- Feb 29, 2004
- 4,235
- 4,910
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
I thought that was the Catholics.
No. It was us.
Upvote
0
I thought that was the Catholics.
Jesus never spoke those words to any believer in Him. He spoke them to unbelieving religious Pharisees. Accurate contextual exegesis, thou art a jewel!!Matthew 7:21-23 King James Version (KJV)
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Aren't Ruckman and Riplinger in a category of their own with their thoughts on the KJV?
I think most KJVO people just want a Bible from the textus receptus. I don't see how if the KJV was the "only" Bible used for several hundreds of years with some exceptions... How it originated with the SDA church? It originated because it's the legitimate English Bible. People don't want to deviate from it for many reasons. In my English city I found many KJVO churches. I also think you are wrong when you say it's "dying out" because it really seems to be increasing nowadays.
As some of you know, I strongly oppose the idea that it is better to learn foreign languages for the sake of exact transliteration than simply buy a readable version of the Bible. Reason being, of course, if you can't understand the Bible now, you won't read it later. I want to know if "KJV only" churches belong to specifc denominations or random pastors at any kind of church prefer it. Can i just look at a church name and assume they only read the KJV?
I don't know what you mean by scriptural support? Isn't the KJV itself the scriptural support? BIBLE VERSES ABOUT PRESERVATION Just a few examples.Sure, Ruckman & Riplinger added their own stuff to the KJVO myth, but they started out copying from the first 3 boox, same as most other KJVOs do.
And I expect the UK has more KJVOs per capita than the US does now, as the KJV is a British version.
Still, it doesn't overcome the FACT that the KJVO myth has no Scriptural support & is therefore false.
I don't know what you mean by scriptural support? Isn't the KJV itself the scriptural support? BIBLE VERSES ABOUT PRESERVATION Just a few examples.
I don't really see how that could be included in the Bible, in that way. To me it just goes without saying there should be one Bible.If that's what God wanted, He would've said so.
Most KJVO people don't consider many of the other Bibles a "valid Bible version". Meaning the modern translations. It's the source of the translation that's the issue. If they're different then something is wrong. That's where people say they're not different. If that's the case why make another version?And the "preservation" verses can be found in any valid Bible version.
Oh, I would never say you have to know foreign languages first! But as you dig deeper, it's a valuable education to get if you have the time.I must be able to read the Bible NOW. If I have to learn the original languages, that is impossible. There's a reason modern English Bibles were invented: so people can read and understamd them immediately.
What are the differences?
I don't really see how that could be included in the Bible, in that way. To me it just goes without saying there should be one Bible.
Most KJVO people don't consider many of the other Bibles a valid Bible version. Meaning the modern translations. It's the source of the translation that's the issue. If they're different then something is wrong. That's where people say they're not different. If that's the case why make another version?
I don't really see how that could be included in the Bible, in that way. To me it just goes without saying there should be one Bible.
Most KJVO people don't consider many of the other Bibles a "valid Bible version".
Meaning the modern translations. It's the source of the translation that's the issue. If they're different then something is wrong. That's where people say they're not different. If that's the case why make another version?
The KJV is a "Model T" Bible version. Its English style is obsolete, & many words used both then & now have different meanings today. Thus, GOD, who causes/allows all changes in languages, caused newer translations to be made to keep up with the language.
As some of you know, I strongly oppose the idea that it is better to learn foreign languages for the sake of exact transliteration than simply buy a readable version of the Bible. Reason being, of course, if you can't understand the Bible now, you won't read it later. I want to know if "KJV only" churches belong to specifc denominations or random pastors at any kind of church prefer it. Can i just look at a church name and assume they only read the KJV?
Only a pastor needs to know Greek and Hebrew. In any event, KJV churches aren't necessarily obvious from denominational ties for the most part. There are some Dutch Reformed churches that stick to kjv and I'm sure there are others but I have found that most kjv churches are one offs in their denomination.
Whether the authorized version is the best is up for debate. The nice thing about it is that it's based on the scriptures handed down from the beginning rather than fragments discovered sonce the 19th century.
Notice I said almost always. When it comes to IFB, the non-KJV churches are the minority - at least in the area I live.I'm an indy fundy Baptist, & our congregation doesn't follow ANY false, man-made doctrines of faith/wirship, including the KJVO myth. That myth has been a pox within the IFB denom for a while now, but I think it's dying out at last.
So you have an issue with a person believing that God not only verbally inspired the Bible and that it's inerrant, but you also have an issue with a person believing that God would perfectly preserve his words throughout all generations? Contemporary translations are similar to the KJV, but they are not the same. What's similar is not the same. If God's word is perfectly preserved, then one of them has to be the perfectly preserved word of God. They can't all be different and be the preserved word.Anderson is a quack.
And the KJVO myth is phony as a Ford Corvette.
Proof?
It doesn't have one quark of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, even in theKJV itself. And a thorough, careful reading of the AV 1611's preface, To The Reader, will show the very makers of the KJV were not KJVO !
Very conservative, independent Baptist churches are the only ones I've met so far who teach this. There might be some very conservative, old-school Pentecostals who feel the same, too.As some of you know, I strongly oppose the idea that it is better to learn foreign languages for the sake of exact transliteration than simply buy a readable version of the Bible. Reason being, of course, if you can't understand the Bible now, you won't read it later. I want to know if "KJV only" churches belong to specifc denominations or random pastors at any kind of church prefer it. Can i just look at a church name and assume they only read the KJV?
So you have an issue with a person believing that God not only verbally inspired the Bible and that it's inerrant, but you also have an issue with a person believing that God would perfectly preserve his words throughout all generations? Contemporary translations are similar to the KJV, but they are not the same. What's similar is not the same. If God's word is perfectly preserved, then one of them has to be the perfectly preserved word of God. They can't all be different and be the preserved word.
So you have an issue with a person believing that God not only verbally inspired the Bible and that it's inerrant, but you also have an issue with a person believing that God would perfectly preserve his words throughout all generations? Contemporary translations are similar to the KJV, but they are not the same. What's similar is not the same. If God's word is perfectly preserved, then one of them has to be the perfectly preserved word of God. They can't all be different and be the preserved word.
The words that God inspired are preserved and perfect. The changes from the 1611 to the 1769 do not change the words that God preserved, nor the meaning of them. The changes were entirely cosmetic and typographical. The argument of the 1611 to the 1769 proving the fallibility of the KJV holds no water, since no one can even prove where there was one change made that affected the meaning of the text.So far, I haven't found any of the versions that are perfectly preserved... here's a site that lists the changes to the KJV over the years. Do you know of any versions that haven't changed since their original printing? I'm not looking to argue, just providing some input.
Changes to the KJV since 1611: An Illustration | Bible.org
and another:
Changes in the King James version
and one more:
Changes To The KJV Since 1611
The last one has a comment about the changes being mostly cosmetic and not being major. I agree... I use the NASB as my primary Bible but I use the KJV as a parallel reference along with Young's Literal Translation. Plus, most of my reference materials use the KJV as the basis for their works. So, I'm not about to walk away from the Bible I was raised up studying as a child. I just find the NASB easier reading and it's a bit more literal at times. Incidentally, the NASB has a history of changes also, just not as lengthy as the KJV:
What is the New American Standard Bible (NASB)? | GotQuestions.org
My point to all of this? Something that is perfect is not changed under normal circumstances but, considering man was involved in the translation of the original documents, there were bound to be errors. All of us make mistakes and the folks that worked on the KJV over the years were no exception. Should this slow anyone down from accepting the Bible for what it is? Absolutely not! However, the translation differences might slow you down a little bit but that's certainly no deal breaker, just an annoyance.
God bless...
Well, at least you admit that you don't believe there is a Bible today that God provides us that is perfectly inspired and preserved. It's not my problem if you don't believe what God says, it's yours friend.Yes, God DID preserve His word perfectly - in the ancient Scriptural mss. However, TRANSLATIONS made from those mss. are a different matter. The KJV is far-from-perfect. It has several blatant goofs, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4. And if one still says it's perfect, then, WHICH EDITION is? KJVOs admit things that are different are not the same, and each KJV edition is different from any other, such as the Oxford & Cambridge editions of today. And where in Scripture does GOD support the KJVO myth ?