Why so much against KJB-only?

[Precepts]

Flattery is insincere or excessive praise usually meant to curry favor. The word also carries the direct connotation that the object of the speech can be duped by their vanity. One can attempt to flatter God or one can attempt to deceive God but both are examples of man's vain folly.

Yeah, like I said, they "flattered" God only, yall like the nonsensical version of "deceived". We understand that God is not effectually flattered, but yall still hold to the word "deceived" as if he might be, or might have been and because of your stance and education in "uneducation" cannot discern the distinct differences between "flattered" and "deceived".

I stopped again reading the rest of your post because you said something as far out in space as this again. Or maybe the problem is inner space instead?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Michelle: "I hope and pray that others
reading these posts will not fall for this
old trick."

I KNOW FOR A FACT they won't fall for
this old trick. They can clearly see what
you are doing. You addressed only selected
points i made to counter them. I'm going
to presume you agree with my arguments
you did not address. They are:

1. The KJV1611 sidenote at Isaiah 14:12
justifys the NIV translation "Morning Star"
to be correct.

2. The KJV1769 is a modern version (MV).
The KJV1873 is a MV.

3. Dual metaphors to the same
comparasion wet denote two different
comparasion points.
Example: Ed is like a fox cause he has
a red bushy tail. Michelle is as a fox
for she has four limbs.

4. "I am" indicates an oncomming
mataphor (the last part of Revelation 22:16).

5. Jesus is NOT in orbit around the Sun;
the Morning Start (AKA: day star) is in orbit
around the Sun.

6. Multiple inerrant English Bibles lead to
a greater undersanding of Holy Scripute
(compared to one and only one Bible).

7. /left as an exercise for the student/

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by Alex Mullins:
Michelle:

"God bless you for your stand for truth. I have been a believer of the pure word, the KJB since I was saved in 1970. I am thankful for getting a start in a KJB church and being warned about the "wolves" and the "lions" that creep among us."

Yes, the wolves and lions that spread false doctrines such as KJVOnlyism.

"God wrote only one Bible and it is vitally important that we have it to read today. He promised He would and He did what He promised. If it is not the KJB, then we don't have it and that makes God a liar, which is impossible."

Please prove God wrote only one Bible, and that Bible is the KJV. Please show us by whose authority that we should be KJVO. Please show us that God did not provide other Bibles to the 5/6 of the world who don't speak English.

"It seems that the more educated a person is, the harder it is for him/her to grasp that God did not write over 200 Bibles. Most, perhaps ALL of the Modern versions contain some of God's Words bu the KJB (not KJV) IS God's Word - 100% pure."

Once again, please provide some PROOF for your statements. All we EVER hear from KJVOs is unsubstantiated excuses!

"One need only study the differences, there are thousands of them. Which one is the pure word? Since they all agree against the KJB in the same places, the pure word can only be the KJB. That is not rocket surgery."

I know what kind of surgery it is-removal of a man's ovary. My cat slept on my warm car engine. Therefore it became a spark plug.All the other Bibles disagree against the NWT in the same places. Therefore the only pure word is in the NWT.

"Folks who underestimate God's ability to preserve this Word also deny that satan has the intelleigence or ability to weaken, pervert and even destroy that word, very subtely, little by little over a period of several thousand years. God's word has been under attack since the Garden of Eden."

And the false, man-made KJVO myth is now an integral part of Satan's attack against God's word in English. He would cast doubt upon all other BVs but one.

"I can tell you that there are thousands who are in agreement with you on this issue. Do not be discouraged."

And I can tell you that there are MILLIONS who are in complete DISagreement with that false doctrine.

"There are thousands more who will attack you on a personal level for your stand on this issue. God is not the author of confusion, so we know where this confusion and division is coming from, amen?"

From the same place Dr. Ruckman's love letters come from.

"You will feel the hatred in their words, as you take your stand for the truth."

yes, we do, seeing as how we know where KJVO REALLY came from.

"I believe Matthew 12: 26. I see that happening before our eyes. Satan has been successful in his goal to divide and conquer. I am sure he laughs at well-intentioned believers every six months when the next easier-to-read version rolls off the presses."

As was done by the British, who had the Geneva Bible, when the AV 1611 came out.

"I would be interested in knowing if you have subscribed to publications such as O'Timothy or the Berean Call, both of which spend a lot of time researching the apostacy that is taking place today with in our so-called Bible churches."

Yes-especially an apostasy known as KJVOnlyism.

Alex, I asked you some questions the other day, & I don't see any reply. But that's typical of KJVOs, to not answer questions whose CORRECT answers prove their myth wrong. if you wish to preserve any credibility here, we suggest you try to answer. I'm not saying this out of any disrespect for you as a person & as a Christian, but I have nothing but contempt for the man-made KJVO myth. It fools people like you, who mean well, but cannot bring themselves to admit that the KJVO doctrine is nothing but a myth with absolutely NO supporting evidence.

 

[HankD]

so if you don't like the "label", then change your beliefs, along with how you respond with the hateful attitude and accusations.

You first.

HankD

 

[robycop3]

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

Jim, JIM, JIM!

How about telling them "the rest of the story" Jim? How about telling them that English Bible versions weren't really an issue till the modern KJVO myth was invented in the 1930s?

It was the KJVO who came up with the doctrine. All WE do is reject it because it has no proof. We don't try to make up a new doctrine about Scripture. Therefore the burden of proof lies with the KJVO to prove his/her doctrine. The KJVO has failed miserably, therefore relegating the KJVO doctrine to "myth" status.

ANY doctrine ABOUT Scripture MUST BE SUPPORTED by Scripture, and KJVO has absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT! Indeed, Scripture points AWAY from Onlyism, with JESUS HIMSELF reading from another version in Luke 4.

WE don't need to prove or disprove ANYTHING about the versions issue by a specific Scripture. It is the ONLYIST who's presented the doctrine which we reject because of lack of proof. That's a FACT you try to dodge, Jim.

 

[Pastor KevinR]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Originally posted by Alex Mullins:
Michelle:

"God bless you for your stand for truth. I have been a believer of the pure word, the KJB since I was saved in 1970. I am thankful for getting a start in a KJB church and being warned about the "wolves" and the "lions" that creep among us."

Yes, the wolves and lions that spread false doctrines such as KJVOnlyism.

"God wrote only one Bible and it is vitally important that we have it to read today. He promised He would and He did what He promised. If it is not the KJB, then we don't have it and that makes God a liar, which is impossible."

Please prove God wrote only one Bible, and that Bible is the KJV. Please show us by whose authority that we should be KJVO. Please show us that God did not provide other Bibles to the 5/6 of the world who don't speak English.

"It seems that the more educated a person is, the harder it is for him/her to grasp that God did not write over 200 Bibles. Most, perhaps ALL of the Modern versions contain some of God's Words bu the KJB (not KJV) IS God's Word - 100% pure."

Once again, please provide some PROOF for your statements. All we EVER hear from KJVOs is unsubstantiated excuses!

"One need only study the differences, there are thousands of them. Which one is the pure word? Since they all agree against the KJB in the same places, the pure word can only be the KJB. That is not rocket surgery."

I know what kind of surgery it is-removal of a man's ovary. My cat slept on my warm car engine. Therefore it became a spark plug.All the other Bibles disagree against the NWT in the same places. Therefore the only pure word is in the NWT.

"Folks who underestimate God's ability to preserve this Word also deny that satan has the intelleigence or ability to weaken, pervert and even destroy that word, very subtely, little by little over a period of several thousand years. God's word has been under attack since the Garden of Eden."

And the false, man-made KJVO myth is now an integral part of Satan's attack against God's word in English. He would cast doubt upon all other BVs but one.

"I can tell you that there are thousands who are in agreement with you on this issue. Do not be discouraged."

And I can tell you that there are MILLIONS who are in complete DISagreement with that false doctrine.

"There are thousands more who will attack you on a personal level for your stand on this issue. God is not the author of confusion, so we know where this confusion and division is coming from, amen?"

From the same place Dr. Ruckman's love letters come from.

"You will feel the hatred in their words, as you take your stand for the truth."

yes, we do, seeing as how we know where KJVO REALLY came from.

"I believe Matthew 12: 26. I see that happening before our eyes. Satan has been successful in his goal to divide and conquer. I am sure he laughs at well-intentioned believers every six months when the next easier-to-read version rolls off the presses."

As was done by the British, who had the Geneva Bible, when the AV 1611 came out.

"I would be interested in knowing if you have subscribed to publications such as O'Timothy or the Berean Call, both of which spend a lot of time researching the apostacy that is taking place today with in our so-called Bible churches."

Yes-especially an apostasy known as KJVOnlyism.

Alex, I asked you some questions the other day, & I don't see any reply. But that's typical of KJVOs, to not answer questions whose CORRECT answers prove their myth wrong. if you wish to preserve any credibility here, we suggest you try to answer. I'm not saying this out of any disrespect for you as a person & as a Christian, but I have nothing but contempt for the man-made KJVO myth. It fools people like you, who mean well, but cannot bring themselves to admit that the KJVO doctrine is nothing but a myth with absolutely NO supporting evidence.

Amen, Robycop! KJVO is a well intentioned (perhaps) man made myth, but a myth nonetheless. I sincerily thank God for He delivered from the KJVO position, and the freedom is so refreshing. Would to God that some of our KJVO friends would see the light.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Precepts:
So now you are trying to say that God speaks in Hebrew and Greek?

No, I am saying what I said. Did you not read it??

Which one is He speaking now? Hebrew or Greek, and why did he change from Hebrew to Greek?

Now he speaks in the language of the translation. He changed from Hebrew to Greek becuase the lingua franca of the day was Greek.

Larry, I really don't believe anything God has said or is saying is insufficient.

[/qb]Welcome to the crowd. WE have always believed that.

People have come up with mv's because they don't like what God has already said and is saying in the KJB.

Dont like what God has already said??? Or what he is saying?? Which is it???

The bigger problem is that you are plain wrong. The MVs give the same truth the KJV does. Anyone who says differently is lying.

I say God is still speaking, yall say "but God said" Now who is limiting the Lord? You are!

That is a false dichotomy. God is now speaking through what he said.

Your mv's are the ones that are unfaithful, there are only faithful in being unfaithful in constantly rewording and re-inventing new ways to tell us what the Lord has already said and is saying in our AV 1611 KJB.

Simply untrue. You know that. I detest your attacks on teh word of God.

KJB is active, as in alive. mv's are passive, as in passed away, uh, dead.

Don't tell the people whose lives are being changed by the word of God in MVs. They would laugh you to scorn at your unbiblical doctrine. They know better. Having used both in ministry, I can testify without doubt that people's lives are being changed by modern versions. Satan is not rejoicing in that, I can assure you.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I have a question for you, do you think that an effective way of determining that something is of or condoned by God is by the evidence of the numbers of people being affected?

No, which is one proof against the TR/Majority Text argument. That is one reason that we argue that the TR is not the best text available.

Have you ever heard of false confessions?

Yes why??

What is your view on the purpose driven church?

I have commented at length on that in other forums. Do a search and you will see.

The charismatic movement?

Unbiblical.

This is how they determine or use to prove that what their doing is of God.

No it's not. You have been misinformed.

Do you think that Jesus determined the effectiveness of his sermons, based upon the amount of people who showed up to see, hear and be healed of him?

No, but again, irrelevant. That is not what we are talking about.

Do you really think the end results justifies the means/method? Does God?

No and no.

You have accused me and others of attacking God's word. WE are not attacking God's word, but standing for it, and warning you and others of the corruptions that have been done to his holy word.

When you attack the NIV and the NASB and other faithful translations, you are attacking God's word. Someone has lied to you adn told you that these are not God's word. But you must remember that is the teaching of man. That is not the teaching of God. We follow God, not men. That is why we have rejected the KJVO position.

You claim that the NIV is translated from reliable texts.

They are.

Then how come they differ so much from the Received Texts?

Because they take into account all that God has preserved for us. They do not reject certain of God's gifts to us because they don't like it.

How do I know the Recieved texts are God's word preserved? I can ask you, how then do you know that the Aleph and B are God's words preserved?

Because they bear witness to the same thing that the TR does. There are very few differences, comparatively speaking. There is no difference that actually affects doctrine. There is no perfect manuscripts. There are no two manuscripts that agree.

Please answer this for me.

In my more than 8000 posts, I have answered this many many times.

Please also show me where the KJV added to or deleted from the underlying texts.

Col 1:14; 1 John 5:7; Rev 22:16ff contains over a dozen errors. These problems have been documented many times.

If they have not included those things of the Aleph, or B, it is because they DISAGREED WITH THE MAJORITY TEXTS.

But the majority texts disagree with themselves in many places.

] Your versions are based on these texts that were the minority that disagreed with the majority texts and even amongst themselves, and were stagnant in Egypt for centuries.

They were not known to exist in Egypt. God preserved them for this latter generation so that God's word would again be honored.

ON top of that, Westcott and Hort altered the texts,

Actually, these texts dates from the 2nd century. Westcott and Hort lived in the 18th century. To say that WEstcott and Hort altered them is simply ludicrous on its face.

and not to mention that they were heretics.

Debatable, but irreverent. No one uses the WH text today except for comparison. We are way past that. Besides textual criticism, whether done by Erasmus to get the TR or anyone else, is not about theology. It is about what is on the page in front of you.

You trust these versions and claim that it is God's pure preserved word?

It is God's preserved word. It is his word and it is preserved. Those who attack it show a great disregard for God's word. It is unfortunate that this false teaching pervades so many and threatens their faith. There are many who, because of teaching like you are repeating, doubt God's word. They question it. It is truly a sad state of affairs. When someone stands and teaches that God's word is not really God's word because it doesn't match their personal preferences, they are destroying the faith of little ones.

Your problems are nothing that cannot be solved by loving God's word and studying it faithfully. I encourage you to pursue that end that God's word might shine bright in the midst of hte false teaching that you are espousing.

 

[Precepts]

ANY doctrine ABOUT Scripture MUST BE SUPPORTED by Scripture, and KJVO has absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT! Indeed, Scripture points AWAY from Onlyism, with JESUS HIMSELF reading from another version in Luke 4.

Cranston, yall are making this up about Jesus supposedly reading form another version. That is really a far stretch of even your imagination, and never knew the universe could stretch that far! Yall have concocted that junk about Luke 4:18 as a means to try and trip people up by saying "it doesn't appear in Isaiah 61:1 like that, so Jesus approved of other versions" Hah!

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by robycop3:
ANY doctrine ABOUT Scripture MUST BE SUPPORTED by Scripture, and KJVO has absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT! Indeed, Scripture points AWAY from Onlyism, with JESUS HIMSELF reading from another version in Luke 4.

Amen, Brother Robycop3 -- Preach it!

 

[Ed Edwards]

Psalm 12:6-8 is in my
New King James Version (nKJV).

By KJVO logic the nKJV must be the
real Bible.

 

[Precepts]

Dont like what God has already said??? Or what he is saying?? Which is it???

The bigger problem is that you are plain wrong. The MVs give the same truth the KJV does. Anyone who says differently is lying.

Did you just call Jerry Falwell a liar?

That is a false dichotomy. God is now speaking through what he said.

O.K., I'll give you that one, but God just said it better and more accurately in the KJB

Simply untrue. You know that. I detest your attacks on teh word of God.

Nice try, but I know it is true, you just refuse to admit it. Do you also detest it when I put you to the fire of realizing what God said in the KJB vs any mv, specifically the Nas"V"? nkjv? niv? ylt?

Don't tell the people whose lives are being changed by the word of God in MVs. They would laugh you to scorn at your unbiblical doctrine. They know better. Having used both in ministry, I can testify without doubt that people's lives are being changed by modern versions. Satan is not rejoicing in that, I can assure you.

Ooo! Boy! I get to detest something now! I never said God couldn't use an mv. Why according to yall, He even used "pedo-baptizing Anglican-catholic priests" under the authority of a "sodomite king" to give us the Word of God. So why can't he use an mv that is different by far and omits whole passages and changes meanings due to the lack of understanding and failure of discernment of which definition is best to grant us the clear meaning of Scripture?

You seem to lump me up with those who claim you can only be saved out of the KJB and I have never said that or even given a hint towards that, I call that heresy and you know it. Yall've been at this so long you've seared your consciences over with a hot iron! I DETEST! I DETEST! that. besides, it's not true.

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Psalm 12:6-8 is in my
New King James Version (nKJV).

By KJVO logic the nKJV must be the
real Bible.

As by what yall call KJVO logic, NO. The nkjv is not the "real Bible" Falwell and his bunch can't be sure to tell the diference between God and the wicked in Job 24:22 and lucifer and Christ in II Peter 1:19.

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robycop3:
ANY doctrine ABOUT Scripture MUST BE SUPPORTED by Scripture, and KJVO has absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT! Indeed, Scripture points AWAY from Onlyism, with JESUS HIMSELF reading from another version in Luke 4.

Amen, Brother Robycop3 -- Preach it!

</font>[/QUOTE]That's right! robycop3 "preach-it!" but I don't know what it is you're preaching from, but for sure it's not the Bible. So Ed says "preach-it!", but that's only because he's not sure what the Bible is either, so you can get away with that with him. I mean, he declares all these "KJV's" but doesn't even have the 1762 Cambridge.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Precepts:
Did you just call Jerry Falwell a liar?

Yes, if he said that.

but God just said it better and more accurately in the KJB

But God didn't say it in the KJV. That is a translation. We have to make these distinctions. The KJV is the word of God, but it, at the same time, is a translation of the Word. This is where the distinctions of the KJV Preface come in very handy. Unfortunatley, the KJVOs don't like that part of hte KJV.

Nice try, but I know it is true, you just refuse to admit it.

What is true?? the KJV??? Of course it is. KJVO is not true.

Do you also detest it when I put you to the fire of realizing what God said in the KJB vs any mv, specifically the Nas"V"? nkjv? niv? ylt?

You have yet to show me any actual difference in doctrine ... the only difference you have shown are in words about doctrines that are clearly taught elsewhere. No one has ever shown one actual difference.

So why can't he use an mv that is different by far and omits whole passages and changes meanings due to the lack of understanding and failure of discernment of which definition is best to grant us the clear meaning of Scripture?

He could do that, but in using MVs, he is not doing that.

I call that heresy and you know it. Yall've been at this so long you've seared your consciences over with a hot iron! I DETEST! I DETEST! that. besides, it's not true.

At least we can agree on that ...

 

[Precepts]

But God didn't say it in the KJV. That is a translation. We have to make these distinctions. The KJV is the word of God, but it, at the same time, is a translation of the Word. This is where the distinctions of the KJV Preface come in very handy. Unfortunatley, the KJVOs don't like that part of hte KJV.

That is invalid, I've already seen how yall take the Preface and the Note to the reader out of context, besides, they aaren't even part of the Canon, yet yall act like they are, then you throw off on the inclusion of the apocrypha in the AV 1611 KJB first printing. Ever understood the science of Ping-pong? K-nip,k-nop,k-nip,k-nop.

What is true?? the KJV??? Of course it is. KJVO is not true

Yopu changed the subject, but now your and my defintion of KJVO are totally different, but I will agree to a degree that it's not true, that is by your definiton, not mine.

You have yet to show me any actual difference in doctrine ... the only difference you have shown are in words about doctrines that are clearly taught elsewhere. No one has ever shown one actual difference.

Job 24:22, Luke 4:18, II Peter 1:19, Isaiah 14:12, Pslam 78:36, etc. It's just you don't agree to the obvious, just plain and simple, obvious.

He could do that, but in using MVs, he is not doing that.

That's debateable.

At least we can agree on that ...

Now go tell Brian, Hank, Cranston, Scott and scott, Ed, "Orvie', and anyone else.

 

[tinytim]

Originally posted by Precepts:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />ANY doctrine ABOUT Scripture MUST BE SUPPORTED by Scripture, and KJVO has absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT! Indeed, Scripture points AWAY from Onlyism, with JESUS HIMSELF reading from another version in Luke 4.

Cranston, yall are making this up about Jesus supposedly reading form another version. That is really a far stretch of even your imagination, and never knew the universe could stretch that far! Yall have concocted that junk about Luke 4:18 as a means to try and trip people up by saying "it doesn't appear in Isaiah 61:1 like that, so Jesus approved of other versions" Hah! </font>[/QUOTE]Precepts, I've just been setting back reading and not posting because I've promised myself to try to be nice.
But I can't pass this by.
OPEN YOUR EYES, MAN!!!
What is in Luke 4 is nowhere in Isaiah!!
Read your KJB to see this.
Or maybe the book of Esaias doesn't exist in the KJB.
No imagination is needed to compare word for word.
You KJBOs do it all the time when you are slandering God's word, the NIV.

BTW, when you attack other bibles you are attacking God's words, and you know he holds those above all else.

And yes I label you as KJBO. You are not like Ruckman, but you refuse to see truth.

Like someone said, if you don't like the label then change what you believe. Otherwise be proud of it.

By Jesus reading a differing version in Luke 4, He does show he approves of other versions.

Michelle wrote something about Isaiah, Jesus, and Luke all spoke truth. Amen. Even though They said it differently, The Message was there.

Now apply this standard to the MVs and your eyes will be opened to the truth.

 

[ScottEmerson]

He agreed that those who believed that the KJV was the only Bible which could "save" someone was heresy. Brian, Hank, Creaston, Scott, Ed, Orvie, and me agree with that. He didn't agree that you weren't KJVO. All of us would agree that you are, indeed, KJVO. Maybe not as radical as those who would believe that the KJV is the only Bible that can save someone, but a KJVO nonetheless.

 

[HankD]

That is invalid, I've already seen how yall take the Preface and the Note to the reader out of context, besides, they aaren't even part of the Canon, yet yall act like they are

I believe you know that is not true.

But personally, I would rather take the KJV translators word for the quality of their work, tools, sources and methods rather than the mythology and second-guessing of the KJVO several hundreds of years later.

HankD

 

[Ed Edwards]

Psalm 12:6-8 (NLT):

The LORD's promises are pure, like silver refined
in a furnace, purified seven times over.
7 Therefore, LORD, we know you will protect
the oppressed, preserving them forever from this lying generation,
8 even though the wicked strut about,
and evil is praised throughout the land.

This clearly proves that the New Living Translation is
the only unique Bible. Actually it is a bit clearer
in the NLT who gets preserved in verse 7 - the oppressed
are preserved (like as noted in verse 5 which gets
LEFT OUT. Don't people know they will have their part
taken out of the Holy Citie if they take out
what God said? /Revelation 22:19/ )