KJV-only myths about the 1769

[DesiderioDomini]

yup, they remind me too!

Completely disregarding the evidence, the question at hand, and the fact that your claim has been totally disproven.

This is why you refuse to answer these differences. It destroys your claim that the KJV is 100% perfect, it destroys your claim that all KJVs are the same.

Commense with your evasion and misdirection.

OOO i forgot the personal attacks. Consider this the green light for that too!

 

[HanSola2000]

"My claim has been totally disproven" Really? I made no claim on this thread, so you are once again making stuff up. There is another word for what you do. It starts with an "L"

 

[DesiderioDomini]

ON this thread? Thats funny.

Since it wasnt on this thread, does that mean it didnt exist?

You are amazing. Nice misdirection and personal attack. The evasion was grade A as well.

Now, would you like to comment on the different readings in the various KJVs?

How do these variants affect your 100% KJV claim? Is it still possible that all of these readings are 100% correct?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Here we go DD, the online KJV1769s aren't
even all alike

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

http://www.bartleby.com/
The King James Version 2000
Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights,
he was afterward ahungered.

[follow this trail:
Reference > The Bible > The King James Version > Matthew > 4 ]


http://www.christnotes.org/
The King James Version
Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights,
he was afterward an hungred.

http://www.servantofjesuschrist.com/
quoted St. Matthew 4:2:
And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights,
he was afterward a hungered.
(my paper KJV1873 reads like this)

http://www.Crosswalk.com/
The King James Version (Authorized)
Matthew 4:2
And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights,
he was afterward an hungred.
(My Grandmother's Bible is like this.
From the title page: New York: American Bible
Society, 1851.)

The "hee was afterward an hungred" is found in
my paper 1611 Edition KJV but not on-line
(in searchable form).

 

[DesiderioDomini]

oops

what were you thinking.

you do realize that this latest post was in vain.

it will be ignored by the KJVOs here.

In what direction will we be pointed to next? Im sure it wont be anywhere close to a discussion on the current evidence!

cant wait to see whats next!

 

[Ed Edwards]

But wait, if you look in a dictionary to
help you understand what a word means,
aren't you letting that dictionary be the
FINAL AUTHORITY?

Here is a cut from the DOUBLE STANDARDS
document concerning FINAL AUTHORITY:

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 different are not the same

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

---210 - Exalt the scholarship of those who promote the KJVO myth (even if SDAs & Anglicans); minimize good, godly scholars that work with MVs even if Baptists).

--- 211 - KJV-onlyists accuse non-KJV-onlyists of having no objective standard with which to critically evaluate modern versions (and hence we are supposed to believe that all of them are equally faithful); however, they reserve the right to evaluate any modern version against their subjective and arbitrary standard, the KJV.

--- 212 - if a Catholic site points out issues in the KJV, then non-KJV-onlyists are associated with Rome - but if a Catholic site points out issues in the NIV, no problem.

 

[DesiderioDomini]

once again, the above post will pass into history ignored by the KJVOs

but it was informative to me!!!


Thanks for the time you put in. God uses you brother

 

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by HanSola2000:
These gnat straining threads remind me of Ruckman's response "Which edition? Any edition stupid".

Peter Ruckman wrote: "We recommend any edition of the AV (with any number of variations from any other edition)" (BIBLE BELIEVERS' BULLETIN, Sept., 1985, p. 3).

In this same article, Ruckman also wrote: "In our group, we hold that ANY edition of the AV is reliable" (p. 2).

Did you indicate agreement with Ruckman's statements?

According to his own statements, should Ruckman accept the 1842 edition of the KJV edited by Baptists that is mentioned in another thread at
this forum? He clearly indicated that he would accept any edition with "any number of variations from any other edition."

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by HanSola2000:
These gnat straining threads remind me of Ruckman's response "Which edition? Any edition stupid".

Please document your quotes.

 

[Keith M]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
What about the LIES peddled by the holders of Alexandrianism?

Since the Alexandrian texts predate the source texts of the KJV, then the only conclusion that a KJVOist can make is that the KJV sourse texts have changed doctrine, not the other way around. If the KJV assertion is "the later, the better", then they must categorically abandon the KJV1769 in favor of the 1901 edition. </font>[/QUOTE]...and don't forget their absurd idea that the translation is better and more accurate than the original texts...

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by HanSola2000:
These gnat straining threads remind me of Ruckman's response "Which edition? Any edition stupid".

This quote reminds me of what a GREAT Christian example Ruckman is when he makes stupid statements like this. . .

 

[Ransom]

I can't say I'm surprised that HanSola seems to be the most enthusiastic about Dr. Petey's most bombastic, acidic ravings. Ruckman is nothing more than a two-bit demagogue. And Sola's posts have been, erm, light on substantive content. Clearly he is "driven and tossed" (James 1:6) back and forth by emotionalistic rants rather than real meat.

 

[HanSola2000]

Oh yes Ransom, and your posts are the epitome of kindness and grace, coupled with self control and no bombast or attacks! Hahahahahaha! But what's a little hypocrisy eh Ransom?

 

[Ransom]

Oh yes Ransom, and your posts are the epitome of kindness and grace

I can see how you might come to view someone as unkind and ungracious when he keeps asking you for evidence for your claims, when you have none to offer him.

That doesn't make that person unkind or ungracious, nor is it going to stop him from continuing to demand that you back up your unfounded assertions with actual evidence that they are true.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by HanSola2000:
Oh yes Ransom, and your posts are the epitome of kindness and grace, coupled with self control and no bombast or attacks! Hahahahahaha! But what's a little hypocrisy eh Ransom?

George Mueller's Secret:

"There was a day when I died:

• Died to George Mueller: to his tastes, his opinions, his
preferences and his will.

• Died to the world—its approval or censure.

• Died to the approval or blame of even my brethren and friends.

Since then I have studied only to show myself approved unto God."

 

[Keith M]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Oh yes Ransom, and your posts are the epitome of kindness and grace

I can see how you might come to view someone as unkind and ungracious when he keeps asking you for evidence for your claims, when you have none to offer him.

That doesn't make that person unkind or ungracious, nor is it going to stop him from continuing to demand that you back up your unfounded assertions with actual evidence that they are true.

Ransom, you should know by now that asking a KJVO for scriptural proof is like putting a moron in a round room and telling him to stand in the corner!

 

[HanSola2000]

See how nice the anti-kjv people are? See what a nice example they give while they attempt to reprove us? Oh yes. Tell me more!

 

[robycop3]

Once you've taken yer shots & stopped to reload, whyncha address the Jehoiachin question, Hans?

And how about posting that message where I said I'm anti-KJV? I see you're calling others the same thing. Lessee THEIR anti-KJV posts.

 

[HanSola2000]

There is no error in the KJV, what else is there to know???

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by HanSola2000:
There is no error in the KJV, what else is there to know???

That they ain't no error in the HCSB and the HCSB is written
in 21st Century English. HCSB = Holman
Christian Standard Bible (Holman, 2003).