You will NOT believe this one!

I've seen that stupid theory before; it's an addition to the KJVO "party line" made by the authors logos listed above, and has been advocated by such radical and unlearned KJVOs as Dr. Herb Evans, as well as a few individuals out there in cyberspace.

I've asked them this one question, which whey cannot/will not answer:

WHEN DID GOD NOT "GET IT RIGHT" THE FIRST TIME, EVERY TIME?

 

POR: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?

But it does NOT support one-versionism in any shape, form, or fashion. Either provide Scripture to the contrary...Scripture that can be applied to ONE VERSION ONLY, to the exclusion of all others... or 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"

The AV translators believed otherwise. I've posted their marginal note umpteen times. But some people claim to know more about the KJV than those who made it.

And isn't it rather silly to argue that God has preserved his word when every Christian believes He did, and isn't it even more silly to argue Ps. 12:7 as a "word preservation" verse when there are many other verses whose application isn't questioned that clearly state God has preserved His word? Arguing for Ps. 12:7 to be such a verse is merely following the KJVO Wilkinson-Ray-Fuller "party line" which was long-ago proven wrong.

 

Trotter, correct me if I am wrong, but would this not be a form of idolatry? </font>[/QUOTE]Would that fall under YOUR heading also as "idolatry" that the very same people here have idolized their rants against the Word of God and spend so many, uh rather, COUNTLESS hours arguing about your utter confusion as to what is the Bible and what is not?

Also, define legalism please? Your definition appears to be concocted and formed as a weapon against your brethren.

It is only legalism to either earn or merit salvation, or to maintain good works to remain saved, so keep the "legalism" definition of yours out of the picture, unless your corrupt minds wish to demand a "new" version?

 

So you believe that standing on the preservation of the Word of God is "beating a dead horse"? I somehow see right thru you: my Bible is ALIVE, your's? Well, "dead horse" does seem extreme, but if you insist....

 

Yeah, go figure that I refuse to accept false doctrine. If KJVOism is scriptural, then show me scriptural support for it (this is officially my 39th request on the bb for scriptural support). If you can provide me with scriptural support, I, desiring to live a scripturally centered life, will be happy to detract my statement, and adopt KJVOism as a doctrinal stance. Failing to do so, then we're left with nothing but you blatantly violating scripture by adding to scripture, to support false doctrine, which is demonstrative of your character, so go figure.

 

POR, the MV's are just as "preserved" or we wouldn't have them today, now, would we? Even the kjVERSION doesn't support one version onlyism, nor will it ever, no matter how you try and twist the book of Psalms 12 to fit your kjVERSION only doctrine.

 

[attack on the Word of God snipped]

[ November 04, 2004, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

I see now "BZZZZ", it's all a game show to yall. And to think, preachers spoke out against the "hell-a-vision" back in the 50's

 

If KJVOism is scriptural, then show me scriptural support for it. This is officially my 40th request on the bb for scriptural support. You refused to respond to my 39th request, further up in this thread.

 

Sorry yall keep trying to enter confusion as preservation, unless it really is this confusion yall have preserved? </font>[/QUOTE]Not really, Ralph. Preservation is preservation, regardless of your calling it confusion. It's only confusion in your own mind and the kjVersion onlies.

 

John, he can provide no scripture that supports it, because there is none...otherwise it would negate the previous Bibles being the Word of God, which in turn would make God a liar, which we all know HE is not.

 

Phillip asked:

Is this a new claim, or have others been this far off of the ladder?

No, it's nothing new, in fact it's the first argument I ever heard for KJV-onlyism: that per Psa. 12:6, the KJV was the seventh English Bible and therefore the pure one.

The argument is post-hockery that relies on selective aviodance of the evidence. There were more than 7 English Bibles prior to the KJV, nor does Psalm 12 (assuming the KJV-onlyist interpretation is correct) say to expect the first 6 to be in English. I could probably poke a few more holes in it.

 

POR:I see now "BZZZZ", it's all a game show to yall. And to think, preachers spoke out against the "hell-a-vision" back in the 50's

And now we have "smell-a-vision"!

Actually, it's a simple request for some GOD-MADE evidence to support a MAN-MADE theory about the GOD-MADE Scriptures.

 

Dear POR,
I am in hopes you understand that many of us here who speak to you use the KJV as our primary Bible.I am somewhere around a kjv 1-2 1/2.We not only study it we teach and preach and memorize from it. So we are not against the KJV.
Since there are many updates, corrections and revisions of the KJV. The one question asked repeatedly which goes unanswered is which one is perfect according to the KJVO's or you will do?Why do the KJVO's ignore the forward written by the translators?Why is the no scriptural evidence question continually ignored? Why would God wait until 1611 to Give us His perfect Word?None of these are attacks on the KJV. The KJV is God's Holy Word as is the NASB,ESV,RSV,NIV,Bishop's Bible and some others.
Does any of this make sense to you? If not please do your best to make an honest attempt to answer my questions. I will listen to you. If we come to a point of strong disagreement with each other then we can agree to disagree without any rancor.When this is all over we might take a moment to pray for each other in love and earnestness.

 

The current KJVO myth was conceived in dishonesty and continues in dishonesty today. I believe this has been more than amply demonstrated. It amazes me that any intelligent person would continue to believe such a crock after its falsehood has been proven beyond doubt, and after seeing that this myth has absolutely NO Scriptural support.

Another "party line" KJVO tactic is to attempt to associate any attack on their myth with an attack upon the KJV or upon those who use it from personal preference. I don't know whom they think they're fooling by using such tactics, but far as this ole boy's concerned, it's just another act of dishonesty by the KJVO camp.

 

See, robycop, that's where a problem for them comes in. Many of us here who attack the militant kjVERSION only position use the KJV as our primary Bible. Yet, many here want to accuse us of attacking the very Bible we use. It's a shame many are still so blinded.