Questions for KJVOs

Riverwalker, I see you've discovered just how seamy the KJVO myth can be. If you check out the archives here, as well as the active threads, you'll see where we've given the KJVOs every opportunity to defend their doctrine, to taise it from "myth" status, and they simply will not/cannot do it.

In this thread, you see Jim Ward accuse us of not answering questions, while HE refuses to do so, calling them "childish games". You'll see where WE have documented the origins and growth of the current KJVO myth, beginning with a book written by a 7TH DAY ADVENTIST, with its assertions added to by almost every KJVO author since 1930. We've asked the KJVOs to tell us by whose authority they proclaimthe KJVO myth, in fact, devoting a whole thread to that question, until it died for LACK OF ANSWERS.

I believe you'll see there's simply NO TRUTH to the KJVO myth, and NO EVIDENCE to support it. It's simply another false doctrine devised by men, same as is salvation by works and other phoney baloneys. Your own experience is very telling, reminding me of the dumbbell parent who answers his/her child's questions with, "Because". When someone says he/she believes something, but cannot tell you why, cannot provide any supporting evidence, not provide the source of his/her authority, then it's time to move on. Plainly, this is the case with KJVO-no evidence for its veracity, no source of authority other than a SDA big shot, and, most telling, ABSOLUTELY NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT.

 

If you define a hypocrite as someone who demands that anyone who extols a particular contention prove it with Scripture, then perhaps you should check the dictionary. One again, stop bearing false witness.

Isn't it amazing that you refer to the demand that you provide Scriptural Support for your claim as a "childish game?"

Stop evading the question, exhibit some maturity, step up to the plate, and prove the assertion you make with Scriptural Proof. It really is that simple, Jim. One last time, it is not up to anyone to disprove the claim that you have utterly and completely failed to prove. The simple fact is that you have never provided ANY legitimate rationale for the rejection of all other translations of God's Holy Word. You even have the audacity to attack God's Word by calling these other translations "corrupt."

Step up to the plate, Jim.

 

You are mistaken, as the Geneva Bible was (and is) an accurate translation of God's Holy Word. So much so, in fact, that the translators commissioned by King James borrowed heavily from it.

Again, you are mistaken. My copy of the 1611 Authorised Version has more than sixty-six books. The 1769 Revision is NOT the 1611 Authorised Version.

 

Jim,

Please read my various posts to see the side that I am defending. The KJVO position has enough baggage with the likes of Pete Ruckman & company without adding personal invectives to further discredit our arguments. Please bite your tongue…….er……..pen…….er……fingers. Please don’t make it harder for the rest of us who are trying to get these guys to abandon their stereotypes and rationally debate the real issues. You are confirming their view that anyone defending KJVO is irrational, angry, and rude.

Thanks.

Paidagogos

 

Actually, Paid, I thought you were playing some sort of devil's advocate, seeing if you could give the KJVOs at least a little grist for their mill. You SEEM to be too smart to have swallowed such an empty, clueless, devoid-of-proof false doctrine as KJVO, but I've been wrong about people before.

I've dialogued with Jim Ward about many things before, and our main differences seem to be over CCM(of which I'm clueless and intend to STAY clueless 'cause I'm not interested)& the KJVO myth, with which I'm familiar and that I totally reject as false.

There's no doubt that he's a devout Christian, but that he's had some personal hardships that not all of us have had, & so I overlook some of his more vituperative pro-KJVO posts because I see he's not over-familiar with the subject matter. I believe that if & when he fully researches the available data & realizes just how void of evidence the KJVO myth is, he'll abandon that doctrine as the bummer it is.

 

Can the notorious vaspers put in his two cents?

I haven't tried to swim thru all the voluminous posts on this subject...

...but do you think God is happy seeing Christians argue vehemently over WHICH VERSION TO USE???

This seems very silly to me.

We should not worship a version and hate all other versions.

I think it is unhealthy to read only one version forever and ever.

Different versions, variant readings help us to see scripture in a new way. Now you may disagree with a particular translation of a particular verse...but it made you think.

I feel that paraphrases can be similar to us stating a verse inexactly "in letter," but accurately "in spirit."

The letter of the law killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

I love new, ancient, and different versions. I try to buy a copy of every version out there.

The NIV is probably my least favorite.

I like NLT and KJV and NKJV and Amplified and Cotton Patch.

One major problem with KJV: the Bible wasn't written in formal archaic language of scholars, but generally in the street language of average rough peasants and farmers and warriors.

Not "thee" and "thou" and all that pseudo-majestic pomposity. We need a basic, street level version to reach average people and to hear the Word as it was originally given--in the common vernacular.

Please don't hate me for saying these things.

 

Vaspers, why should anyone with at least a lick of sense hate you for expressing your opinion?

God isn't limited to just one version, and neither should WE be.

 

Hi Paidagogos,
You mentioned that if we would check the posts that we could see which side you were posting. I went back three pages and didn't find any posts. (I'm just lazy I guess.) I assume you are KJVO. If so, and if you have posted some answers to some of my questions I would very much like to look at them, could you help point me to the pages where your posts reside, or possibly repost? That is the problem when a subject gets this big, but I like it because it shows interest on both sides. THat's the idea behind a Bulletin Board. </font>[/QUOTE]Check out #s 91, 242, etc. I've been all over the place and can't remember myself. Search on my user name.

 

No. Due to inflation, that
is now 18¢

 

Hate you? Not at all- I'm in general agreement with everything you've said here.