Why AKJV only?

[Alexandra Spears]

[ July 16, 2003, 02:30 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
If you believe there are doctrines missing, then show us these doctrines. Every single attempt to do this so far has failed miserably but maybe you finally have the answer. If you believe that the NIV denies the deity of Christ then deal with the very clear verses in the NIV that support the deity of Christ. In order to believe what you believe you either have to be lying or merely uninformed. Anyone who reads the NIV knows good and well that the doctrine of the deity of Christ is at least as explicit, if not more explicit, than in most other versions, especially the KJV. To say otherwise is to lie or to be uninformed.

KJV on Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

What doctrine?

 

[rsr]

Alexandra, I advise you to look at the previous posts on this thread. We all make mistakes as newbies; I know I said some stupid things when I first came on the board. Come to think of it, I still stay stupid things.

As to your Web sites and questionnaires, we've been there, done that, over and over and over again.

None of this is new; it's a rehash of inaccurate and misleading Web sites. You'll have to do better. Or realize that your position is untenable. I hope it's the latter.

 

[Alexandra Spears]

I don't know that I said or did anything stupid here. I stand my ground.

 

[rsr]

Stupid double posting.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
The fact that you refuse to admit, but I admit, is obvious to see missing doctrines in many verses in modern versions.

Nope, sorry: it is not a fact. Simply making a statement as fact does not make it fact. </font>[/QUOTE]Your opinion is more important than the fact.

 

[Alexandra Spears]

Someone wanted to know what verses were missing in the NIV, now they know.

The Bible clearly warns against adding to or taking from it.

 

[rsr]

Facts? What are the facts in evidence? Nothing but your opinion, I'm afraid.

 

[rsr]

Sigh. This is pointless, I'm afraid.

I give up and will go off to read my Satan-inspired ESV ...

 

[gb93433]

Anyone KJVO ever read 2 Kings 18;27 and Isaiah 36:12 pubilcally in front of a congregation?

Any dogmatic KJVO ever practice Mark 16:17,18, "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Have you spoken in new tongus, handled snakes and deadly poision yet? If not then you are not very dogmatic about your KJV.

[ July 16, 2003, 02:12 AM: Message edited by: gb93433 ]

 

[Alcott]

Originally posted by Alexandra Spears:
Who's ready to take the NIV challenge?

This idiotic pile of filth has run on here several times before.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Askjo:
&gt;&gt;Your opinion is more important than the fact.

What?
Who said this?
When did he/she say this?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Alexandra Spears:
I don't know that I said or did anything stupid here. I stand my ground.

I used to warn people who were making an obvious
mistake, violating the PRIME DIRECTIVE FOR POSTERS.
But i got into trouble to many times. "Let the
foolish rush in where angels fear to tread" they
said. But, i'll be nice and do a Monday Night
Football (after the action) special.

The PRIME DIRECTIVE FOR POSTERS:
Read before you post.

Details of the prime directive
A new board: read before you post.
A new Forum: read before you post.
An existing topic: read before you post.
A new topic: read the forum description
and some topics in the forum before starting
a new topic there.

OBTW, it is middle July now, so it has been
19 years since i first posted on a private
internet-like bulletin board. (i had posted
on lan /local area network/
and wan /wide area network/ bulletin boards
before that)

My dear Sister Alexandra Spears, you have
violated the
PRIME DIRECTIVE FOR POSTERS:
Read before you post.

I'm sorry, i was tempted the first day you barged
in here and started two topics (one was alright,
it was in the welcome forum) the day you signed up
-- I was tempted to tell you this. However, i find
my sage advise is usually construed as the
mutterings of an old fool and are never taken.
But i cannot resist saying "i almost told you so"

BTW KJBO-ism is quick-sand in earthquake
country. Not a good place to take a stand.
However, if you keep telling yourself
that Jesus beats whoever He loves --
nevermind

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by Alexandra Spears:
The Bible clearly warns against adding to or taking from it.

o i'm so scared ...

in that case, how cld anyone read the KJB w good conscience?

 

[BrianT]

Alexandra, that "challenge" only demonstrates there are a few differences between the NIV and the KJV. It does NOT prove that the NIV is wrong in these instances, just different. The challenge does nothing to address the *reasons* there are these differences, but instead relies on familiarity and "what sounds better" to try and support the KJV-only position. In effect, this is a very dishonest approach for it is intentionally avoiding the real issues. Why is Phil 1:14 not in your list, about preaching the word __ ____? Why is Acts 4:25 not in the exam, where David spoke by ___ ______ _______? Why is Jude 1:25 not in your exam, which says Jesus is ___ _____, _______ ___ ____? Why is Psa 145:13 not mentioned in your quiz, which says the LORD is ________ __ ___ ___ _______ and loving toward ___ __ ___ ____?

Someone made a reponse quiz to that quiz that helps illustrate this point:
----
Using the King James Version of the Bible, answer the following questions.

(1) John 14:14 contains important proof of Christ's divinity, since prayer is to be offered to God alone. According to this verse, who is it we are to ask for anything in Jesus' name?

(2) Fill in the blanks from Acts 4:25 -- "You spoke by __________ through the mouth of your servant, our __________ David."

(3) In Acts 16:7, Paul and his companions were not allowed to enter Bythinia. According to the verse, the Spirit of __________ prevented them?

(4) In Romans 1:4, who was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead?

(5) An important verse which teaches that the Holy Spirit is a person (and not a "thing" or an impersonal "it" ) is found in Romans 8:26. Find the personal reference to the Holy Spirit.

(6) Fill in the blanks from Romans 8:34 -- "...who is the one who condemns? __________ __________ is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us."

(7) Titus 2:13 is one of the clearest statements of Christ's divinity in the New Testament. According to this verse, for whose glorious appearing do we wait?

(8) Another important verse demonstrating Christ's divinity is found in 2 Peter 1:1. According to this verse, through whose righteousness have we received our precious faith?

(9) Complete the following phrase from the first part of 1 John 3:1 -- "How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is __________!"

(10) Fill in the missing words from Jude 25 -- "...to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through __________ __________ __________ __________ , before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen."

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Askjo:
KJV on Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

What doctrine?

Would this be the same doctrine listed in the following versions????

NASB Luke 19:10 "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."

NIV Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost."

NRSV Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek out and to save the lost."

RSV Luke 19:10 For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost."

ESV Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."

Once again, your charge of omitted or perverted doctrine is shown to be false. When will you learn that you have no evidence to support this false teaching that you are propouding?? Trust me, you are not saying anything new. We have been through it so many times and can answer with ease any challenge you put forth. The doctrine that you claim is missing in teh MVs is clearly in the MVs, showing that you are not telling the truth.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Alexandra Spears:
I don't know that I said or did anything stupid here. I stand my ground.

The posting of a misleading and twisted test was not a smart thing to do. The posting of misleading information and flat out false information is certainly not smart. It is always better to be properly handle the truth and the facts regarding any issue, especially the issue of Scripture. When one stoops to mistruths to support their point, it casts a shadow on the whole issue. Simply put, you have not told the truth about God's word and that is not a smart thing to do.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

For the last 2-1/2 years, I have been using the King James Study Bible, put out by Nelson publishers. I love the notes, and the cross references. I praise God for the men he used to translate the KJV, and also praise him that it has been around (preserved) for a few hundred years. I think the language is beautiful, and have not come across too many verses yet, that I can't understand with a little study. I am KJV-only, in that I only use the KJV.

But there is enough Holy Spirit in the ESV, NIV, NAS, or even the Living Paraphrase to save the entire world. To call the NIV a work of Satan is pretty scary.....


Matthew 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

 

[Alexandra Spears]

You know, trying to intimidate and doing the name-calling bit when someone tells you something you CANNOT disprove is pretty infantile IMO.

I've actually had one such person dare to PM me and call me arrogant. What is so arrogant about telling the truth? I'm sorry some of you won't listen to simple FACT. I'm sorry you won't take the attitude the Bereans had and actually take the time to research things. Instead some of you have to resort to name-calling and half-truths.

I really feel sorry for you.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Alexandra Spears:
You know, trying to intimidate and doing the name-calling bit when someone tells you something you CANNOT disprove is pretty infantile IMO.

This is certainly true and you have finally posted something with truth in it. The difficulty for you is that we have disproven the KJVO position. We have shot holes in every single argument that you and others of your persuasion have put forth. There has not been one charge that has actually stood up under scrutiny. They have all fallen flat.

What is so arrogant about telling the truth?

Sometimes arrogance in posting the truth can be seen in the demeanor in posting the truth. However, in this case, you have not posted the truth.

I'm sorry some of you won't listen to simple FACT.

We have listened to the facts. It is you who will not do this. We have posted the facts in many places. We have shown the fallacy of the KJVO position. The facts are on our side.

I'm sorry you won't take the attitude the Bereans had and actually take the time to research things.

We have studied these things. It is you who has not fully studied the issues. You have studied only one side, taking the word of false teachers as truth. That is a position that we must reject because it contradicts Scripture.

Your "feeling sorry" is not well spent on us. It is the truth that is at stake and we cannot sit idly by while someone attacks the truth and attempts to mislead others into errors. Therefore, we must stand up and reply to your posts and your notions. The facts are on teh table in many places. It would be good for you to consider the truth.