The ONE FACT that stops KJVO in its tracks...

[robycop3]

You won't find one, because that is by far the most reasonable explanation, usually assumed by almost all serious students of Scripture. (well, the conservative ones anyway).

Right, he was pretty serious in Deut. about Sabbath-keeping, and a million other commands not given to Cain....why assume it was his "sister" anyway? It could have been his great-great-great niece for all we know. The age difference would have been insignificant. Have you even put any serious thought into this???

He forbids it certainly at this point, that doesn't mean he always did.

His essential nature doesn't change, but his policies and requirements for his creatures might.
That sort of distinction escapes you.

Why assume that?

Right, because they are aware of the fact that there is no evidence of it being forbidden until explicitly verboten in the Mosaic Torah.
You are inventing laws and doctrines WITH ZERO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT.....just as you accuse KJVO'S of doing. That is pointed out to you occasionally, but you only care to be consistent about a particular dying and increasingly irrelevant issue.

We are, you were speaking of despising teaching of doctrines with ZERO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT.....such as teaching commands which are not in Scripture such as forbidding incest amongst pre-Torah peoples, and inventing creation histories out of whole cloth....both being doctrines with zero Scriptural support.
Along with the KJVO myth, you should reject such man-made doctrines.

While the man-made origin of KJVO is well-known & of recent origin, we just DON'T KNOW much about man's earliest generations. But God said in Malachi 3:6, "I am the Lord; I don't change." So, I believe God at His word.

Of course, SOME things have changed, in ways. For instance the requirement for MAN to sacrifice animals for forgiveness of sins was completely fulfilled by JESUS, so WE don't sacrifice animals, but depend upon Jesus for sin forgiveness.

But we simply don't know about the earliest generations, so we really can't rule anything completely out.

 

[robycop3]

That kind of makes my point about it being a strongly held opinion, but not a "doctrine." The KJVO crowd views the KJV as the Word of God to the English speaking people. That is something that can be debated, but I don't think it qualifies as "doctrine" per se.

I am not defending the KJVO view, but I can think of a hundred other teachings that do fall under the heading of "false doctrine" that are far more dangerous. I know KJVO people and I have never seen any of them veer off into wild and crazy teachings and off-the-wall theology. As a rule, they hold to sound doctrine, the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith.

If being KJVO led to falling into some fringe pseudo Christian cult, that would be different.

Well, "pastor" Steve Anderson has stated he WORSHIPS the KJV. I don't hardly believe that's sound doctrine!

 

[Rob_BW]

When a bald assertion is made with no pretense that it is anything other than a bald assertion reasonable people (which you are as a rule) do not demand a "Proof".

When you read a tome which begins with the phrase "Once upon a time"...do you start seeking citations?
This is no different.
It is an opinion I make from personal observation, and I don't think I'm the only one who sees it this way.
In a strange sense, your demand for "Proof" cements that opinion in my mind.
I think my statement hit a nerve.

Because I think that it is strange.

Oh yeah, I'm all worked up, pacing the floor and yelling at the ceiling.



Anyways, I see your neatly concocted hypothetical scenario, from which you draw the conclusion that if such scenario occurred, nobody would attack the NLTO or whatever group. Followed by the "It's a strange phenomenon" ending (as if it had actually happened.) I can think of a few reasons why you'd design your post in that order, but figured it was better to ask you.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Oh yeah, I'm all worked up, pacing the floor and yelling at the ceiling.

Uh...Proof?

 

[GoodTidings]

Well, "pastor" Steve Anderson has stated he WORSHIPS the KJV. I don't hardly believe that's sound doctrine!

Yes, but Anderson is also a raging anti-Semite and a Holocaust denier. He blames the Jews for every problem on the planet. His anti-Semitism didn't come from being a KJVO. You can't hold him up while ignoring the millions of KJVO believers who are often pro-Israel and take a sound and literal approach to biblical interpretation.

 

[church mouse guy]

Well, "pastor" Steve Anderson has stated he WORSHIPS the KJV. I don't hardly believe that's sound doctrine!

I am thinking that the KJV only people are in decline. It is a part of Fundamentalism, isn't it? Who believes that anymore?

 

[Rob_BW]

Uh...Proof?

My little black cat was sleeping on my left arm. I was gonna take a pic and post it, but alas, my phone was on the charger. Just as well, he's so black my minimal photo skills rarely get anything but a blob and the occasional set of green eyes when I take a pic of him.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

My little black cat was sleeping on my left arm. I was gonna take a pic and post it, but alas, my phone was on the charger. Just as well, he's so black my minimal photo skills rarely get anything but a blob and the occasional set of green eyes when I take a pic of him.

oooo…..
Black with green eyes?
cool.

I've discovered the secret with cats, never let women raise them, they're actually cool creatures, but you can't let a woman get ahold of them too young. Raised by a man; they can be cool. Please post a pic of the cat!

BTW. I honestly didn't mean any form of deceit or anything with my post. I can see how calling it a "phenomenon" as though it was observable fact might trip someone up, but, it was just opinion. I didn't think anyone would take it any other way, but, I do stand by it.

There's a guy who posts (or did) semi-regularly for whom no iteration of the NIV can do any wrong.
Without actually asserting it, he might as well be NIVO...the only person who ever takes him to task for it is Yeshua, who, I think, just likes to get him going.
That is what I mean. (I'm forgetting his name) but old threads where anyone questions the NIV get this dude going like you wouldn't believe, it's hilarious to watch.

This is what I mean.
I maintain that if anyone (without actually being KJVO) were to start a thread extolling the KJV's virtues and explaining how superior it is, and how amazingly well translated and how people should not read anything else, you would see the Logos's (who's moniker is "Logos 1560" and no one accuses him of being Geneva only??) and the Roby's come out in force to denounce KJVO ism etc...
I'm not KJVO....I do die a little on the inside when I read from something else....but I sincerely believe the anti-kjvo forces are now doing more damage than the old KJVO's in their heyday did.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Well, "pastor" Steve Anderson has stated he WORSHIPS the KJV. I don't hardly believe that's sound doctrine!

And Eugene Peterson, "translator" of The Message has (to no one's surprise) come out as being gay-affirming and for "gay marriage".

In your quest to ensure no one has followed false doctrines respecting the use of Bible versions, you have yet to come out against that blasphemous trash publicly.
You have, however, ceaselessly attacked KJV onlyism.

 

[Jerome]

Actually, Robycop has said that he doesn't really consider The Message a valid Bible, but that:

At least "The Message" is written in OUR English.

ever occur to you that the language has changed over the last 400 years? "Dumbing down" would be retrogressing to use the language style of KJ

 

[Salty]

So what?
Practically no one is listening to them anyway, and their only support comes from other KJVO folks who otherwise wouldn't likely begin a discussion about the topic. ....

Well - I have talked to folks and since our church is not KJO - they will not attend. That sounds like doctrine to me.

 

[Salty]

Respectfully, it is not a doctrine. It might be an opinion, a very strongly held opinion, but it is not a "doctrine."

From Merriam-Webster:
doctrine
noun
doc·trine | \ ˈdäk-trən \
Definition of doctrine


1a: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief

and for the KJO - it is a principle and position!!! Thus a doctrine.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Well - I have talked to folks and since our church is not KJO - they will not attend. That sounds like doctrine to me.

Why is the standard whether or not someone goes to YOUR church??
Are you the pastor, and does that hurt your ego???
Do you want a bunch of KJVO's in your church?
Can they not live godly lives except they do so under your tutelage or at your local body?
Maybe your nursery reeks of urine and they used the KJVO thing as an excuse?
Maybe they don't attend churches where they believe Biblical doctrine is defined by Merriam Webster's Dictionary?

 

[GoodTidings]

From Merriam-Webster:
doctrine
noun
doc·trine | \ ˈdäk-trən \
Definition of doctrine


1a: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief

and for the KJO - it is a principle and position!!! Thus a doctrine.

That's not how doctrine is treated in the Bible. Yes, there is a secular treatment of doctrine in the world, but I am referencing doctrine from a biblical stand point, and KJVO doesn't fit the biblical idea of doctrine and it doesn't contradict revealed doctrine in Scripture so it can't be "false" doctrine. It is simply a strongly held opinion that can be debated. Calling it a doctrine gives it too much power.

 

[Salty]

Why is the standard whether or not someone goes to YOUR church??
Are you the pastor, and does that hurt your ego???
Do you want a bunch of KJVO's in your church?
Can they not live godly lives except they do so under your tutelage or at your local body?
Maybe your nursery reeks of urine and they used the KJVO thing as an excuse?
Maybe they don't attend churches where they believe Biblical doctrine is defined by Merriam Webster's Dictionary?

Maybe you are right - maybe you are wrong

I'll give you one - No - it does NOT hurt my ego.

 

[Salty]

The KJV translates Strong's G1319 in the following manner: doctrine (19x), teaching (1x), learning (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage G1320; instruction (the function or the information):—doctrine, learning, teaching.

 

[rsr]

If something is taught as truth, it is doctrine.

 

[MartyF]

And the scriptural reference is where? Sounds like another man-made doctrine.

If I just mentioned one scripture would that be enough for you? I think not.

You will have to find and read the books yourself. They discuss the scripture and how it connects. You can also meditate on the Bible and see it there. I don’t see a reason to spend the pages upon pages to explain it here where I cannot own what I write. And it would take at least dozens of pages since you seem to be holding the skepticism of an atheist.

But if you want to know - that it where you should look. There are many apologists who have written to atheists about the scripture and its construction. And yes, the scripture mentions itself and describes how itself was created.

Now this is where I disagree with you. The scripture is “man-made”. Men (possibly women) wrote the books or imprinted them on clay. Men gathered the history of the prophets, gathered together sermons, wrote letters, wrote poetry, wrote songs, wrote their own versions of the life of Jesus with different reasons and wrote an elaborate apocalypse. The scripture doesn’t hide it. It is “man-made”. The difference between a believer and a disbeliever is whether they were divinely inspired.

To deny that the scripture was “man-made” is to deny the scripture. To understand that the scripture was divinely inspired is the mark of a believer.

It is important to note that the Bible does not claim to have come from God the same way the Muslims and Mormons claim the Koran and Book of Mormon came from God. The Bible doesn't mention a set of golden tablets where all of this had been written down. Instead the "canon" was settled on early on by the believers and the Bible itself describes the method by which the canon was created. You can read the books that did not make the canon and understand why. You can read the Bible to see the method through which the canon was selected.

 

[MartyF]

I’m not KJVO, but in the interest of fairness need to state that not all KJVO hold to secondary inspiration, as though the translators were inspired.

Here's the weird thing though...
Essentially no one would be bothered by that.
Logos wouldn't wax eloquent quoting absurdly long passages of his own book which no one reads all the way through, Roby wouldn't particularly care.
You could start such a thread and even start a movement like Ruckman and it wouldn't garner 1 1/10th the ire that KJVO does.
It's a strange phenomenon.

I don't think you understand what the problem is. I am NLTP. That means I like reading the NLT above all other versions of the Bible. I also believe that the translators to the NLT, while human, were divinely inspired to work on this translation. I don't believe that they were inspired by the love of money, power, sex, pride, etc. - anything from the devil.

Similarly, as NLTP, I believe that many other translations were similarly inspired.

If I were NLTO, I would consider all other translations to be inspired by worldly concerns - the devil. I would consider that Squire Robinson chose the KJV for this website inspired by worldly concerns - the devil. I would consider that all the translators to the KJV were inspired by worldly concerns - the devil. Etc.

If you believe the translators for other English translations were also divinely inspired to do their work, then you are not KJVO.

The emphasis is on O. Is it the only translation whose translators were inspired by God and not inspired by worldly concerns - the devil.

If I did NLTO like some do KJVO, I do not think it would go over well.

Now some KJVO take it further and consider the translation itself to be the inspired writing of God, and yes, I realize not all KJVO believe that.

 

[robycop3]

Yes, but Anderson is also a raging anti-Semite and a Holocaust denier. He blames the Jews for every problem on the planet. His anti-Semitism didn't come from being a KJVO. You can't hold him up while ignoring the millions of KJVO believers who are often pro-Israel and take a sound and literal approach to biblical interpretation.

I'm just stating another fact about him. Guess he doesn't read the book he worships very well, whose sources were originally authored by Jews & whose main figure is a Jew.