Why so much against KJB-only?

Jim Ward · Feb 19, 2004

Michelle, I hope you are wearing your helmet. Having dealt with a few of those in this thread I know It's much easier to beat your head against a brick wall because at least then you have a chance of penetrating. With these guys, they are so wrapped into their man made myths and double standards that not even God can reach them I fear.

Jim

Orvie · Feb 19, 2004

Originally posted by Jim Ward:
Michelle, I hope you are wearing your helmet. Having dealt with a few of those in this thread I know It's much easier to beat your head against a brick wall because at least then you have a chance of penetrating. With these guys, they are so wrapped into their man made myths and double standards that not even God can reach them I fear.

Jim

Jim, ya hit the nail on the head! the KJVO's are super duper inconsistent and double standard to the max. See thread (prob on page two)"Double Standard of KJVO's" I think the evidence is overwhelming that the KJVO's (for qs and willie; kjvO's) simply don't practice what they preach.

Jim Ward · Feb 19, 2004

Originally posted by Orvie:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jim Ward:
Michelle, I hope you are wearing your helmet. Having dealt with a few of those in this thread I know It's much easier to beat your head against a brick wall because at least then you have a chance of penetrating. With these guys, they are so wrapped into their man made myths and double standards that not even God can reach them I fear.

Jim

Jim, ya hit the nail on the head! the KJVO's are super duper inconsistent and double standard to the max. See thread (prob on page two)"Double Standard of KJVO's" I think the evidence is overwhelming that the KJVO's (for qs and willie; kjvO's) simply don't practice what they preach. [/QUOTE]Uuuuuuuuummmmm I was referring to the defenders of the mv's who clearly have P.H.D.'s in double standardism.

Ed Edwards · Feb 19, 2004

Originally posted by michelle:
Has the NIV not put morning star into a verse where it does not exist, nor belong?

No. NIV got it right.
The proof is in the KJV1611,
the sidenote says that the second
best translation is "daystarre".

Jesus is not equal to Satan.
Here are some names of a planet:
Venus, Morning Star, Evening Star
Daystarre. These are all names for the
same physical reality: the second
planet from the Sun.

This planet is now called "Venus".
When Venus preceeds the Sun, it is known
as the "Morning Star".
When Venus follows the Sun, it is
known as the "Evening Star".
Sometimes, when Venus is as far from
the sun as it can get, it can be seen
in the daytime, hence the name "Daystarre".

Sorry I don't know any Hebrew, but i can
read an English Dictionary.

BTW, I love the KJV, especially the
KJV1611: the first original, starting KJV.
I even love the modern version (MV)
editions of the KJV: KJV1769 and KJV1873.

Ed Edwards · Feb 19, 2004

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/1243/11.html

Interesting, DOUBLE STANDARDs of KJVOs is runing
eleven pages. By contrast: DOUBLE STANDARDS
of MVites hasn't been started yet.

Precepts · Feb 19, 2004

So you don't love the 1762 Cambridge?

Precepts · Feb 19, 2004

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/1243/11.html

Interesting, DOUBLE STANDARDs of KJVOs is runing
eleven pages. By contrast: DOUBLE STANDARDS
of MVites hasn't been started yet.

I didn't know we needed a thread to discuss the 19th century, but since you've named w/h, I believe the doublestandards of mvites began even before BB was institued,say 2001?

Orvie · Feb 19, 2004

Originally posted by Jim Ward:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Orvie:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jim Ward:
Michelle, I hope you are wearing your helmet. Having dealt with a few of those in this thread I know It's much easier to beat your head against a brick wall because at least then you have a chance of penetrating. With these guys, they are so wrapped into their man made myths and double standards that not even God can reach them I fear.

Jim

Jim, ya hit the nail on the head! the KJVO's are super duper inconsistent and double standard to the max. See thread (prob on page two)"Double Standard of KJVO's" I think the evidence is overwhelming that the KJVO's (for qs and willie; kjvO's) simply don't practice what they preach. [/QUOTE]Uuuuuuuuummmmm I was referring to the defenders of the mv's who clearly have P.H.D.'s in double standardism. [/QUOTE]Okay, Johny Cochran, prove it

state your case in the myth. For "our side", I encourage you to go to the thread just mentioned, and the verdict against the KJVO's will become clear: GUILTY AS CHARGED i.e. Double Standards and inconsistencies. Punishment: Wake up and smell the coffee

Jim, as Roby would say, show ONE VERSE that says anything at all that implies that God has preserved (or pickled) His Word only in the KJV, ya can't. "Thou shalt only use and read the AV1611, oops KJV1769, oops KJV1883"

Look the thread up, pretty please?

robycop3 · Feb 19, 2004

Precepts:

"There you go again, trying to limit Luke 4:18 to Isaiah 61:1, just doesn't work, does it? ou've admitted it several times now then you contradict yourself over and over about it, so just leave it alone, you cannot convince me or anyone else otherwise."

The other verse involved in Luke 4:18 is Isaiah 42:7. It also reads differently from what Jesus read aloud in Luke 4. Just face it-Jesus was reading from ANOTHER VERSION of Isaiah, as were the Ethiopian & Philip in Acts 8. the KJVOs just cannot get around that FACT.

Jim Ward · Feb 19, 2004

Originally posted by robycop3:
Precepts:

"There you go again, trying to limit Luke 4:18 to Isaiah 61:1, just doesn't work, does it? ou've admitted it several times now then you contradict yourself over and over about it, so just leave it alone, you cannot convince me or anyone else otherwise."

The other verse involved in Luke 4:18 is Isaiah 42:7. It also reads differently from what Jesus read aloud in Luke 4. Just face it-Jesus was reading from ANOTHER VERSION of Isaiah, as were the Ethiopian & Philip in Acts 8. the KJVOs just cannot get around that FACT.

Ed Edwards · Feb 19, 2004

Originally posted by Precepts:
So you don't love the 1762 Cambridge?

Have your doctor check your short term memory

I don't have a copy of the KJV1762(Cambridge).
I have a copy of the KJV1611
I have a copy of the KJV1769 (or something,
-- it really doesn't say what it is)
I have a copy of the KJV1873

BTW, Michelle, "BTW" means "by the way".

Jim Ward · Feb 19, 2004

Originally posted by Orvie:
Jim, as Roby would say, show ONE VERSE that says anything at all that implies that God has preserved (or pickled) His Word only in the KJV, ya can't.

Hold Roby to his same "standard" and you will see the inconsitency and double standardism of mvism at work.

I've done this with him and if it wasn't so sad it would be comical.

I suppose though that you can give us all the verses that directly mention the mv belief and tells us to pick and choose which of the conflicting and contradicting (per)versions we want to beleive are the word of God. Come on OPrvie, hold yourself to your same standards and put up the evidence, otherwise you help Roby prove that mvism is a man made myth and is to be rejected by all those who seek to follow God instead of men.

Jim

Ed Edwards · Feb 19, 2004

Originally posted by michelle:
Even though this is metaphorically speaking of Jesus Christ our Lord CLEARLY in these two passages, how then can we say that this same metaphorical term could apply to Satan, ...

Obviously, two different metaphors.
Jesus has one quality of the Morning Star;
Satan has the other quality of the Morning
Star.

Ed Edwards · Feb 19, 2004

Here are some of the meanings of "I AM":

1. Divine I AM: i exist and caused myself
to exist

2. I exist (but i didn't cause it)

3. I'm the following set -------

4. I'm a member of the following set ------

5. I'm like unto the members
of the given (or implied) set.
I.E. the "I AM" introduces a metaphor.

Obviously in Revelation 22:16
"I am the root and offspring of David"
is definition #3.

Obviously in Revelation 22:16
"I aam ... the bright and morning star"
is definition #5. That is: Jesus is
LIKE the bright and morning star.

Well, those will see that who know
that Jesus isn't in orbit around the
Sun right now

Ed Edwards · Feb 19, 2004

Michelle: "First of all, I am not a KJVOonlyite
... I believe the Lord God Almighty preserved
his word, as he promised, for the
english spekaing people in the KJV, ... "

Contradiction Alert!!

You gave a term and said your were not
a member of the set. Then you described
the meaning of the term and said you
were a member of the set. Sorry, this
is self-contradictory.

Orvie · Feb 20, 2004

Originally posted by Jim Ward:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Orvie:
Jim, as Roby would say, show ONE VERSE that says anything at all that implies that God has preserved (or pickled) His Word only in the KJV, ya can't.

Hold Roby to his same "standard" and you will see the inconsitency and double standardism of mvism at work.

I've done this with him and if it wasn't so sad it would be comical.

I suppose though that you can give us all the verses that directly mention the mv belief and tells us to pick and choose which of the conflicting and contradicting (per)versions we want to beleive are the word of God. Come on OPrvie, hold yourself to your same standards and put up the evidence, otherwise you help Roby prove that mvism is a man made myth and is to be rejected by all those who seek to follow God instead of men.

Jim [/QUOTE]Hello, you still haven't done anything except express your opinion. Your position fails. The KJV came about in 1611, and where did the KJV come from? That's where God has preserved His Word. I agree with the KJV translators who said, "A variety of translations is profitable" So, Do you have the double standard that the translators had some special abilities while translating, but in their preface where they said to update, correct their Anglican translation i.e. make it MODERN; (MV)that they were somehow less spiritual?? Case again proven; Double Standards of KJVO's.

BTW, I brought the thread about Double Standards of the KJVO's to the top last night, so either you haven't taken the time yet to read it, or the principle of Romans 3:19b applies, "...that every mouth may be stopped and the world may become guilty before God."
A verse to read about MV's is 1 Cor 14:9. Hey even the KJV makes it clear here "words easy to be understood" see, the KJV promotes the principle of the MV's

Precepts · Feb 20, 2004

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Michelle: "First of all, I am not a KJVOonlyite
... I believe the Lord God Almighty preserved
his word, as he promised, for the
english spekaing people in the KJV, ... "

Contradiction Alert!!

You gave a term and said your were not
a member of the set. Then you described
the meaning of the term and said you
were a member of the set. Sorry, this
is self-contradictory.

I can see the love overflowing for your Sister in Christ by the consistency to label her as KJVO; a mean and hateful expression to deduce some one as a member of a cult and propigating false doctrine for believing the Bible.

People are leaving BB because of this kind of treatment. How many more will yall disenfranchise by the attitudes portrayed in the debate?

Precepts · Feb 20, 2004

Originally posted by Orvie:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jim Ward:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Orvie:
Jim, as Roby would say, show ONE VERSE that says anything at all that implies that God has preserved (or pickled) His Word only in the KJV, ya can't.

Hold Roby to his same "standard" and you will see the inconsitency and double standardism of mvism at work.

I've done this with him and if it wasn't so sad it would be comical.

I suppose though that you can give us all the verses that directly mention the mv belief and tells us to pick and choose which of the conflicting and contradicting (per)versions we want to beleive are the word of God. Come on OPrvie, hold yourself to your same standards and put up the evidence, otherwise you help Roby prove that mvism is a man made myth and is to be rejected by all those who seek to follow God instead of men.

Jim [/QUOTE]Hello, you still haven't done anything except express your opinion. Your position fails. The KJV came about in 1611, and where did the KJV come from? That's where God has preserved His Word. I agree with the KJV translators who said, "A variety of translations is profitable" So, Do you have the double standard that the translators had some special abilities while translating, but in their preface where they said to update, correct their Anglican translation i.e. make it MODERN; (MV)that they were somehow less spiritual?? Case again proven; Double Standards of KJVO's. BTW, I brought the thread about Double Standards of the KJVO's to the top last night, so either you haven't taken the time yet to read it, or the principle of Romans 3:19b applies, "...that every mouth may be stopped and the world may become guilty before God."
A verse to read about MV's is 1 Cor 14:9. Hey even the KJV makes it clear here "words easy to be understood" see, the KJV promotes the principle of the MV's [/QUOTE]O.K., Orvie, now tell us why the KJB translators said a"variety" of translation s profitable, other than the way you pervert what they said?

You know full well they could ONLY be talking about the varieties available right then, or do you? IOW you really don't know what they meant, you're only taking what they said out of context. The real meaning to what they said was in regards to the varieties that helped them compile the KJB, but you'd rather be like a member of a pack of wolves and run with what you think is a piece of meat, all the while it's only a rubber steak meant to pacify your infactuation to have something to chew.

MY, isn't it really surprising how mv advocates will go to any stretch of the imagination to even pervert the "Note to the reader" and the Preface to the KJB?

And Oh! No!, They're not "attacking" the KJB why they even attack the "Note" and the Preface!

Orvie · Feb 20, 2004

Originally posted by Precepts:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Michelle: "First of all, I am not a KJVOonlyite
... I believe the Lord God Almighty preserved
his word, as he promised, for the
english spekaing people in the KJV, ... "

Contradiction Alert!!

You gave a term and said your were not
a member of the set. Then you described
the meaning of the term and said you
were a member of the set. Sorry, this
is self-contradictory.

I can see the love overflowing for your Sister in Christ by the consistency to label her as KJVO; a mean and hateful expression to deduce some one as a member of a cult and propigating false doctrine for believing the Bible.

People are leaving BB because of this kind of treatment. How many more will yall disenfranchise by the attitudes portrayed in the debate? [/QUOTE]If she is leaving, we're sorry about that, however is she can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

BTW, what are you

still doing here? and as far as "attitudes portrayed" do you honestly exclude yourself?

Hey, I admit I enjoy annoying qs I mean you, and well your responses to me have been somewhat "yawning"

Let' er rip!

Orvie · Feb 20, 2004

Originally posted by Precepts:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Orvie:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jim Ward:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Orvie:
Jim, as Roby would say, show ONE VERSE that says anything at all that implies that God has preserved (or pickled) His Word only in the KJV, ya can't.

Hold Roby to his same "standard" and you will see the inconsitency and double standardism of mvism at work.

I've done this with him and if it wasn't so sad it would be comical.

I suppose though that you can give us all the verses that directly mention the mv belief and tells us to pick and choose which of the conflicting and contradicting (per)versions we want to beleive are the word of God. Come on OPrvie, hold yourself to your same standards and put up the evidence, otherwise you help Roby prove that mvism is a man made myth and is to be rejected by all those who seek to follow God instead of men.

Jim [/QUOTE]Hello, you still haven't done anything except express your opinion. Your position fails. The KJV came about in 1611, and where did the KJV come from? That's where God has preserved His Word. I agree with the KJV translators who said, "A variety of translations is profitable" So, Do you have the double standard that the translators had some special abilities while translating, but in their preface where they said to update, correct their Anglican translation i.e. make it MODERN; (MV)that they were somehow less spiritual?? Case again proven; Double Standards of KJVO's. BTW, I brought the thread about Double Standards of the KJVO's to the top last night, so either you haven't taken the time yet to read it, or the principle of Romans 3:19b applies, "...that every mouth may be stopped and the world may become guilty before God."
A verse to read about MV's is 1 Cor 14:9. Hey even the KJV makes it clear here "words easy to be understood" see, the KJV promotes the principle of the MV's [/QUOTE]O.K., Orvie, now tell us why the KJB translators said a"variety" of translation s profitable, other than the way you pervert what they said?

You know full well they could ONLY be talking about the varieties available right then,

MY, isn't it really surprising how mv advocates will go to any stretch of the imagination to even pervert the "Note to the reader" and the Preface to the KJB?

And Oh! No!, They're not "attacking" the KJB why they even attack the "Note" and the Preface!
[/QUOTE]

Precepts, you sure reason like a certain "sect" (N.P.V.S.) So, A variety of translations were profitable in 1611, but not 2004? Okaaaaay! If it did only apply to 1611, then *poof*, there goes the myth, "Things that are different are not the same"

KJVO man made myth exposed again

Why so much against KJB-only?

New Member

New Member

New Member

<img src=/Ed.gif>

<img src=/Ed.gif>

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

<img src=/Ed.gif>

New Member

<img src=/Ed.gif>

<img src=/Ed.gif>

<img src=/Ed.gif>

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member