The "only" version?

[Rippon]

Here is one of his posts:
YOU CAN'T WIN

You anti-KJV people just don't get it. Your projective minds keep thinking that because YOU are insecure and unsettled on the KJV issue that somehow your arguments, criticisms and snarky remarks will influence us (KJV believers) in some way. LOL! Ain't gonna happen, dude! I can't speak for all KJV believers, but I will speak for myself (and probably many others) . . .

YOU CAN'T WIN, so you might as well go away! I am SETTLED on the issue, I've heard most all of your silly arguments and remarks for many years, and I'm not moving an inch, and if you try using my posts for taking jerky little cheap shots, I will block you. Even if you managed to show me what appeared to be a mistake in the KJV and I had no comeback answer, I'd still stick with the Book by faith and ignore you. You're really wasting your time with most of us. This ain't our first rodeo, and you ain't the first clown.

Man, he speaks like someone from the streets of 21st century America. But then reverts to didst, hadst, whilst, withal and wont in his holier moments.

 

[Katarina Von Bora]

Salty, respectfully, that is not the KJV position that I hold to nor other KJVO people that I know.. The way I view it, the KJV is the best and most accurate translation of the Bible in the English language, I cannot speak about other languages, and while there were English translations prior to the KJV and after the KJV, my position is that the KJV is the most accurate and faithful English translation.

Now, does the NASV, ESV, and even the NIV contain Gospel truth, yes, There is a lot of truth that can be found in these other translations, the same goes with the translations that preceded the KJV. the "only" in the KJVO to me means that only the KJV should be used because of its superiority and purity as a translation. I suppose you could say that other translations contain parts of God's word, but I don't believe other translations are the best representation of the word of God in the English language. I will however say that I believe the pre 1611 English bibles were a lot more accurate and faithful than the modern versions that are out today. I would take a Tyndale, Geneva, or Bishops bible over a ESV, NASB, or NIV any day.

Though I suppose people will continue to beat down the strawman over and over again as if KJV people believed there was no word of God prior to 1611, there were good English translations before 1611, and of course, there were the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as well as other Ancient translations in other languages. But this fact does not negate the KJVO position if we define it as the KJV being the best and most faithful English translation. If you have something that is the best and most faithful, why would any serious student of the Bible use something else?

Jordan, based upon what evidence do you make this claim?

 

[robycop3]

Am starting this thread as another one got off OP

From the "how much authority..." page



I deleted the word "lies" as I am very cautious of that word.

But as far as KJO - the key word is "Only". If the KJ is the only (true) version - then what was the "only" version for the millieum before 1611?

Let's start off with defining "doctrine" as anything that's taught.(Unfortunately, KJVO IS taught in some congregations.)

Then, let's define "KJVO" (K ing J ames Version O nly). It's the belief that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation.

Now, let's define "myth", It's a widely-held, but false idea or notion, entirely man-made.

Thus, we have "the KJVO myth".

The KJVO myth is entirely-false, and is a man-made lie. Its origin is posted in the "Bible versions/translations" forum.

It does not have one quark of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT; therefore it CANNOT be true. MEN made up KJVO without any AUTHORITY behind it, as we Christians believe Scripture to be our highest earthly authority in all matters of faith/worship, and the sole source for all our intel about GOD. Some folks wrongly claim Psalm 12:6-7 to be "proof" verses for KJVO, but WHERE DO THOSE VERSES MENTION THE KJV???????? And for that matter, WHERE DOES THE KJV MENTION ITSELF??????????

God simply DOES NOT SUPPORT KJVO, and by teaching it, people are ADDING to God's precepts and commands, something He expressly forbids.

Thus, Salty, anyone who's teaching the KJVO myth is telling a lie, whether they realize it or not, as the whole KJVO myth is nothing but a lie!

 

[robycop3]

Hey Brother..... I’m definitely a King James guy, make no apologies and can careless who agrees or disagrees- it is my final authority.

That being said I sure do not look down at someone who uses something different. I worship the Lord not a book, albeit they are fairly close IMOP, however I have seen enough apostasy of KJVO churches, folks who play church on Sunday and are in the world the rest of the week.

God will honor those who trust, honor his Son as their only means of salvation.

Back in the days when folk did not read or right, slaves, etc. were some of the most God fearing men and women who walked, graced this earth and could not read a KJV, RSV, CSB, etc. They put in their trust, their soul in the hands of a person and sung hymns abt HIM.

If God can preserve our soul it sure reasons to me that he can preserve his word- and am thankful I am just to simple enough to believe it.

That is just me and no Greek, Hebrew, debates, scholars will ever change my heart.

I mean Mormon’s use a King James and they believe Christ and Lucifer were (spiritual) brothers.

Crazy world out there- Cain’s faith and Abel’s faith[emoji15]

2 cents from am old hippie baptist preacher


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, God preserves His word, & he also controls all languages. Thus, He caused His word to be translated into English, among other languages, in the English style in use at the time. Thus, He caused Wycliffe to translate Scripture in the English style of 1384, the AV men to translate it into Elizabethan English, and the makers of modern versions to translate it into TODAY'S English. (He's done the same in many other languages as well!)

I don't use the same English style Shakespeare used, and I don't know of any modern English speaker who does, unless its a Shakespearian actor performing a play. Thus, when I present the Gospel to someone, I use the same English my audience does.

 

[robycop3]

That was @robycop3 word for which I had replied to, wondering what he generally knew about it as lies of the KJVO myth.



I believe the best way to address my reliance on the KJV and not by referring to whatever KJVO is about, is by how the KJV has kept the meat of His words to discern good & evil by without declining from the testimonies of the Son ( Psalm 119:157-158 ) as proof that those who loved Him kept His words from those that did not as prophesied in John 14:23-24 & John 15:20.


When all Bibles testify to the truth that the Holy Spirit cannot speak for Himself but speaks what He hears in John 16:13, then the KJV has it right by testifying in Romans 8:26 that even the groanings of the Holy Spirit cannot be uttered; hence the Spirit makes silent intercessions for us which is why the "he" in Romans 8:27 is about the Son that searches our hearts as confirmed in Hebrews 4:12-16 and thus the same "he" that knows the mind of the Spirit to give the silent intercessions of the Spirit to the Father since it is the will of God for Jesus Christ to be the only Mediator between God and men. 1 Timothy 2:5

So scripture is not to go against scripture; that is why the lost books are kept out of the Bible and that is how you can tell which Bible to rely on when Romans 8:26-27 does not run against the truth in John 16:13. Do discern that with Him regarding the defense of the gospel in keeping the faith when so many believers re going astray assuming that spirit that comes over them later on in life apart from salvation was the Holy Spirit and for assuming that because that tongue does not come with interpretation, that it is a prayer language of the Holy Spirit but John 16:13 in all Bible versions says it is not for He cannot.

God's gift of tongues is only for speaking unto the people as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:20-21 and not to be used as a sign towards believers to seek after for seeking a baptism of the Holy Ghost apart from salvation ( 1 Corinthians 14:22 ) for then that is not of Him at all. 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 1 Timothy 4:1-2 2 Corinthians 13:5 1 John 4:1-6

Well, you might as well rely on a Model T for daily transportation.

Very recently, I heard a KJVO preacher teaching about David & Goliath. he had to pause to explain that a "target" was a small shield, not something Goliath had on his back as an aiming point.

And last week, I heard another KJVO preacher read this verse from the KJV: 1 Peter 1:15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;

He had to stop & break his train of teaching to explain that "conversation" in the KJV means "lifestyle" and not 'spoken dialogue' as we use that word.

THAT'S why I use the KJV very little!

 

[robycop3]

But you have not answered my question - What was the "only (English) Bible - from 1000 AD to 1610 AD?

You won't get a straight answer from a true KJVO.

Some " KJVP"s (King James Version Preferred) might answer, but not a KJVO.

 

[robycop3]

Salty, respectfully, that is not the KJV position that I hold to nor other KJVO people that I know.. The way I view it, the KJV is the best and most accurate translation of the Bible in the English language, I cannot speak about other languages, and while there were English translations prior to the KJV and after the KJV, my position is that the KJV is the most accurate and faithful English translation.

Now, does the NASV, ESV, and even the NIV contain Gospel truth, yes, There is a lot of truth that can be found in these other translations, the same goes with the translations that preceded the KJV. the "only" in the KJVO to me means that only the KJV should be used because of its superiority and purity as a translation. I suppose you could say that other translations contain parts of God's word, but I don't believe other translations are the best representation of the word of God in the English language. I will however say that I believe the pre 1611 English bibles were a lot more accurate and faithful than the modern versions that are out today. I would take a Tyndale, Geneva, or Bishops bible over a ESV, NASB, or NIV any day.

Though I suppose people will continue to beat down the strawman over and over again as if KJV people believed there was no word of God prior to 1611, there were good English translations before 1611, and of course, there were the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as well as other Ancient translations in other languages. But this fact does not negate the KJVO position if we define it as the KJV being the best and most faithful English translation. If you have something that is the best and most faithful, why would any serious student of the Bible use something else?

Actually, the NASV is more-accurate than the KJV and older versions, as scholars of the three original Scriptural languages have said.

And the KJV has some glaring errors in it, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4 and "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10. While, all in all, it's an excellent translation that has served the English world well, it's not the BEST. And its language is now simply outta date.

 

[HopefulNChrist]

But you have not answered my question - What was the "only (English) Bible - from 1000 AD to 1610 AD?

Brother Salty, the question is unreasonable argumentative when it is about which source documents that the Bible version is translated from; Antioch where His disciples were first called Christians at ( Acts 11:26 ) or Alexandria where poetic licensing and Gnosticism was known to exist?

Source documents written in Greek and Hebrew are hardly written in English. To lobby that against the KJV is to lobby that against all modern Bibles in English.

Some have taken your question by rewording it to accuse "did the Lord speak in the KJV" or "the King's English" as an argument against using only the KJV, but yet the same can be applied to any modern Bible written in English, and so it is rather moot.

If that is the argument of KJVO, which I highly doubt they would make such a claim, but an anti KJVO activist would in their campaign from using only the KJV, do feel free to refer to it at the actual KJVO site and not an anti-KJVO site.

At any rate, I am not KJVO, but I will use the term "only" in my preference over which Bible version I read from to rely only on.

With the Lord's help, He can prove to you why we should rely only on the KJV for the meat of is words to discern good and evil by as proof that the source documents from Antioch were kept by those who loved Him & His words over the ones at Alexandria.

Do you wish to continue the discussion in that direction for discernment or do you still insist on asking a rather moot question?

 

[robycop3]

I had someone on FB post a meme that said if your pastor tries to correct the KJV with The original Greek and/or Hebrew -
its time to find a new church!
I am trying to find the post where he wrote that - as he, later basically said I dont believe the Bible because I am not KJO

FB is chock-fulla idiots, unregulated & unmoderated in most cases.

 

[HopefulNChrist]

We might disagree somewhat - but I do appreciate you statement -

Feel free to share your disagreements.

 

[robycop3]

Here is one of his posts:
YOU CAN'T WIN

You anti-KJV people just don't get it. Your projective minds keep thinking that because YOU are insecure and unsettled on the KJV issue that somehow your arguments, criticisms and snarky remarks will influence us (KJV believers) in some way. LOL! Ain't gonna happen, dude! I can't speak for all KJV believers, but I will speak for myself (and probably many others) . . .

YOU CAN'T WIN, so you might as well go away! I am SETTLED on the issue, I've heard most all of your silly arguments and remarks for many years, and I'm not moving an inch, and if you try using my posts for taking jerky little cheap shots, I will block you. Even if you managed to show me what appeared to be a mistake in the KJV and I had no comeback answer, I'd still stick with the Book by faith and ignore you. You're really wasting your time with most of us. This ain't our first rodeo, and you ain't the first clown.

I believe I know who you're quoting. That dude & his "colleagues" don't have the sense God gave a doorstop in Biblical matters, nor in most things I've seen them post about besides religion.

NOT ONE of them can show us any AUTHORITY FROM GOD for believing KJVO.

 

[robycop3]

Brother Salty, the question is unreasonable argumentative when it is about which source documents that the Bible version is translated from; Antioch where His disciples were first called Christians at ( Acts 11:26 ) or Alexandria where poetic licensing and Gnosticism was known to exist?

Source documents written in Greek and Hebrew are hardly written in English. To lobby that against the KJV is to lobby that against all modern Bibles in English.

Some have taken your question by rewording it to accuse "did the Lord speak in the KJV" or "the King's English" as an argument against using only the KJV, but yet the same can be applied to any modern Bible written in English, and so it is rather moot.

If that is the argument of KJVO, which I highly doubt they would make such a claim, but an anti KJVO activist would in their campaign from using only the KJV, do feel free to refer to it at the actual KJVO site and not an anti-KJVO site.

At any rate, I am not KJVO, but I will use the term "only" in my preference over which Bible version I read from to rely only on.

With the Lord's help, He can prove to you why we should rely only on the KJV for the meat of is words to discern good and evil by as proof that the source documents from Antioch were kept by those who loved Him & His words over the ones at Alexandria.

Do you wish to continue the discussion in that direction for discernment or do you still insist on asking a rather moot question?

if you've read the FACTS(as opposed to fables) about the preservation of Sinaiticus & Vaticanus, you'll see the hand of God at work in both cases. God has preserved ALL the Scriptural mss. we now have, and more yet to be re-discovered.

While Christians were first called "Christians' at Antioch, it was then a DEROGATORY term, such as now, "kike' is for Jew. And there was a large idol temple at Antioch as well. It was not exactly a hotbed of righteousness!

As for Alexandria, remember that GOD 'S GONNA BLESS EGYPT, as He set forth in Isaiah 19, after He finishes their punishment. The WORST early anti-Christian movements were in none other than - JERUSALEM!

 

[HopefulNChrist]

Salty, respectfully, that is not the KJV position that I hold to nor other KJVO people that I know.. The way I view it, the KJV is the best and most accurate translation of the Bible in the English language, I cannot speak about other languages, and while there were English translations prior to the KJV and after the KJV, my position is that the KJV is the most accurate and faithful English translation.

Now, does the NASV, ESV, and even the NIV contain Gospel truth, yes, There is a lot of truth that can be found in these other translations, the same goes with the translations that preceded the KJV. the "only" in the KJVO to me means that only the KJV should be used because of its superiority and purity as a translation. I suppose you could say that other translations contain parts of God's word, but I don't believe other translations are the best representation of the word of God in the English language. I will however say that I believe the pre 1611 English bibles were a lot more accurate and faithful than the modern versions that are out today. I would take a Tyndale, Geneva, or Bishops bible over a ESV, NASB, or NIV any day.

Though I suppose people will continue to beat down the strawman over and over again as if KJV people believed there was no word of God prior to 1611, there were good English translations before 1611, and of course, there were the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as well as other Ancient translations in other languages. But this fact does not negate the KJVO position if we define it as the KJV being the best and most faithful English translation. If you have something that is the best and most faithful, why would any serious student of the Bible use something else?

Considering that nobody knows what Gnosticism is about other than the meaning of it as "secret or hidden knowledge", all source documents from Alexandria can be answered reasonably for why their documents or Codex are the oldest ones; they did not love Him enough to use His words to wear them out in keeping His words.

Is this a clue from the Lord? You discern with Him for that confirmation.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

Do you acknowledge that Pentecostals/Charismatics use tongues without interpretation as a means for self edification? That is what I believe Gnosticism is about. That is why monks at monasteries pray, fast, meditate for.. secret or hidden knowledge in tongues without interpretation. Is it any wonder why the errant believers in Toronto's Blessings say "We do not need the Word any more, all we need is the Spirit" ? Is it any wonder why "the oldest manuscript is the best manuscript argument" is invalid?

So why in the world would the believers be misled into Gnosticism? Let's look at a truth in His words found kept in both source documents. John 16:13 testifies that the Holy Spirit CANNOT speak for Himself, but only speaks what He hears. Look across all top modern Bible versions, and you will find that truth kept as is.

BUT not all modern Bibles kept that truth in Romans 8:26 where they imply that the Holy Spirit is making intercessions Himself with some sounds being uttered. Indeed, in Romans 8:27, some versions commit a grammatical error by switching out the "he" with "the Spirit" for the conclusion of that verse. The "he" is the One that is separate from us in searching our hearts as confirmed to be Jesus in Hebrews 4:12-16 in all Bibles, and separate from the Spirit in knowing the mind of, and therefore cannot conclude as "the Spirit".

Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. KJV

Modern Bibles of Romans 8:26 implies sounds are being made for why it says the Holy Spirit utters His intercessions Himself when John 16:13 in that same Bible testifies that the Holy Spirit CANNOT use tongues as a means for His own prayer.

God's gift of tongues was prophesied for use by God to speak unto the people in their native tongue 1 Corinthians 14:20-21. It is not to serve as a sign towards believers as proof of receiving the "other" baptism of the Holy Ghost apart from salvation; which one can reasonably also ascertain what the monks were meditating for in seeking to receive tongues for secret knowledge as in self edification.

I cannot prove it, but the Lord can confirm it by what we see today with modern day tongues claiming tongues for private benefits; self edification and a switch mode of the Holy Spirit praying in tongues without any interpretation at all; not counting those who "wing" the interpretation when that tongue is just gibberish nonsense.

2 Corinthians 11:3-4 warns against any one preaching to receive Jesus or the Holy Spirit again as that is giving another gospel and thus another reception of the spirit that they assume and believed was the Holy Ghost that came over them apart from salvation, bringing that tongue as a sign. 1 John 4:1-6 warns believers not to believe every spirit but test them as verse 4 signifies that the Holy Spirit has been in them since salvation so that they would know that other spirit coming over them is not Him. Verses 5 & 6 testify to the supernatural tongue in the world before Pentecost came, that is just vain & profane babbling ( 2 Timothy 2:16 ) like those in the occult as confirmed in Isaiah 8:19

The problem with modern bibles originating from Alexandria documents is that regardless of John 16:13 says, Romans 8:26-27 mislead believers into glossing over the significance of John 16:13 as if Jesus did not really say that.

Scripture cannot go against scripture; that is why the lost books are not included in the Bible. The same discernment can be given with His help over all modern Bibles for why I rely only on the KJV for the meat of His words as kept by those who loved Him & His words at Antioch where the disciples were first called Christians.

Acts 11:26And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

 

[HopefulNChrist]

I had someone on FB post a meme that said if your pastor tries to correct the KJV with The original Greek and/or Hebrew -
its time to find a new church!
I am trying to find the post where he wrote that - as he, later basically said I dont believe the Bible because I am not KJO

If you can find it, would that not show the evil of disputing the KJVO as if no one can really know what the Bible says?

As many contends against KJVO, some will admit that the KJV is okay, but other modern Bibles are "better" or "superior" for preferences. And yet, these same people will also admit that not all Bibles are saying the same thing. Then a few will come with the pitiful excuse to go to the Greek & Hebrews to learn His words in the scripture as being the final authority for what scripture says or mean, forgetting about discerning with the Lord over the already written words in English instead.

But some men love their intellect more than wisdom coming from the Lord.

Anyway, I can understand how you would come across a post like that in FB. It does lend to a slippery slope of disregarding or not searching the scriptures for confirmation of His words by Him at all.

But Jesus said this that I believe He meant we will need His help to discern who loved Him to keep His words from those that did not, in regards to what we see today as the two places of source documents; Antioch or Alexandria.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

If a source has documents that decline from the testimonies of the Son as Alexandria had done... but Antioch did not, then...

Psalm 119:157 Many are my persecutors and mine enemies; yet do I not decline from thy testimonies. 158 I beheld the transgressors, and was grieved; because they kept not thy word.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

I am not KJVO but hopefully, I have shared why I rely only on the KJV in this post & post #33 before this one..

 

[HopefulNChrist]

if you've read the FACTS(as opposed to fables) about the preservation of Sinaiticus & Vaticanus, you'll see the hand of God at work in both cases. God has preserved ALL the Scriptural mss. we now have, and more yet to be re-discovered.

And yet not all Bible versions are saying the same thing. is it not reasonable that the way the lost books were excluded from the accepted books of the Bible because the lost books were running against the truths in that accepted Bible, that one can discern which Bible was translated correctly by not having any scripture oppose the truth in the other scripture in that Bible? See post # 33 in this thread for more on that line of discernment, brother.

While Christians were first called "Christians' at Antioch, it was then a DEROGATORY term, such as now, "kike' is for Jew. And there was a large idol temple at Antioch as well. It was not exactly a hotbed of righteousness!

Which the disciples that were first called Christians, were not involved with.

As for Alexandria, remember that GOD 'S GONNA BLESS EGYPT, as He set forth in Isaiah 19, after He finishes their punishment. The WORST early anti-Christian movements were in none other than - JERUSALEM!

Poetic licensing was known in Alexandria and so His words of the Father saying those who do not love Him would not keep His words should be applied here when verses in source documents at Antioch testifying of the Son are missing in Alexandrian documents. Is that not the big argument against the NIV that some say why they prefer the KJV over the NIV for?

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

If a source has documents that decline from the testimonies of the Son as Alexandria had done... but Antioch did not, then...

Psalm 119:157 Many are my persecutors and mine enemies; yet do I not decline from thy testimonies. 158 I beheld the transgressors, and was grieved; because they kept not thy word.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

 

[HopefulNChrist]

Well, you might as well rely on a Model T for daily transportation.

Very recently, I heard a KJVO preacher teaching about David & Goliath. he had to pause to explain that a "target" was a small shield, not something Goliath had on his back as an aiming point.

And last week, I heard another KJVO preacher read this verse from the KJV: 1 Peter 1:15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;

He had to stop & break his train of teaching to explain that "conversation" in the KJV means "lifestyle" and not 'spoken dialogue' as we use that word.

THAT'S why I use the KJV very little!

Poor excuse for the lie in modern Bibles that infers that the Holy Spirit uses tongues in making His own intercessions Himself as Romans 8:26 opposes the truth in His words as kept in all Bibles in John 16:13 that the Holy Spirit cannot speak for Himself, but only speaks what He hears. Even some Modern Bible switched out the "he" with "the Spirit" in the conclusion of the verse in Romans 8:27, thus committing a grammatical error when that "he" is separate from us in searching our hearts as Hebrews 4:12-16 confirms that "he" to be the Son of God, and thus the same "he" separate from the Spirit in knowing the mind of, cannot conclude as "the Spirit".

Can you reprove modern day tongue speakers from assuming that because that tongue brought to them later on in life when they assume that was the Holy Spirit coming over them apart from salvation that comes without interpretation is NOT a prayer language of the Holy Spirit?

So modern Bibles of Romans 8:26-27 causes believers to doubt the actual meaning of His words in John 16:13 in that and any and all Bible versions.

Romans 8:27 is about the Son of God in explaining to the reader how the silent intercessions of the Spirit is given to God the Father in Romans 8:26. This is a testimony of how the Holy Spirit makes silent intercessions for each and every believer for how the Father knows before we ask anything in prayer.

Matthew 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. 8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

But thanks to modern Bibles of Romans 8:26-27, modern day tongue speakers do NOT apply John 16:13 in testing the spirits and the tongues they bring.

Compare John 16:13 & romans 8:26-27 with 4 other modern Bibles at the link below;

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 16:13;Romans 8:26-27&version=KJV;NIV;ESV;NASB;ASV

ASV came almost close to the KJV in keeping the truth align in scripture but by implying that the Holy Spirit was making His intercessions directly Himself is why many tongue speakers sees that as meaning tongues without interpretation.

That is why "itself" was used in the KJV and the 1599 Geneva Bible version to testify how the Holy Spirit INDIRECTLY makes intercessions for us by the Son knowing the mind of the Spirit.

But already errors crept into the marginal notes of the 1599 Geneva Bible implying that the Holy Spirit makes His intercessions thru us. Compare that version and 3 other versions with the KJV at the link below.

John 16:13;Romans 8:26-27 KJV;GNV;DRA;RSV;AMP - Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, - Bible Gateway

It's all about which Bible is keeping the truths in His words in keeping the faith which is the good fight.

 

[Salty]

... Thus, Salty, anyone who's teaching the KJVO myth is telling a lie, whether they realize it or not, as the whole KJVO myth is nothing but a lie!

If a person does not know the info is untrue - then they are not lying.

 

[Salty]

Baptist Board has five official definitions of KJO.

IMHO - a Strict KJO means that the only version that is God approved is the KJ.
Otherwise you are KJ- prefered.

 

[robycop3]

Poor excuse for the lie in modern Bibles that infers that the Holy Spirit uses tongues in making His own intercessions Himself as Romans 8:26 opposes the truth in His words as kept in all Bibles in John 16:13 that the Holy Spirit cannot speak for Himself, but only speaks what He hears. Even some Modern Bible switched out the "he" with "the Spirit" in the conclusion of the verse in Romans 8:27, thus committing a grammatical error when that "he" is separate from us in searching our hearts as Hebrews 4:12-16 confirms that "he" to be the Son of God, and thus the same "he" separate from the Spirit in knowing the mind of, cannot conclude as "the Spirit".

Can you reprove modern day tongue speakers from assuming that because that tongue brought to them later on in life when they assume that was the Holy Spirit coming over them apart from salvation that comes without interpretation is NOT a prayer language of the Holy Spirit?

So modern Bibles of Romans 8:26-27 causes believers to doubt the actual meaning of His words in John 16:13 in that and any and all Bible versions.

Romans 8:27 is about the Son of God in explaining to the reader how the silent intercessions of the Spirit is given to God the Father in Romans 8:26. This is a testimony of how the Holy Spirit makes silent intercessions for each and every believer for how the Father knows before we ask anything in prayer.

Matthew 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. 8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

But thanks to modern Bibles of Romans 8:26-27, modern day tongue speakers do NOT apply John 16:13 in testing the spirits and the tongues they bring.

Compare John 16:13 & romans 8:26-27 with 4 other modern Bibles at the link below;

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 16:13;Romans 8:26-27&version=KJV;NIV;ESV;NASB;ASV

ASV came almost close to the KJV in keeping the truth align in scripture but by implying that the Holy Spirit was making His intercessions directly Himself is why many tongue speakers sees that as meaning tongues without interpretation.

That is why "itself" was used in the KJV and the 1599 Geneva Bible version to testify how the Holy Spirit INDIRECTLY makes intercessions for us by the Son knowing the mind of the Spirit.

But already errors crept into the marginal notes of the 1599 Geneva Bible implying that the Holy Spirit makes His intercessions thru us. Compare that version and 3 other versions with the KJV at the link below.

John 16:13;Romans 8:26-27 KJV;GNV;DRA;RSV;AMP - Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, - Bible Gateway

It's all about which Bible is keeping the truths in His words in keeping the faith which is the good fight.

The KJV has a MAJOR GOOF in saying "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10. This ignores all the evils done for other purposes, of which suicide bombing is a clear example.

And it's saying "Thou shalt not KILL" in Ex. 20:13 has caused a huge amount of protest & argument over the use of capital punishment.

I can point out goofs in the KJV for hours.

 

[robycop3]

If a person does not know the info is untrue - then they are not lying.

But most KJVOs keep right on telling it when its falsehood is clearly pointed out to them, such as that paragon of erudition you quoted from FB. Thus, "uninformed or misinformed" becomes "lying".