The purpose of this forum?

Plain ol' Ralph: //Salvation is of the Jews, Jesuis said/ The Lord's Chosen, and the Masoretic hebrews he aslo chose to keep His Word intact for the believer who speaks English today, ... //

Then why did the KJV translators use a Latin (Roman)
word in Isa 14:12? (details in the 7th post of page 1)
Wouldn't it have been better to use an English
word like "daye starre"? BTW, you would be hard pressed
among most 21st century English Speakers to have
them know what the "day star" is.

 

Ralph, you have been delt with very gently by the moderators up to this point. I, for one, am getting a little tired of your personal attacks on those who use MV's. If you wish to continue you will not only be edited, but earn yourself a well-deserved vacation.

I would suggest you immediately STOP with the personal attacks and immediately stop using words about other translations which are not allowed on this board.

I am not going to be as tolerant as the tolerance you have been shown. You owe the moderators working before I came on an apology for breaking the rules. Now that I'm on duty, after having read your previous posts, the toleration is going to stop.

 

Ralph says: now we have those who introduce totalyl contradicting definitions to established words, and that ISN'T the work of the LORD, but evil men and seducers, who wax worse and worse, men of corrupt minds, and the Lord exposes their wicked devices with the Truth, so the KJB still is the Rule, no matter which text it is writeen, format that is, because some that carry the KJB label are not the KJB.

Would you mind pointing out who here is changing words to fit other meanings, etc, and show us who exactly are the "evil men and seducers"? I mean, we are to separate from those who we believe to be such. If you believe people to be such, why haven't you done the scriptural thing and separated from these forums? Also, would you care to prove the the KJV is the RULE as opposed to the exception to that rule, the rule being the autographs.

 

roby said,

quote:We could sit here and critique Cloud all night, but this forum is about Bible versions...and there's not a thing Cloud writes that could elevate the KJVO myth from "false doctrine" status. You may wanna read more material from a given author & check its content for VERACITY before posting any of his/her stuff.

Plain ol'Ralph: If this forum was about versions, then I would have to ask when and where these versions are discussed?

There about umpteen hundred threads about various English versions here, and even a few non-English ones. Whaddya want for free? It takes no rocket science to see those threads.


Every single topic revolves around the "KJVO myth", and Roby? You are probably the most adherent to stay on THAT topic most vehemently!!

Simple formula...KJVO is a false doctrine, which each Christian has a D-U-T-Y to fight wherever/whenever, and I carry it out as God gives me the light. On my own, I can do nothing.

First a system of labeling is invented, then each of you uses its negative aspect profusely, but that's the problem, labeling one as "KJVO" has no positive conotation, not according to the symposium afforded at the heading of this forum, TALK ABOUT ad-nausium!!! Or should I have said: anti-eudaemonism??

Well, ARE all KJVOs alike? Not in MY experience! They range from those who are KJVO for the ONLY valid reason there is to be KJVO...PERSONAL PREFERENCE...to those who are out in left field & don't know beans from potatoes of what they're talking about. Doubtlessly you've seen 'em here, whether or not you'll admit it.

But can versions actually be discussed without attacking the KJB? NOT. This forum is non-the-less than a ranting place for those who DON'T know what the Bible is!!

Sorry, Sir; it appears that the KJVOs hijack almost every thread about another version, which naturally triggers a response from we who reject the KJVO myth because we know it's false.

We're not just GUESSING or SUPPOSING the KJVO myth is false...we've PROVEN it. Once again, it's the duty of every Christian to fight false doctrines. The Baptists existed for hundreds of years w/o any KJVO myth...why should we be saddled with it now, knowing it's man-made and false?

 

POR, might I remind you that YOU opened this thread.

 

Plain ol' Ralph: My Dear Brother, it was stated as "per se" and only from the viewpoint of those who attack the KJB by attacking those who know what the Bible is.

Now, you're claiming exclusivity for the KJVOs' being the ONLY ONES who "know what the Bible is". I cannot think of a more false dichotomy.

In other posts, I have noticed that those who say "the discussion was going perfectly fine until...", but then the conversation about the niv could never have been going perfectly fine about the imperfect niv.

Why not? We've had plenty of excellent conversations about the imperfect KJV, which have gone perfectly fine.

The "problem" for those who promote the mv's have is that the Bible/ KJB, is the rule,

Rule of WHAT? Mostly KJVO imaginations!

they dodge, deflect, disagree, debate, determine to concoct false dichtomy, divide, get devilish, desire to maintain the character of Ishmael, destroy, delegate to themselves this "authority", and a few more "d's" after that!

Wrong.

WE tell the TRUTH. We don't parrot a 7th day adventist official and the several dishonest authors who copied & plagiarized his work, retaining most of his goofs & even trying to hide his CULT AFFILIATION.

One can discuss VERSIONS, but when the BIBLE is introduced, they COMPLAIN that the discussion wasn't about the BIBLE afterall, but the version.

The Bible has been introduced in MANY threads, with no probs until some KJVO paragon of erudition says, "Dat Dare aint no Bibul, Sun". Just check the archives for proof.

The point is clearly made, any discussion about versions ends up pitting those versions against the KJB, whether introduced by their dogmatic label : "KJVO" or not, eventually you have to introduce the BIBLE to point out the fallacies involved in the interpretation of what is KNOWN as a VERSION.

The KJV is but a version.

What is so ludicrous, is that the labeling of one as being KJVO carries a negative conotation in the minds of these who promote the mv's,

Why is it negative? Because KJVO IS A PROVEN FALSE DOCTRINE, that's why! Therefore we look with suspicion upon those who are KJVO for any other stated reason besides PERSONAL PREFERENCE.


even to the point of trying to convince others like myself, that no one reads what is posted on our behalf, but yet to this moment, several of THEM have done exactly the obverse.

"We can lead a horse to water...."

Believe me, I read every word posted here, and from the KJVO side, I haven't seen anything new...just the same ole garbage from 1930-1955 dressed up with a new garbage bag. This stuff was LONG-AGO PROVEN FALSE! Not guessed at, but PROVEN! If you choose to go on believing it, well........

We post PROOF...NOT opinion & guesswork...that the KJVO myth is FALSE. For 25 years, I've asked the KJVOs to provide PROOF that their doctrine isn't false, & they simply WILL NOT give a straight answer...except from those who've finally realized that they've been following a Pied Piper for years. While many of them continue to use the KJV, they no longer attempt to put down everyone else's Bibles.

You cannot deny that I and many others have repeatedly asked for EVIDENCE supporting the KJVO myth. We've repeatedly asked for SCRIPTURAL JUSTIFICATION...& have NEVER received any quotes that could be applied exclusively to the KJV. C4K is the latest in a series of members here who's asked the KJVOs to tell us WHICH EDITION of the KJV is absolutely perfect.

The KJB isn't then allowed to be necessarilly "attacked", but their false dichtomy is therefore allowed as an alternate way to attack thus said KJB.

The REAL false dichotomy is to divide the Baptists here into "Bible Believers"(KJVOs) and "all others".

This forum is nothing more than a snare, an entanglement of thistles and thorns.

Actually, it's a place for info about many Bible versions, as well as an expose' of a patently-false doctrine.KJVO. Like it or not, the KJVO question pops up in every Baptist church at one time or another.


No one is ever edified here when they have been affixed with the label :"KJVO".

Yes, they are! They're exposed to the TRUTH. And several have given up the KJVO myth, and now edify others with PROOF that KJVO is a false doctrine.


We are persistently attacked, our posts denigrated, why even the moderators introduce falsities in regards to our posting, SHAME on the devil!! and those who want to side with him!!

More false dichotomy, saying we who totally reject the KJVO myth are siding with the devil. please provide us with book, chapter, & verse from the KJV which says that. Shoot' I'll even do ya one better...Please provide something from the AV 1611's preface that promotes sich an idea.

We give them the Scriptures concerning the preservation and the Final Authority ONLY the LORD has concerning this issue,

Please provide PROOF that the Scriptures you've provided may be applied ONLY to the KJV. And I don't wanna hear that Psalm 12:7 thingy again. It's false, and you know it. This lie was promoted by Dr. Benjamin Wilkinsen, who'd evidently not read the AV 1611 or any older Bible.


they deny said Scripture,

No, we DON'T deny the Scriptures; we deny the KJVOs' silly interpretations of some of them.


they have identified themselves, why, they even accuse the brethren, as satan continually does before God's Throne, of "nearing blasphemy of God's Word" when we point out the error of the vwersion they daunt as "better" and such,

That would be the typical KJVO, denying that someone using another version has a Bible.


( and that by one of the "moderators", which only moderately do so, and only in the event it is a "KJVO" they want to censure.)

A thorough reading of the archives will prove otherwise. Yours truly has had a number of posts deleted over the years. Again, check the archives. Unlike the KJVO, I can PROVE what I say...in this case, the proof is in the archives.

Why are more KJVO posts edited? Because more of them violate the plain, simple rules for the forum. The rules here are MORE liberal than they are on the boards which I moderate. Can one not get the idea you don't think much of the, let's say, the TNIV by simply saying, "It doesn't follow the Greek too well" than by saying,"It's of the devil, the spawn of hell"?

So? Go Figure; either stand on the Inerrant, Infallible, Inspired, Perfect Word of God,

We DO, with the various versions God has provided. I don't use ALL of'em, but I'm not stuck with only ONE, either.


or slip and slide around with the slippery ones. (Speaking generally, my Brother, not specifically towards you). [Eek!]

I reckon"false dichotomy" is meaningless to you.

And YES! Being "KJVO" has its POSITIVE effect,

What can be positive about believing a LIE?

coupled by the conotation of standing right where the LORD, GHimself will have us to stand!!

Please give us book, chapter, & verse where God says we must stand upon the KJV ONLY!

 

Hey POR, do you like the late Dr. John R. Rice?

 

OK, Ralph, here's your big chance to be an Internet Hero for the KJVOs. Please prove the following sections of the KJVO myth are true, and that the evidences against them are not:

1.) "Psalm 12:7 is about the preservation of God's words."

Evidence against: The AV translators indicated they knew that verse was about PEOPLE, by their marginal note. Also just about every older valid English Bible(as well as newer ones) reads,"him" or "us" in that verse. The KJV's reading isn't incorrect; the KJVOs' silly INTERPRETATION of it is wrong.

2.) "Certain MVs take away Christ's deity by calling Joseph His FATHER in Luke 2."

Evidence against: We'll let the KJV speak for itself...

Luke 2:27And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when *the parents* brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,
41Now *his parents* went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
48And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, *thy father* and I have sought thee sorrowing.

3.) The MVs substitute Christ for the devil in Isaiah 14:12 by calling the devil the "morning star", as in Rev.22:16 He calls HIMSELF the morning star."

Evidence against: First, let's let the KJV speak for itself again...
Revelation 2:28
And I will give him the morning star.

Jesus has already given OF Himself greatly. And is He gonna give the DEVIL to us? Let common sense prevail.

Next, let's see what the AV translators had to say. In their marginal note for Isaiah 14: 12, they wrote,"Or, O day-starre".

There ya go, Ralph... your BIG CHANCE to show the world how wrong we are, and how right the KJVO doctrine is! These are just THREE points of the KJVO myth, which the AV 1611 itself stands against. Notice there's NOT ONE WORD of attack against the KJV...it's all directed at the KJVO myth itself.


Please prove those points right and us wrong...IF YOU CAN!

 

I would like to point out that I thought this was a Christian thread ....... and personal attacks were not allowed, the last post in particular is a dreadful example of this `verbal bullying ` of those who believe that the version they take as Gods word is the true version..... only if it is the King James version , of course, I am KJV prefered , POR is KJVO, I do not think he deserves the disrespect that some here have been dishing out, I for one am ashamed of the way this thread, amongst others in this particular forum is allowed to progress. I`ve noticed that other version users do not take as much punishment here.... and this is not fair, neither is it, in my opinion, a true Christian attitude.
with all due respect to all involved,
Gwyneth

 

Gwyneth, please also go back through all of POR's posts. He is no angel himself. He verbally bullies, insults the moderators, calls other Christians salvation into question, etc. Many of the "attacks" he's brought upon himself.

I, too am KJV preferred, and have stated so many times, yet Ralph seems to lump me with the MV crowd because I won't let him lie about the MV's or those who use them.

 

Thanks AVL1984 - I don`t come in here very often, as the tension here is not good. We are all entitled to read the version that we prefer, and I really pray that all here would respect that choice which we all have. It just seems to me that KJV only/prefered people seem to get the worse end of the stick, so to speak, probably because we are in the minority.
Kind regards,
Gwyneth

 

Hi Gwyneth, I don't believe I have seen you here before, but it is nice to have you.

In regards to POR...We have rules that prohibit those who are KJVO from calling other mainstream translations as "Corrupt", "Devil's Bibles" among other derogatory things. POR has been repeatedly warned not to use these words when referring to MV's (modern versions) in general.

I don't have a problem with someone saying that they feel "The Message" (for instance) is not a good translation; where we do have a problem is when a KJVO will lump all modern versions in a basket and make an indication that they are not the Word of God.

It is offensive for someone using the NASB to be told that their version is not the Word of God, or even worse. This and making personal attacks at people who DO use MV's as their Bibles is not tolerated.

That is the reason I jumped on POR with both feet. I will not tolerate him telling me that a translation that I use is not the Word of God.

KJVO preferred? I have absolutely no problem with that. In fact I don't know of anybody here who will tell you that it is not the Word of God. If that is the translation you prefer; all the more power to you.

I do also get upset with the hard-core KJVO's saying that since we like an MV, we do not like the KJV. This could not be further from the truth and these are the issues that I deal with when I edit someone's post. I hope that helps you understand the editing process and the rules a little better.

If people obey the rules, usually the stress drops quite a bit, but oddly enough, from my experience, more often than not, it is a hard-core KJVO who will hi-jack and turn these threads into a personal issue. It is simply our job to keep this from happening.

KJV preferred is not really in the minority. But, there is a huge difference between preferring a KJV and telling me that my NASB is NOT the Word of God. Does that make sense?

Have a good day!

 

POR,

Your personal attacks and unfounded rants about MV’s only make you look bad. If you can not deal with the facts then go to a KJVO board where myths are welcomed and guess work is uplifted as facts. This is not the places to peddle the same old KJVO myths over and over that have been proven wrong time and time again.

I think that you have a problem dealing with facts.

Example:

The Message to the Reader destroys the KJVO myth. That, my brother, is a fact. Go and read it for yourself. To be KJVO is to be anti-av1611 because the AV1611 as a whole destroys the KJVO lie.

This has been pointed out to you many times.

Example two:

You reference a man who was visions of a 10 foot tall black lipped anti-Christ and teaches that Cain was a snake man. How do you trust anything that comes from the pen of Ruckman.

Are you that liberal in your theology that you pardon a man that stands 180 to many orthodox Christian beliefs?

This does not help you. How can anyone take your post serious when you have resorted to name calling, referencing the work of Ruckman, and posting stuff that has been proven false many times?

I think it’s time for you to come clean. I did not write this to attack you but to make you stop and think for a moment. Remember that we have lurkers who read these boards and what you are doing only hurts your cause and fortifies those of us who stand against the KJVO myth.

 

0nce again, you, and the other KJVOs, have a golden opportunity to prove to us that KJVO is actually true. I provided three easy examples of points of KJVO that I believe are false, and provided the reasons I believe they're false...FROM THE AV OR KJV ITSELF, in all three cases. If KJVO is true, it shouldn't be much challenge for you to show us wrong.

Gwyneth...Didja read back a few posts? RALPH is the launching pad for ad-hominem, as he posted a false dichotomy of "KJVOs being Bible-Believers; everyone else is wrong". See it for yourself.

And, as Phillip reminds us, Ralph started this thread. Now, he has every chance to attempt to justify the KJVO myth. Perhaps he'll succeed where three generations before him have failed.

There are new Christians, lurkers, and other readers who need to see the TRUTH about the KJVO myth, and that they can go right ahead and use other valid versions in full confidence that they are God's word. As you know, we're careful to point out bogus versions and tell why we believe they're bogus.

There's only ONE legit reason to be KJVO...PERSONAL PREFERENCE. All other reasons are false. (Not counting the fact that the KJV may be the only BV available to certain people)

 

A hardened paratrooper sat in the sands of Saudi Arabia, reading the Bible by the dim light of a red-lens flashlight; hunched over underneath a poncho. He found out that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life.......The ONLY way to God.
A changed life, a softened heart, an eternal home in Heaven.......
The Bible was a pocket NIV; the paratrooper was me.
I personally thank God for using a version that I could understand, and I thank Him for His providence.

Oh yeah, guess what? The KJV says the same thing......

 

Here is the irony of the whole KJVO issue.

In the prologue to the reader the King James translators themselves said this about other English translations and their proliferation:

HankD

 

Preach it Brother Hank!!!

 

David J, McGyver, Hank D...

When I first heard of the KJVO myth, it was from a group of goat-ropers who actually CUSSED me and my dad, until we picked up a coupla ball bats with which we gonna settle things if we had to. Dismissing those men as extremists & freakazoids, we set out to investigate KJVO for ourselves. I saw nothing actually supporting such an idea. Thinking I'd possibly missed something, I read every piece of KJVO literature I could find. In fact, I read much more PRO-KJVO stuff than I read stuff AGAINST it. I believe my study was honest, done with constant prayer, taking several years. There simply ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE to support KJVO; therefore, it's a myth, a false doctrine, totally man-made.

The purpose of this forum is to discuss the various Bible translations out there, but seeing as how the KJVO issue pops up in virtually every baptist church, and is a false doctrine, it's only natural to discuss it here...unless the powers-that-be wish to establish a separate KJVO forum. It's too big an issue to not be discussed by Baptists, especially since WE are the denom most often accused of spreading this myth.