KJV Only?

[tall73]

If you will not accept God's providence in first giving His Word to His chosen men, and then preserving it in spite of whatever human or devilsh devices would have denied God's Word from humanity, then you will not accept any answers to your questions but will only come up with more and more and more.

I get the impression that you have studied this issue only for the purpose of discrediting God's promise to preserve His Word and keep it pure.

Give me a break. I am discussing because I am interested in the topic and am trying to see the merits of the various sides. You don't know me from anyone, so why are you making judgments about my heart? Is that God's business or yours?

I have played this read the heart game many times in the past when I left one church that declared I was going to hell if I didn't agree with them. However, I didn't think what they said matched the Scriptures, so I was not going to be scared off by them from doing what I thought the Scriptures demanded.

I am hardly going to be scared off of discussing this topic because you want to judge me based on your impressions. So address the topic, not me, and your impressions of my character or spiritual life.

If, as you say, you actually have a "pretty good idea" where I am coming from, then let's discuss the real issue here.

"Yea, hath God said...?" It seems to me that all you are trying to do is say it is impossible to know what God's Word is, and tha't the devil's work and you are not on God's side in this issue. Sorry.

I did not in fact say that. It seems to me you said I was asking great questions until I got to one you didn't want to answer. Now are you going to explain what to me is a problem with your view, or not? It is up to you. But I am not going to decide on the topic by your attempts to read my heart.

There is a problem in that there are tons of manuscripts, and basically none of them agree one hundred percent. I didn't make that up. I didn't propose that so I could get out of doing what God said. That is the historical reality as we sit. So it is still on you to explain how you came to the underlying text you did when there are varying manuscripts out there.


Keep your personal impressions and insights regarding the participants to yourself. They are not the subject of the discussion, and they are not appropriate in the forum.

I suggest you focus more on the history of Tyndale and Rogers and the miracles of how their work was protected and continued, and how God answered Tyndale's prayer of "Lord, open the King's eyes" which he uttered while dying being burned at the stake for his life's desire in serving what he firmly believed was his God-given duty to translate the Bible into English.

I have a pretty good grasp on protestant history. Learning protestant history does not magically resolve the issue of varying manuscripts and how to figure out what God wanted preserved. I am quite sure God is capable of preserving his word.

The way you are trying to nitpick, all you are doing is trying to prove human error always has and always will trump God's desire for us to know Him personally according to His Word in our own language.

The way you are dodging the question and suddenly going to personal attacks shows that you need to get back on track. This is not the judge your neighbor forum.

I am asking a question that I sincerely feel deals with the problem I see right now. I don't have any doubt that God is able to communicate His Gospel, His plan for mankind, etc. variants notwithstanding.

However, you are making a very specific claim about not only one English text, but the underlying manuscripts as well. That is your position, and yours to defend. So don't get upset if we ask questions when they seem to spring from that position.

You are calling for "civility" in a discussion in which you are actually insulting God. I'm sorry for being so blunt about it, but this is what it comes down to.

I was calling for civility because folks were giving one word answers and you were saying your character was being assassinated. So you turn around start questioning the sincerity of others?

You can judge my heart all day long. I am not going to lose sleep over it. However, this forum is for discussing issues for Baptists, not my heart. So support your view, or relinquish your view, and drop the personal opinions about others.

Either you believe God said exactly what He said preserved if for us in English as it is preserved in the originals or you side with the Serpent who in the Garden of Eden framed his argument much simpler than the complicated "scholars" of today. It all comes down to "Yea, hath God said....?"

He can't have inspired two different underlying texts. I think you would actually agree with me on that. However, you are pushing for the one you think is right, so defend that with facts, not with impressions and judgments about the posters involved. Before I can consider the correct English translation, it would seem we at least have to have the correct underlying text, which should have been preserved at various points.

 

[tall73]

double

 

[tall73]

Tall73,
While I appreciate your desire to save me work, I assure you, the research has already been done. However, it is my desire to answer your question as directly as possible, without rehashing those things, which, it appears may be commonly understood.
One of the first things I believe we need to do is define “Majority Text”, along with the term “Textus Receptus”. I hope you will accept my simple definitions, rather than using ‘textbook’ definitions.
The Majority Text are those MSS which are of the Byzantine Text type, which make up anywhere from 95-99% (depends on who is counting) of all extant Greek MSS (approximately 5366). These are the Greek MSS that have been used throughout what was known as the Byzantine Empire, the area which includes the very area where the Apostle Paul founded churches while on his missionary journeys. The majority of these copies, (known as the Majority Texts) became very worn due to use in the churches throughout the years. Nevertheless, God still used His chosen people to keep His word until the time of His choosing, when He would, according to His sovereign plan, choose a man to bring these copies (or manuscripts [MSS]) together, so that He could have His words published in the language which would become known, world-wide: English. Before having His words translated into this new 'vulgar', (common) language, God would first choose a man to make a Greek text that would be a coalition of the Majority texts, which would be the groundwork of not only the English Bible, but the 'anchor' of His preserved words, in any language in the world. The man God chose was Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam. (October 27, 1466 – July 12, 1536) Erasmus was the greatest scholar of his day, I dare say, I doubt there has been, or is, a textual critic who could even begin to measure up to the caliber of Erasmus.
A quick word concerning these “copies” of the Greek MSS. Not every MS of the approximately 5366 MSS are perfectly pure. However, having said that, please understand that God knew (knows) which were (are) pure, and those that were (are) not. It was the job of the Holy Spirit to guide men like Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and others in their part of the work which would 1) bring us the pure Greek Text; and 2) bring us a pure English translation of that Greek Text. Not forgetting the Hebrew Text: The “First Rabbinic Bible” was an OT published text by Daniel Bomberg, in 1517-1518. In 1524-1525, a converted Jewish Rabbi named Jacob Ben Chayyim published a second edition of the OT text that would become known as the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text. The translators of the King James seem to have followed both, the First Rabbinc Bible (1517-1518), edited by Felix Pratensis, because the first edition includes Joshua 21:36-37 and Nehemiah 7:68, whereas the second edition does not include these verses; and the second edition (1524-1525), for other than these two passages, the text aligns with the Ben Cheyyim text.

As a note, the “Ben Asher Masoretic Text, is the Hebrew text that is used as the underlying text for nearly every modern Bible version. Even though the first two editions (1906 and 1912) of “Biblia Hebaica” by Rudolph Kittel were based on the Ben Chayyim text, for his 1937 edition Kittel used the Ben Asher text. While the text that the Ben Asher text is based upon (the Leningrad Manuscript [B19a, or L]) which is thought to be older (dated 1008 A.D.), I believe he fell victim to German Rationalism, and textual criticism.

God used (and guided) the Masoretes until the 16th century, at which time He had the OT text published in two editions, which would be used by the King James translators, to give us our English Bible.
We now move to the term “Textus Receptus”. Note: The name Elzevir is not part of the lineage of the King James Bible, however, they 'coined' a 'name' that would be forever 'attached' to the King James. The second edition of the Elzevir Greek New Testament from which the name “Textus Receptus” originated, came AFTER the KJV was already published, but the title refers to the entire body of Greek texts that stand behind the King James Bible.

Textus Receptus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“The origin of the term Textus Receptus comes from the publisher's preface to the 1633 edition produced by Bonaventure and his nephew Abraham Elzevir who were partners in a printing business at Leiden. The preface reads, Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus, translated as, "so you hold the text, now received by all, in which (is) nothing corrupt." The two words textumand receptum were modified from the accusative to the nominative case to render textus receptus. Over time, this term has been retroactively applied to Erasmus' editions, as his work served as the basis of the others.[10]”

Tall73,
This is the reason many are confused as to the differences between the MT, and the TR. 1) The TR came out of the MT; 2) the Elzevir TR is not where the KJV came from (as history shows).
I will in the future share more info; but I think this post is long enough.

Jack

Thank you for the run-down. I read each point.

Now to get straight to it--Do you acknowledge some differences between the text underlying the KJV and the overall category of what is known as the Byzantine text type?

Before going on with the next section could you please indicate in the affirmative or negative on the above?

 

[SaintJoeNow]

strange how hard it is to find anything critical of the Greek Eastern Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox Bible, but I found this....

The Greek Eastern Orthodox Church formed in 1054 when it split from the Roman Catholic Church. Since 869 AD, the Eastern and Roman were two branches of the same 'Holy Apostolic' church. In 1054 the head or “pontiff” of each group “excommunicated” the other! The Greek Eastern Orthodox rejected the idea that the Roman Pontiff was Supreme Ruler over Eastern Orthodox churches. While Orthodox churches share many of the prayers, litanies, and Eucharistic forms of worship with the Roman Catholic Church, it rejects and differs with Romanism on the following:
Greek Orthodox Church Beliefs
The Bible
- Use the Bible, along with tradition (7 ecumenical councils) as its two authorities. Their Bible adds 3 more apocryphal books than the Catholic Bible does and has 49 OT Books.
Eastern Orthodox Churches believe the Bible teaches without error the Truth needed for Salvation, but must be interpreted within the Tradition of the Church and its 7 Ecumenical Councils from 325AD to 787AD.

 

[grayheavens1]

edit

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Give me a break. I am discussing because I am interested in the topic and am trying to see the merits of the various sides. You don't know me from anyone, so why are you making judgments about my heart? Is that God's business or yours?

I have played this read the heart game many times in the past when I left one church that declared I was going to hell if I didn't agree with them. However, I didn't think what they said matched the Scriptures, so I was not going to be scared off by them from doing what I thought the Scriptures demanded.

I am hardly going to be scared off of discussing this topic because you want to judge me based on your impressions. So address the topic, not me, and your impressions of my character or spiritual life.

I did not in fact say that. It seems to me you said I was asking great questions until I got to one you didn't want to answer. Now are you going to explain what to me is a problem with your view, or not? It is up to you. But I am not going to decide on the topic by your attempts to read my heart.

There is a problem in that there are tons of manuscripts, and basically none of them agree one hundred percent. I didn't make that up. I didn't propose that so I could get out of doing what God said. That is the historical reality as we sit. So it is still on you to explain how you came to the underlying text you did when there are varying manuscripts out there.


Keep your personal impressions and insights regarding the participants to yourself. They are not the subject of the discussion, and they are not appropriate in the forum.


I have a pretty good grasp on protestant history. Learning protestant history does not magically resolve the issue of varying manuscripts and how to figure out what God wanted preserved. I am quite sure God is capable of preserving his word.

The way you are dodging the question and suddenly going to personal attacks shows that you need to get back on track. This is not the judge your neighbor forum.

I am asking a question that I sincerely feel deals with the problem I see right now. I don't have any doubt that God is able to communicate His Gospel, His plan for mankind, etc. variants notwithstanding.

However, you are making a very specific claim about not only one English text, but the underlying manuscripts as well. That is your position, and yours to defend. So don't get upset if we ask questions when they seem to spring from that position.

I was calling for civility because folks were giving one word answers and you were saying your character was being assassinated. So you turn around start questioning the sincerity of others?

You can judge my heart all day long. I am not going to lose sleep over it. However, this forum is for discussing issues for Baptists, not my heart. So support your view, or relinquish your view, and drop the personal opinions about others.


He can't have inspired two different underlying texts. I think you would actually agree with me on that. However, you are pushing for the one you think is right, so defend that with facts, not with impressions and judgments about the posters involved. Before I can consider the correct English translation, it would seem we at least have to have the correct underlying text, which should have been preserved at various points.

You are making nothing but a long rhetorical argument in which you simply reject the King James Bible as the Word of God preserved in English. Your starting position is the same as Gen 3 "Yea, hath God said....", and your ending position is "We don't know what God said".

You do not know what God said. I do. He preserved it for me in my own language in the King James Bible. I don't understand it all, but I know it's His Word. His Word changes me, I do not change His Word. You can question His Word and change it all you want to untill He comes back. You are insulting God with a pretense of wisdom that supasses His ability and desire for me to know exactly what He said.

This is basic simple faith vs. unbelief preaching. You will not accept intellectual arguments and evidences supporting the Word of God being preserved for the English speaking world under the Authority of James, King of England, so preaching is all you will get from me. Many others here are doing a fine job of presenting arguments, and you are doing an exemplary job of ignoring them all.

 

[Avid]

I am converting to KJV only because God has inspired me.

How was this inspiration given to your heart? What did you see or read that got your attention?

 

[SaintJoeNow]

One of many examples showing why the NIV is NOT the Word of God:

KING JAMES BIBLE​

NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION​

Why did Jesus come to earth? [SIZE=-1]Luke 9:56
For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. Matt. 18:11
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Luke 9:56
and they went to another village.

Matt. 18:11
(missing)[/SIZE]

 

[SaintJoeNow]

How was this inspiration given to your heart? What did you see or read that got your attention?

He's lying, but of course it's ok because he's being sarcastic. "Thou shalt not bear false witness...." does not apply here.

 

[now faith]

This is a old dead horse,and religion still keeps beating it.

I am King James only,yet despite providing numerous side by side comparisons hardly any one cares.

The comparisons show deletions they show changes that diminish the Devine nature of Christ.

My point is it doesn't matter,God will reveal his truth to those who will receive it,even with corrupt text.

Evangelist often use the Bibles of cult like groups to guide their salvation.

 

[Avid]

He's lying, but of course it's ok because he's being sarcastic. "Thou shalt not bear false witness...." does not apply here.

I am always cautious to "lay hands suddenly on no man." His answer would reveal that, though. Not to worry...

 

[tall73]

strange how hard it is to find anything critical of the Greek Eastern Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox Bible, but I found this....

Why is it strange to you that you cannot find much to criticize?

And why is your first step to look for things to criticize?

The Greek Eastern Orthodox Church formed in 1054 when it split from the Roman Catholic Church.

Please cite the source you are using. It is already clear it is not a mainstream Greek Orthodox source as they certainly do not believe they were formed in 1054.

[/quote]

Since 869 AD, the Eastern and Roman were two branches of the same 'Holy Apostolic' church. In 1054 the head or “pontiff” of each group “excommunicated” the other! The Greek Eastern Orthodox rejected the idea that the Roman Pontiff was Supreme Ruler over Eastern Orthodox churches.

[/quote]

Are you criticizing the Eastern church for rejecting the claim of the papacy that the pope was ruler over them and they should be in submission? Because protestants came to the same conclusion.

Greek Orthodox Church Beliefs
The Bible
- Use the Bible, along with tradition (7 ecumenical councils) as its two authorities. Their Bible adds 3 more apocryphal books than the Catholic Bible does and has 49 OT Books.
Eastern Orthodox Churches believe the Bible teaches without error the Truth needed for Salvation, but must be interpreted within the Tradition of the Church and its 7 Ecumenical Councils from 325AD to 787AD.

Note that even Jack was indicating that the majority text they used was preserved and formed the basis of much of the KJV underlying Greek text.

 

[tall73]

You are making nothing but a long rhetorical argument in which you simply reject the King James Bible as the Word of God preserved in English.

Actually I was making a long rhetorical argument that you are not the Lord Jesus Christ and you won't be judging any of the posters in this thread on the day of judgment.

I am trying to look into the issue because I have not yet decided all the details. But even for those who have made up their mind on the issue, whichever way they view it, they are not going to be swayed by your insistence that anyone who does not immediately come to the same conclusion as you is rejecting God.

You cannot force anyone to your view. Yet you can certainly turn folks off by telling anyone who is trying to seriously discuss the topic, that asks any questions, that they are rejecting the authority of God.

Get over yourself and stay on the topic rather than other posters.

Now, do you have anything to say about whether the majority text used for centuries by the Greek speaking church from ancient times was God's word to them in their language?

 

[now faith]

Question:
Through out the past with all types of meetings revivals and similar circumstances,how many conversions were done by preaching the critical text?

Same question for King James.

Across denominations and noted post reformation ministers what Bible was used the most for English speaking people?

If a text had given much fruit in the past,what is wrong with it now?

Has the increase of new translations increased the percentage of people who are active in the Church?

Since the promotion of new texts,has there been a drop in Church attendance per the percentage of population?

How many new age religions have increased since the increase of Bibles stemming from the critical text?

I am not being trite by asking such questions,it would be interesting to see the social impact of the increase of use by New translation.

 

[Avid]

... I am not being trite by asking such questions, it would be interesting to see the social impact of the increase of use by New translation.

I would not take your question as trite. Not so sure of how documentable this trend is, but its effect is palpable nonetheless. It seems all very subjective to the causal observer, but these anecdotes are very real to us.

Became concerned about the truth of the scriptures, and found a small Church that used the KJV. None of what I had heard preached before was based solely on that version, and nothing had that impact. In the decades since, it is increasingly more difficult to find any Church that is at all like that. It seems everyone is so concerned that they may offend the sinner that they are not able to do him much good at all.

How God Gets A Sinner To Know He Is LOST
by Rolfe Barnard

http://achristianspirit.com/SinnerLost.html
​

Someone suggested a Church that is over an hour drive from my home, but that is not an option. Likewise, it is not that we need the Church to believe exactly like we do, but they need to be open to the truth just as they would expect that of us!

 

[tall73]

Question:
Through out the past with all types of meetings revivals and similar circumstances,how many conversions were done by preaching the critical text?

Same question for King James.

As the other poster mentioned this may not be information that is readily available. And then you have the bigger issue, how many converts were true converts? Are revival meetings, etc. becoming less common in general? Are there other societal factors or even prophetic factors (wickedness increasing in the last days) that play in beyond simply the version of the Bible?

I am just not sure we have the data.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

My Tall friend of Greek Orthodoxy defenders, are you aware that right now, today, you can be sure with no shadow of a doubt that your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven the moment your time expires in your current dying body?

You do understand that if you are not saved from death now, secure in eternal life, you are lost to death, insecure in danger of the fire of Hell, right? Since you claim to know something about God's Word, you do understand that He wants you to know you are saved, right?

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I would not take your question as trite. Not so sure of how documentable this trend is, but its effect is palpable nonetheless. It seems all very subjective to the causal observer, but these anecdotes are very real to us.

Became concerned about the truth of the scriptures, and found a small Church that used the KJV. None of what I had heard preached before was based solely on that version, and nothing had that impact. In the decades since, it is increasingly more difficult to find any Church that is at all like that. It seems everyone is so concerned that they may offend the sinner that they are not able to do him much good at all.






Amen brother! Churches today for the most part have gone the way of modern translation, compromising truth to ease differences between real saving faith and worldly desire. The two are diametrically opposed to each other, and most Christians have bought into a "can't we all get along" kind of Christianity in which they unite against the King James Bible and in favor of compromise with the world so they don't make anybody dislike them by taking a stand against sin.

Jesus promised that if we follow Him, the world would hate us the same as they hated Him. If we don't have enemies who hate us and would cheer our execution as we stand in faith on the Truth as martyrs the same as Tyndale (the hero of the Reformation) and Rogers did as they gave their lives to bring us the Word of God in English, Then we are not living godly lives. If any will live godly in Christ Jesus, they will suffer persecution (2Tim. 3:16)

People have been attacking me, harrassing me in this thred, because I point out the pride that rejects God's Word in English. Godly men who are truly serving the Lord but do not agree with the Word of God being preserved in English in the King James Bible do not lift themselves up in pride to fight on the issue because they are too busy fighting agaisnt sin and in favor of persuading men to be saved from Hell. People who want to fight about this issue are flexing their pride to do it.

A godly man who disagrees on this issue, when told the matter is pride vs. faith, will simply say "hmm", and walk away to continue doing what God called them to be, and that is to be like Jesus forever when we finally see Him face to face.

The godly men who were my professors and beloved and much missed personal mentor were not King James only men, but they were wonderful men of God nonetheless with proven fruits of many converts and changed lives...a long track record of being used by God and proved by God in the testimonies of saved souls and changed lives with many stories of real miracles spread throughout. When I brought up the King James Bible only issue with them, they would shrug it off and out of respect for them because God's hand was clearly on their lives and ministries, I did not push the issue with them. Some of them would dismiss the issue with a smile by saying "if the King James Bible was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me". They all used nothing but the King james Bible in their ministries because as godly men, they knew it far surpasses all modern versions in strengh of doctrine, beauty of language, and track record of being used by God to change continents in great movements such as the American Revolution (which led to the USA being the leaders of the free world and English being the closest thing to a universal language since the Tower of Babyl, which is why God wanted and delivered His Word in English through King James of England) and the Walsh Revival and Great Awakening.



To all readers : VOTE YES FOR KING JAMES BIBLE ONLY

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Actually I was making a long rhetorical argument that you are not the Lord Jesus Christ and you won't be judging any of the posters in this thread on the day of judgment.

I am trying to look into the issue because I have not yet decided all the details. But even for those who have made up their mind on the issue, whichever way they view it, they are not going to be swayed by your insistence that anyone who does not immediately come to the same conclusion as you is rejecting God.

You cannot force anyone to your view. Yet you can certainly turn folks off by telling anyone who is trying to seriously discuss the topic, that asks any questions, that they are rejecting the authority of God.

Get over yourself and stay on the topic rather than other posters.

Now, do you have anything to say about whether the majority text used for centuries by the Greek speaking church from ancient times was God's word to them in their language?

My Tall friend of Greek Orthodoxy defenders, are you aware that right now, today, you can be sure with no shadow of a doubt that your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven the moment your time expires in your current dying body?

You do understand that if you are not saved from death now, secure in eternal life, you are lost to death, insecure in danger of the fire of Hell, right? Since you claim to know something about God's Word, you do understand that He wants you to know you are saved, right?

 

[SaintJoeNow]

As the other poster mentioned this may not be information that is readily available. And then you have the bigger issue, how many converts were true converts? Are revival meetings, etc. becoming less common in general? Are there other societal factors or even prophetic factors (wickedness increasing in the last days) that play in beyond simply the version of the Bible?

I am just not sure we have the data.

You'll never know if you don't know what is is to be a true convert. Have you been converted from death to life? Have you been converted by the Word of God? Are you religious hoping to be allowed into heaven or are you living in reality knowing you belong to God, bought and paid for by the blood of God the Son, so you know your debt to God has been paid in full and you are forgiven now and forever?

These are the questions similar to the issues which compelled Tyndale to dedicate his life to translating the Word of God in English, and which compelled Rogers to give his life carrying on the work after Tyndale was betrayed into Catholic hands to be burned at the Stake. Rogers got hold of Tyndale's unfinished work before Catholic forces could get them and burn them with Tyndale, and Rogers carried on Tyndales unfinished work and gave his life to God untill martyred by Catholic backed forces. Obviously God's hand was protecting Tyndale's work because God wanted His Word translated into English in advance of English becoming practically the universal language of the world, and God made sure to turn the King of England's heart as Tyndale prayed He would as he died in flames saying "Lord, open the King's Eyes", winning the hearts of Europe and England and earning the legend of the Hero of the Reformation. King James commissioned the translation we have now, which was done with all former translations diligently compared. God made sure His Word was translated into English.

Vote Yes in favor of KJV only