Jesus wasn't KJV-Only :)

Thought this post looked familiar )

Here was part of my reply to it at the other board:
-------------------
I can see how there could be Scriptural support for the "modern version" view, but not the blantant, obvious kind that King James Only people would want to see. I think they want a verse that says point blank, "The NIV is God's Word."

I've never fully expected them to offer the same sort of verse in support of King James Onlyism, which is why I've always made sure to say that I don't even see where the Bible *alludes,* *hints,* or *suggests* the teaching of "one version onlyism."

I can see how the Bible doesn't preclude the concept of multiple-version use.

Sometimes the authors of the NT, when quoting from the OT, didn't copy verbatim, but I know of no Christian (aside from the likes of the "Jesus Seminar") who would argue that this would mean that the NT isn't 'real' Scripture.

"The Bible" itself is comprised of different books. Originally, the people didn't have all the books collected into one volume as we do today (I know many of you already know these things, I'm just leading up to a point).

Some of the earch churches or individual Christian households may have had only a copy of the Gospel of John, for example, while another church/family may have had only a copy of Matthew.

These different books -- e.g., Mark verses Luke -- don't always read word for word alike, even though they are describing much of the same events. As far as the written works are concerned, there was not a "One Gospel Onlyism."

It's not like only Mark's account was true and Luke's was wrong, corrupted, or Satanic.

.... I can see how there could be Scriptural support for the "modern version" view, but not the blantant, obvious kind that King James Only people would want to see. I think they want a verse that says point blank, "The NIV is God's Word."

I've never fully expected them to offer the same sort of verse in support of King James Onlyism, which is why I've always made sure to say that I don't even see where the Bible *alludes,* *hints,* or *suggests* the teaching of "one version onlyism."

I can see how the Bible doesn't preclude the concept of multiple-version use.

Sometimes the authors of the NT, when quoting from the OT, didn't copy verbatim, but I know of no Christian (aside from the likes of the "Jesus Seminar") who would argue that this would mean that the NT isn't 'real' Scripture.

"The Bible" itself is comprised of different books. Originally, the people didn't have all the books collected into one volume as we do today (I know many of you already know these things, I'm just leading up to a point).

Some of the earch churches or individual Christian households may have had only a copy of the Gospel of John, for example, while another church/family may have had only a copy of Matthew.

These different books -- e.g., Mark verses Luke -- don't always read word for word alike, even though they are describing much of the same events. As far as the written works are concerned, there was not a "One Gospel Onlyism."

It's not like only Mark's account was true and Luke's was wrong, corrupted, or Satanic.

Romans verses the book of James -- these books APPEAR to contradict themselves, with Paul going on about works not saving, while James *appearing* to teach that they do.

If KJOers aren't going to run around teaching "the Book of Romans Onlyism" or "the Book of Mark onlyism," I don't understand why they can't view versions *as a whole* in the same way.

.... I just do not see a fixation within any book of the Bible that says or hints that we're supposed to use only one version of the Bible.

All the verses that KJOists routinely quote, e.g., about God's word being pure, etc., doesn't, in my mind, equate with that meaning there can be a 'pure word' in only *one form.*

After all, who says purity has to be defined the way KJOists define or (mis)understand it?

KJOists usually don't deal with the fact that there is no single King James Version, anyway, or they blow it off as being of no consequence. Some KJVs (different editions) do not read word-for-word like other KJVs, so actually, I think that KJOers are themselves proponents of multiple-version use )

 

Sorry everyone for the poor formatting of my last post. I didn't realize, also, that I accidentally copied one section twice!

BTW, those were supposed to be smiley icons in my post, not those weird red little faces that look as though they're yawning! Maybe those little guys are on Valium.

 

quote:

Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
Jesus wasn't reading from the Wescott-Hort text either.

No, he wasn't. W/H is NT. This is OT. And the OT he did read was some form of the LXX,
which is MUCH more different from the KJV than W/H is. And yet Christ STILL called it
scripture? How dare you then call God's word "trash" and "heresey"?

quote:

Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
Also anything Jesus said is quoted in present texts he wasn't reading from any of
them.

You need to carefully read Luke 4:17 says that what he read was written in Isaiah. Yet it is
different from the KJV's rendering. How do you explain that, if KJV-onlyism is true? Was
Christ lying about the passage he read being "scripture"?

quote:
Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
while those who militatnly stand for the word of God are admonished.

Again, we are NOT against you standing for the word of God. We are NOT against the KJV,
we are against KJV-Onlyism. Don't you understand the difference? It appears to me that
KJV-Onlyists are the ones attacking "the word of God", by limiting it to one single 17th
century translation, instead of the range of good Bibles throughout history. *We* are
standing for the "word of God" - throughout history - and by standing for KJV-onlyism, you
stand against this.

"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the
very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, ...
containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." - The KJV translators

Ernie, the bottom line is this: by saying the KJV is the "only" word of God, you must deny
God's word does not exist outside (before or beside) it.

Again Ernie, think carefully about this: which is the "word of God" in Isa 61:1-2: the KJV or
what Jesus read? If you stand for "only" one, it cannot be both.

Brian

This discussion is going to continue until the Lord returns, thus it is fruitless to
continue. In the past there were other English Bibles, however, for this era the KJ is the one that
delivers the truth to me without confusion.

Our forefather in the faith died for the privilege to read Tyndale’s New Testament. It was a
crime to even have one in possession. Today so called Christians won’t even give up movies for
the Lord. This should tell you something about the power of the Mvs. Yes there are those who
hold to the KJ there are unfaithful, but it seems to follow that those who defend the Mvs have a
shallower walk with the Lord than those who trust the KJ. Why is it those who hold to the KJ
are those who are also called legalists?

Should you be content with the Mvs, fine, I not only can live with the King James, but am
comfortable dying with the truth found therein..

 

Truth is, Satan does persecute God's people for believing God's word and desiring it to be understandable for the masses (Cf. Neh 8). Satan has always tried to cloud the issue and satan is the author of confusion, so it's not hard to figure out that satan doesn't want God's Word understood by the people. But God's Word will not be stopped!!!

 

I'm sorry if this is getting tad off the original subject, but I had to point something out to a pro-KJO gentleman.

This KJO proponent said:
=========
"....Again read my post and explain where you drew the conclusion I was attacking any one

Seems as if any one standing for the KJ is automatically labeled a malcontent. If any one is attacking anyone on this Board it is those who are against the truth who are always slamming and critcizing those who try to proclaim truth.

I was attacked and my post deleted on supposition so if any one is to apologize it is not I .. Also I expect no apology from anyone here as I know that I am wrong as soon as I post
=====

I was banned from a King James Only run board, even though I had never even posted there before! One of the administrators of that board decided that since he personally dislikes me and my views that I would not be permitted to post at his board.

Anyway, when I logged in to his board under my usual posting name and got a "you are banned" message, I was puzzled (I didn't understand why i was banned since I had never even posted there before), so I logged back in under a similiar name and did a post in their "introduction forum" asking if I could have access to their version debate forum, as their rules state.

That's when one of the board's admins told me that even though I had never done any posts there before and even though I had NOT broken any of their posted board rules that he banned me.

The same thing has happened to one of my on-line, Non-KJO friends at a few other KJO run boards and e-groups.

I think that this story-- the tendency of pro-KJOs to ban a non-KJO who hasn't even posted at their board -- tops your story!

============
Bible Versions Discussion Board

Resources Refuting King James Onlyism
============

 

True, but that's not the problem of the mvs. Man is totally depraved. Always has been, always will be.

 

with all due respect brother, that's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Spurgeon defended a mv, so I guess he had a shallow walk with the Lord. What liberal hokum!

 

No, its a legitimate means of paraphrase ("Can you say para-phrase? Good, I knew you could!" )

[ July 12, 2002, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

I don't think there's such a thing as a version that is 100% formal equivalence. I have heard of YLT (Young's Literal Translation) which is supposed to fit that bill.

I am not againt DE myself.

If I'm reading a FE (formal equivalent) version and some oddball, obscure Hebrew expression/idiom in the Old Testament is used, it may not mean anything to me.

I'd like to have some sort of way of knowing what the original writer MEANT, not always only just what he exactly said. What good does it do to have a Bible if you can't understand its content???

Anyway, from what I've read, even some of the versions considered to be more FE also use a bit of DE here and there.

============
Bible Versions Discussion Board

Resources Refuting King James Onlyism

 

Chris you sure can read a lot into a post and your assumptions are aimed at an attack.

Yes I agee with Granny, and yes there were English Bibles before the King James, of course if you would read instead of assume you would have seen that in my post.

 

Everyone can say whatever they want, I am simply amazed that Jesus put his stamp of approval on the LXX reading.

HankD

 

Brian said:

I don't belive your are going to get Ernie, Granny Gumbo, and I to believe a statement like that but you know very well what I believe! I will not take my precious time to defend something that can defend itself! Just a little side note Brian if God didn't want his word translated into the Kings English we would all be reading Greek and Hebrew now wouldn't we? How many on here can read Greek and Hebrew fluently?... I thought so! Since my language has not changed and I still speak English then my Bible has not either!... Brother Glen

[ July 12, 2002, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

The KJV is the only version the Primitive Baptist accept and it is in our articles of Faith as the only one. We accept no others but our reason is far superior than what you think. We do not take it as a word of God but as thee Word of God!

From our Articles Of Faith

We believe the scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Written Word of God, and that they are given by the inspiration of God. These Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice and we consider the King James translation as orthodox and accept no other. II Timothy 3:16-17... This is what the Primitive Baptist Churches in California/Oregon/Washington State believe... The other primitive brethren you would have to ask yourself. I don't believe it because the Articles of Faith say it is so but I've also searched it out and know it without a doubt to be the truth!... That's why I am KJV only!... You brethren read what you want!... Brother Glen