Debating versus Arguing

Annsni,made a good point.Miles Smith who wrote that long Preface to the orginal 1611 would certainly be against the KJVO movement.What he wrote would have been been in agreement with the other men on the translation teams.Doesn't that weaken your argument;if not nullify it completely?

 

I like my Cockney Bible. I bet this chappie would 'ave sumpin' ta say about t'at, by jove 'e would.

Cheers,

Jim

 

KJVBiblethumper:I think it is safe to say that most of us are on here because we have strong beliefs and like to defend them, a true belief is different then an opinion, our beliefs should always be backed up with Scripture and sound, reasoned thinking. A statement along the lines of "well this is my opinion,you are all wrong" carries no weight for any position.

With all due respect, the KJVO doctrine doesn't have one quark of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT. The origin of the current KJVO doctrine is well-known-it's derived from 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson's goof-filled 1930 book, Our Authotized Bible Vindicated. In this book is found your Psalm 12:6-7 thingie. Virtually EVERY subsequent KJVO author, from Ray to Ruckman to Riplinger have copied from this book, even though in fairness to Wilkinson he wasn't trying to start a new doctrine; he was responding to an internal squabble within the SDA sect.

According to your own stated principles above, KJVO is not a valid belief of worship. As I do, you apparently agree that ALL doctrines of Christian worship come from SCRIPTURE. This automatically disqualifies KJVO as being true.

I should like to discuss this with you here, or start another thread if you wish.

Respectfully,

robycop3

 

Especially since Jesus used another set of scriptures besides the ones that underly the KJV.. Jesus did not use the Masoretic text.
All it takes is to compare Jesus' quotes of the OT scriptures with the Masoretic text, and they are different.

So, since Jesus didn't use the Masoretic Text (KJV OT) should we?

 

maybe the scribe who wrote Jesus' words was incorrect and used a different text.....Hmmm

Cheers,

Jim

 

Marking.

Some topics seem to to have a lifetime less than it takes to read them.

 

I understand and agree with your point, Tim. Of course, a Masoretic Text (with vowel points) didn't exist in Jesus' time.

 

KJVBibleThumper correctly stated.........

Now, it is not his fault, if none of you can see the error that you are in.

And BT, seemed exasperated, when all of you ganged upon on him at once like that.
But don’t you see what it happening.

You are not able to see your error, because you have so many voices behind you, telling you that you are right.
--------------------------------------------------
It is kind of like.......

The false prophets, were encouraged to remain in error, because of all the pats on the back they were getting.

Now, don’t get me wrong; I am not calling anyone here a false prophet.
But I am saying, that when everybody seems to be agreeing with you, that is a good time to step back, and make sure of where you are standing.

 

Okay - prove, from the Bible how I am in doctrinal error when I use a NKJV. It should be easy if it is a fact.

BTW, only BT attacked anyone by charging doctrinal error. Others merely asked him to support his contention. No one charged him with doctrinal error.

 

I'd like you to furnish some proof that since I'm not KJVO that means I'm in serious doctrinal error.But even your KJVs can't help you to establish a scintilla of evidence to support your contention.

It makes me wonder what you would do if you faced real doctrinal error.

Were we mean to him?No,we weren't.It's just that a number of us started posting especially when we were being charged with being in serious doctrinal error.No satisfactory answers were supplied by BT( or you).

I'm not hearing any voices (I hear bells sometimes when I hit my head hard.Does that count?)

I don't mind taking the minority position on given subjects.It's just that most Evangelical/Fundamental Christians use sound reasoning about this issue.They reject KJVO'ism.Again,even by using your KJVs you can't prove that the one and only Bible is supposed to be the KJVs.It's so silly.I'm trying to restrain myself here.

No,I'm sure you're not -- but it's tempting --huh?

I'm standing on the Word of God.A good dose of common sense and knowledge of Church History come into play as well.

 

Wow - the majority of believers agree with me on the virgin birth. Should I step back and evaluate that as well?


Readers, please note that no one has attacked the KJV or anyone who is KJVO. Only those who disagree with that position have been attacked for a supposed doctrinal error. I appreciate BT's fervency for his belief and his desire for reasoned debate, but reasoned debate does not consist of charging brethren with serious doctrinal error and then retreating without supporting that charge.

One side is adhering to the request of the OP.

It could all be put to rest by someone proving, from God's word, that not being KJVO is a doctrinal error.

 

Hello everyone

Here are the first two definitions of the word in question.......

And they seem to fit.
--------------------------------------------------
All those how are not KJVO, assert that MV’s are more accurate, when in fact they are not.

BT, brought up one great example in response #15

Now, “most” MV’s mutilate or remove this verse, and that is “deviating from what is correct, right, or true.”
--------------------------------------------------
As for.....

This is the source of your error.

You have been taught that God has allowed His Word, to get lost, among all the assorted copies that have been made of the original autographs.

This is an error.

God’s people of old, recognized the majority Byzantine manuscripts and Masoretic Text, as being God’s preserved Word.

Now anyone has the right to reject that, and question history, all they want, but that doesn’t make them right.
--------------------------------------------------
One fact, that we can all agree upon; We both can’t be right.

I personally declare, that God has preserved His Word in “one English document”.
(And because we are talking about God’s Word, then “every word matters”.)
-Therefore, it has to be preserved in “one document”!-

Therefore, any MV that changes “one single word”, is not as good, as the KJV.

Now sure, you can get saved by these MV’s, and you can even study them and grow in Christ somewhat. But that doesn’t make them the KJV.
--------------------------------------------------
As for proof, that the KJV is the best English Bible, I site Church history.

During the many years that, that the KJV was “the Bible”(most popular), the Church was Spiritually healthy, and growing by leaps and bounds.

But for about the last 100 years or so, something has been happening to the Church.

On this forum, there are threads asking why, Church attendance is dropping?

From the very first days, that I started posting here, I have been answering this question; “It is because the Church has gotten away from the Word of God.”

C. H. Spurgeon saw it in his day, and he called it a “down grade”: And we continued a steady down grade, until the early 1950's when the “Church growth movement” started, but that was just a man made solution, and it is failing.

What we needed, was a “Back to the Word movement”; But few had the courage to do that, because they would have been accused of being ignorant or anti-intellectual.
--------------------------------------------------
This is an old fight here, and I praise the Lord, for the opportunity to be here;
Thank you.

I believe, that conversations like this, are good for all of us.

 

Have you ever research Spurgeon and the KJV? His 'down grade' ideas had nothing to do with the KJV. He often 'corrected' it in his preaching, at times he is even critical of the translators choice of words.

All you have shown is your opinion, and I respect your view. Yet you have not been able to prove from the word of God that those who disagree are guilty of serious doctrinal error. The only guilt is holding a view different from your own.

Are you sure you want to say 'one single word?" If so the KJV that you most likely use is not as good as the 1611 because it adds the words 'of God' in 1 John 5v12.

 

I agree with you, Roger. There seems to be a lot of "I'd be glad to deal with that but not in this thread" about things BT has introducded to the discussion. If someone isn't willing to "deal with" an issue then they shouldn't raise the issue. For example, the Psalm 12:6-7 issue. BT is more than willing to apply these verses to the preservation of God's word, yet unwilling to discuss the issue "in this thread." Since it was you who raised this issue, BT, where would you like to discuss it?

Since the KJVO position isn't even hinted at in Scripture, then we can't call it a doctrine. Therefore I would say BT's opinion is seriously flawed.

 

I have read all of this rapidly moving thread. I seem to have a problem understanding the OP's intentions. He wants scripture and facts or the post will be ignored, yet he has accused all nonKJVO of having serious doctrinal problems.

I have not seen any fact from the OP except what his opionion is. Does the OP not have to follow his own standard?

I think the word of God is inerrant and if you understand His Word better by way of KJV then that is the Bible for you. If another "MV" is best for your understanding then that would be for you.

By the way it has been said before and it is still true the KJV is a MV, just an older one.

I hope no one takes this post as an attack, but I think I have asked legitimate question of the OP's requests.

 

Good morning C4K

I am fully aware, that Spurgeon’s down grade comments, had nothing to do with the KJV, but it did have to do with, the state of the local Church:
(And it was in that part of my response, that I brought him up.)
--------------------------------------------------
You also said......

I am no judge. I don’t determine anyone’s guilt about anything.
And I don’t know you, nor your doctrinal stands.

All I am saying, is that most MV’s change the word of God, to the point that it can effect a persons doctrinal stands.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you pointed out.......

Well, the KJV that I have always supported, is the 1769 edition.
(There were 3 editions after 1611, that corrected spelling errors & typo’s etc.)

The KJV is a work of human beings, therefore it’s very first addition, had some problems.
But by 1769, they were corrected(240 years ago).

 

Didn't human beings make the corrections, too? How can you know for sure all of the "problems" have been found? And accurately corrected (without causing any 'new' errors)?

What about all those poor Christians who had a flawed Bible for 158 years?

I don't necessarily expect an answer from you; I expect you to think about it.

 

So it is your opinion that the 1769 edition of the KJV is the perfectly preserved word of God in English?

If I disagree am I doctrinally in error?