But I used to be KJO myself.
QD - Do you mind me asking you how you left that ideology? I'm dealing with friends who are buying it hook, line and sinker and I am curious what brings people out of that belief.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
But I used to be KJO myself.
Well, Matthew 7:7 is an amazing coincidence.
Mat 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
Now, I don't know Greek, but I am betting if you take the first letter of the Greek words translated here as ask, seek, and knock that they do not spell anything in any langauge.
But in English, the first letters of these words spells ASK.
Also, the number 7 is considered the number of perfection.
It is almost as if this verse was a prediction that the scriptures would be translated into English someday.
But maybe it is just a fantastic coincidence?? You decide.
There are no coincidences but there are 7 letters in "Matthew."
Ooooh, 777
I like it. :thumbsup:
I have to admit, however, if the dentist didn't prescribe Lortab for my tooth I may not be thinking so clearly. God works in wonderous ways.
Last time I went to the dentist he made a mold of my teeth. He pressed upward on my jaw with the mold in my mouth, it felt like razor blades cutting into my gums. I consider myself a pretty tough guy, but I was moaning loudly.
He stops and asks, "Does that hurt?"
I wanted to punch the guy, I think he was enjoying torturing me. :laugh:
No, they are dispensers of His wrath.If Calvinism is correct, then the dentists are definitely predestined to be vessels of wrath.
QD - Do you mind me asking you how you left that ideology? I'm dealing with friends who are buying it hook, line and sinker and I am curious what brings people out of that belief.
QD - Do you mind me asking you how you left that ideology? I'm dealing with friends who are buying it hook, line and sinker and I am curious what brings people out of that belief.
QD - Do you mind me asking you how you left that ideology? I'm dealing with friends who are buying it hook, line and sinker and I am curious what brings people out of that belief.
If you believe the King James Bible is the word of God, then what is the harm?
There is harm in the advocating of a man-made tradition or teaching as supposedly being a doctrine of God when it has not been shown to be taught in the Scriptures.
There is harm in the improper arguments [fallacies] and the divers measures that are used to advocate a KJV-only theory. The use of unrighteous divers measures is contrary to the Scriptures.
Ann, why do you care what your friends believe? If you believe the King James Bible is the word of God, then what is the harm?
Just because they may not like the Bible you use, so what?
You are as confused on this issue as you are about Calvinism.You know, one of the greatest arguments for King James only is the great number of people who hate the King James. Oh, you will say you do not hate the King James, only the "only doctrine" but you always attack the King James. You collect every quotation from ANYONE who hates the King James.
Because they argued with my daughter and other college students that the modern versions are based on corrupt manuscripts, that there are enough verses missing from modern versions that are the equivalent of 1 and 2 Peter and why would you want a Bible that was so wrong? That's why. Fortunately my daughter and the other students were strong and while they weren't fully aware of the argument, they knew that something was amiss in what they were saying.
You are as confused on this issue as you are about Calvinism.
Logos prefers the KJV. He certainly doesn't hate it. He has a problem with KJVism. So do I. It is false teaching. The KJV is certainly the Word of God. But not in the singular sense. The NIV,ESV,NASB,HCSB and many others are also the Word of God. None of them are the only representation of God's Word in the English language.
There is no other movement afoot claiming any other version is the Only Word of God. Only KJVO folks make that absurd claim.
And you fibbed when you said he only quotes those who hate the KJV. If you haven't noticed, a lot of his sources are from KJVO personalities.
You really have a comprehension problem there Winman.
Logos1560 said:Exodus 21:19 [see Gen. 11:3, Job 6:2, Jer. 7:5, Ezek. 16:9, Luke 3:17, 2 Tim. 3:17]
thorowly {1640, 1644, 1650 London}
throughly (1675, 1679, 1709, 1715, 1720, 1728, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1762, 1765, 1768, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1777, 1778, 1783 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1677, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1765, 1767, 1817 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1660, 1672, 1684, 1705, 1711, 1735, 1741, 1759, 1772 London} (1755 Oxon) (1638, 1722, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1769 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1782 Aitken) (1801 Hopkins) (1809, 1818 Boston) (1816 Albany) (1816 Collins) (1818 Holbrook) (JVIPB)
thoroughly (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1762, 1763B, 1768, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB] {1747, 1750, 1760 London}
2 Kings 11:18 [see Gen. 11:3, Exod. 21:19, Job 6:2, Ezek. 16:9, Luke 3:17, 2 Tim. 3:17]
thorowly {1640, 1644, 1650 London}
throughly (1675, 1679, 1709, 1715, 1728, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1762, 1765, 1768, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1777, 1778, 1783 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1677, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1760, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1768, 1778, 1817, 1873 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634, 1660, 1672, 1684, 1705, 1711, 1735, 1741, 1747, 1750, 1760, 1772 London} (1755 Oxon) (1638, 1722, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1769 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1782 Aitken) (1801 Hopkins) (1809, 1818 Boston) (1816 Albany) (1816 Collins) (1818 Holbrook) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
thoroughly (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1767, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB] {1763 London}
Job 6:2 [see Exodus 21:19 & 2 Kings 11:18]
thoroughly (1804 Oxford) [1747, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1838 London} (1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1802, 1810, 1820, 1842 Edinburgh) (1802, 1813, 1815 Carey) (1803 Etheridge) (1807 Johnson) (1808, 1828 MH) (1814, 1835 Scott) (1815 Walpole) (Clarke) (1818, 1819, 1827, 1829, 1843, 1851, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1858, 1868, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1826, 1828 Boston) (1827 Smith) (1831 Brown) (1832 PSE) (1834 Coit) (1836 Hartford) (1843, 1856 AFBS) (1843 Robinson) (1846 Portland) (1845, 1854, 1857, 1876 Harding) (1859 RTS) (1876 Porter) (1911 TCE) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (1945 World) (1948 WSE) (1968 Royal) (1975 Open) (CSB) (RRB) (WMCRB) (1987, 1988 IBS) (LASB) (1983, 1984, 1994 ZOND) (1984, 1991, 2008 AMG) (LPB) (2006 PENG) (ASB) (2012 Biblica) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)
throughly (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]
Genesis 11:3 [see Exod. 21:19, 2 Kings 11:18] [thoroughly--NKJV]
thorowly {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1650 London}
thoroughly [1873, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] (1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1802, 1810 Edinburgh) (1791 Thomas) (1802, 1813, 1815 Carey) (1803 Etheridge) (1815 Walpole) (Clarke) (1818, 1819, 1827, 1829, 1843, 1851, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1858, 1868, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1826, 1828 Boston) (1823, 1827 Smith) (1828, 1833 MH) (1832 PSE) (1832 Scott) (1834 Coit) (1836 Hartford) (1843, 1856 AFBS) (1843 Robinson) (1846 Portland) (1845, 1854, 1857, 1876 Harding) (1859, 1868 RTS) (1895 NPC) (1897 ABU) (1911 TCE) (1923 NIB) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (1940, 1979, 2010 Holman) (1942 UBBH) (1945, 2004 World) (1948 WSE) (1968 Royal) (1975 Open) (1976 BH) (CSB) (RRB) (WMCRB) (1983, 1984, 1994, 2000, 2002 ZOND) (1984 AMG) (Nave’s) (VB) (1987, 2001 TN) (LASB) (1987, 1988 IBS) (KJRLB) (Dake‘s) (LPB) (E-R) (TPB) (HPB) (2006 PENG) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (2008 Pilot) (NHPB) (2010 BRO) (ASB) (2011 Barbour) (APB) (2011 PJB) (2012 F-S) (HKJVSB) (2012 Biblica) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)
throughly (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]
He could sure fool me. When a fellow collects every negative remark ever made against the KJB, I get the strong impression he hates it. When a fellow makes lists like this;
OK, I know OBSESSION when I see it, and this is it!