KJVO

They corrected that issue. And it does retain singular and plural by using superscripts.

 

TRUTH is, the whole KJVO idea, and the myth it created, are all MAN-MADE. There's NOTHING FROM GOD supporting that idea. The whole thingie is entirely man-made.

if one PREFERS the KJV (or any other one valid version) for whatever reason, fine, but to declare the KJV (or any other version) as the ONLY valid English Bible translation is entirely-false, with no ACTUAL AUTHORITY behind it at all.

 

The KJV is my base study Bible translation. The only modern translation in popular use that I find barley tenable is the NKJV. Of the modern translations it is the one that I commonly use. And it being the only modern translation that I recommend to others. I reference my NASB (1977 ed) for translation against the NKJV. And the NIV (1984 ed) for its margin notes. The ESV after I bought a good bound edition, I have become disappointed with the translation.

 

The modern versions did not change ANY major Christian doctrine of the Faith, correct?

 

Just as I said, Cloud did nothing to clear this matter up. Bottom line, he's perfectly content to let these lies exist. This is where he falls into the Riplinger camp. Even then, he did not read the sources that were available to him, he chose instead to use the lies. Do a google search of Westcott and Hort. KJVO lies, one after another, after another. Cloud has a Christian duty to fully research his material and a moral duty to tell the truth.

"I don't recall" is what people say when they don't want to own what they have done. I expect that from Gipp and Riplinger, but not David Cloud. He is now slipped off my list of credible sources.

Both of claims that Westcott and Hort loved Catholicism are flat out lies.

But, none of this should have stopped you from finding the truth. Why haven't you?

 

Quite right, and I agree.
None of it is explicitly found in God's word.

Not. One. Word.
It's basically nothing more than occasional men pointing to something and saying, "hey, that's different" and asking "why?".
Some of those men ( and women ) may even be concerned that the difference is in man's words versus God's words, and whether or not there's a "bait and switch" going on.

But it seems that speaking of this subject ( especially here ) is dangerous for one that loves the AV and sees problems when comparing it to others.
Yes, I suppose that means that I view it as the foundation to which all other English translations should compare ( because I've been using it since I was called in 1978 ), but I see nothing really wrong with that.

For me, it's personal, and not a matter of breaking fellowship over.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm not advocating that God's children be forced to read from a 400 year old English translation if they don't like to...
I just want people to know that I think there's more to the modern translations than simply men trying to arrive at the best one.

However, what I see as very odd, is that so many people have little trouble with picking up translations that, in some places, word things entirely different than the AV... and don't seem to see a problem with it.
In the end, there's nothing I can do about that except to let it go.



From my perspective, it really is strange being "KJVO" ( Well, "KJV Preferred" and "TRO" ) and believing in election.
I've seen the comments, for example, about Will Kinney and how some here see him.

He really doesn't stand a chance, does he?


So...

From here on out, I will steer a wide course to avoid threads like these on this forum, and on any forum for that matter.
I may post on others, but to me, there's far too much hatred brewing here about this one issue than on anything else I've yet to see.




May God bless you all.

 

It seems to me, that David Cloud published things were not true, and is not setting a godly standard for Christian behavior.

 

That is because you bought an old edition.

 

In a new thread entitled "KJV-only failures to correct errors," I provide clear evidence that David Cloud does not correct some errors when they are pointed out to him.

 

On the premise that is true, are you arguing one should then be willing to omit portions of God's word?

 

Most of those ensnared by KJVO cannot change their positions regarding known errors in their position!

 

The "omissions" KJVOs cite are actually ADDITIONS in the KJV.

 

Why?

Because of...PRIDE!

The KJVO does not wanna admit he was hoodwinked by whoever/whatever led him to be KJVO. I have repeatedly, for many years, pointed out to KJVOs that they don't have one word of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for their myth; therefore it CANNOT be true. It has no AUTHORITY to believe it.

Those same KJVOs reject many other false doctrines for the same reason - lacka Scriptural support, but they turn a blind eye when it comes to THEIR OWN false doctrine!

 

What you call corn is actually Maize. Corn in the bible is wheat. Barley is mentioned sepately.

 

Nonesense