-
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!
What does it mean to you to be KJVO?
- Thread starter MRCoon
- Start date
- Status
It is NOT doctrine. KJV was good enough for all the GOOD preachers until this century, people got saved, churches grew....we don't need these other simplified and confused versions that leave out verses and changes meanings of words such as "virgin". THAT is messing with truth.
Diggin in da Word
New Member
Amen, DCorbett!
And the NIV is good enough for all good preachers. People have been saved, being lead to Christ by the NIV, churches have grown by using the NIV, and the NIV is the most popular bible today! God is blessing the NIV and souls are the results of His blessings.
You can't prove that God has not blessed and is blessing the NIV. People who use the NIV are no less Christian than those of us who use the KJV or NASB.
Many godly people live conservative godly lives by reading the NIV.
Now I'll use KJVO logic:
We don't need a bible that is gender neutral pushing a liberal view about God!
Romans 8:16 (KJV)
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
We need a bible that tells us the truth about God!
Romans 8:16 (NIV)
16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.
KJVO logic off now!
Do you see my point yet?
Your previous posts spoke volumes. </font>[/QUOTE]read this:
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/4/2908/2.html?
Scroll down and read my responce.
Care to retract your statment or simply apologise?
mcdirector
Active Member
I was going to get a reproduction of the Geneva Bible but it was a bit pricey.
But you can get in online at http://www.genevabible.org/Geneva.html, and you can even get some of the notes that King James hated!
mcdirector
Active Member
Thanks rsr. I'll go look it up. I was looking for a hard copy, but like I said, it's cost prohibitive. One of the reasons I wanted to get it was for those pesky notes.
I remember reading somewhere that the KJV 1611 was 95% the same as the Geneva?? Or was it the Tyndale that it was 95% in line with? mmmm
I remember reading somewhere that the KJV 1611 was 95% the same as the Geneva?? Or was it the Tyndale that it was 95% in line with? mmmm
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
robycop3: //Unless you've changed since last I last "spoke" to you,
we have an example of a believer of a false doctrine to advise.//
Slambo: //Can you prove that I am??? //
By two witnesses are all things established:
Robycop3 thinks you need advice.
Ed Edwards thinks you need advice.
Hense, but the two witnesses - you need advise.
Believing in a false doctrine is habit forming.
It acts like a drug - in fact it makes mood drug changes
in one's body. One brain can get hooked on the mood drugs
one's body makes when they are angry at their advisers.
BTW, if one would go look at my poll on page one (the first
poll one will run into on a list of Version/Translation Forum
topics), one will see that the majority here thinks that
the errancy of the scripture extends only to the original
writings. So the cards here will always be stacked against
those who beleive in KJVO and those like me who are right:
God preserved for today the Blessed Written WOrd of God
in an inerrant Bible in
all faithful English Transaltions.
dcorbett quoting someone else:
//Most of us who devoutly believe and defend the King James Bible
are well aware of how "stupid" "ignorant" "backward" "cultic"
"unloving" and "narrow minded" we are IN YOUR EYES.
You do not need to tell us again, we heard you the first time
and have been hearing you for hundreds of years.//
This history is in error. There was little if any KJVO outside
my lifetime. 99.8% of the history of KJVO has happened
since I was an adult (in 1964).
The first KJVOs I heard from was in 1967 (when I
was 24 years old). So there couldn't have been
more than 10,000 KJVOs prior to 1967, probably less than 2,000.
BTW, the KJVs are not attacked in this version forum,
only the idea that KJB = King Jesus Bible. Come on, KJV =
King JAMES Version. I love the KJV, I have two KJVs
that I use on a daily basis:
KJV1611 Edition
KJV1769 Edition
Diggin in da Word: //The fighting over the versions does not do anything
to show the love of Christ to a lost and dying world.//
You Lead the way.
Personally I was called
Diggin in da Word: //One could just as easily say 'Please show us the SCRIPTURE
where Jesus ordains the MV's or admit you're just blabbering.'//
If one cared to read before posting, one would find
that statement is made about once per fortnight*.
And the answer is the same "all scripture ... ".
Not just ONE BOOK, 'ALL SCRIPTURE'.
* two weeks, no problem to the avid KJV reader
we have an example of a believer of a false doctrine to advise.//
Slambo: //Can you prove that I am??? //
By two witnesses are all things established:
Robycop3 thinks you need advice.
Ed Edwards thinks you need advice.
Hense, but the two witnesses - you need advise.
Believing in a false doctrine is habit forming.
It acts like a drug - in fact it makes mood drug changes
in one's body. One brain can get hooked on the mood drugs
one's body makes when they are angry at their advisers.
BTW, if one would go look at my poll on page one (the first
poll one will run into on a list of Version/Translation Forum
topics), one will see that the majority here thinks that
the errancy of the scripture extends only to the original
writings. So the cards here will always be stacked against
those who beleive in KJVO and those like me who are right:
God preserved for today the Blessed Written WOrd of God
in an inerrant Bible in
all faithful English Transaltions.
dcorbett quoting someone else:
//Most of us who devoutly believe and defend the King James Bible
are well aware of how "stupid" "ignorant" "backward" "cultic"
"unloving" and "narrow minded" we are IN YOUR EYES.
You do not need to tell us again, we heard you the first time
and have been hearing you for hundreds of years.//
This history is in error. There was little if any KJVO outside
my lifetime. 99.8% of the history of KJVO has happened
since I was an adult (in 1964).
The first KJVOs I heard from was in 1967 (when I
was 24 years old). So there couldn't have been
more than 10,000 KJVOs prior to 1967, probably less than 2,000.
BTW, the KJVs are not attacked in this version forum,
only the idea that KJB = King Jesus Bible. Come on, KJV =
King JAMES Version. I love the KJV, I have two KJVs
that I use on a daily basis:
KJV1611 Edition
KJV1769 Edition
Diggin in da Word: //The fighting over the versions does not do anything
to show the love of Christ to a lost and dying world.//
You Lead the way.
Personally I was called
Diggin in da Word: //One could just as easily say 'Please show us the SCRIPTURE
where Jesus ordains the MV's or admit you're just blabbering.'//
If one cared to read before posting, one would find
that statement is made about once per fortnight*.
And the answer is the same "all scripture ... ".
Not just ONE BOOK, 'ALL SCRIPTURE'.
* two weeks, no problem to the avid KJV reader
dcorbett,
Two-week Vacation Bible Schools were good enough for the "good churches" 30 years ago.
The Broadman Hymnal of 1940 was good enough for decades.
Just because something is "good enough" doesn't mean God can't use something just as good later on.
I'm a huge KJV fan. Look at my posts...I don't malign anyone for their choice of translations...as long as the Gospel of Christ is uncompromised.
But...(treading lightly)...I love seeing God bring others to Himself...and if He does so with my third-favorite translation, or my favorite, so be it.
I won't get worked up too much in this forum...simply because at the end of the day, I see what God is doing, and I'm so privileged to be a part of it.
Last month, an elderly woman in our church needed a large-print Bible (and didn't have much money). I got her a nice large-print KJV. Last week, we recognized twenty of our seniors. I gave them each an NIV Bible.
God was honored...He'll be even more so if they'll read it!
Two-week Vacation Bible Schools were good enough for the "good churches" 30 years ago.
The Broadman Hymnal of 1940 was good enough for decades.
Just because something is "good enough" doesn't mean God can't use something just as good later on.
I'm a huge KJV fan. Look at my posts...I don't malign anyone for their choice of translations...as long as the Gospel of Christ is uncompromised.
But...(treading lightly)...I love seeing God bring others to Himself...and if He does so with my third-favorite translation, or my favorite, so be it.
I won't get worked up too much in this forum...simply because at the end of the day, I see what God is doing, and I'm so privileged to be a part of it.
Last month, an elderly woman in our church needed a large-print Bible (and didn't have much money). I got her a nice large-print KJV. Last week, we recognized twenty of our seniors. I gave them each an NIV Bible.
God was honored...He'll be even more so if they'll read it!
mcdirector
Active Member
I got my Bibles confused. The Geneva retained 90% of the Tyndale 
mcdirector
Active Member
Amen!
Your previous posts spoke volumes. </font>[/QUOTE]read this:
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/4/2908/2.html?
Scroll down and read my responce.
Care to retract your statment or simply apologise? </font>[/QUOTE]Shall I go back far enuff where you spoke as does a KJVO?
Here's an example you posted 2/10/06:
quote
me) My question is this: How does one come to the conclusion that only one english translation of God's Word is the authentic word of God? John 16:13!!!(Slambo)
However, I will acknowledge that you're not now a KJVO if that'll make you happy. But, according to your above post and others similar to it...
If it walks like a duck....
If it quacks like a duck....
If it posts like a duck....
I cannot conclude it's a penguin.
I am a King James Bible believer. Yes, I describe myself as being King James only. I wish to answer the original question by quoting my own doctrinal statement:
1. I believe that the King James Bible (AV 1611) is the only English Bible available to us today that is the true and perfect word of God.
2. I believe that all modern English Bibles (from 1881 to the present) must be rejected as [attack on the Word of God deleted], because they are polluted by the Westcott and Hort textual theory which changes and corrupts the word of God (II Corinthians 2:17; 4:2; Revelation 22:18,19).
3. I believe that the King James Bible (AV 1611) is to be our final authority in all matters of faith and practice (II Timothy 3:16,17).
Before some of you start throwing insults and accusing me of being ignorant of the facts, I will add this statement: I believe that the King James Bible that I use today is substantially equivalent to the original 1611 edition.
These are my beliefs and are not intended to be an attack on any one else's point of view. Note: I have held this position for over 30 years and I do not intend to change.
[ May 23, 2006, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]
1. I believe that the King James Bible (AV 1611) is the only English Bible available to us today that is the true and perfect word of God.
2. I believe that all modern English Bibles (from 1881 to the present) must be rejected as [attack on the Word of God deleted], because they are polluted by the Westcott and Hort textual theory which changes and corrupts the word of God (II Corinthians 2:17; 4:2; Revelation 22:18,19).
3. I believe that the King James Bible (AV 1611) is to be our final authority in all matters of faith and practice (II Timothy 3:16,17).
Before some of you start throwing insults and accusing me of being ignorant of the facts, I will add this statement: I believe that the King James Bible that I use today is substantially equivalent to the original 1611 edition.
These are my beliefs and are not intended to be an attack on any one else's point of view. Note: I have held this position for over 30 years and I do not intend to change.
[ May 23, 2006, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]
- Status