Spread of the "Only" Sect

Well there you go.
I trust nothing from them. A little leaven, leaveneth the whole lump.
Call me your resident ostrich!
In His service;
Jim

 

Sorry Hank. I misunderstood you. It appeared you were appealling to them for your authority here.
In His service;
Jim

 

No problem.

Not as my authority.

Although I just happen to agree with them (KJV translators) about a variety of translations just as I agree with the Church of Rome concerning abortion although I don't accept the Pope's claim of authority over me.

HankD

 

If you trust nothing from them [Roman Catholics], does that mean that you do not trust the Greek text edited by the Roman Catholic Erasmus? Does that mean that you do not trust the words in the KJV that came directly or indirectly from the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate
[example: Lucifer]? Does that mean that you do not trust the words in the KJV that the KJV translators followed from the Roman Catholic 1582 Rheims N. T.?

 

Now why did I just KNOW some bunny would jump on that one?

In His service;
Jim

 

In his BEST Monty Python imitation;
Jim says'
RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!

In His service;
Jim

 

See the Tyndale thread.

Jim

 

Seems our friend Jim is also avoiding the little prob of NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO. Wherever the myth spreads, so will that little prob, which nullifies all other aspects of the KJVO myth.

 

The KJVO folks have to do something because they "know" they are right. They have their own holy spirit. Their theological filter is above all else, even God.

 

gb93433;,"The KJVO folks have to do something because they "know" they are right. They have their own holy spirit. Their theological filter is above all else, even God."

That is unfair and a direct attack on the character of any who hold to the KJV bible as their sole authority for faith and practice. And I might add a generalization that you only have subjective reasons for.
In the same vein I might also say,"
The MV folks have to do something because they "know" they are right. They have their own holy spirit. Their theological filter is above all else, even God.

Not so nice is it? Not so very accurate either is it?
Quit it.
In His service;
Jim

 

Maybe YOU should quit advocating a myth about Scripture not supported by Scripture.

There are two undeniable truths about KJVO:

1.) It's entirely a man-made myth, started by a known cult official.

2.) It has no Scriptural support, or any other sustaining evidence.

 

It is the KJVO's who make such claims as having direct revelations from god about having a perfect Bible. Amazing how God told them, but nobody else including Jesus.

Somehow that advanced revelation doesn't seem to line up with scripture.

I have been waiting a long time for some scripture to back up what they believe. But I have yet to see any.

Could someone provide some passages that support KJVO? I'm finding it hard to believe that a KJVO would promote heresy. I try to give them the benefit of the doubt but I just can't because I see nothing to support their doctrine. The KJVO's have not given any contrary to their heresy to lead anyone to believe it is truth. If there is no truth in KJVO then it is easy to declare it as heresy. You know what one who promotes heresy is called?

 

Don't hold yer breff, GB!

 

Don't hold yer breff, GB!

 

GB's words follow.
-------------------------------------------------
It is the KJVO's who make such claims as having direct revelations from god about having a perfect Bible. Amazing how God told them, but nobody else including Jesus.
-------------------------------------------------
Show me where I did this in this thread. Where did I post that I have had direct revelations from God?
-------------------------------------------------
Somehow that advanced revelation doesn't seem to line up with scripture.
--------------------------------------------------
And then show me where I have EVER said I have advanced revelation!
--------------------------------------------------

I have been waiting a long time for some scripture to back up what they believe. But I have yet to see any.
--------------------------------------------------

When you HAVE been shown scripture for what I believe, you dismiss it out of hand and say that "That's not what that means!" In effect, what you have done is REJECT the Scriptural support we supply because it somehow does not meet YOUR criteria.

The point of this thread was the "Spread of the KJVO sect". Not "Is KJVO valid?"

I have addressed this and have had my comments de-railed into the mess of MV vs KJV.

One more time for the slow learners. I CHOOSE to use av1611jim as my moniker because I LIKE IT!

One more time for the slow learners. I do NOT thinks the "KJVO sect" is trying to take over anything.

One more time for the slow learners. I think the reason for the spread of KJVO is because folks (many folks) are tired of the "what does YOUR Bible say" balony going on in most churches. Many folks simply want to know "What saith the Lord."

We (KJVO) give them that. You don't like HOW we do, so your panties are in a bunch. Fine. You lead YOUR lambs, and we will lead OUR lambs, and perhaps, we will ALL rejoice that sinners/saints are being led to the throne of God.

In His service;
Jim

 

One more point of contention I would like to address. I hit send button before I thought of it.

Where ever you/I find folks being less than gracious to the lambs, we SHOULD address it. However, it must be emphatically stated that it must be addressed Scripturally in light of Matt. 18. To do less, is anti-christ. I know that sounds harsh. But it IS anti-christ, for was it not HE who gave the parameters for addressing such errors? Therefore, to address the problem in any way other than what HE gave us it anti-christ.

You got a problem with some clown who comes in here and promotes these things? Your FIRST step in addressing it is to take it to him/her privately. This is not being done. (apparently, for I have had no such communications from the brethren.) Since I have been accused of such things, where is the biblical mandate, to correct a brother privately, being practiced by you fellows? It ain't.
I have been mocked, ridiculed and outright accused of heresy in this thread. But NOT ONE of you have sent me a p.m. to discuss it privately.
Since you have chosen to do your dirty deed publically, I have no recourse but to reply publically. Where I have been wrong, I have apologized publically. Yet, when I have been wronged, none of you seem to think it necessary to correct your attitudes.
I think this site has become (always was?) a nest of hornets.

 

First, Jim, I have yet to see any discussion about English BVs and KJVOism NOT become a hornets' nest. Satan has succeeded quite well in sowing discord among the brethren. He's been at it for over 400 years concerning Bible versions. Not blaming the KJV or its makers, of course, but history plainly shows us that in 1600 there were several English BVs in use, the most common being the Geneva Bible, which was affordable to most families. There was little discord among the common people concerning BVs...until KJ and his successors tried to ban all other BVS.

While the AV was of God, the banning of other versions was of the devil.

And yes, Jim, I'm aware of the Scriptures you posted which you say justifies the KJVO myth. Actully, the same Scriptures are found in later versions also, and must be applied to ALL VALID VERSIONS ALIKE, or else the person applying them to the KJV alone is using a DOUBLE STANDARD.

We still await the grand discovery of the slightest blip of Scripture that can be applied to the KJV alone.

 

There's the rub Brother.
Isn't the historical "bone of contention" exspressed by the question, "What is a valid translation?" "Whose criteria are we to use"? "Which MSS are correct?"
Both sides of this issue use the term "valid" to suit their own needs. Both sides will define the term "valid" through the filter of their own theological belief system. True?
So...what exactly do you porpose to be the solution? Just exactly where is the point of agreement necessary for "unity among the brethren?" Such unity surely must be necessary for coherent discussion of this issue. "Can two walk together except they be agreed?" Amos 3:3
In His service;
Jim

 

Jim, If a version disagrees doctrinally with the KJV (w/out Apocrypha) when both are taken on the whole, I won't use it.