You will NOT believe this one!

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Phillip, Nov 2, 2004.

  1. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yesterday, while surfing, I came across a KJVO site. I lost it and am very upset I cannot share it with any of you. Maybe some of you good at searching can locate it.

    It was a KJVO site and it actually said that there were six good English Bibles which needed a few minor corrections.

    It then went on to name those Bibles such as the Geneva, Bishops and four others.

    Here is the fun part:

    It then quoted Psalms, saying the KJV was purified "seven" times, since it was the seventh English Bible and the one that was 100% word-for-word perfect.

    Besides pagans, Mormonism and other weird stuff, has ANYBODY heard anybody make such an idiotic claim?

    Are there any of you KJVo group that would believe such a whacky idea?

    Is this a new claim, or have others been this far off of the ladder? :confused:
     
  2. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    No, I've not heard that one! Time for Ed to update the list!
     
  3. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Phillip, that's probably the craziest claims I've ever heard. Who wrote it? Hal Lindsay?

    Seriously folks, we all need to start joining forces and start defending the KJV. We need to defend it from the false doctrine of single-translation-onlyism that makes a mockery of the KJV and of our God who has blessed us with it.
     
  4. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    You guys think I'm joking. I'm dead serious. The page actually was somewhat articulate (however a bunch of diatribe is often written that way). It surprised me, I kept waiting for a punch line. :eek:
     
  5. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
  6. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
  7. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,079
    Likes Received:
    103
    Not new, Phillip. It's right up there with the "aurhorized by a king" argument.
     
  8. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, natters, I didn't see your link. I don't think this is the same one that I read last night, but here it is in black and white. Have these guys really gone off the deep end of what?

    No wonder non-Christians think a lot of us Christians are nut-cases.

    Is this idolotry?
     
  9. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    You ARE kidding . . . (actually, I wish you were. :eek:
     
  10. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, not only does Ed need to update his list, but I think that Dr. Bob needs to add another level to KJVo definitions.
     
  11. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do wonder if yall will ever learn that just because something carries a name doesn't mean it's the "real enchilada"? (But then yall are probably "demonstracrats" [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's true, PoR. After all, just because people are KJVO doesn't make it a scripturally supportable doctrine.
     
  13. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, POR, I assume you don't buy that little theory then, right?
     
  14. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't buy "theories" I stick to the KJB!! [​IMG]
     
  15. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    John, the Bible supports itself, whether you accept it's support or try to tear it down is demonstrative of your character, so go figure?

    Just of note: Ps 12:6,7 in the "masculine" of the Hebrew, denotes that the passage directly refers to the Word of God in the masculine gender being God is always referred to "Him" except where His attribute denotes His ability to be as a "mother' to all and in the one or two references as Him be as "sheep led to the slaughter" [​IMG]
     
  16. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Back to beating your dead horse, Ralph?

    There is no scriptural support for one-translation-onlyism, no matter which translation you decide to worship.

    We are to obey the word of God, not a man-made doctrine of legalism.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  17. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Important point, Trotter,

    Also, another point, POR. I have nothing wrong with God preserving the Word of God for each generation. In fact, it causes you more problems than it does a non-KJVo.

    I say it means the "Word-of-God" in whatever translation will be preserved, so, whatever Psalms means at that point is irrelevant to our discussion, but becomes a problem if you think it means "Word-for-word" preservation because now we come back to my question that you guys simply refuse to answer.

    What was the letter-perfect Bible of 1559?

    Secondly, why would another Bible be required to replace THAT perfect Bible. Obviously, the KJV was not be necessary if that perfect Bible in English already existed. Was it the Geneva Bible that was brought over by the Pilgrams? Or did they have the wrong Bible?

    You see, you can throw scripture all you wish, but you cannot throw scripture that does not exist and what does NOT exist is scripture that says there will only be a single English translation after 1769.

    So, I suggest that you either find some scripture that fits or quit quoting scripture that has nothing to do with the issue. :rolleyes:
     
  18. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trotter, correct me if I am wrong, but would this not be a form of idolatry? :confused: :eek:
     
  19. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    There are several KJV-only authors that
    make the claim that the KJV is "purified seven times" and that the KJV is the seventh English translation.

    Timothy Morton wrote: "Each of these Bibles was (and still is) a valuable translation, but the King James of 1611 is the purest--the seventh and final purification" (WHICH TRANSLATION SHOULD YOU TRUST, p. 9). William Bradley wrote: "When the seventh major English translation of the Bible was published, the Word of God in English was complete, it was perfect" (PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES, p. 131). William Byers also claimed that the KJV is the seventh translation in the English from the pure text and is thus "purified seven times" (THE HISTORY OF THE KJB, pp. 9, 23, 97-98).
    Douglas Stauffer maintained that "the King James Bible became the seventh purification of the English translation in fulfillment of this prophecy" (ONE BOOK, p. 282).

    Gail Riplinger also adopted this claim in
    her new book. Riplinger wrote: "The KJV was the seventh polishing of the English Bible" (IN AWE p. 137). She claimed that "the English Bible was 'purified seven times' and that "the KJV is its seventh and final purification" (p. 131).
     
  20. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, Phillip, you are dead on the money. King James Version Onlyism IS idolatry.

    Anytime people take a work of man and elevate it to the point of adoration/veneration, it is idolatry (hmmm, the RCC and Mary spring to mind...). KJVOism has taken a 17th century translation and raised it as equal, or superior, to what God actually said through the writers of scripture.

    Man is fallible. Outside of the moving of the Holy Spirit on the original writers of the autographs, man's fallability has been involved in the copying/handing down of the scriptures. Does that mean that we do not have the word of God? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! But we do not have the originals of it, either, and therefore cannot say that this is 100% word-for-word, or that is not 100% word-for-word.

    We have the word of God in multiple translations and manuscripts. All of the differences are miniscule...unless you happen to worship your translation of chioce.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     

Share This Page

Loading...