Parallel of RC/KJVO

I think the analysis is right on target.

 

Are you sure KJVO's aren't Catholic??? LOL
I agree, with Stefan. I've seen these parallels before, but not put as well.

AVL1984

 

RCs generally believe a Papal Bull to the letter. KJVOs also believe man-made bull .

 

I can definately see the similarities.

But, then, I can also see the similarities between the KJVOnlyists and several cults (including the ones you mentioned {SDA, Mormons}, and any group the has a higher authority than God {as teh KJVOnlies do with the KJV}).

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Baloney!!!!

 

mayo and cheese w/ that, please?

 

Don't forget the RC's have a Pope, and KJVO's have a few as well: S. Smith, Ruckman, Riplinger, Waite, Cloud, ***yawn***

 

Catholics rely on authority outside of scripture to establish doctrine. KJVOs rely on authority outside of scripture to establish the doctrine of KJV-onlyism.

 

Atta boy, A-A! You show us, and you show us GOOD!!!

 

I always thaught it was the same arguement.
My mother is a RC and I went to Catholic school.
I thought the true Bible was in Latin

 

Reminds me of a story of a preacher who went to the pulpit and there was a note from a parishoner that said "Fool".

He read it and chuckled and said, "I've gotten many notes with messages that went unsigned, but this is the first note I've gotten that had only the signature and no message!"

BTW, St Oscar of Meyer 1611 spells it b-o-l-o-g-n-a </font>[/QUOTE]Reminds me of an old preacher's joke about a preacher who stood at the cliff and shouted out, "baloney!" expecting to hear his echo...after not hearing it, he said, "I'm the greatest preacher who ever lived!" then the echo comes back, "baloney!"

 

I find it...I don't know. Offensive? Not really, but maybe sad that such a comparison would be made between believing in a preserved word of God and believing in a false religion. Feels like you "tainted" something good and now I need to go take a shower to get the feeling off my skin. Hearing stuff like this usually makes me lean more towards being an onlyist than anything else. Stick with the common sense and real things wrong with extremist positions and you might get your message across more effectively.
Gina

 

I don`t pay any attention to Smith, Riplinger, Waite or cloud. I have heard Dr. Ruckman several times over the past 40 years. On the KJVO scale of 1-5, I`m basicly a 2. The 3s and 4s I know include former Catholics. The issue may be former Catholics, rather than KJV only. They won`t accept Wescott and Horte because of a Jesuit connection. It may be much less of a cult factor, than opposition to what they left (and everything remotely connected to it).

Bob

 

Anyone who doesn't believe that the modern KJVO movement, doesen't have similarities to the Latin Vulgate only tragedy that was perpetuated by the RC's more than a 1000 years, should see "The Forbidden Book."
You can get a copy of it at www.greatsite.com .
Here is the link to the page to purchase it.
www.greatsite.com/featured-items-and-events/forbidden-book.html

 

Eaglewing:

You`re grouping all KJVO into a single group and making an overgeneralized point of view. The intent of the Roman Catholic Church was to keep the Bible out of the hands of the common people and steer them towards the clergy. The modern day arguments of KJVO over translations are centered around the texts. The Catholic Church intent wasn`t to give the common man the best Bible possible.

The KJVO don`t argue against the Bibles listed by that site. There`s no argument against Luther`s German Bible or the Spanish Valera. THe texts are the issue.

Bob

 

Bob Rogers, the intent is largely irrelevant. The end result is that both groups claimed, by their own authority and not the authority of scripture, that their version of choice was the only acceptable version.

You said "The KJVO don`t argue against the Bibles listed by that site. There`s no argument against Luther`s German Bible or the Spanish Valera."

There is little or no argument from the KJVO camp against these other Bibles only because those in the KJVO camp are inconsistent. Those Bibles have word differences from the KJV, sometimes agreeing with "modern versions". Luther's doesn't have 1 John 5:7. Both Luther's and the Valera have their language equivalents of "morning star" in Isa 14:12. Yet KJVOs will accept these as "the word of God" in Luther's and the Valera, but for some reason they are "blasphemy" in English Bibles.

 

Gina L said:

Not really, but maybe sad that such a comparison would be made between believing in a preserved word of God and believing in a false religion.

Unfortunately, the comparison is quite apt. What is sadder, that the comparison can be made, or that the comparison is possible?