How in the world are you coming to the conclusion that the above statement is advocating for King James Onlyism?
Also, can you please provide a link so we can see the entire statement in context?
Battle Royale XIV discussion thread
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
How in the world are you coming to the conclusion that the above statement is advocating for King James Onlyism?
Also, can you please provide a link so we can see the entire statement in context?
brandplucked
New member
God's gospel is not limited to a single Bible
God's gospel is not limited to a single Bible
In response to a posted statement - "I believe the KJV to be the only way to salvation"
Heir responds -
Hi Heir. I totally agree with you on this. The gospel of God's grace to lost sinners through the substitutionary death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ is not at all found only in the King James Bible.
God forbid that the KJB "movement" (or whatever you want to call it) would ever promote the idea that only those who are KJB only can be saved. Thankfully, most KJB believers do not believe that way at all. I have only run into a few individuals who mistakenly believe that way.
If the King James Bible only believers ever start teaching this, then they will indeed have become a Cult and a full blown Heretical Group.
The incorruptible seed is the gospel. It is not the King James Bible.
1 Peter 1:23-25 - King James Bible
23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
God's gospel is not limited to a single Bible
In response to a posted statement - "I believe the KJV to be the only way to salvation"
Heir responds -
Hi Heir. I totally agree with you on this. The gospel of God's grace to lost sinners through the substitutionary death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ is not at all found only in the King James Bible.
God forbid that the KJB "movement" (or whatever you want to call it) would ever promote the idea that only those who are KJB only can be saved. Thankfully, most KJB believers do not believe that way at all. I have only run into a few individuals who mistakenly believe that way.
If the King James Bible only believers ever start teaching this, then they will indeed have become a Cult and a full blown Heretical Group.
The incorruptible seed is the gospel. It is not the King James Bible.
1 Peter 1:23-25 - King James Bible
23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
brandplucked
New member
BP, I think you misunderstood my silly question to Tet, I agree with the word Easter in the KJV - I'm a KJV man. I was asking, why would anyone that doesn't believe in Christ celebrate His Resurrection. I understand it is observed also as Passover.
brandplucked
New member
Why different beliefs?
Why different beliefs?
Hi t. Sir (I assume you are a man) The bible agnostic crowd, the multiple version users, the ESV guys or the NIV people, etc. ALL have different beliefs about many things even among themselves.
Correct doctrine is not always guaranteed by any particular version and there will always be disagreements doctrinally among Christians until our Lord comes and we then know even as we have been known.
So to try to make the argument like "How can KJB onlyism be true if they don't agree among themselves?" is really lame.
It is much harder to know the truths of God when these truths are being perverted as they are in the bogus bible versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, NET stuff.
But you can still be a true child of the living God and be kept by His grace.
But try not to use really bad arguments to try to prop up your views that NO Bible is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God, including the King James Bible.
Thanks.
Why different beliefs?
Hi t. Sir (I assume you are a man) The bible agnostic crowd, the multiple version users, the ESV guys or the NIV people, etc. ALL have different beliefs about many things even among themselves.
Correct doctrine is not always guaranteed by any particular version and there will always be disagreements doctrinally among Christians until our Lord comes and we then know even as we have been known.
So to try to make the argument like "How can KJB onlyism be true if they don't agree among themselves?" is really lame.
It is much harder to know the truths of God when these truths are being perverted as they are in the bogus bible versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, NET stuff.
But you can still be a true child of the living God and be kept by His grace.
But try not to use really bad arguments to try to prop up your views that NO Bible is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God, including the King James Bible.
Thanks.
Shasta
Well-known member
Brooks in the inquisition: "You can't Torquemada anything"
You can't be serious?
First off, it's very telling how you left out part of the title of the book: "Revision of the Authorized Version"
You are quoting from a book titled: "Revision of the Authorized Version, The English Bible, and our duty with regard to it"
Just the title of the book refutes KJVO.
Let's look at what Thomas Kingsmill Abbott actually said about the KJV in the book you quoted him from:
"It (the KJV) is still, however capable of improvement" - page 4
Does that sound like something a KJVO would say?
Have you read the book? You can do so HERE
In reading the first 20 pages, the whole purpose of the book is that Abbott wanted to come up with a new English Bible that replaced the KJV.
Again, how could you give a quote from a book that is about replacing the KJV with a new English Bible, as some sort of "proof" that KJVO existed before 1863?
I suggest you read the book
Here's another quote from page 8:
"Is this a reason for acquiescing in its (the KJV) imperfections? Does it not on the contrary, make it more and more imperative to remove every spot, in order that our version may reflect its original...."
Do you see that?
Abbott wanted to remove the imperfections of the KJV for his new bible.
brandplucked
New member
"No Bible is the inerrant words of God"
"No Bible is the inerrant words of God"
Hi tetelestai. Sir, the fact is, you do not believe that ANY Bible, translated or untranslated, is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God. Why not just be honest about it and admit it?
Will you be the first bible agnostic here to answer the question for us?
Do you believe that ANY Bible in any language, translated or untranslated, is now or ever was the complete (66 books on one volume), inerrant and 100% true words of God? Yes or No?
If Yes, can you show us a copy? Or can you tell us exactly which one it is, so that we too can go out and get one for ourselves? Yes or No?
If No, you do not believe there is now or ever has been such a thing as a complete and inerrant words of God Bible in any language, are you honest enough to admit it? Yes or No?
By the way, Easter is still correct in Acts 12:4. You just don't see it yet.
God bless,
"No Bible is the inerrant words of God"
Hi tetelestai. Sir, the fact is, you do not believe that ANY Bible, translated or untranslated, is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God. Why not just be honest about it and admit it?
Will you be the first bible agnostic here to answer the question for us?
Do you believe that ANY Bible in any language, translated or untranslated, is now or ever was the complete (66 books on one volume), inerrant and 100% true words of God? Yes or No?
If Yes, can you show us a copy? Or can you tell us exactly which one it is, so that we too can go out and get one for ourselves? Yes or No?
If No, you do not believe there is now or ever has been such a thing as a complete and inerrant words of God Bible in any language, are you honest enough to admit it? Yes or No?
By the way, Easter is still correct in Acts 12:4. You just don't see it yet.
God bless,
Will Kinney: Seen at the top of one of your posts on this page as well as other nasty remarks on several of your posts at the top:
Is this really necessary - i keep reading dismissive comments by you at the top of your posts, when in your actual post that you don't even bother to really answer anyones questions and equivocate all over the place.
Im still waiting for you to answer mine. (you failed in the post where you headed your post as "Can you read in complete sentences?" and then i responded with entire context of our discussion, noting you had still not answered the questions) here it is again for reference: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4507451&postcount=245
could you answer please?
Is this really necessary - i keep reading dismissive comments by you at the top of your posts, when in your actual post that you don't even bother to really answer anyones questions and equivocate all over the place.
Im still waiting for you to answer mine. (you failed in the post where you headed your post as "Can you read in complete sentences?" and then i responded with entire context of our discussion, noting you had still not answered the questions) here it is again for reference: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4507451&postcount=245
could you answer please?
brandplucked
New member
Hi Patrick. I apologize
Hi Patrick. I apologize
Hi patrick. Sorry I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I apologize for my error.
God bless,
Hi Patrick. I apologize
Hi patrick. Sorry I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I apologize for my error.
God bless,
Acts 12:4
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
Acts 12:4
King James Version (KJV)
4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
Acts 12:4
New King James Version (NKJV)
4 So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover.
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
Acts 12:4
King James Version (KJV)
4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
Acts 12:4
New King James Version (NKJV)
4 So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover.
brandplucked
New member
Reading the whole book
Reading the whole book
Hi t. Thanks for pointing these things out. No, I have not read the whole books. I just got selected quotes.
It really doesn't matter to me if nobody before 1900 or whatever believed the King James Bible is the inerrant words of God. I DO know of literally thousands of Christians today who do.
The Battle for the Bible has come to a head in these last 50 years or so. There is no denying the FACT that the Christian world is divided between those like you who do NOT believe that any bible in any language is now or ever was the inerrant words of God, and those thousands of us who do and can tell anybody where to get a copy for themselves. You may have heard of it. It's called the King James Holy Bible.
I highly recommend it. It is God's perfect Book and you will never go wrong by believing every word of it.
God bless.
Reading the whole book
Hi t. Thanks for pointing these things out. No, I have not read the whole books. I just got selected quotes.
It really doesn't matter to me if nobody before 1900 or whatever believed the King James Bible is the inerrant words of God. I DO know of literally thousands of Christians today who do.
The Battle for the Bible has come to a head in these last 50 years or so. There is no denying the FACT that the Christian world is divided between those like you who do NOT believe that any bible in any language is now or ever was the inerrant words of God, and those thousands of us who do and can tell anybody where to get a copy for themselves. You may have heard of it. It's called the King James Holy Bible.
I highly recommend it. It is God's perfect Book and you will never go wrong by believing every word of it.
God bless.
No, I believe that every bible has had at least a grammar, spelling, or mistranslation in it. The KJV has had many over the years.
Through the practice of textual criticism, we are constantly revising, correcting, and producing newer editions of bibles.
Textual criticism has existed for over 2,000 years.
Languages evolve, and anachronisms are birthed.
As a Christian, I am given many tools to study scripture, and trust that the Holy Spirit will lead me to the truth.
For example, there are four different Greek words for different kinds of love (agápe, éros, philía, and storgē). The KJV translates them all as "love".
By studying the differences, and using different bible versions, a Christian can come to a better understanding of the intent of the original author for "love", whereas that's not going to happen just using a KJV.
Shasta
Well-known member
I have already posted instances where the KJV does not accurately reflect the meaning of the original Greek text on which it is supposed to be based. The KJV only is inspired to the degree it lets the original meaning through.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4508110&postcount=278
The doctrine that the KJB is the perfect product of a multi-staged process of translation and revision is really an extra-Biblical meta-narrative nowhere recorded in scripture. Because of that I believe we must always look back to the ancient text for guidance, understanding and even better translations.
Looks to me like the NKJV is the most accurate there, since the jews didn't celebrate Easter. They celebrated the Passover.
brandplucked
New member
Bible agnostics and unbelievers in the inerrancy of ANY Bible
Bible agnostics and unbelievers in the inerrancy of ANY Bible
Hi Angel. I do not apologize for calling people like you "Bible agnostics" (you do not know for sure what God said or didn't say in His book) or "unbelievers in the inerrancy of any Bible". That is what you are. Now, if you think this is slandering your good name, then all you have to do to prove I am wrong, is to simply tell us exactly which Bible in print out there is this inerrant words of God Book you supposedly believe in. Will you do that for us?
And I think your comments were silly. Can you read complete sentences? You just picked out part of the sentence and ignored the rest of it.
It's sort of like saying "See, the Bible says There is no God."
Yes, it does. But the whole sentence is "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."
Here is the WHOLE sentence AND the context-
Quote:
Now to the later we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that THE VERY MEANEST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IN ENGLIH, SET FORTH BY MEN OF OUR PROFESSION (FOR WE HAVE SEEN NONE OF THEIRS of the whole Bible as yet) contains the word of God, nay, is the word of God. "
They were contrasting the Reformation Bibles from the Roman Catholic version. The Douay-Rheims New Testament was done in 1582. They did not come out with the entire bible in English till 1610.
My article pointed out that they were contrasting the Protestant Bibles (which all pretty much followed the same texts) versus the Roman Catholic version.
And the irony is that the ESV, NIV, NASB,etc. are ALL based on the ever changing, Vatican supervised Critical Greek text.
Do you deny this?
Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET etc. are the new "Vatican Versions"
http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm
I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition right here in front of me. It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 AND the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.
If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text.In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words:
"The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and FOLLOWING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VATICAN AND THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT HAS SERVED AS THE BASIS FOR NEW TRANSLATIONS AND FOR REVISIONS MADE UNDER THEIR SUPERVISION. THIS MARKS A SIGNIFICANT STEP WITH REGARD TO INTERCONFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament."
There it is folks, in their own words. They openly admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS and that the text itself is not "definitive" - it can change, as it already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible words of God but merely "a stimulus to further efforts".
The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
This from their own site -
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...pc_chrstuni_pro_20051996_chrstuni_pro_en.html
Collaboration for the Diffusion of the Bible
“Following the responsibility undertaken by the then Secretariat for the preparation of the dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, the PCPCU was entrusted with promoting ecumenical collaboration for the translation and diffusion of Holy Scripture (Dei Verbum, n. 22). In this context, it encouraged the formation of the Catholic Biblical Federation, with which it is in close contact. TOGETHER WITH THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT PUBLISHED THE GUIDELINES FOR INTERCONFESSIONAL COOPERATION IN TRANSLATING THE BIBLE.” (1968; new revised edition 1987).
Bible agnostics and unbelievers in the inerrancy of ANY Bible
Hi Angel. I do not apologize for calling people like you "Bible agnostics" (you do not know for sure what God said or didn't say in His book) or "unbelievers in the inerrancy of any Bible". That is what you are. Now, if you think this is slandering your good name, then all you have to do to prove I am wrong, is to simply tell us exactly which Bible in print out there is this inerrant words of God Book you supposedly believe in. Will you do that for us?
And I think your comments were silly. Can you read complete sentences? You just picked out part of the sentence and ignored the rest of it.
It's sort of like saying "See, the Bible says There is no God."
Yes, it does. But the whole sentence is "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."
Here is the WHOLE sentence AND the context-
Quote:
Now to the later we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that THE VERY MEANEST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IN ENGLIH, SET FORTH BY MEN OF OUR PROFESSION (FOR WE HAVE SEEN NONE OF THEIRS of the whole Bible as yet) contains the word of God, nay, is the word of God. "
They were contrasting the Reformation Bibles from the Roman Catholic version. The Douay-Rheims New Testament was done in 1582. They did not come out with the entire bible in English till 1610.
My article pointed out that they were contrasting the Protestant Bibles (which all pretty much followed the same texts) versus the Roman Catholic version.
And the irony is that the ESV, NIV, NASB,etc. are ALL based on the ever changing, Vatican supervised Critical Greek text.
Do you deny this?
Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET etc. are the new "Vatican Versions"
http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm
I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition right here in front of me. It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 AND the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.
If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text.In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words:
"The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and FOLLOWING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VATICAN AND THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT HAS SERVED AS THE BASIS FOR NEW TRANSLATIONS AND FOR REVISIONS MADE UNDER THEIR SUPERVISION. THIS MARKS A SIGNIFICANT STEP WITH REGARD TO INTERCONFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament."
There it is folks, in their own words. They openly admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS and that the text itself is not "definitive" - it can change, as it already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible words of God but merely "a stimulus to further efforts".
The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
This from their own site -
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...pc_chrstuni_pro_20051996_chrstuni_pro_en.html
Collaboration for the Diffusion of the Bible
“Following the responsibility undertaken by the then Secretariat for the preparation of the dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, the PCPCU was entrusted with promoting ecumenical collaboration for the translation and diffusion of Holy Scripture (Dei Verbum, n. 22). In this context, it encouraged the formation of the Catholic Biblical Federation, with which it is in close contact. TOGETHER WITH THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT PUBLISHED THE GUIDELINES FOR INTERCONFESSIONAL COOPERATION IN TRANSLATING THE BIBLE.” (1968; new revised edition 1987).
I do seem to be inconsistent at times; no argument there.
I have no problem with the word Easter. That only appeared to be the case. It could say St. Patty's Day and I'd have no problem. I go by how words are used NOT by what words (are used).
Danny boy
You have Abbott's quote on your website (which is taken out of context).
Do you see the irony?
Your website for KJVOism quotes a guy who wanted to remove the imperfections of the KJV, and write his own bible.