The Bread of Life (or Why I am KJV Only)

An outstanding question that gets to the heart of the KJVO argument. The answers that come to my mind do not at all support the KJVO position.

 

50 post warning. This typology discussion has been interesting, but either you accept that manna is a typeof the KJV or you don't. There is no Bible evidence either way.

This thread will be closed shortly after the 50th post.

 

Sal...some questions:

1. What in the world are you trying to say?
2. What scripture supports your claim that we reached the apex in the 17th century?
3. Are you insinuating that the KJV translators were not brilliant men?
4. Why the 17th century? Why not the 14th? Or the 3rd? If God can preserve His word through KJV translators in the 1600's, (and apparently in 1769 again, for the KJV that you and I probably use the most), could He not use Godly men again today? Are you saying that there are no Godly folks left that could be used as translators? And if that's the case...then Mexdeaf's question looms large...what about all those without the Word in their tongue...

 

Let your imagination go wild and it can provide proof for anything.
But look at the original text!
The Greek Bible was written in the language and form of the common man, not in a lofty scholarly Greek.

IMHO, translations that bring the gospel to the common man in his language have more utilitarian substance than the superior ancient language found in the KJV.

Rob

 

The Holy Spirit is Manna ( Manna from heaven ), no matter how He comes. God is Soveriegn. God rides forth in the chariot of His Gospel.

 

Preacher, the entire KJVO myth limits and belittles God! The KJVO myth supposes that God is not powerful enough to preserve His word in various English translations. The KJVO myth limits God's power by supposing He is powerful enough to preserve His word in only a single English translation. "Bless their litle pea-pickin' hearts!" as Tennessee Ernie Ford was fond of saying...

 

joshin aside, manna's simply just that ... literal bread fr heaven. but WHO's the figurative "bread" that comes fr heaven? not the KJB or the Holy Spirit ...

 

James, maybe it would help you to understand biblical types if you read this:

http://www.dake.com/types.html

:thumbs:

 

I accept the "types' theory only on a very limited basis. I really don't believe the manna thingie is part of it, as other peoples received "manna" also, I. E. the "ambrosia" of the Greeks. We must all be careful about reading things into Scripture which aren't there, or we end up with "a dog is a 4-legged carnivore. A cat is a 4-legged carnivore. Therefore dogs are cats."

Clearly, the furnishings & utensils of the Tabernacle were forerunners of those of the temple, and were symbolic of Jesus and some of his acts. But not every event described in the OT is a type of what was later to come. They were mainly examples of the earthly rewards for obeying God, & the earthly penalties for disobeying Him, according to the prophecies He'd given Moses.

 

It's so easy to take something from the NT, be it a doctrine or experience, and search back through the OT for something that "fits" what you want it to say. I have sat under a few preachers who just loved to do this.

It is dishonest and underhanded to the extreme, but it is done constantly... much to the chagrin of the body of Christ.

 

Kinda makes me wonder where you get your daffynitions, Jim...

There you go, Jim, resorting to the underhanded tactic of putting words in the mouths of those who refute the KJVO myth. This is one of the favorite tactics of KJVO supporters. Why don't you just give it up and stop trying to attribute things people never said to them? It really destroys your own credibility. I said nothing at all about learning Greek, yet you make the false accusation that I said what I didn't say. Shame on you, Jim! But then that is typical for many who support the KJVO myth. Lacking any truth to support their arguments, they resort to deliberate falsehoods to try to support the myth. Are you one of these, Jim???

I didn't say you were, Jim. I only said you were the first I have heard. I certainly don't claim to have heard everyone who has ever spoken on this subject. Cranston made a very good point about this:

Jim, as was already pointed out, Canaan was full of bad people whom the Lord was getting rid of - that is why Israel was being given the land by God. To say that Canaan typifies the kingdom of heaven is a real stretch! Didn't you read the article I recommended earlier? That just might give you some understanding of biblical types. Cranston also made a valid point about your private interpretation:

Go ahead and spin all you want, Jim. The KJVO myth is still no more true than one of Grimm's fairy tales or a Mickey Mouse movie.

 

Amen, Trotter...PREACH IT!

 

Closed....