lack of Scriptural support

Valid Scriptural support would have to be based
on interpretations that would be valid both before and after 1611 and for those believers who speak languages other than English as well as those who speak English.

 

Kinda like the Egypt/Scripture thingy you and others keep aping???


Carry on.

 

Anti-A,

Will you ever answer this question or will you continue to post off topic stuff?

*By the way AA I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why the 1611 references the LXX in it's marginal notes. I'm also waiting for you to tell me why HIM is in the marginal notes in Pslam 12:7. Start another thread if you want to answer but I'm not holding my breath.

***not an attempt to hi-jack this thread. Please start a new thread AA if you wish to answer****

 

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

 

--------------------------------------------------
Several posters, including myself, have repeatedly asked for Scriptural support for the KJVO myth, and have never received any direct answer. This question is avoided by the KJVOs like Mad Cow Disease. let's address that fact directly in this thread, and when it's finished, let's see if any KJVO can still justify the KJVO myth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


hiya robycop!


It's good to see you again, after sooo long. I hope all is well with you and yours, and all here.


I just wanted to point out to you, that this statement you made above is not true, and you know it. I have given, along with many other good christian brothers and sisters, scriptural support along with evidence, that the scriptures have been altered in the mv's, thus the only true and pure word of God we have today in our language is the King James Bible, and that God would provide his faithful people his word of truth without error, and forever - this means the mv's are not it as they show evidence of alterations and have manifested they have done what God has warned repeatedly not to do. In fact, there is more evidence that those who hold to only the King James Bible are being obediant to God, and not disobediant, as we take every single word for what it says. If God says, we should not add to, nor take away from his word of truth, then we should NOT, nor should we condone those things that have, or would.

This question has NOT been avoided, but rather addressed MANY times, to which you have ignored, and continue on this false accusation, that it has not.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Roby said...

michelle responds...

OK, since you have been gone for so long why don't you catch up the new folks who weren't here for the KJVO myth "debate" you were involved with and give them the Scriptural proof you "addressed MANY times".

HankD

 

I agree Hank - we all need to see one post which clarifies the scriptures on one versionism.

 

We will get a real answer from KJVOist when pigs fly!

They stand on KJVOism as the gospel truth but they can not go to the Word and provide scripture to support it.

 

Hiya sisMichelle! As I live & breathe, I can't believe my eyes...is it really you? Oh my...thank-you to the one-in-charge-whoever! Oh happy day!

And David J, love ya little, love ya big, love ya like a little pig...oink, oink!

 

No thanks. If anyone is interested, they can do their own search. I and many others have said and given enouph, and abundantly many times, and I am not obliged any further. If you care so much, search for it yourself. I was merely pointing out the truth against the false accusation, and correcting it - on our behalf.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Hiya Sister Granny!!!!


It is soooo good to see you! I was gonna email ya, but I had very little time this morning before church. I'll talk to you soon though - you can count on it.


Yes, I also thank whoever is responsible.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

I second that Sis Granny - oink..oink.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle


oink..oink...oink..

 

Michelle, you confessed that the KJVO belief is just a myth and it's of the Devil. I don't recall the post, but you can search and find it if you care to.

 

Manchester,





Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Manchester, as much as Michelle and I have disagreed on this issue, I certainly don't remember her making a post like that. Do you know where?

(Gotta stand up for what is right is right and that certainly doesn't sound like a post you would make Michelle. Hi, glad to see ya!)

 

Showing that a modern translation is different from the KJV is not valid proof for the claim that the scriptures have been altered. Otherwise, the fact that the KJV added to and took away from the earlier English Bibles of which it was a revision would prove that the KJV altered the Scriptures. Do KJV-only advocates condone the additions and omissions when made by Church of England scholars in 1611?

It is a fact that the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops').
The KJV is only one branch, Tyndale's is a branch, Coverdale's is a branch, on the KJV-only view tree of good Bibles. All the tree must all its branches and their fruit must be good since the tree is known by its fruit (Matt. 12:33, Matt. 7:17-20). If the tree or root is holy, all the branches are also holy (Rom. 11:16). Thus, the Scriptures indicate that whatever is affirmed of one branch must be affirmed of all the branches. It would be unscriptural and contradictory to claim that one branch (translation) is holy and inspired but the other branches of this same tree are not. If one branch is inspired, perfect, and pure, all the branches of this same tree must have these same qualities. Otherwise, it is being claimed that contraditory and opposite qualities are part of the same tree.

If it is valid for the KJV to add and subtract words, phrases, verses to the earlier English Bibles of which it is a revision, then your claim against modern translations is made to be invalid.

 

As in the ORIGINAL post of this thread, where is the Scriptural support for KJV-onlyism, or are all the KJVOnlies out there skeered?

 

So, michelle, you are true to your modus operandi.

First you accuse us of refusing to acknowledge what you say and then tell us that we have ignored these posts and then turn right around and do the same thing yourself refusing to acknowledge what I say and ignoring my requests for scriptural proof.

All you need to do to prove to the newer folks here (as well as the old timers) that you are not equivocating your position by setting up a double standard, one for michelle and one for everyone else is to provide the scriptural proof that the KJV is the only Word of God for the English speaking people.

HankD