Featured Saviour/Savior...

RC3: If you think that KJVO-er was a few bricks short of a load, how 'bout this line of reasoning I read somewhere:

The KJV's rendition of the word "saviour" contains seven letters.

Seven is the number of "perfection."

Therefore, only the KJV's usage of the word "saviour" is the perfect way to apply this word when it is applied to Jesus Christ!!! :BangHead:

 

I am King James only, and I don't care how you spell Saviour as long as you read the King James only. :laugh:

 

That is well said. God bless you, Winman.

 

The spelling "Savior" can be found in the first Oxford edition of the KJV printed in 1675.

 

I bet our neighbours in the KJVO camp don't realise the practise of labouring through a dictionary.

 

To be fair I doubt any of our KJVO friends here would hold to that extreme.

 

The premise of the Op seems almost like a parody of the KJVO movement --if that is possible.

 

Correct........and he's wasting his time if his intention were to evoke a legitimate discussion of that form of argument on this board........because no one who posts here would use it.

But, that's not his intention at all.

His intention with this is not to discuss that particular issue, it's simply to throw some dirt upon anyone who would stick up for the KJV above other translations.....

It's a thread designed to "Poison the Well".

That's all this is.
It's tatamount to someone arguing that "centre" is more righteous than "center". (granted it does look kewler)...........but that isn't the point.

It's just Robycop...Poisoning the Well against any pro-KJV argumentation which exists whatsoever.....it's standard operating procedure.

Winman doesn't care if you spell it "saviour" or "savior" (and he doesn't know one way or the other... I wouldn't care....... (nor do I know one way or the other). franklin seems to at least appreciate the KJV..........and he doesn't care. (nor does he likely know one way or the other).
Jordan is decidedly KJVO and I bet you a million dollars.......he doesn't care if you spell it "saviour" or "savior"...and he probably doesn't know which particular edition of the KJV did or didn't spell it that way...

Only a prize idiot cares, or even wastes their time researching such a non-fact.

What's truly telling and sad.........is that the likes of some KJV haters have so obsessed themselves....that they actually KNOW (one way or the other) whether any given edition of the KJV spells it one way or the other...

See here:

What human would waste their adult life on knowing a non-issue, non-fact like this?????
What a stupid, irrelevant, and sad thing to be aware of.
I'd respect the anti-KJV types if they didn't obsess over strifes of words and English spellings of no significance whatsoever.......KJVO's I know aren't aware of it, and don't care.
What a waste of one's life...........spend some quality time fishing with your kids!
Only someone on the level of Peter Ruckman would even know such an irrelevant non-fact.....or care to post it.

 

That's not a grammatically meaningful sentence.
What does it mean to "realise the practise of laboring through a dictionary"?

How, pray tell, does one "realize the practise" of anything?
What in the formerly 9 (now 8) planet-inhabited Solar System does that even mean?

And is it:
A.) KJVO's who start threads about the spelling "Saviour" or "Savior" on B.B...?

ORRRRR....

B.) Is it actually non-KJVO's who start threads about the spelling of "Saviour" or "Savior" on B.B?

Care to answer this one?

 

Seconded........:wavey:

 

No. I'm being stupid in my post. Intentionally.

 

............ahhhh, didn't catch the sarcasm :wavey:

 

It's not an issue of "Scriptural Support" at all, and I think you know that.
I don't have "Scriptural Support" for the proposition that 2+2=4 in base 10....but I believe it. I imagine you do as well.

Do you have ANY "Scriptural Support" for the proposition that most modern translations i.e. NKJV, NIV, ASV etc...are reliable translations of the originals and that the N.W.T. is corrupted crap?
No, you don't....but you believe it.

It's not a "Scriptural Support" issue, it's a textual criticism issue (which there aren't strictly speaking precise instructions for in the Bible) and I think you know that. You aren't stupid, you know full well (or should) that it is no more reasonable to demand "Scriptural Support" for any KJVO position than it is to demand "Scriptural Support" for the idea that there are 26 letters in the English alphabet.................There are no such verses. Perhaps you've never quite thought about that before, or, alternatively, you are being somewhat disingenuous when you continuously try to slip that demand past us.....we aren't fooled by it.

Granted, if I were trying to argue that Psalm 12:6 was "Scriptural Support" for the notion that God divinely preserved the Scriptures in the KJV, then, you have a "Scriptural" argument to demonstrate that position is ill thought out, and obtusely ethno-centric.......but unless and until someone argues as such, than it really isn't a "Scriptural" argument at all.

 

The KJV-only issue is not strictly or solely a textual criticism issue.

Where do KJV-only advocates present and advocate any principles of textual criticism that they will apply consistently to all translations?

Those who actually advocate a KJV-only theory reject all English translations made after 1611 even if they are translated from the same original language texts as the KJV.

KJV-only advocates repeatedly will criticize and attack other English translations such as the NKJV for translational issues as was seen in a recent thread.

Even moderate KJV-only advocates such as D. A. Waite, who strongly condemn and reject Ruckman's views, still attack the NKJV. Waite claimed that “the New King James Version is the most dangerous Bible version on the market today” (Defects in the NKJV, p. 8).

David Cloud asserted that “the New King James Version (NKJV) is a deception” (Answering the Myths, p. 201).