FBCH/Pastor Wilkerson/KJV

[Twisted]

Recently there has been a lot of discussion on the FFF concerning the KJV.  I am wondering what Pastor Wilkerson's stand is on the topic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h7zmDPunfU

Straight from his own mouth... start @ 25:29

I stand corrected.  He did make a public position.  I could nitpick it but what would be the point? 

As I stated earlier, as long as he doesn't correct it, then I'm good.

 

[TidesofTruth]

Recently there has been a lot of discussion on the FFF concerning the KJV.  I am wondering what Pastor Wilkerson's stand is on the topic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h7zmDPunfU

Straight from his own mouth... start @ 25:29

I stand corrected.  He did make a public position.  I could nitpick it but what would be the point? 

As I stated earlier, as long as he doesn't correct it, then I'm good.

Correct what?  His statement or the KJV.

And if you are stating correct the KJV then what do you mean by that?  Would someone be a KJV corrector in your mind if they gave the original old English Definition for example:

2Th 2:7  For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

Today "let" means allow but old English meant "restrain".  Would that correction of understanding be considered a KJV correction?

Or what if the KJV as translated did not have a thorough enough translation of the word to express the original language? for example:

So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.  He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.  He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. Joh 21:15-17

Would you consider using the Aramaic to give better definition here correcting the KJV?

Could you give a valid example where KJV correction is done in which the meaning of the passage is changed based on original language?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Recently there has been a lot of discussion on the FFF concerning the KJV.  I am wondering what Pastor Wilkerson's stand is on the topic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h7zmDPunfU

Straight from his own mouth... start @ 25:29

I stand corrected.  He did make a public position.  I could nitpick it but what would be the point? 

As I stated earlier, as long as he doesn't correct it, then I'm good.

Correct what?  His statement or the KJV.

And if you are stating correct the KJV then what do you mean by that?  Would someone be a KJV corrector in your mind if they gave the original old English Definition for example:

2Th 2:7  For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

Today "let" means allow but old English meant "restrain".  Would that correction of understanding be considered a KJV correction?

Or what if the KJV as translated did not have a thorough enough translation of the word to express the original language? for example:

So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.  He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.  He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. Joh 21:15-17

Would you consider using the Aramaic to give better definition here correcting the KJV?

Could you give a valid example where KJV correction is done in which the meaning of the passage is changed based on original language?

Excellent question.
What is "correcting the King James"?

 

[16KJV11]

Recently there has been a lot of discussion on the FFF concerning the KJV.  I am wondering what Pastor Wilkerson's stand is on the topic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h7zmDPunfU

Straight from his own mouth... start @ 25:29

I stand corrected.  He did make a public position.  I could nitpick it but what would be the point? 

As I stated earlier, as long as he doesn't correct it, then I'm good.

Correct what?  His statement or the KJV.

And if you are stating correct the KJV then what do you mean by that?  Would someone be a KJV corrector in your mind if they gave the original old English Definition for example:

2Th 2:7  For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

Today "let" means allow but old English meant "restrain".  Would that correction of understanding be considered a KJV correction?

Or what if the KJV as translated did not have a thorough enough translation of the word to express the original language? for example:

So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.  He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.  He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. Joh 21:15-17

Would you consider using the Aramaic to give better definition here correcting the KJV?

Could you give a valid example where KJV correction is done in which the meaning of the passage is changed based on original language?

Excellent question.
What is "correcting the King James"?

It's when someone might say:
"Well, a better translation is..."

 

[TidesofTruth]

Recently there has been a lot of discussion on the FFF concerning the KJV.  I am wondering what Pastor Wilkerson's stand is on the topic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h7zmDPunfU

Straight from his own mouth... start @ 25:29

I stand corrected.  He did make a public position.  I could nitpick it but what would be the point? 

As I stated earlier, as long as he doesn't correct it, then I'm good.

Correct what?  His statement or the KJV.

And if you are stating correct the KJV then what do you mean by that?  Would someone be a KJV corrector in your mind if they gave the original old English Definition for example:

2Th 2:7  For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

Today "let" means allow but old English meant "restrain".  Would that correction of understanding be considered a KJV correction?

Or what if the KJV as translated did not have a thorough enough translation of the word to express the original language? for example:

So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.  He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.  He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. Joh 21:15-17

Would you consider using the Aramaic to give better definition here correcting the KJV?

Could you give a valid example where KJV correction is done in which the meaning of the passage is changed based on original language?

Excellent question.
What is "correcting the King James"?

It's when someone might say:
"Well, a better translation is..."

That is pure semantics.  I could say "the word means this in our vernacular" and not a spidey-hair on any IFBs head would be tingly.

 

[Twisted]

It's when someone might say:
"Well, a better translation is..."

It's great to know that 16KJV11 understands and has my back.  (uh....since your "back" there, could you unbuckle my straps?)

 

[16KJV11]

Recently there has been a lot of discussion on the FFF concerning the KJV.  I am wondering what Pastor Wilkerson's stand is on the topic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h7zmDPunfU

Straight from his own mouth... start @ 25:29

I stand corrected.  He did make a public position.  I could nitpick it but what would be the point? 

As I stated earlier, as long as he doesn't correct it, then I'm good.

Correct what?  His statement or the KJV.

And if you are stating correct the KJV then what do you mean by that?  Would someone be a KJV corrector in your mind if they gave the original old English Definition for example:

2Th 2:7  For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

Today "let" means allow but old English meant "restrain".  Would that correction of understanding be considered a KJV correction?

Or what if the KJV as translated did not have a thorough enough translation of the word to express the original language? for example:

So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.  He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.  He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. Joh 21:15-17

Would you consider using the Aramaic to give better definition here correcting the KJV?

Could you give a valid example where KJV correction is done in which the meaning of the passage is changed based on original language?

Excellent question.
What is "correcting the King James"?

It's when someone might say:
"Well, a better translation is..."

That is pure semantics.  I could say "the word means this in our vernacular" and not a spidey-hair on any IFBs head would be tingly.

I don't disagree.  But when one says "a better translation would be" they introduce an air of pride which causes doubt in the accuracy and veracity of God's Word in the minds of many listeners.

 

[sword]

Pastor Wilkerson taught at both West Coast Baptist College and Golden State Baptist College while the pastor of First Baptist Church of Long Beach. It's my understanding he had to agreed in principal to the core values of each schools. The schools positions on the KJV are listed below. It's my understanding he also took this same position at his church in California. The bold statements below leave very little doubt of the position at FBCLB and that of the two colleges in which he taught. Those that know him well do not question his resolve regarding the KJV.

West Coast Baptist College stated position on the Bible
We believe the Bible to be the revealed Word of God, fully and verbally inspired of God. We believe the Scriptures to be the inerrant, infallible Word of God, as found within the 66 books from Genesis to Revelation. We believe that God not only inspired every word, but that He has preserved them through the ages. We believe that the King James Version is the preserved Word of God for the English-speaking people and is the only acceptable translation to be used in this church. (Psalm 12:6?7; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1 Peter 1:23-25; 2 Peter 1:19-21)   

Golden State Baptist College stated position on the Bible:
We believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures of
the Old and New Testaments and that they compose the entire Word
of God. The Scriptures are inerrant, infallible, and God-breathed; and
therefore, are the final authority for faith and life. The sixty-six books
of the Old and New Testaments are the complete and divine revelation
of God to man. The Scriptures shall be interpreted according to their
normal grammatical-historical meaning. The King James Version of the
Bible shall be the official and only English-language translation used by
Golden State Baptist College. (II Timothy 3:16-17; II Peter 1:20-21)

First Baptist Church of Long Beach stated position on the Bible
We believe the Bible to be the revealed Word of God, fully and verbally inspired of God. We believe the Scriptures to be the inerrant, infallible Word of God, as found within the 66 books from Genesis to Revelation. We believe that God not only inspired every word, but that He has preserved them through the ages. We believe that the King James Version is the preserved Word of God for the English-speaking people and is the only acceptable translation to be used in this church. (Psalm 12:6?7; II Timothy 3:15-17; I Peter 1:23-25; II Peter 1:19-21)

 

[bgwilkinson]

Recently there has been a lot of discussion on the FFF concerning the KJV.  I am wondering what Pastor Wilkerson's stand is on the topic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h7zmDPunfU

Straight from his own mouth... start @ 25:29

I stand corrected.  He did make a public position.  I could nitpick it but what would be the point? 

As I stated earlier, as long as he doesn't correct it, then I'm good.

Correct what?  His statement or the KJV.

And if you are stating correct the KJV then what do you mean by that?  Would someone be a KJV corrector in your mind if they gave the original old English Definition for example:

2Th 2:7  For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

Today "let" means allow but old English meant "restrain".  Would that correction of understanding be considered a KJV correction?

Or what if the KJV as translated did not have a thorough enough translation of the word to express the original language? for example:

So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.  He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.  He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. Joh 21:15-17

Would you consider using the Aramaic to give better definition here correcting the KJV?

Could you give a valid example where KJV correction is done in which the meaning of the passage is changed based on original language?

Excellent question.
What is "correcting the King James"?

It's when someone might say:
"Well, a better translation is..."

That is pure semantics.  I could say "the word means this in our vernacular" and not a spidey-hair on any IFBs head would be tingly.

I don't disagree.  But when one says "a better translation would be" they introduce an air of pride which causes doubt in the accuracy and veracity of God's Word in the minds of many listeners.

Yes, if they were so poorly taught as to not know about the various translations of the Bible before 1600 and not know that Miles Smith said in translators to the reader that all translations must be tried against the Hebrew and the Greek. If someone had repeatedly told them that translations could be word perfect with no mistakes, omissions or additions then maybe, but whose fault is that?
Maybe best to just tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may fall. One lie begets additional lies until the whole thing becomes a farce and a cult is born.

Miles said:

If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New. These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, where-through the olive branches empty themselves into the gold. Saint Augustine calleth them precedent, or original tongues; [S. August. 3. de doctr. c. 3. etc.] Saint Jerome, fountains. [S. Jerome. ad Suniam et Fretel.] The same Saint Jerome affirmeth, [S. Jerome. ad Lucinium, Dist. 9 ut veterum.] and Gratian hath not spared to put it into his Decree, That "as the credit of the old Books" (he meaneth of the Old Testament) "is to be tried by the Hebrew Volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue," he meaneth by the original Greek. If truth be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, the Scriptures we say in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by the Prophets and Apostles. Neither did we run over the work with that posting haste that the Septuagint did, if that be true which is reported of them, that they finished it in 72 days; [Joseph. Antiq. lib. 12.] neither were we barred or hindered from going over it again, having once done it, like S. Jerome, if that be true which himself reporteth, that he could no sooner write anything, but presently it was caught from him, and published, and he could not have leave to mend it: [S. Jerome. ad Pammac. pro libr. advers. Iovinian.] neither, to be short, were we the first that fell in hand with trans- lating the Scripture into English, and consequently destitute of former helps, as it is written of Origen, that he was the first in a manner, that put his hand to write Commentaries upon the Scriptures, [Sophoc. in Elect.] and therefore no marvel, if he overshot himself many times. None of these things: the work hath not been huddled up in 72 days, but hath cost the workmen, as light as it seemeth, the pains of twice seven times seventy two days and more: matters of such weight and consequence are to be speeded with maturity: for in a business of movement a man feareth not the blame of convenient slackness. [S. Chrysost. in II. Thess. cap. 2.] Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.

 

[RAIDER]

Recently there has been a lot of discussion on the FFF concerning the KJV.  I am wondering what Pastor Wilkerson's stand is on the topic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h7zmDPunfU

Straight from his own mouth... start @ 25:29

Thank you for this post.  Brother Wilkerson believes that the Bible is inspired and preserved in the KJV.  Some on the FFF would classify him a "Ruckmanite".  I would not agree with that label on him.

 

[Twisted]

Some on the FFF would classify him a "Ruckmanite". 

Only the ignorant would.

 

[RAIDER]

Some on the FFF would classify him a "Ruckmanite". 

Only the ignorant would.

I agree.  If you have been reading the recent threads on here you have picked up on the thought pattern.

 

[RAIDER]

Recently there has been a lot of discussion on the FFF concerning the KJV.  I am wondering what Pastor Wilkerson's stand is on the topic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h7zmDPunfU

Straight from his own mouth... start @ 25:29

Thank you for this post.  Brother Wilkerson believes that the Bible is inspired and preserved in the KJV.  Some on the FFF would classify him a "Ruckmanite".  I would not agree with that label on him.

BGW, do you agree with what Wilkerson has said in this video?

 

[bgwilkinson]

Recently there has been a lot of discussion on the FFF concerning the KJV.  I am wondering what Pastor Wilkerson's stand is on the topic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h7zmDPunfU

Straight from his own mouth... start @ 25:29

Thank you for this post.  Brother Wilkerson believes that the Bible is inspired and preserved in the KJV.  Some on the FFF would classify him a "Ruckmanite".  I would not agree with that label on him.

BGW, do you agree with what Wilkerson has said in this video?

Yes I agree with him.

 

[RAIDER]

Recently there has been a lot of discussion on the FFF concerning the KJV.  I am wondering what Pastor Wilkerson's stand is on the topic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h7zmDPunfU

Straight from his own mouth... start @ 25:29

Thank you for this post.  Brother Wilkerson believes that the Bible is inspired and preserved in the KJV.  Some on the FFF would classify him a "Ruckmanite".  I would not agree with that label on him.

BGW, do you agree with what Wilkerson has said in this video?

Yes I agree with him.

So you agree that God's Work is preserved in the KJV and you would use nothing else.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Recently there has been a lot of discussion on the FFF concerning the KJV.  I am wondering what Pastor Wilkerson's stand is on the topic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h7zmDPunfU

Straight from his own mouth... start @ 25:29

Thank you for this post.  Brother Wilkerson believes that the Bible is inspired and preserved in the KJV.  Some on the FFF would classify him a "Ruckmanite".  I would not agree with that label on him.

BGW, do you agree with what Wilkerson has said in this video?

Yes I agree with him.

So you agree that God's Work is preserved in the KJV and you would use nothing else.

If one answered yes to that question would he also acknowledge that Gods Word was not preserved before 1611?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Recently there has been a lot of discussion on the FFF concerning the KJV.  I am wondering what Pastor Wilkerson's stand is on the topic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h7zmDPunfU

Straight from his own mouth... start @ 25:29

Thank you for this post.  Brother Wilkerson believes that the Bible is inspired and preserved in the KJV.  Some on the FFF would classify him a "Ruckmanite".  I would not agree with that label on him.

BGW, do you agree with what Wilkerson has said in this video?

Yes I agree with him.

So you agree that God's Work is preserved in the KJV and you would use nothing else.

If one answered yes to that question would he also acknowledge that Gods Word was not preserved before 1611?

I am curious as to the KJVO position on the preservation of scripture before 1611.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Recently there has been a lot of discussion on the FFF concerning the KJV.  I am wondering what Pastor Wilkerson's stand is on the topic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h7zmDPunfU

Straight from his own mouth... start @ 25:29

Thank you for this post.  Brother Wilkerson believes that the Bible is inspired and preserved in the KJV.  Some on the FFF would classify him a "Ruckmanite".  I would not agree with that label on him.

BGW, do you agree with what Wilkerson has said in this video?

Yes I agree with him.

So you agree that God's Work is preserved in the KJV and you would use nothing else.

If one answered yes to that question would he also acknowledge that Gods Word was not preserved before 1611?

I am curious as to the KJVO position on the preservation of scripture before 1611.

In the 1500s the Catholic Church held to the Latin Vulgate Only position.
Even the Greek and Hebrew Bibles were considered devil's Bibles.
Latin Vulgate Onlyism resulted in Tyndale's death.
KJVO is just the regurgitated Latin Vulgate Onlyism of the  Catholics.

 

[RAIDER]

Recently there has been a lot of discussion on the FFF concerning the KJV.  I am wondering what Pastor Wilkerson's stand is on the topic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h7zmDPunfU

Straight from his own mouth... start @ 25:29

Thank you for this post.  Brother Wilkerson believes that the Bible is inspired and preserved in the KJV.  Some on the FFF would classify him a "Ruckmanite".  I would not agree with that label on him.

BGW, do you agree with what Wilkerson has said in this video?

Yes I agree with him.

So you agree that God's Work is preserved in the KJV and you would use nothing else.

If one answered yes to that question would he also acknowledge that Gods Word was not preserved before 1611?

I am curious as to the KJVO position on the preservation of scripture before 1611.

In the 1500s the Catholic Church held to the Latin Vulgate Only position.
Even the Greek and Hebrew Bibles were considered devil's Bibles.
Latin Vulgate Onlyism resulted in Tyndale's death.
KJVO is just the regurgitated Latin Vulgate Onlyism of the  Catholics.

Yet you say you agree 100% with what Pastor Wilkerson said in the video.

 

[TidesofTruth]

Recently there has been a lot of discussion on the FFF concerning the KJV.  I am wondering what Pastor Wilkerson's stand is on the topic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h7zmDPunfU

Straight from his own mouth... start @ 25:29

Thank you for this post.  Brother Wilkerson believes that the Bible is inspired and preserved in the KJV.  Some on the FFF would classify him a "Ruckmanite".  I would not agree with that label on him.

BGW, do you agree with what Wilkerson has said in this video?

Yes I agree with him.

So you agree that God's Work is preserved in the KJV and you would use nothing else.

Strawman.  He Agrees God's Word is preserved in the KJV.  Your adding 100% and "you would use nothing else" is adding words to what he said.

I believe that God's Word is preserved in the KJV.  But that is a far cry from what you are trying to make him say. 

I am in 100% in agreement with Bro Wilkerson and yet I don't agree with certain very minor things He believes and yet I am 100% in agreement with him.  We are agreeable.  Agreeable people or people in one accord allow for difference and do not allow their soul liberty or his to interfere.