Cults and versions

If you ask a JW about the KJV, their taught answer is, "The King James Version is a great translation. I have one in my libary." They then proceed with their presentation.

I have found that, once you get the JW or Mormon missionary detoured from their scripted line of reasoning, they do not know the bible very well at all. Outside of their doctrinal texts, they only have a surface knowledge.

In a heated discussion with a JW elder, I refered to the "Great White Throne Judgement" several times. Finally, he stopped me and aksed me what I was talking about, as he had never heard that term before. I borrowed his NWT and procedded to read Rev. 20:11-15 to him. He was not pleased in the least since he had already agreed with me whose names would be found int he Book of Life.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

The premise holds true for almost all cults: they know their proof texts by heart, but are ignorant of what the rest of the Scriptures actually say.

Once you are able to move away from the topic of their choice, you can engage them on the basis of being a sinner in need of salvation.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Amen, Trotter!

If only more people on the BB felt this way. But as I discovered in recent threads, many would rather send the cultists away (or even call them names), or they actually hate the unsaved and are proud of it (this was a real eye-opener on the "Hate The Sin/Love the Sinner" thread). These 2 threads are causing me to consider leaving the BB. It is too discouraging to me, particularly the hate the sinner people.

 

I was told by an ex-JW that they often use the KJV to bait prospective members because the KJV's been around a long time & the unsuspecting don't know it can be misused same as any other Bible.

 

Oh really, can you please share how the KJB would be the best cult bible?

BTW, I wonder if God will question this statement that you made at the judgement: "cleaning up the hodge-podge sentence structure."

<off topic question deleted>

[ September 28, 2004, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Oh really, can you please share how the KJB would be the best cult bible?

BTW, I wonder if God will question this statement that you made at the judgement: "cleaning up the hodge-podge sentence structure."

&lt;off topic question deleted&gt; </font>[/QUOTE]Again, the straw man fallacy of argumentation. One either states a weaker version of what another has stated or alters it in order to make a point.

Johnv, did not say the KJB would be the best cult Bible, he said it would be his Bible of choice if he was going to start a cult. Your question is legitimate only when if asked "Why would you choose the KJB and not the other versions (when he's actually told you why, as have many others here already." However, you chose not to ask it that way, you chose to rephrase his statements. Why do you continue to make this thread out to be some sort of attack on the KJB? It is NOT, as we have all shown.

 

RaptureReady asked:

So your saying when dealing with someone that does not believe the Bible, you would use their bible to witness to them? So if I used the Koran, you would use it instead of the King James Bible? Why?

This is, without a doubt, the most obtuse question posing as a line of so-called reasoning that I have ever seen come from the mouth or keyboard of a KJV-onlyist.

There is, of course, a vast difference between preaching from a different translation of the Bible, and preaching from a completely different holy book revered by another religion.

For a KJV-onlyist to even pose such a question as a credible line of reasoning only demonstrates that they take everyone else for idiots.

 

It also shows that they will use anything to twist and promote the KJVO myths.

 

RaptureReady,

The NT was written in Greek. Greek's sentence structure is vastly different from that of English. My 'hodge-podge' comment had to do with the word order used by the KJV in the NT (and the OT, for that matter).

What do I mean? "Here am I" when we would say "Here I am." "I came not" when we would say "I did not come." "W and X and Y and Z and...and...and...and... (makes you wonder if they ever heard of a 'comma')."

Is this a big deal? Not really. But it can be confusing...which is exactly what a cult wants from the Scriptures. Nothing clear cut, nothing plain and simple, but something that must be explained and retranslated.

I am not knocking the KJV. While I think that its language is outdated (yea, methinks it doth need updating) and its syntax can really stink, The King James Version is still a translation of the word of God, and it deserves the respect as such. But, then, so does the NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, WEB, etc.

That the KJV is the choice of cultists is no surprise...at least, it wasn't to me.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

I don't think that I saw anyone mention Christian Science yet.. they use KJV.

Carina

 

One would likely use an Arabic Bible to witness to a person who speaks Arabic.

 

carina: "I don't think that I saw anyone mention Christian Science yet.. they use KJV."

You didn't read the earlier portion of this thread. I already mentioned this, and pointed out that Zondervan even printed the KJV edition *especially( for the Christian Science cult, as printed on the inside title page:

Authorized King James Version
Published by Zondervan Publishing House
Distributed by the Christian Science Publishing Society.

 

Why are we trying to keep up with the language....
as far as the language goes...
"man, that's bad!" does not mean it is not good.
"man, you're cool!" does not mean he is not hot.
"man, that rocks!" does not mean he is shaking.
"man, that's wicked!" does not mean it's evil.

Why are we trying to keep up with the times in our speech. Are we suggesting that the language gets better with age?!?

The bible says to hold fast the form of sound words (2Timothy 1:13). The references above are not sound at all.

SOUND, a. [L. sanus.]
1. Entire; unbroken;
5. Not broken or decayed; not defective; as a sound ship.
6. Whole; entire; unhurt; unmutilated; as a sound body.
8. Founded in truth; firm; strong; valid; solid; that cannot be overthrown or refuted; as sound reasoning; a sound argument; a sound objection; sound doctrine; sound principles.

-DeaconLew

 

DeaconLew wrote:

Question: Would that imply that English had also been deteriorating (rather than becoming better) prior to the publication of the KJV? If so, then wouldn't the Wycliffe (the earliest English-language translation) be the best, in terms of language?

If you maintain that language must deteriorate over time, wouldn't the same have been true for English before the KJV? (In which case the KJV would be inferior to the English-language versions which pre-date it.)

 

"God Forbid" - the KJV (though it is absent in the TR)

 

Funny you should mention cults. The only cult I am dealing with presently is the Calvinists. Unfortunately, this cult has trapped more baptist than almost any other.

 

The language doesn't actually deterioriate nor improve over time...it merely changes to match the society in which it's used, adding new words as required.

 

It's not a question of the language getting better, but changing over time. And this does not mean slang.

When you speak, do you use 17th century English? Do you say, I will suffer my children to stay up later tonight? Or do you say, I will let my children stay up later tonight? I highly doubt you are speaking 17th century English as you probably would not be understood by many people if you did it consistently. There is nothing holy about 17th century English.