Refuting KJOism, What Works, and What Does Not

Agreed

 

Agreed, and attacking the version itself is not an answer.

I love my King James Bible and it is all I use.

 

I certainly agree in praying for them to be shown the truth. And as for attacking the KJV itself, it sometimes becomes necessary to prove to some zealot that it's not absolutely perfect. However, I have NEVER advocated discarding the KJV, nor will I ever advocate such. However, it's frozen in time as all versions are, while God and His word are ALIVE, and not locked into one time frame, and as time passes, the KJV, while remaining valid as ever, will be relegated more and more into the museum.

 

Save it!We already know the truth--just as Church history has shown:the rejection of the dark-age,Gnostic-Jesuit mss of Alexandra(and their fruit,NWT,NIV,NAS,ASV et al)for the MSS. and Bibles of the Reformation.

Then why dont you attack those other-as you put it-"valid versions"? I know why!!

Then WHY do you insist on using this "archaic,corrupt,and inferior translation"?

Why bother?

 

Many folks unfortunately, including many on this board, once again lump many people into this so called KJVOism. I have heard time and time again of certain churches (IFBs) who are called KJVOs just because it is our version of choice in the church and is the version that is taught and preached from.

I have travelled the world and seen many many preachers come into my churches that have preached from the KJV and yet because they do and because we are IFB and because we have high standards, we are labelled and attacked. According to Dr. Bob's criteria of KJVO, I have never heard from any of our pastors, speakers, or other folks we associated with be higher than a #3, most are around a #2, yet we are tagged being KJVO and being hateful and ignorant.

So much else I could add, but will not. Just remember 1 Corinthians 13 and not be so quick to judge. I am ready to go on to my next base and already looking at potential churches. I would still pick a church that uses the KJV exclusively and has high standards that as Christians we should have, but I am sure many would look just at those two areas and point and say, "KJVO", Ruckmanite, etc and yet be so far from the truth.

Aloha.

 

AF, true, many us of here paint with a broad brush. i have never considered you to be KJVO, but, rather, KJVPreffered. Big, big difference.

Now, Anti-Alexandrian, on the other hand, welll let's just say A-A is in a class all alone. Now if we could just lock the door...

I love the KJV. It is God's word! But so are many other bibles. I love my NKJV, my parallel bible that has the KJV & Amplified & NASB & NIV all side by side. I have a RSV. On my computer I have about fifteen other translations. And all of them are God's word.

The main thing to remember when you talk with a KJVOnlyist is that they have been indoctrinated into the lie. Most are very venomous in regards to anything other that the KJV, if not down right rude and aggressive. They are quick to respond with their proof texts, and their knee-jerk Ruckman/Riplinger/Cloud/whoever responses.

We must show them the love of Christ, first and foremost. Until they see and realize that we are not demon-possessed, raving lunatics like their pastors teach them, they will not listen. But when they see that we are Christ-like, then they wil actually consider listening to the truth.

We can't attack what they believe, but we can point them to the truth. Use facts, but not attacks. Use scholars that they know and recognize, not rabid anti-KJVO men.

A KJVO is a lot like a hardened atheist, and must be approached and dealt with in much the same manner.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

"Then why dont you attack those other-as you put it-"valid versions"? I know why!!"

A-A, the answer is simple. We don't hold these versions to be one and only exclusive copies of God's word. And, for the umpteenth time, we don't attack the KJB - just those who want to mislead our children by teaching their own man-made false doctrine!

 

Amen, Charles!

 

Anti_Alexandrian:Then why dont you attack those other-as you put it-"valid versions"?

Because no one claims any of them are perfect, not even their "onlyists".


I know why!!

Then please enlighten us.

Then WHY do you insist on using this "archaic,corrupt,and inferior translation"?

Why bother?

Because it's also a valid English-language Bible.

 

Thing is, AF Guy, there are those who are users of the KJV alone who criticize us who either don't use the KJV at all, or use it along with other versions. That is a false idea, and it must be fought at every turn.

 

I see the KJVOs, as usual, have no answer to a probing question. Keep asking'em, Craig, & they'll whack their own myth by their silence.

 

Craig, what proof do you seek? Are you looking for a verse that says the KJB is God's only word? Well, your not going to find it, that's right, it's not there. Just like there's no verse for NIV, NASB, NKJV, etc, etc. So, what proof do you seek? You have MSS, I have MSS, you have books and literature, and I have books and literature. Yours says this while mine says that. Who's correct?

The way I see it is, I believe in a perfect word of God and you, well, you're still seeking. If a new MSSS pops up, you go hog wild thinking that this new MSS is the best of them all. HOGWASH! Just because a MSS is older or newer does not mean that it is the best. Do not 95%+ agree with the KJB.?

 

Homebound,

Well you do admit that the bible does not specifically say that the KJB is the only acceptable Word. I have never had a problem with the stance that the KJB is a great translation, or that there ARE reasons to prefer it over MVs. I just have a problem with those who assert that only the KJB is a valid bible when they do not have 100% proof.

 

Likewise, do not 95%+ [MSS] agree with the NASB?

 

***yawn*** again, where EXACTLY was the 100% perfect Word of God ~~ in English ~~before 1611? The same place God's Word was before 1611, is where it is now.(which includes the K.J.T.)

 

CM, I understand that. But think, you don't have 100% proof that I'm wrong. What if the KJB is God's complete word? If it is, you and others are in grave danger. If it is not, then we all win.

How can you all pick and choose what version is God's word when you don't have the originals? Do you go back to the earliest or oldest MSS to help with this?

 

***yawn*** again, where EXACTLY was the 100% perfect Word of God ~~ in English ~~before 1611? The same place God's Word was before 1611, is where it is now.(which includes the K.J.T.) </font>[/QUOTE]Why are you so concerned about the past? Do you know where the word of GOd was then? I'm talking about now, not then.

 

***yawn*** again, where EXACTLY was the 100% perfect Word of God ~~ in English ~~before 1611? The same place God's Word was before 1611, is where it is now.(which includes the K.J.T.) </font>[/QUOTE]Why are you so concerned about the past? Do you know where the word of GOd was then? I'm talking about now, not then. </font>[/QUOTE]Trying to bring you out of the Twilight Zone into Reality. The Word of God existed in 1610, it just didn't ***appear*** in 1611. Do ya understand it now?