Avid following

[MovieProducer]

Every single time the word "pascha" is used in the NT it is translated "passover." Now this one time it is translated "Easter." I would call that a mistranslation, based on Anglican political correctness. If they were faithful to the text they would have been consistent and translated it "passover" just as they did all the other previous times. That is the argument.

Well, there you have it, folks -- the reason the KJVO has such a following.

"If they were faithful to the text they would have been consistent and translated it "passover" just as they did all the other previous times."

He concludes -- "That is the argument." That's the proof they have that the King James translators got this wrong. It was translated another way other times, why not in Acts 12:4?

Well, since every version out there translates some Hebrew and Greek words differently at different times depending on context, they all share the same characteristic that, in this man's eyes, proves the KJV in error. So they are all in error. Every single translation has errors in it.

By his reasoning, we don't have the words of God -- we have erroneous compilations of what was maybe stuff he said.

And that's what they use to preach to the world.

Hey, it's like, whatever dude. Ya just gotta feel it. If you really feel it, it must be right for you.

Given this line of thinking, it doesn't surprise me at all to learn that KJ only people are passionate about what they've learned. They see "reasoning" of this kind in support of conflicting, contradictory, confused texts, and they cringe at the thought of Christians walking blindly into error.

These people have no complete, infallible, eternal word of God, and they claim with the assurance of a blind man that there is no such light in this dark world.

Lord help us. I think I'll trust his word instead, and not theirs.

 

[Askjo]

Greg Perry Sr quoted:
The NIV,NASB,etc,etc,crowd will NEVER have a passionate,noisy following even though they may well be in todays majority(mainly because of the promotion of compromised preachers and Madison Avenue marketing gimmicks). The main reason that is true is because narrow is the way...and few there be that find it...particularly in these apostate days we are living in. I liken that crowd to a funeral procession. When was the last time you heard of a noisy,passionate funeral? The KJV crowd ( of which I am thankfully part of) IS noisy and passionate because we KNOW we hold God's PERFECT,PRESERVED HOLY WORD in our hands and in our hearts and that we stand on SOLID ROCK!!!!....not sinking,changing sand. That is my conviction AND my opinion....and I'll live or die by it. God NEVER has shown me even ONE mistake in my KJV.....and I would NOT believe it was Him if I ever supposedly found one. Neither should YOU.....if you are wise!!!

Amen! Only the KJV, the most accurate translation over modern versions!

Keith M quoted:
The so-called modern versions (the original KJV was one of these in 1611) all accurately and inerrantly preserve the plan of salvation through the cleansing and atoning blood of Jesus Christ. The MVs accurately teach Christ's virgin birth, His sinless life, His death, His burial, His glorious resurrection and His current place on high. The MVs accurately teach of end times and God's ultimate victory over Satan. Looks like if, as KJVO folks often claim, the MVs are from Satan, at least one of the MVs would have Satan winning in the end. But that's not the case at all. The MVs just as accurately convey God's truths to us as the KJVs.

Paul wrote his 2 letters in the NT concerning Jesus’ blood in the KJV, but modern versions have Paul‘s ONE letter concerning the phrase. Why was a part of the Scripture removed in Paul’s other letter in modern versions?

Armchair Scholarquoted:
Is the Holy Spirit an "it" or is he a real person having intelligence and feeling? The KJV translators made a mistake when they wrote "itself" instead of "himself" in Romans 8:16, 26. In my opinion, referring to the Holy Spirit as "itself" is offensive and I don't believe that God refers to himself as an "it." However, the NKJV and NASB have correctly translated those verses.

The KJV calls the Holy Spirit and "it" also in John 1:32 and in 1 Peter 1:11. The NKJV correctly renders "it" as "He." God the Holy Spirit is just as much in the masculine sense as God the Father, who is also identified as spirit in Scripture. So, if God the Father is a "he" then so is God the Holy Spirit, as is God the Son.

The KJV translators did not make a mistake on the definition of “it” or “itself” because the dictionary defines, “it” as thing or animal or person.

 

[webdog]

The KJV translators did not make a mistake on the definition of “it” or “itself” because the dictionary defines, “it” as thing or animal or person.

...respect and reverance defines the Holy Spirit as HE!

Do you refer to your wife / husband or child as "it"?

 

[webdog]

Well, since every version out there translates some Hebrew and Greek words differently at different times depending on context, they all share the same characteristic that, in this man's eyes, proves the KJV in error. So they are all in error. Every single translation has errors in it.

By his reasoning, we don't have the words of God -- we have erroneous compilations of what was maybe stuff he said.

KJVO'ism error number 99...focus on the actual words and not the message.
KJVO'iosm error number 100...erect strawman about not having the words of God due to translitical errors.:BangHead:

 

[Ed Edwards]

Do home schoolers learn English 1611 grammar and syntax?
I know some pray in that language - but I don't know enough to
know if their syntax and grammer are appropriate.

 

[MovieProducer]

KJVO'ism error number 99...focus on the actual words and not the message.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"....focus on the actual words ...." oh, horrors! oh, save me! No! we can't focus on the actual words.

No! We must focus on the virtual words. The ones that are imagined, or guessed at, or maybe just the ones that a majority of skeptics think maybe mighta been more likely.

But no! Surely not the words that were in fact the actual words of God!

ach! le gaspe!

 

[Ed Edwards]

Paul wrote his 2 letters in the NT concerning Jesus’ blood in the KJV, but modern versions have Paul‘s ONE letter concerning the phrase. Why was a part of the Scripture removed in Paul’s other letter in modern versions?

Please give us enough information so we can check
your claim. Verses in MVs with 'blood' missing
would be nice. But please don't bother to quote books you
don't have or don't look into -- That will disgrace somebody's
Bible. Thank you.

BTW, Paul wrote 13 (some say 14) books of the Bible
not just two. The guy who wrote two books was Peter.
But the book of 2 Peter doesn't have the 'blood' in it.

So I have no idea what you are talking about.
If you have a point to make, you haven't made it.
If you have some words from God, you signed them to
an undecorated wall.

 

[Trotter]

Well, I thoght this thread was going to be a different tune with its opening post, but I see that it is still the same old wornout tune that has been played over... and over... and over...

Until someone can offer something besides "it's the oldest", "look at the fruit", "I feel it", whatever, the whole argument remains one of personal preference... not matter how "reverently" it is dressed up.

I'm with Amy. I want to see something solid.

 

[MovieProducer]

Seriously now. No kidding, you people who scratch your heads over this, I'm going to demonstrate to you right now why the KJB has a loyal following.

OK? Are you ready? Here we go:

You antiKJV-only people tell me this -- since according to you "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" is not found in the KJV, where on this earth today can I find them, since according to Jesus Christ, God himself, I must live by them? Give me the book in my hands that contains "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Not words that proceed out of the mouth of perfessers.

Not words that proceed out of the mouth of your best heartfelt examination of four dozen translations.

I'm asking for "every"
[that means all of them, none omitted, none added]

"word" [that means "word," not concept, idea, principle, or meaning],

"that proceedeth from the mouth of God" [not "that is elucidated of men by various analytical methodologies"].

If you don't do that, you've made my point.

 

[mcdirector]

I have never in all my years and all my posts here at the BB read one person here who is ANTI KJV. Just because some one does not embrace the KJV only, does not make them anti KJV.

 

[TCGreek]

I have never in all my years and all my posts here at the BB read one person here who is ANTI KJV. Just because some one does not embrace the KJV only, does not make them anti KJV.

You have spoken for me, sis. :thumbs:

 

[mcdirector]

You have spoken for me, sis. :thumbs:

good! You frequently speak for me

 

[TCGreek]

good! You frequently speak for me

It's only fair! :thumbs:

 

[MovieProducer]

Another reason KJV-only people have a following is that they are not great big linguistic wimps.

The KJV is written in early-modern English. It has some forms and some words that people don't commonly use today.

The reaction from bible whateverists? "Oh! I can't stand it! It's tooooooooo much for me to bear! What shall I ever do?? Oh, I know: I'll just reject it! That way I won't have to think! Yes! Yeehaaa!"

<sigh>

I speak French fluently. I spent my early years in the French-speaking part of Switzerland, and by the 6th grade we had studied Latin, German, and French. Part of our French education was studying what people had written, in French, several hundred years before.

Guess what. No really, don't hold your breath -- we had to learn the earlier French! Yes, it was different. But even at the age of 12 and 13 years we were smart enough to learn the early French stuff, and recite it, and even write it. Le gaspe!

You people who complain about how difficult it is to understand the early-modern English of the KJV -- it's just really pathetic.

I have three sons. I teach them to hunt, dress, and butcher meat we eat. I teach them to cut down trees, dig holes, and build buildings. They get cuts, blisters, splinters, and bruises, and I tell them "a little pain never hurt anybody." They agree.

And then I show them how some people complain about how "hard" it is to "understand" the "archaic words" in the King James Bible, oh my goodness!

Their expressions are hilarious, but I'll spare you the embarrassment. I just mention this so you'll understand why I have no sympathy for such pathetic wimpy people.

Often the same people who say the KJV is archaic and too hard to understand are the ones who tell us we can't know the right words of God unless we learn Greek and Hebrew. How's that for simplicity, eh?"

Come on, seriously. If they're not embarrassed to say the early modern English is too hard for them, they need to spend a couple of months with me and my sons on the ranch. Toughen them up a little. Build 'em up a little bitty bit of spine.

I'm glad to do what I can to help, but yikes, I do need some material to work with, you know?

Anyway, that's just one more reason why the KJV has a great following of dedicated supporters.

 

[MovieProducer]

I have never in all my years and all my posts here at the BB read one person here who is ANTI KJV. <snip>

Wow, hey, that makes you someone who has led a really sheltered life. Dude, that is totally amazing!

In fact, that makes you a part of a totally alternate universe, dudette, cuz I can find people on these boards who have sed some purty vile things about the KJV! Isn't that just freaky??

Like, I just read stuff just today in this very thread(!!!) talking about how the KJV had actually mistranslated the words of God! That's purty bad, doncha think????

Gimme a break.

 

[Logos1560]

You antiKJV-only people tell me this -- since according to you "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" is not found in the KJV, where on this earth today can I find them, since according to Jesus Christ, God himself, I must live by them? Give me the book in my hands that contains "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

I'm asking for "every"
[that means all of them, none omitted, none added]

"word" [that means "word," not concept, idea, principle, or meaning],

"that proceedeth from the mouth of God" .

Disagreeing with the man-made KJV-only view is not being "anti-KJV."

Do you accept present editions of the KJV that omit some words found in the 1611 edition of the KJV and that add some words not in the 1611 edition and that change other words? Would you claim that the pre-1611 English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops') of which the KJV was a revision were not the word of God since some of the words in them were omitted in the KJV while the KJV has some words not in some of them? The KJV translators made the same type changes or revisions in the pre-1611 English Bibles that later translators/revisors have made in the KJV.

The final authority beyond which there is no other existed before 1611.
The early English translators including the Church of England translators of the KJV accepted the preserved Scriptures in the original languages as the greater authority or standard for the making and evaluating of all translations. Do you claim that the KJV translators accepted the wrong standard and authority for the making and evaluating of translations?

You can find the words that God gave the prophets and apostles as God has preserved them in the original languages.

Where do the Scriptures teach that English-speaking believers today need something that English-speaking believers before 1611 did not supposedly have according to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning?

 

[TCGreek]

Wow, hey, that makes you someone who has led a really sheltered life. Dude, that is totally amazing!

In fact, that makes you a part of a totally alternate universe, dudette, cuz I can find people on these boards who have sed some purty vile things about the KJV! Isn't that just freaky??

Like, I just read stuff just today in this very thread(!!!) talking about how the KJV had actually mistranslated the words of God! That's purty bad, doncha think????

Gimme a break.

MP,

The sister can speak for herself, but you seem to be beside yourself. Take it easy!

 

[mcdirector]

Wow, hey, that makes you someone who has led a really sheltered life. Dude, that is totally amazing!

In fact, that makes you a part of a totally alternate universe, dudette, cuz I can find people on these boards who have sed some purty vile things about the KJV! Isn't that just freaky??

Like, I just read stuff just today in this very thread(!!!) talking about how the KJV had actually mistranslated the words of God! That's purty bad, doncha think????

Gimme a break.

Again, critiquing it, doesn't make it anti KJV.

Having led a very unsheltered life, your irreverance and KJV-only piety is a bit hard to take IMHO. Perhaps when you've actually gotten to know a few of the posters on this thread and treat them with some dignity, I won't feel that way.

 

[MovieProducer]

So really, all snarfing aside, where can I put in my hands the words that proceed from the mouth of God? Do you have them?

Em, no.

Do you claim to have them? Eeeeehhh.... not exactly precisely, if we parse your words very carefully.

For all your mouthing, nothing changes this: you don't claim in fact have the complete, exact, inerrant, perfect words that proceed from the mouth of God.

Since I do, hey, that's why I'm firmly a King James Bible guy.

 

[DHK]

Like, I just read stuff just today in this very thread(!!!) talking about how the KJV had actually mistranslated the words of God! That's purty bad, doncha think????

Gimme a break.

The KJV is one of the only translations that I know of to have introduced Greek mythology into the Bible.

What is a "unicorn"?