Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Prove your contention, Jim.Originally posted by Jim Ward:
Let me guess, you do stand-up on the side?
Step up to the plate.
-
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!
Questions for KJVOs
- Thread starter Phillip
- Start date
Step up to the plate.
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 "<insert ANY MV here> 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. </font>[/QUOTE]Once you can prove your view is correct you got it. You claim I am wrong and you are right, but you offer no proof while demanding proof, which is a typical game played by those who hold to the mv lie. Sorry BIR, but I don't play these immanture games of cowardice that you all seek to play.
However, feel free to slander away at will as it's not me to whom you will give account to.
Jim
Tinytim,
I agree with you that a lot of people go over board on the KJV. I read the KJV, I would recommend the KJV over any other English translation (Currently in print). But, If I were preaching to non-bible readers, I would probably use the NKJV more (in sermons). And of course if I could preach to another crowd of a different language it would make sense to me to speak to them in their language. If they do not have a good translation in their language, I would try my best to get them one.
I agree with you that a lot of people go over board on the KJV. I read the KJV, I would recommend the KJV over any other English translation (Currently in print). But, If I were preaching to non-bible readers, I would probably use the NKJV more (in sermons). And of course if I could preach to another crowd of a different language it would make sense to me to speak to them in their language. If they do not have a good translation in their language, I would try my best to get them one.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Sheer nonsense. You made the contention. It is not up to me to disprove what you have utterly and completely failed to prove. Perhaps you never took Debate..
Once again, you are making a simplistic attempt to evade proving your own contention by making up something that is nonexistent. If there is anyone guilty of "mvism" as you allege, then provide the names of the people who extol the rejection of all English translations except the <insert any MV here>. Otherwise, stop bearing false witness.
I have claimed nothing, except that you have utterly and completely failed to provide any Scriptural Support for your assertion. Again, stop bearing false witness.
My support is the simple FACT that there is no Scriptural Support for the KJV-Onlyism you extol.
Thank you for reinforcing the Unscriptural nature of your position. Cowardice would better describe the willful avoidance of a direct challenge to prove one's position.
Again, show us ONE SCRIPTURAL PASSAGE that supports your contention.
Slander?
I asked you to prove your contention with Scripture, and this is slander?? Once again, thank you for reinforcing the Unscriptural nature of your position.
Moreover, I am not the one making an assertion that is Unscriptural.
Step up to the plate, Jim.
Jim knows how a debate/discussion works. He simply is holding a bankrupt view so tries to "turn the table" (deflecting attacks to people rather than the issue at hand.
If the King James (whatever revision is the correct one) is the ONLY English translation, then there MUST BE EVIDENCE, PROOF, DEFENSE.
It's YOUR contention. YOU defend it. I've never met an NIVO or NASBO or (as I joke myself) a LVO - Latin Vulgate only.
If the King James (whatever revision is the correct one) is the ONLY English translation, then there MUST BE EVIDENCE, PROOF, DEFENSE.
It's YOUR contention. YOU defend it. I've never met an NIVO or NASBO or (as I joke myself) a LVO - Latin Vulgate only.
Same goes for your belief Dr Bob but notice, not you, nor any of your fellow myth lovers dares try to prove it. All you clowns do is attack the word of God, and those who defend it. That should tell you something, but no, you would rather be blind, play ganes and stick your beloved hypocritical double standards.
This is truth that can clearly be seen by anyone who desires truth as they read the ramblings of you and your ilk on these pages, and any place lovers of the lie try to "defend" the corrupt mv's.''Take your own advise and defend your contention. Or do you refuse because you know in so doing you will have to face the facts that you seek to run and hide from?
Just more proof from a myth lover that mvism is fully and wholly apostate.
jim
This is truth that can clearly be seen by anyone who desires truth as they read the ramblings of you and your ilk on these pages, and any place lovers of the lie try to "defend" the corrupt mv's.''Take your own advise and defend your contention. Or do you refuse because you know in so doing you will have to face the facts that you seek to run and hide from?
Just more proof from a myth lover that mvism is fully and wholly apostate.
jim
ScottEmerson
Active Member
Jim, it appears that you are unable to defend the assertion that the KJV is the only, inerrant, infallible Word of God in the English language. The burden of proof is on you to do so, and you cannot.
It would seem that you are completely unable to answer this, because you resort to calling anyone who uses a modern version an apostate. Last time I checked James 4 says that there is only one Judge, and you aren't Him. Why do you deny in your actions the same Word of God that you attempt to defend?
It would seem that you are completely unable to answer this, because you resort to calling anyone who uses a modern version an apostate. Last time I checked James 4 says that there is only one Judge, and you aren't Him. Why do you deny in your actions the same Word of God that you attempt to defend?
KJVO Folks: Once again, N
NE here who stands against the false doctrine of KJVO-ism is attacking the Word of God. I have yet to see anyone who has said that the KJV is anything less than the Word of God. There is a HUGE distinction between attacking the Word of God and attacking the false doctrine that claims that it exists only in the form of a four century-old English translation.On the other hand, I FREQUENTLY have seen many on this board who will deny or attack the Word of God in translations other than the King James.
Jim Ward:Same goes for your belief Dr Bob but notice, not you, nor any of your fellow myth lovers dares try to prove it.
WE have nothing to prove. For hundreds of years, the English Bible-readers have had many versions available, no two being alike. Men were comfortable with this during those hundreds of years, with an occasional article popping up in defense of this or that version. Then, in the 20th century, some people invented the modern KJVO myth from the writings of a SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST. Therefore the burden of proof lies upon the advocates of this myth to prove it has enough truth to it to raise it from "myth" status. These advocates have been asked time & again to provide *PROOF* for their assertions, and haven't done so ONE TIME. Therefore KJVO remains a myth.
All you clowns do is attack the word of God, and those who defend it. That should tell you something, but no, you would rather be blind, play ganes and stick your beloved hypocritical double standards.
Sorry, Jim, but ALL the double standards in the versions debate have been CLEARLY PROVEN to be from the KJVO side. Please name just one double standard you see from the Onlyism-rejecting side.
This is truth that can clearly be seen by anyone who desires truth as they read the ramblings of you and your ilk on these pages, and any place lovers of the lie try to "defend" the corrupt mv's.''Take your own advise and defend your contention. Or do you refuse because you know in so doing you will have to face the facts that you seek to run and hide from?
Jim, it's YOUR side that has been repeatedly asked for facts to support their doctrine for well over 30 years now, and has completely failed to present one scintilla of proof to support that doctrine. This is plain as the nose on your face. And your antics here aren't helping your cause one bit. All you're doing is making yourself look silly. Just admit it-YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE to support the KJVO myth, and your hot air will keep the balloon up only so long; its collapse is imminent.
Please tell us-BY WHOSE AUTHORITY do you proclaim the KJVO myth?
Just more proof from a myth lover that mvism is fully and wholly apostate.
Might as well keep the reverses on the football field, Jim-they fool no one here.
WE have nothing to prove. For hundreds of years, the English Bible-readers have had many versions available, no two being alike. Men were comfortable with this during those hundreds of years, with an occasional article popping up in defense of this or that version. Then, in the 20th century, some people invented the modern KJVO myth from the writings of a SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST. Therefore the burden of proof lies upon the advocates of this myth to prove it has enough truth to it to raise it from "myth" status. These advocates have been asked time & again to provide *PROOF* for their assertions, and haven't done so ONE TIME. Therefore KJVO remains a myth.
All you clowns do is attack the word of God, and those who defend it. That should tell you something, but no, you would rather be blind, play ganes and stick your beloved hypocritical double standards.
Sorry, Jim, but ALL the double standards in the versions debate have been CLEARLY PROVEN to be from the KJVO side. Please name just one double standard you see from the Onlyism-rejecting side.
This is truth that can clearly be seen by anyone who desires truth as they read the ramblings of you and your ilk on these pages, and any place lovers of the lie try to "defend" the corrupt mv's.''Take your own advise and defend your contention. Or do you refuse because you know in so doing you will have to face the facts that you seek to run and hide from?
Jim, it's YOUR side that has been repeatedly asked for facts to support their doctrine for well over 30 years now, and has completely failed to present one scintilla of proof to support that doctrine. This is plain as the nose on your face. And your antics here aren't helping your cause one bit. All you're doing is making yourself look silly. Just admit it-YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE to support the KJVO myth, and your hot air will keep the balloon up only so long; its collapse is imminent.
Please tell us-BY WHOSE AUTHORITY do you proclaim the KJVO myth?
Just more proof from a myth lover that mvism is fully and wholly apostate.
Might as well keep the reverses on the football field, Jim-they fool no one here.
Soooo, Charlie, if American Business English, which is what it is called in the international world where I have traveled often, is the standard, why is the KJ written in an entirely different English? By the way, You still haven't answered which is inerrant, the 1611 or the 1769 or other revision. Either the translators were "inspired" (according to you) or the revisionists were---which ones?
charlie parker
New Member
Well Phillip, I just typed a 15 minute responce to your question above and when I hit "add reply" I got a "sorry we do not accept----something about parentheses in html, I have no idea what that means, its happened a number of times tho... been laying stone all day and just too tired to do it again, c ya 2-morra,
Charlie,<<<kjvo fanatic, redneck, uneducated fly in the ointment.
Charlie,<<<kjvo fanatic, redneck, uneducated fly in the ointment.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Perhaps you are totally blinded by your unhealthy love for King James. You have completely failed to provide even ONE SCRIPTURAL PASSAGE to support the position that you extol. By virtue of your complete and total failure to support your idea with Scripture, you have demonstrated that the "myth" is the notion that God has limited His Word to only one version in the English language.
"Clowns?"
"Blind?"
"Games?"
"Hypocritical double standards?"
Remember: you are the one who has utterly and completely failed to provide ANY Scriptural Proof, and yet in this thread, you accused someone of not answering your questions. The hypocrite in this discussion is quite apparent.
NOBODY has attacked the Word of God, which makes your comment a lie.
You really need to watch what you type, as you are now bordering on heresy. The "truth" is clearly seen indeed: you have continually failed to provide even ONE Scriptural Passage to prove the claim you have held out as the "truth." Think about that: you are holding out an Unscriptural assertion as the truth. I would exhort you to be very careful.
1. You are the one attacking the Word of God, as you have called the other English translations "corrupt." That is a direct attack.
2. Another phrase for "you and your ilk" is "fellow Believers." Think about that....
One more time: Perhaps you are completely blinded by your unhealthy love for King James. You have completely failed to provide even ONE SCRIPTURAL PASSAGE to support the position that you extol.
Here is the proof for our contention:
There is NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the claim you make. Let me say that a different way: without Scripture, your trailer is missing its tractor.
God has preserved His Words in several translations in the English language.
As you have repeated this a third time, I am openly challenging you to prove your claim: it is time for you to exhibit some maturity, and provide us with even one person on the list who has demonstrated this bogus "mvism" you invented. Show us where somebody has held out any MV as the only true Source of God's Word. Until then, stop bearing false witness. Moreover, your claim of apostasy is also false witness, as you have completely failed to prove KJV-Onlyism as Doctrine.
Here is James 4:17 as it reads in the Wiclif Translation (a Source of God's Holy Word):
"therfor it is synne to hym that kan do good: and doith not."
from the Tyndale Translation (another Source of God's Holy Word):
"Therfore to him that knoweth how to do good, and doth it not, to him it is synne."
from the 1599 Geneva Bible (another Source of God's Holy Word):
"Therefore to him that knoweth how to do well, and doeth it not, to him it is finne."
Here it is in the New King James Version (another Source of God's Holy Word):
"Therefore to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin."
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
I get it on my KJV footnote
character: || when i try to re-edit the piece.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Allow me, as a representative of the Purist camp, to answer that question: the 1611 Authorised Version.
As I have stated my opinion before this discussion, the posthumous 1769 Revision, although still God's Word, is subjacent to the NKJV. The NKJV is better as it compares the manuscripts and notes the differences in the marginal notes.
So, in other words, the answer to your question is "the REAL King James Bible." The simple fact of the matter: if your King James Bible ain't got the Apocrypha, then you ain't got a REAL King James Bible. [sic]
They got it right the first time.
Hope this post finds you well.
Trotter
<img src =/6412.jpg>
To whom it may concern:
The following are quotes of some of the posting rules for this forum.
1. Do not attack the other poster; if you want to question the opinion, that's fine. But do so in a God honoring way. Don't attack the person; the goal is to build up and win for the truth's sake.
Jim Ward: Same goes for your belief Dr Bob but notice, not you, nor any of your fellow myth lovers dares try to prove it.
Jim Ward: All you clowns do is attack the word of God, and those who defend it.
Jim Ward: I have yet to meet an mv "defender" who isn't a willful liar.
2. It is not acceptable to question someone's salvation relative to Bible preference. KJVOs say "get saved and you'll understand 17th century English." MVs may say "If you were as spiritual as me, you'd leave the KJV behind." Neither will be tolerated.
Jim Ward: Just more proof from a myth lover that mvism is fully and wholly apostate .
*** 3. Stop turning every single thread into a KJV vs. all other versions discussion. If it's off topic, it's going in the trash. Continual violations of this will result in discipline. ***
The KJVO crowd will not not refer to the Modern Versions as "perversions," "satanic," "devil's bibles," etc...nor call those that use them "Bible correctors," "Bible doubters," etc...
...lovers of the lie try to "defend" the corrupt mv's.
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.
Jim Ward: Thank you to you and your fellow mv "defender" brethren for proving how false your mythical, mv cult view rightly is.
The following are for all of us.
The KJVO crowd will not not refer to the Modern Versions as "perversions," "satanic," "devil's bibles," etc...nor call those that use them "Bible correctors," "Bible doubters," etc...
The MV crowd will not refer to the KJVOs as "cults," "heretics," "sacrilegious," etc...nor refer to the KJV in derisive terms such as "King Jimmy's Bible," etc...
It has been agreed to attack the philosophy and not the person holding to that philosophy. Any deviation from this agreement will be edited at the least or entire posts deleted at the most.
The following are quotes of some of the posting rules for this forum.
1. Do not attack the other poster; if you want to question the opinion, that's fine. But do so in a God honoring way. Don't attack the person; the goal is to build up and win for the truth's sake.
Jim Ward: Same goes for your belief Dr Bob but notice, not you, nor any of your fellow myth lovers dares try to prove it.
Jim Ward: All you clowns do is attack the word of God, and those who defend it.
Jim Ward: I have yet to meet an mv "defender" who isn't a willful liar.
2. It is not acceptable to question someone's salvation relative to Bible preference. KJVOs say "get saved and you'll understand 17th century English." MVs may say "If you were as spiritual as me, you'd leave the KJV behind." Neither will be tolerated.
Jim Ward: Just more proof from a myth lover that mvism is fully and wholly apostate .
*** 3. Stop turning every single thread into a KJV vs. all other versions discussion. If it's off topic, it's going in the trash. Continual violations of this will result in discipline. ***
The KJVO crowd will not not refer to the Modern Versions as "perversions," "satanic," "devil's bibles," etc...nor call those that use them "Bible correctors," "Bible doubters," etc...
...lovers of the lie try to "defend" the corrupt mv's.
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.
Jim Ward: Thank you to you and your fellow mv "defender" brethren for proving how false your mythical, mv cult view rightly is.
The following are for all of us.
The KJVO crowd will not not refer to the Modern Versions as "perversions," "satanic," "devil's bibles," etc...nor call those that use them "Bible correctors," "Bible doubters," etc...
The MV crowd will not refer to the KJVOs as "cults," "heretics," "sacrilegious," etc...nor refer to the KJV in derisive terms such as "King Jimmy's Bible," etc...
It has been agreed to attack the philosophy and not the person holding to that philosophy. Any deviation from this agreement will be edited at the least or entire posts deleted at the most.
I don't get it. I understand the work Charlie and I understand being tired, but why does it take 15 minutes to say: 1611 version or 1769 version. Or, the translators got it right the revisionists changed it or the translators got it close and the revisionists were inspired. Whatever, only one can be right. I don't need a course in Biblical translations, just "which one?"
A. KJ1611
B. KJ1769
C. None of the above, revision dated:____________
That will suffice, I don't mean for this to be a difficult question to answer.
The odd thing is that I think (although its been so long back I may be wrong), but I think I opened this thread with some questions and have yet to get decent answers to any of them. I'm not pointing toward you Charlie, but unless I have read wrong you are a kjvo and if so, maybe you could help me by reading the first post and providing a one post answer to the questions. They are not difficult.
Thanks,
Thanks all, your usual boring replies were just what was ordered to help me sleep tonight.
Oh and remember, as you all get all over me for not answering questions (aka not playing your childish games) just remember that you have those hold to your beloved myths who also are not answering questions and not a one of you has the integrity to say anything, showing how hypocritical you all are.
But then even you all know that when it comes to being hypocrites, you have P.H.'s in such.
Good night and thanks again.
Jim
Oh and remember, as you all get all over me for not answering questions (aka not playing your childish games) just remember that you have those hold to your beloved myths who also are not answering questions and not a one of you has the integrity to say anything, showing how hypocritical you all are.
But then even you all know that when it comes to being hypocrites, you have P.H.'s in such.
Good night and thanks again.
Jim
I moderate a number of Forums on the BB. My policy has always been to warn violators of BB policy clearly and publically. The next step is suspension and if nothing stops continued violation, then completely banned from posting.
99% accept the warning and move on to either become productive members of the BB or drop by the wayside. Some go ballistic. Some pout.
This is public warning to Jim about the violations of BB policy. He may consider the list of his quotations (thank you, Trotter) that violate the rules as "boring replies". I would ask him to consider this warning seriously.
99% accept the warning and move on to either become productive members of the BB or drop by the wayside. Some go ballistic. Some pout.
This is public warning to Jim about the violations of BB policy. He may consider the list of his quotations (thank you, Trotter) that violate the rules as "boring replies". I would ask him to consider this warning seriously.
riverwalker
Member
Well, Jim, that was a good answer. I learned almost nothing.
I was saved in an IFBC (Jack Hyles following)and was told that the "AV 1611 KJV" was the one and only inspired Word of God. I accepted that. I did so because I was 15 at the time and did not know the Bible was written originally in other languages (I had no family guidance as I was the only one to attend church).
So, I grow as a Christian, memorize scripture, win souls to Christ and do the bus ministry thinggy.
One day I went to the local Christian Life Tapes and Books bookstore (18 at that time)to look for a new KJV bible. While I am there I find an "old looking" bible that says in BIG LETTERS "ORIGINAL AUTHORIZED VERSION 1611." I thought to myself, "WOW!" I open it up and notice the 17th century typestyle right off. "Cool!" I open to Genisis 1:1 and was about to read it. NOT! I was thinking to myself, What in the world?" I noticed that the words were mostly misspelled and/or had too many letters. Something was wrong. That next Sunday in church I told my pastor about it hoping he could shed some light on the matter for me. Well, as he did I only became more confused. After the conversation I thought to myself if the translators were truly inspired by God then everything in the "original 1611" would have been correct and there would not have to be any revisions or corrections.
To this day I have yet to get a clear conviencing answer to my delima. I get people telling me I need to "get right with God" to "you shouldn't ask things like that; just trust God" and "You don't need to study the original languages, the KJV is good enough."
Well, I started my own search for an answer that I would be at peace about. My conclusion was this; The KJV is simply a translation, not the original text. Godly men translated it under the authority of the government. (Something BTW most IFB's despise) and men are pron to error; "Easter," for example. I've heard the gazillion reasons for the use of the word "Easter" but there should be only one reason, right?
I began to compare the many "perversions" on major doctrine points and then the minor doctrine points. Well, I still love the KJV and use it for memory verses and I have taken a liking the NASB. They show no difference in any of the major or minor doctrine. I am currently learning more about the UPDV version (http://www.updated.org/) and seem to like it so far.
I'm not a translation scholar, but I think I'm dumb enough to know to follow the Holy Spirit's guidance when I read any translation or version. He is smart enough to lead me.
I have been attaked for this and have even been accused of "never been saved" because I read another version, too. (I didn't know that KJV was a qualification to salvation).
Anyway, let the Holy Spirit lead you no matter what you read. Follow His direction. Despite what some IFB might say (and have said), you won't go to hell for not being KJVO.
Peace!
I was saved in an IFBC (Jack Hyles following)and was told that the "AV 1611 KJV" was the one and only inspired Word of God. I accepted that. I did so because I was 15 at the time and did not know the Bible was written originally in other languages (I had no family guidance as I was the only one to attend church).
So, I grow as a Christian, memorize scripture, win souls to Christ and do the bus ministry thinggy.
One day I went to the local Christian Life Tapes and Books bookstore (18 at that time)to look for a new KJV bible. While I am there I find an "old looking" bible that says in BIG LETTERS "ORIGINAL AUTHORIZED VERSION 1611." I thought to myself, "WOW!" I open it up and notice the 17th century typestyle right off. "Cool!" I open to Genisis 1:1 and was about to read it. NOT! I was thinking to myself, What in the world?" I noticed that the words were mostly misspelled and/or had too many letters. Something was wrong. That next Sunday in church I told my pastor about it hoping he could shed some light on the matter for me. Well, as he did I only became more confused. After the conversation I thought to myself if the translators were truly inspired by God then everything in the "original 1611" would have been correct and there would not have to be any revisions or corrections.
To this day I have yet to get a clear conviencing answer to my delima. I get people telling me I need to "get right with God" to "you shouldn't ask things like that; just trust God" and "You don't need to study the original languages, the KJV is good enough."
Well, I started my own search for an answer that I would be at peace about. My conclusion was this; The KJV is simply a translation, not the original text. Godly men translated it under the authority of the government. (Something BTW most IFB's despise) and men are pron to error; "Easter," for example. I've heard the gazillion reasons for the use of the word "Easter" but there should be only one reason, right?
I began to compare the many "perversions" on major doctrine points and then the minor doctrine points. Well, I still love the KJV and use it for memory verses and I have taken a liking the NASB. They show no difference in any of the major or minor doctrine. I am currently learning more about the UPDV version (http://www.updated.org/) and seem to like it so far.
I'm not a translation scholar, but I think I'm dumb enough to know to follow the Holy Spirit's guidance when I read any translation or version. He is smart enough to lead me.
I have been attaked for this and have even been accused of "never been saved" because I read another version, too. (I didn't know that KJV was a qualification to salvation).
Anyway, let the Holy Spirit lead you no matter what you read. Follow His direction. Despite what some IFB might say (and have said), you won't go to hell for not being KJVO.
Peace!