Featured The ONE FACT that stops KJVO in its tracks...

Oh yeah, I'm all worked up, pacing the floor and yelling at the ceiling.



Anyways, I see your neatly concocted hypothetical scenario, from which you draw the conclusion that if such scenario occurred, nobody would attack the NLTO or whatever group. Followed by the "It's a strange phenomenon" ending (as if it had actually happened.) I can think of a few reasons why you'd design your post in that order, but figured it was better to ask you.

 

Uh...Proof?

 

Yes, but Anderson is also a raging anti-Semite and a Holocaust denier. He blames the Jews for every problem on the planet. His anti-Semitism didn't come from being a KJVO. You can't hold him up while ignoring the millions of KJVO believers who are often pro-Israel and take a sound and literal approach to biblical interpretation.

 

I am thinking that the KJV only people are in decline. It is a part of Fundamentalism, isn't it? Who believes that anymore?

 

My little black cat was sleeping on my left arm. I was gonna take a pic and post it, but alas, my phone was on the charger. Just as well, he's so black my minimal photo skills rarely get anything but a blob and the occasional set of green eyes when I take a pic of him.

 

oooo…..
Black with green eyes?
cool.

I've discovered the secret with cats, never let women raise them, they're actually cool creatures, but you can't let a woman get ahold of them too young. Raised by a man; they can be cool. Please post a pic of the cat!

BTW. I honestly didn't mean any form of deceit or anything with my post. I can see how calling it a "phenomenon" as though it was observable fact might trip someone up, but, it was just opinion. I didn't think anyone would take it any other way, but, I do stand by it.

There's a guy who posts (or did) semi-regularly for whom no iteration of the NIV can do any wrong.
Without actually asserting it, he might as well be NIVO...the only person who ever takes him to task for it is Yeshua, who, I think, just likes to get him going.
That is what I mean. (I'm forgetting his name) but old threads where anyone questions the NIV get this dude going like you wouldn't believe, it's hilarious to watch.

This is what I mean.
I maintain that if anyone (without actually being KJVO) were to start a thread extolling the KJV's virtues and explaining how superior it is, and how amazingly well translated and how people should not read anything else, you would see the Logos's (who's moniker is "Logos 1560" and no one accuses him of being Geneva only??) and the Roby's come out in force to denounce KJVO ism etc...
I'm not KJVO....I do die a little on the inside when I read from something else....but I sincerely believe the anti-kjvo forces are now doing more damage than the old KJVO's in their heyday did.

 

And Eugene Peterson, "translator" of The Message has (to no one's surprise) come out as being gay-affirming and for "gay marriage".

In your quest to ensure no one has followed false doctrines respecting the use of Bible versions, you have yet to come out against that blasphemous trash publicly.
You have, however, ceaselessly attacked KJV onlyism.

 

Actually, Robycop has said that he doesn't really consider The Message a valid Bible, but that:

 

Why is the standard whether or not someone goes to YOUR church??
Are you the pastor, and does that hurt your ego???
Do you want a bunch of KJVO's in your church?
Can they not live godly lives except they do so under your tutelage or at your local body?
Maybe your nursery reeks of urine and they used the KJVO thing as an excuse?
Maybe they don't attend churches where they believe Biblical doctrine is defined by Merriam Webster's Dictionary?

 

That's not how doctrine is treated in the Bible. Yes, there is a secular treatment of doctrine in the world, but I am referencing doctrine from a biblical stand point, and KJVO doesn't fit the biblical idea of doctrine and it doesn't contradict revealed doctrine in Scripture so it can't be "false" doctrine. It is simply a strongly held opinion that can be debated. Calling it a doctrine gives it too much power.

 

If I just mentioned one scripture would that be enough for you? I think not.

You will have to find and read the books yourself. They discuss the scripture and how it connects. You can also meditate on the Bible and see it there. I don’t see a reason to spend the pages upon pages to explain it here where I cannot own what I write. And it would take at least dozens of pages since you seem to be holding the skepticism of an atheist.

But if you want to know - that it where you should look. There are many apologists who have written to atheists about the scripture and its construction. And yes, the scripture mentions itself and describes how itself was created.

Now this is where I disagree with you. The scripture is “man-made”. Men (possibly women) wrote the books or imprinted them on clay. Men gathered the history of the prophets, gathered together sermons, wrote letters, wrote poetry, wrote songs, wrote their own versions of the life of Jesus with different reasons and wrote an elaborate apocalypse. The scripture doesn’t hide it. It is “man-made”. The difference between a believer and a disbeliever is whether they were divinely inspired.

To deny that the scripture was “man-made” is to deny the scripture. To understand that the scripture was divinely inspired is the mark of a believer.

It is important to note that the Bible does not claim to have come from God the same way the Muslims and Mormons claim the Koran and Book of Mormon came from God. The Bible doesn't mention a set of golden tablets where all of this had been written down. Instead the "canon" was settled on early on by the believers and the Bible itself describes the method by which the canon was created. You can read the books that did not make the canon and understand why. You can read the Bible to see the method through which the canon was selected.

 

I don't think you understand what the problem is. I am NLTP. That means I like reading the NLT above all other versions of the Bible. I also believe that the translators to the NLT, while human, were divinely inspired to work on this translation. I don't believe that they were inspired by the love of money, power, sex, pride, etc. - anything from the devil.

Similarly, as NLTP, I believe that many other translations were similarly inspired.

If I were NLTO, I would consider all other translations to be inspired by worldly concerns - the devil. I would consider that Squire Robinson chose the KJV for this website inspired by worldly concerns - the devil. I would consider that all the translators to the KJV were inspired by worldly concerns - the devil. Etc.

If you believe the translators for other English translations were also divinely inspired to do their work, then you are not KJVO.

The emphasis is on O. Is it the only translation whose translators were inspired by God and not inspired by worldly concerns - the devil.

If I did NLTO like some do KJVO, I do not think it would go over well.

Now some KJVO take it further and consider the translation itself to be the inspired writing of God, and yes, I realize not all KJVO believe that.