The KJV itself is against KJVO!

Although I am not KJVO, I wonder how valid your argument is? Is Paul discussing translations of the bible in 2 Timothy 2.9? No; he is surely saying that, although for the sake of the gospel, he himself is a prisoner, bound in chains, God's Word cannot be bound. The gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ was still going forth.

I may be wrong, but at the moment I cannot see any reference whatever in 2 Timothy 9 to varying translations of the bible.

 

I agree. This is, IMHO, a stretch.

The word of God is not bound in its power. I don't see anything to do with translations here. I would never accuse even the most ardent KJVO of having a mind that tries to bind His word.

The Word of God is not bound in the KJV by any means.

 

The exact phrase "word of God" never explicitly refers to written revelation in the New Testament. The term "word of God" in scripture seems to often have a meaning akin to 'the gospel message'. The apostles' immediate concern was not the committing of the gospel to parchment, but the preaching of the message to people.

Although 2 Timothy is a later letter from Paul, it is unlikely that his epistles were gathered together in volumes at the time of this writing (67AD or later?). Certainly, the rest of (what would become) the New Testament (Gospels, etc.) was not even composed yet; neither were they combined with Hebrew texts. Therefore, the idiom "word of God" cannot refer to any complete 'Bible' editions as we know them.

{see recent thread A Poster's 4 Questions for discussion about "word of God"}

 

Attempting to limit the canon of the New Testament to twenty-seven books is an attempt to bind His word, and, according to Paul, who had a 'hot line' to JESUS, that's just not gonna happen.

 

Aha! Now we know why phylacteries were so hard to keep on. No matter how carefully one tied them on, the cords would mysteriously unravel. We know from Paul, who had a 'hot line' to JESUS, that any attempt to bind the Word was just not gonna happen!

 

One of the things that bugs me most about the KJVO movement in general is how people come up with the idea that the KJV is the only Bible and then they set out to find facts to prove their point.

in my opinion, this appears to be the same method of logic.

 

To prove a KJVO proponent wrong we must not stoop to that type of argumentation.

 

Roby stretch anything? Get real!

 

This explains why the Schofield Bibles' bindings always come apart near the beginning of Genesis...

What paul was saying was that the version of God's word that is settled in heaven is not in book form; it must be a scroll.

 

I disagree roby. I do NOT believe that these men are attempting to bind God's word (well for the most part ). They are not seeking to place restrictions on God's word.

They may err, but they certainly are not seeking to bind God or His word.

 

They are attempting to place restrictions on men regarding the word of God. Completely different. Last time I checked God didn't respect the restrictions men try to put in place, and I have yet to find a box that would hold him.

While I wouldn't try to use a proof text for my argument (the bible is silent regarding the issue... on both sides of the debate), the bible is very plain that God does what God does and that man does not have dominion over Him. Trying to force the opinion on other's that God only can speak through a single translation is definitely trying to put words in God's mouth. Hmmm... there is something about THAT in the bible, but again a proof text is not called for.

Man-made doctrine... ANY man-made doctrine... comes from outside the bible. We would do best to worry about what the bible does teach instead of what we want to teach about the bible.

 

Most people study about the Bible, but they did not study the Bible.

 

Not In the 21st century, it is in a book form and we believe it all from Genesis to Maps.

HankD

 

And OBTW, I can see how Roby's point can be made...

Many KJVO say that the MV's are not the Word of God but only "contain" the Word of God, therefore they (the MV's) bind those portions in these MV's which are not considered by them to be the Word of God.

Paul would not agree, I'm sure.

HankD

 

You believe, and that's great. But from the context, it is plain that Paul was saying that though he was bound and unable to go preach around the world, God's word was not bound, but was already all around the world.

 

God's word is only bound by context, unless you'd like to add opinions to concoct doctrines and establish traditions.

What Paul meant, under inspiration of the Holy Ghost, is that the word is not bound as to prevent it from reaching souls in need of salvation.

The word of God is NOT bound, but has free course:
II Thessalonians 3:1
¶
Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have [free] course, and be glorified, even as [it is] with you:

2Th 3:2And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all [men] have not faith.

2Th 3:3But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep [you] from evil.