Featured "Is King James Onlyism Scriptural?"

I'm just a truck driver, a fisherman, a carpenter, and a born again child of the King. But one thing I know beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that the KJV is annointed by God to serve the following purpose:

Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

Therefore, I personally, do not need any other translation. I have a lifetime of experience with it, and detailed knowledge of the exceptionally brutal lifetime that it carried my grandfather through. I trust it.

And I am committed to sticking with the KJV, with the same dedication that I have towards my wife. Till death do us part.

 

The KJV rests upon scholarship and not blind faith. People who do not have the time and money to study all of the textual criticisms rest upon 400 years of use all over the world.

 

Are you admitting that modern, human KJV-only reasoning rests upon traditions and opinions of men which KJV-only advocates try to make sound scriptural by use of terms such as "inspiration," "preservation," and "faith" without presenting any sound Bible doctrine concerning them?

Where do the Scriptures teach blind trust in the biased, imperfect scholarship of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England critics in 1611?

Believers could study the Scriptures and see that human KJV-only reasoning/teaching is non-scriptural, unscriptural in some aspects, and wrong.

Do the Scriptures teach that faith in human scholarship and human reasoning is sound Biblical faith in what God actually stated?

 

And yet I've never noticed you complain when people use these other initials. Kind of like when you say no one has one verse of Scripture supporting the KJVO myth, then post that God did not allow the original autographs to survive so people would not make them objects of worship -- without one verse of Scripture supporting the assertion! Physician, take a look at thyself.

 

No. Neither have I made any bogus claims about why I have not seen them.

Now I will be expecting you to squawk anytime anyone makes reference to those initials.

 

Per the KVO own words, "change even 1 word, and its no longer a real Bible"

 

Hopefully, we all could agree here on that!

 

Why not go all way back to the Vulgate then?

 

KJVO claims far more for the transaltion then even the 1611 translators did!

 

You most certainly have.
Many times.

 

That was a mis hit by my, should have read no translation is without any errors/mistakes in them!

 

Mis hit by my?

This is the same poster who trying to make something of legitimate variations in spelling at the time:

Ironic, isn't it?

 

All of us have issues!