-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Let's look at the evidence
- Thread starter TCassidy
- Start date
- Status
The KJVO myth is a doctrine about Scripture itself. I believe we're unanimous here in saying there's no higher written authority than Scripture. Therefore, any doctrine ABOUT Scripture MUST BE SUPPORTED by Scripture to be true. No, this isn't circular reasoning. Believing any doctrine about Scripture that's not supported by Scripture is to place that doctrine ABOVE Scripture. That's COMMON SENSE.
So I believe we're being perfectly legitimate to demand Scriptural support for the KJVO myth. Without it, it remains a myth, and should be rejected by every Baptist because it's ascriptural. That demand also applies to any other One-Version-Onlyism.
I also am very interested in seeing the evidence a certain member says he has. And, Sir, you're wasting your and our time if you claim it's Psalm 12:7. And if you cannot provide it, I hope you're man enough to admit it and dump the false doctrine.
So I believe we're being perfectly legitimate to demand Scriptural support for the KJVO myth. Without it, it remains a myth, and should be rejected by every Baptist because it's ascriptural. That demand also applies to any other One-Version-Onlyism.
I also am very interested in seeing the evidence a certain member says he has. And, Sir, you're wasting your and our time if you claim it's Psalm 12:7. And if you cannot provide it, I hope you're man enough to admit it and dump the false doctrine.
william s. correa
New Member
I want to see it. I will honestly consider any evidence you offer. </font>[/QUOTE]Ok! our youth pastor went to Peru for a missions tripp in the Andes Mountains. The pastor Said there was a mountain in front of the fog but no one could see it for the fog was very thick; some doubted some beleived only to find out later that it was true. No one could see it but they Knew it was there. Paul said we see this life as in looking trough a glass "Darkly" . Tcassidy have you ever seen God? If you profess to Know Him Which by your words seems to be true! then Why are you for other Translations in English If you use the KJV only in the Pulpit . Dosen't that sound Hypocritical when you cant stand in the pulpit and Quote from an NIV, OR NSAB, or The new gender friendly version what ever it is and claim to be His Messenger? But yet you defend the very Thing Jesus teaches us Not to do. " Not to be deceived"! You claim that he condems my Actions, when in fact you have let your foot fill your mouth and in so you don'teven Know or are even sure what you claim. Repent and go back to tradition as Paul said! Psalms 119:11 "Thy Word have I hid in My heart that I might not sin against thee" If you are a preacher then preach HIS WORD Not Man's. Thanx and goodby!
william s. correa
New Member
Bro Tony </font>[/QUOTE]What are you trying to prove? No David wrote most of the Psalms, And Paul did say to turn to traditon if every thing else fails.But if your trying to pick a fight then I wont contest you! But if you want to diss the KJB the we have a Battle and you better pack a Lunch!
Wow William,
You truly are one deluded individual. Show me one post that I have ever made that has "diss" the KJB. You are the one who stated that Paul said what was in Psalms and your words are those who indicated that Paul used the KJ english. You don't want to fight me, especially because you don't seem to have the mental capability to read and understand what someone else says. You would rather lie about what they said and question their standing with God.
Bro Tony
DeclareHim
New Member
Most KJVO's I know actaully become so arrogant that they feel when you diss the KJVO movement you are actually dissing the KJV.
And Doc Cassidy is probably the STRONGEST proponent of the AV1611 we have on the BaptistBoard! But not of the "only" sect.
William must be "willingly ignorant" to have missed that! He may need to pack more than a lunch to battle against folks who attack a "sect", not attacking a great translation!
William must be "willingly ignorant" to have missed that! He may need to pack more than a lunch to battle against folks who attack a "sect", not attacking a great translation!
DesiderioDomini
New Member
William is no doubt showing complete ignorance of the beliefs on everyone on this board, including his own.
Something isnt right here....either he isnt being serious, and he is just here to stir up trouble in a topic he neither understands nor cares about, or there is something that is mentally inhibiting him from making any sense.
I pray it is the former, but fear it is the latter.
Something isnt right here....either he isnt being serious, and he is just here to stir up trouble in a topic he neither understands nor cares about, or there is something that is mentally inhibiting him from making any sense.
I pray it is the former, but fear it is the latter.
The pastor Said there was a mountain in front of the fog but no one could see it for the fog was very thick; some doubted some beleived only to find out later that it was true.
Is the evidence for KJV-onlyism on that mountain? Because it sure isn't coming from any KJVers around here.
Is the evidence for KJV-onlyism on that mountain? Because it sure isn't coming from any KJVers around here.
DeclareHim
New Member
Very good point.
I want to see it. I will honestly consider any evidence you offer. </font>[/QUOTE]Ok! our youth pastor went to Peru for a missions tripp in the Andes Mountains. The pastor Said there was a mountain in front of the fog but no one could see it for the fog was very thick; some doubted some beleived only to find out later that it was true. No one could see it but they Knew it was there. Paul said we see this life as in looking trough a glass "Darkly" . Tcassidy have you ever seen God? If you profess to Know Him Which by your words seems to be true! then Why are you for other Translations in English If you use the KJV only in the Pulpit . Dosen't that sound Hypocritical when you cant stand in the pulpit and Quote from an NIV, OR NSAB, or The new gender friendly version what ever it is and claim to be His Messenger? But yet you defend the very Thing Jesus teaches us Not to do. " Not to be deceived"! You claim that he condems my Actions, when in fact you have let your foot fill your mouth and in so you don'teven Know or are even sure what you claim. Repent and go back to tradition as Paul said! Psalms 119:11 "Thy Word have I hid in My heart that I might not sin against thee" If you are a preacher then preach HIS WORD Not Man's. Thanx and goodby! </font>[/QUOTE]Mr. Correa, this is merely more guessing and unsupported opinion. There is not one shred of hard evidence here to support your errant KJVO stance. You stubbornly hold to something that is nothing but a myth. The KJV is God's word. The NKJV is God's word. The NASB is God's word. The words do not have to be in a particular form or order for these various versions to be God's word. If that was the case, then none of these versions could be God's word because none of them are in the original languages.
william s. correa
New Member
The Wod of God! Who do you think you are ? Are you a Some body? or just a Busy body. all I have ever heard out of your posts are Inuendos, proquos, Oximorons. There is no real "Meat" In your comments toward me for you dont KNOW me! If I'm ignorant its maybe because I used to listnen to folk as your self and TCassidy Who Hide Behind the KJV but LITIGATE out of Other Gender frienly "VERSIONSS" Thats the Whole Viper in a Nut shell for you! All God was looking for was Someone to throw the Stone at Goliath! Well I have Gone to the brook and picked me out 5 Smooth Stones And will slay this Giant of Debauchery!
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Would you please indentify the "Giant of Debauchery" which you are intending to slay?
"...Gender frienly "VERSIONSS" Thats the Whole Viper in a Nut shell for you",william s. correa
Ok lets apply this logic to the KJV vs NASB:
Romans 8:16 (KJV)
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Romans 8:16 (NASB)
16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,
Sorry all but I could not resist that one! LOL!
Ok lets apply this logic to the KJV vs NASB:
Romans 8:16 (KJV)
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Romans 8:16 (NASB)
16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,
Sorry all but I could not resist that one! LOL!
AVL1984
<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Having been raised in the kjvO movement as a child, I was very brainwashed. It wasn't until Christmas of 1983 when our Pastor gave my wife and I a copy of the NIV that I started to question the validity of the stance. At that time, being so strongly for the doctrine, I told him where he could stick the NIV, and it wasn't pretty. I told him to leave my home before I kicked him out....he left. We never attended that church again. We were founding members.
Several years later, I finally picked up that NIV because I didn't have my kjv with me. I got a blessing from the Lord just reading it that day for my devotions. I started to go through the doctrines and found no differences..it supported all of the major doctrines. I searched through several other versions, and I found the same with very few exceptions.
I am KJV preferred, and I don't defend the Only stance. There is not one iota of Scriptural evidence to back up that position, nor will there ever be. Many will say that the KJV is from the lineage that the church used throughout history and is the accepted text, while the MV texts were deficient and lost for years. I believe that this is their whole basis for the belief of "divine preservation". They would have to consider the others divinely held, too, though, because they are still intact. So, that theory is shot.
To say that the KJVO stance is scriptural is to say that those poor people who lived before 1611 didn't have the Word of God. It is also to say that the version most commonly used today, the 1769 or something like that, isn't a revision in any wise of the 1611. They also won't acknowledge that even the translators admitted it was only a version. And what about the statement made by them that it was translated to avoid "Popish influences"? What was King James? The head of the Anglican Church...basically the pope of his own religion. The translation was to more effectively support his own position and beliefs.
I'm not saying it is not a good translation, or not the best translation. I'm saying that the false doctrine of KJV Onlyism is false and from the devil himself. It is divisive and is helping to take the church off track into civil war over a minor, not a major subject or doctrine.
That's my rant for today!
Several years later, I finally picked up that NIV because I didn't have my kjv with me. I got a blessing from the Lord just reading it that day for my devotions. I started to go through the doctrines and found no differences..it supported all of the major doctrines. I searched through several other versions, and I found the same with very few exceptions.
I am KJV preferred, and I don't defend the Only stance. There is not one iota of Scriptural evidence to back up that position, nor will there ever be. Many will say that the KJV is from the lineage that the church used throughout history and is the accepted text, while the MV texts were deficient and lost for years. I believe that this is their whole basis for the belief of "divine preservation". They would have to consider the others divinely held, too, though, because they are still intact. So, that theory is shot.
To say that the KJVO stance is scriptural is to say that those poor people who lived before 1611 didn't have the Word of God. It is also to say that the version most commonly used today, the 1769 or something like that, isn't a revision in any wise of the 1611. They also won't acknowledge that even the translators admitted it was only a version. And what about the statement made by them that it was translated to avoid "Popish influences"? What was King James? The head of the Anglican Church...basically the pope of his own religion. The translation was to more effectively support his own position and beliefs.
I'm not saying it is not a good translation, or not the best translation. I'm saying that the false doctrine of KJV Onlyism is false and from the devil himself. It is divisive and is helping to take the church off track into civil war over a minor, not a major subject or doctrine.
That's my rant for today!
A "good rant", I'd say, in contrast to what I've usually seen on this board and subject. Thanks, and I genuinely mean that.Originally posted by AVL1984:
Having been raised in the kjvO movement as a child, I was very brainwashed. It wasn't until Christmas of 1983 when our Pastor gave my wife and I a copy of the NIV that I started to question the validity of the stance. At that time, being so strongly for the doctrine, I told him where he could stick the NIV, and it wasn't pretty. I told him to leave my home before I kicked him out....he left. We never attended that church again. We were founding members.
Several years later, I finally picked up that NIV because I didn't have my kjv with me. I got a blessing from the Lord just reading it that day for my devotions. I started to go through the doctrines and found no differences..it supported all of the major doctrines. I searched through several other versions, and I found the same with very few exceptions.
I am KJV preferred, and I don't defend the Only stance. There is not one iota of Scriptural evidence to back up that position, nor will there ever be. Many will say that the KJV is from the lineage that the church used throughout history and is the accepted text, while the MV texts were deficient and lost for years. I believe that this is their whole basis for the belief of "divine preservation". They would have to consider the others divinely held, too, though, because they are still intact. So, that theory is shot.
To say that the KJVO stance is scriptural is to say that those poor people who lived before 1611 didn't have the Word of God. It is also to say that the version most commonly used today, the 1769 or something like that, isn't a revision in any wise of the 1611. They also won't acknowledge that even the translators admitted it was only a version. And what about the statement made by them that it was translated to avoid "Popish influences"? What was King James? The head of the Anglican Church...basically the pope of his own religion. The translation was to more effectively support his own position and beliefs.
I'm not saying it is not a good translation, or not the best translation. I'm saying that the false doctrine of KJV Onlyism is false and from the devil himself. It is divisive and is helping to take the church off track into civil war over a minor, not a major subject or doctrine.
That's my rant for today!
Ed
- Status