Lay off the KJV only people already

[Project 86]

I'm getting so sick of people starting threads that mock KJV onlyists. It's annoying and certainly not going to win anyone over because of it being so annoying. If anything it will just get some people on an ignore list. I'm not a KJV onlyist but I think there is much better things to talk about other then KJV only 24/7. I have seen this same thing going on in the Fundamentalist forum as well.

[rkymtnjesusfreak]

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I, like you am not a KJV only Christian. But, I definitely do not see this issue as something for brothers and sisters in Christ to divide over or argue about. It seems that both sides should pray that the Lord will lead them in their walk with Him, and that only He should convict each of us of what Bible version(s) He would have each of us use.

[Gear853]

i personally think the topic is rather silly =)

[BereanTodd]

There's really only one person who repeatedly goes after them, and I agree that I wish the topic would go away. However, wherever and whenever there are people who espouse that silly, unbiblical doctrine I will stand against it. Sorry, I must stand against falsehood.

[Logos1560]

Disagreeing with other people's views or statements is not mocking them. It is likely that there would be very few posters at forums if everyone agreed with what someone else posted. There would probably be no issue concerning Bible translations if it were not for those who advocate a KJV-only view. Holders of a KJV-only view have caused a great deal of unnecessary division among Baptists and fundamentalists. Believers should not be divided because they read a different translation. This matter is as important as many of the topics in threads started in this forum.

[Project 86]

Disagreeing with other people's views or statements is not mocking them. It is likely that there would be very few posters at forums if everyone agreed with what someone else posted. There would probably be no issue concerning Bible translations if it were not for those who advocate a KJV-only view. Holders of a KJV-only view have caused a great deal of unnecessary division among Baptists and fundamentalists. Believers should not be divided because they read a different translation. This matter is as important as many of the topics in threads started in this forum.

I agree that the issue is an important one to be discussed. Certainly not one to divide over. Is there really a need though to start countless of threads in multiple forums that tries to show problems with the KJV translation? In all my time here I have yet to see the KJV onlyist push their agenda at such a rate. I believe it is just causing frustration between us and also it makes it hard for me to even find new threads that don't deal with this topic. What I wish would happen is that we all would take as much effort as we do arguing with each other and direct that to giving a clear gospel message to the lost. There are many in the church that don't know what the real gospel message is and I think it's our duty to push that topic to the extreme if anything should be pushed that far.

[Cright]

agreed!

[TwinCrier]

I notice that while we KJVO fight valiantly to defend the word of God, the bible critics prefer to attack our persons and even resort to questioning our intelligence as well as our faith. Even those who believe the KJV is a good translation find they must attempt to disillusion the brethren and cause confusion. I wish these bible version debates would be limited to debates on the actual bible and manuscripts and not denigrate into name calling and accusations of heresy.

[Seeker of the Truth]

Yeah, it's pretty sad as an 18 year old to see 40+ year old men and women fighting over the "correct" translation(s) like little kids. I honestly think that we should at least refrain from demeaning people, remember, we're all brothers and sisters in Christ!

[FreeinChrist]

I notice that while we KJVO fight valiantly to defend the word of God, the bible critics prefer to attack our persons and even resort to questioning our intelligence as well as our faith. Even those who believe the KJV is a good translation find they must attempt to disillusion the brethren and cause confusion. I wish these bible version debates would be limited to debates on the actual bible and manuscripts and not denigrate into name calling and accusations of heresy.
I think it goes both ways at various times.

IMHO, there have been too many threads on the topic started by KJVonlyists and nonKJVonlyists.

I agree that it is an issue that shouldn't divide us and if one is using it to divide us, then that is sad.

[FreeinChrist]

I In all my time here I have yet to see the KJV onlyist push their agenda at such a rate.

I have seen it in the Baptist forum in the past.

On another messageboard, the issue pretty well divided the entire membership and unkind arrows I took as a nonKJVonliest were plentiful. I would hate to see something like that here.

[Gear853]

if anything, we should just have one big KJV vs other version thread... seeing them over and over again is annoying =P

[Katakalupto]

if anything, we should just have one big KJV vs other version thread... seeing them over and over again is annoying =P


:amen::amen::amen::amen::amen:

[rkymtnjesusfreak]

Ditto!!!!

[Tony Merritt]

I'm getting so sick of people starting threads that mock KJV onlyists. It's annoying and certainly not going to win anyone over because of it being so annoying. If anything it will just get some people on an ignore list. I'm not a KJV onlyist but I think there is much better things to talk about other then KJV only 24/7. I have seen this same thing going on in the Fundamentalist forum as well.
Hello Project86. First I want to say thank-you for your concern. I want to say this with as much humbleness as possible. I am a KJV onlyist and am proud of it. It does not bother me in the slightest if someone "attacks" my stand on it. So let all the threads be posted for or against the KJV. We all may learn something. Have a great day.


Tony M

[dave90]

as a catholic i don't feel comfortable reading the kjv, with the history that man has against catholics.

sorry.

[Seeker of the Truth]

as a catholic i don't feel comfortable reading the kjv, with the history that man has against catholics.

sorry.
well, it's a good thing this is a Baptist forum! ;)

[Gear853]

as a catholic i don't feel comfortable reading the kjv, with the history that man has against catholics.

sorry.
well... shocking surprise. no one ask you to read this =P

[Project 86]

well... shocking surprise. no one ask you to read this =P

I think if Dave keeps hanging out around here we'll make him a Baptist in no time. ;)

[dave90]

I think if Dave keeps hanging out around here we'll make him a Baptist in no time. ;)



even if i ever did, i would not read it because of the language to im not a fan of old english, i hated shakesphere.

[KJVisTruth]

I had no idea this was such an issue here, although I was asked about my name at least once on this forum. I wouldnt call myself a KJV onlyist. It happens to be the version I am the most comfortable with, including its translation.

[JimfromOhio]

I don't mind talking (debating) about doctrines. But I do mind when Christians are seperating other Christians by doctrines which causes division. As I said before, God always unites and the devil always divides. Christians' conclusions are either ignorance or loyalty to a specific denomination, cause or person. I have had personal experiences with KJVOnly and when I run into some threads, I noticed "pharisee like attitude" regarding how those who compares themselves from other Christians based on what translation they read. In my opinion, God's Word should be in the "language of the people" which means the everyday language, and not the English of 500 A.D. or 1000 A.D. or 1611 A.D. or 1800 A.D. or 1900 A.D. We are living in the 2007 A.D language. People to say that we should stay with an Old English Bible or KJV or whatever, when we need to focus on the "language of the people," in today's time. By putting pressure on people to focus on KJV or whatever would do a disservice to the TRUE message of the Bible. We need to communicate God's Word in the clearest possible manner. Each of us have our OWN preference of any translations without feeling guilty nor feeling pressure to read that we are not comfortable with. The only perfect Bible was those original manuscripts which are not currently available. God has preserved the translation of His truths over the years and we can trust our Bibles by relying on the Holy Spirit.

Jesus didn't say: "Love KJV Bibles with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love those who are KJVOnly as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Its not the scriptures that are corrupted. Its a man's heart that is corrupted. Intelligence, reason, and choice. As a Christian, we don't need intelligence to decide because we have the Holy Spirit that convicts us to listen rather than focusing on our own pride of reasonings. God gave me the brain but in my body, who am I using my brian for? My flesh or In Spirit? if a Christian is not careful and forget. 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. In order to "revere" the Word of God (Bible), you submit to the Holy Spirit who is the Author of the Bible. Jesus said in John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. All translations (i.e. KJV, RSV, NIV and etc) themselves are not inspired. Only the originals are inspired. We are to trust the Holy Spirit more than we trust the translations simply because the Holy Spirit have been with the translators while they were translating.

As I posted in the past, I will say again..... I can and do have certain beliefs, but I will not emphasize them to OTHERS so much that can create barriers between brethren.

Christians who are obsessed with issues zealously and spending more time talking about those issues more than they do talking about the Lord Jesus Christ.

Its that simple. I have learned the hard way when I was the "KJVOnly" years ago. I am glad that God woke me up and said "Jim, you need to understand the true meaning of the Great Commission". :doh:

[Logos1560]

I am a KJV onlyist and am proud of it. It does not bother me in the slightest if someone "attacks" my stand on it. So let all the threads be posted for or against the KJV. We all may learn something.

Tony M

Yes, we all may learn something. We should be willing to examine the evidence and consider whether or not the reasons for our viewpoint are correct or not. I am willing to learn from all believers, including those believers that hold a KJV-only view or those who may disagree with other views I hold. When there is any incorrect information in any of my posts, I would consider any valid reasons and evidence that shows it to be incorrect. The Bible translation issue is such a broad and complex issue that it cannot be adequately discussed in one thread. In my opinion, calmly discussing the individual aspects of this issue in separate threads helps to focus the discussion away from typical broad-sweeping generalizations or overstatements and subjective claims with no evidence offered to support them. With a narrow focus, it soon becomes more apparent whether or not you can offer valid evidence and reasons for your claims and statements.

[rainbowpromise]

I had no idea this was such an issue here, although I was asked about my name at least once on this forum. I wouldnt call myself a KJV onlyist. It happens to be the version I am the most comfortable with, including its translation. I am the same way. I prefer the KJV, but I am not exclusively KJV. In the past I have tried other versions, but find I have to dig out the KJV in order to translate the more modern versions.

[mesue]

I'm getting so sick of people starting threads that mock KJV onlyists ...
Me too. :sigh:
This is a debate that won't be won.
There is no new evidence to be presented, therefore nothing new is to be learned.
There is nothing else to type except:
"You're wrong because bla bla bla ..."
"I'm right because bla bla bla ... "
I'm tired of hearing that the evidence clearly states ... bla bla bla ...
The Bible you use is the tool that God uses to speak to you. If you hear Him clearly in a KJV, what is so wrong with that?
My Bible preference is a personal thing. It would be like telling me that my mother's chocolate cake is the wrong type of cake. I love my mother's chocolate cake! What do you mean I'm wrong to eat my mother's chocolate cake? It's my comfort food, I feel mom's love when she makes me chocolate cake. I hear my Abba's voice when I read my KJV Bible. I don't need to have my mind or heart changed about that. I'm not here to change anyones mind or heart about their Bible either.
Just let it go.

[JimfromOhio]

Now that is false. It appears you don't know much about the Protestants very well.

I dislike KJVOnly however my main sources of my Bible study is KJV and NKJV. I use other tranlations when I witness to others.

[WannaWitness]

There is nothing wrong with having differences of opinion (and even occasional debates) on different issues (Bible versions among them).... but I also believe that we, as believers, should take some time to concentrate on what we all agree on: Jesus is our Lord and Savior, and that we're all striving for the same goal -- a home in God's Kingdom.

[RichardT]

i personally think the topic is rather silly =)

Sackville Independent Baptist Church

Lol!

[BereanTodd]

The Bible you use is the tool that God uses to speak to you. If you hear Him clearly in a KJV, what is so wrong with that?

Mesue, how many dozens of times do we have to state it. We don't care if you use the KJV. We don't care if you only use the KJV. We don't care if you don't like any version but the KJV. When we care is when the KJO people make assertions that the KJV is perfect, that other Bibles are satanic and wrong and other such silly aspertions. Those are lies taught by uneducated men, which too many people blindly accept. And those are false doctrines I stand against.

My in-laws all use only the KJV. I have no problem with it. KJO teaching though goes beyond "The KJV is my favorite version" to being "The KJV is the only inspired, God-approved version." That is a lie that I will stand against.

[mesue]

Mesue, how many dozens of times do we have to state it. We don't care if you use the KJV. We don't care if you only use the KJV. We don't care if you don't like any version but the KJV. When we care is when the KJO people make assertions that the KJV is perfect, that other Bibles are satanic and wrong and other such silly aspertions. Those are lies taught by uneducated men, which too many people blindly accept. And those are false doctrines I stand against.

My in-laws all use only the KJV. I have no problem with it. KJO teaching though goes beyond "The KJV is my favorite version" to being "The KJV is the only inspired, God-approved version." That is a lie that I will stand against.
I made no such assertion. I never said anyone should read any version of any Bible, and yet you make it seem as if I were. Why the hostility?
Why do you purport to speak for everyone when you say you don't care? What have I ever done to you to make you so hostile towards me?

[dave90]

Mesue, how many dozens of times do we have to state it. We don't care if you use the KJV. We don't care if you only use the KJV. We don't care if you don't like any version but the KJV. When we care is when the KJO people make assertions that the KJV is perfect, that other Bibles are satanic and wrong and other such silly aspertions. Those are lies taught by uneducated men, which too many people blindly accept. And those are false doctrines I stand against.

My in-laws all use only the KJV. I have no problem with it. KJO teaching though goes beyond "The KJV is my favorite version" to being "The KJV is the only inspired, God-approved version." That is a lie that I will stand against.

who thinks this?

[BereanTodd]

who thinks this?


That is what the whole KJO debate is about. A great number of KJO scholars believe it, several people on this board argue exactly that.

[BereanTodd]

I made no such assertion. I never said anyone should read any version of any Bible, and yet you make it seem as if I were. Why the hostility?
Why do you purport to speak for everyone when you say you don't care? What have I ever done to you to make you so hostile towards me?

My hostility is not against you, it is against the KJO crowd. They absolutely do make that assertion. Have you read the threads around here? Have you read BigChris? Have you looked at the books written by Gail Riplinger and the debate going over it.

There is not a person I know of here who as attacked the KJV Bible. We attack the KJO position, which is a position that says that ONLY the KJV is inspired, that the modern translations (NASB, NKJV, NIV, etc) are stanic, misleading and wrong. That is what we debate about here.

I venture a guess that not one single person on this board - not me, not Logos, NOONE ... cares if you read the KJV. We don't care if you prefer it. We don't care if you dislike the others. We care when people spout KJO-ism which absolutely does teach that other versions are satanic and wrong and that only the KJV is inspired in the English language.

[mesue]

My hostility is not against you, it is against the KJO crowd. They absolutely do make that assertion. Have you read the threads around here? Have you read BigChris? Have you looked at the books written by Gail Riplinger and the debate going over it.

There is not a person I know of here who as attacked the KJV Bible. We attack the KJO position, which is a position that says that ONLY the KJV is inspired, that the modern translations (NASB, NKJV, NIV, etc) are stanic, misleading and wrong. That is what we debate about here.

I venture a guess that not one single person on this board - not me, not Logos, NOONE ... cares if you read the KJV. We don't care if you prefer it. We don't care if you dislike the others. We care when people spout KJO-ism which absolutely does teach that other versions are satanic and wrong and that only the KJV is inspired in the English language.
So, why your hostility?

[JimfromOhio]

You be amazed how KJVO disregard the Great Commission.

[BereanTodd]

So, why your hostility?

Well again I have none towards you. I have it towards the kJO view because it is an ignorant, uneducated position that in most cases goes hand-in-hand with other unbiblical positions (legalistic views, the no-drink-no-dance views, etc, etc). Because those who hold it attack and sometimes damage the faith of young believers who know no better.

[Gear853]

Lol!

what's so funny T_T

[mesue]

Well again I have none towards you. I have it towards the kJO view because it is an ignorant, uneducated position that in most cases goes hand-in-hand with other unbiblical positions (legalistic views, the no-drink-no-dance views, etc, etc). Because those who hold it attack and sometimes damage the faith of young believers who know no better.
It seems to be aimed at me.
Please don't put me in a box.
Please don't stereotype KJV only Christians.
I am a fairly educated person, I have a business degree and have been an RN for almost 20 years. My church is KJV only. My quest is to find the best Bloody Mary in the USA. Currently it is still a tie between my husband and MIL. Restaurant wise, it's Applebee's. I like Molsen Canadian, not Golden - green bottled beer tastes like skunk water. I love to dance, I was a punk before you were. I stink at Guitar Hero 2 and DDR. My Jr Church class loves when we do pizza and DDR on a Saturday afternoon. They read, and quote, the KJV and don't seem too damaged by it, in fact they seem pretty normal. They love the Lord and have no problem telling you how Jesus loves you.
You need to get out more. ;)

[AnthonytheBaptist]

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1611_authorized_king_james.htm
KJV IS THE WORD OF GOD...SELAH

[RichardT]

what's so funny T_T

I was expecting that from a non-kjo

[wmc1982]

God said for His word to be translated in many different languages. KJV only is rediculous! Are we supposed to all learn Elizabethan English? If you say that, you may as well say the original Greek and Hebrew texts are the ONLY true versions.

[BereanTodd]

It seems to be aimed at me.
Please don't put me in a box.

My response was to something you said. Sorry. I am allowed to comment on things people say here, that is the purpose of a message board.

Please don't stereotype KJV only Christians.

Unless you are being deceitful you are not a KJO believer. You are someone who prefers and/or only reads the KJV. There is a difference.

You at least claim to not be familiar with the fact that there are a great many people who claim that the KJV is the only inspired version of the Bible, that the new versions (NASB, NKJV, NIV, ESV and others) are satanic, dangerous and in error. If you do not believe those things then you are not KJO. You are someone who personally only reads the KJV. There is a difference.

My in-laws used to be KJO. After years of discussions with me they are now people who, like you (based on what you have said) prefer the KJV, and basically only read it.

They read, and quote, the KJV and don't seem too damaged by it, in fact they seem pretty normal.

Of course not, there is nothing particularly wrong with the KJV. I personally think there are better versions out there. But it is not a terrible version by any stretch of the imagination. I would much, much rather that you read the KJV than the NIV for instance.

Once again, I have no problem with the KJV. I have a problem with the KJO movement which claims all other versions are [i]not[/b] inspired, are satanic and dangerous, and which is in most cases suceptable to a variety of other false teachings.

[dave90]

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1611_authorized_king_james.htm
KJV IS THE WORD OF GOD...SELAH




that whole site there is a big joke, very anti-catholic.

[dave90]

Is my Catholic Bible not the word of God, and is KJV the only word of God?

[wmc1982]

Is my Catholic Bible not the word of God, and is KJV the only word of God?
I guess some suggest everyone in the World must learn that old English style of language to hear the Word of God.

[mesue]

My response was to something you said. Sorry. I am allowed to comment on things people say here, that is the purpose of a message board.



Unless you are being deceitful you are not a KJO believer. You are someone who prefers and/or only reads the KJV. There is a difference.

You at least claim to not be familiar with the fact that there are a great many people who claim that the KJV is the only inspired version of the Bible, that the new versions (NASB, NKJV, NIV, ESV and others) are satanic, dangerous and in error. If you do not believe those things then you are not KJO. You are someone who personally only reads the KJV. There is a difference.

My in-laws used to be KJO. After years of discussions with me they are now people who, like you (based on what you have said) prefer the KJV, and basically only read it.



Of course not, there is nothing particularly wrong with the KJV. I personally think there are better versions out there. But it is not a terrible version by any stretch of the imagination. I would much, much rather that you read the KJV than the NIV for instance.

Once again, I have no problem with the KJV. I have a problem with the KJO movement which claims all other versions are [i]not[/b] inspired, are satanic and dangerous, and which is in most cases suceptable to a variety of other false teachings.
You may acuse me of any falshood that you desire.
I will
Proverbs 14:7 Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.
Have it your way

Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.

[wmc1982]

If any thing is the best correct versions of the Bible, its the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic versions it was first written in.

[Gear853]

I was expecting that from a non-kjo

but i'm not non-kjo.... lol

[BubbaScott]

Whats wrong with any bible as long as we read it and understand what God wants

[AnthonytheBaptist]

Question: Wasn’t it the Catholic Church that was responsible for the Bible being written?
Answer: No. The Catholic Church tried to take credit for what the Lord did without their help.
Here is a short history of the Bible.
1. Old Testament
The Old Testament was written by Moses, David and Solomon, prophets, seers and kings. There was no "church" of any kind to claim responsibility for it. God inspired individuals to bring God's word to the people. The Old Testament is the recorded revelation of God up until about 400 BC.
2. The Inter-Testamental Period
The time between about 400 BC and about 5 BC is usually called the Years of Prophetic Silence. This is because God created a process that lasted 400 years to create a world climate ready for the coming of the promised Messiah. There was no "church" at this time, either. But there was the new creation of the "synagogue," since the Jewish people needed to worship God and did not have the Temple when they were in exile. When many came back 400-500 BC, they already had functional synagogues; and even though the Temple was being rebuilt by those returning from exile, the synagogue idea remained and more were built. This was the beginning of the "congregation" or "church" as we have it today.
But there was no Scripture being written during this period. That was yet to come after one came "in the spirit and power of Elias" (Luke 1:17).
3. The Time of Christ
It is likely that Matthew (Levi) the tax collector and later disciple of Jesus took notes of what happened during Jesus' ministry. However, it is also true that were God in the flesh living among you, His words would burn into your soul. I am sure, as the apostles clearly recollected as they wrote the New Testament (2 Peter 1:16-21; 1 John 1:1-3; 4:14), they could not escape the image and words of Jesus Christ, God the Son and Son of God, when He spoke into their hearts (Luke 9:44; 24:32).
But it wasn't a "church" that made them write.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
And
2 Peter 1:19-21
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
God the Holy Spirit inspired them, perfectly and accurately, to write the words of God for the church. The church did not "inspire" anything.
4. The Church Age
When the apostles wrote their letters, the congregations received them. They read them. They spread them. They copied them for other brethren in Christ Jesus. And they recognized their authority in the Christian's life. So the Scriptures were produced by men of God, not by "the church." But they were produced FOR the church.
The last book of the Bible was Revelation, written about 96 AD, just before the apostle John died around 100 AD. After the apostles died, the churches continued to collect the letters they did not have, to read them and understand the authority under God by which they wrote.
But no one else shared that place. There is an "epistle of Barnabas" (which bears no proof it was written by Barnabas), which many think was penned in the first century. But the difference between its message of salvation and of the apostolic writings is too easy to see. If you believe the Scriptures, you cannot believe the so-called "epistle of Barnabas."
There are the writings of Polycarp, disciple of John (when John was very aged). There are writings of Clement and others. But those are all writings of Christians. Just Christians. Some were even martyrs, but their writings depended on the Scriptures--they were not Scripture themselves. Anyone who would base their faith on them would have a horrid foundation, just as if there were "Lutherans" today, learning of God's word only what they find in Martin Luther's writings. Interesting writing, at times "inspirational" writing, fine. Inspired? Not a chance.
The Roman Catholic church has had only one aim from its earliest, pagan and political origins: To destroy the true Christians, and to destroy their Bible. That is why they substituted the corrupt Alexandrian perversions of scripture, instead of using the preserved, prophetic and apostolic Words of God as found in Antioch of Syria, where "the disciples were first called Christians" (Acts 11:26). That is why they also added the Alexandrian writings we now call "Apocrypha" to their perverted bibles. That is why they used their Jesuits to infiltrate the Protestant Seminaries, Colleges and Bible Schools. Their Jesuits became the "teachers" and planted seeds of doubt in the Christians' minds. These doubt-ridden Christians then taught at other colleges and schools. All the while they planted that same seed of doubt of God's word in their students.
The stage was set: Once people no longer believed in God's Preserved Words, which we find perfectly presented in the King James Bible, they were ripe for destruction. Now, 120 years after the switch from God's Word to devil's lies (the King James abandoned for the Alexandrian texts), while pretending to "improve" our copies of God's words, they really set up the abandonment of God's words. Now almost every Bible in the English-speaking world (and most other languages) is just another re-translation of the Alexandrian polluted stream.
Another way to view it is that the Scriptures as we find them preserved in the King James is like God's fountain ...
Jeremiah 2:13
13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. And that's the point: The bible spewed out by the Catholic church, which now almost all Protestants and other Christians use, ... simply doesn't hold water.

[AnthonytheBaptist]

QUESTION: Should we make an issue of Bible translations? ANSWER: Only if you believe anything out of it.
EXPLANATION: Many Christians attempt to evade the issue of whether of not there really is a perfect Bible (as they are told from the pulpit) by piously hiding behind the statement, "I don't make an issue of Bible translations."
It is perfectly acceptable to assume such a position as long as you are consistent in your stand... or lack of it.
In other words, if the issue of a perfect Bible is a "non-issue" with you, then to be consistent, neither should be ANY of the following:
1. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Isa 7:14
2. The deity of Jesus Christ. I John 5:5
3. The substitutionary death for sins made by Jesus Christ. Romans 5:8
4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. I Cor 15:4
5. Salvation by grace alone without works. Eph 2:8, 9
6. The Pre-millennial return of Jesus Christ. I Thess 4
7. The existence of a literal Heaven. John 3:13
8. The existence of a literal Hell. Mark 9:42-44
9. The acceptance of Creation over the theory of evolution. Gen 1:7
This is by no means a comprehensive list of convictions held by those who call themselves "Fundamentalists." Yet every one is taken from the Bible. How on earth can a thinking, rational person make an issue or have a conviction on something that they have taken out of the Bible, but see "no issue" concerning the perfection of the Book on which they base their every issue? IF the Bible has mistakes in it, then how can we be sure that it is correct in those passages on which we base our convictions?
Some may say, "I accept the Bible where it is accurately translated." Fine! THAT is the statement of faith of every Mormon in the world! WHO is to judge just where the Bible is "accurately translated?"
No, it is impossible to make "any issue" over even one doctrine from the Bible and claim not to make an "issue" over the Bible itself.
Why then do people make such a statement? Basically, it is out of fear of the consequences of such a stand. They are afraid of the rejection of their friends, family, and fellow-workers.
How bold for the truth are you?

[AnthonytheBaptist]

Bible Translator Says, ‘I'm In Trouble With The Lord.'
Dr. Frank Logsdon, member of the translation committee for the New American Standard Version (NASB), has denounced his work on that Bible and urged all Christians to return to the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Bible.
Although the most popular translation at the present time is the New International Version, both of these modern Bibles are based upon the same Catholic text, and Logsdon's concerns apply to both.
Being involved with the project from the very beginning, Logsdon helped publisher F. Dewey Lockman with the feasibility study that led to the translation. He interviewed some of the translators, sat with them, and even wrote the preface. But soon the questions began coming in.
His old friend, Dr. David Otis Fuller, began to put his finger on the many shortcomings of the Catholic text used in all modern Bibles, which include the NASB and today's NIV.
Logsdon finally said, "I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong; it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong; and what am I going to do about it?"
Logsdon shocked publisher Dewey Lockman by writing, "I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard."
Logsdon then began to travel extensively, trying to make up for his error by explaining to people the very simple reasons why the Authorized Version is the one Bible which is absolutely 100% correct.
Along with many other scholars, Logsdon had blindly accepted the basic argument used today to support the use of the two Catholic manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus, in all modern Bibles.
The "experts" claim that these are the oldest manuscripts in existence, so they must be the best!
In one of his many public speeches, Logsdon explained, "When there is an omission that might be observed, they put in the margin, ‘Not in the oldest manuscripts.' But they don't tell you what those oldest manuscripts are. What oldest manuscripts?
Or they say, ‘Not in the best manuscripts.' What are the best manuscripts? They don't tell you. You see how subtle that is?
The average man sees a little note in the margin which says ‘not in the better manuscripts' and he takes for granted they are scholars and they must know, and then he goes on. That's how easily one can be deceived."
It was only after Logsdon took the time to really look into this issue that he was horrified to see that he had played right into Satan's hands, and helped to take many verses out of the Scriptures. Logsdon admitted, "The deletions are absolutely frightening."
The huge number of English Bible translations currently available has produced untold millions of dollars in sales, but does anyone believe that they have produced a modern Church which is more knowledgeable about their Bible? No, it has produced the Siamese twins of confusion and falling away from truth.
All modern Bible translators today use, without question, the New Testament text produced by the famous scholars Hort and Westcott.
But in her book, New Age Bible Versions (http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0170.asp), author Gail Riplinger exposes the background and corrupt theology of these giants.
Many readers are surprised at the beliefs of these men, documented by their own writings. Yet modern scholars accept their work without question, just as many university professors today blindly accept evolutionary teaching, safely going along with the crowd to protect their reputations. If you hold in your hand the Authorized Version, you have God's Truth.
History supports it, the Holy Spirit has confirmed it, God's Church has prospered by it. You will find it is hated by all those who seek to make an elastic Bible that is all things to all people… which then becomes nothing to anyone.
Logsdon's advice? If you hold the Authorized Version, and someone tries to prod you to accept another, "You don't need to defend it; you don't need to apologize for it.
"Just say, ‘Well, did this new version or this translation come down through the Roman Catholic stream? If so, count me out.'"

[JimfromOhio]

I see legalism of KJVOnly is very active still. :)

[TwinCrier]

even if i ever did, i would not read it because of the language to im not a fan of old english, i hated shakesphere.You knew Shakespeare?!?!

You be amazed how KJVO disregard the Great Commission.Nope, it's not deleted from OUR bible. Is it in YOURS?

God said for His word to be translated in many different languages. KJV only is rediculous! Are we supposed to all learn Elizabethan English? If you say that, you may as well say the original Greek and Hebrew texts are the ONLY true versions.You seem to speak English pretty well, why do you want Hebrew and Greek when God has had His Holy word translated into the language you speak?

Whats wrong with any bible as long as we read it and understand what God wantsSo, the Satanic Bible is fine? We have a saying in the KJVO camp;
You wouldn't swallow a bottle of bleach simply because it says "milk" on the bottle. Some Christians will swallow anything.

I see legalism of KJVOnly is very active still. :)No KJVO teaches that law-keeping is part of salvation. I noticed the term Legalist is spouted whenever someones ease or pleasure seeking is condemned. A very useless defensive measure.

[DeaconDean]

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public service announcement:

1.4 Congregational Areas

You may post in any of the Congregational Forums if you agree with the contents of the Nicene Creed and the Trinitarian nature of God, but you may not argue or debate with members of particular denominations and groups in their congregational areas unless you are a member of that particular denomination or group.

2.1 No Flaming

You will not:
-Ridicule another members belief
-Ridicule public figures important to another's religious beliefs

Please, brothers and sisters, lets be mindful of this.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[dave90]

I guess we should be thankful though we have soo much Bibles, Other countries you can get thrown in jail for having one.

[wmc1982]

Is my Catholic Bible not the word of God, and is KJV the only word of God?
of course not

[Salamon]

I find it kind of funny that this post has ended up being what it initally set out to stop. It is now pretty much another post to argue about KJVO. Well just a little insight :)

[IisJustMe]

Well just a little insight :) Only I think the word better describing it would be "incite"

[Salamon]

No I think Insight is what I meant sorry if it sounded differently. Here is the meaning of both.
Main Entry: in·cite
Pronunciation: in-'sIt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): in·cit·ed; in·cit·ing
Etymology: Middle French inciter, from Latin incitare, from in- + citare to put in motion -- more at CITE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/cite)
: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on
- in·cit·ant /-'sI-t&nt/ noun
- in·cite·ment /-'sIt-m&nt/ noun
- in·cit·er noun
synonyms INCITE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/incite), INSTIGATE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/instigate), ABET (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/abet), FOMENT (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/foment) mean to spur to action. INCITE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/incite) stresses a stirring up and urging on, and may or may not imply initiating <inciting a riot>. INSTIGATE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/instigate) definitely implies responsibility for initiating another's action and often connotes underhandedness or evil intention <instigated a conspiracy>. ABET (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/abet) implies both assisting and encouraging <aiding and abetting the enemy>. FOMENT (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/foment) implies persistence in goading <fomenting rebellion>.

Main Entry: in·sight
Pronunciation: 'in-"sIt
Function: noun
1 : the power or act of seeing into a situation : PENETRATION (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/penetration)
2 : the act or result of apprehending the inner nature of things or of seeing intuitively
synonym see DISCERNMENT (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/discernment)
Definitely meant the second one again sorry if it didn't seem that way. God bless :)

[DeaconDean]

Thread closed for review and clean up. We will reopen it as soon as possible. Thank you all for your patience.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[DeaconDean]

Ladies and Gentlemen, we the Moderators of the Baptist area, have agreed to reopen this thread with several provisos.

1) This thread is getting away from the original OP, lets keep it on track.

2) There has been an awful lot of bashing of those who support KJO, this is off topic for this thread.

3) There has been an awful lot of bashing anothers denominations and their version of the Bible, this is off topic.

This thread was originally started for people to voice there concern over the KJVO debates and threads started as of late. To other people of different denominations, you must remember that this is a Baptist area, you are not allowed to debate in here. To Baptists here, while you are passionate on your beliefs, we still must under all circumstances show grace and mercy to others as our Lord shown grace to us, for they are equally passionate about their beliefs. If this thread can not be continued in a peaceful manner, it will be closed permemantly. If all we are going to do is beat our fellow brothren and sisters down over a belief they are equally passionate about, where is our:

"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." -Mt. 22:39

So I'm asking each one, please be mindful of this.

God Bless

Till all are one.