Do you agree with these KJVO statments?

I recall reading that and I wondered where is the Biblical support for such a statement? I can't think of any Biblical principle that shows us that wide acceptance of anything makes it valid, godly, moral, or right.

 

On the second question, I for one would like, even desire, a biblical answer to the KJVOism espoused on this board. If that is not possible I would like someone with integrity to step up and state that they have no biblical support for their stand. I fear in both cases I will be waiting a long time.

Bro Tony

 

Trotter said:

Question #1 - God affirms that the KJV is the Holy Bible for the English-speaking people by virtue of its wide acceptance, and the fact that He has used it over the centuries to bless His people.

Do you agree with this statement, or do you disagree with this statement?

Any statement that begins with "God affirms" had better back itself up with evidence of that affirmation in a credible source of divine revelation. Otherwise, it will be treated like any Charismatic "word of knowledge" and ignored, or perhaps laughed at if it's wacky enough.

Question #2 - . . . You just use questions to attempt to get the poster to make a slip you can use against the KJV. You know, kind of like when the Pharisees and Hypocrites attempted to catch Jesus in His words.

Do you agree with this statement, or do you disagree with this statement?

The statement ignores two inconvenient truths:

</font>

1. that many of the KJV-onlyists' arguments are also traps laid for us unsuspecting Alexandrians (e.g. those "answer these questions from your NIV" quizzes).</font>
2. that Jesus, too, employed the same techniques against the Pharisees (e.g. his question about where John's baptism derived its authority).</font>

 

yes!

 

Fallacies of Logic:

Appeal to the popular - the hearer is urged to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.

Example: The majority of people like soda. Therefore, soda is good.

Example: Everyone else is doing it. Why shouldn't you?

Appeal to tradition - trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time.

Example: This is the way we've always done it. Therefore, it is the right way.

Example: The Catholic church's tradition demonstrates that this doctrine is true.

Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular.

Example: God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is inspired. Therefore, we know that God exists.

Example: I am a good worker because Frank says so. How can we trust Frank? Simple. I will vouch for him.

Cause and Effect - assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events occur together.

Example: When the rooster crows, the sun rises. Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to rise.
Example: When the fuel light goes on in my car, I soon run out of gas. Therefore, the fuel light causes my car to run out of gas.

(Many thanks to Matt Slick for these examples)

The first statement is just completely illogical for at least four, yes FOUR, reasons. First, it attributes God's affirmation because the KJV has such widespread use. That is first, an appeal to the popular, a common logical fallacy. "Because the KJV has enjoyed widespread use, this is a sign of God's approval, therefore you should accept it. Second, it is an appeal to tradition. The argument plays on the centuries of the use of the KJV in order to be true. It's like saying "Catholic doctrine was the norm for several hundred years of search history; God must have approved of it, because it was so widely accepted, therefore you should believe it is true too. Thirdly, it assumes the effect is related to the cause, because the effects "must" occur together. Finally, it is also circular, because if the effect and the cause are related, then the argument is proven, but that is only true if the thing it tries to prove is in fact true. That is begging the question.

Logic is a necessary concomitant to the existence of God. God is a God of logic, not illogic. God, being a God of perfect logic would not prove something true using logically fallacious arguments. Therefore question number one can not be true, because the only way it can be true is to use one, in this case FOUR, logical fallacies, depending on the emphasis one puts on certain portions of the statement. If it is illogical, and God is a God of perfect logic, which He must be, because of the perfection of God and the existence of logic, then it is safe to say that the statement is not only illogical but not godly.

If a person believes that the KJV is "the" Holy Bible for English speaking people, then it must be proven from logical, not illogical means.

 

You will, my brother, you will.

AVL1984

 

I'll ask again, please list the scripture to support your claim. If you have no scripture then it is a myth with no foundation.

End the bible version debate right here right now! Post the scripture that proves your KJVO claims.

I asked this in another thread and you ignored my questions.

What is a belief without scripture to support it?

*questions to answer questions and examples to answers examples will not work.Name calling and slandering the Word of the Most High as found in translations other than the KJV family will not work.

Please list scriptures to support statement 1 & 2 or simply admit that you have no scripture and therefore it is a man made myth.

Thank you

 

Prepare yourself - I will post the answer to save another the trouble.

In other words - "If you only understood you would understand."

[ September 24, 2004, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

oh ok.

I guess that answers everything!

 

Oh, oh....it's almost like the "Twinkie Defense"!

AVL1984

 

Trotter, I'm giving my responses w/o reading any other post in the topic, to avoid coloring my opinion...so if it's repetitious, this is the reason.

Question #1 - God affirms that the KJV is the Holy Bible for the English-speaking people by virtue of its wide acceptance, and the fact that He has used it over the centuries to bless His people.

Do you agree with this statement, or do you disagree with this statement?

I disagree because God has used many other Bible versions for His work, including the Latin Vulgate, Luther's German-language Bible, etc.

Speaking strictly of English, the first BV readily available to the British was the GENEVA BIBLE. Given its popularity, one cannot deny that God greatly used it. And today, the NIV is replacing the older Bibles as the English Bible of choice. This is NOT to say that the older BVs aren't valid, but it IS to say that more modern versions in modern language are replacing the older ones.

I WILL agree that the KJV is "A" - not "THE" - Holy Bible for the English-speaking world.

Question #2 - BTW, it is obvious that none of you people ask questions with an intent of getting an answer. You just use questions to attempt to get the poster to make a slip you can use against the KJV. You know, kind of like when the Pharisees and Hypocrites attempted to catch Jesus in His words.

Do you agree with this statement, or do you disagree with this statement?

I disagree because I KNOW we've asked VERY legitimate and pertinent questions. After all, KJVO is a doctrine recently introduced into Christendom. Therefore, it MUST BE PROVEN to be true...and its advocates have failed miserably in this since the 1950s. For example, every Christian knows that any doctrine ABOUT Scripture MUST BE SUPPORTED by Scripture in order to be true, since there's no higher written authority than Scripture. Virtually every other false doctrine has at least SOME mention in Scripture, although the makers of these doctrines have ripped some verses out of the context For example, Hyper-Calvinism has some Scriptural support; however it disregards the Scriptures against some of its points.

OTOH, KJVO has absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT. Therefore when we ask, "Please provide some Scripture supporting the KJVO myth", we're making a sharp sarcastic reminder to the KJVOist that he/she simply cannot justify their myth through the Bible. And when some KJVOs heaps aspersions upon some other version(s), we have every right to demand they PROVE their assertions. And I believe we're quite right to ask the KJVOs to PROVIDE JUST ONE LEGITIMATE REASON why WE should be KJVO besides personal preference. The KJVOs wouldn't pretend our questions are "loaded" IF THEY COULD ANSWER THEM.

The KJVOs have brought the doctrine to the table...therefore it's up to THEM to prove it's true. So far they ain't done so hot.

 

I won’t agree with this statement because it presents a similar challenge of logic as the type of inquiry which asks “are you still beating your wife?”. The assumption being manifest in the statement “THE Holy Bible for the English-speaking people”.

For several hundred years before and after the AV, other English Bibles held wide acceptance such as the Wycliffe, the Tyndale, the Geneva and the Bishop’s Bibles which have also blessed His people to this very day.

Wrong (IMO of course)! No one here is "against the KJV", just the bizarre errors made by some relating to it’s “perfection” down to the “jots” and “tittles” of which there are none in the English KJV (in the Law). Most of the "imperfections" in the KJV have already been seen to by none other than the KJV translators (and those who followed) themselves. Being human they didn't compltete the task.

Also the fruit of the lips (actually fingers) of the poster is manifested in the innuendo that those who oppose him/her in this matter are "Pharisees and Hypocrites". This is the flesh speaking or at very best the opinion of the poster and that is what is obvious (at least to me and IMO).


HankD

 

Why does everything always seem to go back to a KJVO claiming that we are against the KJV?

I guess I should just tag everyone one of my post like this:

******I am not anti-KJV. I am anti-KJVOism. Questioning the KJVO myth is not an attack upon the KJV simply because the KJVO myth is not contained in the KJV as scripture or a doctrine of the faith******

 

--------------------------------------------------
Wrong (IMO of course)! No one here is "against the KJV", just the bizarre errors made by some relating to it’s “perfection” down to the “jots” and “tittles” of which there are none in the English KJV (in the Law). Most of the "imperfections" in the KJV have already been seen to by none other than the KJV translators (and those who followed) themselves. Being human they didn't compltete the task.
--------------------------------------------------


Sorry Hank. You cannot be FOR the scriptures in the KJB and AGAINST them at the same time, by saying they have errors, and condoning those things that have obviously ALTERED THEM without being a hypocrate. Your compromise with error is evident.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

michelle said "You cannot be FOR the scriptures in the KJB and AGAINST them at the same time, by saying they have errors"

Sure we can. I am FOR my wife, my kids, my church, my extended family, etc. I do not have to believe they are all perfect in every detail, and recognizing imperfections in something does not mean I am against it.

 

--------------------------------------------------
michelle said "You cannot be FOR the scriptures in the KJB and AGAINST them at the same time, by saying they have errors"

Sure we can. I am FOR my wife, my kids, my church, my extended family, etc. I do not have to believe they are all perfect in every detail, and recognizing imperfections in something does not mean I am against it.
--------------------------------------------------


No you can't. We are talking about God's words, to which are perfect. WE are not talking about my words, or your words, or the words of the world. WE are talking about the SCRIPTURES who the author is GOD ALMIGHTY HIMSELF!


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

The KJV in its current form has been used for only 225 years. The Tyndale and Geneva, though not widely in use, have been inn continual use for over 400 years. The Latin Vulgate has all of them beat hands down, and it still enjoys a fair amount of worldwide popularity. But, if "wide acceptance" is the litmus test for God's affirmation, that honor today falls upon the NIV, which has outpaced the KJV in polularity in the English speaking market.

Jesus answered the hypocrites with scriptural responses. Now, if the KJVOs would just step up to the plate and give everyone scriptural support for their view, then there would not be an issue here.

Desiring to live a scripturally centered life, I will sincerely be happy to adhere to single-translation-onlyist doctrine, if that doctrine can be supported with scripture. Until then, translation preference is not a doctrinal matter, and lacking scriptural implication, is not even a matter of interpretation.

 

michelle said "No you can't. We are talking about God's words, to which are perfect. WE are not talking about my words, or your words, or the words of the world. WE are talking about the SCRIPTURES who the author is GOD ALMIGHTY HIMSELF!"

I agree. However, those words are made available to us through the efforts of men, specifically copyists and translators. Copyists and translators are not God Almighty, and the only way to ensure they are not susceptible to normal human error is to advocate reinspiration and/or to defend an extra-Biblical doctrine (i.e. by what authority can we say any group of translators were non susceptible to human error?)