Inspiration in various languages

So do the KJVO people really believe that one can only have God's word in an English King James? So that means that people reading the Bible in French, German, Spanish, etc. can't be saved, and that all those poor Wycliffe translators laboring to bring God's word into other lanuguages are laboring in vain?

KJVO people, do you all believe this??

 

I can't believe i wasted thousands
of my dollars on Wycliffe translators

But I love to praise Jesus in 17th Century talk:
Praise Iesus, the Christ

 

KJVOnlyism...the cancer of Christianity.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Does this mean that war has been officially declared on KJVO?

 

What are you yappin' about, soldier? War? You just now figuring it out, son? What did you think all the smoke and noise was, son, a surprise birthday party for the general?!?! Fall into ranks, and stop your yammering!!!

The battle has already been long and hard, Stefan. But it has been worth it, in that there are several here on the BB who came here as KJVO, but have since left that false doctrine because of the efforts of some here.

KJVO relies on ignorance to survive. And it is hard to remain "wilfully ignorant" for very long around here unless you really are determined to stay that way (hmm...a few names spring to mind...but I think you've already figured out who I'm talking about...)

In Christ,
Trotter

 

I wasn't painting the crowd with one brush . When I said KJVO I meant the erroneous belief of KJV Onlyism, not KJVOs as people.

 

I still believe that if one truly believes in the attributes of God: that He is just and righteous; and IF He were to inspire a translation of the Bible, THEN it would only be just if He inspired the Chinese Bible in Mandarin rather than KJV of the English speaking world. They have us beat numerically: over one billion Mandarin speaking Chinese to only half a billion English speaking people world-wide. Is God just? Or does God inspire translations?
The answer: God is just, but does NOT inspire translations. Only the original autographs are inspired.
DHK

 

I agree in principle C4K.

The problem: While some folks who claim not to be KJVO, by their reiteration of radical KJVO arguments supporting re"inspiration" and/or "advanced revelation" suggest that they are indeed KJVO.

Case in point : The Acts 12 "easter" debate.

HankD

 

The adherants of the KJVO doctrine are to be pitied, just as one who is entangled with any type of false teaching.

It is the man-made lie of King James Version Only that I despise and fight against. This battle is waged with words, but those words are against the false doctrine, not the holder of that doctrine (although I have a tendancy to blur that line at times, to which I humbly apologize).

I can be riled up extremely quickly when confronted with false doctrine. Although I had heard of KJVO, I didn't really understadn what it was, or what it entailed until I came to the BaptistBoard. I now know and understand the depth that the KJVO camp has been deceived.

My arguements may not shake any of them loose from their cherished pack of lies, but if that arguement can prevent one young in the faith from swallowing the poison of KJVOism, it will be worth it.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Are not many of the KJVO arguements the same ones that the Roman Catholics perpetuated in support of the Vulgate. From about 500AD 'till Vatican II in the 1960's the RC's thought that Latin was the only true Bilical and Liturgical language.

The conclusion to it was very few other translations in nealry 800 years, and the executions of people like Wycliffe.

The RC's were SJVO-- St. Jerome's Vulgate Only!

 

Back to the question, and you have asked a good one here. We had at our Church one night a visiting missionary to Mexico. By what he said, he was obviously KJVO. After the service I asked him how he can be KJVO, when the King James is in English, and preach to Spanish speaking people. Without saying a word he opened his Spanish language Bible and (translating from Spanish) read, "Translated from the Textus Receptus."
So, not that he can speak for other KJVO's, at least for him, as long as it is based on the same Greek text, it is, "okay."

 

"Are not many of the KJVO arguements the same ones that the Roman Catholics perpetuated in support of the Vulgate. From about 500AD 'till Vatican II in the 1960's the RC's thought that Latin was the only true Bilical and Liturgical language."
''
Nitpicking time.
The notion of Latin as the only true biblical language was given up centuries before the 1960's, I've seen an official RC Bible translated into Dutch that I think predated 1600. It certainly predated 1637 the publication date of the Dutch AV.
That was ofcourse a translation of the Vulgata. The status of Jerome's translation as the only suitable basis for any translation certainly ended in the 1920's. I know of at least 1 official RCC Bible translation made in that time that was translated from Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew.
The notion of Latin as the only true liturgical language certainly lasted up to Vaticanum II (1963).

Having said all that, I fully agree with Eaglewing's
assesment of the situation.

By the way we are on page 3 and none of the KJVO's on this board have answered the 2 simple questions in the first post yet.

 

Mioque;
Yes, I know the details. I was just simplifing it to make the point in wich you agree. The Vulgate was written circa 380AD and Vatican II was 1963 that = 1583 years. But. I said there were "few other translations for nearly 800 years."
I was only using the KISS method to make a point.
I think the Douay-Rheims was writen circa 1580-1590.

As for the 2 questions originaly posted by C4K, I think they are directed toward the KJVO #4-5 position.
Certainly the UPC's, that I have been exposed to and mentioned on page one, are KJVO #5.