Used to be...

I am also a former KJVO.

Just hang in there and pray for your family. KJVOism is a false man made myth. God will never lead anyone to KJVOism simply because KJVOism is a lie. If they are KJV preferred then I don’t see a problem. It’s when the Oism is applied that creates all the problems.

I’m always thankful when a KJVO understand the truth and gets out of the liberal modernism known as KJVOism. I would suggest that you get a reprint of the AV1611. The AV1611 is the best tool to prove KJVOism false.

Don’t get discouraged by the name calling and double standards that exist within KJVOism. KJVOism has no scripture to support KJVOism therefore KJVOist must rely upon myths and emotional reasoning. Some KJVOist will even go as far as to create new doctrines in order to support the KJVO lie.

I confronted my KJVO “kin” with the AV1611. My wife studied and got out of KJVOism. Some of my other friends remain KJVO and shun me. It’s hard and it hurts to see friends and family rebel against the facts. I just hang in there and pray for them. I never bend on the facts and when it comes up I let the evidence speak for me. I have never told anyone not to use the KJV but I do stand against the modernism known as KJVOism.

Just remember that God will never lead anyone into a false doctrine. I would suggest that you stand on the facts and pray daily for your loved ones. My wife was an inspiration to me how the power of God and facts will turn ones heart from error to truth. Never stop praying for your loved ones.

Ignore the one liner hard line KJVOist. They only serve to fortify the fact that all they have is name calling, myths, slander, and no scripture to support their false doctrines.

 

"Innerrency" in the Original autographs?? You got'em??

Ok? PROVE IT!

You can't, you don't have them.

 

The 1611 edition of the KJV is a good tool
for showing problems with KJV-only claims. Other good tools are the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision [Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, Geneva, Bishops'].

 

David J:

You just slandered your brethren. Sort of hypocritical, huh?

It might be best to stick to the issues and stop sliding back into the pit.

The fact is, you have to alter the fatcs to make your "facts", facts. that is exactly what the serpent did in the garden, so g'head, practice the element of subtility if you wish, the "version" issue is nothing more than a snare to the brethren.

Do I think it needs to be left alone? No, just learn where to stand and quit stomping on your brethren in the process.

Oh, by the way, the rule against questioning one's salvation is against Scripture, it's anti-christ in it's conception. You'll find it in YOUR version under, "making your calling and election sure"

 

Over and over, it can be documented that holders of the man-made KJV-only theory "alter"
the actual facts. Please do present your "facts"
for the KJV-only view so we can see if they measure up to the consistent evidence.

 

Your opinion aside, by posting here you agree to abide by the rules. Questioning the salvation of others will result in deletion of that post. The proper way to disagree with policy is by PM with the moderators or administration.

Roger
C4K
Moderator

 

And then you went ahead and did the same thing in the very next sentence.

HankD

 

Send Me: Do you accept the Apocrypha?

Matthew

As Scriptuer? No. As historical writings and a little insight into Jewish life and religion between Malachi and Matthew? Yes.

 

Frank Betz: (Quotes David J

quote:Ignore the one liner hard line KJVOist. They only serve to fortify the fact that all they have is name calling, myths, slander, and no scripture to support their false doctrines.

You just slandered your brethren. Sort of hypocritical, huh?

If the shew fitz, wear it. YOU haven't been exactly effusive in your defense of the KJVO myth. All I've seen is insults and a lame repeat of the same ole garbage. Can you defend your false doctrine or not?

It might be best to stick to the issues and stop sliding back into the pit.

To this observer, it appears David has done quite well. HE has presented FACTS for which you've had no answers so far, while all you've done is pontificate.

The fact is, you have to alter the fatcs to make your "facts", facts. that is exactly what the serpent did in the garden,

To alter the fact that there's NO SCRIPTURE to support the KJVO myth, he'd hafta ADD to Scripture. THAT'S what the serpent did. G'wan, prove THAT one wrong!


so g'head, practice the element of subtility if you wish, the "version" issue is nothing more than a snare to the brethren.

It's subtle as a tank. The cold, hard fact that there's NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth kakes all their other arguments pointless...but even with that fact aside, those arguments have been proven false also, many of them being disproven by the AV 1611 itself, and by the words of its makers.

Yes, we KNOW it's a snare for the brethren. that's why we boldly point out out that it's a FALSE DOCTRINE!!!!! How can any Christian, knowing that God is all-powerful, believe He's limited in how He may choose to supply His word to menkind?

Do I think it needs to be left alone? No, just learn where to stand and quit stomping on your brethren in the process.

Like myself, David is NOT subtle nor deceptive in voicing his knowledge that the KJVO myth is a false doctrine. As I said before, it's a Christian D-U-T-Y to combat this and every other false doctrine that comes to their attention.

Oh, by the way, the rule against questioning one's salvation is against Scripture, it's anti-christ in it's conception. You'll find it in YOUR version under, "making your calling and election sure" [Embarrassed]

As Roger pointed out, it IS against the rules here, but calling out and fighting FALSE DOCTRINES is one of the purposes of this entire board.

Don't believe KJVO is a false doctrine? We await your EVIDENCE in its favor. We have plenty of evidence...not guesswork...AGAINST it.

 

Does that mean your exempting the scholarship of necromancers W&H?? </font>[/QUOTE]Again, Slambo...care to PROVE your allegations with REAL evidence instead of your typical one lined tripe?

 

Yes. The Bible itself declares that God directly inspired the original texts through men who were specially qualified. The qualifications to receive inspiration are given in the Bible also: Prophets and Apostles

Nope. We have somewhere in the neighborhood of 25,000 ancient mss, witnesses, and versions that testify to the text of the originals though. While even with all this evidence we cannot be absolutely sure of every single word, we can be sure that no doctrine, teaching, or fact has been lost.

The inerrancy of our Bibles is derived from the originals through this mountain of mutually supporting evidence. Inerrancy doesn't require a perfect set of words. It requires a complete representation of the substance of the originals.

BTW, do you have the original 1611 text for the AV? If not, how can you say it is inerrant? FYI, it was lost.

If you believe that God can make errors then that is your problem. If the originals were a direct work of God then they were inerrant and perfect in every way. I don't need any more proof than that, do you?

The Bible no where says that copies or translations will be inspired like the originals were. Preservation of the Word was providential, not direct, meaning that man's flawed efforts were involved in accomplishing the intentions of God which was to preserve His revelation to man.

The Bible tells us that God inspired the originals and tells us the names and qualifications of those He used to write. The Bible speaks with regard to the originals. Copies and translations are referred to indirectly as authoritative. But the Bible doesn't promise perfect wording in copies or translations.

 

Cite your scripture that says you are granted the ability to look into a person's soul to determine whether they are saved or not.

We are not restricted from stating things like, "People who trust baptism for their salvation are not saved". We are restricted in saying things like, "George is KJVO only which proves that he doesn't have the Spirit of Truth... therefore he is lost."

Quite honestly, you have demonstrated a habit of judging others according to your own judgment and without substantiating your charges since showing up here. If you are going to accuse people, the least you should do is give some coherent, factual proof. At a minimum, you should ask clarifying questions.

The biggest demonstrable offense committed by those you accuse has been to disagree with you. Sorry, but as long as you post errant beliefs, there will be folks here that rebut you.

 

So does that mean that Paul was full of boloney when he told Tim that the Bible he had in his possesion was given by inspiration??? Where in the Bible does it teach ONLY the originals were the woG?!

 

Where does it teach that nothing but the KJV is the word of God?

 

The Bible doesn't teach that ONLY the KJV is inerrant but neither does it teach that ONLY the originals were either.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

The Bible doesn't teach that ONLY the KJV is inerrant but neither does it teach that ONLY the originals were either.

In HIS service;
Jim </font>[/QUOTE]It only teaches that the originals were inspired directly by God Himself. It does so by qualifying the recipients of inspiration as well as by words like "given". God only gave it once... it was then copied and translated by fallible men.

Indirectly, the Bible does teach that only the originals were absolutely inerrant (to include every word) because only they were declared by scripture to be divinely produced.

 

Well you may think that infallible men gave you your Bible, but I don't.

Of course that is if you REALLY believe God gave it only once.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Nope. There was only one infallible man... and as far as we know He didn't work on translations or copying.

The Bible only says that God gave it directly by divine inspiration once and that specifically through certain men... the last man qualified to be a recipient of inspiration was John... who died about 1900 years ago.

Providentially, God has assured down through all ages that man has had the substance of His Word in copies (not facsimiles) and translations that preserve the message of the originals perfectly.

 

So does that mean that Paul was full of boloney when he told Tim that the Bible he had in his possesion was given by inspiration???</font>[/QUOTE] No. It was "given" by inspiration or in other words originally God breathed. It does not say that subsequent scribes and/or translators were inspired or perfect in their work also.

BTW, this is in reference to the word choices only. Our Bibles derived their inspiration from those originals in as much as they faithfully preserve the substance of the originals. IOW's, they must say the same things but they do not have to use the exact same words.

This is pretty plain and simple. It also happens to be consistent with scripture and known historical facts.

It's like when I tell one of my kids to tell another one to come in and wash up for dinner. I don't care if they use my exact words so long as they transmit the same message.

I have explained this several times just recently.

My first post on page 3 of this thread, bottom paragraph for instance. The Bible gives the qualifications for men qualified to receive inspiration. The KJV translators were not prophets nor Apostles.

 

THIS was a bonehead thing to let slip by wasn't it?

I MEANT to say *fallible men, not *infallible men.

Sorry guys.

I couldn't figure out what you were saying until I re-read what I posted. Can you say OOOPS! I can.


In HIS service;
Jim