This statement has been proven false time and time again. William I doubt you use the KJV written in 1611, you clearly use a revision of that translation. If there is a revision something has changed in the last 400 years.
Bro Tony
Bound to words used in 1611?
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Jarthur001, Jun 22, 2006.
Page 2 of 5
-
Mr. Correa:An A for effort indeed and sincerly felt; But sincerly "WRONG" for we walk by FAITH not by feeelings!
BIBLICAL faith consists of SUBSTANCE & EVIDENCE.(Hebrews 11:1) The KJVO myth has NEITHER. So what kinda faith do ya use to legitimize the KJVO myth?
If God wrote the scriptures in Aramaic or Hebrew for that day do they still speak that way or not?
As much as language differences allow.
Or did they change to accomodate their itchy ears that most of the World has to try and justify their FEELINGS about the Word!
They changed as the languages changed, and God fitted them into the languages according to HIS changes in the languages. After all, the LANGUAGES THEMSELVES are of God, as well as is His word within them.
I am not for sale no way NO Sir!
I don't see any bidders, so relax. -
Mr. Correa, will you answer Ed's question?
-
If you hiold your breath waiting for a straight answer, Cranston, you may start turning blue. I would also say Will is getting pretty dizzy from his constant spinning!
-
As to the original question of the thread...We are LESS-bound to the words of the KJV than its translators were bound to the words of earlier versions. Please see the 14 rules Archbishop Bancroft laid down for the translators, in KJ's name.
The AV differs in more than a few places from the Geneva Bible. The AV men did NOT feel bound to the words of the older translations, outside Bancroft's rules. Unlike those men, WE have no one on earth who can bind us to the words of any one translation. And GOD certainly doesn't thus bind us! Therefore, the KJVO doctrine is a bummer. -
Ouch!
The words of God Are not bound!:applause: -
Attack on God's Word!
The prhase "KJVO myth" is an ATTACK on the Word of God And I will NOT Stand for it! YOU are the Ones using the term and I am sick of it! Find another Slogan cause it really makes the KJB just like any other and it aint so. If one thinks he can change ones mind by playing mind games;that is Not Christ like! The Holy Bible is not a myth and who ever uses that word in conjunction with the Word is Not playing by the BB rules and Frankly has no bearings on wether or not I want to read any other Version, and the more I hear the phrase the more I want to read the KJB and Nothing else! -
KJVO is not a Bible. It's a doctrine that is ascriptural (having no scriptural backing). Therefore it cannot be taken by faith (faith cometh by hearing and hearing by...?).
Now that's not all that bad, because there are many facts that aren't necessarily written in the Bible, right? So we just can't take it by faith. We need physical proof to support such an idea. But there is none.
So there's no scriptural proof (can't be taken by faith). There's no physical proof (can't be taken by logic). KJVO has no backing at all. Therefore, it is called a myth.
Now, I use the KJV exclusively. It is Gods word! But King James Version Onlyism is a MYTH. It's not an attack on the KJV. If it were, I wouldn't be happy. You need to learn to separate KJVO from the KJV. You can have the KJV without the falsity of Onlyism.
God bless! -
-
-
-
RE: The phrase "KJVO myth"...
Pesonally I don't see this phrase as an attack on the King James Version of the Bible because of the "O" in the phrase.
But perhaps it would be better to use the bare phrase "Onlyism".
It has happened before and we seem not to learn from the lessons of history.
There was an unofficial grassroots doctrine (for the most part) of the the "Latin Vulgate Only" movement out of which stemmed the "Douay Rheims Only" movement: Does this sound familiar?"
"They gave ten reasons, ending up by stating that the Latin Vulgate 'is not only better then all other Latin translations, but than the Greek text itself, in those places where they disagree." (Preface to the Rheims New Testament, 1582). They state that the Vulgate is 'more pure then the Hebrew or Greek now extant' and that 'the same Latin hath bene barre better conserved from corruption' (Preface to the Douay Old Testament, 1609)"
Or...
"Moreover, the Holy Ghost may have hidden several additional meanings in the passage. Those meanings may well be completely translated out!"
http://www.marianland.com/bible20.html
HankD -
Mr. Correa:The prhase "KJVO myth" is an ATTACK on the Word of God And I will NOT Stand for it!
You have little choice if you're gonna continue to read/post here. Not that anyone wants ya to leave...You provide comic relief for a serious subject.
YOU are the Ones using the term and I am sick of it!
Then ya better call a physician.
Find another Slogan cause it really makes the KJB just like any other and it aint so.
No two versions are alike. But GOD isn't limited to any one of'em.
If one thinks he can change ones mind by playing mind games;that is Not Christ like!
Aint no mind game to it; KJVO is a myth. If ya think ya can prove otherwise, go for it.
The Holy Bible is not a myth and who ever uses that word in conjunction with the Word is Not playing by the BB rules and Frankly has no bearings on wether or not I want to read any other Version, and the more I hear the phrase the more I want to read the KJB and Nothing else!
No, the Holy Bible is no myth, but the false doctrine built by MEN around the King james Version of the Holy Bible IS a myth. There's not one iota of Scriptural support for this doctrine; it was invented by some amateur authors who published some error-filled books. Using the power of modern media to push their invention, those men made KJVO into a doctrine by their teachings from their books. However, almost all their assertions, statements, claims, & points have been shown false, and that, along with a total lack of Scriptural support, makes KJVO false, and a myth.
While you're free to use any Bible version(s) you wish, you are NOT free to diss the choices of those who choose differently from you, w/o being subject to scathing criticism. If you're gonna play with fire, expect some heat.
BTW, Sir, if you examine the history of the fish symbol, you'll thing twice before writing JESUS' name within it. -
Once again, Mr. Correa...Will you answer Ed Edwards' question?
-
MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH.....
The AV translators were NOT bound to the words of previous versions, except in the set of rules Bancroft gave them, which included sticking to the "evangelical" words used in earlier translations, I.E. "church" and not "congregation", "baptize" and not "immerse", etc. Why should WE be bound exclusively to the words from a 400-yr-old version? -
1 Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
HankD -
I just gave examples off the toppa my head, Hank. I'm sure there are plentya others I don't know.
-
And, if you are a foreign missionary to an unreached people group that doesn't even have a written language, I suppose your first and foremost goal is to preach to them from the 1611 KJV, right?
-
Thou jumpeth to thine conclusion :smilewinkgrin:
-
It appears Mr. Correa may be deciding on whether he wants to stand for the truth being told (that the KJVO stance is a myth) or whethere he really meant in when he said he wouldn't stand for the myth being called a myth. If Mr. Correa meant what he said, then it forces him to leave BB because here we call a myth a myth. Mr. Correa's staunch refusal to accept the truth over and over again just shows that he has nothing of value to contribute to these discussions. All he has to contribute is more and more myth - poor, deluded soul!
Page 2 of 5