-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Bound to words used in 1611?
- Thread starter Jarthur001
- Start date
- Status
Mr. Correa:An A for effort indeed and sincerly felt; But sincerly "WRONG" for we walk by FAITH not by feeelings!
BIBLICAL faith consists of SUBSTANCE & EVIDENCE.(Hebrews 11:1) The KJVO myth has NEITHER. So what kinda faith do ya use to legitimize the KJVO myth?
If God wrote the scriptures in Aramaic or Hebrew for that day do they still speak that way or not?
As much as language differences allow.
Or did they change to accomodate their itchy ears that most of the World has to try and justify their FEELINGS about the Word!
They changed as the languages changed, and God fitted them into the languages according to HIS changes in the languages. After all, the LANGUAGES THEMSELVES are of God, as well as is His word within them.
I am not for sale no way NO Sir!
I don't see any bidders, so relax.
BIBLICAL faith consists of SUBSTANCE & EVIDENCE.(Hebrews 11:1) The KJVO myth has NEITHER. So what kinda faith do ya use to legitimize the KJVO myth?
If God wrote the scriptures in Aramaic or Hebrew for that day do they still speak that way or not?
As much as language differences allow.
Or did they change to accomodate their itchy ears that most of the World has to try and justify their FEELINGS about the Word!
They changed as the languages changed, and God fitted them into the languages according to HIS changes in the languages. After all, the LANGUAGES THEMSELVES are of God, as well as is His word within them.
I am not for sale no way NO Sir!
I don't see any bidders, so relax.
As to the original question of the thread...We are LESS-bound to the words of the KJV than its translators were bound to the words of earlier versions. Please see the 14 rules Archbishop Bancroft laid down for the translators, in KJ's name.
The AV differs in more than a few places from the Geneva Bible. The AV men did NOT feel bound to the words of the older translations, outside Bancroft's rules. Unlike those men, WE have no one on earth who can bind us to the words of any one translation. And GOD certainly doesn't thus bind us! Therefore, the KJVO doctrine is a bummer.
The AV differs in more than a few places from the Geneva Bible. The AV men did NOT feel bound to the words of the older translations, outside Bancroft's rules. Unlike those men, WE have no one on earth who can bind us to the words of any one translation. And GOD certainly doesn't thus bind us! Therefore, the KJVO doctrine is a bummer.
william s. correa
New Member
Ouch!
The words of God Are not bound!:applause:
The words of God Are not bound!:applause:
william s. correa
New Member
Attack on God's Word!
The prhase "KJVO myth" is an ATTACK on the Word of God And I will NOT Stand for it! YOU are the Ones using the term and I am sick of it! Find another Slogan cause it really makes the KJB just like any other and it aint so. If one thinks he can change ones mind by playing mind games;that is Not Christ like! The Holy Bible is not a myth and who ever uses that word in conjunction with the Word is Not playing by the BB rules and Frankly has no bearings on wether or not I want to read any other Version, and the more I hear the phrase the more I want to read the KJB and Nothing else!
The prhase "KJVO myth" is an ATTACK on the Word of God And I will NOT Stand for it! YOU are the Ones using the term and I am sick of it! Find another Slogan cause it really makes the KJB just like any other and it aint so. If one thinks he can change ones mind by playing mind games;that is Not Christ like! The Holy Bible is not a myth and who ever uses that word in conjunction with the Word is Not playing by the BB rules and Frankly has no bearings on wether or not I want to read any other Version, and the more I hear the phrase the more I want to read the KJB and Nothing else!
KJVO is not a Bible. It's a doctrine that is ascriptural (having no scriptural backing). Therefore it cannot be taken by faith (faith cometh by hearing and hearing by...?).
Now that's not all that bad, because there are many facts that aren't necessarily written in the Bible, right? So we just can't take it by faith. We need physical proof to support such an idea. But there is none.
So there's no scriptural proof (can't be taken by faith). There's no physical proof (can't be taken by logic). KJVO has no backing at all. Therefore, it is called a myth.
Now, I use the KJV exclusively. It is Gods word! But King James Version Onlyism is a MYTH. It's not an attack on the KJV. If it were, I wouldn't be happy. You need to learn to separate KJVO from the KJV. You can have the KJV without the falsity of Onlyism.
God bless!
Now that's not all that bad, because there are many facts that aren't necessarily written in the Bible, right? So we just can't take it by faith. We need physical proof to support such an idea. But there is none.
So there's no scriptural proof (can't be taken by faith). There's no physical proof (can't be taken by logic). KJVO has no backing at all. Therefore, it is called a myth.
Now, I use the KJV exclusively. It is Gods word! But King James Version Onlyism is a MYTH. It's not an attack on the KJV. If it were, I wouldn't be happy. You need to learn to separate KJVO from the KJV. You can have the KJV without the falsity of Onlyism.
God bless!
Last edited by a moderator:
william s. correa said:
Better get your definitions straight, Will! Pointing out that the KJVO stance is myth is not an attack on the word of God - it is the sharing of truth! The only ones here who attack the word of God are those who refer to Modern Versions as being less than God's word. Those who support this KJVO myth do so in ignorance and error despite having been shown the truth repeatedly. Why you choose error and myth is a mystery to the rest of us - you have been shown the truth over and over again, yet your pride will not allow you to accept the truth. You prefer to believe the myth. If you will not stand for it when the KJVO stance is shown to be a myth, then you know where the door is - no one is binding you to Baptist Board. But as long as you remain here on BB the KJVO stance is going to be labeled as a myth because it is nothing more than a myth hatched by some clowns who wanted to sell some books! The entire KJVO stance is based in absolute myth and error - and we Christians who know this truth can do nothing but tell the truth. The entire KJVO stance you have shown is a myth no matter what you may want to call it, and as long as you remain here at BB you WILL stand for the idea being called a myth because that is exactly what it is. You cannot stop the truth from being told, no matter how much you wish you could!
william s. correa said:
Even more reason to stop promoting the KJVO myth, Will! The words of God are not bound into the KJV as you so erroneousl believe. The words of God are free and they are for every generation, and anyone who realizes this should completely abandon the KJVO myth!
Last edited by a moderator:
RE: The phrase "KJVO myth"...
Pesonally I don't see this phrase as an attack on the King James Version of the Bible because of the "O" in the phrase.
But perhaps it would be better to use the bare phrase "Onlyism".
It has happened before and we seem not to learn from the lessons of history.
There was an unofficial grassroots doctrine (for the most part) of the the "Latin Vulgate Only" movement out of which stemmed the "Douay Rheims Only" movement: Does this sound familiar?"
"They gave ten reasons, ending up by stating that the Latin Vulgate 'is not only better then all other Latin translations, but than the Greek text itself, in those places where they disagree." (Preface to the Rheims New Testament, 1582). They state that the Vulgate is 'more pure then the Hebrew or Greek now extant' and that 'the same Latin hath bene barre better conserved from corruption' (Preface to the Douay Old Testament, 1609)"
Or...
"Moreover, the Holy Ghost may have hidden several additional meanings in the passage. Those meanings may well be completely translated out!"
http://www.marianland.com/bible20.html
HankD
Pesonally I don't see this phrase as an attack on the King James Version of the Bible because of the "O" in the phrase.
But perhaps it would be better to use the bare phrase "Onlyism".
It has happened before and we seem not to learn from the lessons of history.
There was an unofficial grassroots doctrine (for the most part) of the the "Latin Vulgate Only" movement out of which stemmed the "Douay Rheims Only" movement: Does this sound familiar?"
"They gave ten reasons, ending up by stating that the Latin Vulgate 'is not only better then all other Latin translations, but than the Greek text itself, in those places where they disagree." (Preface to the Rheims New Testament, 1582). They state that the Vulgate is 'more pure then the Hebrew or Greek now extant' and that 'the same Latin hath bene barre better conserved from corruption' (Preface to the Douay Old Testament, 1609)"
Or...
"Moreover, the Holy Ghost may have hidden several additional meanings in the passage. Those meanings may well be completely translated out!"
http://www.marianland.com/bible20.html
HankD
Mr. Correa:The prhase "KJVO myth" is an ATTACK on the Word of God And I will NOT Stand for it!
You have little choice if you're gonna continue to read/post here. Not that anyone wants ya to leave...You provide comic relief for a serious subject.
YOU are the Ones using the term and I am sick of it!
Then ya better call a physician.
Find another Slogan cause it really makes the KJB just like any other and it aint so.
No two versions are alike. But GOD isn't limited to any one of'em.
If one thinks he can change ones mind by playing mind games;that is Not Christ like!
Aint no mind game to it; KJVO is a myth. If ya think ya can prove otherwise, go for it.
The Holy Bible is not a myth and who ever uses that word in conjunction with the Word is Not playing by the BB rules and Frankly has no bearings on wether or not I want to read any other Version, and the more I hear the phrase the more I want to read the KJB and Nothing else!
No, the Holy Bible is no myth, but the false doctrine built by MEN around the King james Version of the Holy Bible IS a myth. There's not one iota of Scriptural support for this doctrine; it was invented by some amateur authors who published some error-filled books. Using the power of modern media to push their invention, those men made KJVO into a doctrine by their teachings from their books. However, almost all their assertions, statements, claims, & points have been shown false, and that, along with a total lack of Scriptural support, makes KJVO false, and a myth.
While you're free to use any Bible version(s) you wish, you are NOT free to diss the choices of those who choose differently from you, w/o being subject to scathing criticism. If you're gonna play with fire, expect some heat.
BTW, Sir, if you examine the history of the fish symbol, you'll thing twice before writing JESUS' name within it.
You have little choice if you're gonna continue to read/post here. Not that anyone wants ya to leave...You provide comic relief for a serious subject.
YOU are the Ones using the term and I am sick of it!
Then ya better call a physician.
Find another Slogan cause it really makes the KJB just like any other and it aint so.
No two versions are alike. But GOD isn't limited to any one of'em.
If one thinks he can change ones mind by playing mind games;that is Not Christ like!
Aint no mind game to it; KJVO is a myth. If ya think ya can prove otherwise, go for it.
The Holy Bible is not a myth and who ever uses that word in conjunction with the Word is Not playing by the BB rules and Frankly has no bearings on wether or not I want to read any other Version, and the more I hear the phrase the more I want to read the KJB and Nothing else!
No, the Holy Bible is no myth, but the false doctrine built by MEN around the King james Version of the Holy Bible IS a myth. There's not one iota of Scriptural support for this doctrine; it was invented by some amateur authors who published some error-filled books. Using the power of modern media to push their invention, those men made KJVO into a doctrine by their teachings from their books. However, almost all their assertions, statements, claims, & points have been shown false, and that, along with a total lack of Scriptural support, makes KJVO false, and a myth.
While you're free to use any Bible version(s) you wish, you are NOT free to diss the choices of those who choose differently from you, w/o being subject to scathing criticism. If you're gonna play with fire, expect some heat.
BTW, Sir, if you examine the history of the fish symbol, you'll thing twice before writing JESUS' name within it.
Last edited by a moderator:
MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH.....
The AV translators were NOT bound to the words of previous versions, except in the set of rules Bancroft gave them, which included sticking to the "evangelical" words used in earlier translations, I.E. "church" and not "congregation", "baptize" and not "immerse", etc. Why should WE be bound exclusively to the words from a 400-yr-old version?
The AV translators were NOT bound to the words of previous versions, except in the set of rules Bancroft gave them, which included sticking to the "evangelical" words used in earlier translations, I.E. "church" and not "congregation", "baptize" and not "immerse", etc. Why should WE be bound exclusively to the words from a 400-yr-old version?
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Thou jumpeth to thine conclusion :smilewinkgrin:
It appears Mr. Correa may be deciding on whether he wants to stand for the truth being told (that the KJVO stance is a myth) or whethere he really meant in when he said he wouldn't stand for the myth being called a myth. If Mr. Correa meant what he said, then it forces him to leave BB because here we call a myth a myth. Mr. Correa's staunch refusal to accept the truth over and over again just shows that he has nothing of value to contribute to these discussions. All he has to contribute is more and more myth - poor, deluded soul!
- Status