You know, no matter how many different reason KJVO's come up with as to why the KJV is the only Bible, I think they all miss one BIG thing. It is that fact there is nothing to start off with. They overlook that fact that the KJV translators were nothing more than Catholics under a different name. They overlook that fact that King James only authorized the KJVs creation to slap the Pope in the face. They overlook that there were Protestants around who actually believed the Bible much more than the KJV translators and that they had produced Bibles. The biggest name of all this was the Geneva but one cannot forget about Tyndale. They overlook all that and then throw this line in at the beginning or end, "God's hand was in the making of the KJB." Nowhere in the Bible does it predict the making of the KJV as some claim. Sorry but Ps 12 is not talking about the KJV...not even close. Then they like to say, "It is the only Bible that has lasted through the years. My Geneva has lasted and it is much older. Plus, their teachings actually contradict that the KJV is the Word of God. A big IFB teaching is that anything that is popular with the world is due to the Devil. Things like CCM are popular because it is of the Devil. Well, if the KJV has been the Bible of choice for so long as they brag then doesn't that make them wonder? Don't get me wrong, I do not believe the KJV is of the Devil but I feel their teaching contradict each other. They need any fact that they can find to try to prove something that the Bible does not teach. I wish they would see this.
__________________ Eph 4:32Be ye courteous one to another, & tender hearted, freely forgiuing one another, euen as God for Christes sake, freely forgaue you. - Geneva
Here is a great site. I may not agree with it all but I have found it very helpful with the KJVO issue... http://www.kjv-only.com/
A big IFB teaching is that anything that is popular with the world is due to the Devil.
I think you are touching on something here. KJVOism thrived in the IFB environment in the 1970s & 80s. At that time, the old guard, in many cases, did not provide reasons for the faith. They merely used their personalities, one-liners and emotional pleas. Fundamentalist associations (including the FBF) had a tight reign on churches.
When Pensacola blew up with the KJVO issue, most institutions that were strongly KJV preferred were forced to stand against KJVOism. Our generation has, for the most part, asked the hard questions and the former teachings have not stood up.
Many believe that KJVOism is in its "prime." I am of the opinion that it has seen its best days and is a fast dying movement. As Ruckman, Waite and the old guard pass on, I think the movement will die with them. Of course, I am not a prophet, just making observations from what I see from my little vantage point.
Consider this unmoderated forum. KJVOs can come here freely...they can also leave if they are unable to counter the arguments. We are dominating.
__________________ Simply observing the floccinoccinihilipilification of the KJVO movement.
I think you are touching on something here. KJVOism thrived in the IFB environment in the 1970s & 80s. At that time, the old guard, in many cases, did not provide reasons for the faith. They merely used their personalities, one-liners and emotional pleas. Fundamentalist associations (including the FBF) had a tight reign on churches.
When Pensacola blew up with the KJVO issue, most institutions that were strongly KJV preferred were forced to stand against KJVOism. Our generation has, for the most part, asked the hard questions and the former teachings have not stood up.
Many believe that KJVOism is in its "prime." I am of the opinion that it has seen its best days and is a fast dying movement. As Ruckman, Waite and the old guard pass on, I think the movement will die with them. Of course, I am not a prophet, just making observations from what I see from my little vantage point.
Consider this unmoderated forum. KJVOs can come here freely...they can also leave if they are unable to counter the arguments. We are dominating.
One sad thing is even if you are right and the KJO moment does die off Satan will put out another ploy. Who knows what one it will be next. I wonder what is worse...the KJVO ploy we fight today or the next one that he will come rolling out with.
__________________ Eph 4:32Be ye courteous one to another, & tender hearted, freely forgiuing one another, euen as God for Christes sake, freely forgaue you. - Geneva
Here is a great site. I may not agree with it all but I have found it very helpful with the KJVO issue... http://www.kjv-only.com/
They overlook that there were Protestants around who actually believed the Bible much more than the KJV translators and that they had produced Bibles. The biggest name of all this was the Geneva but one cannot forget about Tyndale. .
William Tyndale and the translators of the Geneva Bible could validly be considered more sound in their doctrinal views than the Church of England translators of the KJV.
They overlook that fact that King James only authorized the KJVs creation to slap the Pope in the face. .
I do not know the source of your above statement, but it is inaccurate. The main known reason that King James approved the making of a new translation was his objections to the Geneva Bible, especially its marginal notes that conflicts with his divine right of king's view.
George Perry maintained that King James “applied monarchial principles to the government of the Church” (History, I, p. 44). King James seemed to want the state church to aid in the maintenance of his view of the royal supremacy or divine right of a king. McGrath observed: "The ultimate grounds for James's hostility toward the Geneva Bible was the challenge its marginal notes posed to his passionate belief in the doctrine of the 'divine right of kings'" (In the Beginning, p. 141). In his introduction to the facsimile edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible, Michael Brown pointed out: "King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people: his sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible" (p. i). Gustavus Paine also noted: "James's real reason for objecting to the Geneva Bible was rooted in his need to feel secure on his throne. Some of the marginal notes in the Geneva version had wording which disturbed him: they seemed to scoff at kings. If the Bible threatened him, it must be changed. Away with all marginal notes!" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 10). Vance maintained that “it was not the text of the Geneva Bible that bothered the king--it was the notes” (King James, His Bible, p. 21).
Pastor Mincy affirmed: "King James saw in this new translation an opportunity to get rid of the influence of the Puritan Bible, the Geneva" (Williams, From the Mind of God, p. 131). Allen maintained that King James "hoped to supplant the popularity of the Geneva Bible, the Puritan translation whose accuracy and readability made it a vast favorite with the people" (Coming of King James Gospels, p. 3). KJV-only advocate Robert Sargent acknowledged that King James "despised the Geneva Bible" (English Bible, p. 206). In his Dictionary of the Bible, John Brown (1722-1787) maintained that “King James heartily hated the Geneva translation” (p. 97). Kenneth Bradstreet confirmed that James “hated the Geneva Bible” (KJV in History, p. 87). KJV defender Steven Houck also observed that James "greatly disliked the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible because he thought they encouraged disobedience to kings and therefore wanted a new translation to replace it" (KJV of the Bible, p. 3). McGrath wrote: "The king, according to the Geneva Bible, was accountable for his actions. It was not a view that James I cared for" (In the Beginning, p. 147).
What did those marginal notes say that upset King James I? At Daniel 6:22, the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible has this marginal note: "For he did disobey the king's wicked commandment to obey God, and so did no injury to the king, who ought to command nothing whereby God should be dishonoured." At Exodus 1:19, it has this note: "Their disobedience herein was lawful, but their dissembling evil." The note at Exodus 1:22 is as follows: "When tyrants can not prevail by craft, they burst forth into open rage." In his article in a modern-spelling edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible, Marshall Foster observed: “the marginal note in the Geneva Bible at Exodus 1:19 indicated that the Hebrew midwives were correct to disobey the Egyptian rulers. King James called such interpretations ‘seditious.‘ The tyrant knew that if the people could hold him accountable to God’s Word, his days as a king ruling by ‘Divine Right’ were numbered” (p. xxv). At Matthew 2:19, the marginal note has the word tyrant [“Christ is brought up in Nazareth, after the death of the tyrant, by God’s providence”]. Its note at Matthew 10:28 stated: “Though tyrants be never so raging and cruel, yet we may not fear them.“ At Acts 12:2, its note again referred to tyrants [“It is an old fashion of tyrants to procure the favour of the wicked with the blood of the godly”]. McGrath maintained that "the Geneva notes regularly use the word 'tyrant' to refer to kings; the King James Bible never uses this word" (In the Beginning, p. 143). Long after King James’ death, these notes were in a few editions of the KJV, such as one in 1672. At the top of the page that has Isaiah 14, the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible has this heading: “The fall of the tyrant.“ At the top of the page that has Ezekiel 32, the 1560 Geneva Bible has this heading: “The end of tyrants.“ The 1611 KJV did have the word “tyrant” in the Apocrypha [Wisdom of Solomon 12:14, 2 Maccabees 4:25, 7:27].
Perhaps it was not only the marginal notes that caused King James to dislike the Geneva Bible. If it was only the notes that bothered the king, why didn’t he have the text printed without those notes? Many people may be unaware of the fact that the earlier English Bibles sometimes had the word "tyrant" or the word “tyranny” in the text. At Isaiah 13:11b, the 1599 Geneva Bible read: "I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease and will cast down the pride of tyrants." The Geneva Bible at Job 6:23 stated: "And deliver me from the enemies' hand, or ransom me out of the hand of tyrants?" Again at Isaiah 49:25, it noted: "the prey of the tyrant shall be delivered." At Job 27:13, the Geneva Bible read: "This is the portion of a wicked man with God, and the heritage of tyrants, which they shall receive of the Almighty." Its rendering at the beginning of Job 3:17 stated: "The wicked have there ceased from their tyranny." The Geneva Bible also has the word "tyrant" or "tyrants" in other verses such as Job 15:20 and Psalm 54:3. The 1535 Coverdale's Bible and the 1540 edition of the Great Bible also used these same renderings in several verses. The Bishops’ Bible has “tyrants“ at Job 6:23, Job 15:20, Job 27:13, and Psalm 54:3 and “tyrant” at Isaiah 13:11 and 16:4. At 1 Timothy 1:13, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles all had the word "tyrant." At James 2:6, Whittingham’s, the Geneva, and Bishops’ Bibles had “oppress you by tyranny” while the Great Bible has “execute tyranny upon you.”
Concerning Genesis 10:8-9, Ovid Need wrote: “Both the text wording and the notes of the Geneva speak harshly against oppressors and tyrants, such as we have today. As I have used the Geneva and compared it with the KJV, I understand why King James wanted to rid Christians of the Geneva” (Biblical Examiner, January, 2007, p. 2). Ovid Need added: “An example is found in Matthew 2:6, KJV says a governor, where the Geneva says, the governor. The strong wording that demands that only one Sovereign, Jehovah God in the form of Jesus Christ was removed from the KJV” (Ibid.).
It is interesting that those Bishops that heard King James complain about the marginal notes in the Geneva Bible did not mention that the Bishops’ Bible had some similar marginal notes. The Bishops’ Bible had some marginal notes that condemned tyrants or tyranny. The marginal note at Exodus 1:15 in the 1595 edition of the Bishops’ was the following: “Tyrants try divers ways to oppress the Church.“ At Exodus 1:17, the Bishops’ note stated: “It was better to obey God than man.”
You know, no matter how many different reason KJVO's come up with as to why the KJV is the only Bible, I think they all miss one BIG thing. It is that fact there is nothing to start off with.
The KJV is not the "only Bible", but it is the Bible in English, or the Scriptures in English and should be BELIEVED instead of doubted, denied and mocked in words, phrases and verses.
Quote:
They overlook that fact that the KJV translators were nothing more than Catholics under a different name.
This is a blatant falsehood.
Quote:
They overlook that fact that King James only authorized the KJVs creation to slap the Pope in the face.
Another blatant falsehood.
Quote:
They overlook that there were Protestants around who actually believed the Bible much more than the KJV translators and that they had produced Bibles. The biggest name of all this was the Geneva but one cannot forget about Tyndale.
Must have been refreshing times when "there were Protestants around who actually believed the Bible". Seems the "Protestants" on this board are having a hard time with that one.
You like the Geneva and Tyndale do you? Even with "baptism", "bishop", 1 John 5:7, 1 Timothy 3:16... Are you sure?
Quote:
They overlook all that and then throw this line in at the beginning or end, "God's hand was in the making of the KJB."
What is the implication? God's hand wasn't in the making of the AV? Whose hand was it? The Devil's? The Pope's? God's hand wasn't in the making of the Scriptures in English? The Bible of Whitfield, Wesley, Moody and a host of other saints of God?
Quote:
Nowhere in the Bible does it predict the making of the KJV as some claim. Sorry but Ps 12 is not talking about the KJV...not even close. Then they like to say, "It is the only Bible that has lasted through the years. My Geneva has lasted and it is much older.
So, do you believe every word, phrase and verse as found in the Geneva? Or are you just postering?
Quote:
Plus, their teachings actually contradict that the KJV is the Word of God. A big IFB teaching is that anything that is popular with the world is due to the Devil. Things like CCM are popular because it is of the Devil. Well, if the KJV has been the Bible of choice for so long as they brag then doesn't that make them wonder? Don't get me wrong, I do not believe the KJV is of the Devil but I feel their teaching contradict each other. They need any fact that they can find to try to prove something that the Bible does not teach. I wish they would see this.
What CCM has to do with the word of God in English is beyond me. Do you recognize that the AV has been THE ENGLISH BIBLE recognized by a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians? It wasn't just a "fad" - it was THE BIBLE of the English speaking Church of God. You would do well to watch your mouth when you speak light of it.
Do you have eternal life (Jn 3:15)? Have you been born again (Jn 3:1-8)? Please take this opportunity to give the reason of the hope that is in you (1Pt 3:15). If you fail to do so for whatever reason, I will have no compelling reason or need to respond to your post.
What CCM has to do with the word of God in English is beyond me. Do you recognize that the AV has been THE ENGLISH BIBLE recognized by a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians? It wasn't just a "fad" - it was THE BIBLE of the English speaking Church of God. You would do well to watch your mouth when you speak light of it.
Bolded the key word there.
It was also the choice of the cults for many years- the JW's, Mormons, etc. all birthed from the KJV. Funny how you all call the MV's "Catholic" Bibles when you could just as well call the KJV a "JW" or "Mormon" Bible.
The KJV is a great TRANSLATION. It still has a place in the Christian church as a revered classic, but there are better TRANSLATIONS out there for our generation.
It was also the choice of the cults for many years- the JW's, Mormons, etc. all birthed from the KJV.
In 1990 (1)? can't remember exactly, the JWs had a King James Only conference for themselves at the Pontiac Silverdome, Pontiac, Michigan.
I was working at the Holiday Inn when they came to the front desk. As I was checking them into their rooms, they had buttons that said King James Only...I wanted to bust out laughing...
Ironic? No. Cultists are drawn to cultic movements. Especially a cult which bases its own name on the very unfortunate translation "Jehovah."
__________________ Simply observing the floccinoccinihilipilification of the KJVO movement.
It was also the choice of the cults for many years- the JW's, Mormons, etc. all birthed from the KJV. Funny how you all call the MV's "Catholic" Bibles when you could just as well call the KJV a "JW" or "Mormon" Bible.
What in the world kind of logic is that? Over 200 years after the KJV is published some cult leader heretic decides to use it and that automatically makes it a cult book? I think your hatred for the KJVO has migrated into hatred for the KJV. It's the Bible for cryin out loud!
__________________
"I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, (like necromancy?) will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms." -your buddy, Brooke Foss Westcott (Life, Vol.1,p.454)
What in the world kind of logic is that? Over 200 years after the KJV is published some cult leader heretic decides to use it and that automatically makes it a cult book? I think your hatred for the KJVO has migrated into hatred for the KJV. It's the Bible for cryin out loud!
And I do not know one Catholic who uses the NIV or any MV for that matter. He just used the same logic you did.
So it is incorrect to call them a Catholic Bible.
__________________
"Father, make of me a crisis man. Bring those I contact to decision. Let me not be a milepost on a single road; make me a fork, that men must turn one way or another on facing Christ in me."
Jim Elliot, 1948
---------------------------------------
To do is to be - Hippocrates
To be is to do – Aristotle
Do be do be do - Sinatra
The views and opinions expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of the Fighting Fundamental Forums management. This is an open and unmoderated forum. The content of each post is the sole responsibility of the poster. Participants are expected to follow the simple rules of the forum. Within these wide parameters various views are welcome to be expressed freely.
The college names used on the FundamentalForums.com web site are trademarks of their respective schools. The forums are not officially sanctioned by any of the institutions represented.
This Gets Me Every Time...
Hybrid Mode
