What KJVOs believe #2

I don't know how to do the poll, because I know that for most questions, the activity/belief listed describes some "KJVOs" but not others.

 

I voted "Not Sure" if some KJVO's do but some don't.

Andy

 

There are several flavors of KJVO.

I could take the time and find differing answers among them for each of these questions and document them but I won't.

I documented (here on the BB) the worst and epitomizing error they preach (IMO) from one of their famous leaders books: that the English supercedes the Greek and Hebrew.

This is all I need to know to engage with them concerning their error (although they keep changing the rules of engagement).

HankD

 

Originally posted by HankD:

I have no doubt you have a very broad knowledge of what some KJVOs may believe, but can you really say that everything you believe them to stand for is true of all, or even of some?

 

I now several KJVOs and none of them believes the English supersedes the Greek and Hebrew. Are you sure that is the defining characteristic of KJVOs?

 

As I previously stated, for me it is the defining issue that I personally oppose. It is a symptom of the basic issue, that the 1611 English of the KJB is "inspired" and is the "perfectly" preserved Word(s) of God.

Again there are many KJVO that are not actually KJVO when this element is brought into the definition.

There is also the methodology of the double standard and smoke-screening which is a hallmark of their apologetics which marks them as well.

HankD

 

I now several KJVOs and none of them believes the English supersedes the Greek and Hebrew. Are you sure that is the defining characteristic of KJVOs? </font>[/QUOTE]Not all KJVOs believe such nonsense, but several who post regularly here DO indicate such a belief in their posts. But I can't say for certain that they REALLY believe it or not. As KJVOs are well-known for creating distractions when attempting to cover up the lack of evidence to support their myth, I cannot dismiss that's what they've done on this board, as they seem too intelligent to believe a word of whar Dr. Ruckman says.

 

So then this is an example of the very same extreme error that the Church of Rome made concerning the Latin Vulgate. There is magic in the words.

For many centuries the Church of Rome taught that the mass must be said in Latin and that the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the VERY flesh and blood would not happen and that the sacrament had no saving grace unless the consecration of the host was executed in Latin.

For instance The words "hoc est corpus meus" (which is where we get "Hocus-Pocus") were said over the bread and wine by the Priest of Rome and then the bread and wine no longer existed but the mere "accidents" of the bread and wine which had been transformed into the very Body and Blood of the Lord.

So now in the Anglo-Re-Inspiration error we have Almighty God powerless to save apart from 1611 Elizabethan English.

BTW what if

1) a person doesn't speak English? Does just hearing the 1611 English words save them or are they doomed?

2) someone is bi-lingual are they half-saved by hearing or reading the 1611 English words?

3) The original font of the 1611 KJB was Gothic, does a Roman font save? Should there be a GKJVO
(Gothic King James Version Only) cult?
How about Arial or Courier?
What about Font size?
Will 10 save but not 12?

HankD

 

Could someone in the know give us an update of the results so far? Thanks.

 

RSR, there are several KJVOs in my'hood, and one of them is one of my sister-in-law's stepmother. I like this woman a lot, so I wouldn't take her to task over KJVO since she's a former JW just getting her life back. Glad to see she's now a CHRISTIAN, using a REAL Bible. THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE, be it the KJV, NIV, or another valid version she might have chosen.

However, most of'em I know face-to-face are same as the ones on the net-long on rhetoric, short on EVIDENCE to support that rhetoric.