I have some additional questions for the elitist KJVO adherents:
1. Can you name anyone before 1940 who advocated a kjvo position?
2. Some believe the KJ translation to be inspired. When was it "inspired," (kjv) or "God-breathed" (niv)?
3. If the KJV is "God's infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people," did the English-speaking people have the Word of God before 1604? (Particularly from 1525-1604)
4. Is God unable to use men today to translate an English Bible?
5. When you say newer versions like the NIV have "left out too much of the BIble," aren't you assuming the KJV translation is the primary source from which to make a translation of God's Word?
1. Can you name anyone before 1940 who advocated a kjvo position?
Jesus Christ, Paul...
2. Some believe the KJ translation to be inspired. When was it "inspired," (kjv) or "God-breathed" (niv)?God breathed is corrupt, it's inspiration because the kjv used it. It has always been inspired.
3. If the KJV is "God's infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people," did the English-speaking people have the Word of God before 1604? (Particularly from 1525-1604)I wasn't around back then and neither were you. I know I have a perfect copy of the Scriptures I can hold in my hand today.
4. Is God unable to use men today to translate an English Bible?Why would God need to use men to correct His Word
5. When you say newer versions like the NIV have "left out too much of the BIble," aren't you assuming the KJV translation is the primary source from which to make a translation of God's Word?KJV is the pure Bible. Anything different is wrong and from the devil
OK, thought I would help them out and answer the questions for them. Wow, didn't know so much stupid could come from my fingers.
disclaimer: nothing I said was anywhere close to the truth. Sadly, I have heard everything said before by kjv only advocates. Truly sad!
II Corinthians 1:20 ESV "For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory."
Jude 24-25 ESV "Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen."
Dozens of folks, or 0, depending on how you define "KJVO position". Have you read David Cloud's material on early KJB defenders ?Originally Posted by caroma4
The moment the KJB was scripture, since all scripture is given by inspiration of God.Originally Posted by caroma4
Sure, but in imperfect form. The Geneva 1599 was an excellent Bible. All the English Bibles of that period are 1000x better than the modern version corruptions. Even the Rheims NT is vastly superior to any alexandrian modern version since it has many verses unopposed, such as the resurrection account of the Lord Jesus in the Gospel of Mark.Originally Posted by caroma4
Clearly, I do not say what God is "able" or "unable" to do. Nobody has done an English translation of any merit in recent years, the texts and/or the translation have been grossly inferior to the KJB. The closer the versions stay to the KJB, the more they result in a usable text (e.g. the KJB clones).Originally Posted by caroma4
Not at all, the study of the superb Reformation Bible history is all you need to understand. Even if the comparison was to the Geneva Bible 1599, the exact same words could be spoken. This is a textual issue.Originally Posted by caroma4
You tainted your questions with your tinged subject line. The dishonesty is your facade of doing real inquiry, rather this is simply politics. The "dishonest intellectualism" points right back to your inquiry. "Elitist" as well shows you are simply a politician, and are not looking for robust and sincere discussion.
Last edited by Steven Avery; 06-15-2010 at 05:22 PM.
Steven does not believe the very KJV he claims to defend. Nothing he says can be taken seriously. Even his fellow KJVO defenders have distanced themselves from him.
"Father, make of me a crisis man. Bring those I contact to decision. Let me not be a milepost on a single road; make me a fork, that men must turn one way or another on facing Christ in me."
Jim Elliot, 1948
To do is to be - Hippocrates
To be is to do – Aristotle
Do be do be do - Sinatra
"You're doing a lot of choppin', but no chips are flyin'." - Foghorn Leghorn
Sometimes I am struck mute by Avery's incoherent stupidity.
this is Avery's definition of robust and sincere discussion.
Watch out for his redefinition of the terms "pure" and "excellent" as well. He has his own dictionary.
Your problem Caramona is that you did not call him any names... c'mon!
Last edited by freesundayschoollessons; 06-15-2010 at 07:11 PM.
Providing Free Sunday School Lessons to offset heresy (Semi-Pelagianism, KJVOism etcetera...)
Not sure I understand your title or agree with it. My understanding of intellectualism is: the doctrine that knowledge is wholly or chiefly derived from pure reason and the belief that reason is the final principle of reality. Are you saying that KJVO "pretend" (dishonest?) to practice intellectualism, but they really don't? Are you an honest intellectualist? With that in mind is it intellectual to believe in talking snakes? How about swimming iron or dumb asses speaking with a man's voice?
Since you used the word "a" properly, as in "a KJVO position", I'll be more than happy to answer your questions.1. Can you name anyone before 1940 who advocated a kjvo position?
“We must never leave out of sight that for a GREAT MULTITUDE of readers the English Version [AV, ed.] is not the translation of an inspired Book, but IS ITSELF THE INSPIRED BOOK ... The English Bible [AV, ed.] is to them all which the Hebrew Old Testament, which the Greek New Testament, is to the devout scholar. It receives from them the same UNDOUBTING AFFIANCE [confidence, pledge of fidelity, ed.]...”
On the AUTHORIZED VERSION of the NEW TESTAMENT in Connection With Some Recent Proposals for its Revision, Richard Chenevix Trench, D.D., Dean of Westminster, 1858, pg. 174“The Roman Catholics and the Unitarians [Old time JW’s, ed.] are, I believe, the only bodies who have counted it necessary to make VERSIONS OF THEIR OWN. With the exception of these, the Authorized Version is COMMON GROUND for ALL in England who call themselves Christians...is alike the heritage of all.”, ibid., pg. 176“What is the Correct Principle on which Translations of the Holy Scriptures should be made? To this I reply, that they should be conformed, as nearly as possible, to the inspired originals. Let it be remembered, that the Bible which we possess is a translation. The words of our English version are invested with Divine authority, only so far as they express just what the original expresses. I present this thought because there is, in the minds of many, a superstitious reverence for the words and phrases of our English version (KJV).”, [Baptists: The Only Thorough Reformers (1876), pg. 128-129, http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/quotesbt.htm“Why so strenuous of exact inspiration of the words, when you admit there may be errors of transcription? What do you gain? We answer, we gain all the difference there is between an inspired and an uninspired original; all the difference between a document truly divine and authoritative to begin with — though the copies or translations may have in minute particulars varied from it — and a document faulty and unreliable at the outset, and never really divine... There is even now, with some ignorant persons, an assumption of the infallibility and equality with the original of some particular translation, as the Vulgate, or King James, or Luther’s.” [The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration, Basil Manly, Sr., (1888) pg. 84]Is that enough? For more see: http://www.preachinginpoland.com/historic.htm
From its inception - All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. The AV is indeed Scripture in the English language.2. Some believe the KJ translation to be inspired. When was it "inspired," (kjv) or "God-breathed" (niv)?
Not "IF the KJV is God's infallible word...", but the AV IS God's infallible word in the English language. Yes, English speaking people had the Word of God (John 1:1) and the word of God (Lk 4:4) prior to 1604, as did Spanish, Polish, Greek and most European language speakers.3. If the KJV is "God's infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people," did the English-speaking people have the Word of God before 1604? (Particularly from 1525-1604)
God is able to use men today to translate the Bible. How do you know which men God uses? Does God ever "not use men" to translate an English Bible? How do you tell the difference? Please explain.4. Is God unable to use men today to translate an English Bible?
That's not my quote, but there has been a general bias against the fuller text in Modern Versions since Wescott and Hort introduced their textual theory. Modern English translators since 1881 have had a tendancy to "leave out" that which all former English versions included.5. When you say newer versions like the NIV have "left out too much of the Bible," aren't you assuming the KJV translation is the primary source from which to make a translation of God's Word?
I make the assumption based upon the testimony of the Spirit of God and born again believers that the AV is the word of God. Most, if not all, of the scholars on this board profess that the AV IS the word of God. I agree.
I'm not sure I would say "primary source" unless I was dealing with English speakers. The word of God is the primary source for all matters of faith and doctrine. The AV is clearly the word of God in English.
Now, I have answered your questions. Care to answer mine?
1. According to your understanding, how is "the word of God" defined by Scripture?
2. Do you teach doctrine? If so, do you use the Scriptures (2Tm 3:15-17)?
3. Do you believe any extant Bible is the word of God - the Scriptures? If so, is it written in English?
4. Are the Scriptures inspired?
5. Were the Scriptures that Jesus, the Apostles and Timothy inspired? If so, when?
Thank you for your questions.
Last edited by Mitex; 07-06-2010 at 02:37 AM.
In Jesus' Name,
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.
Mitex, since you say you are NOT KJVO, what other English version(s) do you recommend?
Caroma4, Avery is in the oxymoronic position of claiming to be KJVO while at the same time NOT BELIEVING a good deal of the KJV. That is evidenced in his rejection of the HOLY TRINITY, which is one of the most-basic of all Christian doctrines, clearly set forth in the KJV.
"robycop3 - the avowed enemy of ALL man-made doctrines of worship!"
Not exactly sure what you are trying to say by using the word "elitist"...but I'm not sure you know why you used it either. So to that end, I think it's best left alone.
Now, for the first time...I agree (in part) with RC. Don't judge all of us KJBOs based upon Avery. He does NOT represent us who are KJBO and actually read and believe our Bible.
Gud er mitt håp, fred, og min glede
One thing I have said here ... repeatedly .... is that, even though the modern versions based on critical editions of the Greek NT leave out some words that appear in the KJV (also add a few that the KJV didn't have), the doctrines are pretty much unchanged. It may be true that one "proof verse" is missing in a modern edition, but hardly any significant doctrine is said only once in the Bible. If, by some trick of time travel, we could have the RSV published in 1611 instead of the KJV, the only thing that would change would probably be the absence of snake handling churches (whose only proof text is the longer ending of Mark).