ray Marshall
New Member
What do you think happened to THOSE POOR SOULS?ktn4eg said:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The real reason I am KJVO
- Thread starter stilllearning
- Start date
- Status
Samuel Owen
New Member
Annsni.
I am afraid that whole post just completely, was a shot over your head. You haven't even come close to understanding what I was trying to say, so I can't blame you for not understanding anything else.
Or either you are just an extremely argumentative person, that just can't let things lie. Again :tonofbricks:
I am afraid that whole post just completely, was a shot over your head. You haven't even come close to understanding what I was trying to say, so I can't blame you for not understanding anything else.
Or either you are just an extremely argumentative person, that just can't let things lie. Again :tonofbricks:
ray Marshall
New Member
rbell said:
I checked the shortest verse in the Bible"JESUS wept" with the same verse in the Jehovah Witness and it said, "JESUS gave away with tears." Looks like that verse could be mistaken by the Jehovah Witness, by more than how the KJV worded it. I'm referring to the meaning that the Jehovah Witness discribes it. Looks like the "JESUS wept made complete sense to me.
stilllearning said:
For some reason when I hit the "Quote" button on my screen, it doesn't include the quote(s) within the Quote [Must be an MV-Quote button ---leaves out lots of important stuff! :thumbs: ]
Anyway, most of the quotes that were cited by Crabtownboy were ones that came from me.
They were a surmmarization of the results of my several years of studing the lives and times of various events that occurred in the 16th & 17th centuries in continental Europe and within the realms of the various British Tudor and Stuart monarchs (which would have also included the various fledgling English colonies along the eastern Atlantic coast of North America).
This study has included the published writings of both several well-renowned and highly recognized scholars of the 19th, 20th and early 21st centuries who collectively have earned quite a few post-doctoral degrees from institutes of hgher learning in most every continent on planet earth [Antartctica being the one continent of note from which none have received any earned doctral degrees!], as well as lesser-known authors [who in a few cases possess somewhat questionable backgrounds in solid historical reasearch techniques and dubious compositional skills--{"Cut and Paste" authorship, as some would describe it}].
Some of these writers never touched on the topic of KJVO'ism since they probably either assumed that it was neither a topic that was of such earth-shaking significance in the grand scheme of things nor had the overarching, cut-to-the-core-of things controversy of KJVO'ism yet risen to the level of world-wide importance in their day.
I suppose their focus on such things of obivously less importance such as analyzing the significance of such minor skirmishes such as the various late 19th and early 20th century wars of world-wide imperialism that culminated in "The Great War" / "The War to End All Wars" as it was called back then that shook each continent on planet earth [With, here again, Antarctica being the one notable exception.....Hey, whatsamadder you pengiuns?!!?.....Don't you KNOW ?!!? :laugh: ], and resulted in the deaths of thousands of people (both young and old; men, women and children; both military and civilian) than the life-and-death topic of why KJVO'ism must needs reign supreme has since been proven to be a prime example of their mis-placed priorities.
Now, people such as still learning [Interesting that he doesn't include the remainder of his dynamic equivalent citation of 2 Timothy 3:7---H'mmm maybe we've got ourselves a covert MV'er in our midst here after all! :thumbs: ] makes the implied assertion that little, old ktn4eg (Well, he's half right...I've passed the 62.5 mark on my odometer last month.), because of his interest in studying the history behind such things as to the various and sundry reasons which formed the bases of why and how we now have in our hands the AV 1611, must of necessity be included within the top echelon of the ranks of those who HATE his beloved KJV--something for which I'm 100+% positive he's willing to put his life on the line defending to the bitter end!
As I've indicated to some others on different posts my obvious hatred of the KJV is such degree that I'd:
(1) Never stoop to citing verses from it to form my BB signature that appears in the some 1.1 k posts I've made on BB over the last 5 or so years of my assocaition with BB [See below]; nor
(2) Certainly never expend any time or effort in defending the assetion that the KJV translators make a quite proper selection of words such as baptism / baptize in their work.
The published results of my findings on this controversial sub-topic of the KJV debate (Which, since I HATE the KJV, obviously didn't do!) should still be available through the prining/publishing ministry of Tabernacle BC; Lubbock, TX (A ministry whose legacy of defending the KJV via various media is well-known for some 40 years.)
Nope, I've done of those things. Somebody else has--neither with my permission nor authority--viciouisly hijacked my screen name and for years now misrepresented my true position as one of them thar KJV haters such my partner in this heinous crime as EdSutton and other uneducated and adamantly-unconvinced morons who're cut from the same cloth as old pagan Ed and me!
Where IS that there KJVO-posse when you really need'em? :BangHead:
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll reiterate my former point about KJVO being difficult to hold to when one realizes the vast majority of Christians across time have not been a) Baptist, b) English speaking, c) alive since 1611.
It is more than difficult to suggest an English version of the Bible is normative and authoritative for all of Christianity when most Christians don't speak or read English.
Or more pointedly:
There ain't no Sawhili for "thus sayeth."
It is more than difficult to suggest an English version of the Bible is normative and authoritative for all of Christianity when most Christians don't speak or read English.
Or more pointedly:
There ain't no Sawhili for "thus sayeth."
Samuel Owen
New Member
There may not be any Sawhili , for "I say" either. Since I don't speak Sawhili, I would not know. There is probably no Thus Sayeth, in sign language either. So what is your point ???.
Does that justify 50 different versions, of the English Bible ???. I may exaggerate slightly, but not by much. Please through your :tonofbricks: softly.
Does that justify 50 different versions, of the English Bible ???. I may exaggerate slightly, but not by much. Please through your :tonofbricks: softly.
ray Marshall said:
Beats me......But, count on it, I just KNOW that still learning (or someone else in his part of the KJVO-SWAT TEAM here on BB) has got a very logical, well-reasoned and heavily-reasearched answer as to exactly where these poor souls have been spending their first part--consisting by this time of at least nearly 500 years!--of eternity. :thumbs:
Maybe they've been left off the hook...Kinda like they died before reaching some sort of "Age of Accountability" which God somehow had decreed to have been established as being in effect on that very day in AD 1611 that the AV (With apocrytha, and in that Gothic print font and with those scary dragons occupying the marginal spots [thus making it questionable that the tender little English boys and girls of that day would desire to read and memorize its contents] on its pages) rolled off the "By-Royal-Appointment" London presses.
Yah think?
Samuel Owen said:
Well I thought my point was obvious...it seems to be very difficult for the KJVO doctrine to carry across cultures, languages, and history. My direct criticism is that the whole doctrine is theologically and historically myopic, particularly in teaching that the only valid version of the Bible is one that is not accessible for the vast majority of Christians because of history, language, and culture.
It seems pretty arrogant to lecture other believers who don't live in an English speaking land on how they should read.
Samuel Owen said:
Doesn't really matter imho. Every translation is an attempt to clearly communicate the revelation of God in language understandable for the hearer. It seems to be random selection to choose this one version over others.
Samuel Owen said:
What does this mean? I'm curious because I honestly don't know.
Salamander
New Member
What really gets me is that while we stand on the KJB and know what the mind of the Spirit is, men and their societies are constantly adjusting the word of God to fit their understanding expecting everyone else to fall, yes FALL!, in line with their reasoing.
All the while Giod expects men, ALL men, to get in line with His reasoning.
God even abases himself to an estate of lower degree to come where man is at and offers to reason together with man. Isaiah 1:18.
Still men are persistently making unsubstanciated works of their hands as to perfect the word of God to any reader while that has already been accomplished by the Spirit of God.:thumbsup:
Proof? The KJB ends up the main subject of EVERY topic in this and all other forums when the Bible is discussed. The only exception is when MV proponents intentionally start topics determined to avoid mention of the KJB. But when it does come to mention, they ridicule it's advocates and begin to attack them and the KJB. They attemtp to jusitfy their attacks by saying that KJVO's do the same: reminds me of secualr reason amongst a bunch of muggers, robbers, and thieves!:1_grouphug:
Of course this is too simplistic in logic for them to receive! Now the intellectuals will gnash and rip apart everything I just related....... Hmmm.:wavey:
Yall boys keep trying to perfect that which is already PERFECT and we'll keep standing on the KJB!:godisgood:
All the while Giod expects men, ALL men, to get in line with His reasoning.
God even abases himself to an estate of lower degree to come where man is at and offers to reason together with man. Isaiah 1:18.
Still men are persistently making unsubstanciated works of their hands as to perfect the word of God to any reader while that has already been accomplished by the Spirit of God.:thumbsup:
Proof? The KJB ends up the main subject of EVERY topic in this and all other forums when the Bible is discussed. The only exception is when MV proponents intentionally start topics determined to avoid mention of the KJB. But when it does come to mention, they ridicule it's advocates and begin to attack them and the KJB. They attemtp to jusitfy their attacks by saying that KJVO's do the same: reminds me of secualr reason amongst a bunch of muggers, robbers, and thieves!:1_grouphug:
Of course this is too simplistic in logic for them to receive! Now the intellectuals will gnash and rip apart everything I just related....... Hmmm.:wavey:
Yall boys keep trying to perfect that which is already PERFECT and we'll keep standing on the KJB!:godisgood:
Salamander said:
Then why did the KJV writers have to write another version? There were Bibles already out there so why make another version?? The same exact thing can be said about the KVJ in 1600s as the MVs today. The reason we have new versions? Is it to tickle ears or to try to get the most accurate version we possibly can for today's language?
And who started this thread?? Oh yea - A KJVOer. The KJV ends up being the main subject of every topic here because of those who have the false belief that the KJV is the only Word of God for the English language and they feel the need to teach everyone such.
Because you're wrong.
Ahhh - the blindness of the KJVO belief.
Askjo said:
Not to but in...but, I would like to see evidences of this from Scripture. Making some hasty assertion with no evidence is akin to prosecuting without witnesses. You get no where fast with people.
So what is your basis for saying this...from Scripture, providing appropriate citations...so we can judge for ourselves.
Samuel Owen
New Member
M't:9:13: But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. KJV
M’t:9:13: But go and learn what this means, I desire compassion, and not sacrifice: for I did not come to call the righteous but sinners. NASB
Well would you look at that, according to the NASB, we don’t have to repent. But just come as you are, sins and all; hmmm.
M’t:9:13: But go and learn what this means, I desire compassion, and not sacrifice: for I did not come to call the righteous but sinners. NASB
Well would you look at that, according to the NASB, we don’t have to repent. But just come as you are, sins and all; hmmm.
Samuel Owen said:
Oh my word! Look at that! The translators of the NASB listened to those early manuscripts that do not include "to repentance"!! They must have forgotten, however, to be sure it was removed from the parallel passage in Luke 5:32 "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance."
Yep - those modern versions don't want us to know about repentance. :laugh:
- Status