"KJVO" Beginnings

[Salamander]

Copy, yes. Original, no.

The KJVO folks do though. God only spoke to Paul in English.

Ok, tell us all what God said in Greek to Paul in English.

 

[gb93433]

OK so you believe the Word of God came to man by accident!:laugh:

Absolutely not. No man past the point at which God inspired man to write the Bible has it ever been inspired again.

Could you give me one KJV translator who claimed to have been inspired by God. I have been unable to read that anywhere especially in any KJV. I have read a second edition KJV. Did they leave a sentence out about that from the first to the second edition?

 

[gb93433]

Ok, tell us all what God said in Greek to Paul in English.

Perhaps you could answer some questions I have.

Should Phil 3:20 be translated as "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ;" or as "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:"

Should 1 Peter 3:1 read Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; or should it be "In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives

Could you ask one of your Spanish speaking friends to translate Como esta and Como estas?

 

[Salamander]

Absolutely not. No man past the point at which God inspired man to write the Bible has it ever been inspired again.

Could you give me one KJV translator who claimed to have been inspired by God. I have been unable to read that anywhere especially in any KJV. I have read a second edition KJV. Did they leave a sentence out about that from the first to the second edition?

Ok, then who inspires you to take the stand which you claim?

Man didn't write the Bible, God authored it. Man only penned it down.

 

[Salamander]

Perhaps you could answer some questions I have.

Should Phil 3:20 be translated as "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ;" or as "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:"

So you mst believe in angellic tongues?

Should 1 Peter 3:1 read Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; or should it be "In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives

Her behaviour had best be coupled with her words, or her conversation isn't right in the effect to win her husband.

You pick and choose.

Could you ask one of your Spanish speaking friends to translate Como esta and Como estas?

Why, are they inspired to say differently?

 

[Keith M]

It's quite clear that this is, in fact, what they were doing. The whole point of Rainolds request and the whole point of King James consent was to do this very thing.

Rufus, apparently this error is quite clear only to you and to anyone else who thinks the KJVO movement started in the early 17th century. To those who know otherwise no such thing is quite clear as you errantly claim. KJVOism did not start in the 17th century at all, but in much later times.

BTW, it's quite clear from some of the recent posts that this thread is being hijacked to yet another KJVO discussion. The topic is the beginnings of the KJVO movement, not the KJVO position itself.

 

[gb93433]

So you mst believe in angellic tongues?

Her behaviour had best be coupled with her words, or her conversation isn't right in the effect to win her husband.

You pick and choose.

Why, are they inspired to say differently?

Could you give us one name of a KJV translator who claimed the KJV was inspired?

 

[gb93433]

BTW, it's quite clear from some of the recent posts that this thread is being hijacked to yet another KJVO discussion. The topic is the beginnings of the KJVO movement, not the KJVO position itself.

Anytime there were changes there were also people who caused trouble just like today. They were also before the KJV was a translation.

At one time people were burned at the stake when they tried to create an English translation.

 

[robycop3]

I see Rufus & Sal aren't too interested in when KJVO began. They just might see God isn't really behind it & it's all man-made.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Well, I really was looking forward to some enlightening discussions with Mongol Servant. I trust all is well with him as we have not heard from him as to what false religions/teachings have sprung from MV's.

So far we have no proof given as to KJVO beliefs prior to the 1930's. If none is forthcoming, then perhaps this thread has come to it's conclusion.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Rufus, apparently this error is quite clear only to you and to anyone else who thinks the KJVO movement started in the early 17th century. To those who know otherwise no such thing is quite clear as you errantly claim. KJVOism did not start in the 17th century at all, but in much later times.

It is quite clear from the writings of this period that the creation of the AV was intended to create a single English translation to be used in all of the churches. This was the intent of Rainolds and why he made his request. This was the intent of the King and why he approved the request. One single, principal, uniform translation of the Holy Bible in the English language. They were not creating a new version so that they would have an extra one to choose from.

BTW, it's quite clear from some of the recent posts that this thread is being hijacked to yet another KJVO discussion. The topic is the beginnings of the KJVO movement, not the KJVO position itself.

The word "position" appears in the opening post 4 times, the word "movement" appears 0 times. A moderator warning about this thread, changed the verbiage to "movement". I was not aware that the KJVO "Position" and the KJVO "Movement" were so exclusive to each other to cause a potential for a thread hijack so perhaps you could elaborate on the enormity of the differences so that we might better understand? Regardless, folks focusing on the beginnings of the KJVO Position would seem to be inline with the OP intent.

 

[robycop3]

Well, I really was looking forward to some enlightening discussions with Mongol Servant. I trust all is well with him as we have not heard from him as to what false religions/teachings have sprung from MV's.

So far we have no proof given as to KJVO beliefs prior to the 1930's. If none is forthcoming, then perhaps this thread has come to it's conclusion.

The KJVOs have had every chance to show their doctrine is pre-1930 & every chance to prove it's of GOD, & haven't done diddly. I must conclude that they DON'T because they CAN'T.

The only conclusions we can reach is that KJVO is a 20th century thingie wholly MAN-MADE and untrue.

 

[Keith M]

The KJVOs have had every chance to show their doctrine is pre-1930 & every chance to prove it's of GOD, & haven't done diddly. I must conclude that they DON'T because they CAN'T.

The only conclusions we can reach is that KJVO is a 20th century thingie wholly MAN-MADE and untrue.

Although Rufus keeps repeating the same error that the KJVO belief started in the 17th century. Rufus seems to think that because King James wanted to replace the Geneva Bible out of hatred for its anti-monarchy stance that KJVOism got its foundation back then. Rufus also seems to be confused in that the translators used various Bible versions to come up with a single version, that they were intending for this single version to be the last and final version of Scripture in English for all time.

You're right, Cranston. There has been no evidence presented that would indicate in any way, shape or form that the beginnings of the KJVO movement as we know it are any older than the 1930s.

 

[gb93433]

Ok, then who inspires you to take the stand which you claim?

When 2 Timothy 3:16 was written. Who inspires you take the stand which you claim? What scriptural support or any evidence do you have?

I was unable to find an answer to the question I asked earlier. Could you give us one name of a KJV translator who claimed the KJV was inspired?

 

[Keith M]

When 2 Timothy 3:16 was written. Who inspires you take the stand which you claim? What scriptural support or any evidence do you have?

I was unable to find an answer to the question I asked earlier. Could you give us one name of a KJV translator who claimed the KJV was inspired?

I was looking at "The Translators to the Reader" just this morning and read where the translators of the 1611 KJV looked at the original Scriptures as being inspired, but there was no mention that any of them thougt the version they were translating was inspired. On the other hand I wonder how many of the writers of the original Scriptures realized that what they were writing was truly inspired? I'm sure those who wrote things such as "The Lord said..." and "Thus said the Lord..." probably felt they were being inspired, but what about some of the others?

 

[gb93433]

I was looking at "The Translators to the Reader" just this morning and read where the translators of the 1611 KJV looked at the original Scriptures as being inspired, but there was no mention that any of them thougt the version they were translating was inspired. On the other hand I wonder how many of the writers of the original Scriptures realized that what they were writing was truly inspired? I'm sure those who wrote things such as "The Lord said..." and "Thus said the Lord..." probably felt they were being inspired, but what about some of the others?

I would like to think they were praying for sure. I would think they would have felt they had undertaken an awesome task.

 

[Keith M]

Good point. Then you feel all the writers of Scripture felt at least to some extent the inspiration that was guiding them. You are probably right about that.

 

[Salamander]

When 2 Timothy 3:16 was written. Who inspires you take the stand which you claim? What scriptural support or any evidence do you have?

I was unable to find an answer to the question I asked earlier. Could you give us one name of a KJV translator who claimed the KJV was inspired?

Men were inspired way before when II Timothy 3:16 was written and you weren't alive then either. So what you said is a misnomer.

I'm inspired by the Author and Finisher of my faith to believe He inspires men to believe the Truth without error.

I am also inspired by the Same to know that He has preserved His Word w/o error in any language He has chosen to give His Word to any people.

The KJB translators didn't need to make any statement of the sort for you or me to concur with or take a stance against. They knew they were doing God's work to establish a readable Bible without error, if not then explain why the KJB differs from the Geneva Bible?

You seem to believe God said it once in that language and gave everyone else the burden of translation so men can argue over what God really meant to have said. That is called seprentology.

Evidences of false doctrines encouraged from MV's? [attacks against the Bible removed]
When did the "KJVO Movement" begin? It wasn't when those who can't be sure what God said gave it a name.

My God is from everlasting to everlasting. Yours?

 

[Salamander]

Absolutely not. No man past the point at which God inspired man to write the Bible has it ever been inspired again.

So you don't have the living word in the Bible? You believe God's word is dead? You think that men aren't saved according to the Word of God except it be given to them in the 3 Original languages? Hmmm, nearly everyone today is lost by your estimation of God's word.:tonofbricks:

 

[gb93433]

I am also inspired by the Same to know that He has preserved His Word w/o error in any language He has chosen to give His Word to any people.

Mormons would agree with you. They believe in continual revelation.

If the KJV translators were perfectly “inspired” the first time why did they make changes later?

Again I ask you as I did before, how would you translate Como estas and Como esta from Spanish to English? The problem is they translate with the same words but have a very different impact. If you went back from English to Spanish you would need to know more about the culture to translate the one phrase in English back into Spanish.

How would know how to translate love from English into Greek. Several Greek words are translated by love. You claim that one English word correctly translates them giving the same meaning and impact.

In many cases translation can be differences like someone passed away, someone died, someone was killed, and someone was murdered. The end result is that they died but the impact of how they died is much different.

I will give you another example. In England they would say they went on holiday. How would you translate those words so an American would know the meaning of that statement?

The KJB translators didn't need to make any statement of the sort for you or me to concur with or take a stance against. They knew they were doing God's work to establish a readable Bible without error, if not then explain why the KJB differs from the Geneva Bible?

It is a fact that the translators did make a statement though. Obviously you have never read what the translators wrote in the beginning of the KJV and are simply letting someone mislead you to believe something they did not claim for themselves.

You seem to believe God said it once in that language and gave everyone else the burden of translation so men can argue over what God really meant to have said. That is called seprentology.

It is not about argument. It is about study to get it correct.

You have used a new word for me. Could you educate me on what seprentology is?

Evidences of false doctrines encouraged from MV's? Try ungodliness, unholy, inordinate affection, lasciviousness, just to name a few.

My Bible says something quite different in James 1:22, “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.”

James 1:22 teaches that those who are hearers only and not doers are those who are deceived. Am I to assume that you believe a perfect Bible read by someone makes a perfect Christian?

If a modern translation misleads people to ungodliness. What did most (about 98%) of the early Christians do who could not read and write? Do you not know that during the time of Jesus there were more than two translations?

I have never met a godly person who was proud of their godliness and humility. What I read in scripture seems to agree. I am unable to find that kind of godliness in the Bible. What I find is quite the opposite in 2 Tim. 3:2-5, “For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”