6 hours ago, Alan said:

Genevanpreacher,

I see no problem. Both statements are correct. You are just trying to find fault with whatever I say.

I have bent over backwards, more than the allottted twice (Titus 3:10), in trying to be reasonable with you. The only trouble for my efforts from you is scorning. This thread is for the enjoyment of those brethren who love the King James Version and I will try and only share my reponses to those folks.

Alan

Yes Alan. Just as you and Dave have been sticking me to the letter, I am treating you. The two comments may be the same in your eyes, but they are not what you accuse me of, nor are what you say happened.

To be accused and not allowed to use those accusatons in what they say is not anything but an improperly allowed defense.

I am glad this discussion is in words - that way people reading this thread can see how you actually defend yourself.

And since I should stop commenting as per OFP's request, I shall watch this thread with less vigor.

Thanks for the jousting. 

[Alan]

On ‎2014‎年‎11‎月‎10‎日 at 5:02 AM, heartstrings said:

I wasn't there when they translated the "Textus Receptus". I don't [personally know the men who translated the 1611 KJB. But I believe that Jesus is The Word of John chapter one, and the King of Glory of Psalm 24, the Shepherd of Psalm 23 and I the powerful Voice of Psalm 29 whose Spirit moved over my heart and shook my wilderness, broke my prideful heart. divided the flames of fire and I have never been the same. He is the Bridegroom of Psalm 19 whose Law is perfect, and His word is PRESERVED the Bible says and  I can testify assuredly. with the officers in John 7:46 who said "never man spake like this man" . Those are just a few of the reasons I believe the King James Bible is the "Very pure" word for my ears.

I agree.

I was given a King James Version New Testament when I entered the Air Force and started to read it. The Lord used the scriputres, John 3:16, a message on Hell (Luke 16), and a Chick tract, "This Was Your Life," to show me my need for salvation. Once I did get saved as I studied the scriptures it brought peace to my heart as I discovered the wonders of the Lord, His will and His work.

As I studied the translation issue I read, and studied, "Good News for Modern Man," The Revised Version," and the "NASV." Neither one of these versions spoke to my heart and I found discrepancies in every one. Only the King James Version spoke to my heart. As Heartstrings said, "never man spake like this man." This can be said about the Lord Jesus while He dealt with men on the earth and it can be said about His written word, the Bible. The words of the Lord Jesus are preserved. We have His very words preserved in the English language; the King James Version. As with His words on this earth men said, "never man spake like this man," as we read and study the Bible, the King james, I (hopefully we), can say, "never man spake like this man."  

I also agree with heartstings when he said, "Those are just a few of the reasons I believe the King James Bible is the "Very pure" word for my ears."

Alan

[John81]

When I was a baby Christian I heard the idea of reading several different versions in order to really understand the Bible. I don't recall where I heard that or who from but I bought several inexpensive Bibles of various versions. While some claim to gain better clarity comparing different versions that wasn't the case for me. What I discovered is that while some passages seemed to say basically the same thing, in many other cases the passages were clearly different, sometimes even contradicting one another. In my mind it seemed impossible that each version could be trusted to be God's Word when they disagreed in so many areas.

That experience led to much discouragement. Eventually I went back to my RSV, the Bible I had been given in Methodist Sunday school as a child. Some years later I switched to the NASB because it was an "American Bible". It was a few years later when I clearly "heard" the Lord telling me to read the KJB and stay with the KJB. I did and what a blessing that has been.

[2ndTimothy]

I read the KJV because of the agenda to minimize major doctrines in all the others. KJV has no copyright. The other versions are based corrupted manuscripts. I have responded the question and subject of this thread. GP you are kibitzing and tempting confusion if you  dispute  my answer (or others ) . You will stand before God as we all will.

Even if you respond to this I will not reply as it is foolish to do so. If you want to start another thread to push your agenda and the moderators allow , go ahead.

God is not the author of confusion .

[Genevanpreacher]

11 hours ago, 2ndTimothy said:

I read the KJV because of the agenda to minimize major doctrines in all the others. KJV has no copyright. The other versions are based corrupted manuscripts. I have responded the question and subject of this thread. GP you are kibitzing and tempting confusion if you  dispute  my answer (or others ) . You will stand before God as we all will.

Even if you respond to this I will not reply as it is foolish to do so. If you want to start another thread to push your agenda and the moderators allow , go ahead.

God is not the author of confusion .

Well, 2ndTimothy, I don't want to muddy the waters, but making misleading statements, such as you have made here, tends to bring about my response. You may read and not respond,  which is fine, but respond I will.

First - "all the others" I assume does not include the previous Bibles to the KJV, so I agree. They do tend to 'lighten' the true 'load' that the word of God was meant to hold.

Second - as for no copyright? I don't know why that matters, because back in the 1600's there were no copyrights on written works anyway. But they did have to be licensed by the King, which amounts to the same thing. And the KJV was. My 1560 Geneva wasn't. The common 1769 printed by Cambridge,  of which my wife has one, has the license in the front saying nobody can copy it without written permission. Still, that means nothing.

Thirdly - as for standing before God? I will stand in front of my Lord with just as much righteousness as you. Not self righteousness,  for I know whom I have believed. He knows right now what I stand for and how I let him lead me in his word. I tempt NO confusion. It may seem like confusion to someone when I can't make clear statements without getting banned. Then I get to have no fun at all discussing the scriptures with people who understand believing in one version.

But, hey, thanks for your concern. 

And you are right - God is not the author of confusion - so why would he still let another bible like the Geneva, which he used as his word for quite a long time, still be used today?

Because it's not confusing.

[HappyChristian]

Ok. It's been said in many ways, but let's try it again. BACK TO TOPIC, which is "why King James Only". If you do not have a post in regards to WHY YOU ARE ONLY KING JAMES, stop posting in this thread. Also, if you are posting about why you are only KJB, do not jab at someone or bring up the name of someone you know who isn't.

I hope that's good and clear.

[2ndTimothy]

I must apologize for the tone of my post. I read most of the posts and it was tiresome to see the tone of some of those. I did not consider the whole matter and skipped past the posts closer to the end. My point was well stated by many others and I did not need to add to them. The last post is very clear.

Edited June 19, 2016 by 2ndTimothy

[Genevanpreacher]

9 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

Ok. It's been said in many ways, but let's try it again. BACK TO TOPIC, which is "why King James Only". If you do not have a post in regards to WHY YOU ARE ONLY KING JAMES, stop posting in this thread. Also, if you are posting about why you are only KJB, do not jab at someone or bring up the name of someone you know who isn't.

I hope that's good and clear.

The question does go past that initial question with - "or if you aren't why not?"

And as such I answered with that part.

Happy Fathers Day fellas!

[HappyChristian]

15 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

The question does go past that initial question with - "or if you aren't why not?"

And as such I answered with that part.

Happy Fathers Day fellas!

Actually, you went beyond answering it. Hence the stop posting...

[Saved41199]

I know this is an older thread that I am "reviving"...but I feel the need to put my $0.02 in here as a newcomer to the IFB 

I started with the NIV, went to the NASB then to the ESV then back to the NIV...I will say that now that I have started with the KJV, I am rapidly becoming a "fan" of it in an enormous way. It speaks to my spirit in a way that no other bible has. I cannot explain it other than it quickens me and forces me to really stop and THINK and PRAY about what I am reading...it is no longer like reading just a book, it is so much deeper than that. 

The KJV stirs something that is beyond what the more modern versions do. 

[...]

1 hour ago, Saved41199 said:

The KJV stirs something that is beyond what the more modern versions do. 

I agree.  The KJV is not merely the best version that is available; it is the perfectly preserved words of God as He has promised us:

(Psalms 12:6-7) "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. {7} Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

When we hold a King James Bible, we can be assured that it is just as perfectly His words as the originals and may be treated and studied as such.  That is the difference between the KJV and all the rest.  It is the difference between a real Rolls Royce and matchbox cars made from chocolate and arsenic.