And in a host of other faithful translation as well. But your doctrine that God's word is only the KJV will never be true.
BV/T or defamation of KJVO
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Precepts, Mar 5, 2004.
Page 2 of 8
-
-
-
-
Defamation of the teaching of KJVO works for me. Exposing of error. Debunking myth. Iconoclastic attacks. Jousting at windmills.
But no one need attack the WORD, as in the King James or New American or such. No one need attack the INDIVIDUALS with ad hominem slurs. -
(whine) But, Dr. Bob, it is so much fun...(sob)
We could all learn to be better debaters of the facts, instead of "I-believe-such-and-such-and-everything-else-is-hogwash" type tactics.
The fact remains that the KJVOnly camp does not have a REAL leg to stand on. Throwing up a couple of verses and trying to take a "biblical" stand is amusing, to say the least, but not much else.
I would be willing to listen to anyone who had a valid, legitimate arguement as to why the KJVOnly issue is true, outside of "you-got-to-have-faith" and "it-is-God's-only-truth" type silliness. But, I guess I would be waiting a LONG, LONG time, huh?
In Christ,
Trotter -
I know how you feel trotter. I am still waiting for the same thing from those who "defend" the modern versions and attack us Bible believers.
Good thing I'm not holding my breath. -
-
Jim,
I don't defend MV's, but I do use some of them right along side of the KJV. I see nothing wrong with using what is there, so long as you are selective in doing so (there are so translations that are merely garbage, but not all of them).
I do have a problem with the whole KJVOnly stance, though. Truthfully, I do not understand it at all. To be blindly ignorant of the bounty of good, readable translations on the market is beyond me.
I can see how one would want to hold on to traditions and all, but isn't that what the Pharisees were doing back in Jesus' day?
In Christ,
Trotter -
1. KJVO is not taught in SCripture. To make a dogmatic stand about something not taught in Scripture is wrong.
2. It contradicts what is taught in Scripture. God affirmed the propriety of using other versions by the citations that he inspired. Those who use versions other than the KJV are following in teh footsteps of the authors of Scripture.
3. It is unbibiblical to make a man made doctrine a test of fellowship.
4. It is unbiblical to attack the word of God simply because you don't prefer a particular translation. -
-
Sorry Pastor Larry, but I still see no good, solid, sound, BIBLICAL (you know the standard you mv lovers want to hold Bible believers to) reasons yet offered by the mv camp. Your post is no exception to this truth.
All your claims against us Bible believers you all makes for your beloved mv's. I've been removed from fellowship by mv churches because of being a Bible believer.
Funny how it's only unbiblical when it's your corrupt versions being attacked but wholly ok when it's your camp attacking the word of God. Just more of the typical double standard baloney from thsoe who love man made myths more then God's truths.
Knowing your viewpoint, I do admit that any truth you could be shown in the rest of this post will be fully ignored by you so I won't be wasting my time.
Jim -
-
Hey Precepts,
I wonder if Pastor Larry agrees with the mv that says God can be decieved? -
For there is no MV that says
"God can be deceived".
-
O.K., we'll just have to agree that reading the KJB takes the Holy Ghost to reveal the true meaning, and yall will hold to simpler versions because you have become so educated you don't need the Holy Ghost to show you anything, you can just figure it all out yourselves from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and the Greek. -
Bible = King James Version (whatever revision, not sure which you think is perfect)
Bible Believer = King James Version (whatever revision, not sure which you think is perfect)
Then you blah blah blah against those who use modern versions as if they are evil, wrong, etc.
WE ARE ALL STILL WAITING FOR AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE that will support your presupposition. Where does it say that the only "Bible" is the KJV(whatever revision . . )?
You feel "picked on" or "attacked" when all we are doing is asking you to provide honest evidence for what you believe.
Evidence.
Chapter and verse.
Go for it, man, and get everyone off your back! You prove it and I'm the first to convert.
But if you can't, then have the honesty and character to admit it. -
/ed tracks the theological trends/
7 of 9 say God can bless a piano but not a trumpet
6 of 7 say The Holy Spirit can reveal
truths from the KJV but not from the MV
5 of 4 have problems with fractions -
Brother Jim, if you will notice, the mv proponents will even go as far to lie about the NasV and say it doesn't read that:"But they deceived Him with their mouth And lied to Him with their tongue." Now they will say the KJB uses "flatter" and corrupt the understanding of it'as definition as if it means "deceived", trhen the circle will go round again and again. The Nasv clearly reads "deceived" but they have to go to a stretch of the imagination to make the KJB say the same, when it never says that God was ever deceived, "tad bit" or not. Their whole motivation is supposedly to refute what they call a fals doctrine known as KJVO, but then they had to create the label to use it against their brethren, thet there ought to be enough for anyone to see where their heart is in this matter, and it defintiely ain't "IN CHRIST"
-
Doc Bob, give chapter and verse that says the KJB is not. I give you Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21 AV 1611 KJB
-
God revealed that those tried to flatter Him in Ps 78:36, but He NEVER revealed He was deceived as in the Nasv Ps 78:36.
Page 2 of 8