Thank you for your contributions to the Double
Standards List:
---005 - In the KJV things that are the same are diferent. With MVs things that are not the same are different.
---006 - "KJV" must always be capitalized, while "mv" must never be capitalized.
---101 - the MV's come from Alexandria, which is Egypt, which is always evil and a type of sin and bad (contrasted to the Byzantine Catholic texts from Syria). Of course, JESUS came from Egypt after being saved from Herod there, and never even went to Syria, but . . .
--502 - There are 5000 minor changes (spelling) and about 150 major changes (entire words and phrases) in a typical KJV1769 Oxford or 1762 Cambridge revision from the AV1611. But those changes don't count. Yet an MV "must" be bad because THEY change the words from sacred AV1611.
Ed's Catalogue of KJVO Doubles
Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Ed Edwards, Mar 5, 2004.
Page 2 of 9
-
-
---007 - Anti-KJVOs enjoy bashing those who stand for the preserved word of God; KJVOs enjoy instructing others in righteousness.
-
---008 - Anything good that happened 1701-1900 is due to the positive influence of the KJB.Anything bad that happened 1901-2004 is due to the negative influence of the KJB. Corrollary: nothing bad happened 1701-1900 and nothing good happened after 1901 :(
---503 - Revisions/editions to the KJV are done to correct printing errors and spelling changes due to the English language being perfected. Now English is so corrupted no version of the Bible can be enhansed.
--709 - (Thank you Robycop3) KJVOs point out faults they perceive exist in other versions while totally ignoring the fact that those same "faults" exist in the KJV. Some examples:
-
709A - Modern translations refer to Joseph as being Christ?s ?father? (Lk 2:33) and Mary and Joseph as being Christ?s ?parents? (Lk 2:43)."
-
So does the KJV. See Lk 2:48,27,41
-
709B - The NASB refers to Christ as being ?offspring? (Lk 1:35).
-
So does the KJV. See Rev 22:16
-
709c - The KJV exalts Christ more than the modern versions.
-
John 1:18 - NIV, NASB call Christ God, but the KJV doesn?t
Titus 2:13; 2 Pe 1:1 - NIV, NASB call Christ God but the KJV speaks of Christ and God as being two different people
Rom 1:3 - KJV says that Christ was ?made? (created?)
Lk 1:35 - KJV calls Christ a ?thing?. Every other valid version I've ever read calls Him "Holy One" or Holy Child", not a holy "thing".
-
--710 - Only God can be worshiped in the MVs but the KJV says that Neb worshipped Daniel? (Dan 2:46)
-
Hmm, two you might think about (reword if necessary):
- People who are "against the KJV" may think they are reading new versions to understand them better and because of the more recent manuscripts, but they really do so because the KJV "puts them in their place, such as saying 'hell' instead of hades'" rather than because of the old english, manuscripts, etc. (I heard that one on here the other day. People who are against mv's, on the other hand, have seen the light and are the only ones not deceived.
Another one: Any passage in the KJV claiming to refer to God's perfectly preserving His Word is talking about the KJV... the same does not hold true for the passage in any other version (including ones pre-KJV). -
Good one, uhdum.
And Genesis 1:1-Revelation 22 are the Word of God if in the KJV, but are NOT the Word of God if in a Modern Version. -
Thank you Brother Uhdum and
Brother Dr. Bob Griffin. Your contributions
have been entered into the Data Base:
---010 - Genesis 1:1-Revelation 22 are the Word of God if in the KJV, but are NOT the Word of God if in a Modern Version.
---011 - Any passage in the KJV claiming to refer to God's perfectly preserving His Word is talking about the KJV... the same does not hold true for the passage in any other version (including ones pre-KJV).
---012 - People who are "against the KJV" may think they are reading new versions to understand them better and because of the more recent manuscripts, but they really do so because the KJV "puts them in their place, such as saying 'hell' instead of hades'" rather than because of the old english, manuscripts, etc.. People who are against mv's, on the other hand, have seen the light and are the only ones not deceived. -
Lemme tell ya about a classic! I was discussing some of Will Kinney's comparisons with him & others a few months ago in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/versions/
a now-unmoderated group which has gone to pot. Will criticized some MVs(Message #1643in the Yahoo group in the URL above) for using the word "potsherd", which means a shard of pottery, in Jeremiah 19:2. The word there translated "east" in the KJV & a few other versions is "charcuwth", which literally means 'potsherd'. Therefore, calling that gate the POTSHERD gate is literally correct. However, in Nehemiah, the KJV renders "ashpoth" as "dung", one of its literal meanings, for the South gate of Jerusalem.
Therefore it's OK for the KJV to depart from the literal meanings in places, but NOT OK for other versions to do likewise-but yet, it's OK for the KJV to be inconsistent in departing from literal meanings as in Jeremiah 19:2, while in the Onlyists' minds the MVs aren't allowed to.
I don't think there's a more clear example of a KJVO who posts on this board using a double standard than this one. I posted the URL so anyone wishing to see proof of my statement can do so. That discussion begins at message # 1643, & you can follow the thread far as you wish.
Ed, you may have a special number for this one if you read it. -
Why doth they not verily speaketh in KJV Englishe?
-
Thank you Brother Robycop3, now it is:
---711 - It is alright for the KJV call the gate "east" over the MVs "potsherd"; but it is bad, bad, bad when the MVs call the gate "south" over the KJV's "dung"; the Hebrew term "charcuwth" means east or potsherd, the Hebrew term "ashpoth" means south or dung.
-
Here's a new one (I think!):
Double standard
If you believe that more than one version is the word of God, then even though you can give scriptural evidence of more than one version being the word of God, your final authority is your own self.
BUT....
If you believe that the only word of God in the English language is the KJV, then even though you can give absolutely no scriptural evidence of that, your final authority is the Spirit. -
We shall add your delightful contribultion
as 014. Thank you.
I used to have a friend.
We carpooled together until he retired.
He met for lunch monthly with
the full-gospel business men.
His favorite expression wasn't
"Preach it Bro!" as me, but was:
"that will blow your socks off".
Thank you Sister Russell 55 for blowing
my socks off! That is exactly a double
standard if see out of KJV-only persons.
Remember not all KJVOites are cut from
the same batch of dough.
-
---711 - You can say all manner of evil falsely against an MV without getting God's attention; but just say a word that might be construed as slightly unkind against one of the many KJVs and God will probably zap you with a bolt of lightning.
-
---802 - You can say all manner of evil falsely against Westcott and Hort and still be saved by grace; but if you say anything against Riplinger or Ruckman, even God's truth, then you will be zapped with a bolt of lightning.
-
-
---015 - It is alright for the KJBO to ignore that there have always been a proliferation of translations even the "meanest" of which are the Word of God (according to the KJB translators) so they can concentrate on "the book of the month club"
-
Recently I saw the demise of a local KJVO church because of all the internal strife and corruption. It is no more. It is gone.
I am so often reminded of Hebrews 13:7, "Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith."
The proof of anyone's theology lies in their works which stems from their faith. When I look at a leader I look to see who his disciples are and how he lives out his faith. I want to see proof of his faith in acordance with scripture. -
---201 - The logo "Authorized Version" on a KJV means that it
has been authorized by God Almighty; such a non-textual
inscription on any non-KJV is an abomination.
-
---105 - some KJVOs attack the persons involved in production of other Bibles (Westcott and Hort, NIV committee memebers, etc) as if that therefore discredits their work, when they are unwilling to recognize/admit/discuss the KJV translators, Erasmus, etc., who in most instances were much more "shocking" in their beliefs and actions.
-
Page 2 of 9