Which is your "definition" of KJV Only?

http://baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=61135

Was A S Cook "KJVO"? If you're answer is a "yes" then you attack one of the most prominent and very foundational institutions America maintained prior to the inductions of liberlism and don't realize just how much Marxism has effected your thinking.

If you're answer is "no" then you just lumped yourself up in the "KJVO" crowd.:tongue3:

 

So which holds more authprity on the subject, Plato or God, in your opinion?

 

you are the one squabbling against the stand. I for the record, have spoken my piece and am "squabbled" against.

Note it for the record.

Then why do you persist in the forefront of these "squabbles"?

Spiritual sense ought to tell every Christian that the word of God has only One Divine source.

Common sense is too easily provoked into believing something the principality and power would have it for them to believe.

We push for something at least which is just above common sense and we get attacked for trying to lift up society for doing so. We're not squabbling, but we sure are doing what growing in grace and knowledge is meant to be for society.

 

Is there something more appropiate than the head bashing against the wall icon for this?:smilewinkgrin:

I suppose in a certain view a murderer is better than the KJV translators.

 

What are you talking about??

I mentioned Plato to show that even lost people show each other more respect than some of the conversations here. Can you show me where God condones Christians treating each other this way?

Your post, asking if I respect God or Plato more, is a clear example of the kind of ugly mistreatment of the brethren that I am discussing. And that is a terrible shame.

 

Who are these "deviates" you are speaking of?

Why do you spam so much? Lately in this thread you had six posts one after another -- numbers 39-44. Can't you say what you want to say in a post or two?

 

Let me offer that I honestly hope I am not one of those to whom you may be referring, here, as to "the rancor and vitriol."

If I may happen to be one of those here referenced, it has been entirely unintentional, I assure you.

Ed

 

First and foremost, I have absolutely no idea of who this "A S Cook" allegedly was. I do believe in another place, this individual was declared to be one Albert Scarborough Cook, a late Professor at Yale. There is no such individual of that name who ever taught at Yale.

However, there was a very distinguished philologist and Professor named Albert Stanburrough Cook who taught at Yale.

Second, what does whether or not this person, either the real one or the imagined one, who is completely unknown to me, was "KJVO" have to do with the topic at hand?

Now, my alter ego, Language Cop, would like to make an observation.

"I find it extremely strange to have read several of these multiple lectures about comprehension and understanding the English language from poster and BB member Harold Garvey. Anyone can and does make typos. In fact, I now make many more than I did previously, due to my bride getting a new computer, after the one we were using died, and the accompanying keyboard magnifies my own mistakes in typing, several times over. However, of the four instances in the above post, noted by '[sic]', only one possibly qualifies as a typo."

Signed, Language Cop

Ed

 

Without saying anything about the translators of the KJV, or of any other version, I seem to remember God using three such individuals who were certainly not above murder, to give us Scripture, namely Moses, David, and Paul. And while I'm not sure Paul ever had anyone actually directly murdered, he was in agreement with the death of Stephen, and had letters giving him the authority to have Christians killed. (Ac. 8:1; 9:1-2; 22:10)

Ed

 

If Cook holds the position that the KJV is doctrinally and/or spiritually superior over all other English translations, then Cook is KJVO. The definition of KJVO does not change based on who holds to that position. This is a simple matter of objective fact, and facts don't change based on those who adhere to them.

 

False, KJVO means that the KJV is the only God authorized translation. Whether or not one holds to it simply being superior is irrelevant. The key is God authorized.

 

There are indeed KJVOists that believe the KJV is the only God-inspired translation, indeed. Many other KJVOists hold to the belief that the KJV is doctrinally superior over all other English translations, without regard to whether the other translations were inspired or not.

 

I am KJV/NKJV prefered because of the underlying mss.

However I also adhere to the thoughts of the AV translators and their view of multiple translations:

"For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures"

Also as Dr Bob has clearly stated, the AV translators would agree with him as well (as I do). The inspired text is in the Greek and Hebrew original languages and those languages alone. Not Latin, English, Spanish... etc.

"If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New. These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, where-through the olive branches empty themselves into the gold. Saint Augustine calleth them precedent, or original tongues; Saint Jerome, fountains. The same Saint Jerome affirmeth, and Gratian hath not spared to put it into his Decree, That as the credit of the old Books (he meaneth of the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew Volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth by the original Greek. If truth be to be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, the Scriptures we say in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles."

HankD

 

Which is your "definition" of KJV Only?


My personal definition is KJVO = I Only use the KJV for reading and study. I believe it accurately translates the scriptures.

What about other versions? I don't know.

A.F.

 

What are you talking about ??

We're talking about the word of God and you insert secualr reasoning and lost people into the mix.

I believe you're taking words and building straw men.

we're dealing with thoughtlines and you're applying these as if they're attacks on the person of those debating this.

I should ask the spirit in which you make these remarks, they seem to be just as you described as "ugly".

 

I should hope we all be mature to the aspect we all fit into your newly attained plateau.:thumbs:

 

Okay Harold - I don't understand this post at all, so I withdraw in respect of your obviously superior intellect.

However, as administrator I offered a warning. If my warning on personal attacks is ignored I will take action. They are in violation of Board policy.

 

What tune did you do that little diddy to?

 

So by your objection to anyone deemed to be KJVO then AS Cook has now fallen to the disgrace of such a horrible man-made and false doctrine and everything he ever taught is totally wrong and should be trashed because YOU say he is KJVO.

May Jesus grant us something here about intelligence?

 

What does Plato say about sarcasm? isn't it what people resort to when they have been put to the point?