The 1560 Geneva Bible was the English Bible recognized, read, accepted, and believed by a consensus of believers before the 1611 KJV ever existed. Even some KJV-only authors acknowledge that the Geneva Bible was the people's Bible etc.
Are you claiming that you and other KJV-only advocates believe every word, phrase, and verse as found in the 1560 Geneva Bible and believe that the Geneva Bible by definition of the word of God had to be perfect? Or are you just postering with your definitions that you refuse to apply consistently? Are you advocating double standards?
Uh, gentlemen- the word is "posturing". "Postering" is what the circus guys do a few weeks before they get to town.
Tatermonkey wrote: "Though the original comment may be somewhat harsh, it is not unfounded. They had many similarities and still do. Take away the Pope, sacraments and such and add a Protestant spin to it and you have the Church of England."
As has been plainly noted in English history, the Elizabethan Settlement of Religion, begun during Elizabeth I's reign, required certain regularities of priestly garb and divine service (mostly just sparing the elevation of the host) which were quite reminiscent of Roman Catholicism.
These were and certainly became acceptable to Anglican "High Church" subscribers, but were altogether anathema to the Puritans.
Almost all the KJV translators were, of course, Anglican clergy or of a "High Church" profession.
Sorta "Roman Catholic Lite"?
They didn't want Rome and the Poop, but they liked the ceremonies and also wanted, and were royally enjoined to keep, "the old ecclesiastical words" in their translation.
Saying otherwise by "holier than thou, shame on you" Mitex doesn't change that truth.
The KJV is not the "only Bible", but it is the Bible in English, or the Scriptures in English and should be BELIEVED instead of doubted, denied and mocked in words, phrases and verses.
Mitex, being very dim, once again fails to draw the necessary distinction between the Bible and a particular sectarian translation of the Bible.
__________________
Take care,
Scott >>>Agent of Satan<<<
"When I confronted some of the posters about their blatant satanic avatars . . . one even added 'Agent of Satan' to his signature line. Is this how true Christians behave? No!" - Lisa Ruby, professional crackpot
"In the heat of composition I find that I have inadvertently allowed myself to assume the form of a large centipede. I am accordingly dictating the rest to my secretary." - C. S. Lewis
Do you have eternal life (Jn 3:15)? Have you been born again (Jn 3:1-8)? Please take this opportunity to give the reason of the hope that is in you (1Pt 3:15). If you fail to do so for whatever reason, I will have no compelling reason or need to respond to your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_A_Thought
You know, no matter how many different reason KJVO's come up with as to why the KJV is the only Bible, I think they all miss one BIG thing. It is that fact there is nothing to start off with.
The KJV is not the "only Bible", but it is the Bible in English, or the Scriptures in English and should be BELIEVED instead of doubted, denied and mocked in words, phrases and verses.
I do not mock the KJV. I do not even mock those who are KJVO. I do however point out the false teaching that surrounds it. I believe their are many good Christians who are KJVO. Why would I want to mock another Christian. I do not think that would be Christ-like at all.
Quote:
They overlook that fact that the KJV translators were nothing more than Catholics under a different name.
This is a blatant falsehood.
Check your histroy again. The king did not seperate from the Pope over doctorine. He seperated due to the fact the Pope would not allow him to divorce his wife to marry another.
Quote:
They overlook that fact that King James only authorized the KJVs creation to slap the Pope in the face.
Another blatant falsehood.
You are right however it was not blatant. I appologize. I worded this badly. The KJV's bloodline comes from the Bible which was met to be a slap in the face to the Pope. It started with the Great Bibe, then to the Bishops Bible, and then the KJV. So again, not a blatant falsehood but poorly worded.
Quote:
They overlook that there were Protestants around who actually believed the Bible much more than the KJV translators and that they had produced Bibles. The biggest name of all this was the Geneva but one cannot forget about Tyndale.
Must have been refreshing times when "there were Protestants around who actually believed the Bible". Seems the "Protestants" on this board are having a hard time with that one.
You like the Geneva and Tyndale do you? Even with "baptism", "bishop", 1 John 5:7, 1 Timothy 3:16... Are you sure?
Yes, I do. I do not believe any of them are perfect but I believe these Bibles spanned from men who were truely fighting for God and not the Catholic Church. Tyndale DIED for the right for the common man to have the Bible. Calvin, Knox, and many others had to flee for thier lives. So I respect thier Bibles.
Quote:
They overlook all that and then throw this line in at the beginning or end, "God's hand was in the making of the KJB."
What is the implication? God's hand wasn't in the making of the AV? Whose hand was it? The Devil's? The Pope's? God's hand wasn't in the making of the Scriptures in English? The Bible of Whitfield, Wesley, Moody and a host of other saints of God?
God allows everything. We all know this. My point was that KJVO's try to make it sound like God's hand was only on the making of the KJV and no other Bible. Who cares what Bible Whitfield, Wesley, Moody, or other saints have used? Have you read some of thier docterine. It has been a while since I studied them but if I remember correctly Whitfield and Wesley were off on thiers. By the way, what cults stick to the KJV? It does not matter what Bible your heroes use. This does not back up anything.
Quote:
Nowhere in the Bible does it predict the making of the KJV as some claim. Sorry but Ps 12 is not talking about the KJV...not even close. Then they like to say, "It is the only Bible that has lasted through the years. My Geneva has lasted and it is much older.
So, do you believe every word, phrase and verse as found in the Geneva? Or are you just postering?
No I do not. As I stated earlier, no Bible is perfect. My point still stands.
Quote:
Plus, their teachings actually contradict that the KJV is the Word of God. A big IFB teaching is that anything that is popular with the world is due to the Devil. Things like CCM are popular because it is of the Devil. Well, if the KJV has been the Bible of choice for so long as they brag then doesn't that make them wonder? Don't get me wrong, I do not believe the KJV is of the Devil but I feel their teaching contradict each other. They need any fact that they can find to try to prove something that the Bible does not teach. I wish they would see this.
What CCM has to do with the word of God in English is beyond me. Do you recognize that the AV has been THE ENGLISH BIBLE recognized by a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians? It wasn't just a "fad" - it was THE BIBLE of the English speaking Church of God. You would do well to watch your mouth when you speak light of it.
As I think one poster also pointed out, the Geneva was reconized by a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians at the time. I guess by your statment they should have all taken a stand against the KJV since it was modern version of it's day.
__________________ Eph 4:32Be ye courteous one to another, & tender hearted, freely forgiuing one another, euen as God for Christes sake, freely forgaue you. - Geneva
Here is a great site. I may not agree with it all but I have found it very helpful with the KJVO issue... http://www.kjv-only.com/
As I think one poster also pointed out, the Geneva was reconized by a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians at the time.
The Geneva Bible was produced in Geneva by English Christian expatriates living there to avoid persecution in their own country. The Geneva Bible was also carried to the New World on the Mayflower by English Christian expatriates sailing to avoid persecution in their own country. Bet the parallel isn't entirely coincidence, either.
__________________
Take care,
Scott >>>Agent of Satan<<<
"When I confronted some of the posters about their blatant satanic avatars . . . one even added 'Agent of Satan' to his signature line. Is this how true Christians behave? No!" - Lisa Ruby, professional crackpot
"In the heat of composition I find that I have inadvertently allowed myself to assume the form of a large centipede. I am accordingly dictating the rest to my secretary." - C. S. Lewis
Do you have eternal life (Jn 3:15)? Have you been born again (Jn 3:1-8)? Please take this opportunity to give the reason of the hope that is in you (1Pt 3:15). If you fail to do so for whatever reason, I will have no compelling reason or need to respond to your post.
I think you missed the point Mitex. He is trying to say the Church of England (Angelicans) as a group are "Roman Catholic Lite". Which would make the individual "RCL" by practice and association.
__________________ Matthew 6:34
"So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
Quote:
Almost all the KJV translators were, of course, Anglican clergy or of a "High Church" profession.
Almost, but not quite. Either or you know.
.
Alll the translators of the KJV were members of the Church of England. The majority of them are associated with the High Church party of the Church of England.
Alexander McClure maintained that "the great majority of the translators were of his [Bancroft's] way of thinking" (KJV Translators, p. 220). Kenneth Bradstreet affirmed that the “vast majority” of the KJV translators “were High Church Anglicans in their church politics” (KJV in History, p. 110). Bradstreet maintained that it is “clear that this Catholic doctrine perspective, articulated by Andrews, represented the view of all but a handful of the translators, and represented the official theology of the Anglican Church in general” (p. 116).
A few of them were once associated with the Puritan party in the Church of England, but they had been forced to conform by the 1604 canons made by Archbishop Bancroft and were at least no longer publicly advocating "Puritan" views.
The views and opinions expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of the Fighting Fundamental Forums management. This is an open and unmoderated forum. The content of each post is the sole responsibility of the poster. Participants are expected to follow the simple rules of the forum. Within these wide parameters various views are welcome to be expressed freely.
The college names used on the FundamentalForums.com web site are trademarks of their respective schools. The forums are not officially sanctioned by any of the institutions represented.
Linear Mode
