Why is it IF Against KJVO means Against the KJV?

Well like in another thread if you are against the KJVO then you are also against God because they believe they are one and the same. Very weird stuff

 

In some cases, not all, people have actually become bibiolaters, worshiping the Bible instead of the Author.

 

Yep. :thumbsup:

Some cases, and there are many of these churches in my region.

 

The King James Bible alone = the Word of God alone


thats why

 

Perro no hablo ingles!!!

 

Lets see if I can make up some "good" answers. :laugh:

I wasn't around back then, I only know what's today.

yes

AMEN!!!

Learn you some English.


LOL These are fun to do. :laugh::laugh:

But in all seriousness, many times this answers the OP's question. A KJV only advocate will put that equation together and so when you attack the KJV only position, you are attacking the Bible.

 

Of course, I'm only saying what the KJVO's say. Of course it's not true, just showing where they are coming from. And of course that's an erroneous position because as you said, you are not attacking the Word of God.


I'm not KJVO by any stretch of the imagination. I use the ESV the most followed by the NASB and then the KJV.

 

So then there is no Bible for the Japanese people? Is that your belief?

Edited in: And now I see that you were just playing games.

 

My bad, I realized that I haven't spoken too much around here about the KJV issue so I guess I didn't have my rep yet.

 

No problemo. :flower:

 

I have enough trouble seeing through the glasses I have....

But hey, looking at the technology we already have, maybe someday soon you can buy glasses with interpretation software that scroll in English across the lenses what someone says or what you are reading in another language! So a Japanese could read the KJV and have Japanese scrolled across his glasses! :thumbsup:

 

I wanted to insert something in this thread, so I chose yours because I am very sympathetic to your position, although with slight differences. I do believe the KJV translators were used of God to 'codify' all extant manuscripts into the Textus Receptus, thus eliminating bad manuscripts, uninspired books claiming to be part of the canon of scriptures, and preserving in one source the majority witness of God's word as seen from every source available to them at the time. The TR is of sufficient value for us to consider the issue of masnuscripts settled for ever.

We no longer need huge numbers of textual critics with their unending various and conflicting opinions as to what God really said. We no longer need 'experts' or 'high priests', if you will, to reveal to us what God said because we can't find or read the ancient manuscripts ourselves. The Lord has been good to his common people, giving us a Book that has not sought nor received the blessing of the religious elites.

I have studied other versions in English and am convinced that no other English version besides the KJV is totally and accurately based on the TR as I believe all versions should be. The KJV is a translation, but it is also the best translation in English, by far and above all the others.

 

I've asked the mods to fix my post. That's not my position at all. I was only answering the OP and giving the reason that KJVO's say that. I'm not KJVO. KJV ranks #3 in my use of translations.

the KJV translators had nothing to do with the canon books. That was decided many years before them. Also, they didn't' put together the TR

Why forever? We have found more manuscripts today than all the ones that the KJV had when they were going around. Why would we ignore that?

The NKJV is based accurately on the TR.

ok, you are welcome to believe that. I have no problem with one that likes the KJV the best.