Another parallel

Yes, a few(not most) KJVOs actually value the BOOK more than the AUTHOR. But a lot more KJVOs give the KJV much more credit and kudos than it deserves, while not WORSHIPPING it.

Just as Mary, before she bore Jesus, was an ordinary righteous Jewish virgin, as nothing more was attributed to her in Scripture before Gabriel's visit, the KJV is but an excellent English Bible translation, imperfect as the men who wrote it, and nothing more. That's all its very translators said it was, in their Preface. Another parallel with Mariolatry and KJVO is that they're both man-made false doctrines.

 

I will try to be gracious in responding to this, so please don't think I'm "attacking", ok? OK.

I don't speak Greek, Hebrew, etc. I don't have a library full of books, 'tho I guess if I wanted to, I could search on the 'net...but I don't want to.

I'm satisfied with the Bible I started out with as a young girl, which is what all my people before me used, & I know I will end with it. What's wrong with that? [edit: I didn't even know anything else existed till the '70s, but I wasn't "curious", so I didn't touch'em.]

I believe whatever is the KJBible's ancestors are real. I believe the Words are from the Lord, but I do not value the Book itself more than God. My Bible's been so marked-up, trampled, etc. so there's no idolatry there. I don't see the comparison to Mary.

I don't fault any of you for what you use to help you get along in life...please don't accuse me of false doctrine!.

The Bible I've depended on has helped me raise 6 children & stay married 40yrs. My life has been uncomplicated.

Thanks for lettin' me have my say for the day.

[ January 18, 2004, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: GrannyGumbo ]

 

Absolutely nothing Granny.

And I don't remember you saying that anyone elses Bible was a satanic counterfeit either (as some here on the BB have done or implied).

HankD

[ January 18, 2004, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Just for the record, and I think many would agree with me, I find it no business of mine at all as to which Bible translation another person uses. Each of us should take the matter seriously, do the research, submit our decision prayerfully to God, and follow His direction. If someone is led to use the KJV, they should do so; if someone is led to use the NIV or NASB or some other version, they should do that. I, like many, oppose not the KJV but the belief that a God of infinite power and grace can save, bless and teach His children only through one translation of His word. There is simply too much evidence to the contrary.

 

As I've said before I use the KJV 99% of the time - my "MVs" sit on the shelf. I have no problems with anyone's choice of a translation. What gets me is those who attack my Christianity and question my salvation (which I've heard!) because I do not agree with the KJVO stance!

 

My fight isn't with anyone who wishes to use the KJV-it's with those who try to tell us that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation.

GG, do you thoroughly understand the KJV's archaic English? Do you know the proper meaning for such words in the KJV as "conversation" or "charger"? Or such phrases as "returned again the captivity of..."? If so, great. But we must remember that not everyone else does, so I generally use a modern-language version when teaching or evangelizing. However, in all cases, I'll use the BV the audience requests, if they do have a specific version in mind.

You most likely DO know someone who advocates KJVO, and our purpose here is to reveal that doctrine for what it really is-FALSE. We've PROVEN it's man-made with no Scriptural support.

Again, let me say out fight isn't against the KJV nor those who wish to use only the KJV-it's with the doctrine which proclaims the KJV as the ONLY valid English Bible translation and denigrates all other versions.

WOW-SIX kids? Neither side of my family has had more than THREE for at least eight generations!

Mr. Meadows-I live in the Sunrise-Rankin's Creek area 8 miles northwest of Chesapeake.

 

Dear robycop3: "I do believe my KJBible is the only one to use; but it don't have any "archaic" words written in it, that I'm aware of. (Even the ones I got as a child, are in English).

Before my greats & my grandparents passed, there wasn't anything else to choose from in the store where they traded...wonder why that was?

Maybe that does make me a KJBO advocater? It don't bother me none, if'n it don't bother you'n. Peace.

 

Amen GrannyGumbo! Any grandkids?

 

So preach what the crowd wants aye. Why not preach what the Holy Spirit wants you to preach. Are you afraid they won't like you? Guest what? If you preach against sin, they probably won't like you. BTW, if you can't understand a word in the King James Bible, pick up a dictionary, don't write another Bible.

 

Herein is a basic misunderstanding, no one can "write another Bible" (well, I guess the Momons claim to have "another testament".

Wyclif did not "write another Bible", Tyndale did not "write another Bible", The KJ translators did not "write another Bible".

When the need arose they did not publish a new dictionary, they made "another translation" of the Bible.

HankD

 

Amen GrannyGumbo! Any grandkids?
Truly, da "granny" gots 'em! Live ones, dead ones, & cyber ones.


Justa thought: "Back when I was in the government "fool" system, we had to read all them Shakespeare stories...not once did anybody holler, 'I don't understand this kind of talkin'...imagine that! ...mmmm~I wonder if they've changed it by now???

 

GG-The Word of God (as you know), is so much more important than Shakespeare, that why God's Word must be understandable to the common man. I know some English students who read the KJV the same way they read Shakespeare, for the beauty of the language, instead of the meaning of what God's Word says. Thankfully, they can read His Word as found in the KJV and come to know Him, since His Word will not return void

 

Originally posted by HomeBound:
So preach what the crowd wants aye. Why not preach what the Holy Spirit wants you to preach. Are you afraid they won't like you? Guest what? If you preach against sin, they probably won't like you. BTW, if you can't understand a word in the King James Bible, pick up a dictionary, don't write another Bible.

First, I've said more than once that as a child I learned really archaic English by reading Chaucer's works from two books at once-one in modern English & the other in the words of Chaucer as he wrote them. This served me well as I began reading the tales of chivalry and of King Arthur in versions written in the 15th-16th centuries.(Not that I claim to be too smart-God has blessed me to understand archaic English easily, that's all.) The English of the AV 1611 is quite clear to me. I knew at once that "conversation" meant "lifestyle", that "let' can mean "allow' or "hinder", depending upon the context, and that "suffer' generally means "allow". To me. reading archaic English is as second-nature as reading Greek may be to some other English-speaking American.

Next, I don't care if they like me or not, but I DO care whether or not they understand the GOSPEL. If I speak in an archaic language style they can't understand, am I doing all I can to help them? Yould YOU preach in Russian to an audience of Navajos?

And, did God retire in 1611? Was not the AV 1611 the most modern English Bible in existence in 1611? Where is the Scripture telling us to use ONLY the KJV?

And WHO caused all the English Bibles to be written? For what purpose? Did the Maker want them used? And, WHO is in charge of all forms of human communication,including the languages?

 

So using words like denarius, drachmas, coomg, aghast and many more like these are easier to understand, right?

There is no scripture telling us to use only the King James Bible, just like there’s no scripture telling us to use a BIBLE, but you use one.

The Holy Spirit used man to write the King James Bible. The spirit of anti-christ wrote the modern versions. This is my believe.

 

And thus we come full circle in your reasoning once again. By now, almost everyone who post here knows that this is your position. What we don't know is on what factual, logical, godly, biblical reasoning you base these beliefs on.

Read the 39 Articles of Religion ascribed to by the CoE in 1611. There is a very good chance that many of the KJV translators weren't even saved much less inspired by the Holy Spirit.

At the same time, there is every evidence that MV's do not come from the spirit of anti-christ. Witness the number of English speaking, born again children of God that never use the KJV. Christ said that Satan would not cast out demons for if he did his kingdom would be divided against itself. In this exact same vein, the notion that Satan would be behind translations of the Bible that have resulted in the salvation and sanctification of millions is ludicrous.

 

The 39 Articles of Faith are not a good guide concerning the beliefs of the typical member of the Church of England in 1611 or now.

The Church of England has always been divided as to the Real Presence in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, etc.

Basically there are "high" Church and "low" or "evangelical" CoE folks both laity and clergy.

The "higher" the more they look like the Church of Rome.

Many "high" CoE want to reunite with Rome.

HankD

 

But in this case, we aren't talking about typical members. We are talking about elite scholars who were hand picked by the archbishop to provide the CoE with a suitable translation (ie. one that didn't undermine certain doctrines like the Geneva).

It's been awhile but I once read some quotes from Lancelot Andrewes' (chief supervisor of the KJV translating effort) sermons that would identify him clearly with the "high" church variety. One example- He preached that communion was both sacrament and sacrifice.

 

Hi Scott,

Yes, as far as I know, the translation committee was a blend heavily weighted on the "high" church side. I read that there was even 1 Puritan on the commitee. He must have had fun.

HankD