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

Hmmmm..............still no Scripture for your "God created other people" myth. Pot meet kettle. Do you not realize that you've lost all credibility and are just embarrassing yourself? Even logos, who I know you respect, has posted that you're wrong. Did you miss his post:

 

Try this. KJB Onlyism Scriptural?
I'm not recommending it-- I am absolutely not KJVO-- but you keep asking for a response so I thought I'd give you one.

 

I had asked TC starting last Saturday (post #67) which manuscripts predate Aleph and B and agrees with Erasmus. TC said that the Greek text of Erasmus agrees with the vast majority of Greek texts of the N.T. Of course. But I maintain his Greek text did not agree with manuscripts which precede 330 A.D.

I have asked him repeatedly and yet he can't supply a name of any papyri that agrees with the N.T.Greek text of Erasmus.

No citations, no proof, no evidence. Without support T.C.'s claim is false.

 

One cannot be KJVO and have any scripture or logic to support their position!
And they always refuse to apply towards the Kjv/TR the same tests they hammer modern versions and other Greek texts with!

 

It still remains that God wanted the KJV readily available or it would not have been so popular. We must deal with that. But it is just another good translation that needs some upgrading provided by some of the more modern translations. If people feel closer to God using only the KJV, that is great, not to be criticised. Just as others should not criticise you for your choice in bibles.

 

Think of those who defile their conscience doing what they think is sin. Even if it is not sin, it becomes sin because they cannot do it it faith. Some think they are sinning when reading other translations. So by all means, go with the KJV if you feel it is right.

 

By this logic, one could say that God wanted all manner of evil "readily available or it would not have been so popular.

As a rule of thumb, that which is "popular" is more often that which should be avoided by the believer, for it is usually that which is embraced by the world(ly).

Although this is well stated, I am not certain that in the broadest spectrum it is fully applicable. There are some bibles (Good News for Modern Man) that the believer might occasionally use, but I would never recommend it.

Also, it is never wrong to be criticized for the choice of Bibles. It gives time to pause and reflect upon the value and worthiness of the rendering.

But, critical assessment and comparison that leads to condemnation is a difference of distinction. You are most correct in your thinking that such condemnation is in error. There is so much better that can be discussed and preached than to go to seed on what translation is "THE" only one God uses when the very skies and stars declare Him.

 

so is your "more popular" bible evil according to this?

 

I think the following principles cover a lot. From drinking beer or not drinking beer. From using KJV only to using all better translations, and so on...

Paul says;

“Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.” (Romans 14:1–3) (KJV 1900)

“It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.” (Romans 14:21) (KJV 1900)

“And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” (Romans 14:23) (KJV 1900)

 

Not to derail the thread, but only to point out that the Scriptures do make remarks concerning intoxicants.

We as believers are priests and rulers. We are to one day to sit as judges over even the angelic hosts.

The Scriptures state: "It is not for kings, Lemuel-- it is not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer,..."