Questions KJVOs Can't Answer.

[Charles Meadows]

Michelle,

I'll throw in my $0.02 worth of perspective...

There were reasons that God commanded no images be made. He did not want to have His "image" worshipped and carried around in the ways that Canaanite tribes did with their "deities". This kind of thing seems to bring God down a few notches - something which is abhorrent!

Regarding a symbol on a bible cover - in my opinion it really isn't the same issue. I certainly see your point in wanting to be faithful to the letter of the verses you mentioned - but I think it is important to make sure we apply scripture properly. I would probably be labelled a liberal (which I'm not!) by some IFBs because I do not think that we should always use the LITERAL WORD FOR WORD interpretation of scripture as a default. I think this comes into play here.

I'll compare this to the veil in 1 Corinthians. The verse says women should keep their heads covered - the reason is that we are all to dress appropriately in worship and not to attempt to draw attention to ourselves. Taking that literally would result in a command that all women wear headcovers in church - which is silly, not to mention a clear mishandling of the scriptures.

I think we must be careful to always apply scripture rightly. This is important since I think the the worst thing that can happen (and I'm not pointing at you

) is that a person becomes so consumed with the literal scripture that he/she makes mountains out of molehills and becomes a Pharisee instead of an example of Christ's love.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So, anti-alex, what is your opinion of the NKJV since it is TR?

BB rules wont allow my opinion. </font>[/QUOTE]That is simply not true. Unless you are going to spout vile filth. And sure you wouldn't do that, since the NKJV is the blessed Word of God.

 

[HankD]

My KJB doesn't have any symbols of the trinity of God, and if it did, I would be quick to find one that didn't. Your excuses for them, will not stand at the judgement seat of Christ. This is all I have to say on the matter. Again, all I hear from all of you is EXCUSES for those things the Lord tells us to separate from. IT is between you and the Lord Jesus Christ now, for you all have been warned.

But michelle, I am only holding the KJV to the same standard you yourself have set for the MVs.

I do have a "pagan" version of the 1611 AV. It is a facimile reproduction of the AV First Edition which any one can purchase modernly.

It has the engraving of a smiling sun orb surrounded in a sunburst. According to you (since it is the First Edition) the well has been poisoned since King James had not the spiritual sense to direct the translators to avoid such things as "pagan" symbols (as well as the font of romish heresy, the Apocrypha). Who knows therefore what other grievous offenses are hidden therein? Alas the whole first generation of AV readers were plunged into the darkness of paganism by King James and the KJV translators.

I believe it is not I who should be warned, particularly concerning double standards.

Deuteronomy 25:13-15
Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.
Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small.
[But] thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

KJV Glossary:

Divers = different.

HankD

 

[Phillip]

It is a "trade-mark" for the company that publishes the book. In fact, I would imagine it is a "registered" trade-mark with the United States Patent and Trademark office (USPTO). Every book publisher has a trade-mark--whether it is their name with an underline under it, their name with a big first letter that wraps around the rest of the name or just a symbol. That is ALL it is.

Talk about mountains and mole-hills. The guy on the NKJV site is a conspiracy theory buff, that is ALL.

I just looked at my 1850 KJV, guess what, right on the front hard cover is a diamond or two triangles put together one on top of the other, the points facing upwards and downwards. The symbol covers the entire front of the Bible and is actually embossed into the hardback cover. (This is a BIG Bible). It looks like symbols I've seen used in witchcraft circles. Is it? No. It is simply decoration on a beautiful old KJV. And on top of that it is a REAL KJV complete with the Apocrypha..........

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So, anti-alex, what is your opinion of the NKJV since it is TR?

BB rules wont allow my opinion. </font>[/QUOTE]That is simply not true. Unless you are going to spout vile filth. And sure you wouldn't do that, since the NKJV is the blessed Word of God. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Dr. Bob. It is the Word of God.

I cannot for the life of me understand why Anti-Alex is "anti-alex", but is against the NKJV that is translated from the TR. At least it was true to the TR while the original King James was from the TR, some other manuscripts, the old Bibles (Geneva, etc.) and the Vulgate.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by michelle:
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Well gb, all I can say to you, is be very careful. WE are to know the wiles of the devil, for if we do not know how the enemy works, thinks, acts, believes, he may just deceive us into doing, thinking, we are doing the will of the Lord, when in fact we are disobeying the Lord. One isn't deceived by the lies, they are deceived by those things that have left out some of the truth, or those little lies mixed in with the truth. Remember, the serpent was more subtle than all the beasts of the field.

To dabble in the occult, or to do those very occultic things is not what is recommended, but knowing of them. This is clearly what is meant by being as wise as serpents, but as harmless as doves. We can only know these things are occultic, by knowing the word of God and what he has said and warned of them, and being on guard against them. Otherwise we can be taken in by them.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

I agree with you some and disagree with you some.

Remember what Satan told Adam and Eve about knowing the difference between good and evil? He told them, don’t, but they did. So they found out the difference.

I have spent plenty of time dealing with those involved in the occult in some form or another. I am convinced that is spread about in most of our churches more than we can imagine. No church is exempt. Gail Riplinger is one of those deceivers leading people astray and causing division by her writings of half truth and quotes out of context.

Is spend no time reading Satan’s books. I do not have to read them to know they are wrong and recognize them as such. The Bible gives me all I need to know to recognize anything that might come my way. I spend my time studying the rule of truth–scripture. If I know the straight truth of scripture I will recognize a lie, partial truth or exaggeration. We cannot be deceived if we know God and His word. The problem is when we don’t know him or choose to be disobedient to him.
But the big problem is when we are not humble and think we have things under control. When churches do not do evangelism and discipleship Satan has already got them right where he likes them. One such church is a KJVO church about 15 miles form where I live. That church has not grown but now has a nice building due to the KJVO’s that send them money for their propaganda.

We are to be on guard. The Bible says that we are to flee from the devil, not know all about him or know him.

I can spend my entire life knowing all about Satan and his ways and not know God. One such case was a young man years ago who preached scripture just like he was taught in his church. When I heard him I told my wife his day is coming. He talked like he had Satan by the tail. He was proud and arrogant. He even talked to Satan as having control of him. I have been told that there is no evidence of that young ever being born again. Satan knows us better than we know ourselves. God knows what is best for us. I would rather go with the uptaker than the undertaker.

 

[robycop3]

quote:
robycop:The whole KJVO myth is based upon guesswork, innuendo, fishing stories and fable. It has NO supporting evidence, empirical or implied.

Anti_Alexandrian:And yet you continue to harumph that it's your "D-U-T-Y" to combat this "damnable doctrine" and expose them for the blah,blah blah;

First, I'd like you to cut and paste any post from any board where I called KJVO a D#$@^&#$ doctrine" or be proven a liar by your above statement.


And yet the Bible believer still holds his ground,never yeilding to the Alexandrian "sect's" ranting and raving...People knew a snake then and still do today..Give it up!

No, YOU cats should "give it up". KJVO is clearly a false doctrine, as proven by FACT, not guesswork.



quote:
When we pin them down with simple little questions such as Skan and you have done here, they flop like a fish outta water.


You or any of your "sect's" bretheren have pinnned anybody down..Those questions were compiled by idiots to trip up the "babes" to the Bible version argument...All of those amaturish questions have been answered in times past...Give it a rest!!

No, they haven't been answered TRUTHFULLY; all we've seen are excuses and spin. The KJVOs WILL NOT answer truthfully, knowing the truth is the opposite of their myth they hold so dear.


quote:
Another classic example is their foolish argument that the NIV denies the Deity of Christ in Luke 2:43 by calling Joseph Jesus' father while totally ignoring the KJV's doing the same thing FIVE VERSES LATER! All of Will's excuses, nor anyone else's excuses cannot alter one peep of the verses as they appear in the KJV.(BTW, Luke 2:48 reads similarly in every valid English BV I can think of.)


In Luke 2:43 we have Luke(the author and narrator of the verse) saying "Joseph." In Luke 2:48 we have Mary calling Joseph His father;and in the next verse,Jesus QUICKLY corrects His mother as to who His father is....

I hardly think Mary didn't know where Jesus came from. One doesn't quickly forget a visit from an archangel! This is just another excerpt from "The KJVO Excuse Book".

The "sect's" so called "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting authorities) have Luke(the one who penned the Scripture) calling Joseph His Father!!!

But of course. the nomenclature is confirmed five verses later. Don't forget, it was some rocket scientist KJVO who made a federal case out of it to start with. Such is the case with all so-called KJVO "evidence".

Just exactly makes a Bible version valid?!
Following its sources closely.

The argument over the validity of the sources has been going on for over a hundred years.


quote:
Just face it, KJVOs-your myth took Chapter 7 long ago. Without any evidence, you're beating a dead horse.


I gave scripture(KJB) supporting the FACT that God will bear witness to the things of God...

Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the KJVO myth.


But,we have some who will stoop to lying and say God will bear witness to the "sect's 200+ conflicting bibles." He hasn't yet and never will!! Your position is bankrupt!!

Can YOU prove He HASN'T, at least to SOME of the MVs?

KJVO was in Chapter 7 in 1931.

 

[robycop3]

Michelle:I guess many like to overlook the quite obvious, and simple: Why does one even need to put a "symbol" on the Bible?

There is a vast difference between a "symbol" and a decoration. There can be no symbol for the trinity of God! That is forbidden, and no symbol or picture can give an accurate representation of the trinity of God. It is pagan, and this particular symbol that is on the cover has pagan origions. Call it whatever you desire, but I will keep myself from idols, thank you very much.

Ever seen a GENUINE AV 1611, Michelle? If so, do you have an explanation for the SMILING SUN illustration on the cover, something like what's seen on cartons of orange juice?

 

[ScottEmerson]

No matter of symbol can corrupt the Word found in the Bible. You can put a big old 666 on the front with a demon running around, and Truth can still be found within the words of the Bible. That's why the decoration on the front of the original KJV doesn't bother me in the least.

 

[HankD]

Me either Scott, just trying to show the absurdity of the those trying to "defend" the Word of God.

As if He needed our help.

HankD

 

[Phillip]

Let's cut to the chase. Its not about the symbol. Its about the fact that it is not a KJV1769 (erronously called AV1611). ....bottom line.

 

[David J]

"You were a ruckmanite. Sorry, you are wrong to join with him. Wrong side of the KJVO!" by Askjo

You posted a link from www.av1611.org which has G.A.(god and ) Riplinger's works who is a Ruckman Knight!

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/ripwhit1.html

This thread proves the fact that KJVOism has no leg to stand on. KJVOism is clueless.

It's sad that:

1.KJVOist can not and will not answer the questions originally asked by Skan.

2.I have yet to get the evidence about the NKJV. The paranoid web links DO NOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE.

3.These KJVOist like Anti-A resort to insults and spin.

4.The names calling like "fools" a.k.a like Peter Ruckman articles like to do!

5.All KJVOist can do is rely upon fear and distortions.

6. dodge and evade....dodge and evade....repeat!

Personally I am offended when KJVOist slander the Word of God as found in the NKJV. What about following what the KJV says and don't offend a brother in the Lord with this nonscence!

Again either put up or shut up. How do you think a lost person would feel if they read this thread and reviewed what some our our people have posted? Don't you think that we(including lost people) deserve to have the evidence when you make a claim about the NKJV? How can you lead someone to Christ when you can't even lead them to evidence about the NKJV being a bible that changes doctrines or prove KJVOism with scripture? Come on now, if it's so easy to prove then start typing. I have Word Search 5.0, Quickverse 8 Deluxe, and Bible Works 6. I'll be more than happy to research your data in full context using all my resources.

In Christ,
David J. Horn

 

[Phillip]

Great post, David!

Back to the original topic. The questions....have not yet been answered.

"dodge and evade....dodge and evade....repeat!"

Now, Askjo and others, answer the KJVo questions. I know you say they have been answered; if so, where. Just don't send us to a ridiculous conspiracy theory page like that NKJV slander.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by David J:
You posted a link from www.av1611.org which has G.A.(god and ) Riplinger's works who is a Ruckman Knight!
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/ripwhit1.html

This website is what I talked about any doctrines that modern versions affected.

KJVOist can not and will not answer the questions originally asked by Skan

I do not have to answer Skan'a questions because we clashed each other repeatedly. I asked Skan some questions. He did not answer my questions. He asked me his questions. I do not have to answer them, either!!!

The names calling like "fools" a.k.a like Peter Ruckman articles like to do!

I do noy buy his ego.

Personally I am offended when KJVOist slander the Word of God as found in the NKJV.

The NKJV contains the Word of God because the NKJV included the non-TR -- 40%!!!

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Askjo:
I asked Skan some questions. He did not answer my questions.

I do not recall you asking me any question which I did not answer. If you will repost it I will gladly answer it.

 

[robycop3]

Askjo:I do not have to answer Skan'a questions because we clashed each other repeatedly. I asked Skan some questions. He did not answer my questions. He asked me his questions. I do not have to answer them, either!!!

It isn't just Skan who's asked the same questions. If you COULD answer them truthfully without shooting down your own myth, you WOULD, just to gain a psychological victory, but you CAN'T, so you DON'T.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by robycop3:
It isn't just Skan who's asked the same questions. If you COULD answer them truthfully without shooting down your own myth, you WOULD, just to gain a psychological victory, but you CAN'T, so you DON'T.

You overlook????

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
I asked Skan some questions. He did not answer my questions.

I do not recall you asking me any question which I did not answer. If you will repost it I will gladly answer it. </font>[/QUOTE]Was Westcott an unbeliever?

 

[skanwmatos]

I don't know. Only God can see the heart. However, based on what he believed he may not have been, but I don't know.

 

[skanwmatos]

Now that I have answered your question, will you answer mine?

1. Where was the word of God prior to 1611?

2. What Hebrew word is translated "heaven" in Genesis 1:1 in the KJV and is the Hebrew singular, dual, or plural?

3. If the NKJV is wrong to not translate "logos" in Matthew 5:37 is the KJV equally wrong for not translating "logos" in Hebrews 5:11?

4. From which Greek text is the NKJV New Testament text translated?

5. If the KJV has not been changed since 1611, other than to correct printer's errors and typos, why does Genesis 8:13 read "one" in the 1611 and "first" in the 1769?

Or change "fourescore yeere" to "eightieth year?" Or change "God" to "LORD" in 2 Chronicles 28:11?

Or "children" to "men" in Ezra 2:22?

Or "God" to "LORD" in Isaiah 49:13?

Or change "amongst" to "among" 36 times?

Or "Apollo" to "Apollos" twice?

Or "lift" to "lifted" 50 times?

And "hand" to "hands" twice, and "hands" to "hand" once?

And "helps in governments" to "helps, governments" in 1 Corinthians 12:28?

And "the Lord" to "his Lord" in John 15:20?

Or "the Lord" to "our Lord" in 2 Thess 2:14?