.

George Whitfiled and John Wesley were members of what church?
Wycliffe was a member of which Church?
Tyndale was a member of which Church?
The translators of the Geneva Bible were influenced by which Church?
The dumb ass that rebuked the prophet was a member of which Church?
The authors, translators and copiest of Vaticanus were members of which Church?
The compilers of the Wescott and Hort Greek text were members of which Church?
Pick any of the vast majority of the manuscripts and tell me the background of any of the translators, copiests or authors - what was their doctrinal stand? Anyone will do.
Bill Clinton is a Baptist. As was Martin Luther King, Jimmy Carter, the son of Sam.
The Pope teaches Baptist doctrine, yes he does!!! I've got a dime to a donut hole that says you and the Pope "are of the same way of thinking" on the vast majority of issues. He professes to believe the Bible. Why, just like you do! He profess that Jesus is God. Why, just like you do! He professes that Christians should practice their faith. Why, just like you do!

__________________
In Jesus' Name,


Brent Riggs
www.preachinginpoland.com

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.

George Whitfiled and John Wesley were members of what church?

Not KJV translators.

Wycliffe was a member of which Church?

Not a KJV translator.

Tyndale was a member of which Church?

Not a KJV translator.

Try reading what you're responding to, before going off on a rant.

__________________
Take care,
Scott
>>>Minion of BASSENCO<<<
as outed by Shiloh

"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

The ending here once again made no sence.

__________________
Eph 4:32 Be 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/

Well, I'm glad you don't. However, others do mock, deny and doubt words, phrases and verses as found in the English Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures. In fact, it is their apparent mission on this board to cause others to deny, doubt and disbelieve words, phrases and verses as found in the English Scriptures. This after professing the following:

"We believe the AV is the word of God also."
"Of course the AV is the word of God."
"Yes, the AV is inspired, but only derivatively." Which means what exactly? That the Holy Scriptures that Timothy had were "inspired", but not perfect? "Given by inspiration of God", but some words, phrases and verses lacked God's authority? They were "the Holy Scriptures", but not profitable for doctrine in every word, phrase and verse?

"Yes, we believe the AV is a valid version...All valid versions are the word of God...Valid versions do not have doctrinal bias...The AV not only has doctrinal bias, but it has boo-boos, errors, mistakes, and additions...It cannot be fully trusted in every word, phrase and verse because its just a translation, but we do profess that it is the word of God, the Scriptures in English."

I'll spare you the rest.

Nothing to do with the AV translators. Nothing to do with James. It is you my friend that needs to re-read history.

You overlooked the questions: Was God's hand in the making of the English Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures? The question is not: Did God allow it. The question is: Was it ''from God" or not? Is the AV the word of God or not? "The King's speech is still the King's speech even when transalted" don't you know!

No cult that I know of "sticks to the KJV" they ALL doubt words, phrases and verses as found in the English Scriptures. They ALL make a habit of correcting the KJV with "the original". Sound familiar? The implications are startling. The snide inuendo that "the AV is the cause of cults" sort of backfires doesn't it? Cults come about because they DOUBT, DENY and REJECT words, phrases and verses as found in the word of God. The AV is the word of God in English. JW's only believe the AV as "far as it agreeth with the original". The same with the Mormons. The same with the Catholics. The JW's reject 1 John 5:7 - "it's not from God", "it's an addition due to doctrinal bias", "it was added by Erasmus under pressure", etc. They reject 1 Timothy 3:16, John 3:13, etc. in the same manner. Some spirit is working amongst them. I'm not shocked when I hear things like the above from JW's and Mormons, but I am shocked when I hear it from professing "Fundamentalists".

Ok, I'm out of time for now.

__________________
In Jesus' Name,


Brent Riggs
www.preachinginpoland.com

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.

No, they come about because people reject the Word of God. Do you accept the NIV, NASB, ESV as the Word of God? We accept the KJV as the Word of God.

__________________
Simply observing the floccinoccinihilipilification of the KJVO movement.

For my Arminian friends who need a new understanding of particular redemption, click here: http://www.imeem.com/people/hX0Ft9/m...-accomplished/

My Facebook Profile

"We accept the KJV as the Word of God." How am I supposed to understand this?

You accept it as "the word of God" as in "the Holy Scriptures"? And therefore it is due your unwavering affiance in every word, phrase and verse?

You accept it as "the word of God" as in "given by inspiration of God"? But it doesn't have God's authority ("as if God speaketh") in every word, phrase and verse?

You accept it as "the word of God", as in "it contains the word of God"?

You accept the KJV as "the Word of God" in the same way as you "accept the Word" who is the Lord Jesus Christ - God manisfest in the flesh?

You accept it as "the word of God", except those places you think it has boo-boos, mistakes, errors, bias, intrusions from the Latin, etc.?

You accept it as just a translation of "the word of God" and therefore do not believe every word, phrase and verse?

You accept it as "the word of God", but not the words "bishop", "baptism", "the root of all evil", "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost and these three are one", "God was manifest in the flesh", "even the Son of Man which is in Heaven", and other assorted words that you don't think match a recently compiled edition of the Greek New Testament?

__________________
In Jesus' Name,


Brent Riggs
www.preachinginpoland.com

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.

How am I supposed to understand this?

We don't expect you to. You haven't displayed the ability to learn or understand thus far.

__________________
Take care,
Scott
>>>Minion of BASSENCO<<<
as outed by Shiloh

"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

If your questions are valid and sincere, you should be willing to apply them consistently. Was God's hand in the making of Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Geneva, and Bishops' Bibles of which the KJV was a revision? Was Tyndale's from God or not? Was the Geneva Bible from God or not? Do you claim that your definition for the word of God does not apply to the pre-1611 English Bibles? There are no Scriptural reasons for claiming that God was anymore involved in the making of the KJV than He was in the making of the Geneva Bible, in the making of the 1842 Bible by Baptists, in the making of the NKJV. According to the known doctrinal views of the translators [the test of their doctrinal soundness], it could be thought that God was more involved in the making of the 1842 Bible by Baptists, the NKJV, or the Geneva Bible than in the making of the KJV. The phrase "from God" could perhaps be understood to be implying a claim of direct revelation from God or direct inspiration from God.

The KJV is a translation of the word of God just as the Geneva Bible is a translation of the word of God and the NKJV is a translation of the word of God.

Is there any sound Scriptural basis for implying that the KJV has any qualities or characteristics that were not true of all the earlier English Bibles of which it was a revision and of the original language texts of which it was a translation? According to the law of non-contradiction, can the KJV have qualities which are not in common with the earlier English Bibles of which it was a revision? Can the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision reproduce qualities that were not present in them? According to a consistent application of some KJV-only reasoning, would not common sense dictate that for the descendant [the KJV] to retain inspiration or perfection its ancestors [the pre-1611 English Bibles] would have first had to have inspiration and perfection?

My comment was not "snide". I was making a point. You were pointing out that some people you considered good in the past used the KJV. I was pointing out that there were bad ones as well. Keep in mind who you are talking to here. I know some here are quite rude to KJVOs but I am not one of them. I want to be Christ-like not spiteful. By the way, cults find one or two scripture verses, twist it, and then build doctorine off of it. Then they must deny other parts of the Bible that prove them wrong. Again, my point was not how cults started but rather good and bad groups use the KJV so this can not be used as proof the KJV is the only Bible for the English speaking people.

__________________
Eph 4:32 Be 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/

Is it really a fact? According to a consistent application of your statement are you saying that it is a fact that the mission of KJV-only advocates is to cause others "to deny, doubt and disbelieve words, phrases and verses as found in the [pre-1611] English Scriptures?" According to a consistent application of your own statement, are you saying that it was the mission of the KJV translators to cause others "to deny, doubt and disbelieve words, phrases and verses as found in the [pre-1611] English Scriptures"?

For one example, do you deny, doubt, and disbelieve the words "by election" at Acts 14:23 found in the pre-1611 English Scriptures? Baptist pastors and authors in the 1600's defended those words and appealed to them in their confessions of faith. The 1600's Italian Bible by John Diodoti also had words with that same meaning.

At Acts 14:23, the words "by election" found in Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Taverner's Bible, Geneva Bible, and Bishops' Bible ("ordained them elders by election"). Dexter noted: “So Acts 14:23 retained in the English versions, until the hand of Episcopal authority struck it out, the recognition of the action of the membership of the churches in the choice of their elders” (Hand-Book, p. 15, footnote 1). In his 1648 sermon entitled “Truth and Love,“ Thomas Hill asserted that Acts 14:23 was one of the fourteen places altered “to make them speak the language of the Church of England” (Six Sermons, p. 24).

On the fourth page of the preface to his 1641 book, Baptist Edward Barber referred to “the great wrong done in putting out some Scripture, as in Acts 14:23, where election is left out, by which means people are kept from knowing” (Small Treatise, p. iv). Concerning Acts 14:23 in his 1647 book, William Bartlett wrote: “The original reads it otherwise than the Translation [the KJV]: the Translation reads it ordained, but the Greek word is cheirotoneesantes, that is, they chose elders by the lifting up of the hands of the people, which is different from ordination, as coronation is from the election of a king” (Ichnographia, p. 36). In his 1659 book, Baptist William Jeffery (1616-1693) referred to Acts 14:23 and then stated: “where the word election is left out in the new translation, but it is in the old, and cannot be denied to be in the Greek” (Whole Faith, p. 98). In his Annotations, John Diodoti translated his Italian Bible into English at Acts 14:23 as “when they had by common votes ordained.”

William Fulke asserted: “Our translation is true, ordained by election, and answereth the Greek word, which we translate” (Confutation of the Rhemish Testament, p. 158). Thomas Cartwright maintained “it must needs be, that as he wrote, so he meant the election by voices” since the word “signifieth the lifting of them [hands] up“ (Confutation, p. 291). John Owen (1616-1683) noted that Erasmus, Vatablus, Beza, and all of our old English translations indicated that the choice of elders was "by election or the suffrage of the disciples" (Church & the Bible or Works, XVI, p. 60). Theodore Beza (1519-1605) contended that "the Christians of Asia gave their votes by lifting up their hands (Acts 14:23, Cheirotoneo)" (The Christian Faith, p. 104).

In a 1611 Confession of Faith thought to have been written by Thomas Helwys, Article 21 noted “that these Officers are to be chosen when there are persons qualified according to the rules in Christ’s Testament (1 Timothy 3:2-7, Titus 1:6-9, Acts 6:3-4) by election and approbation of that church or congregation whereof they are members (Acts 6:3-4 and 14:23) (Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions, p. 122). The 1677 Second London Confession of Faith by Baptists maintained that a bishop or elder is “to be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the Church itself,” and it cited Acts 14:23 in the margin with the comment “See the original” (Lumpkin, p. 287; McGlothin, Baptist Confessions, p. 266). The 1742 Philadelphia Confession of Faith by Baptists retained the same words that had been based on Acts 14:23: “to be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself” (Cathcart, Baptist Encyclopaedia, p. 1320).

If your comment was proper and valid, it would just as proper and valid to apply it to the pre-1611 English Scriptures. If a consistent application of it showed it to be invalid, your comment was perhaps another typical KJV-only smear tactic.