Do You Admire Any Preachers...

[Harold Garvey]

I don't question the word of God, I let it question me too. But, that has nothing to do with the KJV.

Has everything to do with the KJV when I have it in my hands as I read it. maybe your experience is something different?

 

[Harold Garvey]

Your dodging the fact that you cannot assert the claim that Jesus used the KJV. But BY YOUR STANDARD, if Jesus used the KJV, then he cretainly also used the Bishop's, Geneva, Tyndale, KJV, NKJV, ASV, Coverdale, Darby, Douay Rhiems, Quaker, RSV, ESV, Webster's, Wyclif, and CEV Bibles. And that also includes my beloved Dutch Bible. You cannot by any stretch say that Jesus used the KJV, but not the Dutch bible.

Your opinion. I dont ever find Jesus wholisticly using the Douay Rheims.

You gotta chip on your shoulder about the Dutch Version. Since i know absolutely NOTHING about it your insistence is rather boring.

If you look at my posts in this thead, I haven't made any specific comments about the KJV at all.

But the KJV is far superior.

You've stated consistently on this board that the KJV is the sole Word of God today, to the point of excluding all other translations. You have not made the distinction to it being for the English language only. That is by categoric definition xenophobic.

You've fabricated this is your mind all by yourself. My own words are a version of the Bible in your ideas about versions and I know my words are not equal to the KJV.

I believe any translation ought to follow the KJV for clarity and superiority. Those which deviate, deviate.

How can you overlook my insertion of "First Bible" and make your claims?

I'm all for having the Bible in the native tongues of those who do not have the Bible.

My friends with First Bible recently signed an agreement with the Prime Minister of Mongolia to begin printing John and Romans in the Mongolian tongue. This endeavor is the first time they will ever have the word of God in their language.

Something is very wrong with your view of what I've said.

Interestingly, just about any KJVO-as-doctrine argument falls apart when introducing the issue of other world languages.

maybe I'm not as "KJVO" as you like to preclude? but then again maybe you're......:BangHead:

 

[Harold Garvey]

I was prolly born closer to the KJV than you, and in England too boot, and I don't understand some of the language in the KJV. Some words are even backwards by to-day's definition compared to what they meant in 1611.

Cheers,

Jim

True, and all the more reason to be certain why those words were written as they are and exactly what they mean.

 

[Johnv]

Your opinion. I dont ever find Jesus wholisticly using the Douay Rheims.

You don't find Jesus holistically using the KJV either.

You gotta chip on your shoulder about the Dutch Version.

It's not that I have a chip on my shoulder. It's that the KJVO argument falls apart with the introduction of any nonenglish translation of scripture. Same applies with the Reina-Valera. No KJVOist can explain how the KJV is superior to non-english translations.

But the KJV is far superior.

Wow, that doesn't follow your argument. You accused me of attacking the KJV in this thread; I replied "I haven't made any specific comments about the KJV at all. " and your reply is "the KJV is far superior". The fact is you falsely accused me of attacking the KJV. You need to retract that statement.

I believe any translation ought to follow the KJV for clarity and superiority.

Base on what?

I'm all for having the Bible in the native tongues of those who do not have the Bible.

My language is contemporary American English. The KJV is not written in contemporary American English.

maybe I'm not as "KJVO" as you like to preclude?

You believe that all translations should be subject to the KJV in regards to superiority. There's nothing in scripture that warrants that. Further, there's nothign in the history of bible translations that supports that idea.

 

[Harold Garvey]

You don't find Jesus holistically using the KJV either.

It's not that I have a chip on my shoulder. It's that the KJVO argument falls apart with the introduction of any nonenglish translation of scripture. Same applies with the Reina-Valera. No KJVOist can explain how the KJV is superior to non-english translations.

Wow, that doesn't follow your argument. You accused me of attacking the KJV in this thread; I replied "I haven't made any specific comments about the KJV at all. " and your reply is "the KJV is far superior". The fact is you falsely accused me of attacking the KJV. You need to retract that statement.

Base on what?

All your vitriole isn't worth answering

My language is contemporary American English. The KJV is not written in contemporary American English.

and your contemporary English is not native. The KJV is understandable to anyone who wants to research its words, that is not necessarilly the case with other versions. they depend upon dialect and cultural addages to understand them.

You believe that all translations should be subject to the KJV in regards to superiority. There's nothing in scripture that warrants that. Further, there's nothign in the history of bible translations that supports that idea.

Nope, I believe the KJV ought to be referenced to explain things in english.

You're really obsessed with this "KJVO" junk aren't you.

 

[Johnv]

All your vitriole isn't worth answering.

Of course you're not going to answer it. You'd have to acknowlege that you falsely accused me of something.

and your contemporary English is not native. The KJV is understandable to anyone who wants to research its words, that is not necessarilly the case with other versions. they depend upon dialect and cultural addages to understand them.

You're quite in error, on several accounts. First, the language of the KJV was considered archaic even by people in the 1600's. Second, the first settlers of the American Colonies used the Geneva, not the KJV. In fact, their use of the Geneva Bible was one of the reasons they were being persecuted by the British government.

I believe the KJV ought to be referenced to explain things in english.

There are several problems with that.

First, the text of the KJV no longer conveys correct meaning in several palces, due to evolving lenguage. For example, "corn" today is called "grain"; "brass" today is called "bronze", "suffer" today is called "permit", "advertize" today is "advise" and "God save the King" today is translated "long live the King".

Second, there are also transliterations which were used due to a lack of antropological knowlege. For example, the word transliterated "leviathan" is what the OT Hebrews referred to as a "crocodile". The word transliterated "behemoth" is the old Hebrew word for what they called a "water ox". Today, the water ox is known as a hippopotamus. The translators of the KJV and prior did not know what these referred to, so they simply transliterated the words.

Third, it presumes that future use of English will remain consistent with 17th century English. The fact is that English is constantly evolving, and will continue to do so.

Fourth, it presumes one should reference a translation of a writing as superior, rather than reference the writing itself as superior. That notion is contradictory to the very concept of translating.

You're really obsessed with this "KJVO" junk aren't you.

It's actually you, not me, who keeps beinging up the KJV-as-superior issue, which is a form of KJVOism. Since that's false doctrine, it's reasonable that others call that false doctrine out.

 

[ray Marshall]

Lasayer Bradley? If I spelt it right, is very good!

Elder bradley's name correctly spelled is
Lasserre Bradley.
Before his conversion to the Doctrines of Grace, he suffered many trials in the other order that he pastored and had many battles within himself. He loved the doctrine of the Primitive's but he thought that if he could just find a spot where no one knew the doctrines of grace that he found continually confronting him but he wrestled with the flesh until he found that if the doctrines was in the Bible, then he wanted to do the will of GOD moreover than sumit to the doctrines that his former church believed in. He has been with the Primitive Baptist for sense 1957 or 08. I am not absolutely sure but I think it was in the month of October. I believe a total of 61yrs. and still contends to the doctrine which was once delivered to the Saints. In fact, he has said that he had went to his Pastor of the other order while he was wrestleing within himself and asked them about the doctrines taught in the Bible about Election and Predestination and he was told by his Pastor at that time that it is/was in the Bible but don't preach it, because that doctrine has caused more division and splits in the church than any other doctrine. Just go preach and forget about it as if it wasn't in the Bible. But he said I can't preach against it if it is in the Bible. His former Pastor told him, you go ahead and preach that and your followers will leave the church and you will be left to yourself, but as a matter of fact, the church is still growing here in 2009.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Of course you're not going to answer it. You'd have to acknowlege that you falsely accused me of something.

Nope, it's just that a discussion with you is a never ending saga

You're quite in error, on several accounts. First, the language of the KJV was considered archaic even by people in the 1600's. Second, the first settlers of the American Colonies used the Geneva, not the KJV. In fact, their use of the Geneva Bible was one of the reasons they were being persecuted by the British government.

Only in your world, the Geneva was purely a Puritan thing.

There are several problems with that.

First, the text of the KJV no longer conveys correct meaning in several palces, due to evolving lenguage. For example, "corn" today is called "grain"; "brass" today is called "bronze", "suffer" today is called "permit", "advertize" today is "advise" and "God save the King" today is translated "long live the King".

Only in your world

Second, there are also transliterations which were used due to a lack of antropological knowlege. For example, the word transliterated "leviathan" is what the OT Hebrews referred to as a "crocodile". The word transliterated "behemoth" is the old Hebrew word for what they called a "water ox". Today, the water ox is known as a hippopotamus. The translators of the KJV and prior did not know what these referred to, so they simply transliterated the words.

Nuances, nuances and not exactly the truth.

Third, it presumes that future use of English will remain consistent with 17th century English. The fact is that English is constantly evolving, and will continue to do so.

Nope, it is established, never presumptuous.

Fourth, it presumes one should reference a translation of a writing as superior, rather than reference the writing itself as superior. That notion is contradictory to the very concept of translating.

Perversion of a language in no way constitutes accuracy, that, Sir, IS exactly what is happening to the English and you decry that which is at first pure.

Waiting for you to insert the dutch at any time now:type:

It's actually you, not me, who keeps beinging up the KJV-as-superior issue, which is a form of KJVOism. Since that's false doctrine, it's reasonable that others call that false doctrine out.

It's only an issue to those who can't stand its superiority.

You create a strawman and then burn him at the stake for having a brain.

 

[Johnv]

Nope, it's just that a discussion with you is a never ending saga

Of course, because I consistently ask you to provide support for your "KJV is superior" claim, and you never do.

Nope, it is established, never presumptuous.

Let me get this straight: Your position is that future use of English will remain consistent with 17th century English?

It's only an issue to those who can't stand its superiority.

There is no evidence to support the concept of superiority of any English translation over any other.

Perversion of a language in no way constitutes accuracy, that, Sir, IS exactly what is happening to the English and you decry that which is at first pure.

The fact remains, there is no scriptural or historical support for the concept of sincle-translation-onlyism.

You create a strawman and then burn him at the stake for having a brain.

Single-translation-onlyism is quite a strawman argument.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Of course, because I consistently ask you to provide support for your "KJV is superior" claim, and you never do.

Let me get this straight: Your position is that future use of English will remain consistent with 17th century English?

There is no evidence to support the concept of superiority of any English translation over any other.

The fact remains, there is no scriptural or historical support for the concept of sincle-translation-onlyism.

Single-translation-onlyism is quite a strawman argument.

I have proven it in several threads and your OPD is just as serious as roby's OPD.

man, yall need to get help!

 

[wpbarrett]

Charles Stanley and J. Vernon Mcgee. sorry to interupt I just wanted to answer the original question.

God's Grace, Bill

 

[Tom Bryant]

Charles Stanley and J. Vernon Mcgee. sorry to interupt I just wanted to answer the original question.

:laugh: funny that answering the OP would be considered interrupting. But around here it usually is.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Only interupted Johnv and his rants as well as roby's rants.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Only interupted Johnv and his rants as well as roby's rants.

Not to mention YOURS! D'oh!!

 

[Tom Bryant]

only rants I've seen her are yours, Mr. Garvey

 

[Johnv]

I happen to like Charles Stanley quite a bit. I remember a few years back some wackos complained he was preaching "too much" about God's love. I didn't know there was such a thing. Go figure.

 

[Rippon]

Harold : Are you really a small animal that is like a LIZARD but with soft skin and lives partly on land and partly in water?

 

[saturneptune]

Harold : Are you really a small animal that is like a LIZARD but with soft skin and lives partly on land and partly in water?

I do not know about that, but you could nominate your buddy John Calvin for a preacher you admire. You know, Mr. Fire and Water, fire for burning people at the stake, and water for sprinkling infants.

 

[Rippon]

I do not know about that, but you could nominate your buddy John Calvin for a preacher you admire.

I know you're not in the habit of reading OP's. This thread is asking about preachers who have used the KJV exclusively. John Calvin predated the KJV era.

 

[Johnv]

BTW, D James Kennedy used the KJV exclusively in his ministry's earler years, and switched to the NIV later in years. I always loved D Hames Kennedy, even though he speant more time preaching politics than gospel sometimes.