Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Why is the KJV superior to modern Bibles?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members
I gave ample reason for the fact that their are more Byzantine manuscripts than Alexanderian' date=' but in your [b']KJV Only Circlular reasoning you cannot accept truth concerning this matter. What proof do you have that the early church rejected the Alexanderian text. You have no proof, simply KJV propaganda.


How about we just tack this up to your Critical Text propaganda and circular reasoning? And while you're at it, remember that this IS a KJVonly website. You have been here long enough - anymore garbage like these statements made here and you will get an official warning from these boards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Furthermore, Dr. Hills believed all principles about Bible Preservation must come from God and the Bible. "In New Testament textual criticism, therefore, we must start at the highest point. We must begin with God, the supreme and eternal Truth, and then descend to the lower, temporal facts which He has established by His works of creation and providence. We must take all our principles from the Bible itself and borrow none from the textual criticism of other ancient books. It is only by following this rule that we will be able to distinguish facts from the fictions of unbelievers." -KJVD pp.115. Notice how Dr. Hills placed "temporal facts" at the bottom, while modern critical scholars start with this tangible evidence and search their way through the variant filled manuscripts up to faith in God.
Dr. Hills believed that if we begin all our thinking with God and His revelation, then His Son Jesus Christ will become our teacher and model on how we should approach scripture. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast (Eph. 2:8,9). If we have received from God the gift of faith and if we have taken Jesus Christ, God's Son, as the starting point of all our thinking, then we must adopt the same view of Holy Scripture that Jesus believed and taught during the days of His earthly ministry. Let us therefore consider first the doctrine of our Savior concerning the Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures." Dr. Hills covered this subject in chapter #1 of Believing Bible Study. In chapter #2 of Believing Bible Study, Dr. Hills applied the promises of Jesus Christ for the New Testament to the manuscript evidence. Therefore, Dr. Hills based his approach to textual criticism in both the Old and New Testaments upon the example and teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Finally, Dr. Hills believed that our Lord Jesus Christ left us with an anointing which has guided each generation of believers to accept truth and reject error. "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (1John 2:27).
Dr. Hills believed the Holy Spirit led the church to accept the canon of Holy Scriptures and reject non-canonical books: "Thus through the Holy Spirit's guidance of individual believers, silently and gradually - but nevertheless surely - the Church as a whole was led to a recognition of the fact that the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, and only these books, form the canon which God gave to be placed beside the Old Testament Scriptures as the authoritative and final revelation of His will." -Believing Bible Study, pp. 33.
"This guidance of the Holy Spirit was negative as well as positive. It involved not only the selection of canonical New Testament books but also the rejection of many non-canonical books which were mistakenly regarded as canonical by some of the early Christians....Soon all Christians everywhere were led by the Holy Spirit to repudiate these spurious works and to receive only the canonical books as their New Testament Scriptures." -Believing Bible Study, Page 33
Finally Dr. Hills reminded us that the Holy Spirit not only led in the forming of the 66 book canon of Holy Scriptures, but also the content of each book in Bible Preservation. "Thus the Holy Spirit guided the early Christians to gather the individual New Testament books into one New Testament canon and to reject all non-canonical books. In the same manner also the Holy Spirit guided the early Christians to preserve the New Testament text by receiving the true readings and rejecting the false. Certainly, it would be strange if it had been otherwise. It would have been passing strange if God had guided His people in regard to the New Testament canon but had withheld from them His divine assistance in the matter of the New Testament text. This would mean that Bible-believing Christians today could have no certainty concerning the New Testament text but would be obligated to rely on the hypotheses of modern, naturalistic critics." Believing Bible Study, page 33. This ministry of the Holy Spirit collectively through each believer in each generation down through the centuries is termed "the common faith" by Dr. Hills. This is the theological presupposition by which we can assert that each generation had a providentially preserved Bible upon which they could rest their faith for time and eternity. Not only has this been true collectively for the past generations of saints in history, but it is true subjectively for each saint who holds this same theological position today. Dr. Hills said, "This then is the basic reason why I know the Bible is true. The Bible is true because it is true for me. The Holy Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God and that therefore all the promises of holy Scripture are true in my case With Jesus Christ I am join heir, because His death by faith is mine (Rom. 8:17), But what more precisely do I mean when I say that the Bible is true? The Bible itself tells me that I mean four things. First, the Bible is God's revelation of Himself. Second, the Bible is eternally established. Third, the Bible is infallibly inspired. Fourth, the Bible is providentially preserved." -Believing Bible Study, pages 59,60.
Dr. Hills defended all the verses in the KJB. He reminded us that God used the Old Testament priesthood, and not the Roman Catholic church to preserve the Old Testament canon for us. - BBS, pp. 12,62. This is a scriptural fact. "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1,2). Dr. Hills reminded us that God used the common faith of the believer priests in the New Testament to validate the canon both in scope and content. -BBS, pp. 30,50,5l.


For the entire article,

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/KJBibl ... RADITIONAL


Kevin, maturity does come with age in the normal course of life. Knowledge alone just puffs up. Life experience seasons the knowledge we have and it converts into wisdom. You admit that you always go against the grain, might not that be evidence of a young and inmature man? At the very least imprudent.

You did in fact state that what John the Baptist posted seem to be the reasonable course and then you stated the same to my scenario. (Does the word "double-minded" mean anything?)

I could and have offerred much proof. The burden for evaluating that proof is to read the sources mentioned for yourself.

@John,

You sir are either too lazy or too convinced of your position to invest the time and monies to read the books by Edward Hills, or John Burgon. Either of which men would easily demonstrate that their personal first hand knowledge of the texts involved would dismiss any reason to hold to the false and unprovable tenets of Wescott and Hort, both of whom history plainly declares to be heretic and apsotate. May God have mercy on your soul.

God bless,

Calvary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

John and Kevin: Might as well give up. In the end, onlyism (not just KJV onlyism, but all the other onlyisms, like TR-onlyism, LV-onlyism, and that one French version onlyism) is based on faith. Faith cannot be reasoned with. In the mind of a person with faith, what they believe in is more solid than any fact. It's as real to them (if not more) than their own sight. One must remove onlyism from ones faith before one will consider any arguments, facts, etc... that might be contrary to onlyism. So you are wasting your keystrokes. Your keys are getting all smooth and worn out for nothing! :wink

I look at onlyism just like I do the Catholic doctrine of The Corporeal Assumption of Mary. There is no scriptural support for it (in fact, scripture is completely silent on the fate of Mary). It was made by man, and many people accepted it by faith because it made sense to them. If they want to believe it, that's fine with me. But I don't. Sola Scriptura.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

I only have one thing to say: GOD said He is NOT the author is confusion!!!!

I have compaired the KJV and the NKJV on my own self study. If you are truley saved...one of God children. You can clearly see the difference. At any time you take Christ out the even on verse you have lost the whole point of God writen word. That is to read the Good news that Christ died for our sins and that he is are only hope. You take that out and well you might as well worship budda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thanks Kubel for comparing KJVonlyism to a cult. WHY do you even visit this message board if you think we are all a bunch of wackos. Personally I am highly offended by your statements and believe you owe us an apology.

I did not blindly become KJVonly. I compared Bibles, studied out the history of the underlying manuscripts and the KJV, studied out those involved in translating or producing modern versions - then my conclusions led me to become KJVonly. Sure, there may be some that became KJVonly out of blind allegiance to a church or their parents, pastor, etc. - but many, if not most, here have actually taken the time to study out this issue for themselves. So take your insults elsewhere - they are not welcome here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Thanks Kubel for comparing KJVonlyism to a cult. WHY do you even visit this message board if you think we are all a bunch of wackos. Personally I am highly offended by your statements and believe you owe us an apology.


Jerry, don't take this the wrong way, but should I really care that you were offended because you misrepresented my post? Me offer an apology? That doesn't make sense, does it? Don't attack me with logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

1) KJVO is a doctrine.
2) KJVO is not found in scripture.
3) KJVO is taken by faith.
4) Faith is very strong.

Arguments against KJVO will not be considered by one who accepts KJVO by faith, because KJVO is part of their faith. That's what I was trying to tell John and Kevin. Their efforts would be fruitless.

I know this all by experience. In my case, I took KJVO by faith, supported by what I thought were many good arguments. But this doctrine was not from the word of God. It was from the mouth of man. I had to let go of KJVO from my faith in order to honestly consider the truths against it. I would have a hard time believing anyone that said they accept the KJVO doctrine without faith. I know of no 'religious' doctrine that is not accepted by faith.

Anyway, my post was directed towards those attempting to argue with KJVO's, not toward you. So with all that said, I will apologize: I'm sorry that you have to resort to straw man attacks and misrepresent another's view in order to somehow try to win an argument that I never even started with you. :frog

But like I said, people who want to believe in KJVO- that's fine with me. It's not like its unscriptural. It's just like the Assumption of Mary. It's something that some people choose to believe in, but something that I reject, because there's no reason to believe it when it's not in the Bible. I've learned it's hardly an issue to get all hot headed over.

EDIT: Jerry gave me an official board warning for this post because I "continue to deliberately misrepresent the positions of this board" and "buck our rules". Just wanted to edit my post to mention this. I replied to Jerry with, "Just for the record: I think you issued this warning as a result of personal feelings (particularly a reaction to how I responded to your demand for an apology, and how I exposed your straw man argument of my previous post). Perhaps later you will review the post in question and see for yourself that this may have been the case."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Thanks Kubel for comparing KJVonlyism to a cult. WHY do you even visit this message board if you think we are all a bunch of wackos. Personally I am highly offended by your statements and believe you owe us an apology.

I did not blindly become KJVonly. I compared Bibles, studied out the history of the underlying manuscripts and the KJV, studied out those involved in translating or producing modern versions - then my conclusions led me to become KJVonly. Sure, there may be some that became KJVonly out of blind allegiance to a church or their parents, pastor, etc. - but many, if not most, here have actually taken the time to study out this issue for themselves. So take your insults elsewhere - they are not welcome here.


Sorry I lost my sanctification or got mad, you have a perfect right to believe as you do, but because I hold a different view and do not agree does not mean I am a non-Christian or a heretic. There is nothing wrong with the KJV and I preach from it most of the time. Becasue my people .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


Sorry I lost my sanctification or got mad, you have a perfect right to believe as you do, but because I hold a different view and do not agree does not mean I am a non-Christian or a heretic. There is nothing wrong with the KJV and I preach from it most of the time. Becasue my people .

:goodpost:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

John, no one here is saying that you are lost - though some may be saying you are a heretic (in comparison with the official stand of these boards).

What we have a problem with is you coming here, supposedly FOR the King James Bible. You say you have no problem with it - but you take every opportunity to undermine it on these these boards - AND I DON'T SEE YOU POSTING REGULARLY ON ANY OTHER TOPIC (not saying you haven't posted on other topics - but when your anti-KJV and anti-TR posts are what you typically post, that makes me wonder), so that tells me you are just coming here to stir up trouble and sow discord among believers. Prove me wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
John, no one here is saying that you are lost - though some may be saying you are a heretic (in comparison with the official stand of these boards).

What we have a problem with is you coming here, supposedly FOR the King James Bible. You say you have no problem with it - but you take every opportunity to undermine it on these these boards - AND I DON'T SEE YOU POSTING REGULARLY ON ANY OTHER TOPIC (not saying you haven't posted on other topics - but when your anti-KJV and anti-TR posts are what you typically post, that makes me wonder), so that tells me you are just coming here to stir up trouble and sow discord among believers. Prove me wrong.


Jerry I do not post on this website to stir up trouble. Maybe it has appeared that way. I have nothing against the KJV, I just don't agree with the KJV Only view, but you have a right to believe as you will. When I say nothing is wrong with the KJV I do not mean it is inerrant, but it is trustworthy. I do not believe that any translation is perfect. Every translation has minute weaknesses. I believe inerrancy was in the original writings. I believe that God has preserved His word thorugh the manuscript copies we have.

I know you don't agree with my view point. I know that this is a KJV Only Website and you have a right to that view. If I have stirred up trouble I apologize.

God Bless
John
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Those who left KJV' date=' what bible are you using now? Just curious if you still using KJV or you are using another bible for your bible study.[/quote']

I'm probably disqualified from answering, but when I left KJVO, I didn't leave my KJV. Most people who read other translations choose to avoid the KJV because it is not natural to read. But since I grew up as a KJVO, the only translation I read was the KJV. So it's quite a natural read for me. There's a few places where archaic words pop up, but looking up their definition (for me at least) is a lot easier than learning to read a different style translation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Kubel wrote

I'm probably disqualified from answering, but when I left KJVO, I didn't leave my KJV. Most people who read other translations choose to avoid the KJV because it is not natural to read. But since I grew up as a KJVO, the only translation I read was the KJV. So it's quite a natural read for me. There's a few places where archaic words pop up, but looking up their definition (for me at least) is a lot easier than learning to read a different style translation.


I used the same excuse about as you put it "not natural to read". Sorry bro but that is a cop out. I am severly dyslexic (can tell by my spelling sometimes). I was saved using a NKJV. I intended to use the NKJV the rest of my life. When challenged, I studied and still study the issue. It did not take long for me to become only KJV. If another person whats to use a corrupted version, that is thier choice. Most use it because that is what they were told to use. (That is why I used the NKJV.) Interesting that the Holy SPirit made the KJV as clear to me as anything else. (Thats my testamony, not an attack). Therefore, I dont the buy the "not natural to read" or "to hard to read" issue. Poetry must be terrible to read then.

As far as the "archaic words" issue I can find you a pile of archaic words in the new versions. One off the top of my head in the NKJV is the word "lest". I dont hear people walking around using that word. Therefore that agruement is put to rest. Like I said, I used all these same arguments before I studied the issue. Im not trying to pick at you, I think I understand what your trying to say and that is your decision as to what you believe. I just wanted to share some points ive learned in my studies.

The more I study (and yes I look at both sides) the more convinced God preserved is Word in the english in the KJV.

As for what a person chooses to use, that is thier decsion. Most dont understand the issue. I just share my testamony, the research I have and the most important part, where God said he perserved his word.

God Bless you Brother :smile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest


Jerry I do not post on this website to stir up trouble. Maybe it has appeared that way. I have nothing against the KJV, I just don't agree with the KJV Only view, but you have a right to believe as you will. When I say nothing is wrong with the KJV I do not mean it is inerrant, but it is trustworthy. I do not believe that any translation is perfect. Every translation has minute weaknesses. I believe inerrancy was in the original writings. I believe that God has preserved His word thorugh the manuscript copies we have.

I know you don't agree with my view point. I know that this is a KJV Only Website and you have a right to that view. If I have stirred up trouble I apologize.

God Bless
John


So in other words you don't believe that God has kept His promise to preserve His perfect word for today?

Psa 12:6 KJV The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 KJV Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Don't tell me that God has only preserved His word in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts because that is simply not true. Why would God only preserve His word for the select few who can read those languages? That makes no sense to me. God has preserved His perfect word for us in English and that perfect word for us is in the KJV!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...