KJVO claims disproven by the AV 1611/KJV itself

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by robycop3, Feb 17, 2005.

  1. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The AV 1611 and later editions of the KJV itself disprove much of the propaganda and false claims made by KJVO advocates, especially when such claims are made from the old Wilkinson/Ray/Fuller party line. Here are a few:

    1.) Psalm 12:7 is about God's words. Our recent discussion has proven this false, using the AV 1611 translators' words in their marginal note as the most telling proof.

    2.) Modern versions equate Jesus with the devil when they say 'morning star' in Isaiah 14:12. Jesus said, concerning believers that He will 'give them the morning star'. That obviously doesn't mean either the devil nor Himself. And what about Job 38:7 where the morning stars all sang together?

    3.) The much-discussed 'Easter in Acts 12:4' thingy. Our past discussions have clearly shown from the KJV that the observance to which Luke was referring is PASSOVER.

    These are just for starters. It's YOUR turn now to supply other examples of KJVO doctrines shot down by the KJV itself...and the KJVOs rebuttals, if they have any.
     
  2. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the fact that so many hate the KJV so much proves that it is the word of God. But lets look at your thesis and see if you get to graduate.

    First of all, psalm 12:7 is not the only reason we believe the KJV is the preserved word of God. Second, the AV translators may not have been privy to God's plan. That is why they made their notes in the margin. God is able to override man's plans, He is able to use men without their knowledge.

    I would like to know who you think that verse is talking about, if it is not talking about Satan? If your objection is to the interpretation of the word Lucifer as a name for Satan, maybe you are correct, but we know who it is not talking about:
    Isaiah 14:13-15
    [13] For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
    [14] I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
    [15] Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

    It isn't Jesus. This, however, is Jesus:

    Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

    While this is used often times to show the difference between the KJV and 'less accurate' translations, I surely don't see how you could think this was a proof against the KJV. If it is merely a transliteration, why that should make it MORE accurate than a mere translation, which could hardly be considered the word of God by your standard.

    If the observance is the passover, the observance of the facts should have shown you that the word easter was considered interchangeable with passover. In light of the fact that the word Passover had to be invented because there was no English equivalent, I don't see how you can point fingers.

    'Mr Roby, now that you have thrown down the KJV argument single-handedly and shown the superiority of modern man's choose your own doctrine bible picking philosophy, what are you going to do next?'

    :D
    'I'm going to Disney World!'
     
  3. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Watch your calender, you certainly don't want to go on "gay appreciation day". [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  4. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the fact that so many hate the KJV so much proves that it is the word of God. But lets look at your thesis and see if you get to graduate.

    Um who hates the KJV? I'm sure that those who hate the KJV hate MV's also.

    To prove an error in the KJV is not the hate the KJV. Let's not play that old baseless KJVO game James. I think that you can do better than that my brother.

    Speaking of hate how many MV' user call the KJV satanic and perverted? Hum? How many lies have been told about the NASB, NIV, and NKJV by the KJVO Camp James?

    If you want to play that game we can play it. I can find more slander against MV's than the KJV.

    First of all, psalm 12:7 is not the only reason we believe the KJV is the preserved word of God. Second, the AV translators may not have been privy to God's plan. That is why they made their notes in the margin. God is able to override man's plans, He is able to use men without their knowledge.

    Proof please! There’s that proof request again!

    So the KJV was part of God's plan and Psalm 12:7 was unique only to the KJV. So I guess that God did not keep His word since no other bible matches the KJV word for word.

    Amazing that God could not inspire the translators of the 1611KJV. The translators must have been bible correctors! YIKES!!!!!

    If the observance is the passover, the observance of the facts should have shown you that the word easter was considered interchangeable with passover. In light of the fact that the word Passover had to be invented because there was no English equivalent, I don't see how you can point fingers.

    But what did it mean when Acts was written James?

    Clearly it was not Easter.

    Passover provides us with what was meant in that day.

    What has more authority the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic or the KJV?

    The bottom line is that you and your fellow KJVOist can not answer Roby’s questions using facts. You can not run to the AV1611 because the AV1611 destroys your myths. You are forced to engage in guess work and depend on distortions in order to defend your myth.

    Prove me wrong and explain why the AV1611KJV does not support the KJVO myth.

    Why did the AV1611 translators used marginal notes to show alternate readings?

    It’s amazing that KJVOist must attack the AV1611 itself in order to defend a myth created by a SDA and pushed forward by two dishonest Baptist.

    Then again without double standards and blind-eye tactics what does KJVOism have anyway outside of distortions and all out lies?
     
  5. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    The biggest problem for KJVOist is the Message to the Reader found in the AV1611. It destroys the KJVO myth.

    Observe the spinning that our KJVO brothers will do in order to discredit the AV1611.
     
  6. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,126
    Likes Received:
    319
    Well, no one here hates the KJV.

    If you mean hated by the supporters of the MVs here at the BB, the fact is that the KJVO have come from afar with rants, raves and tantrums invading the BB and other sites which support the modern English translations.

    The fact also is that many of these KJVO folks are the ones who have expressed hatred for the Word of God calling the MVs "corrupt" and or "satanic counterfeits".

    All we have done is to show them that the KJV fails many if not not all the criteria by which they condemn the modern versions.

    It is they that hate us and have come calling our Bibles by these "satanic" names.

    They or you ought not be surprised when they run off with their tails between their legs.

    If they want Christian love and fellowship let them stop calling our Bibles "satanic counterfeits" and "corrupt" or else quit whinning when they are treated in like kind.

    HankD
     
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Genesis I.4 (KJV1611):

    And God saw the light, taht is was
    good: and God diuided + the light from
    the darknesse.


    Side note: +Hebr. betweene the light
    and betweene the darknesse.


    This means there is a variation in the sources
    available to the Translators of the KJV
    That variation in the sources blows KJVO5
    out of the water. That variation in the
    source destroys KJVO4.

    The variation n sources meanst that KJVO#3 is
    invalid (it should read "I beleive in the
    received texts only)

    This one margin note (the first one in the Bible)
    makes only KJVO#1 and KJVO#2 the only valid KJVO
    stances.
     
  8. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^^^

    Thank you Ed! [​IMG]

    Whether or not one adheres to KJVO#1 or #2, one does not say that his/her KJV is the 'only' Bible out there. To say one likes and prefers the KJV is just stating one's own preference.

    We can all discuss the variants in the text of the Bible without denouncing that version or that Greek NT.

    And, there is no one here who hates the KJV. We who expose the errors of KJV-onlyism hate false doctrine and errors of that movement.
     
  9. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    First, I have never met someone who "hates the KJV". (I have met some who hate God's word in any version, including the KJV, though).

    Second, if hating the KJV proves it is God's work, what does hating the Catholic Chruch prove? Or hating Osama bin Laden? Or hating liver and onions?

    Personally, I believe verse 4 - the king of Babylon, and comparing him to Venus the morning star, one of the Babylonian deities.
     
  10. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    James_Newman: I think the fact that so many hate the KJV so much proves that it is the word of God. But lets look at your thesis and see if you get to graduate.

    Who here hates the KJV?

    This is yet another example of KJVO error.

    quote:Originally parotted by robycop3:

    1.) Psalm 12:7 is about God's words. Our recent discussion has proven this false, using the AV 1611 translators' words in their marginal note as the most telling proof.

    First of all, psalm 12:7 is not the only reason we believe the KJV is the preserved word of God.

    Good...because the AV 1611 itself shows that reason is WRONG.

    Second, the AV translators may not have been privy to God's plan. That is why they made their notes in the margin. God is able to override man's plans, He is able to use men without their knowledge.

    WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN SMOKING?

    Would GOD do something & at the same time deceive those whom He's having do His work? your above statement is totally without basis.

    Just face it...You KJVOs are *WRONG* about Ps. 12:7. And thanx for verifying my statement that many a KJVO practices "selective believing"...believing the KJV and its translators ONLY AS FAR AS THEY SUPPORT THE KJVO MYTH.

    quote:

    2.) Modern versions equate Jesus with the devil when they say 'morning star' in Isaiah 14:12. Jesus said, concerning believers that He will 'give them the morning star'. That obviously doesn't mean either the devil nor Himself. And what about Job 38:7 where the morning stars all sang together?

    I would like to know who you think that verse is talking about, if it is not talking about Satan? If your objection is to the interpretation of the word Lucifer as a name for Satan, maybe you are correct, but we know who it is not talking about:
    Isaiah 14:13-15
    [13] For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
    [14] I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
    [15] Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.


    NONE of us said those verses aren't about Satan. Our objection is against the totally-silly argument that saying 'morning star' is equating JESUS with the devil.

    It isn't Jesus. This, however, is Jesus:

    Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.


    OK; try THIS one on for size:

    Job 38:7 (King James Version)"When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"

    How many Jesuses are there, according to your take of Rev.22:16?

    Revelation 2:28, KJV-"And I will give him the morning star.

    Is Jesus gonna give Himself? He shore aint gonna give the DEVIL to them.

    There are different Scriptural morning starzz, plain & simple.


    While this is used often times to show the difference between the KJV and 'less accurate' translations, I surely don't see how you could think this was a proof against the KJV.

    Me either. It IS, however, proof against KJVO stupidity about their fave version, as shown in the KJV itself.


    If it is merely a transliteration, why that should make it MORE accurate than a mere translation, which could hardly be considered the word of God by your standard.

    Again...never said the KJV AINT God's word in English. However, it's not the ONLY version there is.

    quote:

    3.) The much-discussed 'Easter in Acts 12:4' thingy. Our past discussions have clearly shown from the KJV that the observance to which Luke was referring is PASSOVER.

    If the observance is the passover, the observance of the facts should have shown you that the word easter was considered interchangeable with passover. In light of the fact that the word Passover had to be invented because there was no English equivalent, I don't see how you can point fingers.

    Easy...First, Easter didn't exist when Luke wrote Acts, while Passover DID. Next, the AV men rendered 'pascha' as passover in every instance but THIS one. They had no reason to have rendered it differently in this one instance when the KJV shows the events occurred during PASSOVER. By the time the KJV was made, easter was no longer interchangeable with Passover in English. Don't believe it? Just use your search engine to find other early 17th C. literature.


    'Mr Roby, now that you have thrown down the KJV argument single-handedly and shown the superiority of modern man's choose your own doctrine bible picking philosophy, what are you going to do next?'

    [Big Grin]


    First, I'm gonna sit back and laugh at the KJVOs' frantic efforts to remove the egg from their faces put their by their fave BV. Then, I'm gonna remind everyone that here we have yet another example of FACTS vs the KJVOs' guesswork, imagination, fables, pipe dreams, tall tales, and DOUBLE STANDARDS.

    That's why I started this thread...to let the KJV ITSELF prove the KJVOs wrong again & again...to expose their SELECTIVE BELIEVING...to show they don't know their own KJVs very well, and for most of'em, their knowledge of the AV 1611 they claim to be perfect is ABYSMAL.
     
  11. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you saying that Tyndale is wrong?
     
  12. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    By that logic every MV = modern
    version, must be the written word of God cause
    there are so many KJVO-persons that
    hate them mvs.
     
  13. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    I can't remember one person even hinting at what you claim. Give us just one quote from anyone in the past year or more who makes such claims as you suggest.
     
  14. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    ________________________________________________-_

    Well at least we have moved up a notch.
    It used to be we are he***ics or worse.
    Now at least we are brothers! :D

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  15. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jim,
    I resent your remark about me. When have a called anyone on this board a heretic? I called Ruckman a heretic because of his views.

    Now please stick to the topic.

    Thanks
     
  16. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    DavidJ;
    I am sorry. I used your quote for the benefit of others who HAVE called me a Heretic for my views.
    I was actually thankful that you DID call me a brother.

    I am truly sorry for the misunderstanding.

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  17. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    According to scripture Ruckman is a non-believer.
     
  18. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  19. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gb;
    That is baloney!!!

    No, it is that stuff used to make plants grow real big.

    In HIS service;
    jim
     
  20. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    You know what scripture teaches about those who sow discord and cause division. Ruckman has killed a lot of plants with the stuff.
     

Share This Page

Loading...