Attack the KJV?

TomVols,

Do you mean alive in the spirit or flesh? There’s a lot of life in a strip club, but I doubt it’s very spiritual.

BTW, thank you for the complement about my argument being clever.

 

No.

My comments in no way indicated that. They were a simple statement of the facts regarding the situation. If people like outdated language and difficult sentence structure, then more power to them. I just returned from visiting a gentlemen who has been visiting our church. He grew up in a KJV background but he told how often in our services he compares what I am reading with his KJV and is amazed at how much easier what I am reading is to understand.

Exactly my point. You don't see many 56 chevys on the street. Most of them are in musuems or collections or junkyards. Not because they weren't good cars. But because they are outdated.

No it cannot be said about MV doctrines. I can support everything I teach from Scripture, including the use of versions other than the KJV. You saw no attack on teh KJV in my post. To say that you did is simply not true. I am not against the KJV in any way. It is time for you to get over that and stop making stuff up. Simply because I don't use something and woulnd't recommend it does not mean I am against it. I don't eat fish and don't recommend it; I am not against fish. I love to catch them and am more than willing for others to eat them.

 

FaithFact&Feeling writes:
>>Please be honest MVrs, if not with us, with
>>yourselves. To you the KJB is just an outdated
>>translation full of archaic words, difficult
>>syntax, poor readings, and it is based on a few
>>late inferior manuscripts. How could you be
>>intellectually honest in saying you believe
>>this, but still are for it? This is
>>inconsistency on an astronomical order. Are you
>>afraid to say what you really believe? We are
>>against you because you are against the KJB. To
>>say your are for the KJB but against KJBO is
>>dishonest on your part. To discredit KJBO you
>>must discredit the KJB. To discredit the KJB
>>you must attack it. It is obvious you already
>>know that, whether you admit it or not.

FF&F, you are from my hometown, so first of all, warmest I-am-from-West-Knoxville-specifically-West-Hills regards to you.

You totally and completely wrong on this point.
I love the KJV so much that I use the AV1611. I am a Purist when it comes to the English language, so I would submit that I love the KJV more than most of the KJV-Onlyists on the board. To me, the AV is also a literary work of art, not to mention God's Holy Word.

I reject KJV-Onlyism because it is not Scriptural. That is a fact, not an opinion. Nobody on this list has provided even one Verse/Passage to justify a total rejection of any other translation. It hasn't been done and it won't be done. God didn't need King James to preserve His Word, and the ulterior motives for the AV are less than divine. Moreover, if you put the New Testament of the AV up next to the Tyndale translation, you might notice that they are suspiciously similar.

I wonder why........