The Church of Jesus Christ

How cool is this? Of course, I don’t think I have hand written anything in years…

Zondervan Launches Bible Across America Tour, Invites 31,173 Americans to Handwrite NIV Bible - MarketWatch.

As many of my readers know, I come from a King James only background (KJVO). It took me several years to build up the courage to actually read another version, much less actually buy one. Now, I have many different translations - print and electronic - and enjoy nearly everyone of them and from time to time will read one just to read it.

A friend of mine once asked if salvation can be found in other bible other than the King James. My answer then was no, but now, it would be different. Now I would remind him that salvation is found only in Christ and that the great Apostles did not have the New Testament of any variety when the 3000 was saved on the 50th Day.

Back to the story: I came across the Message, and although I understand that it was meant to be a true paraphrase that one reads along with the Bible, I still don’t like it. Simply put, it seems a bit too sacrilegious to have the Word of God in the basest English language. I won’t condemn you if you read it, or even if you like it, just pray for you really, really hard.

As my wife posted yesterday, we were in my favorite book store when my daughter found a pink metal bible of the NLT. We started her reading the NLT (The Book) a few weeks ago and although it wasn’t a struggle, it was still considered school work. Well, she bought this bible and has since been known to read the bible outside of school. It is her bible, she reminds us, one that she bought and will pay for later. She doesn’t want anything on top of it, and is looking forward to taking it to Church this weekend. She loves her bible and what’s more, likes to interrupt Daddy’s blog time to read it to him.

My wife asked me what I thought about the NLT, which has prompted me to vet it a bit. As I told her, it is the Greek Manuscript tradition that I prefer, but then again, I have yet to find doctrinal differences between the the three (or 2.5 if you think the TR is Byzantine.) The language is a bit looser than I would prefer, but in the end, the NLT was not meant to be a literal translation, word for word, like the KJV is, supposedly. Instead, it was meant to be readable by a vast number of people. It serves it’s purpose well, I believe, because I have seen the proof through my daughter. She is not just reading the Bible, but reading the Bible.

As any KJVO will tell you, the first thing you do when you see another translation is to go to a verse or two to see if it matches up. So, let’s do the same. Of course, I will apply a bit more reason and logic to the it, looking for the message, as opposed to the -eths.

Our first verse is Acts 2.38,

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38 KJVA)

Peter replied, “Each of you must turn from your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  (Acts 2:38 NLT)

This seems to be the creed of our organization, although I prefer Joel 2.28-32, which will get to later. Let’s see, what we have. Peter is in the right place as speaker. The essential element of the gospel is presented not by a religious word, but by the bare bones meaning - turn from your sins and turn to God. I have heard many preachers explain repentance by saying that it is a 180 degree turnaround, and essentially, that is what we have here.

Baptism is still a requirement in this verse, as is the baptismal formula of “in the name of Jesus Christ”. The result is the same as well, for the forgiveness of sins. Okay, it all lines up. In the gift of the holy Spirit is there. So, the essential elements are there. The meaning is made more plain to those that need it be so, or who want a non-sectarian approach to readability.

The next verse is Hebrews 1.3

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; (Hebrews 1:3 KJVA)

The Son reflects God’s own glory, and everything about him represents God exactly. He sustains the universe by the mighty power of his command. After he died to cleanse us from the stain of sin, he sat down in the place of honor at the right hand of the majestic God of heaven. (Hebrews 1:3 NLT)

I choose to tackle this one because it is a major point of doctrine, but allow me to say that a 6 year old does not need major points of doctrine or Church history. As a matter of fact, until you need meat, it will only make you choke.

The NLT identifies the ‘who’ of the KJV as well as the ‘his’. The NLT is a bit less technical in the phrase ‘everything about him represents God exactly’, but I believe that the seminal idea is present. I would prefer something very technical, along the lines of,

Who, being the emanation from the glory of God, and the precise mirror of his substance and maintaining all things by his all-powerful utterance—through himself he has achieved purification of our sins, assumed his seat on the right hand of the Majesty on high,
(Hebrews 1:3 CTV)

But, the idea that the Son is the exact representation of God is seen in the NLT. The NLT does do a good job of explaining the ‘purge’ of the KJV when it says that ‘he died’, referring to the Son. It does fail a bit, I believe in explaining the ‘Majesty on High’ as the ‘majestic God in heaven,’ but that is not a deal breaker. It would have been nice if they had explained the ‘right hand’ a bit better, but again, meat with it is time for such things.

Philippians 2.6-8 is our next search and it produces,

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.  (Philippians 2:6-8 KJVA)

Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God. He made himself nothing;he took the humble position of a slave and appeared in human form. And in human form he obediently humbled himself even further by dying a criminal’s death on a cross.  (Philippians 2:6-8 NLT)

The mystery in this verse is made clear. The highlights of the NLT is that it refers to Christ as God, brings out the ‘robbery’ of the KJV to something that is actually intelligible, creates the image that God thought less of HImself than some of us do to make Himself nothing, becoming a slave and appearing in human form. The image of the cross and the passion of our Lord is made much clearer, much more beautiful, more more grabbing that the literal language of the KJV did. I can almost picture Paul here, writing these words, trying to find some attempt through feeble abilities to tell about the Cross.

In Romans 9.5, we find again that the NLT does a much better job with Paul than the KJV did,

Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 9:5 KJVA)

Their ancestors were great people of God, and Christ himself was a Jew as far as his human nature is concerned. And he is God, who rules over everything and is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.  (Romans 9:5 NLT)

The KJV corrupts the thought by not placing the grammar correctly. The NLT divides the verse into two sentences, bringing about the clear Deity of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour.

1st John 5.20 is a favorite verse of one of the ministers in our congregation,

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.  (1 John 5:20 KJVA)

And we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us understanding so that we can know the true God. And now we are in God because we are in his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the only true God, and he is eternal life.  (1 John 5:20 NLT)

Again, a much clearer picture of the Deity of Jesus Christ is found in the NLT, leaving no room for conjecture as the KJV does. The NLT’s ‘and he is eternal life’ drives home to the reader Jesus Christ is the life of hope that the Apostles struggled for and we today fight to maintain.

Now, this is by far and away an incomplete comparison of the NLT and the KJV, and I am sure that I can find fault with it if I want to, but the man purpose of a bible translation is for bible to be able to read it, not to be confused  by it. I believe that the NLT does that and succeeds in making the Word of God readable without sacrificing too much of the literalism.

Just to be sure, I don’t like 1st Peter 3.22 where the NLT has it that Christ sits next to the Father instead of translating the idiom as a symbol of power. (I have met few Trinitarians that view two or three thrones in heaven).

Watch the video here

Then read the excellent commentary here:

Stoned-Campbell Disciple: Exhibit A - Baptist Pastor Comparing the NIV against the King James Bible.

There is a guy that floats around various Yahoo groups, such as WhichVersions and Versions, named Peter Furhman who testifies that he burnt loads of bibles because they were not King James Versions.

What a shame to be infected with this man made doctrine that much that you would burn the very Word of God.

From here.

I have been using the NKJV more and more, and in hopes of shedding some light on it, I am posting this article from Wikipedia. Chick Tracts, and fundamentalists Baptists, will tell you that it is not a KJV and list a variety of reasons. You have to remember, they hold a very unscriptural view of a translation made by man. This doctrine is roughly 150 years old, but is strongly held by ultraconservative fundamentalists. The NKJV is an excellent step in the Tyndale Tradition (of which the KJV is apart of) and a worthy successor to the old AV)

Chick points out,

Please decide what God is saying to Moses:

“And the LORD said to Moses, “How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws?” (Exodus 16:28, NKJV)

It looks like God is saying, “Moses, you are continuing to refuse to keep My commandments and My laws.” But look carefully at the accurate King James:

“And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?”

Now we understand! It was the people, not Moses, that God was upset with. “Ye” and “you” mean more than one person. “Thee,” “thou,” “thy,” “thine,” “doeth,” “hast,” etc., only mean one person. How do we know? The “y” is plural. The “t” is singular.

Does that make sense to you? Or, are they adding to the very Word of God? The idea that one single translation is the only inspired Word of God cannot be found in the entire Bible, a Bible in which the Apostle Paul, writing in Greek quoted both the Hebrew and the Greek versions of the Old Testament.

Again from Chick:

Go to Gehenna?

The NKJV claims to be “more accurate” because it leaves untranslated words like “Gehenna,” “Hades” and “Sheol.” What do they mean? You will know from the King James the exact meaning: “hell.” We know what that means. Meaning is very important. When’s the last time you heard someone told to “Go to Gehenna”?

Now, anyone with a bit of Greek, or the ability to actually crack open a lexicon, knows the difference between Gehenna, Hades, and Sheol. And they also know the difference that it plays in the theology that it creates. Hades is not Hell, unlike Gehenna. Neither is Sheol. Hades/Sheol is rightly grave, the intermediate place between heaven and and the final Lake of Fire, which is Gehenna.

Chick then goes on to point out some ‘major’ differences:

1 Thessalonians 5:22:

“Abstain from all appearance of evil.”

“Abstain from every form of evil.”

Now, I ask you to simply look and see which is the stricter translation? Merely abstaining from the appearance of evil or the actual form of evil? I mean, according to the KJV, it appears that as long as you hide it, you can do it.

One of the ‘objections’ that the KJVO crowd throws at the ‘Modern Versions’ is that all the Modern Versions are copyrighted, as opposed to the KJV.

The text of the NKJV is copyrighted by Thomas Nelson Publishers, while there is no copyright today on the text of the KJV. If your KJV has maps or notes, then it may have a copyright, but the text itself does not.

There is a reason that the KJV does not have a copyright - because it is almost 400 years old. If you were to buy the Cambridge KJV, you will actually notice a copyright by the Crown of England.

New King James Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Beginnings

The NKJV translation project, which was conceived by Arthur Farstad, was inaugurated in 1975 with two meetings (Nashville and Chicago) of 68 interested persons, most of them prominent Baptists but also including some conservative Presbyterians. The men who were invited to these meetings prepared the guidelines for the NKJV. The New Testament was published in 1979, the Psalms in 1980, and the full NKJV Bible in 1982.

The aim of its translators was to update the vocabulary and grammar of the King James Version, while preserving the classic style and beauty of the 1611 version. Although it uses substantially the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the original KJV, it indicates where more commonly accepted manuscripts differ.

Update to King James Version

According to the preface of the New King James Version (p. v-vi), the NKJV uses the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica for the Old Testament, with frequent comparisons made to the Bomberg edition of 1524-25, which was used for the King James Version. Both the Old Testament text of the NKJV and that of the KJV come from the ben Asher text (known as the Masoretic Text). However, the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica used by the NKJV uses an earlier manuscript (the Leningrad Manuscript B19a) than that of the KJV.

The New King James Version also uses the Received Text for the New Testament, just as the King James Version had used. The translators have also sought to follow the principles of translation used in the original King James Version, which the NKJV revisers call “complete equivalence” in contrast to “dynamic equivalence” used by many other modern translations.

The task of updating the English of the KJV involved significant changes in word order, grammar, vocabulary, and spelling. One of the most significant features of the NKJV was its abandonment of the second person pronouns “thou,” “thee,” “ye,” “thy,” and “thine.” Verb forms were also modernized in the NKJV (for example, “speaks” rather than “speaketh”).

Criticisms

Language Style

One major criticism of the NKJV is that it is rendered in a language format that has never been spoken. By maintaining much of the Elizabethan structure and syntax of the KJV (an intentional effect on the part of the revisers, who intended for a reader to be able to follow along in one version as the other version is read aloud), the NKJV at times has been criticized for putting modern words into archaic orders. Unlike the Revised Version of 1881-85 and American Standard Version of 1901, which sought to take advantage of modern scholarship but left the overall text worded in archaic Jacobean language, the NKJV sounds neither Jacobean nor particularly modern. Also many of the double meanings in many of the verses have now been lost.

Underlying texts

A second major criticism involves the fact that it is based, as noted above, solely upon the ancient texts available during the time of King James and not on earlier manuscripts and documents which have since been discovered. Since these manuscripts, most of which reflect an Alexandrian text-type, are argued by some of today’s scholars to be more reliable, the NKJV’s adherence to the Majority Text (which has ties to the Textus Receptus) seems to many to violate the spirit of open scholarship and open inquiry, and to ascribe a level of perfection to the documents available to the 17th century scholars that they would not have claimed for them. (Regarding this point see David Dewey, A User’s Guide to Bible Translations, pp. 162-3, where he quotes strong criticism of the NKJV’s textual basis by Steven Sheeley and Robert Nash.)

However, not all textual critics agree that the earliest manuscripts are the most accurate. Alternative readings based on other texts do appear as footnotes in the New King James Version, and unlike other translations the NKJV does not contain subjective comments like “the best manuscripts add, etc.” Instead, the footnotes simply state which manuscript sets do not contain the passage. However, this is unlikely to placate those who feel that the “Johannine Comma” (at 1 John 5:7), for example, is not a legitimate portion of scripture and should not be treated as such.

King James Only Belief

Believers in the “King-James-Only Movement,” see the New King James Version as something less than a true successor to the KJV. In their view, the NKJV makes significant changes to the meaning of the KJV translators. For example, Acts 17:22, in which Paul in the KJV calls the men of Athens “too superstitious,” is interpreted in the NKJV to have Paul call them “very religious”.

At the same time, many churches and evangelical groups have embraced the NKJV as an acceptable compromise between the original KJV and a Bible that uses a more modern syntax.

External texts

• Official NKJV website
• Free Bible software with full NKJV at www.BerBible.org
• www.av1611.org/nkjv.html - Against NKJV website
• www.scionofzion.com/nkjv.htm - Against NKJV website

Online text of the NKJV

• Bible Gateway.com provides information on NKJV and links to the text of each chapter.

Here.

Some of his points

Pt 1

As I mentioned last time, one of the objections to the printing of the Deuterocanon in the KJV is:

No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.

The Deuterocanon is a collection of eleven books that are sometimes mistakenly referred to as the Apocrypha. “Deutero” means “second” and so the deuterocanonical books refer to a second canon, the first canon being the Old and New Testaments. The deuterocanonical books include: Tobit, Judith, Esther 10:4-16:24, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch (Letter to Jeremiah), Song of the Three Children, History of Suzanna, Bel and the Dragon, and 1-2 Maccabees. These books are considered to be inspired by the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches. Note, it was not until Luther that the canoncity of these books were called into question. Of course, Martin Luther called into question, and tried to prevent the inclusion of Esther,  Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation as well. To him, these books were antilegomena, although it is reported that he changed his views somewhat later in life.

Of course, the easy answer to the above mentioned charge is that neither Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, nor the Song of Solomon is quoted by the New Testament. Others would add Lamentations, the Chronicles, as well as perhaps Judges and Joshua to that list.

The statement bu KJV-Only advocates is misleading in of itself. Only in Hebrews (8.13) do we find a mention of the Old Testament/Covenant, but that is in reference to the actually Covenant of between God and Israel, not to the collection of books that came to be called the Old Testament. It was actually Tertullian who first developed the idea that the two sections of books are testaments (vetus testamentum (”old testament”) and novum testamentum (”new testament”)). Tertullian, however, never separated the Deuterocanon out of the Old Testament, as he regularly quoted from them.

It would be unwise for me to post a complete list of Deuterocanonical quotes by the New Testament writers, however, here is a good place to start. Regular readers to this blog will note, either with joy or the fires of heresy hunters, that I most often use Wisdom as a weapon and have even posted on 1st Maccabees. For the record, I have also found great solace in Sirach, although I have not had much time to study this ancient book. (Although in the depths of prison, John Bunyan of Pilgrim’s Progress fame, received a moment of inspiration, and after years of searching, found the passage in Sirach 2.10 - Look at the generations of old, and see; did ever any trust in the Lord, and was confounded? or did any abide in his fear, and was forsaken? or whom did he ever despise, that called upon him?)

Before we go one, I should state that my favorite bible is the Cambridge, Calf-skin leather KJV, black letter and with the Protestant Apocrypha. What is of special interest to me is that the original cross references include links to the Apocrypha and that the Apocrypha includes links to the Old and New Testaments. If the KJV translators, these supposedly inspired men (Trinitarians the lot of them) thought that the Apocrypha was of no or little help to the Christian, then why was so much, or any really, time devoted to translating it and creating a system of cross references to it and from it?

In the following list, I have not even begun to scratch the surface of the quotes and allusions found in the New Testament relating to the Deuterocanon. I have used the King James Version for both the Deuterocanon and the New Testament. What we can take from this is that it was not the early Church Fathers that used the Deuterocanon, but the New Testament writers. In future posts, I will attempt to explore the use of Wisdom in Luke-Acts as well as in the Christology of John. In my commentary on Wisdom, I will further show that this book alone was a silent tool wielded by Paul in his composition and thought.

I have not done justice to these books, this I know, but I hope that I have excited some interest in realizing that the Deuterocanon should be studied by serious students of the New Testament.

See the list (very partial)

A few years ago I left the KJVO (King James Version Only) when their scholarship could not stand the test. Their doctrine was based on falsehoods and promoted by inept men and women who themselves promoted erroneous knowledge of very late Tradition. Upon closer examination, the KJVO doctrine falls to pieces. One of it’s proponents is a man by the name of Sam Gipp. (Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger are others). He claims to be a pastor and evangelist as well as claiming to be a staunch defender of the ‘perfect bible’.

I view the King James Version like this: It served it’s purpose, but 400 years later, with the English language having changed, it is outdated. I use it as my primary bible, not only because I grew up nursing on it, but because it is the only bible used in our Church. For myself, I would rather stick with the NKJV or my own translation; however, in reaching people you use their language. I do not view the KJV as the only inspired Word of God, and when it comes down to preaching from it, I could care less about textual criticism. I have to followed the advice that if something is in the Bible that I use that does not belong, it will not hurt me. I have yet to see any doctrinal changes from textual variants, so until then, I will hold to what many call the Received Text, or the Textus Receptus.

Some time ago, Sam Gipp published a book entitled the Answer Book, in which he defends his position while attempting to justify the many changes that the King James as underwent since 1611. (It was a revision of the English bible before it.) It is one of these answers that first opened my eyes to the error that is King James Onlyism. He attempted to answer the question concerning the Apocrypha, or as I call it the Deuterocanon. As many of you may know, the 1611 printing, and nearly every printing until the 19th century included the Apocrypha, so a reasonable question to ask is why if they were translated and printed with the KJV, this pure and perfectly inspired Word of God, does the modern King James Version no longer carry them?

I all attempt to answer his ‘answers’ for the benefit of those interested in the Truth.

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

Sirach is a well-known book among the Wisdom writings that does in fact have a Hebrew original. As a matter of record, Sirach was in debate by the Jewish leaders concerning it’s inclusion. Along with the Book of Jubilees, a Hebrew version of Sirach was found in Cave 2 during the discovery at Qum’ran. Psalms 151, included in the Orthodox Church’s canon, was found in Cave 11. Linguists can point to the fact that Judith was originally written in Hebrew, as was Tobit. Speaking of Tobit, 4 versions of Tobit written in Aramaic was found in Cave 4. As well as a single Hebrew version of the book. A simply reading of Tobit will reveal a connection to John’s vision of the New Jerusalem.

2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

The same can be said of Esther, Ruth, Proverbs and Job of the common canon; however, if we go further, we read in Baruch

^{The Book of Baruch 2:21} Thus saith the Lord, Bow down your shoulders to serve the king of Babylon: so shall ye remain in the land that I gave unto your fathers.

As a counter point, there has been numerous books to claim inspiration, but a mere claim - or lack thereof - is not enough to remove a book from the bible.

3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

Actually, that is false as well. There was no common Jewish canon, as the Talmuds from Palestine, Babylon and the Traditions from Alexandria related differences in the acceptance of Scriptures. Sirach, as we have demonstrated, was still in debate until around the time of Christ. Even Esther was in doubt. The Septuagint, which included these books, was not a Christian invention, so if the Church took over the Septuagint from the Jews, then the Jews, or at least some of them, must have used these books as well. Another way to look at this, is to inquire concerning the provision in Scripture where the Jews were allowed to dictate to the Church which books to use? More than likely, the closing of the Jewish Canon was precipitated in direct opposition to the establishment of the Church’s Canon, which seemed to happen around the same time.

4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

This is clearly false as well, since several of the early Canon lists included Wisdom. The early Church Fathers even quoted from them. Further, when Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate’s Old Testament from the Hebrew, he actually placed the Deuterocanon into a secondary place in Scripture, thereby removing them for a time from the canon list. Not every area of the Church did this, though. (Rome is a favorite villain for the Fundamentalists, yet they willingly accept the removal of the Deuterocanon by the Catholic Church.)

5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

This may be true of some of the books of the Deuterocanon and only in part, as we know that Judith contains historical inaccuracies; however, Protestants have thrown out the baby with the bathwater, as it were. With Judith and Esdras, they have dismissed Sirach, Wisdom, and 1st Maccabees, some of the most powerful post-captivity writings of the Jews.

6. The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

“Sinless perfection” is actually taught by many denominations today, without the Deuterocanon. Generally, no verses are used to substantiate the claims of these variant doctrines in the Deuterocanon.

7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

Again, generally nothing is submitted for proof.

Sometimes an eight point pulled out to teach that the Deuterocanon does not belong in the Bible. It states:

No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.

I will answer this in the second part to this series; however, by giving fully accredited responses to these seven objections, it seems that in the very lest, the KJVO promoters are using a lie in defending their truth.

1,600-year-old version of Bible goes online - Internet- msnbc.com.

First, let me say that I use the KJV as my primary bible. I will teach from it, preach from it, and read from it always, however for serious Bible study, I have to turn to the Greek.

There is a rancid doctrine out there that says that the KJV is the ONLY BIBLE that is inspired and inerrant. Here is a recent post from a Yahoo! group. See if you can pinpoint any doctrinal foundation for the KJVO teachings in this post.

“I don’t know if anyone else feels the same way as I do, when those that do not hold to the idea that there can only be one true Bible text in English, refer to those who do as a quote, ‘king James Onlyist’.which sends the smell of a kind of cult like group. This label (at least to me) sends a negative message to other Christians, that we are some how not quite right in our thinking and are an uninformed group following some type of Guru or something. I just can not help from feeling insulted by this label. Why can we not frame this to our benefit and correct those that try to demean us with this label, why can we not simply call ourselves what we are, a body of believers that believe that there simply can only be one true “English Holy Bible Text”, and suggest we be called, if anything at all, “Holy Bible Onlyist”, a label that will carry no
negative or demeaning connotation with it, and begin to move away from the private bible label of King James. We all know the work King James had authorized to be done is God’s word in English for all generations.

I think that our side of the issue has again allowed the evil one,(as with calling the King James Bible a version of the English Bible instead of simply the `English Holy Bible’) through the doubters to stick this label on us which is meant to demean us, our cause and lessens our effect in the modern Christian community. It also has the effect of weakening our voice in the arena of debate on this very important issue facing the Church today.

This label has always felt to me as sort of slimy some how. After reading David Emme’s last post were he said: (”I am shedding this coil of King James Onlyism. My beleifs have not changed. I still affirm that the King James is the inerrant word of God.”)

I again felt that negative vibe associated with that label, as I sensed he meant to send to this forum.

If he King James Onlyism label was not accepted and used, he would of had to say `I am shedding this coil of `Holy Bible Onlyism’ which would have condemned him as a heretic, but, because of this label he was able to double talk and in his mind he was evidently not even aware of his contradicting statement, or if he was, he was less than honest in his stated position on the `English Holy Bible’.

Blessings, Clyde”

Yes, that is right. KJVO Nonsense.

The wonderful ‘teacher’ is shallow. Shallow? Yes. Shallow. Why? Because she is comparing English translations to English Translations. I debate often with KJVO (King James Version Only) followers and the simple question to ask them is: Show me your scriptural authority for such a doctrine. They can’t, so like usual they will revert to name calling, etc… and their ole stand by defense: accusing us of not having an inerrant bible.

They blame the fall of the ‘Christian’ culture here in the U.S. on the lack of usage of the KJV.