The real reason I am KJVO

That is not the way I would interpret 2 Peter 1:19. I believe that what Peter is saying is: that despite his claim that the apostles were telling the truth, the fulfilled OT prophecies concerning the Messiah are stronger evidence than his own testimony (even as an 'earwitness'). And by the way, should I hear the audible voice of God, His words will not conflict with those in the Bible.

 

That's not how it was intended to be, stilllearning. God's word was meant to be easily understood by the common man. You would add a requirement for understanding God's word that He never intended.

Your confusion lies in the fact you have fallen for a teaching that casts doubt on God's ability to preserve His word in as many Bible translations as He sees fit. This teaching also questions His wisdom in graciously providing those translations for us. Everyone who accepts the KJVO position is deeply confused.

The KJVO position is not only based in deep error and confusion, it is also the cause of much strife and division among the church today.

 

The Greek word is same for a few English words. Modern versions used "testimony" in BOTH cases; other modern versions used "witness" in BOTH cases. To translate the SAME Greek word 2 different ways is to give right words on these passages.

Jesus' testimony is true AND not true. Did you see THAT?

 

Read again your post:

Show me what the KJV said -- 2 words on these passages.

 

John 8:17&18 (KJV) --

It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. ​

 

The 1611 KJV was also the work of a group, Samuel. If we follow your line of reasoning, that means the KJVs are also untrustworthy.

Most who use the KJVs were raised around them. Because of their (our) familiarty with the language of the KJVs much of the antiquated language is easily understood. But when you give one of the KJVs to someone who was recently saved and never previously exposed to Elizabethan English, the language can be the source of much confusion. A lot of people have been told the language in the KJVs isn't hard to understand for people never exposed to the language. Because they've been told the English of the KJVs isn't difficult, they actually begin to believe this erroneous idea.

Then are you conceding the modern translations are just as much the word of God as the KJVs?

In other words, those who don't use one of the KJVs have no "sensible discrimination." Isn't that what you're saying, Samuel?

No one bites and scratches at KJV users. What we "bite and scratch at" is what we believe is a false, man-made teaching about the KJVs - the teaching that one of the KJVs is the only true word of God in English.

So someone who uses a modern Bible translation has a lifestyle that will send them to hell? What about David Koresh (sp?)? Since he used one of the KJVs do you think he went to heaven when he died?

So God isn't the source of the modern Bible translations? You believe Satan is the source of modern Bible translations, so you don't believe any of the modern translations really are the word of God. If that's the case, then despite your previous danial, you really are KJVO. Which is it, Samuel? Are you or aren't you KJVO? Are modern Bible translations the word of God or aren't they the word of God?

Not true, my friend. It's the KJVO position that can't possibly exist in God's holy presence and in His all-encompassing truth. When we all get to heaven KJVOs will be forced to admit their error before God and to apologize for ever doubting His ability and His wisdom. I pray that day will come before we all get to heaven, but I rest assured the truth will eventually conquer the errors of the KJVO position.

 

That's right, we should. But the KJVO position isn't close to God's reasoning. The KJVO position isn't even hiunted at in any Bible translation.

God even abases himself to an estate of lower degree to come where man is at and offers to reason together with man. Isaiah 1:18.

Still men are persistently making unsubstanciated works of their hands as to perfect the word of God to any reader while that has already been accomplished by the Spirit of God.:thumbsup:

Not true, Salamander. What true Bible-believers attack is the incorrect notion that only one of the KJVs is the word of God in Engloish. I've never seen anyone at BB attack the KJVs - just a false teaching about the KJVs. There's a huge difference which you apparently don't understand. I regret your confusion.

Well, KJVOs keep wishing and trying to turn the errant KJVO teaching into truth. It'll never happen, Sal, even if you close your eyes, wish really hard and click your heels together three times.

 

I understand these Scriptures, but you did not answer it. Read my previous post:

 

Hmmm...modern versions like the 1611 KJV?

Askjo, you really need to check your "facts" a little better before you prove beyond doubt you don't know what you're talking about. Where did you come up with this hogwash that modern Bible translations contradict themselves here? If the modern translations contradict themselves here, then so do the KJVs.

Actually, despite your errant claim, neither the modern translations nor the KJVs contradict themselves here. This is a case of Jesus responding to two different situations at two different times. In your confused state it's easy to see how you would make this mistake, Askjo.

 

Samuel, you have it backward. It's impossible to remove something from manuscripts that didn't yet exist. However, it certainly isn't impossible for later manuscripts to add something to older manuscripts. See how you're confused?

 

You MISSED the point! Read these passages carefully and S L O W L Y.

 

I told you I was not a KJVO person, I simply like it better, and each version has their little glitches. I find sometimes a verse, is much better translated into modern english. But I still do not see the need to delete words, to get at the same meaning the long way around.

Now that's said there are MV's which I will not use, one being the NIV. Its at best is an ecumenical translation. and the RSV which goes off on terms of its own, I think they call it textual freedom to be idiomatic.

In Bible studies I use the NASB, and the KJV. I find the NASB to be of much better understanding in the OT, which is filled with much symbolic language. Probably understood 2000 years ago, but not so easy these days.

 

Rbell: // And that is why you find no significant doctrinal differences between the KJV and modern faithful translations. //

Amen, Brother Rbell - Preach it !

Tee Hee, this is what is called a SHELL GAME SCAM - the nut is under the third shell

Jesus’ testimony is true - John 8:14 NIV
("Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid")

Jesus’ testimony is not true - John 5:31 NIV (uses 'valid' not 'true')

So according to Bro. Askjo - the NIV has a doctrinal difference. (No doctrinal difference was suggested, specified, or indicated.)

Here is what the King James Version, 1611 Edition says:

Joh 8:14 (KJV1611 Edition):
Iesus answered, and said vnto them, Though I beare record of my selfe, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I goe: but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I goe.

Joh 5:31 (KJV1611 Edition): If I beare witnesse of my selfe, my witnesse is not true.

The selfsame 'contradiction' exists in the KJVs as exists in the MVs!

John 5:31 tells a common human truth: a person who gives record (testimony, witness) of one's self needs to be checked out.
In John 8:14, Jesus says even though normally, a person who gives record (testimony, witness) of one's self needs to be checked out, He doesn't need to be.

BTW, Brother Askjo has been told this last year at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=40172

 

And Bibles translated since that time have also changed people's lives. Your argument simply doesn't stand up in the face of truth, stilllearning.

That's just it, stilllearning. The KJVO position is one that isn't based on one shred of truth. So what do you base your opinion on?

Yep, KJVOs are definitely deceivers who expect everyone else to fully accept an errant teaching that has absolutely no scriptural or intellectual basis.

 

No, you did not answer it. What did the KJV say on John 5:31 and 8:14? Please answer two words.

I know that.