Is the Anti KJVO Movement making a difference?

[Phillip]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
7. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.


The result of men that place their TRUST/FAITH in the words of men ABOVE THAT OF THE WORDS OF THE LORD(-to which also reveal Jesus Christ who is able to keep them and preserve them/us through faith) is the following:

This IS THE CONTEXT and to which the ENTIRETY OF SCRIPTURAL TRUTH also CONFIRMS.


love in Jesusu Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle [/b]

Then 'splain somethin' to me. How can it mean that when "His Words" the Gospels that we rely on for faith in Jesus Christ were not written until several hundred years after that. It kind of flies in the face of "thou shalt preserve them from THIS generation for ever."

Now, if you say, oh, but the Word of God was in Heaven. Then why was it not preserved BEFORE that generation.

You are misinterpreting the scripture, Michelle, plain and simple. But, you will never see that because you have built this brick wall around you that won't open, unless it fits YOUR view of Christianity.

You have NEVER provided ANYTHING to prove the KJV out of 100s of English translations, going back years before to years after the KJV, makes the KJV the One and ONLY. You know why? Because there is NO SCRIPTURE that says that the KJV is the one and only.

You couldn't answer what the Word of God was in the English language BEFORE 1611. Your response "that we weren't there" was a cop-out, because you have no answer. If there were a perfect English copy of God's words before (actually before the Oxford edition) then exactly why did we need to get rid of the original perfect version. And if there wasn't a perfect version, then your Psalms quote was wrong. The ONLY way you answer this is with your cop-out answers that "we weren't there so how would we know" or "God showed me the way and someday, hopefully, he will show you the way."

So, when God tells me that my NASB is the Word of God, you must either call me a liar or God a liar. So, why should we believe you when you say "God told me". You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You are the one limiting the capability of God. God is MORE than capable of providing Modern Versions of His Word and Thank God, He has done that for those of us that do not understand the archaic words of the 17th century. I am so proud of you, that you can understand those words, but I admit that I cannot.

 

[michelle]

---------------------------------------------------

Show me "scripture" Michelle, where the KJV is this perfect word-for-word translation. It has only been available as it is now since about 1769. So, if an older manuscript is found, we are to assume that it is wrong because the KJV (out of twenty or thirty translations) has it perfect. Who told you that it is the only one that has it perfect?

--------------------------------------------------


No, YOU can NOW start to provide scriptural support for your belief that it is not, instead of only your personal opinions and irrelevant and meaningless and endless circular arguments of things to which you have no clue what you are talking about due to your misunderstanding this issue.

I have provided to you abundantly. Now it is your turn.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by natters:
Michelle, we agree with you that scripture is inerrant. We don't think that your interpretation is inerrant. I guess that's the problem.

Natters, that is the BEST summary of this whole thing yet. Thank you! and thank you for letting her know, once again, that we, too believe the KJV is inerrant, as are a lot of versions.

Back to the fact of "no doctrinal changes"--just changes in interpretation.

 

[natters]

Michelle said "No, YOU can NOW start to provide scriptural support for your belief that it is not"

Perhaps you do not understand when scriptural support is required. It is not required when:

1. not promoting a doctrine
2. disagreeing with a positive assertion that is wrongly being promoted as doctrine

For example, for #2, claiming that the tooth fairy exists and then saying "provide scriptural support for your belief that it does not" does not require scriptural proof even though one asks for it.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
No but the KJVO have. No KJVO can point to any set of Scriptures or Bible for any generation ever at any time (except the one who had the autographs) apart from the KJV (1611-1850?) as being the "pure" words of God.
--------------------------------------------------

Wow, you really amaze me Hank. You not only have the amazing ability to be able to know if someone is having a "tantrum" and be able to see through computer screens, but now you claim you can travel back into a time that you do not know? God has said differently to what you "believe" based upon your own assumptions and things you cannot EVER POSSIBLY CLAIM TO KNOW and to are IRRELEVANT TO US TODAY.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by michelle:
---------------------------------------------------

Show me "scripture" Michelle, where the KJV is this perfect word-for-word translation. It has only been available as it is now since about 1769. So, if an older manuscript is found, we are to assume that it is wrong because the KJV (out of twenty or thirty translations) has it perfect. Who told you that it is the only one that has it perfect?

--------------------------------------------------


No, YOU can NOW start to provide scriptural support for your belief that it is not, instead of only your personal opinions and irrelevant and meaningless and endless circular arguments of things to which you have no clue what you are talking about due to your misunderstanding this issue.

I have provided to you abundantly. Now it is your turn.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

YOU have provided NOTHING.

I don't have any scripture that says a version written in 1611 with the apocrypha and was modified and corrected about 100 times was not 100% accurate. But, you don't have scripture that says it is . . . and you cannot explain the problems with WHY it required "fixing" and why the apocrypha was included in the first place.

Answer one question. Which, of the almost 100 versions of the KJV is Word-For-Word Correct? You cannot answer that, can you?

No, what you'll do is say that you've provided enough evidence and its my turn. Talk about circular reasoning. You have an answer for everything, even if it is not scriptural. Then you will twist scripture to say that it says the KJV is 100% perfect (I guess after it was modified and the apocrypha was thrown out........)

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
This is the poorest excuse and belief based upon opinion, is not supported at ALL WITH ANY SCRIPTURE.

I knew you would reply with a smug "that's your opinion" pat answer. But any person who opens a KJV bible and reads Deut 4, Prov 30, Rev 22 will see plainly that my post is not opinion, but undeniable fact.

Now, as far as Psalms 119, nothing in the verse addresses, let alone supports, the doctrinal notion of single-translation-onlyism. It doesn't even address the topic of translations at all.

You have a very unbiblical view of what SCRIPTURE is and what the Lord has said concerning them and shows your attitude about them.

Actually, for you to use these verses in a clearly unscriptural manner plainly shows that it is you who has a very unbiblical view of scripture. It's sad that you are manipulating scripture to suit your own unscriptural view.

OTOH, my scriptural view is plain: Scripture forbids me from adopting any doctrine that is not in scripture. Therefore, I require scriptural support for the doctrine of single-tanslation-onlyism if I am to adhere to it. Otherwise, I am resorting to the doctrine of man instead of the doctrine of scripture.

As for 2 Timothy 3 please tell me where in this verse it says that I must adhere only to the KJV. If you cannot provide this in this verse then it is you who is spoken about in verses 2 through 4.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
“things which are different are not the same" so only one of them can be that "pure" and perfectly preserved word.
--------------------------------------------------

If you are going to use this as your authority for your belief, please inform me where I might find this in the scriptures - chapter, verse please. Did God say there would not be typeface or spelling errors? NO. But God has said alot about his WORDS, not how they are spelled.


You clearly do not understand the difference between printing, spelling, typeface errors, to SCRIPTURAL ERRORS/ATLERATIONS in this issue. All to COMPROMISE WITH THE TRUE ERRORS evident in the mv's. You continue to make it seem as though these comparisons are the same, but TRUTHFULLY THEY ARE NOT and are like comparing apples to acorns.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
No but the KJVO have. No KJVO can point to any set of Scriptures or Bible for any generation ever at any time (except the one who had the autographs) apart from the KJV (1611-1850?) as being the "pure" words of God.
--------------------------------------------------

Wow, you really amaze me Hank. You not only have the amazing ability to be able to know if someone is having a "tantrum" and be able to see through computer screens, but now you claim you can travel back into a time that you do not know? God has said differently to what you "believe" based upon your own assumptions and things you cannot EVER POSSIBLY CLAIM TO KNOW and to are IRRELEVANT TO US TODAY.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

See, if she can't answer it, it is either irrelevant or she has already given us proof.

 

[Ziggy]

Michelle: “Ruckman has said because you are implying he means "new" revelation, rather than "advanced" revelation - as he has said, because you confuse the meanings of these two words based upon what you say he believes. You are giving a clearly wrong impression of what he believes.”

I realize you have never read Ruckman, Michelle; but consider this as a sample of what Ruckman has claimed as part of his “advanced revelation”: he says that the chapter and verse numbers in the KJV have special revelatory and interpretative significance (e.g., he builds some “theology” regarding “bad luck” on verses numbered 13 in the OT and NT). Ruckman also builds “advanced revelation” on the particular spelling of *English* words (e.g., something evil about words that end in “X”).

Is this “advanced revelation” as *you* understand the term, Michelle? If not, then you should be condemning Ruckman’s nonsensical claims as strongly as any of the rest of us.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
“things which are different are not the same" so only one of them can be that "pure" and perfectly preserved word.
--------------------------------------------------

If you are going to use this as your authority for your belief, please inform me where I might find this in the scriptures - chapter, verse please. Did God say there would not be typeface or spelling errors? NO. But God has said alot about his WORDS, not how they are spelled.


You clearly do not understand the difference between printing, spelling, typeface errors, to SCRIPTURAL ERRORS/ATLERATIONS in this issue. All to COMPROMISE WITH THE TRUE ERRORS evident in the mv's. You continue to make it seem as though these comparisons are the same, but TRUTHFULLY THEY ARE NOT and are like comparing apples to acorns.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Now, she starts backing out.

Does she not realize that spelling and typographical errors are not ALL that have been changed in the KJV modifications? If she admits these mistakes, then she must admit a Bible with mistakes.....hmmmmmmmm.

Now we have inspired translators and wicked typesetters.

 

[Ziggy]

Syllogism:

By definition a cult is the “devoted attachment to a person, principle, etc.”

The KJVO position has a devoted attachment to the principle of KJV exclusivity over all other alternatives.

Hence...(I don’t think the moderators would allow the completion of the syllogism).

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Not so, God allowed alterations of wording when the NT quotes OT passages.

--------------------------------------------------

Scripture chapter and verse please, where God has said He would allow mere men to alter his words?


God has NEVER ALLOWED unchosen men to ALTER his pure words. Every single word of our Holy Bible was God breathed and preserved BY GOD, and PROVIDED BY GOD until this very day. NO man has ALTERED HIS PRESERVED PURE WORDS, in the Old Testament, nor in the New and you cannot prove that those verses you mention are the result of that (it is pure speculation and assumption and denies that God gave them by inspiration), and it is evident to us of those things that have. Every word God breathed through the prophets, HAS BEEN PRESERVED, just as He said and in the manner He intended it.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Phillip]

English came long before 1611. If the promise of one perfect translation were in the Bible, then what was that translation in .. say: 1580?

That's not the BIG question. The BIG question, is why did the KJV have to replace that perfect version? ...and by the way, where is that perfect version that 100% matches the KJV word for word? Remember, every generation. . .

Oh, I know the answer---we weren't back there, so how would we know what the perfect translation was?

This all boils down to later day revelation with the advent of the King James Oxford edition.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Neither Ruckman or the KJV translators are/were apostles.

--------------------------------------------------

I was also speaking of the DISCIPLES in my question.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
Not so, God allowed alterations of wording when the NT quotes OT passages.

--------------------------------------------------

Scripture chapter and verse please, where God has said He would allow mere men to alter his words?


God has NEVER ALLOWED unchosen men to ALTER his pure words. Every single word of our Holy Bible was God breathed and preserved BY GOD, and PROVIDED BY GOD until this very day. NO man has ALTERED HIS PRESERVED PURE WORDS, in the Old Testament, nor in the New and you cannot prove that those verses you mention are the result of that (it is pure speculation and assumption and denies that God gave them by inspiration), and it is evident to us of those things that have. Every word God breathed through the prophets, HAS BEEN PRESERVED, just as He said and in the manner He intended it.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Okay, then why did the KJV translators change it if the Bishop's was perfect?

If you say the Bishop's wasn't perfect, then what English translation was? If we don't know, then why did the KJV have to be translated in the first place.

People just can't get it through their heads that the KJV was an MV in 1611. Other English versions existed before hand. If they were perfect, then why did they need a replacement?

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
I doubt that this movement has has much success. I certainly hope they are a miserable failure.

Just check out the "baptist top 1000" or the "top 500 fundamental" sites and you will see that the KJVO churches are alive and well, especially in America, Praise God!

Amen!

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by James Newman:
Just exactly what faith are you trying to defend from 'KJVOism'? What difference does it make if (according to you) there is no real difference between the KJV and any other (valid?) bible version? Are you defending the faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as the blood atonement for our sin? Or the faith in His imminent return? Or the faith that were all going to stand before Him and be judged for every idle word that came out of our mouths?? Exactly which article of faith is destroyed by the idea that God provided us with a perfect bible that we can hold in our hand?

I think the faith you are defending is the misplaced faith in scholars to tell us what God REALLY said.

I agree.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
It seems to me that the KJVO group have had a few free kicks with pushing their Gnostic agenda into different Baptist Churches. Yet it would appear that the KJVO doctrines have begun to attract the attention of different discernment ministries who are attempting to do something about it.
--------------------------------------------------


This statements, and belief, shows just how much you DO NOT KNOW what GNOSTICISM is, and because you do not, you are false accusing your bretheren/sisters of a very serious charge. I would think twice if I were you, before you make such false statements.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

I agree with you, Michelle.

The Gnosticism was begun at the Garden of Eden. The Satan tempted her deceitfully saying, "Yeah, hath God said...?" The Gnosticism was there after the OT and the NT was published. After the autographs were written by the authors, the Gnostics mutilated some Scriptures, added and changed any words in the apographs. "Today" Gnostics still deceitfully do that among Bible translation businesses since 1880's.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle, we agree with you that scripture is inerrant. We don't think that your interpretation is inerrant. I guess that's the problem.
--------------------------------------------------

This is a very nice EXCUSE to hide behind. Like I said, words and false accusations can come very easily, and anyone can say anything, but unless you can show me that my interpretation is wrong, your words and statements of my interpretation of those scriptures being wrong, are ONLY MERELY an OPINION.

You might want to also look up the definition of inerrant.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle