Untrue anti-KJVO-doctrine points

[Mexdeaf]

Not that Dr. Bob needs (or even wants) me to defend him here, but how do you figure he called God an Anglican?

Is it your position that your God is the one who authorized the translation of the Bible usually known as the King James Version?

Are you sure you really want to go there?

The version itself says only that it was -

"...Newly Tranʃlated out of the Originall
tongues: & with the former Tranʃlations
diligently compared and reuised by his
Maieʃties ʃpeciall Comandement
Appointed to be read in Churches..."

So who gave this command?

Why, it was the head of the Church of England a.k.a. the Anglican church. (Ergo, it is not a misnomer to refer to the A.V. as the 'Anglican Version'.) Incidentally, he was the fourth head of the Anglican church to "approve", or "authorize", in some fashion, a translation/version of the Bible.

Henry VIII - Coverdale's Bible (2nd Edition), liscensed by Henry VIII. (1537)

Henry VIII - Matthew's Bible; (1537)

Henry VIII - Great Bible (1539)

Edward VI - did not actually 'authorize' any new version, but encouraged the expansion of the English Bible and well over a dozen new editions appeard with his encouragement

Elizabeth I - Bishop's Bible (1568)

Questions:

Why should not one refer to the KJV as an Anglican Bible? Most, if not all, the translators were members of the church of England, if I recall correctly. There were definitely no Baptists among the translators, and few, if any, Congregationalists or Presbyterians, I don't think. And the translation was done under the auspices of the Church of England, as were the major "revisions" of the version, and also the ERV.

Who died and left the Anglican church forever in charge of the Bible, in English?

Why would not a Baptist, such as yourself, not support and prefer a predominately "Baptist Bible" over a predominately "Anglican Bible"? The NKJV, KJII, and HCSB come to mind, immediately, as predominately Baptist Bibles".

Why does James I rate above these other rulers, in your mind? Oh wait! I know the answer to that one! You are merely following the thinking of some others who claim that God is the one who really "authorized" the 1611 version. If Salamander is suggesting that Dr. Bob called God an Anglican, then with this same logic, who is Salamander calling God? Wouldn't that be the one who authorized the 1611 version of the Bible, namely King James I?

Ed

Ed,

I like the way you think. Even if it is kinda like waving a red cape in front of a bull.

 

[EdSutton]

Ed,

I like the way you think. Even if it is kinda like waving a red cape in front of a bull.

Good analogy. Wave a red cape in front of 'bull'.

Ed

 

[rbell]

I think you just called God an Anglican.

But since the words of some are to remain, their holding to the whatever version principle tells on them for holding to a false doctrine of their being able to delegate godlike powers to other mortals.

Nothing like being called idolatrous...

 

[robycop3]

Robycop3 is trying to do a good thing here. So how about we cut him a little slack.

Do you have any more points Robycop3?

A.F.

Sure!

Some Freedom Readers criticize the use of "devil(s)" for evil spirits, or even some men(Jesus said of His disciples. "one of you is a devil")when the Greek is "daimon"(demon). They argue there is only one devil, Satan. (Greek 'diabolos')

All one need do is look up the dictionary meaning of 'devil'. One of its umpteen meanings is 'demon'. Now, if a later version uses devil only for satan, there's nothing wrong with that, but the KJV is not wrong to use devil for demon, either.

My whole point is that KJVO is easily proven wrong without having to resort to untruths to do it. As fot the 'critix" who disagree with what I'm doing in this thread, I generally ignore them for not knowing what they're talking about.

 

[Salamander]

Not that Dr. Bob needs (or even wants) me to defend him here, but how do you figure he called God an Anglican?

Is it your position that your God is the one who authorized the translation of the Bible usually known as the King James Version?

Are you sure you really want to go there?

The version itself says only that it was -

"...Newly Tranʃlated out of the Originall
tongues: & with the former Tranʃlations
diligently compared and reuised by his
Maieʃties ʃpeciall Comandement
Appointed to be read in Churches..."

So who gave this command?

Why, it was the head of the Church of England a.k.a. the Anglican church. (Ergo, it is not a misnomer to refer to the A.V. as the 'Anglican Version'.) Incidentally, he was the fourth head of the Anglican church to "approve", or "authorize", in some fashion, a translation/version of the Bible.

Henry VIII - Coverdale's Bible (2nd Edition), liscensed by Henry VIII. (1537)

Henry VIII - Matthew's Bible; (1537)

Henry VIII - Great Bible (1539)

Edward VI - did not actually 'authorize' any new version, but encouraged the expansion of the English Bible and well over a dozen new editions appeard with his encouragement

Elizabeth I - Bishop's Bible (1568)

Questions:

Why should not one refer to the KJV as an Anglican Bible? Most, if not all, the translators were members of the church of England, if I recall correctly. There were definitely no Baptists among the translators, and few, if any, Congregationalists or Presbyterians, I don't think. And the translation was done under the auspices of the Church of England, as were the major "revisions" of the version, and also the ERV.

Who died and left the Anglican church forever in charge of the Bible, in English?

Why would not a Baptist, such as yourself, not support and prefer a predominately "Baptist Bible" over a predominately "Anglican Bible"? The NKJV, KJII, and HCSB come to mind, immediately, as predominately Baptist Bibles".

Why does James I rate above these other rulers, in your mind? Oh wait! I know the answer to that one! You are merely following the thinking of some others who claim that God is the one who really "authorized" the 1611 version. If Salamander is suggesting that Dr. Bob called God an Anglican, then with this same logic, who is Salamander calling God? Wouldn't that be the one who authorized the 1611 version of the Bible, namely King James I?

Ed

Ed, your entire problem lies within the fact that you cannot disassociate God from King James.

I rate God using whomever he has to preserve His word.

I'll have to ask you this: Did the Lord use lost men to give us his word?

Be ready now, this could merit you some really "good" anti-KJVO doctrine points!

 

[Salamander]

Why would not a Baptist, such as yourself, not support and prefer a predominately "Baptist Bible" over a predominately "Anglican Bible"? The NKJV, KJII, and HCSB come to mind, immediately, as predominately Baptist Bibles".

Due to the false doctrines they permit to be understood within the context they are written. The KJB has never allowed a false doctrine when the enitrety of the context is taken into consideration. That is the WHY I am a Baptist!:godisgood:

 

[Salamander]

Good analogy. Wave a red cape in front of 'bull'.

Ed

Try this one: "Wave a filthy rag in front is bull":wavey:

 

[Salamander]

Nothing like being called idolatrous...

Takes one to know one.

 

[Salamander]

Sure!

Some Freedom Readers criticize the use of "devil(s)" for evil spirits, or even some men(Jesus said of His disciples. "one of you is a devil")when the Greek is "daimon"(demon). They argue there is only one devil, Satan. (Greek 'diabolos')

All one need do is look up the dictionary meaning of 'devil'. One of its umpteen meanings is 'demon'. Now, if a later version uses devil only for satan, there's nothing wrong with that, but the KJV is not wrong to use devil for demon, either.

My whole point is that KJVO is easily proven wrong without having to resort to untruths to do it. As fot the 'critix" who disagree with what I'm doing in this thread, I generally ignore them for not knowing what they're talking about.

Correction: you ignore those who don't know what you think you know as if you know what you're talking about.

Anyone with common sense knows that a devil can be anyone or anything that represents an evil to some one.

Just like I appear as a devil to those who persistently attack the KJB by attacking those who stand on the KJB.:godisgood:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Hard to beleive that a thread started to support the KJV by one who is not KJVO has been so easily corrupted.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Hard to believe that a thread started to support the KJV by one who is not KJVO has been so easily corrupted.

Yes, it is hard to believe.