Some People Just Want a Bible

huh, have u read Ps 2 in the kJB?

 

Yes. Hebrews 1:5 quotingly repeats this inspired Scripture. What is your problem with it in the KJV?

Harald

 

mv-neverist wrote:

Gee, if you love the Mormons so much.....

 

ain't no prob for me, man. wasn't me who called it "devilry"

 

Originally posted by Istherenotacause:
>>Maybe you should tell them, the mv's started the arguement
>>and we KJB belivers just keep proclaiming it.

Nice try......

>>We didn't "attack" the mv's, we were attacked. So maybe some
>>one needs to tell the truth, but first the truth must be known;
>>the KJB is attacked and everyone who stands on it.

Now, now: that is not altogether true. I haven't seen anyone attack the KJV like I see some of the KJV-Onlyists attack the Other Translations of God's Holy Word. In another thread that is still open, someone stated that Satan is behind all other translations. That is by far the most blatant attack on a version thus far. Personally, I would never attack the AV as I probably love it more than you do. I have attacked KJV-Onlyism.

>>We stand in defence of the Word of God and shall not be moved.

No you don't: you "stand in defence" of the King James version of the Word of God. In contrast, I stand in defense of all Translations of the Word of God.

>>I'm just waiting now for the next attack an mv will make.

...........as I wait for the Scriptural Support for KJV-Onlyism.....

 

Originally posted by MV-neverist:
>>Even a Mormon knows whats right! Amazing!

Actually, the amazing thing here is that this is seriously presented as an argument for KJV-Onlyism.

 

No you don't: you "stand in defence" of the King James version of the Word of God. In contrast, I stand in defense of all Translations of the Word of God.

Ah-ha! Now the ultimate question: Since I know the King James to be the Word of God by definition, then are all "renderings" of the ancient manuscripts also considerd to be the Word of God though it has been proven over and over they come from corrupt texts that change the meaning and those also that omit certain passages due to the same not containing them?

Yall quit making me out to be "KJVO"! Everyone of you except 1 or 2 have alluded to me being KJVO. I AM NOT! Tyndale was good, Wycliffe too! Geneva was pretty accurate, the King James 1611 Authorized Version is B E S T !!!!

If I wasn't sure which "one" is the Word of God, I would trash them all and start all over again, but guess what? I already have the Word of God in the King James Bible!

I'll admit, if this will "help" any of you; "KJVO" is a "label" that mv advocates use as a detriment to those who stand for the KJB/AV1611.

I have yet to see ANYONE say that the KJB is the ONLY Word of God, that ludicrous statement would make even the Originals out.

(bowtie is on the brink of unfolding. I can hear its rusty hinges squeeking around the corner)

 

MV-neverist, I don't think they got it...

 

Originally posted by Istherenotacause:
>>Yall quit making me out to be "KJVO"! Everyone of you except
>>1 or 2 have alluded to me being KJVO. I AM NOT!

This is the perception you give, and in cyberspace, perception is reality.....

>>Tyndale was good, Wycliffe too! Geneva was pretty accurate,
>>the King James 1611 Authorized Version is B E S T !!!!

Tyndale and Wyclif are "good?"
The Geneva is "pretty accurate?"
Indeed they are, and more.
How is the Authorized Version the "BEST" (in your words)? Have you ever noticed that the New Testament in the AV is very similar to the Tyndale that predates it by almost eighty years?
I would contend that the Wiclif Translation is the best, followed by the Geneva, Tyndale, then the AV.

>>I already have the Word of God in the King James Bible!!

Well, do you have the real Authorised Version, or do you have one of the revisions? I have the Word of God in my copies of the AV, Wiclif, Tyndale, Luther, Geneva, and ESV, along with the NKJV. [Note that this is my personal opinion, not a Statement of Doctrine.]

>>I'll admit, if this will "help" any of you; "KJVO" is a "label" that mv
>>advocates use as a detriment to those who stand for the
>>KJB/AV1611.

Is this a joke? Not only is KJV-Onlyism a self-imposed label, in some cases it is worn with pride. I used to travel extensively in my job. I have seen congregations that have "King James Only" on the signs in front of their churches. I have yet to see any church with "NIV Only" or "NASB Only" on their signs.

>>I have yet to see ANYONE say that the KJB is the ONLY Word of
>>God, that ludicrous statement would make even the Originals out.

Yes you have. Simply go to google.com and one can find numerous people who believe this. Now you are merely baiting us.

Notwithstanding that, I would agree with you that it is indeed a ludicrous statement.

 

Gina,

Studying pages from hymn books happens in China where there are no bibles available, and people are so Spiritually thirsty that they use anything that they can get.

Everyone else

The 1611 KJV is not the Word of God.

It may well be one version of the word of God.

Yet the Word of God is Jesus Christ.