Ed's Catalogue of KJVO Doubles

The KJV margin notes are of divine orgin except when those notes agree with the MV translations, such as the KJV note for Is 14:12 that "Lucifer" can be translated O Day Starre. This was totally ignored in the discussion from the closed thread on the KJV using Lucifer in Is 14:12 and the MV not using Lucifer). </font>[/QUOTE]Actually the most caustic form of KJVO-ism
believes only the KJV1769 (or maybe KJV1762)
are the King James Bible (KJB). The
KJV1611 edition and its translator notes
are straight from the pits of Hell to
deceive us.

Of course, i'm sure some KJVOs say exactly
what you suggest ...

 

---020 - I believe what the Bible says if it is a King James Version 1769 or 1762 edition but not if it is a KJV1611 edition or KJV1873 edition or //shudder// a MV.

 

---720 - When one Hebrew or Greek word can be translated using two or more English terms, if the context does not help to select one of the words -- what the KJV translator does is inspired, what the MV translator does is guess.

 

Thank you brother Ransom -- sharp eye there!!!

I reworded a bit (but i gotta earn my pay
as EDitor )

---803 - When David Otis Fuller "defends" the KJV by plagiarizing Seventh-day Adventist Benjamin Wilkinson, quoting SDA founder Ellen G. White, their documented apostasy is unimportant. But the modern versions are discredited because of the alleged occultic or apostate beliefs of Westcott and Hort (though when closely scrutinized, these accusations turn out to be hearsay or outright falsehoods).

 

---406 - One Bachelor of Home Economics* writing on Bible interpertation &gt; (is greater than) a dozen each of: Doctor of Hebrew, Doctor of Greek, Doctor of Ancient Languages, etc.

*(that is Gail A. Riplinger, GA /GA = God's Adviser/)

 

The copyright page of my edition (aparently the 5th printing)
of NEW AGE BIVLE VERSIONS (A.V. Publications, 1993) by
Gail A. Riplenger (GAR) says this:

"Note to the reader: ... 2) the NIV and NASB do not have
identical wording because each is copywritten.
Space permits only one example, often that of the NASB,
but the heresy occurs in other versions as well,
worded in a slightly different way."

I suspect in English this means:
I didn't check the NIV unless the NASB didn't prove
my point. So expect the NASB version even though
i may say "NIV, NASB and all".

BTW, i may note that different editions of the KJV,
especially those printed in the USofA are NOT copywritten
and will vary. These variantions are NOT very significant, usually

But when i check it, versions other than the NASB usually
do not have the exact word-for-word as the NASB. But
GAR acts as though they do.



--- 021 - No difference between two Editions of the KJV are enough to spoil it; the slightest difference between two versions of non-KJV Bibles is sufficient to spoil it.

 

---022 - Demeaning the MVs magnifies the KJB.

 

---207 - Any change in a MV (however slight) is large; any change in a KJB (however large) is slight.

---208 - In KJVs: things that are different are the same; in MVs: things that are not the same are different

---209 - The KJV is the "final authority", but that authority does not teach or say to believe in KJV-onlyism!

 

Oh, it is only 14k-bytes so far

-----------------------------------
Ed's Catalogue of KJVO Doubles

(Caveat: not all KJVO-ists practice all
the given Double Standards. This compilation
makes KJVOs look bad, but most KJVOs are good
people and nary an individual KJVO practices
all these Double Standards. (Some do get close
though )
------------------------------

000 - Generic Double Standards

---001 - Reading an MV offends God; reading a KJV does not.

---002 - Only KJVOs have the right to understand the KJB. Deluded MV people don't undertand how to read anything, especially MVs.

---003 - "It is written" in the KJBs indicate it is God's written word of truth. "It is written" in the MVs is a preverse trick of Satan.

---004 - Believing the KJV is the written word of GOd is an act of faith. Believing an MV is the written word of God is an act of doubt.

---005 - In the KJV things that are the same are diferent. With MVs things that are not the same are different.

---006 - "KJV" must always be capitalized, while "mv" must never be capitalized.

---007 - Anti-KJVOs enjoy bashing those who stand for the preserved word of God; KJVOs enjoy instructing others in righteousness.

---008 - Anything good that happened 1701-1900 is due to the positive influence of the KJB.Anything bad that happened 1901-2004 is due to the negative influence of the MVs. Corrollary: nothing bad happened 1701-1900 and nothing good happened after 1901

---009 - The KJB is inerrant as I understand it; it is not inerrant as you understand it.

---010 - Genesis 1:1-Revelation 22 are the Word of God if in the KJV, but are NOT the Word of God if in a Modern Version.

---011 - Any passage in the KJV claiming to refer to God's perfectly preserving His Word is talking about the KJV... the same does not hold true for the passage in any other version (including ones pre-KJV).

---012 - People who are "against the KJV" may think they are reading new versions to understand them better and because of the more recent manuscripts, but they really do so because the KJV "puts them in their place, such as saying 'hell' instead of hades'" rather than because of the old english, manuscripts, etc.. People who are against mv's, on the other hand, have seen the light and are the only ones not deceived.

---013 - It is alright to dis a MV (or pre-1611 English versions) but
is bad to dis a KJB.

---014 - If you believe that more than one version is the word of God, then even though you can give scriptural evidence of more than one version being the word of God, your final authority is your own self. BUT.... If you believe that the only word of God in the English language is the KJV, then even though you can give absolutely no scriptural evidence of that, your final authority is the Spirit.

---015 - It is alright for the KJBO to ignore that there have always been a proliferation of translations even the "meanest" of which are the Word of God (according to the KJB translators) so they can concentrate on "the book of the month club"

---016 - The KJV is exempt from the adding prohibition of Revelation 22:18.

--- 017 - The conjecture of an unlearned KJVO-ite is more significant than the learned proofs of a MV-ite.

---018 - If the MV is found to be written at the Fifth Grade level of reading comprehemsion -- it has been DUMBED DOWN. If the KJV1769 is found to be written at the 5th Grade level of reading comprehension -- it is perfecter than ever!

---019 - Don't use facts.
Facts confuse me.
God is not the author of confusion.
Dirty demonic confuser

---020 - I believe what the Bible says if it is a King James Version 1769 or 1762 edition but not if it is a kJV1611 edition or KJV1873 edition or //shudder// a MV.

---021 - No difference between two Editions of the KJV are enough to spoil it; the slightest difference between two versions of non-KJV Bibles is sufficient to spoil it.

---022 - Demeaning the MVs magnifies the KJV.


100 - The sources

---101 - the MV's come from Alexandria, which is Egypt, which is always evil and a type of sin and bad (contrasted to the Byzantine Catholic texts from Syria). Of course, JESUS came from Egypt after being saved from Herod there, and never even went to Syria, but . . .

---102 - the Hebrew and Greek sources were translated from the KJV before the KJV existed???

---103 - The LXX is a bad translation, except where improved by use in the KJB.

---104 - the variations in the Textus Receptus (TR) are the same,
all 47 of them that are documented in the KJV1611

---105 - - some KJVOs attack the persons involved in production of other Bibles (Westcott and Hort, NIV committee memebers, etc) as if that therefore discredits their work, when they are unwilling to recognize/admit/discuss the KJV translators, Erasmus, etc., who in most instances were much more "shocking" in their beliefs and actions.

---106 - The source texts backing the KJV are pure; the source texts backing the MVs are corrupt -- this is true even when both use the same source text.


200 - Authorized Version, Final Authority

---201 - The logo "Authorized Version" on a KJV means that it
has been authorized by God Almighty; such a non-textual
inscription on any non-KJV is an abomination.

---202 - The KJV1769 is the only "Authorized Version" that was authorized by God. Abominations like the KJV1611 edition authorized by King James are not really AV. Abominsations like the KJV1873 authorized by the head of the Church of England are not not really AV.

---203 - It is alright to make your KJV1769 your Final Authority,
but NOT any one MV or any group of MVs.

---204 - if you cannot understand the KJV; your pastor, the supreme authority on the language, is allowed to decipher it for you

---205 - It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the local church pastor to decipher any archaic or difficult words in the KJV; however, even a Hebrew/Greek scholar is an abomination before God.

---206 - "I don't care what the Latin Vulgate says, and I don't need to know what it says." -- apathy (I don't care) and ignorance (I don't know)

---207 - Any change in a MV (however slight) is large; any change in a KJB (however large) is slight.

---208 - In KJVs: things that are different are the same; in MVs: things that are not the same are different

---209 - The KJV is the "final authority", but that authority does not teach or say to believe in KJV-onlyism!


300 - TDB


400 - The translator(s)

---401 - It is alright to have the AV be authorized by a homosexual king; it is not alright for a MV to be checked for style by a homosexual style consultant.

---402 - Scholars contribulated to the KJV (this is alright); scholars contributed ot the MVs (this is bad and invalidates the MVs).

---403 - It is alright for baby sprinkling Anglicans to translate the KJV; it is a sin for Westcott and Hort to let a Greek scholar who is a Unitarian to help make the Greek source from which the MVs are translated.

---404 - The scholarship of the KJV translators far surpassed that of anyone who ever worked on a modern version. But when something the translators wrote in their preface or a footnote supports the reading of a MV, then their words are "merely man's opinion."

---405 - The NIV is not to be trusted because of the involvement of Virginia Mollenkott on the translation committee. But Virginia Mollenkott herself is courted by KJV-onlyists as a reliable source of information about the translation of the NIV.

---406 - One Bachelor of Home Economics writing on Bible interpertation &gt; (is greater than) a dozen each of: Doctor of Hebrew, Doctor of Greek, Doctor of Ancient Languages, etc. (that is Gail A. Riplinger, GA /GA = God's Adviser/)

500 - the editions

---501 - The KJV has editions, the MVs have versions

---502 - There are 5000 minor changes (spelling) and about 150 major changes (entire words and phrases) in a typical KJV1769 Oxford or 1762 Cambridge revision from the AV1611. But those changes don't count. Yet an MV "must" be bad because THEY change the words from sacred AV1611.

---503 - Revisions/editions to the KJV are done to correct printing errors and spelling changes due to the English language being perfected. Now English is so corrupted no version of the Bible can be enhansed.

600 - the margin notes

---601 - the margin notes in the KJV
are of Devine origin; the margin notes
in the MV are of demonic origin

---602 Marginal notes by translators should not be
read; they show the divine, inspired translators were
confused and we know God is NOT the author of confusion


700 - translation, the results

---701 - It is alright for the KJV to use
lower case "spirit" but MVs must
use upper case "Holy Spirit".

---702 - It is alright for the KJV to call
Joseph the father of Jesus, but the MV cannot do that.

---703 - It is not misleading in the slightest for the KJV reader to have to read "tried to" into the "did flatter" in Psalm 78:36, but the NASV is of course really, really misleading because "tried to" has to be read into the "deceived".

---704 - You can call the Holy Ghost "it" in the KJV;
but you dare not call the Holy Spirit "it" in an MV.

---705 - In the KJV you can understand that some things
in the KJV are the opinion of ungodly folk and ungodly
entities. In the MV everything has to be the saying of God
Almighty.

---706 The HOly Spirit can reveal truths from a KJV
but not from a MV.

---707 - Textual criticism in the KJV book of Revelation strengthens the KJBs. Textual criticism in the MVs are flawed.

---708 - It is Godly for the KJB to add Revelation 1:11 to the text. It is devilish for the MV to take Revelation 1:11 away from the text.

---709 - KJVOs point out faults they perceive exist in other versions while totally ignoring the fact that those same "faults" exist in the KJV. Some examples:
-
709A - Modern translations refer to Joseph as being Christ?s ?father? (Lk 2:33) and Mary and Joseph as being Christ?s ?parents? (Lk 2:43)."
-
So does the KJV. See Lk 2:48,27,41
-
709B - The NASB refers to Christ as being ?offspring? (Lk 1:35).
-
So does the KJV. See Rev 22:16
-
709c - The KJV exalts Christ more than the modern versions.
-
John 1:18 - NIV, NASB call Christ God, but the KJV doesn?t
Titus 2:13; 2 Pe 1:1 - NIV, NASB call Christ God but the KJV speaks of Christ and God as being two different people
Rom 1:3 - KJV says that Christ was ?made? (created?)
Lk 1:35 - KJV calls Christ a ?thing?. Every other valid version I've ever read calls Him "Holy One" or Holy Child", not a holy "thing".

---710 - Only God can be worshiped in the MVs but the KJV says that Nebuchadnezzar worshipped Daniel? (Dan 2:46)

---711 - You can say all manner of evil falsely against an MV without getting God's attention; but just say a word that might be construed as slightly unkind against one of the many KJVs and God will probably zap you with a bolt of lightning.

---712 - Some KJBOs defend a
Greek term "Christ" that offend Jews
when there is a perfectly Good English Term:
"Anointed One". BTW "Anointed" is used instead
of "Christ" in the KJV1611.

---713 - paraphrasing is alright in the KJV but taboo for the MVs

---714 - If evil men use a MV for bad, the MV is invalid; if evil men use the KJV for bad, the KJV is still valid.

---715 - It is alright that the KJV translators added
words to clarify the tranlsation; it is bad that the MV
translators added words to calarify thier translations

---716 - This was so classic, i coppied it whole:
KJVO Myth buster says: ----------------------------
Since Scripture is our highest written authority,
any doctrine ABOUT Scripture MUST BE SUPPORTED somewhere
in Scripture in order to be valid. The total lack
of any such support, empirical or implied, renders the KJVO myth wrong.
--------------------------------------------------
Apparently this isn't true for the mvo's
who only believe the message or saying is important,
and not the written words of scripture.
They have nothing sound and accurate to rely upon.

--717 - The NKJV is wrong for adding the word God, but the KJV is correct for adding the word God. (Genesis 44:7, Genesis 44:17, Joshua 22:29, Joshua 24:16, 1 Samuel 12:23, 1 Samuel 14:45, 1 Samuel 20:2, 1 Chronicles 11:19, Job 27:5,
Lu 20:16, Romans 3:4, Romans 3:6, Romans 3:31, Romans 6:2, Romans 6:15, Romans 7:7, Romans 7:13, Romans 9:14, Romans 11:1, Romans 11:11, 1 Corinthians 6:15, Galatians 2:17, Galatians 3:21, Galatians 6:14.)

--718 - Even though the sunburst design on the KJV's original title page is also a common motif on Mormon temples and other occult art, it gets a pass. But the Celtic "triquetra" knot on the spine of the NKJV is "satanic" because it is also a common Wiccan/occult symbol.

---719 - It is OK for a Bible to use "dynamic equivalence" as long as it's the KJV doing it.

---720 - When one Hebrew or Greek word can be translated using two or more English terms, if the context does not help to select one of the words -- what the KJV translator does is inspired, what the MV translator does is guess.


800 - the authors

---801 - NEW AGE VERSIONS is the inerrant word of God And Riplinger (G.A. Riplinger). It is the result of a through life-time study of all MVs by Priestess Gail Riplinger.

---802 - You can say all manner of evil falsely against Westcott and Hort and still be saved by grace; but if you say anything against Riplinger or Ruckman, even God's truth, then you will be zapped with a bolt of lightning.

---803 - When David Otis Fuller "defends" the KJV by plagiarizing Seventh-day Adventist Benjamin Wilkinson, quoting SDA founder Ellen G. White, their documented apostasy is unimportant. But the modern versions are discredited because of the alleged occultic or apostate beliefs of Westcott and Hort (though when closely scrutinized, these accusations turn out to be hearsay or outright falsehoods).



900 - the languages

---0901 - Requiring English users to learn the original Hebrew (O.T.) and Greek (N.T.) is bad. Requiring non-English users to learn English so they can enjoy the AV1611 KJB (1769 edition) is good.