Good Read - KJV

[JM]

Quote:

KING JAMES ONLY

Republished November 29, 2005 (Updated and enlarged March 2, 2005;
first published January 20, 1996) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist
Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061,
866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing
and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information
paragraph at the end of the article) -

There is a lot of debate and confusion surrounding the man-made term
"King James Onlyism." This term has been popularized in recent years
by men who claim they are concerned about an alleged dangerous and
cultic view of the King James Bible. Rarely do they carefully define
this term, though, and as a result a wide variety of Bible-believing
men are lumped together and labeled with a term the meaning of which
is nebulous.

The term "King James Only" was invented by those who oppose the
defense of the King James Bible and its underlying Hebrew and Greek
texts. It was intended to be a term of approbation, and it is usually
defined in terms of the extremism.

I have been labeled "King James Only" because of my writings on the
subject of Bible texts and versions and my defense of the King James
Bible. To set the record straight, let me explain what I believe. I
know from decades of experience and extensive travels that this is
also what a large number of other King James Bible defenders believe.

I WILL ACCEPT THE LABEL OF "KING JAMES ONLY" IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:

If "King James Only" defines one who believes that God has given
infallible Scripture in the original Greek and Hebrew writings and
that He has preserved that in the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received
Text underlying the King James Bible and other Reformation Bibles and
that we have an accurate translation of it in the English language in
the Authorized Version, call me "King James Only."

If "King James Only" defines one who believes modern textual
criticism is heresy, call me "King James Only." I have spent hundreds
of dollars to obtain the writings of the men who have been at the
forefront of developing the theories underlying modern textual
criticism, and I have read them. They are not dependable. They refuse
to approach the Bible text from a position of faith in divine
preservation. Most of them are unbelievers, and I refuse to lean upon
their scholarship. I am convinced they do not have the spiritual
discernment necessary to know where the inspired, preserved Word of
God is located today.

If "King James Only" defines one who believes that God has preserved
the Scripture in its common use among apostolic churches through the
fulfillment of the Great Commission and that He guided the
Reformation editors and translators in their choice of the Received
Text and that we don't have to start all over today in an to attempt
to find the preserved text of Scripture, call me "King James Only."
The theories of modern textual criticism, on the other hand, all
revolve around the idea that the pure text of Scripture was not
preserved in the Reformation text but that the Reformation editors,
because of their alleged ignorance and or lack of resources, rejected
the pure text and chose, instead, an inferior text. In fact, modern
textual criticism is predicated upon the theory that the best text of
the New Testament (the Egyptian or Alexandrian) was rejected in the
earliest centuries and was replaced with a corrupt recension that was
created through the conflation of various manuscript readings (the
Byzantine or Traditional text) and that the corrupt text became the
dominant text throughout most of church history (for 1,500 years)
until the best text was rediscovered in the 19th century. You are
free to accept such views if it suits you. I, for one, believe this
is absolute nonsense, and if that is "King James Only," count me in.

Similarly, if "King James Only" defines one who rejects the theory
that the "preserved" Word of God was hidden away in the Pope's
library and in a weird Greek Orthodox monastery at the foot of Mt.
Sinai (a monastery which has a room full of the skulls of dead monks)
for hundreds of years, call me "King James Only."

If "King James Only" defines one who believes it is important to have
one biblical standard in a language as important as English and who
believes that the multiplicity of competing versions has created
confusion and has weakened the authority of the Word of God in this
century, call me "King James Only."

I WILL NOT ACCEPT THE LABEL OF "KING JAMES ONLY" IF IT MEANS THE
FOLLOWING:

If "King James Only" defines one who believes that the KJV was given
by inspiration, I am not "King James Only. The King James Bible is
the product of preservation, not inspiration. The term "inspiration"
refers to the original giving of the Scripture through holy men of
old (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). At the same time, I agree with the
Pulpit Commentary when it says, "We must guard against such narrow,
mechanical views of inspiration as would confine it to the Hebrew and
Greek words in which it was written, so that one who reads a good
translation would not have 'the words of the Lord.'" To say that the
King James Bible is the inspired Word of God in the English language
because it is an accurate translation of the preserved Hebrew and
Greek is not the same as saying that it was given by inspiration.

If "King James Only" defines one who believes the English KJV is
superior to the Hebrew and Greek texts upon which it was based, I am
not "King James Only." In fact, I believe such an idea is pure
nonsense, as it would mean the preserved Word of God did not exist
before 1611.

If "King James Only" defines one who believes the English Authorized
Version is advanced revelation over the Hebrew and Greek text that
God gave through inspiration to holy men of old, I am not "King James
Only."

If "King James Only" defines one who believes that we do not need to
study Greek and Hebrew today or that it is not proper to use lexicons
and dictionaries, I am not "King James Only." God's people should
learn Greek and Hebrew if possible and use (with much caution and
wisdom) study tools. When the Bible says that "holy men of God spake
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," we know that the words they
spake were Hebrew and Greek words. I encouraged my youngest son to
begin studying Greek in high school, and he is scheduled to have four
years of Greek and two of Hebrew when he graduates from Bible
College. But foundational to the study of the biblical languages is a
thorough understanding of the textual issue. We must study the right
Greek and Hebrew, and we must also be careful of the original
language study tools, because many of them were produced from a
rationalistic perspective and with great bias against the Received
Text.

If "King James Only" defines one who believes the preserved Word of
God is available only in English, I am not "King James Only." The
Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and Greek Received New Testament
translated properly into any language is the preserved Word of God in
that language, whether it is German, Spanish, French, Korean, or
Nepali. There is a list of Received-text based translations in the
"Directory of Foreign Language Literature" at the Way of Life web
site. (See the Apostasy Database.)

If "King James Only" defines one who believes that translations in
other languages should be based on English rather than (when
possible) Greek and Hebrew, I am not "King James Only." (I also
believe that a good translation can be made directly from the King
James Bible when necessary if it is done by men who are capable in
the use of dictionaries so that they understand the somewhat
antiquated language of the KJV properly.)

If "King James Only" defines one who believes that a person can only
be saved through the King James Bible, I am not "King James Only." It
is the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16),
and even a Bible that is textually corrupt contains the Gospel.

If "King James Only" defines one who believes that the King James
Bible's antiquated language is holy or who believes the KJV could
never again be updated, I am not "King James Only." I doubt the KJV
will ever be replaced in this apostate age, but to say that it is
wrong to update the language again after the fashion of the several
updates it has undergone since 1611 is not reasonable, in my
estimation. Having dealt constantly with people who speak English as
a 2nd or 3rd language, I am very sympathetic to the very real
antiquation problem in the King James Bible. At the same time, I am
not going to trade an excellent Bible with a few problems due to old
language for a Bible filled with error due to a corrupt text and/or a
corrupt translation methodology.

If "King James Only" defines one who believes he has the authority to
call those who disagree with him silly asses, morons, and jacklegs,
and to treat them as if they were the scum of the earth because they
refuse to follow his peculiar views, I am not "King James Only."

[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist
Information Service, a listing for Fundamental Baptists and other
fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. Our goal in this
particular aspect of our ministry is not devotional but is TO PROVIDE
INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN
THIS APOSTATE HOUR. This material is sent only to those who
personally subscribe to the list. If somehow you have subscribed
unintentionally, following are the instructions for removal. To
SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE or CHANGE ADDRESSES go to
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbis/subscribe.html. We take up a quarterly
offering to fund this ministry, and those who use the materials are
expected to participate (Galatians 6:6). Some of these articles are
from O Timothy magazine, which is in its 22nd year of publication.
Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at
the web site: http://www.wayoflife.org/catalog/catalog.htm Way of
Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143,
fbns@wayoflife.org (e-mail). We do not solicit funds from those who
do not agree with our preaching and who are not helped by these
publications, but for those who are, OFFERINGS can be made at
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/offering.html PAYPAL offerings can be
made to https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business= ... oflife.org
]

 

[thessalonian]

By what authority does he decide what KJO is?

 

[JM]

By what authority does he decide what KJO is?

By the priesthood of believers.

 

[AVBunyan]

KING JAMES ONLY

I WILL NOT ACCEPT THE LABEL OF "KING JAMES ONLY" IF IT MEANS THE
FOLLOWING:

Nice article JM -

I agree with the first part -

The second part the author and I would have some disagreements on but wouldn't go to war over.

I can tell that the second part the author was influenced by his disagreements with Dr. Ruckman over some things. Though Dr. Ruckman and I would see some things differently on different issues I happen to have a great respect and love for him regardless of what most of Christianity thinks of him.

Dr. Ruckman has done a lot more for the Lord than most of us have and especially me so I throw no rocks.

God bless

 

[thessalonian]

By what authority does he decide what KJO is?

By the priesthood of believers.

In other words according to you we're all of equal authority and his opinion is as good as the next guy. That's what I thought.

 

[AVBunyan]

By what authority does he decide what KJO is?

By the priesthood of believers.

In other words according to you we're all of equal authority and his opinion is as good as the next guy. That's what I thought.

As long as both have the pure words of God then they are equal in authority. It is your church that has elevated some sinners to hold authority over the consciences of others.

I'll take the common uneducated coal miner's view on spiritual matters who has his King James Bible and believes it over any cardinal or pope with his bible any day :o

 

[JM]

By what authority does he decide what KJO is?

By the priesthood of believers.

In other words according to you we're all of equal authority and his opinion is as good as the next guy. That's what I thought.

How do you know the Latin Catholic 'Pope' is the head of the Church?

 

[JM]

By what authority does he decide what KJO is?

By the priesthood of believers.

In other words according to you we're all of equal authority and his opinion is as good as the next guy. That's what I thought.

quote: As the perfect Son of God and High Priest, Jesus established a new covenant (Heb. 9:15-22) with better promises (Heb. 8:6) when he offered himself (Heb. 7:27) as the perfect victim once for all (Heb. 7:27) as our substitute (Heb. 7:27) and ransom (Heb. 9:15). By his death he took away our sins (Heb. 9:28), made us perfect (Heb. 10:14), obtained for us eternal redemption (Heb. 9:12), opened a new and living way in and through him to God's throne of grace, and sat down at the right hand of God (Heb. 10:12). He now invites every believer with a clean conscience (Heb. 9:14) to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus (Heb. 10:19) to offer continually spiritual sacrifices (Heb. 13:15, 16) as priests in Christ.

 

[thessalonian]

I know what it is JM. It's Catholic doctrine. It in no way does away with authority.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

By what authority does he decide what KJO is?

By the priesthood of believers.

Which the schismatics claim abrogates Apostolic succession.

Here's a clear example of the mind-blowing level of caprice involved in the KJ fans selection of the 'pure texts'-

If "King James Only" defines one who believes that God has given
infallible Scripture in the original Greek and Hebrew writings and
that He has preserved that in the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received
Text underlying the King James Bible and other Reformation Bibles and
that we have an accurate translation of it in the English language in
the Authorized Version, call me "King James Only."

First, only the ignorant would onsider the Byzantine texts 'original'- and being as they are the texts preserved by the Orthodox, I can hardly be accused of jingoism in so saying. The preserved text - ie, received, that has formed the basis of the KJ bible translations/revisions is a text that is based upon the received traditon of the Church, not upon the 'original.' The original can only be apporximated by scholarly and critical examination- of the type that has resulted in some the other popular translations which are suspect to the KJV crowd.

Second huge internal contradiction: The Masoretic text as text of choice. It is a CRITICAL text from the Rabbinic tradition, not a received text. Received is the gold standard for NT, critical for OT. Why? Because the Masoretic rejects certain elements in the Septuagint that would seem, well, Catholic (or Orthodox).Can't have that...change the rules for this part.

Third contradiction: The critical Masoretic text is anything but original, just as the NIV is anything but original. Just because the text of the Masoretes comes to us in Hebrew does no mean that it is a received text. No, rather, it is a compiled, critical text. And if the fact that the Masoretic text comes in the Hebrew language- well, then why weaken the NT by having an English translation? Let's stay with the Greek.

More blatant self-contradictions

If "King James Only" defines one who believes that God has preserved
the Scripture in its common use among apostolic churches through the
fulfillment of the Great Commission and that He guided the
Reformation editors and translators in their choice of the Received
Text and that we don't have to start all over today in an to attempt
to find the preserved text of Scripture, call me "King James Only."

Preservation of the scripture in the apostolic churches is good enough for this guy, but those who preserved it are not to be trusted. No, but those who came with a a critical and revisory perspective to apostolic (received)understanding of these same texts are to be trusted. Wow, the logic here is convuluted and contradictory, much like those pro-lifers who support the death penalty.

This whole treatise demonstrates that KJVism is like a doctrinal salad bar, where you pick what you like and eschew the remainder.

They would have us to believe that God guided the Reformation editors and translators, but not the Church fathers and Mothers.

What a stinking crock.

But thank you, Jason, for bringing to this forum confirmation that we all choose tradition: it's a question of which tradition.

I'll take the unbroken tradition of martyrs and fathers over the tradition of Rabbis and Sacralistic pseudo-scholars.

 

[thessalonian]

By what authority does he decide what KJO is?

By the priesthood of believers.

In other words according to you we're all of equal authority and his opinion is as good as the next guy. That's what I thought.

How do you know the Latin Catholic 'Pope' is the head of the Church?

He's German. Because the Bible tells me so. (and Sacred Tradition):angel:

 

[JM]

By what authority does he decide what KJO is?

By the priesthood of believers.

In other words according to you we're all of equal authority and his opinion is as good as the next guy. That's what I thought.

How do you know the Latin Catholic 'Pope' is the head of the Church?

He's German. Because the Bible tells me so. (and Sacred Tradition):angel:

Really, there's a German Catholic Church as well as a Latin or Roman Catholic Church? I didn't know that. OC, did you know that Latin's also have a German runnin' things!

 

[thessalonian]

arf arf.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Jason is again deflecting from the points raised. I guess when all else fails, and there is no answer, obfuscation and equivocation will keep the rusty Baptist barge afloat.

 

[JM]

I did answer the question, post 3. OC, I find your comments to be getting more offensive and if I hit a nerve somehow I apologize.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

I did answer the question, post 3. OC, I find your comments to be getting more offensive and if I hit a nerve somehow I apologize.

I'm not at all offended, Jason, just being direct. Sorry if my directness reads as a hit nerve. Not so.

What exactly did I say that you found offensive?

 

[AVBunyan]

Jason is again deflecting from the points raised. I guess when all else fails, and there is no answer, obfuscation and equivocation will keep the rusty Baptist barge afloat.

A lot of folks round the world have gotten regenerated and saved as a result of the "rusty Baptist barge" sending out missionaries around the world with that "old rustic KJV" for over 300 years or so.

 

[Free]

KJV ATTACKS CHRIST'S DEITY!!!

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him (NASB)

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known (ESV)

What's rather ironic is that even the NLT (a tranlsation I don't care for at all) has a good rendering of this verse:

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God. But his only Son, who is himself God, is near to the Father's heart; he has told us about him.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJV)
:o

The KJV removed the explicit declaration that Christ is God!! This proves that the purpose of the KJV is to lead people astray by attacking the deity of Christ and talking about unicorns. Throw them away!

 

[AVBunyan]

Re: KJV ATTACKS CHRIST'S DEITY!!!

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him (NASB)

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known (ESV)

The KJV removed the explicit declaration that Christ is God!! This proves that the purpose of the KJV is to lead people astray by attacking the deity of Christ and talking about unicorns. Throw them away!

Bad call Free - Jesus Christ is not a begotten God - get your doctrine on Christ straight. That verse says Christ was a begotten God in eternity. The Bible (KJV) says Christ is eternal and was never begotten in eternity.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Re: KJV ATTACKS CHRIST'S DEITY!!!

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him (NASB)

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known (ESV)

The KJV removed the explicit declaration that Christ is God!! This proves that the purpose of the KJV is to lead people astray by attacking the deity of Christ and talking about unicorns. Throw them away!

Bad call Free - Jesus Christ is not a begotten God - get your doctrine on Christ straight.

Monogenous para Patros=only begotten of the Father.
Ergo, He is the begotten God. Your problem is that you have no idea what begotten actually means one of a kind. He is begotten of the Father, He is God, He is the begotten God. I suggest you get your doctrine correct sir.