Good ole' King James -- the man

Well, in my history, which I do know personally, I have been KJVO. I also have been to several places that were KJVO and still preached a wrong gospel that taught 'just accept' Jesus. (You know, God can't save you until you let him).

I think that argument belongs on the C/A forum or Theology. I am certain errors in doctrine are not limited to the non-KJVO groups (of which I am a part and parcel--KJVO--I mean).

My belief is that the original languages of Hebrew and Greek are inspired.

I do not mean I am a Hebrew/Greek scholar. But that it was the Hebrew language through which God's people originally communicated his message and later it was the Greek language.

For me to beleive the KJB is not tainted by anglical sentiments would be a far stretch. But, as I said before, that is just a hill-billy frog

The post I gave earlier is not just hear-say, but comes from a due paying member of two lodges in two communities and all his due paying member friends of whom I have been acquainted over the years.

Whether this is fabricated by just this group or not I do not know. Whether it is fabricated by the lodge, I do not know. But, because it is witnessed to by more than three due paying members, I would say they at least really really believe it.

All of them I do know are extremely KJVO, only, only, and only as the true inspired word of God.

Now, to make this so, we do have to throw out all the non-English Bibles translated since 1611. Even if they were translated from a diligent study of the KJB, they cannot be the true word of God because they were only translated and not given to the recepients through divine inspiration.

Stay with your KJB, I am going to. But I am not going to be afraid to make an attempt to understand the original language, which imho, is the real inspired word of God.

May God Bless.

Bro. Dallas

 

Type the name Edward Wightman into a search engine and see how "kind and gentle" KJI was.

While your at it, consult a history book and note that the earliest English settlers in America (early 1600's) left home to face the dangerous unknown. Why? To escape religious persecution. From who? Shouldn't take too many guesses...

 

Thanx for posting the KJ info, Jim! Even Teno gets something right without prevaricating every now & then.

Like everyone else, KJ had his good & bad points. He kept England out of the devastating Thirty Years' War and strengthened her trading ties with other nations, & established colonies in the "New World". He spent the nation into near-bankruptcy, and was all in all a very poor financier.

His advocation of the AV 1611 most likely came about in part for financial reasons. His Minister of Finance, Sir Robert Cecil, suggested placing the king's tax stamp into every copy of the AV printed, something he couldn't do with any already- established BV due to public outcry.

A little aside-in the "British Israelite" theory, KJ represents the third "overturn" of David's throne prophesied in Eze.21:27, I.E. Ireland to Scotland to England.

 

Just remember Cranston, the "British Israelite theory" is just that, a theory and isn't fsactual at all.


Jim

 

British Israelism is a false doctrine... not a theory.

BTW, I don't know if KJ was homosexual or not... nor does it matter. In fact, it matters about as much as most of the stuff KJVO's throw out about W&H.

It does matter that KJ persecuted Baptists though.

 

That is what I should have, and meant to say. Thank you Scott for saying it instead. I know that Cranston has made posts in favor of the "BI" view. Maybe a new thread should be started for discussion and rebuttle of this false doctrine?


Jim

 

That is what I should have, and meant to say. Thank you Scott for saying it instead. I know that Cranston has made posts in favor of the "BI" view. Maybe a new thread should be started for discussion and rebuttle of this false doctrine?

This forum is for the rebuttal of a PROVEN false doctrine-KJVO. I see you're trying to get off the subject once again, hoping everyone will focus on the "BI" thing instead of the KJVO myth.

 

If you only you were as quick to comprehend as you are to lie and slander.

Check the form title, looking at the top of my screen it says "Baptist DEBATE Forums (Baptist Only) >> Bible versions/Translations >> Good ole' King James -- the man"

Care to share where, from this you get` "This forum is for the rebuttal of a PROVEN false doctrine-KJVO"? As for the truth being proven wrong, you and your kind sure havn't done so, except in the darkest, most depraved area's of your finite minds.

Also notice how I posted: "Maybe a new thread should be started for discussion and rebuttle of this false doctrine?" clearly indicating to anyone concerned with truth the fact that I do not want to discuss your beloieved false doctrine of "BI" here, but in another thread if there is enough intrest.

You know, for one who claims to have been a police officer, one would think you would not be so quick to slander, lie and bear flase witness. But I guess back there in Ohio (or wherever it is you are) they look up to officers who have no integrity for truth but would rather be dis-honest.


Jim

 

Jimmie said-"If you only you were as quick to comprehend as you are to lie and slander....you and your kind sure havn't done so, except in the darkest, most depraved area's of your finite minds.
You know, for one who claims to have been a police officer, one would think you would not be so quick to slander, lie and bear flase witness. But I guess back there in Ohio (or wherever it is you are) they look up to officers who have no integrity for truth but would rather be dis-honest."
Orv-"Roby, if Jimmie's passed his driver's test, and attempts to pass through the Buckeye state, will you please arrest him for arrogant Pharisee wannabe?"

 

Jim Ward:If you only you were as quick to comprehend as you are to lie and slander.

Please enlighten us as to where I lied & slandered. Otherwise, we'll know that you're not exactly on friendly terms with Ole Man Veracity yourself.

Check the form title, looking at the top of my screen it says "Baptist DEBATE Forums (Baptist Only) >> Bible versions/Translations >> Good ole' King James -- the man"

Care to share where, from this you get` "This forum is for the rebuttal of a PROVEN false doctrine-KJVO"?

I said, "FORUM", not this THREAD.


As for the truth being proven wrong, you and your kind sure havn't done so, except in the darkest, most depraved area's of your finite minds.

On the contrary-we've stated there's NO SCRIPTUURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth, and have seen NO legitimate answer. We've stated that no two English BVs are alike, and have received NO letitimate answer. We've stated that the current KJVO myth originated with a SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST, and have received NO legitimate answer. We've repeatedly asked the KJVOs right here BY WHOSE AUTHORITY they advocate the KJVO myth, AND HAVE NOT RECEIVED A LEGIT ANSWER!!!!!!! The evidence is right here in the archives of this forum!

Our respective track records speak for themselves!

Also notice how I posted: "Maybe a new thread should be started for discussion and rebuttle of this false doctrine?" clearly indicating to anyone concerned with truth the fact that I do not want to discuss your beloieved false doctrine of "BI" here, but in another thread if there is enough intrest.

Please feel free to do so. There are plenty of other forums on this board. But THIS one is for BVs.

You know, for one who claims to have been a police officer, one would think you would not be so quick to slander, lie and bear flase witness. But I guess back there in Ohio (or wherever it is you are) they look up to officers who have no integrity for truth but would rather be dis-honest.

Typical ad-hominem from a totally-clueless KJVO-pretender who simply cannot legitimately support his myth.

Give it up, Jim. You KNOW you cannot win, and that you don't REALLY believe that KJVO hooey.

 

For the record, I believe the non-KJVOs are wrong to cast aspersions upon KJ as part of a versions discussion. The Onlyists are equally wrong in emphasizing the "authorized" in the name of the AV. The translators had already been contacted about making a new British BV by the Anglican Church leadership, because they didn't like the fact that there were many versions then in use throughout the British Isles. They wanted to have only ONE STANDARD, MODERN VERSION in use in all the churches. However, the process was interrupted by QE1's death until KJ was firmly seated upon the throne. Knowing his dislike of the GB, they asked for his clearance to make the new Bible, and he readily agreed.

Someone tell me if I'm wrong, but I believe the name "King James Bible" came about shortly after the AV was first published because of the salute to the king written by the translators. It had nothing to do with the king, except that he approved of the finished work.

 

There's not ONE HINT in Scripture that God is limited to just one version, let alone any hint of what that version would be in a language that didn't exist when God finished presenting His word to man. We've shown many times that modern KJVO is based upon the imagination and misinformation written in a book by a 7TH DAY ADVENTIST. Why any Baptist would believe a myth begun by a big shot in a known cult is beyond me.