KJBOism?

As for ANTI-Al...none.

 

Your pastor's just guessing.

However, you have the right to be KJVO without error, but when you attack other versions as not being valid, then you goof.

 

amen, DCorbett!

 

it is awful funny that no doubt on the authenticity of the inerrancy of the KJV came about until other versions that removed the blood, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the mercyseat, sodomy and other key verses in our faith were introduced.

 

Mr. Correa:Oh how sweet and its not even valentines day! Why do you kick against the Pricks? Repent and turn to the true and Living God!

I did that in 1979. Now if you're questionong my salvation because I don't believe your KJVO guff, you have a serious problem. That is against the rules of this board. If you don't recant your mistake, you could well find yourself banned.

If ya wanna continue having a SERIOUS discussion, then please stick to the subject at hand. That subject is the lack of Scriptural support for the KJVO myth. You either have it or you don't.

Now, do NOT question anyone's salvation in the manner you've questioned mine, or I shall formally request that you be banned. If you cannot support your argument, be man enough to admit it, but do NOT question anyone's salvation on such flimsy grounds again. Do you believe JESUS agrees with you?


Havent they tried to Pump imbalming fluid into that dead Alexandrian scroll to keep it afloat long enough for the rapture to occur and then there will be no one but That Roaring Lion actually devouring the Lost because they beleived a"LIE"!

Speaking of believing a lie...We see NOTHING to keep your KJVOism from being one.

 

Actually, we're attacking the false doctrine that men have built around the KJV. And the differences in the versions has been covered here before.

 

Now,now!!
No need in confusing them even more!

 

What scripture is disputed by the whole christian community there are none in the KJV only select groups of verse's are disputed by certain groups. This is why the KJV 1611 is the way it is because none of the scriptures contradict one another and are accepted as a whole all other versions have conflicts and doctrinal errors. I'll say it again all other versions today are based on the KJV. There is no other to compare to that is as complete and accurate to the original as the KJV.

If there is please let me know. The KJV is an exact and perfect translation.

 

Perchance if you shout your montra louder
it will become truer

No Engish version has been shown EVER on this
BB that removed the blood totally.
It has been shown that some English versions
may change the location of 'the blood'
to some other verse.

I contend that a God who can preserve
His Holy Written Word (the Bible) throughout
all generations can figure out how to write
it so if individual words, phrases, verses
or even books are omitted
GOD'S Holy Written Word still shines
throught.

 

robycop, my Pastor has studied this and researched this and THAT is how he came up with KJV being the most accurate....and I will take HIS sermon and education over your totally smart mouth any day.

I don't doubt your salvation...I don't have the right to, that is between you and God. I can say that you err when you argue against the most accurate version of the Textus Receptus.

I will pray for you. I pray that you will become humble and receptive. I had to. And I did.

 

And my point is made. This response boarders on the dillusional. It should make any professing believer sad to replace the clear teachings of Scripture with those that are invented by any group. I am sure if there was a mormon coming in here adding their extra biblical teachings he would be jumped on quick (as it should be). But when confronted with the obvious additions to Scripture one must make to prove that KJVOism is biblical---it is missed. And that is what is sad, not your feelings about where you stand.

Bro Tony

 

Dear Rev. Lowery:

your use of "KJV 1611" seems to be without meaning.

Which of these do you mean by "KJV 1611"?

1. Ruth III:15d (KJV1611):

... and he went into the citie.

2. Ruth 3:15 (KJV1769):

... and she went into the city.

3. Ruth 3:15 (KJV1873):

... and he went into the city.

I mean #1 only.
Some KJVOs say any of the three.
Some KJVOs say #2 only.
What say ye?

Please help us figure out what you are meanig
when you say "KJV 1611".

 

Rev. Lowery,

Ed's question is a trick question. Reminds me of the time the Pharisee's tried to trick Jesus with questions.

Ed said in another thread that one must call on the name of Iesus in order to be saved, not the name in the KJV1769, Jesus.

 

He has not studied any such thing. Al you have done is to repeat his ignorance.

Your claim of your pride of humility is in reality a claim of arrogance.

 

So, by Ed's logic that the name from the 1769 that I called on for forgiveness of sins was not the right name and therefore, I am still lost and going to hell.

 

How about my Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Bible?

Two of my friends who are fluent in Greek certainly do not make such a claim. Your claim tosses out the original text.

 

Ed,

you are correct. no english version mentioned on the board has totally removed the blood, but it has been removed from many key verses.

But show me the word sodomite in these english versions, show me the mercyseat in these versions, show me John 5:4 in many of these.... ya won't find them.

 

This is making your pastor your final authority. As I dont doubt his sincerity or beliefs, his view does not equal the Scripture. It still remains for someone to prove KJVOism biblically. Also, you can't stand on your pastor's views. As a priest before God you are responsible for knowing what you believe and why you believe it. And the answer "my pastor said so", just wont stand up. We are called to be biblical people and the Word is our final authority. "Study to show yourself approved..."

One thing that is sure is when someone has to tell others how humble they are or have become, they don't really understand humility.

Bro Tony

 

When one removes parts of verses, whole verses, or changes words to say something different, then it casts doubt on the truth as written in God's Holy Word. Something that satan tried to do way back in the garden of Eden when he questioned Eve with these words, 'Yea, and hath God said...?'

Now, people are questioning on whether the blood was actually there, whether there was a mercyseat, whether God is against sodomy, they are questioning sin and judgment, the list goes on.

And satan is having a heyday.