Ed's Catalogue of KJVO Doubles

Thank you my brother. I really appreciate you bringing my name before our Father. May He continue to pour out His abundant blessings on you and yours.

Bro Tony

 

Michelle: “The KJB translators were God fearing and honouring men. Please show me there involvements in such occultic societies. You need to show that all 47 men were involved, and you need to show me Erasmus was also.”

Michelle: “If you can prove all of them did, then I stand corrected. If you show me only one or two, it means absolutely nothing, as there were 47 translators involved, and each group overlooked the work of the others.”

Michelle: “Using common sense, what do you think would be the result of errors passing through 47 scholarly, God fearing, and honoring men, as opposed to only two heretical men? ”

Yet if on the NIV translation team there was but _one_ woman who was a homosexual, even if she was only a stylist and not a translator and even if her orientation had been known at the time she would have been kicked off the NIV review team -- this is enough to totally discredit the NIV !

Ed -- I smell another double standard.....

 

Ed,

Perchance thou hath missed the new double, sith the double thou cited wast not the double whereof I spake. The issue in my double is not that of a homosexual king, but should be related thus:

It is ok for one or two members of the actual KJV translation committee to be corrupt(whether heretical, members of a secret society, homosexual, baptist burners, or whatever), since the consensus of the remaining members will override any possibility of error in the translation.

It is _not_ ok for even one member of a modern version translation committee or stylistic revision worker to be corrupt (as noted above), since the one bad apple spoils the whole bunch.

I think that upon mature reflection you will see that this indeed is a new double...

 

Is this thing ever going to reach 20 pages?

 

501 - differences within the books of the KJV or editions of the KJV are meaningless, but differences between your favorite KJV edition and MVs prove the MVs are false.

 

If a KJVO supports his beliefs, he is stating his beliefs; if a non-KJVO supports his position, he is sewing discord.

 

The use of the original sources in the MVs is taking away from the Word; the removal of books of "scripture" from the KJV1611 (the Apocrypha) is not taking away from the Word.

 

Discord is sown by those who say others are not christians if they use anything other then KJV. Discussing beliefs of which translation to use is one thing, making eternal decisons(about a persons salvation) that only God can decide is another,a nd always causes trouble.

 

Everything in the KJV is inerrant; but the salvation plan in the KJV is errant because it fails to include "must use the KJB" as a requirement for salvation.

 

Non-fundamentalist influence invalidates MVs; but Anglican interpreters copying the Roman Cathlic Douay-Rheims Bible into the KJV shows those changes were "new revelations" from God.

 

If the KJV, in some printings, renders Exodus 20:14 as "Thou shalt commit adultery" it is divinely inspired and inerrant; if a MV renders it "You shall not commit adultery" it is chaning the Word of God.

 

manchester: "If the KJV, in some printings, renders Exodus 20:14 as "Thou shalt commit adultery" it is divinely inspired and inerrant; if a MV renders it "You shall not commit adultery" it is chaning the Word of God."

This one (the "wicked" Bible) is unfair to the KJVO position, Manchester. Anyone including KJVOs would legitimately point to a printer's error, and would not consider the misprint as "divinely inspired and inerrant".

Besides, the printer who made this mistake was fined heavily by the Anglican leadership for corrupting the word of God.

 

When discussing a reading from the KJV, it is the KJV-onlyist's interpretation that matters. When discussing a reading from the NIV, it is the KJV-onlyist's interpretation that matters.