Correcting the Bible on the Fly

Apparently it is irrelevant nonsense to many 'believers' as well. But at exactly what point did you get the idea that scripture was supposed to be 'relevant' to unbelievers?

 

Attention KJVOs. You may want to copy these statements to be used when the assertion is made that, "No one is attacking the KJV itself, we're just attacking KJVonlyism."

 

I believe that Christians need to tell the truth about all the translations of the Bible. And the difference between KJOists and MVists is not that KJOists attack other translations and the MVists do not, but that MVists tell the truth and the KJOists do not.

And of course there is very much difference between stating an undeniable true fact about the King James translation of the Bible and maliciously lying about "modern versions," posting a vast quantity of false information and calling "modern versions" satanic.

 

Tight out of Webster's

1. informal interchange of thoughts, information, etc., by spoken words; oral communication between persons; talk; colloquy.
2. an instance of this.
3. association or social intercourse; intimate acquaintance.
4. See criminal conversation.
5. the ability to talk socially with others: She writes well but has no conversation.
6. Obs.
a. behavior or manner of living.
b. close familiarity; intimate acquaintance, as from constant use or study.

Now out of the KJV

Phil. 3:20, "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ"

Anyone ever erad the dictionary when it reads "obs.?"

Foe the KJVO's: is the word conversation used correctly in a way that is not obsolete?

 

Done and done Pastor_Bob.

 

AV 1611 Jim: Um........Roby?
The KJV is good news for this man also! In its pages is EVERYTHING I need to know for faith and godliness

The Model-T is all the car I need to get me from Point A to Point B, but I drive a new Taurus, which is MUCH more comfortable.

 

Mr. Mike:

Looks as if the leaders of your church have become so set in their ways that they refuse to see the overwhelming evidence against st the KJVO myth. While I certainly don't think that's evil, it certainly is a view from the past.

 

The WISE pastor who preaches from the KJV would be remiss if he didn't explain some of the wording of the KJV, same as one hasta explain certain passages of secular literature from that time.

I've heard more than one telepastor use some of the more lame KJVO mantras such as the Psalm 12:7 thingy. This tells me he needs to spend more time STUDYING so he might quit misinforming his flock.

 

In Ruth 3, what does it mean that she "made herself known" to the man? And what does it mean that she uncovered his "foot"? And in what manner did he act as a kinsman redeemer?

 

God's Word says that premarital sex is wrong. But some of the older translations hide this truth, never condemning "premarital sex" but using vague terms unknown to many such as "fornication." So many are led astray, thinking the Bible does not condemn premarital sex, only adultery.

 

"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature".

HankD

 

Thanks Ed, was going to post the same idea while reading the OP. Many times I have heard MV preachers read a verse, then use a phrase like, "another way of saying this, or the KJV says..." </font>[/QUOTE]I have never heard anyone say that. I have only heard preachers read the text and give his interpretation of what it means and how it applies to our life today.

 

Hogwash. Fornication covers all forms of illicet sexual intercourse outside the bounds of marriage - including pre-marital sex, adultery, beastiality, ...

 

I have heard MV preachers "correct on the fly" as it were. Big deal.
What idiot DOESN'T ?
Here is an example fer ya.
Can you tell me what "overweening" is? Check your MV at Is 16:6.
How about "porphyry"? Try Est. 1:6.
And "terebinth"? Try Hos 4:13.
And "cors"? Try 1 Kin. 4:22.

My point? I think you are grinding an axe that is already sharp enough, i.e. the KJV.

In HIS service;
Jim

BTW; If you got such a problem with your pastor, perhaps you ought to go to him and if you STILL have a problem, perhaps you would be more at home in a MV church.

 

I could, of course, post hundreds of thousands of very well documented consequences, but since you asked for only one, here it is:

1. Eternity in hell. The King James translation of the Bible is such a grossly outdated translation that to many unbelievers it makes the Bible sound like very old, irrelevant nonsense.

</font>[/QUOTE]__________________________________________________

What difference would that make to an UNBELIEVER? They don't BELIEVE anyhow. And your example is woefully inadequate anyway because that is EXACTLY what Jesus preached.
ETERNITY IN HELL FOR UNBELIEVERS.

As Pastor Bob pointed out so efficiently Craig, YOU have a problem with the KJV. Not just KJVo. And THAT is a place I certainly would not want to be. Your constant ungodly ATTACKS on that blessed Book are no different than the rabid KJVo's who come in here and post vitriol and then leave. Perhaps you should take a cue from them.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Many of the words in the KJV have changed meaning over time therefore it is no longer recognized as an accurate translation. The words need to be updated to the common meaning as recognized today in a standard English dictionary that doe snot classify the words as obsolete.

Any translation of any document is only valid until the words change meaning.

Amazes me how the KJVO's do not use obsolete English when they speak and write. They use modern language with modern meanings yet persist in their dogmatism for a Bible using obsolete words that have changed meaning.

 

Amazes me how the KJVO's do not use obsolete English when they speak and write. They use modern language with modern meanings yet persist in their dogmatism for a Bible using obsolete words that have changed meaning.
__________________________________________________

GB;
And what is EQUALLY amazing to me is that folks will say things like you just did, yet will be the FIRST to holler about needing a language that has been dead for nigh onto 1800 years!

Strange ain't it? You guys holler about a living language that has changed actually very little in 400 years and yet go running to a dead language.

See my point? Can you at least see my point of view at all? I think I understand yours. I don't agree with it, but I DO understand it. I think you fellers don't even TRY to understand our point of view. If I am wrong, then I retract. Can you show me that I am wrong in my assessment of your mind set?

In HIS service;
Jim