The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

[SaintJoeNow]

In King James English Me thinks you protesteth too much.

Thank you Rev, for reminding me of my dear mother and one of her favorite sayings, "me thinks thou protests too much". Some of her other sayings were "rise and shine, and I'll give you a dime", sometimes she would sing before rousing us kids "Are you sleeping, are you sleeping, brother John, brother John? Morning bells are ringing, morning bells are ringing, ding ding dong, ding ding dong. If that didn't get us on our feet, then we got roused by her next to our bed saying "rise and shine!" She would use "me thinks thou protests too much" when she didn't believe our explanation of something but it was something that was not too important. I think she got the saying from one of her favorite movies, I'm pretty sure I heard it in one of those movies, Fiddler on the Roof or Nutcracker Suite or something like that...Sound of Music maybe, I don't know, it's been a long time. She's gone and I can't ask her where she got it from, but I'm almost certain she got it from a movie on TV.

Because of the way you are using the phrase like my Mother did, I am believing that you really don't think the issue of the OP is too important, so I will assume that you really are not determined to silence people who agree with the OP, and that you encourage everybody to look at both sides of the issue as I do.
I am posting in this thread in agreement with the OP. It is not an issue I wish to fight with you over. I have stated my position clearly and clearly said there are thousands of supporting facts for that position in the changes of various books which claim to be Bibles. You seem to be not interested in those supporting facts, but you do seem to enjoy posting your protests against the OP.

It is you who is protesting too much here. You are taking the protestor position against the OP, and by entering into this thread and saying I am protesting too much when I am supporting the position of the OP resisting your protests, it seems your desire is to erase, silence, remove from the public view the entire OP and all supporting points. Me thinks you protest too much. You can't listen when all you do is protest, as if you feel you must protest as long as people like myself support the position of the OP, it seems like you are not interested in discussion but are interested in silencing the opinions of those you disagree with.

There is only one Bible that is being outlawed. That is the only one that cannot be changed because it is the word of God. All imposter versions can be changed or discarded if they cannot be changed enough to be "politically correct". The King James Bible cannot be changed or discarded because it came by the will of God through obedient men who were brutally martyred for their conviction that God wanted the King of England to intervene in the matter to endorse the Authorized English Version as the best, which is exactly what happened and is why the King James Bible has and will stand the test of time and remain forever unchanged. Editions which changed things like the usage of "v" in place of "u" are not changes to the word of God. The King James Bible remains unchanged from the time it was translated until today and it will remain forever unchanged and you cannot force a believer like me to renounce it as God's word any more than Catholic and Protestant (Calvinistic) backed forces tried to stop the work of Tyndale by burning him at the stake and pleading with the King of England not to make a new translation which would challenge the implications of the Geneva Bible (which was the Calvinist supported translation thoroughly watered with Calvinistic indoctrinations in footnotes). Rogers took Tyndales unfinished work out of his home at peril of his own life, and kept it safe before it could be burned along with Tyndale, and he later was martyred for his obedience to God in this issue.
Tyndale prayed loudly as he was burning to death "Lord, open the King's eyes". Tyndale was rewarded for his obedience to God by earning in martyrdom the title of "The Hero of The Reformation" as he had won the hearts of Europe and England, and God answered that prayer for the King's eyes to be opened, and against to advice of those who supported the murder of Tyndale, the King chose to commission a translation of the Bible into English under his authorization and Tyndales work was continued and completed under the King's command. All fraudulent versions can be changed as they were invented by making changes in the word of God from the start. They soften the words which speak of key doctrines which are offensive to the religions of others, such as the divinity of Christ, the blood atonement for our sins (which is why your pet mock Bible changes "blood" to "sacrifice") the eternal torments of death in Hell in the Lake of Fire, the majesty of Christ who will return bodily to rule the Earth, the virgin birth, and much more. They change, remove, or soften words which might be offensive to people who are proud in their sin such as changing "sodomites" to "male prostitutes". All books which imitate the Bible but make changes contrary to the Bible will pass as Bibles when the Bible is outlawed for "hate speech" because of things like Jesus's clear warnings of eternal punishment in Hell and the Bible's clear condemnation against homosexuality calling it an "abomination" so strongly that it almost, and perhaps actually does, to place that particular sin in a separate category of sins which are considered by God to be exceedingly wicked.

I, and people who support the OP in this thread are not the protesters. The protesters are the ones who keep going on and on and on about why they don't like the position of the OP. Will they never be happy? Will they be happy if we burn all of the King James Bibles, and place on top of that bonfire all of the bodies of people who refused to renounce it as the word of God?

I hope I am wrong in saying it seems to be that this is the goal of your method of protesting, refusing to listen to the reasoning of those you disagree with and accusing them of "protesting too much" when they try to answer your objections to their position". When you don't want to listen, and you only go on and on and on protesting with your position which is laced with insults as is your motherly comment "me thinks you protest too much", it seems you are using bullying tactics attempting to silence those you disagree with and attempting to keep others from giving a fair audience to the position you do not like. I am not misled in believing God preserved his word and gave it to me in my own language and I know exactly what His word is because I have it in black and white. The pastor you insulted earlier by calling him misled is entitled to believe the same thing as I do. You are entitled to believe you do not have God's word clearly written in black and white and if you keep trying, you can get closer and closer to knowing what God said to you and knowing what it means in English. If you want to believe that you can never know exactly what God said because the originals are lost, that's ok. I think you are misinformed on the issue, but I will not insult you by saying you are mislead. To say you are misinformed, or uninformed, is an appeal which invites you to a friendly conversation on the topic.

I truly hope I am wrong and you actually are not trying to silence people who agree with the OP here. I truly hope that you will be saying praise the Lord in heaven forever with me, and I don't see any reason why you cannot with me now say "praise the lord", and "thank God for saving me from Hell by His own blood which paid for my sins so I am forgiven and heaven is my home". Do you see any reason why you cannot agree with this summary statement as my brother in Christ? Does the KJVonly issue really have to be devisive?

I hope you are not protesting too much, and you certainly have protested enough my brother. But if you feel you must continue your protests, go ahead. Please try to do it without insults.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Respectively,KJV only is not a movement.
The King James has been the Bible of choice for English speaking people for Hundreds of years.

It is the other translations that are much newer,and have brought on a anti King James movement.

I have talked with one Pastor that because I use the King James,I would not fit into his teaching out of the new versions.

Inductive reasoning is a difficult way to seek the wisdom of God's Word.

A inductive example would be to say there are many paths to God.

Inductive reasoning suggest broad generalisation, logic dictates that truth is fact it cannot be

generalisation.

Example of deductive reasoning : Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life,no man cometh to the father but by me.

You cannot generalise this statement without making another way for man to come to God
Other than Christ.

It becomes a Gospel of uncertainty and innuendo.

Well I must say I am not quite shocked by this outrageous implication that the "movement" is not KJV only, but is actually the "anti-KJV movement" which was first led by Wescott and Hort.

You have made an excellent point with simple common sense and excellent supporting reasoning about "Inductive reasoning".

I never would have thought you would say things so outrageous on this issue. Now you are in trouble.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Inductive reasoning is a difficult way to seek the wisdom of God's Word.

Excellent points about inductive reasoning and worthy of more discussion.

This is key to the whole issue of preservation of scriptures: is what remains of the originals tainted by erroneous inductive reasoning, or did the Holy Ghost preserve the originals and keep them safe from corruption of sinful man's imperfection? Inductive reasoning can lead to erroneous conclusions, and even the most well intended and scholarly inductive reasoning may be misled or fooled by inserted or removed words in the writings they are trying to understand, interpret, or translate God's word.

This is what is so awesome about so much of what the prophets wrote. God told them what to write, and they did not fully understand what they were writing. Even when the religious leaders prepared to falsely accuse, arrest, and crucify Jesus, and the one said "it is expedient what one should die for the people, so the whole nation not perish" (not verbatim here, too lazy to look up the verse), that man was prophesying and did not know it. The men God used to pen His word knew they were moved of the Holy Ghost and recorded his word aware of what they were writing or lacking understanding...didn't matter. God made them write what they wrote, human inductive reasoning had no inroad, no power, to change God's word.

I have known, and do know, many fine soul-winning godly Christians, born again Bible believers who are not KJV only, but they still believe the Bible is the word of God. They simply believe they don't have the Bible all in any one place. Most of the ones I know will agree that the King James Version is the best. Some do not, but that alone does not make them ungodly...uninformed maybe, but not ungodly. My beloved and much missed mentor was one of those non-KJV only guys who saw the King James is far and away the best version, and it's all he used in pulpits or classrooms.

A born again Christian usually does not use the phrase "inductive reasoning" to describe their efforts to know what God says in His word. Most of them will say, as my mentor did, that we have the Holy Ghost to guide us into all truth so we can know what God is saying. They simply believe we can't put it down in black and white and say it's the correct translation. The correct translation for each individual comes through inductive reasoning being led by the Holy Ghost into all truth.

Of course it is hard to know if the wording arrived at is the truth if it is not written down somewhere to show it is correct. If God did not preserve His word in copies of the originals or in the memories of godly men, then we have no way of proving inductive reasoning has arrived at the right conclusion, no way of proving that the Holy Ghost led into truth in translation and inductive reasoning has not deceived a person into error while they believed it was the Holy Ghost guiding them into truth and not simply their inductive reasoning leading them into error.

 

[Jessica01]

[quote=now faith;67283761]Respectively,KJV only is not a movement.
The King James has been the Bible of choice for English speaking people for Hundreds of years.

It is the other translations that are much newer,and have brought on a anti King James movement.

I have talked with one Pastor that because I use the King James,I would not fit into his teaching out of the new versions.

Inductive reasoning is a difficult way to seek the wisdom of God's Word.

A inductive example would be to say there are many paths to God.

Inductive reasoning suggest broad generalisation, logic dictates that truth is fact it cannot be

generalisation.

Example of deductive reasoning : Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life,no man cometh to the father but by me.

You cannot generalise this statement without making another way for man to come to God
Other than Christ.

It becomes a Gospel of uncertainty and innuendo.[/quote]
​

No, it is a KJV only movement. Most non-KJV onlyists like if not love the KJV, but also like other translations. It is not about being anti. The movement had some voices around 1900 but really took off after Dr. Ruckman's book and Gail Riplinger's.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

No, it is a KJV only movement. Most non-KJV onlyists like if not love the KJV, but also like other translations. It is not about being anti. The movement had some voices [/SIZE][/SIZE]around 1900 but really took off after Dr. Ruckman's book and Gail Riplinger's.[/QUOTE]

Opposition to the "anti KJV only " movement became strong following the times and people you mentioned, but that was not the movement. The King James Bible was the Authorized Version, and the movement was always against it and started with Wescott and Hort long before Peter Ruckman became the leading voice souding the alarm of the dangers of the anit-KJV only movement.

It's like the Muslims starting wars by killing and conquering, then claiming their religion is under attack when they are resisted.... so they must kill everybody first to end the resistance. The Anti KJV only movement was first led by Wescott and Hort who claimed to have a better translation of God's Word than the Bible Authorized by the King of England. The King James Version was the only Version Authorized by the King, and all that followed were against the King's Authorization of the translation of the word of God into English. They still are. Wescott and Hort, like the Muslims who started picking a fight under Muhammed and then claimed the movement against them was the error, came along saying the King was trying to corner the word of God and we can't allow that to stand, so they started picking the fight, then claimed the King James only stance was the new stance.....and attacked the Authority of the King James Bible with a different translation, a different Bible, with many changes deviating away from and against the King James Bible. This was, and still is, the method of the "anti-Authorized Version" movement." The anti crowd is pretending like they are the ancient authorities on the word of God and the idea that the King James Bible is the word of God in English is a new thing. It's reverse psychology designed to make followers feel righteous in rebellion.

The King James Version as the only Authorized version began under the King of England over four hundred years ago. People who rose up in recent history to lead resistance against attacker's who seek to deny the Authority of the Bible are not the new movement. They are people who woke up at the noises of attackers and began to sound the alarm.

You can take my King James Bible out of my hand when I am dead.

 

[now faith]

And a trip outside your door for a few minutes would show that the common person "on the street" currently does not speak in the manner that the KJV was written either.

And a trip to Wal-Mart will teach you profanity,should we put that in a bible?

 

[SaintJoeNow]

And a trip to Wal-Mart will teach you profanity,should we put that in a bible?

A trip to Wal-Mart around here lately is like a trip to a homosexual and pagan parade, homos horseplaying and other groups looking like they just came back from a devil worship meeting....days I see multiple things like this at Wal-Mart are much more common than days when people seem normal there.

It's like the whole country is turning into one big Mardi-gras.......and with all the changes watering down Bible teaching against homosexuality and watering down the doctrine of Hell as eternal punishment, you might was well fill your favorite Bible version full of modern day vulgarities. When I was a kid you rarely heard people cussing in public. Now you can't get away from it....the music in the stores is full of it and the mouths of people so accustomed to it they don't even notice they are cussing any more.

 

[now faith]

[quote=now faith;67283761]Respectively,KJV only is not a movement.
The King James has been the Bible of choice for English speaking people for Hundreds of years.

It is the other translations that are much newer,and have brought on a anti King James movement.

I have talked with one Pastor that because I use the King James,I would not fit into his teaching out of the new versions.

Inductive reasoning is a difficult way to seek the wisdom of God's Word.

A inductive example would be to say there are many paths to God.

Inductive reasoning suggest broad generalisation, logic dictates that truth is fact it cannot be

generalisation.

Example of deductive reasoning : Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life,no man cometh to the father but by me.

You cannot generalise this statement without making another way for man to come to God
Other than Christ.

It becomes a Gospel of uncertainty and innuendo.​

​

No, it is a KJV only movement. Most non-KJV onlyists like if not love the KJV, but also like other translations. It is not about being anti. The movement had some voices around 1900 but really took off after Dr. Ruckman's book and Gail Riplinger's.[/QUOTE]

Gail Riplinger, could have been labeled by her critics as promoting such a movement.

I would never consider The King James a Movement,due to it being the most printed Bible in the World.

55 % of Bibles used today in English are King James.

The use of the King James is on a increase over other versions since 2005.

Next in line would be the NIV with 19%.

I would think it is a simple truth, rather than a movement,with the term movement indicating
a shift.

I personally do not care for labels placed by critics [only] has a negative connotation with the
intention of double entendre.

 

[Jessica01]

[/size][/size]
[/indent]
No, it is a KJV only movement. Most non-KJV onlyists like if not love the KJV, but also like other translations. It is not about being anti. The movement had some voices around 1900 but really took off after Dr. Ruckman's book and Gail Riplinger's.

Gail Riplinger, could have been labeled by her critics as promoting such a movement.

I would never consider The King James a Movement,due to it being the most printed Bible in the World.

55 % of Bibles used today in English are King James.

The use of the King James is on a increase over other versions since 2005.

Next in line would be the NIV with 19%.

I would think it is a simple truth, rather than a movement,with the term movement indicating
a shift.

I personally do not care for labels placed by critics [only] has a negative connotation with the
intention of double entendre.

[/QUOTE]

NOT the 'King James movement' - 'King James onlyism movement'.
You changed the terms- like a strawman.

Sales numbers are nice, but many use online sites. I like www.scripture4all.com and using the Interlinear Greek . And I like blueletterbible.org and the tools section there.

 

[Jessica01]

No, it is a KJV only movement. Most non-KJV onlyists like if not love the KJV, but also like other translations. It is not about being anti. The movement had some voices [/size][/size]around 1900 but really took off after Dr. Ruckman's book and Gail Riplinger's.

Opposition to the "anti KJV only " movement became strong following the times and people you mentioned, but that was not the movement. The King James Bible was the Authorized Version, and the movement was always against it and started with Wescott and Hort long before Peter Ruckman became the leading voice souding the alarm of the dangers of the anit-KJV only movement.

It's like the Muslims starting wars by killing and conquering, then claiming their religion is under attack when they are resisted.... so they must kill everybody first to end the resistance. The Anti KJV only movement was first led by Wescott and Hort who claimed to have a better translation of God's Word than the Bible Authorized by the King of England. The King James Version was the only Version Authorized by the King, and all that followed were against the King's Authorization of the translation of the word of God into English. They still are. Wescott and Hort, like the Muslims who started picking a fight under Muhammed and then claimed the movement against them was the error, came along saying the King was trying to corner the word of God and we can't allow that to stand, so they started picking the fight, then claimed the King James only stance was the new stance.....and attacked the Authority of the King James Bible with a different translation, a different Bible, with many changes deviating away from and against the King James Bible. This was, and still is, the method of the "anti-Authorized Version" movement." The anti crowd is pretending like they are the ancient authorities on the word of God and the idea that the King James Bible is the word of God in English is a new thing. It's reverse psychology designed to make followers feel righteous in rebellion.

The King James Version as the only Authorized version began under the King of England over four hundred years ago. People who rose up in recent history to lead resistance against attacker's who seek to deny the Authority of the Bible are not the new movement. They are people who woke up at the noises of attackers and began to sound the alarm.

You can take my King James Bible out of my hand when I am dead.

[/QUOTE]

No one is trying to take your Bible.

Your post is just insults, similar to Ruckman. "attackers" Comparing those who are not KJV only to Muslims. That is Ruckman's style.

So much for decent conversation.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I have found a very well written and scholarly objection to the King James Bible being the word of God in English. I disagree strongly with the basic premise of this textual criticism approach which discards doctrine and being determinate for validating the authenticity of a text, and chooses rather the age of the text as the strongest sign of being closest to what was given in the original writings. Because doctrine is rejected as the guiding factor, inductive reasoning assumed to be prevented from error by the Holy Spirit's guidance is upheld as the method of determining exactly what God was saying in our own language, whatever language that may be. Here, it is English, the only language I know.

The paragraph I am posting here clearly states the only acceptable position of difference against the King James Bible as being the Authorized English Version ordained by God under the man He place over the English people. This is the position stated recently on radio by Janet Mefford who I enjoy listening to in deep appreciation for her strong adherence to Biblical doctrine and her keen awareness of the current cultural and political landscape in America and in the world while the persecutions of Christians has risen sharply in recent history and steadily gains steam as the engine of hatred against our Lord and his followers is fueled by the lies from Hell. My beloved and much missed mentor, who travelled worldwide in revival meetings where stagnating churches would come alive with a burning holiness and hundreds be saved in the churches and in the surrounding communities, also held this position which I strongly believe is wrong but tolerable because of the brotherly bonds of the Spirit of the One who lives in all of His blood bought adopted children.

The passage is from the textual critic who I recommend for his well outlined basic history of the translation of the Bible into English though I disagree completely with His starting premise which rejects divine intervention and guidance in preserving and bringing the entire word of God exactly as He wanted it in our own language. The author states (in different words) that he refuses to be bound by constrains of the conclusions of anybody other than himself as to what God's word actually is in his own language. His final conclusion is based on that opening conclusion, being the originals are lost and gone forever and by high scholarly inductive reasoning, the Holy Spirit will bring us close enough to the originals to know all we need to know for God's service in this world. While he states that we have the Holy Ghost to bring God's word to us, He denies that this same Spirit preserved His Word without error exactly as given to the original authors. The more a person spends time convincing themselves that they find the word of God by their own efforts and scholarly aspirations, the stronger they believe in their own intellect to find the word of God rather than to believe the have the Word of God preserved exactly as He intended it for us in our own language.

The redeeming statement of such a textual critic who has thrown off what he felt to be the shackles of the translations of others to know God's word in English is this:

Although the Scriptures were originally penned under the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit, it does not follow, that a continued miracle has been wrought to preserve them from all error in transcribing. On the contrary, we know that manuscripts differ from each other; and where readings are various, but one of them can be correct. A miracle was needed in the original production of the Scriptures; and, accordingly, a miracle was wrought; but the preservation of the inspired word, in as much perfection as was necessary to answer the purpose for which it was given, did not require a miracle, and accordingly it was committed to the providence of God. Yet the providence which has preserved the divine oracles, has been special and remarkable....The consequence is, that, although the various readings found in the existing manuscripts, are numerous, we are able, in every case, to determine the correct reading, so far as is necessary for the establishment of our faith, or the direction of our practice in every important particular. So little, after all, do the copies differ from each other, that these minute differences, when viewed in contrast with their general agreement, render the fact of that agreement the more impressive, and may be said to serve, practically, rather to increase, than impair our confidence in their general correctness. Their utmost deviations do not change the direction of the line of truth; and if it seems in some points to widen the line a very little, the path that lies between their widest boundaries, is too narrow to permit us to stray. (22)

Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior? This is the textual critical website. Sadly, the author resorts to insults against anybody who disagrees with him in his position. I suppose I could be accused of insulting for saying this "textual criticism" approach is based on intellectual pride which ignores God's hand in preserving his word in English and tramples the blood of martyrs God used in persuading the King of England to Authorize one English translation of the Bible. However insulted those who disagree may feel, I'm sorry for that but because I believe God over man in this matter, I cannot deny my statement that the position of textual critics like the one I have referred to in this post are noting more than a puffed up head in intellectual pride. I'm sorry is that sounds offensive, I do not mean it to be offensive. A godly man will let that statement roll off of their back and not want to fight about it. People who want to fight about it are suspect. We should all be able to agree with the unifying factor of the paragraph quoted as being "

"So little, after all, do the copies differ from each other, that these minute differences, when viewed in contrast with their general agreement, render the fact of that agreement the more impressive, and may be said to serve, practically, rather to increase, than impair our confidence in their general correctness. Their utmost deviations do not change the direction of the line of truth; and if it seems in some points to widen the line a very little, the path that lies between their widest boundaries, is too narrow to permit us to stray"

In this view we can agree to disagree with civil discourse, and when a person is as strong in their conviction as is myself of the textual critic here referred to, we should have enough holy respect for each other in fear of God that we need not fight about it continually. They say I am intellectually lazy or naïve, I say they are proud. That's enough. From that point on, we should be able to drop the argument and allow each other to present their positions to people who have not decided on the issue without building a doctrines of insults. Every King James Bible believe is not a Peter Ruckman puppet, and every textual critic is not a Dr. White. Textual critics become Dr. Whites when they go on and on and on insulting those who disagree with them, and KJV only believers become Peter Ruckmans when they go to extremes such as to say anybody who does not believe the King James Bible is the word of God is not saved.


I can see the the unifying passage of this man's arguments enough to for me to believe he is a godly man, but to build a case of insults against those who disagree with his position is a carnal approach in the issue. In the argument, are we displaying the fruit of the spirit or the works of the flesh?

Let brotherly love continue

 

[SaintJoeNow]

No one is trying to take your Bible.

Your post is just insults, similar to Ruckman. "attackers" Comparing those who are not KJV only to Muslims. That is Ruckman's style.

So much for decent conversation.[/QUOTE]

Wasn't it you who well stated my belief that the movement is Anti-King James Bible, and not KJV only movement?

The illustration of Muslims I thought was valid. Jesus Christ established Himself as the Savior of the world by creating the world then dying to save it, correct? Then Muhammed came along and started a new movement claiming to be God's prophet who corrects or clarifies Jesus Christ. Now the Muslims say that if we resist them, it is an anti-Muslim movement. Islam was founded by war when Muhammed conquered Mecca, and now the proclaim war against anybody who says that their movement against Jesus Christ is the new movement which is attacking the old foundation.

What I am doing with this illustration is trying to point out the battle we are in. The devil is trying to pit Christians against each other to weaken their influence in the world so the gospel is hindered from reaching the people he is trying to pull down to Hell with him.

When we waste time fighting over an issue that really is not worth fighting about, we neglect the battlefield while the real enemy, Satan, fortifies his positions. Satan wants us to argue over who is right and forget about the millions of people chained in death by sin and being pulled by those chains into the fire of Hell as fast as Satan can get them to fall.

We need to quit focusing on the fight over which Bible and focus on the Lord Himself and His desire for us to shine the light of His gospel in the world around us so that minds blinded by the devil might be enlightened by the gospel and they can be saved from Hell.


When people read my posts, I want them to see the gospel in those posts, or at least find a seed which might grow when watered by others, something that makes them feel thirsty to know God's love. If they are saved people reading these posts, my desire is for brotherly love. If they are lost people, my desire is that they be saved and know God's forgiveness.

Time counting down to zero in this world is running out, and it's sad how many are going to lose everything in the Lake of Fire when time does not count any more.

And a final note...they are trying to take my King James Bible. It is the only English version which cannot be changed for political correctness. All of the other versions can be left on the shelf in favor or whichever version is the most politically correct for the day. They are outlawing Christianity, outlawing the Bible as hate speech, and I have seen little girls and boys with scars of martyrs after being thrown on a fire they were forced to build before their final refusal to renounce Jesus Christ and bow to Allah. Those little kids have more backbone today than most Christians who sit comfortable with their entertainments and don't care about how their brothers and sisters in other lands are being tortured and killed. It's coming to America, and in the name of Jesus Christ, they can cut off my hand before I let go of my King James Bible, and in the name of Jesus Christ they can take it away over my dead body. Where are you going to stand when they try to tell you that you can only say God's word their way and they reject your God no matter what his Word says?

Christians don't care much about having a holy fire in their lives which outpours in love for the lost people around them, so God is going to put some fire under their feet. You don't need to read Fox's book of Martyrs. Just look at the tearful testimonies of people...children who put to shame most big mouth tough guys in America today....people who stand up for Jesus and receive torture as they pray for the strength to take it in honor of the One who took it all for them..

It just makes me sick how people seem to think the battle is on another planet, in a different world, and the television is an imaginary window through which they watch it as they sit in their comforts at home and try tell me what great Christians they are, and so many of them have nothing better to do than try to tell me what great scholars they are in textual criticisms to prove why I should let go of my King James Bible. What was good enough for William Tyndale is good enough for me.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I stood up in my secular college class and told them all loud and clear that Jesus is God who died for our sins to save us from Hell, and if we are not saved from Hell we will suffer it's eternal torments. Do you know what I got for it? I got as much persecution as the laws of the land and the rules of the college allowed them to give me, and it cost me a good two hours of my life.
Next time it might be in front of a judge when I am hauled into court for carrying my King James Bible which says the Sodomites of Sodom brought the fire of God from heaven in judgment against their sin, and I will tell that judge exactly what I said in that college class, and exactly what I said to the college authorities who wanted to hang me for it.....I will say loud and clear with passion that Jesus Christ is God and He loves you so much He took your place in death to save you from Hell and give you His eternal life if you will repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved from the fire of Hell!!!

 

[SaintJoeNow]

No one is trying to take your Bible.

Your post is just insults, similar to Ruckman. "attackers" Comparing those who are not KJV only to Muslims. That is Ruckman's style.

So much for decent conversation.[/QUOTE]

Friend, I was only building on and supporting your excellent statement that the movement is in reality anti-King James Bible, and not "the King James Bible only" movement. I am trying to stick to facts in my posts and not character assassination of insults. If I am a drunk, and you say I'm a drunk, how can I say you are insulting me when it's true? If you say I'm a stupid drunk, that would be mixing an insult with the truth.

I really don't know why you want to try to inflame things by insulting me saying my post is nothing but insults. Please do not make generalizations of insults, please state accurately my errors, or what you perceive to be my errors, so I can accurately respond as we try to avoid inflammatory accusations against each other.

 

[Jessica01]

No one is trying to take your Bible.

Your post is just insults, similar to Ruckman. "attackers" Comparing those who are not KJV only to Muslims. That is Ruckman's style.

So much for decent conversation.

Friend, I was only building on and supporting your excellent statement that the movement is in reality anti-King James Bible, and not "the King James Bible only" movement. I am trying to stick to facts in my posts and not character assassination of insults. If I am a drunk, and you say I'm a drunk, how can I say you are insulting me when it's true? If you say I'm a stupid drunk, that would be mixing an insult with the truth.

I really don't know why you want to try to inflame things by insulting me saying my post is nothing but insults. Please do not make generalizations of insults, please state accurately my errors, or what you perceive to be my errors, so I can accurately respond as we try to avoid inflammatory accusations against each other.

[/QUOTE]

No, I am not the one who said it was an Anti-KJV movement, I wrote that it was a KJV onlyism movement. You are trying to compare those who are not KJV onlyist are like Muslims, and are inflaming any chance of decent discourse with claims you are going to get arrested for having or carrying a KJV Bible as if someone wants to take it from you. It is bizarre, imho,

As there is no chance of calm discourse, I am out.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

No, I am not the one who said it was an Anti-KJV movement, I wrote that it was a KJV onlyism movement. You are trying to compare those who are not KJV onlyist are like Muslims, and are inflaming any chance of decent discourse with claims you are going to get arrested for having or carrying a KJV Bible as if someone wants to take it from you. It is bizarre, imho,

As there is no chance of calm discourse, I am out.[/QUOTE]

What I am comparing between Islam (I hope everyone realizes I am talking about radical Islam and nations which are governed by radical Islamic law and beliefs...we all know there are a lot of Muslims who truly love peace and do not want to fight with anybody) and the modern translations movement which is the "anti-KJV only as the English Bible" movement is the way the anti KJV movement starts a movement against something and then claims resistance to them is the movement that came out of nowhere. This is exactly the driving philosophy of Islam in which they claim to be the ones who are being attacked when they started the fight and have no desire to stop fighting until they silence all who say they are wrong. They can't just sit there and say we are entitled to say they are wrong. They feel like they have to fight in order to protect their movement, the same as the Anti-KVonlyists feel they have to fight if I say they are wrong. I dont' want them to feel inflamed, I don't want them to fight, and I cannot deny that they are wrong.

Can't we all just get along?

 

[brinny]

I agree brother, and i believe that was Jack's attempt in starting the thread.

 

[tall73]

I have found a very well written and scholarly objection to the King James Bible being the word of God in English. I disagree strongly with the basic premise of this textual criticism approach which discards doctrine and being determinate for validating the authenticity of a text, and chooses rather the age of the text as the strongest sign of being closest to what was given in the original writings. Because doctrine is rejected as the guiding factor, inductive reasoning assumed to be prevented from error by the Holy Spirit's guidance is upheld as the method of determining exactly what God was saying in our own language, whatever language that may be. Here, it is English, the only language I know.

The paragraph I am posting here clearly states the only acceptable position of difference against the King James Bible as being the Authorized English Version ordained by God under the man He place over the English people. This is the position stated recently on radio by Janet Mefford who I enjoy listening to in deep appreciation for her strong adherence to Biblical doctrine and her keen awareness of the current cultural and political landscape in America and in the world while the persecutions of Christians has risen sharply in recent history and steadily gains steam as the engine of hatred against our Lord and his followers is fueled by the lies from Hell. My beloved and much missed mentor, who travelled worldwide in revival meetings where stagnating churches would come alive with a burning holiness and hundreds be saved in the churches and in the surrounding communities, also held this position which I strongly believe is wrong but tolerable because of the brotherly bonds of the Spirit of the One who lives in all of His blood bought adopted children.

The passage is from the textual critic who I recommend for his well outlined basic history of the translation of the Bible into English though I disagree completely with His starting premise which rejects divine intervention and guidance in preserving and bringing the entire word of God exactly as He wanted it in our own language. The author states (in different words) that he refuses to be bound by constrains of the conclusions of anybody other than himself as to what God's word actually is in his own language. His final conclusion is based on that opening conclusion, being the originals are lost and gone forever and by high scholarly inductive reasoning, the Holy Spirit will bring us close enough to the originals to know all we need to know for God's service in this world. While he states that we have the Holy Ghost to bring God's word to us, He denies that this same Spirit preserved His Word without error exactly as given to the original authors. The more a person spends time convincing themselves that they find the word of God by their own efforts and scholarly aspirations, the stronger they believe in their own intellect to find the word of God rather than to believe the have the Word of God preserved exactly as He intended it for us in our own language.

The redeeming statement of such a textual critic who has thrown off what he felt to be the shackles of the translations of others to know God's word in English is this:

Although the Scriptures were originally penned under the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit, it does not follow, that a continued miracle has been wrought to preserve them from all error in transcribing. On the contrary, we know that manuscripts differ from each other; and where readings are various, but one of them can be correct. A miracle was needed in the original production of the Scriptures; and, accordingly, a miracle was wrought; but the preservation of the inspired word, in as much perfection as was necessary to answer the purpose for which it was given, did not require a miracle, and accordingly it was committed to the providence of God. Yet the providence which has preserved the divine oracles, has been special and remarkable....The consequence is, that, although the various readings found in the existing manuscripts, are numerous, we are able, in every case, to determine the correct reading, so far as is necessary for the establishment of our faith, or the direction of our practice in every important particular. So little, after all, do the copies differ from each other, that these minute differences, when viewed in contrast with their general agreement, render the fact of that agreement the more impressive, and may be said to serve, practically, rather to increase, than impair our confidence in their general correctness. Their utmost deviations do not change the direction of the line of truth; and if it seems in some points to widen the line a very little, the path that lies between their widest boundaries, is too narrow to permit us to stray. (22)

Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior? This is the textual critical website. Sadly, the author resorts to insults against anybody who disagrees with him in his position. I suppose I could be accused of insulting for saying this "textual criticism" approach is based on intellectual pride which ignores God's hand in preserving his word in English and tramples the blood of martyrs God used in persuading the King of England to Authorize one English translation of the Bible. However insulted those who disagree may feel, I'm sorry for that but because I believe God over man in this matter, I cannot deny my statement that the position of textual critics like the one I have referred to in this post are noting more than a puffed up head in intellectual pride. I'm sorry is that sounds offensive, I do not mean it to be offensive. A godly man will let that statement roll off of their back and not want to fight about it. People who want to fight about it are suspect. We should all be able to agree with the unifying factor of the paragraph quoted as being "

"So little, after all, do the copies differ from each other, that these minute differences, when viewed in contrast with their general agreement, render the fact of that agreement the more impressive, and may be said to serve, practically, rather to increase, than impair our confidence in their general correctness. Their utmost deviations do not change the direction of the line of truth; and if it seems in some points to widen the line a very little, the path that lies between their widest boundaries, is too narrow to permit us to stray"

In this view we can agree to disagree with civil discourse, and when a person is as strong in their conviction as is myself of the textual critic here referred to, we should have enough holy respect for each other in fear of God that we need not fight about it continually. They say I am intellectually lazy or naïve, I say they are proud. That's enough. From that point on, we should be able to drop the argument and allow each other to present their positions to people who have not decided on the issue without building a doctrines of insults. Every King James Bible believe is not a Peter Ruckman puppet, and every textual critic is not a Dr. White. Textual critics become Dr. Whites when they go on and on and on insulting those who disagree with them, and KJV only believers become Peter Ruckmans when they go to extremes such as to say anybody who does not believe the King James Bible is the word of God is not saved.


I can see the the unifying passage of this man's arguments enough to for me to believe he is a godly man, but to build a case of insults against those who disagree with his position is a carnal approach in the issue. In the argument, are we displaying the fruit of the spirit or the works of the flesh?

Let brotherly love continue

The text of the KJV is an eclectic text as well, with readings being selected, and rejected, from a smaller base of Byzantine type manuscripts.

The text of the KJV does not match any existing Greek manuscript exactly. So it is still a franken-text, just like the critical versions.

You claim the Holy Spirit picked the readings. That is simply a claim. If the Holy Spirit were preserving perfect readings throughout history we would have those manuscripts.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

The text of the KJV is an eclectic text as well, with readings being selected, and rejected, from a smaller base of Byzantine type manuscripts.

The text of the KJV does not match any existing Greek manuscript exactly. So it is still a franken-text, just like the critical versions.

You claim the Holy Spirit picked the readings. That is simply a claim. If the Holy Spirit were preserving perfect readings throughout history we would have those manuscripts.

I know God gave me His word in my own language. You can believe it or not.

 

[revrobor]

why do you feel you need to argue about it? Why do you feel it is so important to prove that God did not give you His word in English?

Probably because you have typed thousands of words trying to prove God gave us the KJV which is just not true.God inspired the writers of what we have in the Bible in their own languages. Later interpreters came along and translated it into other languages including the common English of 1600 Britain. King James commissioned two translators to create a bible for the English people so they would not have to listen to priests read from the Latin version. The translators of the KJV won the race. But as the United States grew we needed a new translation because our language had changed from the language of 1600 Britain. Since the early 1900s scholars have been working on new translations and paraphrases that help people understand God's word more easily. I would thing that if you want people to understand the Bible you would get behind such a movement. As for me, I use the NASB, CEV, NIV and am awaiting the arrival of my new HCSB study Bible. And I will encourage those who attend my fellowship to purchase a contemporary translation.