Biblical Defense of KJVO Beliefs

Originally posted by Istherenotacause:
You name for me just ONE doctrine that I don't find in my KJB

That's easy... the doctrine that the KJV is the one and only perfect Word of God.

and also one that I don't stand for!

That's realtaively easy, though I don't specifically recall your saying you don't "stand for" the signs of those who believe in Mark 16, where it says "these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

Since the KJV includes Mark 16:17-18, that is one reason it is less than perfect; and it is preposterous that those who claim this every word (of the KJV) slackjaw reject a lot of words here.

 

I don't reject it. There was a time for this.

 

For one thing, the KJVO "Stand" is derived from Bible doctrine that dictates verbal and plenary inspiration of the Scriptures as being pure words, tried in a furnace of earth 7 times. Also I have NEVER heard a KJB advocate use those words saying the KJVO is a doctrine, but specifically a stand for the Word of God, and not against.

Since by your statement on Mark 16, I conclude you are a literalist that denies the spiritual aspect to much scripture. Your ideal leans too much toward the idiom suggested by Nicodemus when he failed to comprehend being born again. Being "born again" is spiritual.

Some may apply the passage in Mark 16 as to literal, but even common sense tells us that if applied to present day disciples it is for the most part, impossible, thus the spiritual aspect MUST be applied. I suppose that is why you made those statements due to the irrationalization that Christians fit this description at present. But can only be understood as spiritually speaking. I have a new tongue that I speak, that which glorifies the Lord instead of cursing Him like I did before I got saved. Now that is literally spiritual because words are spirit.

IOW, the denial of Mark 16: 17,18 is irrational on your part. Irrationality is "preposterous".

All those "added" passages are there for specific reasons. Though they are for the most part not found in the manuscripts, especially those used according to the W/H concepts, they are for clarity of the passage and also found in some, as the Masoretic Text.

I don't have a problem with the KJ Translators defining the full intent of Mark 16, do you? Afterall, Hebrew and Koine Greek CANNOT be word for word translated, thus transliteration must entail.

Westcott and Hort were right about some things, but just not much.

In His Holy Service,

Empowered by His Spirit, and without shame,

Brother Ricky

 

Huh? And you associate MV users with pride is okay? So is it okay that I say you are prideful? I am just telling you what I usually encounter. I can't help many KJVOs call names and attack people rather than the issue. Also notice I said most, not all. Also, are you calling yourself KJVO? You seem to take my comments personal, so I am just wondering.

Did all these people die for the KJV?

Who is insulting and ridiculing? I like the KJV. Did all of those listed die for the KJV?

Did he help add to the translation of the KJV? Or did he help put the Word of God into English? If that is the case, all MV users can thank him as well.

I understand your thanks. I am thankful for the translators of the NKJV, NASB, and ESV in a similar manner. I am glad that we have the Word of God in English that we can understand. I can't imagine someone not being able to understand God's Word because of a language barrier.

Neal

 

Hey, I know NKJV, NASB, and ESV users that hold to the same thing. How about that!

That is an OT text, not NT. Just wanted to point that out. I don't think you will find any passages from Mark there.

What is transliterated in Mark 16?

Neal

 

In turn, yes.

Everyone has their "level" of pride, and you may have attacked some of what you label as KJVO inviting the name calling, you in turn call names when you refer to the KJB stand as being a member of some cult. So consider.

Also, I am NOT KJVO, if I were then I would discredit even the very Originals from which it came, therfore your labeling is more than just ludricous, it's INSANE!

You already know Tyndale did, but also you may know he wouldn't put up with the omissions by some versions, or the use of words that don't define as accurately as the KJB.

To discredit is insult, especially when the intent of the original had to be defined in this way concerning Mark 16:17,18. I answered your question already to the "list", you're asking the same question twice.

I don't think you really understood why I thank the Good Lord for the KJB. The writings invoke study, which I am not happy to do much of, except when I seem to be having trouble understanding something, and then suddenly the "light" turns on and makes things perfectly clear.

Anyone who is having trouble "understanding" the Bible should consult the Lord Himself, instead, man feels it's his obligation to make the Word more understandable by watewring it down and simplfying it and thereby leaving passages out and taking away from the full meaning of the Scripture. The unconverted wrest with the scriptures due to their lack of understanding the fact they first must be saved. There's the primary reason for lack of understanding.

Man feels he has to simplify the wording and modernize the usage of the words to allow presnet day man to understand. Also the addage that ,"I don't understand Shakespeare" is a contradiction as well. Many a man has been saved and even called to preach and NEVER being able to read. Man puts the emphasis of ability to read and thereby understand, when the real understanding comes from HEARING! There was that loud enough for you?

 

Hey, I know NKJV, NASB, and ESV users that hold to the same thing. How about that!

I'd NEVER say that, especially after comparing any of these with the KJB

That is an OT text, not NT. Just wanted to point that out. I don't think you will find any passages from Mark there.

I didn't say it was, I know the New Testament is derived from the Septaugint

What is transliterated in Mark 16?

Neal </font>[/QUOTE]Maybe I used the timing in the wrong sense, but ransliteration is effective as long as it relates the original intent without varying.

If you have a problem with what you call "KJVO" then you have the problem. Attacks on the Word of God? I do take that personal, but the Lord takes one step further than I ever could, He cords it in His Books to be opened at judgement, so be very careful, Sir, I wouldn't want to let bickering and bantering over which transaltion "I" think is best, especially when the King James Bible has proven MOST effective. You can take that all the way back to Genesis 3:1.

 

Istherenotacause said:

I believe you are condemning in your attitude

You just categorically dismissed a zillion Bibles as mere uninspired commentaries, and you have the temerity to accuse someone else of being condemning?

 

Istherenotacause joins the revisionist history camp with the following:

Did all these people die for the KJV?

In turn, yes.

That's right, folks, they all died for the KJV, though there was no KJV to die for as yet, but just kinda sorta in anticipation of it.

You gotta laugh.

 

In turn, yes. </font>[/QUOTE] I am not familiar with Metanchlon but none of the others lived long enough to see the rise of King James or the translation he commissioned except Knox who preached at King James coronation right before his own death.

One can only imagine what Knox would have thought about James' later repudiation and rejection of the Presbyterian church.

You already know Tyndale did, but also you may know he wouldn't put up with the omissions by some versions, or the use of words that don't define as accurately as the KJB.</font>[/QUOTE] If you have evidence that Tyndale would have rejected modern efforts to bring us closer to the readings of the originals (whether they be correct or not) then please show it. Otherwise, please do not presume to speak for the man.

 

Reprise the theme song and roll the credits