Why so much against KJB-only?

The difference is that we're not making our *preference* into a *doctrine*. You need an authority to assert a *doctrine*. </font>[/QUOTE]Brian I have known you and Roby long enough on-line to see that you have made your mv views (your self indulgent preferences) a doctrine. I also know that neither of you wish to be held to the stanmdards you seek to hold others to, and that in itself weakens the shifting sand you all stand on.

 

AMEN!

 

"self indulgent preferences" Let's take JW's above statement to it's logical conclusion: Before 1611, the choice had to be made between all available MSS, and the KJV(kjb)translators practiced "self indulgent preferences" by including in the AV, "former translations(plural) diligently compared and revised". The KJVO logic is again demonstrated to be a misnomer.

 

Jim, It is clear from Scripture that God approved the use of versions other than the KJV and endorsed those versions as authoritative, inspired, and fully the word of God.

Therefore, any view that does not accord the same status to other versions is unbiblical.

As for doctrine vs. preference, all of us on this side have routinely said that we are not trying to force anyone to use a particular version. We are not enforcing our preference. We would appreciate it if your side would do the same. The use of the KJV is a preference, not a doctrine. If you think it is the better text or better translation, then have at it. But do not question the orthodoxy of those of us who believe otherwise. We take the position that God takes in his word.

 

Nope. Maybe you don't understand what is meant by "doctrine".

I don't understand your vague accusation.

 

The difference is that we're not making our *preference* into a *doctrine*. You need an authority to assert a *doctrine*. </font>[/QUOTE]Then rip Hebrews 4:12 and II Timothy 3:16 right out of your "book", that is if they say the same thing like yall keep trying to push over on the less informed.

You know, that is the difference, we have the Bible that is quick and powerful, profitable for doctrine, and your "book" is NOT!

 

Nah, no danger of that. You could never have too much faith in God, His promises, or His Bible.

 

"self indulgent preferences" Let's take JW's above statement to it's logical conclusion: Before 1611, the choice had to be made between all available MSS, and the KJV(kjb)translators practiced "self indulgent preferences" by including in the AV, "former translations(plural) diligently compared and revised". The KJVO logic is again demonstrated to be a misnomer. </font>[/QUOTE]Orvie, when God promotes indulgence and is full and total control of self, it's not man, it's God! Yall keep on this "down the rabbit hole" ideal of saying by our standard of practice in believing God preserved His Word and completed it in 1611 somehow denies that he had His Word preserved prior to 1611 is ,well, uh, SSSSTTTTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPID! to coin a phrase.

Yall accuse that, but we never said that, talk about adding words!

 

Jim Ward: "Brian I have known you and Roby long enough on-line to see that you have made your mv views (your self indulgent preferences) a doctrine."

robycop:No, Jim, all we do is reject the proven-false KJVOnlyism myth. Rejection of a false doctrine doesn't automatically create a new doctrine.

"I also know that neither of you wish to be held to the stanmdards you seek to hold others to, and that in itself weakens the shifting sand you all stand on."

Actually, Jim what you REALLY know is that you DARE not answer the questions we've asked you truthfully because their answers show your KJVO myth to be false. Not wanting to lie, you create a sideshow to try to lead the readerships' attention fron the fact that you didn't answer. Well, that tactic doesn't work on the Yahoo or Ezboard forums and it won't work here either. We're gonna hold your nose to the grindstone for some straight answers.

Now-BY WHOSE AUTHORITY are you KJVO and BY WHOSE AUTHORITY do you tell me I should be?

 

Precepts:Then rip Hebrews 4:12 and II Timothy 3:16 right out of your "book", that is if they say the same thing like yall keep trying to push over on the less informed.

You know, that is the difference, we have the Bible that is quick and powerful, profitable for doctrine, and your "book" is NOT!"

First, in other threads you say you're NOT KJVO. Yet, you describe any BV besides the KJVO as being a "bible-ette". Methinks me smells a double standard or perhaps a little propaganda.

Next, you won't tell us by whose authority you proclaim these things. Methinks me smells sumpin else...

 

2 Tim 3:16 and Hebrews 4:12 are both in the NASB, NIV, ESV, and NKJV. Therefore, they too are quick, powerful, and inspired, profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness.

 

Funny, I did.

To make a legitimate objection you must state why you object, else you'll look like Orvie.

Right, you're wrong. We have to maintain we have the Word of God preserved perfectly to establish and keep doctrine, else it becomes false doctrine.

You allude to as if we say that there was no prior preservation before 1611, that is stupendously wrong.

Church history is not the mandate over preservation, unless you're catholic, then you've got real problems!

I fail to see where your accusation has anything to stand on, that is not what he just said.

Why must we concede? Who is going to "make" us? You have no authority to do so. Your accusing the KJVO position and demanding something that is not possible, but now if the simple pass by, they could be easily duped into believing you. Your mandate is none, just the child screaming while jumping up and down for a cookie.

We believe the serpent used that same logic with Eve in the garden. Your premise is to deny faith altogether, nice try though, you just got caught again!

 

Well, since yall continue to call me KJVO, I might as well play along with the rest of the inmates.

I've got God's Word on it, Cranston: Pslams 12:6,7.

 

2 Tim 3:16 and Hebrews 4:12 are both in the NASB, NIV, ESV, and NKJV. Therefore, they too are quick, powerful, and inspired, profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. </font>[/QUOTE]Then maybe you can teach Brian that? But now should we look deeper into those versions for substance instead of just the surface?

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

First I would like to say, that many on these posts are only quoting part of what I have said and believe concerning the KJV and God's preserved word. For those of you who desire/care to know what I really said and believe, please go and read my previous posts. I believe that "IF" the modern versions of the Bible were based on reliable texts, and translated in the right manner, that they also would be Gods unaltered and pure word of God (and would also agree with the KJV). I cannot say that however, for the facts and evidence prove/show otherwise. I do not limit God with his ability to preserve his word, but I do acknowledge and realize that God would not "market" his word. How many different modern versions of God's word are available today in the english language? Do we really need so many different versions in the same language? Does this seem consistent with how God has preserved his word in the past? NO it does not. The church has always had his preserved word and all of it (contrary to what you say and believe Larry) in their own language as represented in one text or version of their language, unless it has been corrupted/altered. The Lord Jesus Christ said this about his word:

Matthew 4:4

4 But he answered and said, It is written,MAN SHALL NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE, BUT BY EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD. (notice here that Jesus said "EVERY WORD")

Luke 11:28

But he said, Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. (remember it, take it to heart and do it)

John

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your rememberance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

These are just but a few of the many scriptures that confirm how very imporant the word of God is, and how God has promised to preserve his word of truth. When the Lord says something, he means what he says, for he is faithful and true. To say that God has kept hidden the words of God from those who are his, and who have the Holy Ghost indwelling their hearts, is denying this wonderful truth and promise of our Almighty God and Savior and basically calling him a liar.

May our Heavenly Father and our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ bless you richly with this wonderful truth.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Where? You take away from the scripture, build a premise, then add something to what is said with no literal proof.

There you go again, usurping authority, or trying to anyway, we just won't let you though.

Who's choosing sides? We take the stand, yall try to tear it down and try to force us to choose sides. We already know where we stand, on God's side!

 

Precepts, this is why I've called you "pretext" before, because you force this to fit what you think it oughtta say. Those verses still say nothing about the KJV(kjb). What you think it says is this: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, Thou shalt pickle them in the KJV(kjb)from this generation(oops! that fails pre1611) for ever."

 

No, Orvie, you're adding words to His Word, you're condemned by His Word. Revelation 22:18,19

 

Thanks Sister Michelle! I understand Truth too!

 

I believe Psa 12:6-7 was true in 1605, and that it didn't change meaning in 1611.