Questions for KJVOs

[Orvie]

Originally posted by Jim Ward:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jim Ward:
Scott, I have yet to meet an mv "defender" who isn't a willful liar.

And tit-for-tat, if we allowed this attack from you, we would say, "I have yet to meet an "only" who isn't a sladerer . . . "

Com'on Jim. We DO NOT ALLOW folks to call each other "liar". You know that. </font>[/QUOTE]Clarification time Dr Bob, what you allow is attacks from those who beleive the mv myth, but wen a Bible believer speaks the truth you seek to shut them up.


Typical since to be an mvist you have to have a douple standard SOP (what's ok for you to do is NOT ok for someone else to do).


What I have noticed is that mv "defenders" are very very very thin-skinned, and they react to things in a manner that shows guilt, shame, conviction and a strong desire to silence the truth.

I've noticed time and again in boards where the "leaderhip" holds to the mythical mv view, that those who "defend" the mvs can get away with anything they want, but at the same time, the "leadership" hypocritically does not allow the same for the Bible believer. Beleive or not, not a one of these people realizes how damaging to their view this behavior is, nor how blatantly offensive it is. Sadly, I have not come to expect anymore then this from the mv camp. After all, when the doctrine/belief is not based in truth, it will manifest that reality in actions done, as you all have so clearly shown for us in here.

Thank you to you and your fellow mv "defender" brethren for proving how false your mythical, mv cult view rightly is.


Jim </font>[/QUOTE] Serious paranoia; persecution complex....For someone who proclaims they stand for truth to say the above, is simply troubling.

 

[Jim Ward]

 

[charlie parker]

Dr Bob Griffin wrote&gt;&gt;Charlie, consider yourself warned about using words like "cult". This is not allowed as it questions salvation (since cult is evil)&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;
also&gt;&gt;&gt;Hmmm. Which one would YOU think more reliable? Which group of men would you say are "closer to God" - unsaved English catholics or saved new evangelicals. Hmmm.&lt;&lt;&lt;
--------------------------------------------------

I accept your public rebuke and will conform to the rules, Do the rules apply to everyone or just us who dont agree with you?
one of the members posted a remark about the Kay-Jay-Vee, do you find "new king jimmy" more offensive than kay-jay-vee? this was my answer to the remark, as you told brother Ward "tit-for-tat" O'well not a big thing, double standards are prevelent on all sides, On the one hand you said that the word "cult" questions salvation and is therefore unacceptible, on the other hand you call the KJV Gods word but question the translators salvation, Dr. Griffin, the fog is so thick in here that it is difficult to see.

Charlie

 

[Pastor KevinR]

Originally posted by tinytim:


You can't even go into a major city in the US, and expect the language to be English.

That's one problem with KJVOs, they pridefully assume that just because they see things around them locally, that it is like that world wide.

Christians need to wake up and think universal, instead of living in their own little bubble.

Hi T.Tim, serving the Lord here is somewhat challenging. As a former KJVO I used to have so much trouble with others who speak English as a second language, etc. Then I woke up to the fact that I was wrong about this issue and was set free by God's Spirit.
Every Friday Night we have Youth Group. We use the NKJV, especially since we're dealing with "street kids". We have had guest come in and use the KJV to teach the kids, and basically, the text of old English becomes an unfortunate "baggage". Frankly I resent some posters who think I have to force even these precious kids to read the old English to "truly understand God's Word", when in fact, they do NOT. I am 100% convinced the Bible must be understandable, and I shouldn't have to stop and explain all the words, simply because they are no longer used, I fail to see the logic in that.

 

[Jim Ward]

Originally posted by charlie parker:
Dr Bob Griffin wrote&gt;&gt;Charlie, consider yourself warned about using words like "cult". This is not allowed as it questions salvation (since cult is evil)&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;
also&gt;&gt;&gt;Hmmm. Which one would YOU think more reliable? Which group of men would you say are "closer to God" - unsaved English catholics or saved new evangelicals. Hmmm.&lt;&lt;&lt;
--------------------------------------------------

I accept your public rebuke and will conform to the rules, Do the rules apply to everyone or just us who dont agree with you?
one of the members posted a remark about the Kay-Jay-Vee, do you find "new king jimmy" more offensive than kay-jay-vee? this was my answer to the remark, as you told brother Ward "tit-for-tat" O'well not a big thing, double standards are prevelent on all sides, On the one hand you said that the word "cult" questions salvation and is therefore unacceptible, on the other hand you call the KJV Gods word but question the translators salvation, Dr. Griffin, the fog is so thick in here that it is difficult to see.

Charlie

Thanks for responding to this Charlie. It brings up yet another on the long list of double standards for the mv "defenders". Dr. Bob hypocritically rebukes you for using the term cult, but many times on this very board I have seen mv "defenders" refer to us Bible beleivers as being part of a cult and not once were they rebuked for it.

So my question to Dr. Bob would be... "Why is it ok in your eyes for those who hold to the same man made myth as you to refer to those who hold to a final authority that is God as being in a cult, but not ok for us to do to you (which is honestly the more accurate use in this debate)?"


Jim

 

[charlie parker]

pinoybaptist wrote&gt;&gt;&gt;I throw the same question to KJVO Arminians. Before the KJV Bibles came about, how then did those fanatics and blasphemers increase in number and thus prompt the start of the Dark Ages ?&lt;

Bible believers ushered in the dark ages, Did you attend Loyolla U? I personally dont know any KJVO calvinists, I know many calvinist heretics that use the AV, but rightly dividing is another thing entirely, Here again, fot the umpthteenth thousand time comes the ole standby, "Where was the word of God b/4 1611? In this case, just like the "originals" I mean the sho nuff originals, When Moses pened the word of God "originally" He handed it to the Hebrew people, a people that represented about 2% or less of the population of the planet, and charged them to propagate His word, The word of God since 150-300 AD...not ACE...to 2004 has been in the hands and minds of the "few" that have proclaimed it on street corners, open fields, the green, in Boston, and bible believing churches to the ends of the earth, the key word being "few" Can you imagine that--? God giving His word to a dispized minority composing less than 2% of the earths population?? And to top that, when He visited the planet incarnate, He repeated the operation, and gave "the oracals of God" to the Jew, AGAIN, charging them to "go ye---" But then---I detect a low rumble just over the cyber horizon---

Charlie

 

[robycop3]

Charlie, we have a KJVO Calvinist right here on this board-Will Kinney. If ya don't believe me, ASK HIM. And I don't believe he's a heretic; he's just been fooled by the devil and his agents.

And I hardly believe the Jew is responsible for proclaiming Christ's gospel to the world after the Apostolic times.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by charlie parker:
I know many calvinist heretics that use the AV, but rightly dividing is another thing entirely,

Genuine Calvinists (as opposed to the caricatures designed by their opponents) are the only ones rightly dividing scripture. Hyper-calvinists focus on God's sovereignty but ignore man's free will and are forced to fill in certain blanks from outside of scripture. Arminians focus on man's free will and effectively, if not actually, deny God's sovereignty in grace. The Calvinist accounts for both truths as they are taught in scripture. The Bible teaches that God is sovereign and predestined the elect before the foundation of the world. The Bible also teaches that man has free will.

If you are not calvinistic in your sotierology, you are inconsistent with one or the other of these divinely revealed truths... no matter what Bible version you use.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by charlie parker:
they added notes that bro. C.I. would have lynched them if he had not been dead,

Doubtful. Scofield was not KJVO and I can provide the proof if you don't believe me.

For instance the 1917 note on I John 5:7: "It is generally agreed that v.7 has no real authority, and has been inserted."

Oh here's a direct quote from CI himself in the "Introduction":

The discovery of the Sinaitic MS. and the labours in the field of textual criticism of such scholars as Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Winer, Alford, and Westcott and Hort, have Cleared the Greek textus receptus of minor inaccuracies, while confirming in a remarkable degree the general accuracy(emphasis mine) of the Authorized Version of that text. Such emendations (corrections) of the text as scholarship demands have been placed in the margins of this edition (emphasis mine),...

BUMP to Charlie.

I realize that you folks are fond of revising history to suit your purposes in addition to putting words in the mouths of those whose names you would like to claim... to include God Himself. However, I would like to see your answer to the words of Scofield himself.

 

[Caissie]

Originally posted by tinytim:
I was a member in a ifb church onetime that was raising money so that misssionaries could produce bibles off of the KJV.

Tinytim,

Do you know why the missionaries were producing bibles off the KJV?

Because the KJV is not copyrighted.

Also, to get the MVs copyrighted, (which all of them are) they must change at least 20% of the material.

(Why won't the MVs not copyright their books so missionaries can copy off of them....MONEY!)

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Caissie:
Because the KJV is not copyrighted.

The KJV is now and always has been under copyright. When the first KJV was published in 1611 a Crown Patent In Perpetuity (Royal Letters Patent, or Copyright) was issued in the name of the Crown.

Several licenses have been issued for the printing of the KJV in Great Brittan, most notably to Robert Parker, Anfro Hart, and, of course, the University Presses of both Oxford and Cambridge.

The copyright on the KJV will remain in force until the death of the last member of the British Royal family, or until Her Majesty the Queen, or one of her descendants, releases the KJV into the public domain.

 

[charlie parker]

Caissie wrote&gt;&gt;"------ (Why won't the MVs not copyright their books so missionaries can copy off of them....MONEY!)"
________________________________________________-
You've got it just right, across the plate waist high, of course the mv'ers had to dump 1 Timothy 6:10  For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. and change it to "a root" instead of "the root" I can copy the AV word for word and sell it on the net and never go to court or even hear from "the crown" or member of the "royal family" on the other hand try that with an mv, you will be in jail b/4 you can say "slime of the purslane" Hang in there fellow soldier, the judgment seat of Christ will prove you right, When Dr. Frank Logsden, one of the fathers of an mv came to his sences he dissaccociated himself from it and apoligized for his part in it. The brother said "if you have to stand alone, stand! we are not alone but as for me and my house, we will stand.

Charlie

 

[charlie parker]

Scott wrote&gt;&gt;I realize that you folks are fond of revising history to suit your purposes in addition to putting words in the mouths of those whose names you would like to claim... to include God Himself. However, I would like to see your answer to the words of Scofield himself&lt;&lt;&lt;
________________________________________________
Maybe you should pay closer attention to what I said, I didnt say See-Eye was kjvo, like Pember and Larkin he occasionly succomed to Adam and displayed his ability to correct the word of God, what I was refering to was the blasphemous notes added by English and his crowd, calling baptism and the Lords table "sacraments" I believe Dr Scofield would have "kicked their tables over"

Charlie

 

[TC]

Originally posted by Caissie:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tinytim:
I was a member in a ifb church onetime that was raising money so that misssionaries could produce bibles off of the KJV.

Tinytim,

Do you know why the missionaries were producing bibles off the KJV?

Because the KJV is not copyrighted.

Also, to get the MVs copyrighted, (which all of them are) they must change at least 20% of the material.

(Why won't the MVs not copyright their books so missionaries can copy off of them....MONEY!) </font>[/QUOTE]The KJV is copyrighted - it's just that printers outside of England don't recognise it. Not all MV's are copyrighted. The WEB (World English Bible) and the ASV is in the public domain. The NET (New English Translation) is copyrighted to keep unscrupulous people from changing it - but not to make money. Anyone can download it free and print as many as they want to distribute or use.

Why translate a Bible from English to another language unless there is no other choice? It's clearly better if it can be translated directly from original language manuscripts - which is what reputable Bible societies such as Wycliffs is doing. So, I would support one of those organizations before supporting someone trying to translate any English Bible version into another language.

 

[TC]

Also, the YLT (Young's Literal Translation) and as far as I know the Bible in Basic English is not copyrighted.

 

[tinytim]

Originally posted by Caissie:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tinytim:
I was a member in a ifb church onetime that was raising money so that misssionaries could produce bibles off of the KJV.

Tinytim,

Do you know why the missionaries were producing bibles off the KJV?

Because the KJV is not copyrighted.


\Also, to get the MVs copyrighted, (which all of them are) they must change at least 20% of the material.

(Why won't the MVs not copyright their books so missionaries can copy off of them....MONEY!) </font>[/QUOTE]No Caissie, I was there when the missionaries came home to raise the money. The church only supported KJVO missionaries. It was in their constitution! The missionaries simply believed that the only true word of God was the KJV. They also believed that it was their spiritual responsibility to teach the natives english, (since God decided to give his word to the world in the English language!!) smacks of English pride to me.

(BTW, pride is the root of all evil, that's what the love of money is, PRIDE)
Pride causes murders
Pride causes adultry
You can not have a sin without PRIDE involved.
Pride says MY bible is right and all others are wrong.

Anyway, The copyright issue was never brought up because they wouldn't have wanted to copy an NIV anyway. If it wasn't for the fact that the KJV is a word of God, I would be sorry for giving them any money to promote that particular false doctrine (KJVO) I just hope people were saved and then someone that knew the truth revealed to them that they didn't need to worship a 400 yr old Bible in order to Worship God.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by charlie parker:

Maybe you should pay closer attention to what I said, I didnt say See-Eye was kjvo, like Pember and Larkin he occasionly succomed to Adam and displayed his ability to correct the word of God, what I was refering to was the blasphemous notes added by English and his crowd, calling baptism and the Lords table "sacraments" I believe Dr Scofield would have "kicked their tables over"

Charlie

OK.

If that was where you were headed then I apologize for jumping to the wrong conclusion.

BTW, how is it he succumbed to Adam? There was nothing sinful in his "emending" the KJV as necessary for accuracies sake. If you say there was then please cite the scripture to support your contention.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by charlie parker:
Hang in there fellow soldier, the judgment seat of Christ will prove you right,

If you are claiming that one will be judged favorably for being KJVO then please cite the scripture that makes this command.... otherwise, please stop speaking for God.

When Dr. Frank Logsden, one of the fathers of an mv came to his sences he dissaccociated himself from it and apoligized for his part in it.

Several things need to be pointed out here.

First, Logsdon's supposed comments got the greatest play after his death meaning that he could neither be confronted on them nor could he explain himself.

Secondly, the Lockman Foundation has pretty resoundingly established that Logsdon had nothing to do with the translation of the NASB other than possibly attending a few meetings. He was not a translator nor did he choose translators nor did he influence the substance of the work.

Finally, if it was his wish to separate himself from Lockman and/or the NASB translation then that would certainly have been his prerogative... but it doesn't make anything he had to say about it factual. For instance in the news over the weekend, a former security official held over by the Bush administration from Clinton came out and publicly criticized Bush. His statements while obviously appealing to liberals in the media are not true nor untrue on the basis of him making them. In other words, just because this character or Logsdon said something doesn't make what they said true.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Jim Ward:
Do you know that you still have a very hard time answering direct questions?

Are you aware this proves how unstable you are and how faulty your viewpoint really is?

No and No? Thats what I thought.

Once again, this is nothing more than abject fatuity.

Jim, I have asked you several times to produce one Scriptural Passage to support the rejection of all other English translations of God's Holy Word. Interesting that you are exhorting someone to answer a direct question when you have utterly and completely failed to do that very thing in thread after thread after thread...........

There is no "mvism" and you know it. Again, stop bearing false witness. I have never seen anyone say that "&lt;insert ANY MV here&gt; is the only English translation of God's Word, and all the other translations are perversions." If you have seen anyone do this, then by all means disclose who it was.

Stop making up nonexistent "ism's," take your own advice, step up to the plate, and prove the contention you make. It really is that simple, Jim.

There is no Scriptural Support for the rejection of all other English Translations of God's Holy Word, and I have challenged you to prove otherwise.

I have a copy of the 1599 Geneva Bible that completely discredits KJV-Onlyism. By the way, did you ever notice that the Chapter/Verse format in the Authorised Version virtually mirrors that of the Geneva Bible, or are you normally not that inquisitive?

Allow me to usurp your own words: "Do you know that you still have a very hard time answering direct questions?"

As Jim has encountered such extreme difficulty with producing anything to support KJV-Onlyism, perhaps someone could assist him with producing some Scriptural Proof.

 

[Jim Ward]

Let me guess, you do stand-up on the side?