Were The Early Fundamentalist Kjv Only?
 

http://www.communitybaptistchurch.co...amentalist.htm
Discuss, I'm sure this will spark some colorful debate. :)

The King James Bible was not inspired between 1604-1611.

And truth can be destroyed by mistranslation. That is why we should thank God that we actually have a perfect translation today. I am sure that Mr Joyner and others do not believe in perfect translations, yet they seem to think that truth is in them?!?

Aw.

Php 1:15-18
(15) Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
(16) The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
(17) But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
(18) What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

Joh 6:63
(63) It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

John 17:17 does not mean the written Word itself contains the truth, because John 14:6 says Jesus (not the written Word) is the truth. The written word conveys the truth, the Word, Jesus. The written Word has no power. Jesus is the Word made flesh, not ink and paper. Ink and paper conveys the truth. The word is powerful, not the ink and paper. Thy Word is truth, not ink and paper. The Word is not the truth; the Word IS truth.

That's why you can get saved from an old newspaper account (or even nothing at all but by the word of Jesus' disciple). And that's why there's power even from imperfect translations like the NASB.

He also points out that

I agree with that, because of Philippians 1:18: "What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice."

And because the truth is spiritual, and the written word in physical realm may be destroyed, but not in the spiritual. That's why Jesus is the Word (the truth) and not the written word.

Many quote Psa 11:3 "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" in an alarmist sense, as if it was all like "Oh no! the foundations are being destroyed! What will we do?" Well, it is like that, until the next verse. "The LORD is in his holy temple, the LORD'S throne is in heaven: his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men." From frantic chicken-little the sky is falling to calm comfort in the knowledge that God is own his throne and he is in control. But (some might say) the question remains, "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" in an alarmist sense, as if it was all like "Oh no! the foundations are being destroyed! What will we do?" The answers, "The LORD is in his holy temple, the LORD'S throne is in heaven: his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men" indicates that he will not let the foundations be destroyed. They may be hidden from masses at large, but they will not be destroyed, "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Mat 7:14) In other words, although "truth can be destroyed by mistranslation" in a "local" sense, not in a universal sense, for "The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will show them his covenant." (Psa 25:14)


PS: Since I quoted Matthew 7:14, I must point out that "strait" there is "strait" not "straight." It means restrictive like a strait-jacket or a strait as in a narrow channel of water. Many people do not realize this, and when quoting the verse from memory spelll it with a gh.

This is the part I do not agree with, under "Conclusion":
quote:
One should never say, "The Bible is our sole rule for all matters of faith and practice," if they contend for the inspiration of any translation. For that is not taught anywhere in any Bible.
unquote

(Emphasis mine)

What a bunch of unscriptural garbage. You essentially have the written word relegated to the status of withering grass.

What do you think is being talked about here?

1 Peter 1:24-25 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: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

If the word is being preached it is obviously not just in some spiritual realm as you appear to be claiming. You also fall into the trap of confusing the written word with the incarnate Word.

Moreover, Christ explicitly proclaimed the undestroyable nature of the written word:

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Obviously, all is not yet fulfilled, unless you buy into some strained sense of prophecy that places every prophecy in the Bible as already fufilled.

And before you go off and say something ridiculous like "the law endures in the spiritual realm not in written form" I'd like you to tell me just what in the world you think Jesus was talking about when he said THE BOOK OF [INSERT NAME HERE] and READETH:

Mr 12:26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
Lu 20:42 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Mt 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

Now explain to me what Jesus, the Lord, God in the flesh, the incarnate Word, was doing appealing to physical written words if those words are not indestructible and perfectly preserved and not themselves truth? Care to find for me anywhere in the Bible where your view of the written word -- that it can wither and fade and be destroyed -- that only Jesus, not Scripture, is Truth -- is proclaimed?

Heh -- I can. You might start with Jehudi!

PS: This uncompromisingly absurd statement is utterly refuted by any cursory reading of Psalm 119.

Are you a fundamentalist? :D

You mean Jeremiah 36? Don't be silly, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

Tell them how you really feel, Brandon.

And of course he did not quote any of those perfectly preserved words from a KJV.

That is like saying that you better not read the English Bible, because Jesus did not speak in English to the Jews.

Maybe that is the problem, ENGLISH, because I clearly did not say "you better not read the English Bible", what I did say (just to remind you again in English) to in plain English bolster the argument that the early fundamentalists did not have the KJV,
Jesus did not have the KJV,
nor did the appostles quote from the KJV
for example when Matthew quotes Isaiah 40.3 Maybe ENGLISH is the problem, not what version it is quoted from.

Thanks, I originally put the quotation marks in manually then before posting I decided to use the html tags and forgot to remove them.

More of us (myself included) would be wise to spend more of our time in this study so that we all could spot and understand these textual nuances and insights are inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Now you're changing the point -- though your point is one easily addressed, it isn't what I was talking about. MDOC's claims were without regard to language -- that Christ is the Truth, not the written word. So I was pointing out how Christ dealt with the written word in his earthly ministry.

He knows that.

Joh 14:6
(6) Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Deu 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

And this is found in your perfect KJV in ink.

Of course Jesus Christ is the truth -- but so is the written word, as the Bible amply demonstrates.

Of course. But where did it come from: ink and paper, or from the mouth of God?

Dr. Robert A Joyner's historic fundamental position has always been that inspiration is claimed only for the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. he goes on to point out

I am surprised this thread died for 36 hours after my last post.

Personally as a NON KJV only current believer, I'm looking for some solid refutation of Dr. Robert A Joyner's accusation of KJV ONLY folks being like a cult.

So far from what I've read hear and elsewhere I've not found a lot of FACT to change my mind.

Help us out here -- what behavior do you attribute to all who hold to the KJV as perfect do you regard as cultish? If you're looking for something that can be refuted on an objective level, you'll need to be specific.

Joyner's position is no different than the majority of pseudo-fundamentalists who hold it as fundamental that God's word was only "perfect" in the original autographs. For all Joyner's accusations of word games in his first section, he has no trouble adopting a patently absurd and unbelieving position -- that God's perfect and complete word only exists in manuscripts nobody has, will ever find, or claim to have seen.

The Bible refutes utterly the notion that God's word was only "inspired" in antiquity and that inspirational authority no longer exists. Paul said God's word is inspired. Not was. In order for words to be of God, they must, by nature, be inspired. If you are reading a book you don't believe is inspired by God, then you can rationally claim it to be of God.

The KJV did not require "original inspiration" (if we can call it that) because the KJV is simply the word of God in English. The words are therefore inspired. If they are not inspired, they are not God's word. If you only believe inspiration exists at the point of Paul's pen, then you can not in any meaningful or reasonable way also claim any book or copy we have available to us is from God.

Anyway, the fundamental tenet of Bible preservation and inspiration is the issue, so I would suggest starting with this article on what God's word says about it: God's Providential Preservation of the Scriptures

That's an excerpt from the book Thou Shalt Keep Them, a tome of tomes on the subject of preservation and inspiration. (Side note: when the editor of the book originally contacted me, he said the book was a scholarly treatment of the subject. I told him I wouldn't hold that against him. I do recommend the book.)

At the risk of pointing fingers let me just say that in general, my first impressions, of reading the many posts, (I know a lot of them have to be weeded out by what I would call zelots), I just get the impression, that a lot of the brethren are just quoting missing scripture comparing one version to the other, and that of course HAS to be true, because other versions where translated using different guidelines by different people at a different times in history. They also translated from different sources so again you expect differences.

Personally the Holy Spirit opened my heart to the saving grace or our Lord Jesus Christ when I read the following from the Good News Bible that was given to me by my sister. There were probably billions of souls saved by His grace in the millenniums before the AV was printed.

So I have to conclude with Joyner that folks who today spend so much effort into the version rather then the Gospel itself are in that same boat as the Scribes and Pharisee's.
as pointed out by Dr. Thomas Holland in his book Crowned With Glory and those are the documents the Holy Spirit had his hand on those authors' pen. So I still don't see the connection that has to people reading from the KJV, but now that you have my attention, my studies continue.

I fail to see the connection to cults with this. You seem to be dismissing matters of difference with these statements -- but differences are what we are left with after we discern. If differences didn't matter we wouldn't need discernment.

For what it's worth:

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

I take this action of love very seriously, which is why most of my work effort is devoted to matters of the Bible and Bible study.

I'm greatly pleased that you are in fact not dismissing the issue out of hand, and that you are continuing in study. I wholeheartedly recommend the books I mentioned earlier. I believe that the foundational doctrine of preservation and inspiration is at the core of the debate. If one ends up discarding preservation outright, then there is simply no means of persuading them of the superiority of the KJV.

And, praise God for your salvation, regardless of the Bible version you read. I didn't even know what the KJV was when I got saved. I was NIV+ for many years. ;)

From Wikipedia:So by that simple definition KJV is outside the mainstream as considered by our surrounding culture.

I fell into a sense of false security a number of years ago in a backslide initiated by my overzealous enthusiasm following the writings of Robert Brinsmead a formerly controversial figure within the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the 1960s and 1970s, known for his diverse theological journey.

So there in lay the foundation of my caution towards the KJV only cult-like by definition following. It took the Holy Spirit a number of years to get me back on track and I don't want to follow the way of MAN again.

I'll continue my discernment with prayer and an open mind.

Then you already know that you don't even need a newspaper version of the Bible to get saved. (All you really need is the word of a Christian talking to you.) You also know that the saved OT people didn't have the NT either.

Consider carefully, then, what this says:

Php 1:15-18
(15) Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
(16) The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
(17) But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
(18) What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

Do you see the import? There was a guy who was unsaved and used the word to "reach" many for salvation (but his motive was to fill his offering plates with money). The result? People actually got saved. Why? Because they believed the Word.

OK, so now, if you're gonna seriously study the word, first you need to answer and establish "Which Bible?" (There's a book by that title.) You need to establish your absolute Bible standard by which to base all comparisons of truth and lies (or comparisons of a Bible version or two). But that is the only reason for determining the proper version for study purposes. After this, you no longer need to continue this kind of study. Abandon this study of "Which Bible," and get into studying to experientially know God. The group of people failing to do that ends up falling into this KJVO "cult" (not that it is, necessarily, but not all is able to receive it) whose only "mission" is to "get the words right." This is analogous to King Saul, and can lead to Pharisaical pride. Note that there is nothing wrong with apologetics, except if it occupies most or all of your pursuit and efforts. The pursuit should be to be conformed to the image of Jesus, not to continue to perfect the Bible you're reading and make a case proving it. The reason is that the Holy Ghost is the teacher and will teach you all things (John 14:26). You don't need a perfect Bible for that, but you'd like to have one for study purposes. The more you study it and do it, the more you become one with it (Matthew 13).

By the way, you can't weed anybody out of anything. You can only weed out what you know is there in your life. (See parable of the wheat and tares)


I started with the NASB, but a few months later switched to KJV, Thompson's Chain.

Well, show me a church whose Pastor is trying to run it without the Holy Ghost, and I'll show you a cult.

Show me a church whose Pastor is filled and led by the Holy Ghost and the Holy Ghost will show you why it is not a cult. (You won't need me for that :D).

Near the end of Joyner's rant he points out I am so busy soaking up what the bible is trying to impart to me, I find it a blessing to read NASB, NKJV, ESV along with my KJV for that parallel comparison to help be understand the content rather then the actual word for word translation, I have enough trouble with English let alone Greek.

By all means, take that avenue of approach. There's no such thing as a word-for-word translation, anyway :D

That's what some of my brothers and sisters are doing, too.

Sad - what help is it to you to water down the Word of God by mixing it with corrupt translations from corrupt texts? You can't learn the truth by mixing it with error.

inspiration is claimed only for the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts ?
 

Which textual content are you trying to understand ? The Greek texts that claim that the ending of Mark, the Pericope Adultera, "God was manifest in the flesh .." and the Acts 8:37 baptism testimony and the Johannine Comma are all man's corruption (which is the Greek text that has gross errors like the swine marathon from Gerasa and Jesus saying he is not going to the feast).

Or do you desire the underlying source text of the King James Bible and the historic Reformation Bibles, that accepts and declare these beautiful verses and sections as God's word, inspired and pure scripture.

One is truth, one is error. On this level, there is no issue of translation whatsoever. There are times where we are called to:

..choose you this day whom ye will serve..Jushua 24:15

Shalom,
Steven

Oh, don't worry about it. It's more important to have the Holy Ghost teach you than to have a ("Politically correct?" LOL) Bible. Remember the Philippians ref? Christ is still preached.

Again with the cart before the horse!

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

So, if you don't have the record of the word to begin with, how is it brought to your remembrance?

I've already explained why the words come first -- not the "content." The content is the result of the conveyance through the words. You don't get reliable content without the right conveyance. We should not settle for admixture of error when there exists a pure form of the word.

As for this parallel means of study -- how is this helpful, for example, on the last twelve verses of Mark or 1Ti 3:16? Most modern versions will either remove the last twelve verses of Mark or say that nobody knows the correct ending. Here's a passage with no parallel elsewhere in Scripture. How does it bolster your faith to be told those verses may not even belong in the Bible? And how does the corrupt critical reading of 1Ti 3:16 ("He who" instead of "God") make it easier to understand the verse?

MDOC is trying to make the point that the Bible does not support a form of "onlyism" in Bible study -- I'd say he's got the argument backwards. Where in Scripture do we find the "parallel" method of study advocated? When did Christ ever look for just the right rendering among competing authorities?

And as to this notion that it simply isn't important:

Isaiah 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

Thank you for that, however let me step up and let you know, I'm still on my first read through most of the old testament, and 2nd and 3rd read in the new testament. So I still have a level of basic understanding to soak up first.

Secondly, the Holy Spirit guided the pens of the original authors to write the words on the accepted medium of their time in the then used language by the author at the time of penning the Holy Spirits words.

The only affect the Holy Spirit had on the various versions, was to inspire the translators to perform their task of translation from their source of choice following their guidelines for translating at the historic time of the translation.

I can buy the fact that at the time of the reformation, my guess is there was a lot more prayer and guidance sought from the Holy Spirit by the translators to produce the final product as clearly and accurately as humanly possible given there understanding and technology of the day that I can give the accuracy edge to the KJV. Their historic human motivation was far greater then say the translators of the NASB whose original motivation firstly came from the Lockman foundation, I believe those translators asked for that same guidance from the Holy Spirit, but with far less intensity for the final product then did say the translators of the KJV.



My main goal is to understand the basic content first, get the big picture, before I start worrying about periods, comma's and the like. That I know will come later. Your comments still give me much more food for thought, and I thank you.

Gord-MDOC,
If we start finding contradictions in His words, that should concern you. God is not the author of confusion (I Cor 14:33), nor is He a liar (Tit 1:2). I won't bog you down with many verses. I would offer you one verse at a time for comparison to try to convince you of the integrity of the King James Bible, and the lack thereof the rest(NASB-ESV-NIV, etc.).
I would first ask you who killed Goliath? Look in your NASB-ESV-NIV at II Samuel 21:19.

NASB:
There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

ESV:
And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

I always thought David killed Goliath!

KJB:
And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

The KJB does not contradict I Chron 20:5, which says Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath. The new perversions outright contradict the account in I Sam 17:51 and I Chron 20:5 in their own bible. This contradiction would make God a liar. "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:160). Now this is a Holy God who imparted these words to us, and promised to preserve them. I, or any of these learned folks here will give you the numerous verses of God's repeated promise to preseve His words. If we cannot bank these promises, we cannot trust our promise from Him of eternal life. You can get saved from a pornography book if it has some truth of God's words(this has in fact happened). Is just getting saved, and then abandoning doctrine what you believe the Lord wants you to do? According to Strong’s Greek Concordance doctrine means “instruction (the function or the information):--doctrine, learning, teaching.” Do you go home and read the pornography book you got saved from reading to get your teaching? Do you care at all about doctrine? Will you follow a translation of a false, corrupt Critical Text that has 2886 less words, and effects 356 doctrines in the NT? Do not the words make up doctrine? How are you going to have the Holy Ghost teach you? With visions or voices? The fact is the perversions do not teach what the KJB does. They water down every doctrine that is holy of the Lord. His deity, the vigin birth, His omniscience, omnipresence, omniopotence, and every holy attribute of the Lord Jesus Christ. The perversions end up preaching a different Christ. You will be following a lie if you believe using different versions will help give you better understanding. That's why they are different. Two things that are different are not the same.

I did not know that at all, so I opened QuickVerse and I just looked at a parallel view of KJV, ESV, NKJV and GWT at the last verses of Mark and I see all up to vs20 in all versions, do I don't see what you say is missing.

I do see the subtle difference with the word He compared to the word God in 1Ti 3:16 but in each version I look at the whole sentence and understand He to mean God, because I'm looking and reading the whole sentence, that's not a deal breaker in my basic understanding.

I need better then that to be sold on KJV-only.