Did KJBOism succeed Neo-Orthodoxy?

The only "liberals" here are those of the GMO(God's message only)or BAO(Bible agnosticism only) FAITH.

And those of the "faith" have denied that God would and HAS preserved His word in the Bibles that come from the Syrian-Byzantine line of manuscripts(Acts 13);and that comprimises the ability of those that enjoy PONTIFICATING to the body of Christ.

And I'm sure we all know what is coming as per 2 Corinthians 5:10;see ya there!!

 

The message of scripture is God's Word. Otherwise, you are wasting you time on any English Bible. You should be seeking God's words... the one and only handwritten Greek mss that is a perfect facsimile of the originals. Likewise, you should be learning and using koine Greek in all facets of your religious life.

I have not seen this one demonstrated by anyone here. Your misunderstanding of an issue does not serve as a valid indictment of someone else.

We have faith... in what the Bible says. Not in what KJVO's say. True Christian faith has nothing to do with blind denial of fact.

And those of the "faith" have denied that God would and HAS preserved His word in the Bibles that come from the Syrian-Byzantine line of manuscripts(Acts 13);</font>[/QUOTE] No. This is patently untrue. We affirm the NKJV, LITV, WEB, English Majority Text Version, Young's Literal Translation, the original Luther's German Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the KJV. It is you that would deny these Bibles that come from the Byzantine family by holding that only the KJV is the Word of God in English.

In a written forum, it is very difficult to say for sure who is "pontificating". But if you look objectively, you will note that your side does this at least as much as your opponents.

Further, I can honestly say that I have never heard an opponent of KJVO's "pontificate" in person. Debate? Yes. Talk down to people? No. However on several occasions, I have heard KJVO's "pontificate" that those who don't believe in KJVOnlyism are less spiritual, further from God, godless liberals, etc.

Most recently I heard a "preacher" call all other versions "perversions" from the pulpit and make remarks alluding to the lack of discernment of anyone who disagreed with him. He did this (not surprisingly) without citing one verse of scripture or providing one ounce of proof as to why we should agree with him. He just stood there "pontificating" his view and enshrined tradition of men as if he possessed the authority to speak where God has remained silent.

 

AMEN to that!!!

Yes,the Lord does reveal the things of God;John 16:13,1st Corinthians 2:9-10.

I cite Acts 13;not one time in scripture(KJB)is Alexandria mentioned being associated with God's word;Antioch is(Acts 13);this is the foundation from which the KJB was built on.

 

"The message of scripture is God's Word. Otherwise, you are wasting you time on any English Bible. You should be seeking God's words... the one and only handwritten Greek mss that is a perfect facsimile of the originals. Likewise, you should be learning and using koine Greek in all facets of your religious life."
I know one of the translators working on the new Dutch Bible* and he always claims that Koine Greek is a more beautiful and expressive language than English, so maybe Scott is unto something here .

*It is a coöperative effort between all Christian and Jewish denominations in the Netherlands.

 

AMEN to that!!!</font>[/QUOTE] You are going to amen blasphemy?

Yes,the Lord does reveal the things of God;John 16:13,1st Corinthians 2:9-10.</font>[/QUOTE]Unless KJVOnlyism is scriptural (which it is not), it is not a "thing" of God.

I cite Acts 13;not one time in scripture(KJB)is Alexandria mentioned being associated with God's word;Antioch is(Acts 13);this is the foundation from which the KJB was built on. </font>[/QUOTE]And your argument was shown to be wholly without merit. Also your interpretation was so forced upon the text that we were able to show that an argument of the same kind could be made for the Alexandrian texts or against the Antiochian texts.

Acts 13 says nothing about textual transmission. It is not a prophecy that some day scholars would catagorize a group of similar mss as Antiochian. It has nothing at all to do with this subject or with the generalization you draw about Egypt... and it most certainly says nothing at all about the KJV being the only Word of God in English (a language that wouldn't exist for another 1000 years).

 

No one has blasphemed anything here;I was meerly saying AMEN to the truth!!!

NO,KJVOnlyism is just a man made COP OUT concockted by those who hate final authority;you know,those who "prefer" a multitude of "translations"(whichever of the 200+ CONFLICTING "bibles"). But being a Bible(KJB) believer is scriptural(KJB),as per John 16:13,1st Corinthians 2:9-10.

Yeah,yeah,yeah .Fact is,the Bible(KJB)is SILENT concering Alexandria being associated with scripture;period,end of story;it is unfortunate you cannot handle the truth.It may not say anything about the KJB verbatim,but it came from Antiochan manuscripts(Acts 13);so there you have it,Alexandria is not in scripture(KJB)and Antioch is,it is the place where the word of God hails from.


When are you going to quit playing games and concede defeat???

 

Easy answer: when you provide the Scriptural Passage that supports the complete and total rejection of all other Versions of God's Holy Word.

 

You know, I'm beginning to note a parallel between KJV-Onlyists and those who stauchly believe in a flat earth. Anyone else notice that?

 

I think another relevant parallel would be between diehard advocates of KJV-Onlyism and diehard advocates of papal infallibility. Both seem to operate by the same rules:

(1) The [pope / KJV] is always right.

(2) When the [pope / KJV] is wrong, see Rule #1

 

AMEN to that!!!</font>[/QUOTE]Jesus used another version (see Lk. 4:17-19, cf. Isa. 61:1-2). Did Jesus use a "perversion?"

 

No one has blasphemed anything here;I was meerly saying AMEN to the truth!!!</font>[/QUOTE] It is blasphemy, pure and simple, to call a version of God's Word a perversion. The truth is defined by scripture. The truth is affirmed by concrete facts. The truth is not a function of your irrational, extra-biblical, sentiment based traditions or opinions.

NO,KJVOnlyism is just a man made COP OUT concockted by those who hate final authority;</font>[/QUOTE] This is false. KJVOnlyism is the description of a very recent aberration and perversion of fundamental, biblical Chrisitianity. There are many of us who accept the Bible as our final authority far more than apparently you do. If the Bible doesn't affirm KJVOnlyism but rather supports the use of versions other than the KJV then we follow that example. You have rejected the example of scripture itself for a man-made, man-satisfying doctrine. If it had been God's pleasure to establish version onlyism, He most certainly would have told us in His Word.

Interesting quotes... since they came from the pens of the KJV translators.

Handcopying depends on men. Men who tire. Men who get sick. Men whose eyes go bad. Men who have a predetermined bias about what passages should say. Fallible men. They did the best they could but every bit of evidence that exists shows that they were unable to produce even 2 identical mss.

The KJV translators acknowledged that by divine providence there were a few passages where the exact wording was in doubt. However, they, like your opponents, affirmed that none of those passages effected doctrine.

We are Bible believers. You, are not. Your belief about the KJV is not derived from the Bible. In fact, it contradicts the Bible.

Wait. I thought your whole point was that Alexandria was biblically associated with the corruption of scripture. Perhaps you have absorbed a little truth... we can count that as progress.

Your opinion and abuse of scripture is not a valid standard of truth.

Not all of it. Even if your silly proposition were true, you would have to reject the KJV. The last 7 verses of Revelation and the trinitarian formula in I John 5 came from Rome.

BTW, by your (stupid application of the) rule of first mention, Rome is evil so you must reject the KJV and TR. It contains purely Roman readings and was created by a Roman Catholic scholar. Not only that, you must reject any Bible that contains the book of Romans.

There you have it alright. Perhaps the most inane argument that ever dribbled off the lips of KJVO's false teachers.

When are you going to stop abusing God's Word and start believing it?

 

I did not call God's word(KJB)corrupt;I called the Alexandrian-Jesuit-pro RCC "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ CONFLICTING versions)of the Laodacean church age blatantly corrupt.

Translation:you loose..

He did,Acts 13;I see nothing about Alexandria in Scripture(KJB) that tells me othewise;

translation:you LOOSE..

Yeah,yeah,sure,sure,blah blah blah!!!why do you insist on dragging out the KJB translators when you get backed into a corner?? When you try and play down the KJB they are "Anglican baby sprinklers";and when you are trying to support your UNSCRIPTURAL position you use them as authority;proving that you,as most GMOs or BAOs,are following man instead of God.The KJB translators said "men of their profession" that does not mean "bibles" from papal manuscripts or the men that are behind them.


Translation:you LOOSE...

God will bear witness pertaining to the Scriptures(KJB);I will take his word on it,not yours(16:13,1st Corinthians 2:9-10).


Translationnce again,you LOOSE....

Those hobby-horse verses you like to drag out when you run out of ammo,came from the old-Latin(you know this);the old Latin came from the Antiochan(Acts 13)mauscripts..


Translation:you loose again...


Why dont you quit playing around and admit that you are really a Bible(KJB) believer trying to make the other side look bad??? Because if you are not a Bible(KJB)beleiver,you are realy making you position look ridiculous.......

 

No one has blasphemed anything here;I was meerly saying AMEN to the truth!!!</font>[/QUOTE]Jesus Himself used a different version (see Lk. 4:17-19, cf. Isa. 61:1-2). I'm afraid I can't say "Amen!" in agreement when a misguided preacher labels as a "perversion" that which Jesus Himself considered to be the word of God.

 

I am a KJV Bible believer. When God is silent, a real Bible believer will not assume to speak for Him or to twist His Words to support man's ideas. A real Bible believer would never seek to use a passage of scripture for a purpose other than the one God intended for it. A real King Jame Bible believer would never presume to de facto write their own opinions into the text of the Bible.

Again, when will you stop abusing the Bible and start believing it?

As for making my position look ridiculous, I will leave that to the reasonable observer... but compared to the relative quality of your response I don't think I will fare too badly.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]If you really have anything legitimate to respond with, why don't you do it? Not scripture taken out of context. Not isogesis. Not revisionists history. Just one good solid proof that KJVO is true. I know you think I am being facetious but I am serious. I have many personal reasons to be KJVO- many of them are probably shared with you. But the Bible (KJV) teaches that we are to prove what others try to tell us. It tells us to mark and avoid those who would add to the teachings of the NT. It tells us that those who would add to the gospel are to be accursed. KJVO fails when I have prayerfully, submissively done this.

I know that people can be KJV-preferred or even use it exclusively and serve God faithfully. I also know that people can use the NIV (even though I consider it a poor translation) and serve God faithfully. I believe the best solution for someone who does not understand Koine Greek is to follow the advice of the KJV translators and compare the different translations to get the best sense of the original.

I try to debate you guys pretty hard and sometimes I argue to the opposite extreme in an effort to show you how illegitimate some of your arguments really are. Sarcasm and severity have too often been part of my posts and I ask for forgiveness.

I have nothing against the KJV translators, many of them will probably greet us in heaven. But the official beliefs of the 17th century CoE are just as relevant to the KJV as the beliefs of those who contributed to the scholarship behind MV's... virtually nil. The effort of the KJV translators has been proven by doctrinally sound scholars as has the efforts of those contributing to MV's.

The only reason I argue from many of the positions I do is because you establish the standard. Once you use a standard to impugn MV's, the most direct method for defeating the argument is to demonstrate that the same argument can be used against your own position. The part of KJVOnlyism that grieves me most is the dishonest use of double standards.