KJB Defense Is Not Heresy

From reading Burgon's Revision Revised, I believe Burgon thought the KJV to be a much-better version than the RV, but that's as far as any suggestion that he was KJVO should go. Again, he believed that the Textus Receptus could stand a thorough revision. This would, of course, imply that a newer English BV would need to be made, using the revised TR.

 

That is not 100% true.They had access to ALL of the variations found in todays "bibles,"
found in the Jesuit Douay-Rheims for example... </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, they MAY have had access to perhaps a hundred mss, as opposed to the 5,000-plus known today.

 

That is true A-A, the Douay-Rheims preceded the KJB and was a translation of a translation from the Latin Vulgate.

The KJV translators were quite fond of the Vulgate and depart from the TR in favor of the Vulgate in upwards of 15 places in the KJV English text.

HankD

 

The "me" in this Verse is "wisdom" as defined in Verse 12.

Do you really agree with King James on the "divine right of kings?" I suppose that would make you a "Tory of the highest order."

"I conclude then this point touching the power of kings, with this axiom of divinity, that as to dispute what God may do, is blasphemy ... so is it sedition in subjects, to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power.."
(from a speech to Parliament on March 21, 1609)

Does that mean that you believe that the signers of the Declaration of Independence were actually going against the Will of God?
Remember what Jezebel did to Naboth? Do you agree with King James that Elijah was guilty of sedition?

Well, it is quite possible that he was a style consultant on the Psalms. </font>[/QUOTE]
Alas, thou hast made a point worth pondering.
Actually, one could make a case for the opinion that the style consultant is John Calvin.

 

And no one has shown us that the buzzwords & slogans of modern KJVO were used before 1930, as far as KJVO goes. Can anyone show us a pre-1930 book that applies Psalm 12:6-7 to God's words?

Psa 12:7 - Thou shalt keep them - Thy words or promises: these thou wilt observe and keep, both now, and from this generation for ever.

John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, 1765

 

Also,

Thou shalt keep them; either 1. The poor and needy... Or, 2. Thy words or promises last mentioned...

Matthew Poole's Commentary on the Holy Bible, 1685

 

Also,

Thou shalt keep them; either 1. The poor and needy... Or, 2. Thy words or promises last mentioned...

Matthew Poole's Commentary on the Holy Bible, 1685 </font>[/QUOTE]I'll take your word for it & stand corrected! However, each of these authors leaves the possibility open for "either/or".

But, you DID show us what I asked for, and I congratulate you for that!

Ever seen the marginal note in the AV 1611 for this verse?

 

Yes, and they all reigned by the Sovereign design of a Sovereign God.

 

LOL! I see! So it was okay to be KJVO prior to 1930 but is heresy to be KJVO after 1930! You aren't some sort of Millerite, are you!

 

Acts 24:14-

"But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets..."

The Pharisees professed to believe all of the law and the prophets but made some of it 'of none effect' by their tradition.

Modern MVs profess to believe 'all' of the scriptures are inspired by God but quibble about some of it - some say 7% is questionable or open to debate.

Other some say their MVs are infallible 'as long as they are faithfully translated from reliable manuscripts'.

What say ye?

 

He also believed in infant baptism. Strange a Baptist taking a methodists doctrine for proof.
But then again KJVOs worship anglicans works.

 

Defending the KJV by telling lies about other translation and the scholars who produced them is worse than heresy.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. KJV

 

I have right here in my hands a KJV Only pamphlet that say that the “NKJV Supports New Age Ideas.” As a proof text they quote 1 Sam. 13:21 in the NKJV:

13:21. and the charge for a sharpening was a pim for the plowshares, the mattocks, the forks, and the axes, and to set the points of the goads.

The pamphlet says that “pim” is an acronym for positive identification microchip. What the KJV Only pamphlet fails to tell you is that “pim” is a Hebrew word found in the Hebrew text of this verse from which the KJV was translated. This whole pamphlet is full of lies and deliberate distortions of the truth. If you want to know whether the KJV Only camp is telling the truth, all you have to do is read their literature and check out each one of their claims for yourself.

 

Is the opposite also worse than heresy?

 

Yes, and they all reigned by the Sovereign design of a Sovereign God. </font>[/QUOTE]Ever wonder WHY He did it? In the case of Ahab, it's easy-Israel had fallen into idolatry & got some of what they deserved.

 

LOL! I see! So it was okay to be KJVO prior to 1930 but is heresy to be KJVO after 1930! You aren't some sort of Millerite, are you! </font>[/QUOTE]If I am, you're a Mormon.(LOL)

Most of the pre-1930 KJVOs have passed on. And I'd venture to say there weren't too many to begin with.

KJVO was incorrect(Avoids the H word) before 1930 & it's incorrect now.

 

As have Wilkinson, Ray, Fuller, and most of the rest of that generation.

Still aren't. They just seem to be louder than the rest of us.

Glad to see you acknowledge KJVO existed prior to 1930.

 

Skanwmatos: Glad to see you acknowledge KJVO existed prior to 1930

____________________________________________

But not the modern form, with all its venom and idiocy. With the advent of modern Bibles, a whole new gang of Ministers of Misinformation burst forth.

 

Is the opposite also worse than heresy? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, we all need to tell the truth.

 

Amen! My teacher often says that truth is often the first casualty of such discussions. Unfortunately, I think he may be right.