TO KJV or not TO KJV that is the question hey kjv only and those against it list ...

[Dallasdid]

Hey all of you against KJV only tell me why with proof and scripture and all why it is wrong and not right I want all the reasoning. Then all you who are KJV only type out all your proof and reasoning for the KJV only belief. Instead of us typing here and there we can all debate on this page and give the backing for it so we all see our cards. Thanks

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by Dallasdid:
Hey all of you against KJV only tell me why with proof and scripture and all why it is wrong and not right I want all the reasoning. Then all you who are KJV only type out all your proof and reasoning for the KJV only belief. Instead of us typing here and there we can all debate on this page and give the backing for it so we all see our cards. Thanks

1. Moses wasn't KJB-only.

2. Jesus wasn't KJB-only.

3. Paul wasn't KJB-only.

4. Luther wasn't KJB-only.

5. Dean Burgon wasn't KJB-only.

6. Dr. John Sung wasn't KJB-only.

7. Machen, A.T. Robertson, Chas. Spurgeon, and other recent saints wasn't (!) KJB-only.

i wld suppose that G-d isn't KJB-only either.

 

[Ransom]

Dallasdid said:

Hey all of you against KJV only tell me why with proof and scripture and all why it is wrong and not right I want all the reasoning.

The burden of proof is exclusively on the KJV-onlyists.

 

[DCK]

I agree with Ransom. Whenever a novel idea arises (and Onlyism is very recent comparatively speaking), then the adherents of the new idea have the burden of proof upon them. Besides, there are plenty of threads on this board where the traditional belief (that translations are not inspired in the same sense as the original mss) has been defended at length.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:

5. Dean Burgon wasn't KJB-only.
[/QB]

Dean Burgon defended the KJV against W/H's ERV.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:


7. Machen, A.T. Robertson, Chas. Spurgeon, and other recent saints wasn't (!) KJB-only.
[/QB]

Robertson was a naturalistic man. Spurgeon spoke out against ERV that W/H produced.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:

5. Dean Burgon wasn't KJB-only.

Dean Burgon defended the KJV against W/H's ERV. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]now, here's saying it real slow again ...

5. Dean Burgon wasn't KJB-only.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:


7. Machen, A.T. Robertson, Chas. Spurgeon, and other recent saints wasn't (!) KJB-only.

Robertson was a naturalistic man. Spurgeon spoke out against ERV that W/H produced. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Robertson, far as i know, was no more naturalistic than KBJOs; but the latter seem to be happy to cast that label on any who disagree w them (while worshipping the scholarship of any who might happen to agree w them--whether they're Lutheran or Anglican or whatever!).

ah, n for Spurgeon, lemme say it Reeeeeeal slow again:

Spurgeon wasn't KJB-only.

(assuming that KJBOs can figure the difference between being KJBO n being able to speak out against any particular version.)

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Dallasdid:
Hey all of you against KJV only tell me why with proof and scripture and all why it is wrong and not right I want all the reasoning. Then all you who are KJV only type out all your proof and reasoning for the KJV only belief. Instead of us typing here and there we can all debate on this page and give the backing for it so we all see our cards. Thanks

I have never seen anyone claim to be "against" the KJV. I have, however, read many appalling statements made about other translations by the KJVO crowd. These range from wild absurdity to outright lies.

The burden of Scriptural proof lies with the person who criticizes the validity of a particular version.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Robertson was a naturalistic man.

Is it too much to ask for some proof rather than an unsupported accusation?

Robertson studied the NT in Greek and commented on what he believed to be the correct readings and translation. Note the operative part- Robertson studied the NT. I have his commentary on CD. From my experience, I would say he infrequently cites other men. Most of his conclusions come directly from the text itself.

KJVOnlyism on the other hand is completely and totally dependent on what men say. The beginning presupposition, and a very naturalistic one at that, is that the Word of God must be defined by a single set of human words. Not unlike evolution, once the this expectation is set, all evidence must conform to the conclusion or else the evidence is flawed.... rather than the conclusion.

Spurgeon spoke out against ERV that W/H produced.

Spurgeon preached from the RV and said that the KJV should be corrected in those places where it was weak or contradicted the evidence for the originals.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Spurgeon preached from the RV and said that the KJV should be corrected in those places where it was weak or contradicted the evidence for the originals.

Yes,and the Lord took him home shortly afterwards.Irony? I think not.

 

[Ransom]

Anti-Alexandrian said:

Yes,and the Lord took him home shortly afterwards.Irony? I think not.

Yeah, right.

I believe the word you were looking for was not "irony," but "ignorance," specifically your own.

Spurgeon maintained throughout his career that English translations of the Bible were subject to human error and not above correcting when necessary. So contrary to your assertion, the Lord did not take him home "shortly afterwards."

If Spurgeon's demise can be attributed to any external cause, it was the deterioration of his health brought on by his fight against liberalism in the Baptist Union. Certainly that is what he believed.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Spurgeon preached from the RV and said that the KJV should be corrected in those places where it was weak or contradicted the evidence for the originals.

Yes,and the Lord took him home shortly afterwards.Irony? I think not. </font>[/QUOTE]What a HORRIBLE thing to say......

 

[Ransom]

Baptist in Richmond said:

What a HORRIBLE thing to say......

Sadly, this kind of reckless nonsense is typical of the more rabid KJV-only crowd.

On another forum (thankfully now defunct), I can remember one KJV-onlyist telling a non-KJV-onlyist, who had lost an infant son a few years before, that God took his child because he and his wife were obviously too stupid to be parents.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Ransom:
On another forum (thankfully now defunct), I can remember one KJV-onlyist telling a non-KJV-onlyist, who had lost an infant son a few years before, that God took his child because he and his wife were obviously too stupid to be parents.

I hope that someone was swift to rebuke this person. What does the Book of Proverbs say about a lying tongue?

 

[DCK]

To me, one of the clearest evidences of the error of KJVOnlyism is the sub-Christian way many of its adherents treat their fellow believers. Insults, sarcasm, misrepresentations, character assassination, etc. are common in their apologetic. Are these the earmarks of a godly movement? Of course, KJVOs probably don't think of the rest of us as fellow believers, so I guess they feel that they're free to say whatever they want.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Spurgeon preached from the RV and said that the KJV should be corrected in those places where it was weak or contradicted the evidence for the originals.

Yes,and the Lord took him home shortly afterwards.Irony? I think not. </font>[/QUOTE]Nope. Spurgeon lived for 10 years after correcting the KJV with the RV from the pulpit.

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/david_otis_fuller.htm

The only irony is how a professed Christian can bear false witness in the manner you have then demonstrate no repentance or remorse.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by DCK:
To me, one of the clearest evidences of the error of KJVOnlyism is the sub-Christian way many of its adherents treat their fellow believers. Insults, sarcasm, misrepresentations, character assassination, etc. are common in their apologetic. Are these the earmarks of a godly movement? Of course, KJVOs probably don't think of the rest of us as fellow believers, so I guess they feel that they're free to say whatever they want.

Perhaps they should find a copy of the TRUE Authorised Version they vehemently extol and consult Ecclesiasticus 8:5

 

[Surfer5]

"On another forum (thankfully now defunct), I can remember one KJV-onlyist telling a non-KJV-onlyist, who had lost an infant son a few years before, that God took his child because he and his wife were obviously too stupid to be parents."


In the first place, I do not see how the relaying of this information is helpful. I could just as easily give many stories about the misbehavior or the erroneous judgements of NIV advocates. But it would be innacurate to imply that just because one KJVO advocate acted in this manner, that all KJVOs act in this manner. That is not what most KJVOs do any more than it would be what other people who truly love the Lord would do.

Surfer5

 

[Surfer5]

misrepresentations, character assassination, etc. are common in their apologetic

I do not know this to be the case. But even if it were, the solution would seem to point this out in a wise manner, go to the brother with whom you have a problem based on Matthew 18:15.

Concerning the allegation of "mis-representation", I have seen the allegation - such as what you have said here. But I have yet to see any proof.

Surfer5