Why I am King James Only #2

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by LarryV2.0, Aug 9, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LarryV2.0

    LarryV2.0
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why I am King James Only #2

    Over the years, I have come to learn that the manuscript quagmire that the Nicolations (see bottom for definition of Nicolation) would have you entangled in, is not as complicated as they would have you believe. There are two lines of texts, one was from Egypt and has the fingerprints of the Pope and the other, while differing in places, is represented by thousands of manuscripts, and that is where the KJV is translated from.

    If there is the a inerrant word of God on this planet, it must be the KJV, or one of the other language bibles that were translated from the received text. Seeing as how English is the universal language in this time and that God has used the KJV (yes I know about the various editions and they are NOT re translations) and the alternative is that no man can know exactly what God said, I place my faith in God having had his hand upon the KJV translators, whether they realized it or not.

    2 Timothy 3:15
    “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures..” did Timothy have an inerrant copy of the “holy scriptures”? Did Jesus read from an inerrant copy of the “holy scriptures”? If you can believe that, why is it so heard to believe that God preserved his word for us today?

    Is it honest for a man to stand behind a pulpit, or the desk of a translator, and say “the Greek word hear is... and therefor a more accurate reading would be...” and leave his audience with the impression that he is looking at the same Greek word the KJV translators were looking at?






    The root of the word Nicolaitans comes from Greek nikao, to conquer or overcome see (John 3:1 Nico= ruler), and laos, which means people and which the word laity comes from. The two words together especially means the destruction of the people and refers to the earliest form of what we call a priestly order or clergy. Today there are Catholic Nicolations, in the form of Priesthood and there are non-catholic Nicolations who go by many titles, but in the end they do the same thing as their predecessors and catholic contemporary s, they get in between the people and God. There words are as smooth as honey: “in the Greek the word is... this is an unfortunate translation...a better reading would be...” but the implication is that you can not hear from God without them.
     
  2. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    well, gee, since you already have "the facts" all figured out, there's not much reason to discuss it, eh?

    "Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels." -2 Timothy 2:23 (NIV)

    whoops, sorry...here's the REAL scripture:

    "But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes." -2 Timothy 2:23 (KJV)

    :smilewinkgrin:
     
  3. Lagardo

    Lagardo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Having traveled to other areas of the globe, I find English to be anything but universal.
     
  4. LarryV2.0

    LarryV2.0
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now is that the kind of attitude you intended to portray?
     
  5. LarryV2.0

    LarryV2.0
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    What country's have you visited. I myself listen to short wave and read anything I can find that teaches about the world and I was of the impression that English was the predominant second language.
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    So anyone who who refers to the Greek is no better than a Papists?

    Interesting logic. Are you really saying that we should never refer to the Greek texts but only use the KJV?

    Where do translators of foreign Bibles go for their osurce? Where did the KJV translators go?
     
  7. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see more similarities between the papist onlyist and the KJV onlyist... more than I do when someone goes back to the original language...

    There are just some words in the English that you need the original language to fully understand. I think the KJV Onlyist is keeping the people from Bibles that reveal the truth in today's language.

    That's just my take on it... you can take it or leave it
     
  8. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd suggest that "two lines of texts" is a bit of an oversimplification. I'd also suggest that "translated from the received text" by definition has all kinds of baggage in tow, not to mention an agenda, that I don't normally get involved in, and am not here, either.

    C4K???

    Ed
     
    #8 EdSutton, Aug 9, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 9, 2006
  9. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're right, Larry. God has had His hand on the translators of the KJV and of various other English translations, too. If God was against the various English translations as you KJVO folks are against them, why do you think He allowed them to be translated? Larry, you, like the majority of KJVO myth supporters, stand against the will of God - He wants His word understandable and available for all generations, and not just for those who understand antiquated language. You KJVO myth supporters would have God's word secret and hidden from the masses and that is not hat God wants at all.
     
  10. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The KJVO myth is false

    LarryV2.0:Over the years, I have come to learn that the manuscript quagmire that the Nicolations (see bottom for definition of Nicolation) would have you entangled in, is not as complicated as they would have you believe. There are two lines of texts, one was from Egypt and has the fingerprints of the Pope and the other, while differing in places, is represented by thousands of manuscripts, and that is where the KJV is translated from.

    But, do you **KNOW**, not GUESS, that onew is bogus & the other isn't? You really don't, do you?

    If there is the a inerrant word of God on this planet, it must be the KJV, or one of the other language bibles that were translated from the received text.

    Why? Because Ruckman said so?

    Seeing as how English is the universal language in this time

    English is used by 1/6 of the world's population at the most.

    and that God has used the KJV (yes I know about the various editions and they are NOT re translations) and the alternative is that no man can know exactly what God said, I place my faith in God having had his hand upon the KJV translators, whether they realized it or not.

    And what was to limit GOD to influencing ONLY the KJV translators? How can you PROVE that He influenced them alone?

    2 Timothy 3:15
    “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures..” did Timothy have an inerrant copy of the “holy scriptures”?


    We don't know what Tim had. He coulda memorized the Scriptures. If he had a written copy, we have no idea what version they were or what language they were in. Whatever it was, however Tim came by them, Paul simply said, "KNOWN the holy Scriptures".


    Did Jesus read from an inerrant copy of the “holy scriptures”?

    Whatever Jesus READ ALOUD in Luke 4:16-21 was different from Isaiah 42:7 & 61:1-3 as found in the Masoretic Texts. Given this fact, it's not hard to see God is not limited to just one version.

    If you can believe that, why is it so heard to believe that God preserved his word for us today?

    Larry, you're committing the typical KJVO practice of equating our rejection of the KJVO myth with not believing God has preserved His word unto this day. Every Christian reading this believes God has preserved His word. What mosta us do NOT believe is that He preserved it in English in the KJV alone. There's not one quark of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for such a notion; therefore it CANNOT be true.


    Is it honest for a man to stand behind a pulpit, or the desk of a translator, and say “the Greek word hear is... and therefor a more accurate reading would be...” and leave his audience with the impression that he is looking at the same Greek word the KJV translators were looking at?

    Yes, it is, if he is looking at the Greek available to him, and the translation he's preaching from, be it the KJV the Cabbage Patch bible, or anything in between, does not jive with that Greek, he's quite honest in pointing that out.






    The root of the word Nicolaitans comes from Greek nikao, to conquer or overcome see (John 3:1 Nico= ruler), and laos, which means people and which the word laity comes from. The two words together especially means the destruction of the people and refers to the earliest form of what we call a priestly order or clergy. Today there are Catholic Nicolations, in the form of Priesthood and there are non-catholic Nicolations who go by many titles, but in the end they do the same thing as their predecessors and catholic contemporary s, they get in between the people and God. There words are as smooth as honey: “in the Greek the word is... this is an unfortunate translation...a better reading would be...” but the implication is that you can not hear from God without them.

    Actually, your whole theory stinx. It's GUESSWORK. The Nicolaitans were a specific group who tried to raise themselves above their brethren and rule them in the same manner the Pharisees ruled Judaism. The real type of Nics today includes the KJVOs who would, upon their own authority, without the slightest Scriptural support, try to tell us just how God is allowed to provide His word to us. They operate from a bed of pure conjecture, opinion, and guesswork.

    Now, lemme tell ya why I'm NOT KJVO:

    1.) The KJVO myth doesn't have the SLIGHTEST Scriptural support.

    2. )It has no other sustaining evidence.

    3.) The man-made origin of the current KJVO myth is well known, traced back to a cult official.

    4.) Its supporters either lie constantly or believe lies and innocently spread them without making the slightest effort to determine if they're lies or not.

    5.) The history of the Bible in English CLEARLY shows us that God has kept His word updated into the language current for the time, be that time 1384(Wycliffe, 1534(Tyndale) or 2006.

    The KJVO myth is a bummer.
     
  11. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Until we as a moderating team can sort something out on this KJVO issue I am going to close any thread that are purely KJVO threads.

    Nothing is to be gained by them, IMHO.

    Versions may be discussed as the their goods and bads, but the KJVO debate is not open for discussion.

    This is not a final decision necessarily, but is in placed till we can firgure out a way to handle the issue.

    Roger
    C4K
    Moderator

    PS - Feel free to PM me with your feelings. Public threads on the issue will be deleted.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...