I used to be KJV only...but that's changed!

[AverageJoe]

I don't know why I was KJV only accept for the fact that my parents believed every word that my former pastor told them. He said that the KJV was the most reliable Bible. In many areas he was correct, but in many he was 100% wrong. After many years of using the NASB for the "backup" Bible, I started to use it in almost everything...Preaching, SS lessons etc. I was promptly replaced as SS teacher in one class because I gave a reasonable explanation of why I had gone to the NASB. I don't think the pastor ever knew that I was clear in conscience.  He nearly ex-communicated me from the church I had grown up in. Thank the Lord that I've been able to prove through the NASB that God can use it just as well as the Bible translated for a King in 1611.

 

[Walt]

I don't know why I was KJV only accept for the fact that my parents believed every word that my former pastor told them. He said that the KJV was the most reliable Bible. In many areas he was correct, but in many he was 100% wrong. After many years of using the NASB for the "backup" Bible, I started to use it in almost everything...Preaching, SS lessons etc. I was promptly replaced as SS teacher in one class because I gave a reasonable explanation of why I had gone to the NASB. I don't think the pastor ever knew that I was clear in conscience.  He nearly ex-communicated me from the church I had grown up in. Thank the Lord that I've been able to prove through the NASB that God can use it just as well as the Bible translated for a King in 1611.

You certainly have the freedom of conscience to believe as you wish, but if you accept a the teaching of a class, you are bound by the church's beliefs - if the church believes that the KJV is the only version to be used, they were right to come down on you for abusing your position.

 

[AverageJoe]

This preacher didn't want to offend too much at that time. He'd been pastor for many years and it was getting close to his retirement time. I'm glad he finally was asked to resign but them stayed on as a member. He got a dose of his own medicine when he tried to make the new pastor follow HIS old rules. The new pastor told him NO flat out.  The former pastor finally moved to Duluth to be with his son.  The thing was, it was his son that had introduced my mother to the NASB, but later recanted and went back to being KJVO. We still communicate with him, and he's gone back to being KJVO...Oh well, some people just can't seem to stay with what they've taught others.

 

[Ransom]

The thing was, it was his son that had introduced my mother to the NASB, but later recanted and went back to being KJVO.

"As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly."

By rights, Proverbs 26:11 really should have been Proverbs 16:11.

 

[logos1560]

  The former pastor finally moved to Duluth to be with his son.  The thing was, it was his son that had introduced my mother to the NASB, but later recanted and went back to being KJVO.

I know of a KJV-only author in Duluth, and his father was a pastor.  In one of his books, this author admitted that "there were upward of fifteen years in which I routinely referred to the New American Standard Bible in study" and that "I even at times used it from the teaching lectern or the pulpit."

That author accuses others of not having done their homework when it is clear from his own writings that he himself is somewhat uninformed or misinformed.  I have emailed him about some of his incorrect claims in his books.

 

[AverageJoe]

Yes, that Pastor/Author you speak of used to be the Associate Pastor under his father. The author is David H. Sorenson.  I have his book, but don't have his commentaries on the Bible. He wrote a whole set of them over a period of year for the KJVO crowd. I just felt that with all of the infighting over a Bible that was written to help improve the image of a KING, and not the King of Kings, I had a problem. The KJV isn't clear enough on some subjects and leaves certain things open to several differing interpretations. I like my NASB, but I can just as easily use the ESV and several others. I don't believe that the KJV is the only Bible allowable. I lost friends and family over that stance, but that's the way it is.

 

[robycop3]

    I wander how that old pastor & his son get past the FACT that the KJVO myth has NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT ? ?

 

[prophet]

    I wander

Yes, yes you do.

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[robycop3]

  haw! A typo that turned out pretty funny! That's what I get from "messaging" with my phone! Now, I'm back on my PC.

  I also wonder how that pastor & his son get past the KJV's PROVEN GOOFS & BOOBOOS?

 

[prophet]

Yes, that Pastor/Author you speak of used to be the Associate Pastor under his father. The author is David H. Sorenson.  I have his book, but don't have his commentaries on the Bible. He wrote a whole set of them over a period of year for the KJVO crowd. I just felt that with all of the infighting over a Bible that was written to help improve the image of a KING, and not the King of Kings, I had a problem. The KJV isn't clear enough on some subjects and leaves certain things open to several differing interpretations. I like my NASB, but I can just as easily use the ESV and several others. I don't believe that the KJV is the only Bible allowable. I lost friends and family over that stance, but that's the way it is.

The NASB sacrifices the English on the altar of word for word translation, but of the poisoned Nestle, of course.
So it isn't a clarification of the TR based translations, by any means.

The NASB appeals to the self appointed intellectual types, IMO.

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[prophet]

  haw! A typo that turned out pretty funny! That's what I get from "messaging" with my phone! Now, I'm back on my PC.

  I also wonder how that pastor & his son get past the KJV's PROVEN GOOFS & BOOBOOS?

Since the "KJV" was translated from a no longer accessible set of documents, (yes I know that the missing portions, filled in mostly by Syriac texts, are not that many in number) how can you prove "booboo" vs translation preference?

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[Vince Massi]

I stole this from another forum:

I'm LVO (Latin Vulgate Only). It was THE translation of God's Word for more than 1000 years. Not going to fall for some modern 1611 translation.

 

[prophet]

I stole this from another forum:

I'm LVO (Latin Vulgate Only). It was THE translation of God's Word for more than 1000 years. Not going to fall for some modern 1611 translation.

What if you found Evidence that Jerome tampered with the text, to back Augustinian error, among other great heresies

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[logos1560]

Since the "KJV" was translated from a no longer accessible set of documents, (yes I know that the missing portions, filled in mostly by Syriac texts, are not that many in number) how can you prove "booboo" vs translation preference?

You have not proven your claim or speculation that the KJV was supposedly translated from a no longer accessible set of documents to be factually true.   

Actual printed texts used by the KJV translators are still accessible.

 

[prophet]

Since the "KJV" was translated from a no longer accessible set of documents, (yes I know that the missing portions, filled in mostly by Syriac texts, are not that many in number) how can you prove "booboo" vs translation preference?

You have not proven your claim or speculation that the KJV was supposedly translated from a no longer accessible set of documents to be factually true.   

Actual printed texts used by the KJV translators are still accessible.

I'm sorry, I assumed a level of scholastic aptitude in this discussion...was that too much?

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[robycop3]

  How can anyone place total trust in the Textus Receptus, as it's been revised over 30 times??????????

  And, the KJV, the latest TR edition, & the manuscripts from thich the TR was made, DO NOT MATCH!

**THE KJVO MYTH - PHONY AS A FORD CORVETTE !**

 

[prophet]

  How can anyone place total trust in the Textus Receptus, as it's been revised over 30 times??????????

  And, the KJV, the latest TR edition, & the manuscripts from thich the TR was made, DO NOT MATCH!

**THE KJVO MYTH - PHONY AS A FORD CORVETTE !**

You've made, as is your MO, many assumptions here.

I'll step out, and let you bloviate.

You aren't the least bit interested in facts.

I'd be interested in a psych eval on you, but not in any more of your "nuh-uh!" responses.
Somebody hurt you.
You are reactive.
I'm saying this for your sake, not mine.
May God's peace which passes all understanding be your rest.

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[robycop3]

  Can you COUNTER any of my "assumptions" ?
  OF COURSE NOT !
  Can you provide SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth ?
OF COURSE NOT !
Can you make the TR(any of its revisions), the KJV, and the mss from which the TR was made, match everywhere ?
OF COURSE NOT !
Is the KJVO myth false ?
OF COURSE !

 

[logos1560]

Since the "KJV" was translated from a no longer accessible set of documents, (yes I know that the missing portions, filled in mostly by Syriac texts, are not that many in number) how can you prove "booboo" vs translation preference?

You have not proven your claim or speculation that the KJV was supposedly translated from a no longer accessible set of documents to be factually true.   

Actual printed texts used by the KJV translators are still accessible.

I'm sorry, I assumed a level of scholastic aptitude in this discussion...was that too much?

Evidently, it was too much for you to back up and prove what you claimed or speculated or repeated from unreliable KJV-only sources.

 

[prophet]

Since the "KJV" was translated from a no longer accessible set of documents, (yes I know that the missing portions, filled in mostly by Syriac texts, are not that many in number) how can you prove "booboo" vs translation preference?

You have not proven your claim or speculation that the KJV was supposedly translated from a no longer accessible set of documents to be factually true.   

Actual printed texts used by the KJV translators are still accessible.

I'm sorry, I assumed a level of scholastic aptitude in this discussion...was that too much?

Evidently, it was too much for you to back up and prove what you claimed or speculated or repeated from unreliable KJV-only sources.

Translated:
"I'll deny your sources, you'll deny mine, nothing will change, because I refuse to acknowledge points that are made by someone with which I disagree."

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk