Untrue anti-KJVO-doctrine points

Amen, Brother Robocop3 -- you are the best defender of the KJVs ever!!

Amazing what you Freedom Readers can do!!!

 

I wouldn't see where anyone could call it a "goof" in the first place, We understand that if we were to go to the aid of another only to find them in opposition to us as to kill us, we then would be against them.

But I do thank you for what you said,"Again, this is not a KJV goof."

 

A "Freedom Reader" is a misnomer when you apply it to the "KJVO" in the effort to substanciate your views. Thereby this is also an attack on the "KJVO" and subverts the "KJVO" as if to confine them by denial of their liberty to stand on the KJB.

I cannot call this freedom in any sense of the word. You should change your name.

We who hold to the KJB don't deny reading other versions. We just point out the contradictions in them and this makes the MV proponents angry.

 

Amen Bro Sal! :godisgood:

 

Total hogwash.

There hasn't been a post on here attacking the KJV in a long time.

More "creative definitions." (Disagreeing with Sal equals attacking the KJV)

 

Salamander: //A "Freedom Reader" is a misnomer when you apply it to the "KJVO" in the effort to substanciate your views.//

I call you out, Salamander.
You are damning Robocop3 for doing your job for you.
That is really a bad policy.

But, according to my trailer, I accept you anyway, despite your sin - like Jesus does.

-

 

Um, would you please express the differences between attacking the "KJV" and attacking a "KJVO" in relative terms?

 

I'll report your blatant attack on my person. I have not, nor will I do as you accuse.

 

Somebody (not rbell) appears to be tilting with windmills again. This topic is about showing anti-KJVO arguments that are full of beans (a metaphor for worthless). Strict KJVOs should be sitting around (like Lady Linda64 does) AMENing folks.

 

I thought the thread was about opposing the position which opposed a KJVO position, where the initial opposition to KJVO was based on fallacious argument(s). Did I misread, here?

Ed

 

Again, Sal you are completely off the mark.

First, you seemed to be confused as to which "against" phrase is under discussion. In the first part of the verse "Egypt went up against the king of Assyria" but they were NOT in opposition to each other, nor did they kill each other then; the Egyptians and the Assyrians were allies here. This first "against" is in the phrase that could be misunderstood as approximately meaning 'hostile opposition or resistance'. The "against" in the second part of the verse took place between Egypt and Judah (Josiah was essentially aiding the Babylonians). Necho didn't really intend to fight with Josiah at that time (see 2 Chronicles 35:20-24).

Second, you did not appear to fully appreciate robycop3's reason for "against" being acceptable 17th century English. He contends that the word is being used in the 'preparation for or in anticipation' sense [see definition 8 below]. Roby offerred Genesis 43:25 as an example of this useage. Your response does NOT indicate "against" in that sense. (For example, substituting 'prepare for' in place of "be against" in your response above doesn't result in your whole statement making too much sense).

FYI, the first "against" in 2 Kings 23:39 is NOT even supported directly by an underlying Hebrew word. The phrase "against the king" is based solely upon a form of the Hebrew word melek (Strong's #4428) a masculine noun meaning 'king'. Therefore the word "against" is actually being provided by the translators. However, the in Greek LXX has translated epi (Strong's #1909) a preposition here (meaning 'upon, on, at, by, before, over, against'. In the KJV NT this Greek word is usually translated as "on" 196 times, "in" 120 times, "upon" 159 times, "unto" and "to" 41 times each.

Now, the second "against" IS supported in the Hebrew by qir'ah (Strong's #7125) a masculine noun, meaning 'to encounter, befall, meet' (in the AV translated variously as "meet" 76 times, "against" 40 times, "come" twice, and "help", "seek", "way" once each).

The English word "against" in Genesis 43:25 is supported by a different Hebrew word `ad (Strong's #5704) which is a preposition, meaning 'as far as, even to, until, up to, while, as far as' (in relation of space, of time, or of degree).

against
prep.
1. In a direction or course opposite to: row against the current.
2. So as to come into forcible contact with: waves dashing against the shore.
3. In contact with so as to rest or press on: leaned against the tree.
4. In hostile opposition or resistance to: struggle against fate.
5. Contrary to; opposed to: against my better judgment.
6. In competition with: race against the record holder.
7. In contrast or comparison with the setting or background of: dark colors against a fair skin.
8. In preparation for; in anticipation of: food stored against winter.
9. As a defense or safeguard from: protection against the cold.
10. To the account or debt of: drew a check against my bank balance.
11. Directly opposite to; facing.​

 

Robycop3 is trying to do a good thing here. So how about we cut him a little slack.

Do you have any more points Robycop3?

A.F.

 

Only a devil would grant a man godlike powers to "damn" anyone.

No thanks, but I choose to remain mortal.

 

I think you just called God an Anglican.

But since the words of some are to remain, their holding to the whatever version principle tells on them for holding to a false doctrine of their being able to delegate godlike powers to other mortals.

 

The outcome of the event disgrees with your fallacy of the arguement.

 

The funny thing is that you people don't see I agree with him to the point of the "untrue anti-KJVO doctrine points".

Some poeple can't see the picture because of the tip of their nose!:laugh:

 

Not that Dr. Bob needs (or even wants) me to defend him here, but how do you figure he called God an Anglican?

Is it your position that your God is the one who authorized the translation of the Bible usually known as the King James Version?

Are you sure you really want to go there?

The version itself says only that it was -

"...Newly Tranʃlated out of the Originall
tongues: & with the former Tranʃlations
diligently compared and reuised by his
Maieʃties ʃpeciall Comandement
Appointed to be read in Churches..."

So who gave this command?

Why, it was the head of the Church of England a.k.a. the Anglican church. (Ergo, it is not a misnomer to refer to the A.V. as the 'Anglican Version'.) Incidentally, he was the fourth head of the Anglican church to "approve", or "authorize", in some fashion, a translation/version of the Bible.

Henry VIII - Coverdale's Bible (2nd Edition), liscensed by Henry VIII. (1537)

Henry VIII - Matthew's Bible; (1537)

Henry VIII - Great Bible (1539)

Edward VI - did not actually 'authorize' any new version, but encouraged the expansion of the English Bible and well over a dozen new editions appeard with his encouragement

Elizabeth I - Bishop's Bible (1568)

Questions:

Why should not one refer to the KJV as an Anglican Bible? Most, if not all, the translators were members of the church of England, if I recall correctly. There were definitely no Baptists among the translators, and few, if any, Congregationalists or Presbyterians, I don't think. And the translation was done under the auspices of the Church of England, as were the major "revisions" of the version, and also the ERV.

Who died and left the Anglican church forever in charge of the Bible, in English?

Why would not a Baptist, such as yourself, not support and prefer a predominately "Baptist Bible" over a predominately "Anglican Bible"? The NKJV, KJII, and HCSB come to mind, immediately, as predominately Baptist Bibles".

Why does James I rate above these other rulers, in your mind? Oh wait! I know the answer to that one! You are merely following the thinking of some others who claim that God is the one who really "authorized" the 1611 version. If Salamander is suggesting that Dr. Bob called God an Anglican, then with this same logic, who is Salamander calling God? Wouldn't that be the one who authorized the 1611 version of the Bible, namely King James I?

Ed