Do You Admire Any Preachers...

[Harold Garvey]

In any of the threads, the unchristians actions are yours. This is evidenced by the fact that at least two of your posts had to be edited due to personal attacks from you.

and yours are chrsitian? Nope.

Based on results, you don't simply agree to disagree. You engage in disrespecting of people. It would be refreshing to see if your future posts reflect a pattern of that, however.
That's a perversion of the verse. "Iron sharpening iron" referrs to believers encouraging other believers. It is not an excuse to engage in abrasive behavior.

Do you always show otheres the respect you have shown and still have all your facial features in place?

When iron sharpens iron is using the effect of abrasion, well, it does in the real world, but probably not in yours.

Heaven forbid that you give any consideration to the possibility that your posts lack grace.

Heaven forbid if you think your posts show grace.

All you do is accuse and point fingers at people.

You may not accept the reference points I've made concerning your "issues" with the KJV, but to stoop as low as you keep doing cannot reach a positive conclusion.

I accpet there are other versions and your tactics will NEVER make me turn away from the KJV. Although your "agenda" seems to offer nothing else but to MAKE others turn away from the KJV, I can accept your right to choose.

Now I'll have to ask you and EVERYONE else on this board to STOP lumping me up with past members who you have attacked until they either left of thewir own doing or were suspended or whatever else, or all these you keep giving this title of "KJVO" as a means to call all out war against them.!!!!!!!!!!!

I ACCEPT OTHER VERSIONSD!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Harold Garvey]

Surely this qualifies as a "Christianlike" comment.

yeah, I guess for the hypocrite when the truth is told he makes the same kind of accusation.

You're added since you cannot stop attacking everything i say.

 

[Mexdeaf]

yeah, I guess for the hypocrite when the truth is told he makes the same kind of accusation.

You're added since you cannot stop attacking everything i say.

I am honored. :laugh:

 

[Johnv]

... to stoop as low as you keep doing cannot reach a positive conclusion.

The presentation of objective emirical fact is now quantified as "stooping low". That's a new one.

I accpet there are other versions and your tactics will NEVER make me turn away from the KJV.

Whether one accepts other versions or not is not at issue, since it is a fact that they exist, whether one accepts that or not. I do not see a single post that takes issue with whether you accepting other versions or not. What is at issue is your assertion of "KJV is superior" over all other versions, as a matter of Christian doctrine. There is nothing in scripture or in history that supports that claim.

...your "agenda" seems to offer nothing else but to MAKE others turn away from the KJV

Only from the false doctrine of single-translation-onlyism, whether that translation is the KJV or any other translation.

 

[ccrobinson]

The problem you now have is show me anywhere at anytime any of the scriptures Jesus used were never found in the KJV. Since the scriptures he used ARE found in the KJV then being He is God the Son anything he used IS the KJV. care to differ?

Johnny-come-lately here and the above quote is from way back on page 4.

Let me try and understand this. Jesus quotes OT Scripture in the KJV. And that OT Scripture was translated by the KJV translators. And these are the same translators who translated the NT Scripture. So, doesn't it stand to reason that if the same translators translated both OT and NT, that the words would look very much the same? And the end result of all this is me looking quizzically at you and asking, "So what?"

Using the above reasoning, you could have said this.


"The problem you now have is show me anywhere at anytime any of the scriptures Jesus used were never found in the NIV. Since the scriptures he used ARE found in the NIV then being He is God the Son anything he used IS the NIV. care to differ?"


You could also say this.

"The problem you now have is show me anywhere at anytime any of the scriptures Jesus used were never found in the NKJV. Since the scriptures he used ARE found in the NKJV then being He is God the Son anything he used IS the NKJV. care to differ?"


Now, I admit that I'm not the sharpest tool in the drawer, so I'm probably missing something that I'm sure you can explain. But, it seems to me that, for whatever is you're trying to prove, you need to find a better argument, because the one you've offered is bad.

 

[Harold Garvey]

The presentation of objective emirical fact is now quantified as "stooping low". That's a new one.

Whether one accepts other versions or not is not at issue, since it is a fact that they exist, whether one accepts that or not. I do not see a single post that takes issue with whether you accepting other versions or not. What is at issue is your assertion of "KJV is superior" over all other versions, as a matter of Christian doctrine. There is nothing in scripture or in history that supports that claim.

Only from the false doctrine of single-translation-onlyism, whether that translation is the KJV or any other translation.

yOU'RE SUPERSEDING THE TRUTH HERE. I have never said anything for you to say I am promoting this.

I will stand on this that the KJV has proven superior in may fashions over whatever other versions that are available.

I've done only a little research comparing the versions, the KJV is best.

I have not ever said it is a christian doctrine, you insist I have, you're either lying or just playing the devil's advocate, again.

Show me a passage in another version that you THINK is better than what we find in the KJV. I iwll then show you why your opinion is either lacking or unfounded. You will then deny the references I provide, but that is dishonest on your side.

I have always admired a preacher that can expand on the KJV in minute detail and make a doctrinal application that fits the interpretation. When a preacher starts to say things like< "I like the way _____ version says it better" all he is trying to do is correct the KJV.

When one shows the references coincide with the KJV and proves his point the naysayers come out of the woodwork and make the type of claims you do.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Johnny-come-lately here and the above quote is from way back on page 4.

Let me try and understand this. Jesus quotes OT Scripture in the KJV. And that OT Scripture was translated by the KJV translators. And these are the same translators who translated the NT Scripture. So, doesn't it stand to reason that if the same translators translated both OT and NT, that the words would look very much the same? And the end result of all this is me looking quizzically at you and asking, "So what?"

Using the above reasoning, you could have said this.


"The problem you now have is show me anywhere at anytime any of the scriptures Jesus used were never found in the NIV. Since the scriptures he used ARE found in the NIV then being He is God the Son anything he used IS the NIV. care to differ?"


You could also say this.

"The problem you now have is show me anywhere at anytime any of the scriptures Jesus used were never found in the NKJV. Since the scriptures he used ARE found in the NKJV then being He is God the Son anything he used IS the NKJV. care to differ?"


Now, I admit that I'm not the sharpest tool in the drawer, so I'm probably missing something that I'm sure you can explain. But, it seems to me that, for whatever is you're trying to prove, you need to find a better argument, because the one you've offered is bad.

I believe there are many examples of entire sections of the KJV that were left out, changed, aletred only a little,etc in the versions you submit, therefore your point doesn't quite make for an accurate arguement in favor of those words of yours or those versions either.

 

[ccrobinson]

I believe there are many examples of entire sections of the KJV that were left out, changed, aletred only a little,etc in the versions you submit, therefore your point doesn't quite make for an accurate arguement in favor of those words of yours or those versions either.

By focusing only on the versions that I used for my examples, you've completely missed the point of my post. The argument you presented on page 4 as some sort of proof for the KJV being far superior to other versions is a bad argument.

 

[Rippon]

I've done only a little research comparing the versions, the KJV is best.

Your scanty research has proven that huh?

Show me a passage in another version that you THINK is better than what we find in the KJV. I iwll (sic)then show you why your opinion is either lacking or unfounded.

Yeah, armed with your meager reseach -- you'll show him!

 

[Rippon]

I have other versions too, but I rarely consult them because before when I did it seemed strange to me and went against the ingrained wording I had come to know and love in the KJV.

This is from post #72.

His rationale here is at the core of why he is KJVO. The wordings of other versions are different from that of his beloved KJV. The renderings of other versions appeared strange in comparison to what he was accustomed. So he clings to the safety of the familiar.

 

[Rippon]

As some should see, I have them on the "ignore list" because they do not seem to be able to address me without being very offensive and provoking me to wrath. I should be adding more to that list real soon.

Pretty soon you'll be having only a dialog with yourself -- everyone else will be on your much-hyped ignore list.

I know i can be abrasive, as iron sharpens iron...

You're always good for a chuckle as someone once said.

Harold -- have you ever been a member here under a different handle?

 

[Rippon]

Well, now we're up to 14 pages and still no anser forthcoming from a KJVO. The reason? There were no notable preachers from 1880 to 1970 who used only the KJV. Conservative and fundamentalist leaders quoted approvingly from other versions.

 

[gb93433]

I believe there are many examples of entire sections of the KJV that were left out, changed, aletred only a little,etc in the versions you submit, therefore your point doesn't quite make for an accurate arguement in favor of those words of yours or those versions either.

So your argument is that after looking at about a dozen manuscripts in translating the KJV one can draw a better conclusion than after looking at over 5000 manuscripts available to translate other translations that came much later?

 

[FlyForFun]

So your argument is that after looking at about a dozen manuscripts in translating the KJV one can draw a better conclusion than after looking at over 5000 manuscripts available to translate other translations that came much later?

Volume does not assure validity.

The differences between the KJV and all other modern, reputable translations are stylistic. The miraculous fact is that despite 500 years of linguistic and interpretative advances, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and thousands of discovered fragments, all we have is confirmation that the sources for the Geneva, Tyndale, Wycliff, Luther, and King James Bibles were solid and reliable.

Sure, there are verses here and there one can offer up as proof of some devious cabal shenanigans, but can anyone show a single doctrine or critical issue that is endangered by the ESV or NIV?

 

[gb93433]

Volume does not assure validity.

There is no such thing as 100 percent validity in the choice of manuscripts because we do not have the originals. More does not make better but it sure helps if they were found in many different locations.

 

[FlyForFun]

There is no such thing as 100 percent validity in the choice of manuscripts because we do not have the originals. More does not make better but it sure helps if they were found in many different locations.

We have enough cross-check -- as you state -- to be certain we have what God wants us to have -- His Word, in a form we can read and understand and react to.

This reminds me of something Mark Twain is supposed to have said:

"It's not the things in the Bible I don't understand that bother me -- it's the things I do understand."

 

[Harold Garvey]

By focusing only on the versions that I used for my examples, you've completely missed the point of my post. The argument you presented on page 4 as some sort of proof for the KJV being far superior to other versions is a bad argument.

Not from the standpoint of truth.

It is only "bad" as you see it. I'm not willing to put on your shades.

 

[Harold Garvey]

So your argument is that after looking at about a dozen manuscripts in translating the KJV one can draw a better conclusion than after looking at over 5000 manuscripts available to translate other translations that came much later?

No, I'm not argueing as you said I am. I am expressing what I have found to be true and without sorting through all those manuscripts you say something about.

if the results of using these 5000 items is the product we see today then the KJV has my approval. why is it my approving of this is attacked so often? Could it be an underlying problem others have with the KJV? yes, the indications are all thewre for everyone to see and make a rational decision.

 

[Harold Garvey]

We have enough cross-check -- as you state -- to be certain we have what God wants us to have -- His Word, in a form we can read and understand and react to.

This reminds me of something Mark Twain is supposed to have said:

"It's not the things in the Bible I don't understand that bother me -- it's the things I do understand."

yep, and I'd bet doing a reseacrh of what the KJV has worded in it will prove just as it has for centuries to say it best.

the claims against the KJV for using unfamiliar words goes no further than the words themselves; each reflects the use and their meaning of that day which also gives us all comprehension of what we need to know.

Today's words just don't mean things as the words did/ still do mean. Newer words do something we could all agree upon; they lose meaning in translation.

Show me where I cannot understand the KJV? Poor examples usually follow that request.

 

[Johnv]

Show me where I cannot understand the KJV?

That's already been demonstrated:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1439237&postcount=45
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1439593&postcount=60
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1440295&postcount=62