Textual/version stance

[John81]

Annie, here is the crux of the issue. It's not about an SDA, it's not about a movement, it's not about texts and manuscripts and languages. It's about believing God and taking Him at His word. From your stance, you don't even have God's word, so why do you think you have any position at all to argue from?

"Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." "For without faith it is impossible to please God." You will never have true peace about the Bible issue until you realize that, study though you might, and many have, it still comes down to just believing God at His word. Faith isn't a blind hope or yearning for something to be true: "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Faith will create in you the solid evidence of the infallibility of God's word.

Did God promise to preserve His words? Did God say that His word would never pass away? Did He say that His word was settled in Heaven? If He did, then it's obviously available somewhere. What one Book has God used more than any other? What one Book started the spread of missions around the globe? What Book did Queen Victoria tout as the secret to England's greatness?

I don't understand why you (as well as so many others) have such a hard time accepting the King James Bible as God's perfect word. It's become such an integral part of my spiritual life that I cannot fathom questioning the smallest jot or tittle of the King James Bible. God has shown me so completely that this is His word, and it is perfect beyond any earthly perfection. I try to convey that to people, but it seems that they see submission to one Book as a thing to fear, while in fact it brings the most amazing peace and freedom that one could ever imagine.

Yes, I'm known around here as a "Ruckmanite." My husband and I have been repeatedly rebuffed on this site for our beliefs about the Bible. However, that doesn't change the facts: there is no spot or blemish in the King James Bible. The textual issue really is moot, since the King James is a compilation of previous versions and compared with dozens of manuscripts, even taking some readings out of the Latin Vulgate, a Catholic translation! To say that the KJB is but a version of the TR is ridiculous and completely without merit.

As it stands, everyone, including you, Annie, must come to the point where you decide whether or not to believe God and His word. Right now you don't, as evidenced by the kinds of books you're reading and relying on. Those men have done nothing but question (Genesis 3:2) God's word and pervert it (Gal. 1:7) at the behest of the devil. Instead of reading books about the Bible, take some time and see what God said about His own word. The Bible is it's own best commentary, as it's been said.

For clarification of what my husband and I believe: we believe the King James Bible to be the preserved, perfect, inerrant word of God, given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit through the AV translation committee. (2 Tim. 3:16, Job 32:8; Ps. 12:6-7, Pro. 30:5, Ps. 119:89) The King James is the word of God for the end times; as the Old Testament (Hebrew) was, and the New Testament (Greek), so the King James translation of the Bible in English is God's method of propagating His word in these days. These statements are to us unquestionable and absolutely correct, as they are what the Bible teaches about God's word, and since we believe the KJB to be His word, therefore It inherits all the qualities attributed to God's word.

I hope you honestly read all of this post; a lot of thought and effort went into preparing it for you to read. I urge you to get rid of books about the Bible, and simply read the Bible. God can speak to you through that Book, but I guarantee He won't use a book attacking His word.

:goodpost:

[Annie]

Annie, here is the crux of the issue. It's not about an SDA, it's not about a movement, it's not about texts and manuscripts and languages. It's about believing God and taking Him at His word. From your stance, you don't even have God's word, so why do you think you have any position at all to argue from?

Have I said that I "don't have God's word?" I believe I most certainly do have God's word. I believe in preservation. I have a different view of it than you do.

"Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." "For without faith it is impossible to please God." You will never have true peace about the Bible issue until you realize that, study though you might, and many have, it still comes down to just believing God at His word. Faith isn't a blind hope or yearning for something to be true: "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Faith will create in you the solid evidence of the infallibility of God's word.

I have never in my life questioned the infallibility of God's Word. God is infallible; it is part of His very nature. How can His words not be infallible? I wholeheartedly embrace the idea that God's words are infallible.

Did God promise to preserve His words?

Most certainly He did.

Did God say that His word would never pass away?

Again, yes He did.

Did He say that His word was settled in Heaven?

Absolutely.

If He did, then it's obviously available somewhere.

Again, I agree. The "where" is what we disagree on.

What one Book has God used more than any other?What one Book started the spread of missions around the globe? What Book did Queen Victoria tout as the secret to England's greatness?

It is interesting to me how your line of reasoning jumps so quickly at this point to "a Book," as in a single book. We were talking about "God's words," not "a Book." Nowhere in Scripture does God promise to preserve His Words perfectly all together in one infallible book. Does He?

I don't understand why you (as well as so many others) have such a hard time accepting the King James Bible as God's perfect word.

I don't have a hard time accepting the King James Version of the Bible as "God's Word." However, knowing what I do about the fallibility of the humans that translated it (from a mixture of copies of copies of copies, also translated and edited by fallible people), as well as the many editions of the KJV that are different from each other, I cannot believe that the KJV is the "only" source of God's preserved Word.

It's become such an integral part of my spiritual life that I cannot fathom questioning the smallest jot or tittle of the King James Bible. God has shown me so completely that this is His word, and it is perfect beyond any earthly perfection. I try to convey that to people, but it seems that they see submission to one Book as a thing to fear, while in fact it brings the most amazing peace and freedom that one could ever imagine.

I do not fear the KJVO position. I just disagree with it.

As it stands, everyone, including you, Annie, must come to the point where you decide whether or not to believe God and His word. Right now you don't, as evidenced by the kinds of books you're reading and relying on. Those men have done nothing but question (Genesis 3:2) God's word and pervert it (Gal. 1:7) at the behest of the devil. Instead of reading books about the Bible, take some time and see what God said about His own word. The Bible is it's own best commentary, as it's been said.

It seems that you have completely misunderstood my position, KJB Princess. Of course I "believe God and His word." I am not "relying on" any other book any more than you are "relying on" the books and sermons that have influenced your own thinking about this issue. I agree wholeheartedly that God speaks through His Word...yes, the KJV (and the NKJV, NASB, etc.) directly to my heart. My Bible would be the first thing (besides my family) I'd rush to save in a house fire. I love the Bible and defend it regularly. (You should see my posts in strong defense of the Bible on secular boards I'm a part of.)

For clarification of what my husband and I believe: we believe the King James Bible to be the preserved, perfect, inerrant word of God, given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit through the AV translation committee. (2 Tim. 3:16, Job 32:8; Ps. 12:6-7, Pro. 30:5, Ps. 119:89) The King James is the word of God for the end times; as the Old Testament (Hebrew) was, and the New Testament (Greek), so the King James translation of the Bible in English is God's method of propagating His word in these days. These statements are to us unquestionable and absolutely correct, as they are what the Bible teaches about God's word, and since we believe the KJB to be His word, therefore It inherits all the qualities attributed to God's word.

Thank you for explaining your beliefs, KJB Princess. As you know, I cannot be in full agreement with you.

I hope you honestly read all of this post; a lot of thought and effort went into preparing it for you to read. I urge you to get rid of books about the Bible, and simply read the Bible. God can speak to you through that Book, but I guarantee He won't use a book attacking His word.

I did read this post thoroughly (twice through, in fact), and I appreciate the thought and effort that went into preparing it. It always helps to know more about the people with whom I am interacting.

Just so you know, I have read through the Bible (different versions) several times. I love it and teach it daily to my children. My children have memorized whole chapters of the KJV. The ones who are able to read spend personal time each day reading a chapter of the Bible. Many a night have they fallen asleep listening to a recording of various Psalms. Our family bases our faith and practice completely on God's Word, the Bible. IOW, WE LOVE THE BIBLE and are so thankful that there are so many sources from which we can study God's preserved words. We are blessed, indeed.

[kevinmiller]

Have I said that I "don't have God's word?" I believe I most certainly do have God's word. I believe in preservation. I have a different view of it than you do.



I have never in my life questioned the infallibility of God's Word. God is infallible; it is part of His very nature. How can His words not be infallible? I wholeheartedly embrace the idea that God's words are infallible.



Most certainly He did.



Again, yes He did.



Absolutely.



Again, I agree. The "where" is what we disagree on.



It is interesting to me how your line of reasoning jumps so quickly at this point to "a Book," as in a single book. We were talking about "God's words," not "a Book." Nowhere in Scripture does God promise to preserve His Words perfectly all together in one infallible book. Does He?



I don't have a hard time accepting the King James Version of the Bible as "God's Word." However, knowing what I do about the fallibility of the humans that translated it (from a mixture of copies of copies of copies, also translated and edited by fallible people), as well as the many editions of the KJV that are different from each other, I cannot believe that the KJV is the "only" source of God's preserved Word.



I do not fear the KJVO position. I just disagree with it.



It seems that you have completely misunderstood my position, KJB Princess. Of course I "believe God and His word." I am not "relying on" any other book any more than you are "relying on" the books and sermons that have influenced your own thinking about this issue. I agree wholeheartedly that God speaks through His Word...yes, the KJV (and the NKJV, NASB, etc.) directly to my heart. My Bible would be the first thing (besides my family) I'd rush to save in a house fire. I love the Bible and defend it regularly. (You should see my posts in strong defense of the Bible on secular boards I'm a part of.)



Thank you for explaining your beliefs, KJB Princess. As you know, I cannot be in full agreement with you.



I did read this post thoroughly (twice through, in fact), and I appreciate the thought and effort that went into preparing it. It always helps to know more about the people with whom I am interacting.

Just so you know, I have read through the Bible (different versions) several times. I love it and teach it daily to my children. My children have memorized whole chapters of the KJV. The ones who are able to read spend personal time each day reading a chapter of the Bible. Many a night have they fallen asleep listening to a recording of various Psalms. Our family bases our faith and practice completely on God's Word, the Bible. IOW, WE LOVE THE BIBLE and are so thankful that there are so many sources from which we can study God's preserved words. We are blessed, indeed.

It's once KJVO'ers get past the Scripture that says that God will preserve His WORD and move onto why it's only in the KJV that their arguments begin to fall apart and it leaves you scratching your head.

[Jerry]

Yes' date=' I'm known around here as a "Ruckmanite." My husband and I have been repeatedly rebuffed on this site for our beliefs about the Bible. However, that doesn't change the facts: there is no spot or blemish in the King James Bible. [b']The textual issue really is moot, since the King James is a compilation of previous versions and compared with dozens of manuscripts, even taking some readings out of the Latin Vulgate, a Catholic translation! To say that the KJB is but a version of the TR is ridiculous and completely without merit.

Some truth in your post - mixed with error in this quote.

The KJV is from the TR - not from the Latin, nor is it a compilation of previous versions. It builds upon the prior work done by Tyndale and others, translated from the same TR manuscripts. The KJV translators consulted other manuscripts and previous versions (in English and in other languages) - they did not take readings out of the Catholic Text. All the readings in the KJV are from the various editions of the TR, and can be confirmed from first and second century quotes from various church leaders (no, I am not endorsing them at all - just showing the text they used was the same though).

[Jerry]

It's once KJVO'ers get past the Scripture that says that God will preserve His WORD and move onto why it's only in the KJV that their arguments begin to fall apart and it leaves you scratching your head.

It is a position of belief in God's promises to preserve His Word - including all the specific words contained therein - in manuscripts or books available to His children. It is better than some vague wanna-be belief that says we can have some approximation of His Word, in a general idea - not in any specific place - and we can glean it from whatever source we want, regardless of how much it is messed with or changed. Sounds like you have made yourself - or some Bible scholar/textual critic - your final authority in determining what is and what is not God's Word - and are truly blinded to the fact that contradicting sources/words/meanings cannot all be from God.

[kevinmiller]

It is a position of belief in God's promises to preserve His Word - including all the specific words contained therein - in manuscripts or books available to His children. It is better than some vague wanna-be belief that says we can have some approximation of His Word, in a general idea - not in any specific place - and we can glean it from whatever source we want, regardless of how much it is messed with or changed. Sounds like you have made yourself - or some Bible scholar/textual critic - your final authority in determining what is and what is not God's Word - and are truly blinded to the fact that contradicting sources/words/meanings cannot all be from God.

You can believe that if you want, if it props up your beliefs. I didn't see much in your post that represents anyone I know, though.

[Guest Guest]

I wouldn't call that "King James Only," personally.

[Guest Guest]

KJB_Princess...Oh, I forgot. :smile This is the most disturbing thing on a KJVO website. The IFB's that posted a "wishy-washy" attitude on the gun issue is the next most disturbing thing on OB. Come Lord Jesus!

candlelight

[pneu-engine]

I picked no. 2, because no. 3 is a bit presumptive to assume that nothing equal to the KJV can EVER COME. We do not know the future. I do not think there will ever be a better translation than the KJV, but I won't assume or presume on the LORD. Languages are constantly changing. We no longer speak Pure ENGLISH, and never spoke 1611 English. We speak American, and those south of the border speak something else. If the LORD tarries for another 200 years we may need another pure translation directly from the TR.

[Annie]

It is a position of belief in God's promises to preserve His Word - including all the specific words contained therein - in manuscripts or books available to His children.

Here we have common ground, Jerry (I think). I too believe that God has promised to preserve His words...the "where" and "how" is not mentioned in the biblical promises, though. But I would agree that God has preserved His words in manuscripts or books that are available to us today. Woo-hoo! Have we found common ground?

Let's deconstruct the rest of what you have said here:

It is better than some vague wanna-be belief

My beliefs are not "wanna-be" beliefs. I don't understand what you mean here. I believe that God has preserved His words through manuscripts that are available today, and that any Christian can easily acquire.

that says we can have some approximation of His Word

I'm not sure what you are saying here...Of course we do not have the actual words of God as they were first uttered by him to the writers of the originals (in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek). What we have, as we all know, are translations (translations of copies of copies of translations). Most of us know that when words are translated from one language to another, it is not always possible to translate "one-to-one correspondence"...for example, the Greek language has four words for love, which each describe a specific kind of love (agape, phileo, storge, eros). English, poor language that it is, has one word for "love."

So, the word "love" in the KJV is an approximation of each of the four Greek words that are more specific than the word "love." It's the best word they could come up with to be closest to the original meaning. Our language doesn't have comparable words for agape, phileo, storge, and eros. So, do I panic that since "meaning is lost" in the KJV translation of these words (because it really is), that I don't really have the words of God? No...I have concordances and other language helps available that further explain and clarify the meanings for me. If other translations use words like "affection" or "lust" where the KJV uses "love," do I assume that these versions must not agree with the KJV, or must not be the preserved words of God? No...again because I have so many easy ways to verify exactly what those verses are talking about.

Those who get hung up on specific "words" do not understand the difficulties inherent in any work that has been translated from a different language. Because of the different idioms, expressions, structure, and grammar of different languages, it is just not possible to say everything in exactly the same way (same word/sentence order, same actual words, etc.) as it was in the original work. Quick example: The Spanish translation for our English, "I am hungry," is "Tengo hambre." Notice that the English is three words, the Spanish is only two, since the personal pronoun I is indicated by the o at the end of the verb. But tengo (the verb) does not mean "I am." Rather, it means, "I have." Hambre is not the adjective hungry; it is the noun hunger. IOW, Spanish speakers do not say "I am hungry," but rather, "I have hunger." Yet any Spanish-to-English translator will render it as, "I am hungry," because that is the English way of expressing the same concept.

in a general idea - not in any specific place

Again, I don't think I ever said that God's words are merely "general ideas," although I do think the ideas of what God said has indeed been preserved. (If all of the words but not the ideas had been preserved, we really wouldn't understand what God was trying to say, would we?)

As far as being in a specific place...I would say that it is not just in ONE specific place, but can be discerned as we study, meditate, and familiarize ourselves in other ways with biblical content as well as concordances and various translations. This is not hard to do. It does take time, devotion, and sensitivity to the Illuminator of God's Word, the Holy Spirit.

and we can glean it from whatever source we want, regardless of how much it is messed with or changed

As Kevin has already said, I don't know anyone who believes that we can just pick up any Bible we want to and find a reliable translation of God's Word. There are obviously Bibles out there that are inferior works of translation.

Sounds like you have made yourself - or some Bible scholar/textual critic - your final authority in determining what is and what is not God's Word - and are truly blinded to the fact that contradicting sources/words/meanings cannot all be from God.

At the risk of repeating myself, this is an incorrect understanding of my position. For one thing, I have not noticed any more contradictions between the major reliable translations and the KJV than I have noticed within the KJV itself. And any differences I've noticed are negligible, as they do not give contradictory information about any important biblical themes, ideas, or doctrines.

[Guest Guest]

If the LORD tarries for another 200 years we may need another pure translation directly from the TR.

Anyone who believes this is not truly KJVO.

[kevinmiller]

Anyone who believes this is not truly KJVO.

If, in 200 years, English is so different as to make understanding the KJV extremely difficult, KJVO'ers won't still be around. :wink

[JerryNumbers]

I voted number 3.

But this will tell you how this board stands.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2512

Most of us who devoutly believe and defend the King James Bible are well aware of how "stupid" "ignorant" "backward" "cultic" "unloving" and "narrow minded" we are IN YOUR EYES.

You do not need to tell us again, we heard you the first time and have been hearing you for hundreds of years. The trouble is that we are a loyal and faithful lot finding it difficult to change our stand and beliefs. Even with all of your books, magazines, articles, and posts, you have not given us any evidence, either material or Spiritual, to show that you offer us anything better than what we already have. In fact there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that you could even offer us anything as good as we have!

Therefore to listen to your insults, blasphemies, and offers, is a repeat of history and a waste of our time but we thank you for your concern (you did come out of true concern didn't you?) but we are really not interested in your offers.

We will however pray that you come to know and believe in something to the point that you are willing to stand as a true defender of the faith in the face of any and all opposition just as most of us do.

We DO however stand with open invitation to all who come sincerely seeking the truth in the matter of the King James Bible versus the Modern Versions. I don't know of a single KJBible defender who will lie to you or twist History or the Scriptures to make a point. If any do then they have other problems that need dealt with before the Lord and have no fellowship with the true defenders of God's Word.

We ask the seeker to look beneath all the hype and the arguments found in every public KJBible forum, for the devil sends such events to keep you discouraged and in the dark. Be not detoured from your mission of truth, for in the end the Spirit of God will testify to the Spirit in you as to what is true and what is not.

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: John 15:26

Written by Jim Oakley and used by permission.

[Jerry]

Anyone who believes this is not truly KJVO.

Oh please... :roll

Sorry, some just aren't as extremist as you Ruckmanites! Taken in context, the other Jerry's statement makes perfect sense and most members on these boards would agree with it.

[Guest Guest]

If, in 200 years, English is so different as to make understanding the KJV extremely difficult, KJVO'ers won't still be around.

Kevin...with all due respect, how do you see this TR stuff? God's Holy Word...the KJVO has been preserved.

YIKES! In 200 years, the English language will be so "dumbed down" we might have a "slang" Bible? Oh...that will be next on the market, if "true" Christians don't take a stance on the KJVO, and, fast! :pray ing for ALL future souls as I type this. Satan moves VERY quickly. :sad Again, the Devil is bafflling, cunning, and powerful! BTW, 1/2 of the world's population...that has ever been born, is still alive today. There are 6.5 Billion people on earth. They need God's pure word...the KJV 1611 AV. It is not that complicated for people to understand. Satan has folks blinded in ever thinking this. :sad

candlelight