The ONE QUESTION KJVOs can't correctly answer...

[robycop3]

There's one question a Freedom Reader can ask any KJVO, & he/she will be stumped, stymied, stuttering, not DARE answering it CORRECTLY. That question is:

BY WHAT AUTHORITY do you believe and preach the KJVO myth???????????? It's not found in Scripture whatsoever, so it CANNOT be true!

The CORRECT answer completely quashes the KJVO myth! That answer is either NONE, or SOME OTHER PERSON'S AUTHORITY.

We Baptist Christians believe Scripture is the final authority on earth in all matters of faith/worship, and, since the KJVO myth isn't found in Scripture, it calls for a SECOND AUTHORITY to justify believing it.

Therefore, the KJVO myth CANNOT be true to a Christian. All Christians should abandon that myth(not the KJV itself) at once!

 

[1689Dave]

There's one question a Freedom Reader can ask any KJVO, & he/she will be stumped, stymied, stuttering, not DARE answering it CORRECTLY. That question is:

BY WHAT AUTHORITY do you believe and preach the KJVO myth???????????? It's not found in Scripture whatsoever, so it CANNOT be true!

The CORRECT answer completely quashes the KJVO myth! That answer is either NONE, or SOME OTHER PERSON'S AUTHORITY.

We Baptist Christians believe Scripture is the final authority on earth in all matters of faith/worship, and, since the KJVO myth isn't found in Scripture, it calls for a SECOND AUTHORITY to justify believing it.

Therefore, the KJVO myth CANNOT be true to a Christian. All Christians should abandon that myth(not the KJV itself) at once!

I'm not KJV only, but know my way around in it better so I use it mostly. But I used this argument supporting it. That in God's providence, he provided the majority text, while leaving the others obscured. But I like the Nestle Aland translations' and their use of Granville Sharp's rule that help clarify the KJV in places.

 

[atpollard]

We Baptist Christians believe Scripture is the final authority on earth in all matters of faith/worship, and, since the KJVO myth isn't found in Scripture, it calls for a SECOND AUTHORITY to justify believing it.

Doesn't the actual collection of books known as the "Bible" require a SECOND AUTHORITY to justify believing that all of it is Scripture? We just trust in an older gathering of men.

 

[Rippon]

in God's providence, he provided the majority text, while leaving the others obscured.

What do you mean by that? Please elaborate.

 

[1689Dave]

What do you mean by that? Please elaborate.

I. DEFINITION OF PROVIDENCE
Providence is that continuous agency of God by which he makes all the events of the physical and moral universe fulfill the original design with which he created it.

Strong, A. H. (1907). Systematic theology (p. 419). Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society.

IV. DISTINCTIONS IN PROVIDENCE
There have been several distinctions made as to the providence of God.
1. The most common is that of General, Common, or Universal Providence, and Special, Singular or Particular Providence. By general providence is meant the general care which God takes of the universe and all it contains, in preserving and upholding it under the general administration of the laws he has given it. By special providence is meant the minute care by which some events are supposed to take place immediately under his supervision or by his direct providential action.

Boyce, J. P. (2010). Abstract of Systematic Theology (p. 227).

 

[SovereignGrace]

My pastor is not KJVO, but it’s all he uses. I bring my NIV, NASB, and ESV, at different times. Most often I bring my NASB, as I seem to like it best.

He said the KJV’s 400 years of existence was proof of God’s approval of it. I told him that if longevity is proof of God’s approval, the Muslims could say that about the Qur’an, seeing it pre-dates the KJV.

 

[HankD]

Don't forget the Latin Vulgate

Jerome's translation of the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures into the common language, Latin, was completed in 405. It was recognized as authoritative during the Council of Trent (1546) and became the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. The widespread use of the Vulgate is also recognizable in its influence in early modern Bible translations, such as the Authorized, or King James, Version. The Vulgate continues to be of scholarly use today in the study of the textual transmission of the Bible and in the historical study of Christian theology. The Vulgate present on the Bible Gateway is the fourth edition of the Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem. It was originally published in 1969, and this fourth edition was released in 1994.

Held dominance over the "Universal Church or Christendom" until the Reformation and beyond.

one RCC statement I have seen calls it "The language of heaven".

 

[Salty]

Some will even state that the KJV is better than the original Greek!

Found this on a web page:

 

[robycop3]

Please notice that NO KJVO will provide a LEGITIMATE answer to that question.

In nearly 40 years of working against the KJVO myth, the most-common answer I receive is "Psalm 12:6-7". That answer is proven wrong by the AV 1611 itself, as it adds this footnote for the 2nd them in V7: "Heb. him, I. Euery one of them.", proving the AV makers believes V7 is about the PEOPLE of V5.

Besides, where do those verses, or, for that matter, Psalm 12, or the ENTIRE BODY OF SCRIPTURE mention the KJV????????????????

The other answer I've commonly gotten is "From God".

Oh, REALLY?

God said He'd do nothing affecting mankind without first telling His servants the prophets. therefore, if God supported the KJVO doctrine, He would've said so in His written word. But there's not one quark of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth!

I believe this fact PROVES KJVO is false!

 

[TCassidy]

It's not found in Scripture whatsoever, so it CANNOT be true!

My car gets 26 mpg on the highway, but because that is not in the scriptures it cannot be true?

Poppycock!

How many times do I have to explain it to you? Inspiration, Preservation, and Translation are not bible doctrines. They are a matter of scholarship.

A critical examination of transmissional history gives us a powerful indication regarding the readings found in the autographa.

A critical examination of transmissional probability gives us a powerful indication regarding the preservation of those autographical readings by the church down through the ages of ecclesiastical history.

A critical examination of translational technique can provide a powerful indication of which English translations best communicate the content of the above indicated textforms.

[Puts on Admin hat] Rule #5. No trolling. Trolling consists of provoking large volumes of responses by posting absurdities, deliberately offensive insults, etc.

Terms of Service and Rules | Baptist Christian Forums

[Removes Admin hat.]

Carry on.

 

[HankD]

As a former KJVO enthusiast I accepted the KJVO dogma by faith.

The two KJVO doctrine which defy logic are 1) Secondary inspiration and 2) Advanced revelation.

Once I saw the folly of those false teachings and the evidence, I walked away from my KJVO stance.

 

[Reynolds]

There's one question a Freedom Reader can ask any KJVO, & he/she will be stumped, stymied, stuttering, not DARE answering it CORRECTLY. That question is:

BY WHAT AUTHORITY do you believe and preach the KJVO myth???????????? It's not found in Scripture whatsoever, so it CANNOT be true!

The CORRECT answer completely quashes the KJVO myth! That answer is either NONE, or SOME OTHER PERSON'S AUTHORITY.

We Baptist Christians believe Scripture is the final authority on earth in all matters of faith/worship, and, since the KJVO myth isn't found in Scripture, it calls for a SECOND AUTHORITY to justify believing it.

Therefore, the KJVO myth CANNOT be true to a Christian. All Christians should abandon that myth(not the KJV itself) at once!

Not really. You must keep in mind that people who hold the KJVO position are holding it for illogical reasons. They will simply dismiss your logical argument.

 

[TCassidy]

Although I am not KJVO (I am, if anything, anti-KJVO) and do not use the KJV as my primary Bible (I use the WEB when using electronic format, and the NKJV when using paper and ink format) I, nevertheless, have great respect for that venerable old translation for at least three reasons.

#1. Its NT is based on (an admittedly flawed) representative of the Byzantine Textform which I believe best represents the autographical readings.

#2. It was translated using a verbal and formal equivalence technique whenever possible while using dynamic equivalence when necessary to preserve colloquialisms etc.

#3. It has stood the test of time. In the 400+ years since it was first published we have had time to assess its strengths (and weaknesses) and respond accordingly.

 

[TCassidy]

They will simply dismiss your logical argument.

Except his position is not logical. It is illogical, based on a badly flawed a priori premise.

If we apply his "logic" to the canon itself we can conclude we don't really have a bible because there is no place in the bible that lists all the books that are part of the canon.

And, "if it ain't in the bible it ain't true."

 

[Reynolds]

Except his position is not logical. It is illogical, based on a badly flawed a priori premise.

If we apply his "logic" to the canon itself we can conclude we don't really have a bible because there is no place in the bible that lists all the books that are part of the canon.

And, "if it ain't in the bible it ain't true."

Understood, but I think he is getting at something different. All the KJVO people I talk with base everything on what the KJV literally says.

 

[Salty]

some comments from the KJV 1611 FB page


1) These modern versions are not the word of God, they only contain some of the Word of God. The KJB is THE infallable, inerrant WORD of GOD!!!!!

2) "The other Bibles are not inferior to the King James Version, they are Satanic." - Pastor Steven Anderson

3) (speaking of another version) This is not God's word it's a counterfeit lies of the devil

4) Don't be fooled. When a preacher stands up and says "In the Greek this really says..." or when you crack open the Strongs for the definitions; those aren't the real definitions. They are guesswork from people like Henry Thayer who didn't believe Jesus was God and are burning in hell right now.

5) Everybody needs to get rid of that New Idiot Version right away!!

‍

‍
THANK GOD for the preservation for his words 'KING JAMES BIBLE'(since 1611)

6) im thinking that this other versions are demonic how could they be filled with lies like this
thank God for preserving the #KJV1611 for us

These are just a few selected responses on the FB page. In addition there are countless memes - some of which posters have requested valid links.

NOTE: all of the above litems should have (sic) since there were many misspellings

Robycop3, One verse the KJV love to use is Mat 5:18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

[Salty]

My car gets 26 mpg on the highway, but because that is not in the scriptures it cannot be true?

Poppycock! .

Actually, Sunday morning I attended a church service where the preacher basically stated that. He said any statement that is true - is in the Bible!

(So Tom - since I cant find the "26 mpg" in the Bible it must not be true. !

But in all seriousness, Tom, I agree with you

 

[robycop3]

The KJVO myth is TAUGHT in more than one congregation, which makes it a DOCTRINE.& there's simply no Scriptural basis for it.

While cars aren't mentioned in Scripture, adding (or subtracting) from God's commands & instructions IS mentioned. And Jesus ripped a group of Pharisees who criticized His disciples for not washing their hands according to THEIR tradition. This washing was a MAN-MADE rule of faith/worship, as Jesus pointed out. And the KJVO myth is in that same genre-a MAN-MADE tradition, with NO Scriptural basis and certainly NO command or instruction from GOD to follow it.

Nothing wrong with PREFERRING the KJV or any other one Bible translation over all others, but it's certainly wrong to say the KJV or any other one version is the ONLY valid English Bible translation. It's obvious that God has caused/allowed other English translations to be made to reflect the language changes He has caused/allowed over the years.

And i still believe that KJVO's lack of support or authority from GOD makes it false.

 

[TCassidy]

But in all seriousness, Tom, I agree with you

My rather simple way of putting it is this way:

All that is in the Bible is true.

Not all that is true is in the Bible

 

[Salty]

... Nothing wrong with PREFERRING the KJV or any other one Bible translation over all others, but it's certainly wrong to say the KJV or any other one version is the ONLY valid English Bible translation. It's obvious that God has caused/allowed other English translations to be made to reflect the language changes He has caused/allowed over the years. ...

Saying that the KJV is the ONLY valid - is one thing - but they tell us that the KJV is the
only preserved and perfect Word of God.