KJVONLYism and Gnosticism - Are there parallels?

imJRR

Active member
I openly and with no regret or guild admit that I am opposed to KJVONLYism. I submit that it is a VERY false belief and teaching that has no rational or biblical grounds for existence.

I am also opposed to what it does to those who subscribe to it: The natural result in and to a person of subscribing to the beliefs and claims of KJVONLYism is to personally become part of what can accurately be described as a very rigid, hyper-exclusionary, definitely divisive, disparaging and condemning of others not KJVONLY, and even cult-like group. I am 65 years old, and I have never, ever met a KJVONLYist who did not fulfill this description sooner or later. Not once.

Therefore, I submit that to oppose KJVONLYism may have some parallels to the first century (and others) when Paul and John and others were fighting the gnosticism and Gnostics of their day. (And no, I don't claim to be anywhere near as great as them.) Consider the following things that were true of the Gnostics of their day:

* the claim and belief of having higher, special knowledge and doctrine - "Only the KJV has 'God's words and God's stamp of approval') and therefore only KJV believers are truly enlightened about 'God's truth' and 'the deep things of God';
* the pride, arrogance, elitism and exclusivity of heart and outlook and attitude that naturally flows from the belief and attitude of "WE are the TRUE 'Bible believers'";
* the literal, active looking down on those "not in our special (KJV) club" that naturally flows from that; and judging and denouncing them as
being 'spiritually inferior' or 'carnal', 'unable to see God's truth', 'rejecting God's truth', etceteras, and maybe even seeing non-KJVONLY people as not really Christians at all;
* the causing of confusion and division among Christians that naturally flows from that;
* the segmented biblical attention - KJVONLYists have their special texts that they believe refers to and proves the KJV, like Psalm 12

This isn't all the characteristics of the Gnostics of the first century (or today) by any means, and the true Gnostics back then (and today) had far, far worse false beliefs and teachings than those listed. However, the 5 characteristics of gnosticism and Gnostics that were present back then sure do seem to me to be present in the KJVONLY movement and in KJVONLYists themselves today. So...

What do you think? Are there some parallels between KJVONLYism and Gnosticism?
 
Last edited:

JDS

Well-known member
KJV bible believers knows that sinners are saved by hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ and believing it from the heart. They are not saved by believing the deep things of God. Just because a sinner gets saved does not guarantee spiritual maturity and many Christians never progress much in their understanding of the great salvation. Spiritual maturity is a calling of God for every Christian. We are called to be sanctified. This takes effort. Salvation from the penalty of sin takes no effort, only repentance and faith in the testimony of God concerning Jesus Christ. Personal sanctification requires obedience and effort. Here is where I learned what I just said.

1 Cor 1:1 Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth,

to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, (this is salvation and this sanctification is the position of a believer in the body of Jesus Christ, put there by the Spirit when they believed)

called to be saints, (this is different. we are already sanctified positionally , now we are called to be sanctified practically. this is on the individual)

with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's (gentiles) and our's (Jews, Paul was a Jew):


There are different reasons for believing anything. Some people who believe any bible is the word of God are in cults. The TULIP doctrine where soul liberty is not taught is much more of a cult than believing God preserved his very words. This ever expanding group can never have a practical sanctification that requires effort because God has already determined everything and nothing he has decided can be changed. It is all of God, they say.

What is worse? Believing the KJV Bible or believing determinism, or some other of the cult like theological systems we find here?
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Perhaps at times human KJV-only teaching seems to be just like a cult-like theological system or at the very least it is a doctrine of men and not a doctrine of God.

KJV-onlyism often does not demonstrate that it truly and consistently believes God preserved His very words that He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles since KJV-only advocates in effect and in practice make the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England critics in 1611 superior to the preserved original-language words of Scripture.
 

imJRR

Active member
KJV bible believers knows that sinners are saved by hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ and believing it from the heart. They are not saved by believing the deep things of God. Just because a sinner gets saved does not guarantee spiritual maturity and many Christians never progress much in their understanding of the great salvation. Spiritual maturity is a calling of God for every Christian. We are called to be sanctified. This takes effort. Salvation from the penalty of sin takes no effort, only repentance and faith in the testimony of God concerning Jesus Christ. Personal sanctification requires obedience and effort. Here is where I learned what I just said.

1 Cor 1:1 Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth,

to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, (this is salvation and this sanctification is the position of a believer in the body of Jesus Christ, put there by the Spirit when they believed)

called to be saints, (this is different. we are already sanctified positionally , now we are called to be sanctified practically. this is on the individual)

with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's (gentiles) and our's (Jews, Paul was a Jew):


There are different reasons for believing anything. Some people who believe any bible is the word of God are in cults. The TULIP doctrine where soul liberty is not taught is much more of a cult than believing God preserved his very words. This ever expanding group can never have a practical sanctification that requires effort because God has already determined everything and nothing he has decided can be changed. It is all of God, they say.

What is worse? Believing the KJV Bible or believing determinism, or some other of the cult like theological systems we find here?

LOL! As usual - TOTAL avoidance and TOTAL failure to deal with what I wrote! And no surprise, as usual.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
The KJV-only claim of superiority of the KJV translators would suggest that the authority of a translation depends on the authority of its translators.

Should believers accept a gnostic idea that a certain group, such as the KJV translators, were possessed of a special or secret knowledge (gnosis), totally beyond the understanding of other believers? Can any man or group of men including the KJV translators be trusted with the unlimited power of being superior, infallible interpreters and perfect, completely authoritative translators?

Do the combined scholarship and opinions of several men produce perfection? Charles Spurgeon observed: "For if you mass together a number of men, each one of whom is fallible, it is clear that you are no nearer infallibility" (The Infallible Word, p. 32). James Sire asserted: “There is no guru class in biblical Christianity, no illuminati, no people through whom all proper interpretation must come” (Scripture Twisting, p. 17). R. B. Ouellette maintained that “God hates the establishment of a hierarchy (whether priest or scholar) between Himself and the common man” (A More Sure Word, p. 23).

Do KJV-only advocates in effect bind themselves to the opinions and interpretations of the finite, fallible, imperfect KJV translators as their ultimate voice of authority? This dependence on the human authority of the fallible, doctrinally-unsound, imperfect KJV translators indicates a serious weakness with a modern KJV-only view. The KJV-only view depends a great deal on the inappropriate human authority and scholarship of imperfect, fallible, uninspired men.

The KJV-only view in practice seems to abandon the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers and the doctrine of soul liberty as it implies the exclusive priesthood of only a group of Church of England scholars/priests in 1611. KJV-only reasoning would leave English-speaking believers in effect dependent upon this one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611.
 

Sherman

Active member
I have seen KJV-onlyists bind themselves to some pretty shady characters because said characters support their arguments. Their scholarship has been pretty shoddy as well.
 

imJRR

Active member
JDS - I note that you have no answer for Post #174 on Page 9 of your Psalm 12 thread.


JDS – Your post is a both a self contradiction and a hypocrisy. Here is why that's true:

First, you wrote, "It is not my position as a KJV proponent to teach that this Psalm is teaching about how God will preserve his words"; "I have argued for context no matter what philosophy of translation one subscribes to."

THEN you say: "Nobody believes what you are pumping out or they would not be paraphrasing God or attempting to optimize his words in these documents you claim have the exact words God spoke and they certainly would not deliberately condense the words in dynamic equivalences. At the very best this would leave only formal equivalence translations where an effort is made for word for word translations. You, yourself, have sided with the arrogant people on this board who have minimized the importance of an every word bible by promoting works that deny your stated position and putting themselves in a godlike position in claiming that their own versions with variations of as many as 65,000 words does not violate or compromise a single thing God said, they are just not inspired by him." And there's also this: "If the scriptures teaches us anything it is that the spiritual man is spiritual because he has been taught of God by the words he has chosen. This is what you men deny. This is the reason you struggle with truth."

Those two position statements are a self contradiction and a hypocrisy. First you say you're not advocating for KJVONLYism. But then you post and QUITE obviously show that you very definitely ARE.

You cannot have it both ways.



No answer. and there's a reason for that - You've been caught posting a self contradiction and hypocrisy.
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
KJV bible believers knows that sinners are saved by hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ and believing it from the heart. They are not saved by believing the deep things of God. Just because a sinner gets saved does not guarantee spiritual maturity and many Christians never progress much in their understanding of the great salvation. Spiritual maturity is a calling of God for every Christian. We are called to be sanctified. This takes effort. Salvation from the penalty of sin takes no effort, only repentance and faith in the testimony of God concerning Jesus Christ. Personal sanctification requires obedience and effort. Here is where I learned what I just said.

1 Cor 1:1 Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth,

to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, (this is salvation and this sanctification is the position of a believer in the body of Jesus Christ, put there by the Spirit when they believed)

called to be saints, (this is different. we are already sanctified positionally , now we are called to be sanctified practically. this is on the individual)

with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's (gentiles) and our's (Jews, Paul was a Jew):


There are different reasons for believing anything. Some people who believe any bible is the word of God are in cults. The TULIP doctrine where soul liberty is not taught is much more of a cult than believing God preserved his very words. This ever expanding group can never have a practical sanctification that requires effort because God has already determined everything and nothing he has decided can be changed. It is all of God, they say.

What is worse? Believing the KJV Bible or believing determinism, or some other of the cult like theological systems we find here?
A false dichotomy. Because you are incapable of showing from any scripture that the KJV is a perfect translation, you state a phony comparison.

There are leading KJVO advocates who are Calvinists. The two views are not mutually exclusive.

We all can see the reason why you are trying to change the topic.
 

JDS

Well-known member
I have seen KJV-onlyists bind themselves to some pretty shady characters because said characters support their arguments. Their scholarship has been pretty shoddy as well.
How would you know whose scholarship is shoddy and whose is not? What is your credentials? I have seen some of the comments on these threads where the commentator actually had to deal with a text and a context and I sure was not impressed. I hope you can do better than them. Are you a russelite, a Mormon, a new ager because these guys will accept anything as great scholarship if you agree with them on this subject.

The guys do not even think that God deals with his doctrine of inspiration and preservation. They think that is their job. One guy a while back actually told me that in so many words.

Of course, if you do have credentials and not just an opinion you might really know about shoddy scholarship. At least give us some more info about yourself.
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
How would you know whose scholarship is shoddy and whose is not? What is your credentials? I have seen some of the comments on these threads where the commentator actually had to deal with a text and a context and I sure was not impressed. I hope you can do better than them. Are you a russelite, a Mormon, a new ager because these guys will accept anything as great scholarship if you agree with them on this subject.

The guys do not even think that God deals with his doctrine of inspiration and preservation. They think that is their job. One guy a while back actually told me that in so many words.

Of course, if you do have credentials and not just an opinion you might really know about shoddy scholarship. At least give us some more info about yourself.
The irony meter pegged on that one.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
The guys do not even think that God deals with his doctrine of inspiration and preservation. They think that is their job. One guy a while back actually told me that in so many words.
You may overgeneralize and use a bogus guilt by association fallacy. It would be wrong for you to attempt to smear others by what one poster stated according to your understanding or misunderstanding of it. You did not quote what you claim he said so it is possible that you misunderstand or misrepresent him.

I accept and believe what God states concerning inspiration and preservation, and that is not often not the same thing as what KJV-only advocates claim. KJV-only advocates attempt to add their own opinions to what God stated, changing God's doctrine.
 

imJRR

Active member
You may overgeneralize and use a bogus guilt by association fallacy. It would be wrong for you to attempt to smear others by what one poster stated according to your understanding or misunderstanding of it. You did not quote what you claim he said so it is possible that you misunderstand or misrepresent him.

I accept and believe what God states concerning inspiration and preservation, and that is not often not the same thing as what KJV-only advocates claim. KJV-only advocates attempt to add their own opinions to what God stated, changing God's doctrine.

"...it is possible that you misunderstand or misrepresent him."

I submit that the word "probable" is more accurate - especially in terms of misrepresentation, considering the posting history.
 

JDS

Well-known member
I accept and believe what God states concerning inspiration and preservation, and that is not often not the same thing as what KJV-only advocates claim.
What does he state?

Is the following statement about the written word or about Jesus Christ, or both?j
"...it is possible that you misunderstand or misrepresent him."

I submit that the word "probable" is more accurate - especially in terms of misrepresentation, considering the posting history.
here is what I have learned about your history.

You have argued that the original languages manuscripts are inspired of God. They are source documents for all English language translations, including the KJV. The English translations numbers in the scores and you have named three different philosophical approaches to the translations. They are formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence, and optimal equivalence. Your argument has been that none of these translations violates any doctrine that God has given us, although some translations are better than others. You have not said what makes them better though that readability, availability, popularity, etc might be your reasoning.

The fact is that your main point is that none of these English translations are inspired of God, but they are just as good as what God did inspire in his original languages because all of his doctrines are intact. You do not tell us how you know that but that is a claim for yourself that cannot be proven. Many uninspired works of men have the same level of perfection in teaching as one another and as the inspired manuscripts from which they came, even though they vary in size by as many as 65,000 words.

It makes me wonder why God did not ordain men with the ability to optimize what he said or condense him to write the scriptures in the first place.

I think your argument and posting history and the philosophies you are pumping out here on this forum is evidence of your low view of God and his scriptures.
 

JDS

Well-known member
You may overgeneralize and use a bogus guilt by association fallacy. It would be wrong for you to attempt to smear others by what one poster stated according to your understanding or misunderstanding of it. You did not quote what you claim he said so it is possible that you misunderstand or misrepresent him.

I accept and believe what God states concerning inspiration and preservation, and that is not often not the same thing as what KJV-only advocates claim. KJV-only advocates attempt to add their own opinions to what God stated, changing God's doctrine.
Do you subscribe to the teaching that Jesus Christ is revealed as the “the word of the LORD” (Jehovah) in Gen 15:1 in the beginning of the third millennium of human history where his name is revealed for the first time as Lord (Adonay) GOD (Jehovah)? This is a personification of the WORD. The word became visible to men and was revealed to men in a vision. A vision is something that can be seen.

The KJV maintains the person of the trinity in the names of God by how those names are presented. I will quote both first time revelations of this person by this name and title.

Genesis 15:1-2
1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
2 And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?


In the first two thousand years God had reveled himself to men by the name of LORD God, Jehovah Alohim. Elohim is the plural form of the name of God.


Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Here is the first time For the compound name of God, Jehovah Elohim.

Genesis 2:4
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

This name appears 15 times in Genesis.


Jesus Christ is Jehovah, but God is a trinity, one in three and three in one, divisible in function for his purposes. The names will, give us the person, especially when it is important that we know the distinction. Following is an example of this.

Psalms 110:1
A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Jehovah said unto Adonay. Peter quotes this Psalm in his sermon in Acts and says Adonay is Jesus Christ. Therefore I do not have to guess who it is.

The KJV preserves these names. I do not think all translations preserve them. If not, the doctrine of the names of God, at the very least, would be effected. Once the title, word of the Lord, is attached to the name, Lord GOD, and that name and title is identified as Jesus Christ, it opens up the scriptures with light. We do not have to have both the name and title to know it is Jesus, one or the other will do. Here is one example.

1 Samuel 3:7
Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, neither was the word of the LORD yet revealed unto him.

1 Samuel 3:19
And Samuel grew, and the LORD was with him, and did let none of his words fall to the ground.

The last time we read the title, the word of the Lord, in the KJV, is in the context of enduring.

1 Peter 1:25
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

This is a person. He must endure because he is under attack.

Are these things important to know. I learned them from my KJV.
 

imJRR

Active member
What does he state?

Is the following statement about the written word or about Jesus Christ, or both?j

here is what I have learned about your history.

You have argued that the original languages manuscripts are inspired of God. They are source documents for all English language translations, including the KJV. The English translations numbers in the scores and you have named three different philosophical approaches to the translations. They are formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence, and optimal equivalence. Your argument has been that none of these translations violates any doctrine that God has given us, although some translations are better than others. You have not said what makes them better though that readability, availability, popularity, etc might be your reasoning.

The fact is that your main point is that none of these English translations are inspired of God, but they are just as good as what God did inspire in his original languages because all of his doctrines are intact. You do not tell us how you know that but that is a claim for yourself that cannot be proven. Many uninspired works of men have the same level of perfection in teaching as one another and as the inspired manuscripts from which they came, even though they vary in size by as many as 65,000 words.

It makes me wonder why God did not ordain men with the ability to optimize what he said or condense him to write the scriptures in the first place.

I think your argument and posting history and the philosophies you are pumping out here on this forum is evidence of your low view of God and his scriptures.


First off, I'm not the topic of this forum. KJVONLYism is. I do understand your great desire to make the topic something or anything else, considering the recording history of posts that you have that do one of two things:
- totally and completely avoid dealing with posts that not only challenge but refute KJVONLYism;
- change the subject to something other than the imaginary, and even gnostic myth of KJVONLYism.

There is no translation that is "inspired of God" or "has God's stamp of approval" (as you have written in your posts) in the same way as the original writings do - Including the KJV. I've already written about translations being faithful in their corresponding to the originals, but they are not "inspired" in the same way. This is simply the fact, truth, and reality of translation work. As a KJVONLYist, you deny that due to KJVONLY "programming", but it is still fact, truth, and reality, and your denial IS a denial of fact, truth, and reality.

There is no Christian belief or teaching that is omitted in the MVs that you yourself listed in another of your posts. As for the legitimacy of that claim - I can very safely state that it is true, by my own using MVs for over 40 years, . There is no post by you anywhere, at any time, that has proven otherwise. The reason for that is because you cannot.

You are incorrect regarding my view of God and His word. I have a high view of both...except in the eyes of KJVONLYist gnostics. I've already posted about this, and again - There is no post by you anywhere, at any time that has ever refuted what I've said. Here again - The reason for that is because you cannot.

There are MANY challenges to your gnostic KJVONLYism on this forum. Your posting history repeatedly shows avoidance of them - due to an almost total inability to adequately deal with them in any kind of reasonable manner. So, when you talk about claims that cannot be proven - Look at KJVONLYism long and hard before you look at anything else.
 
Last edited:

JDS

Well-known member
First off, I'm not the topic of this forum. KJVONLYism is. I do understand your great desire to make the topic something or anything else, considering the recording history of posts that you have that do one of two things:
- totally and completely avoid dealing with posts that not only challenge but refute KJVONLYism;
- change the subject to something other than the imaginary, and even gnostic myth of KJVONLYism.

There is no translation that is "inspired of God" or "has God's stamp of approval" (as you have written in your posts) in the same way as the original writings do - Including the KJV. I've already written about translations being faithful in their corresponding to the originals, but they are not "inspired" in the same way. This is simply the fact, truth, and reality of translation work. As a KJVONLYist, you deny that due to KJVONLY "programming", but it is still fact, truth, and reality, and your denial IS a denial of fact, truth, and reality.

There is no Christian belief or teaching that is omitted in the MVs that you yourself listed in another of your posts. As for the legitimacy of that claim - I can very safely state that it is true, by my own using MVs for over 40 years, . There is no post by you anywhere, at any time, that has proven otherwise. The reason for that is because you cannot.

How silly. You are indeed a topic of this conversation because you take a completely opposite position on inspiration and preservation of the words of God. IYour theology is not based on scriptural or biblical grounds as you demonstrate in this comment. It is subjective reasoning. You reason that God could not preserve his actual words because you have been studying words for 40 years that you are sure are not God’s words (or at best a condensed or optimized likeness of them) and you conclude this is proof that no belief or teaching is omitted in any MV. What a claim. You may be charged of not knowing what you are talking about but you cannot be charged with a lack of self confidence. It is way off the charts.
You are incorrect regarding my view of God and His word. I have a high view of both...except in the eyes of KJVONLYist gnostics. I've already posted about this, and again - There is no post by you anywhere, at any time that has ever refuted what I've said. Here again - The reason for that is because you cannot.

No, you are not being honest about your view of inspiration. Logic and reason must conclude, after reading your words, that you do not believe the words in the manuscripts were inspired, but the message only was inspired of God. Otherwise, you would not be willing to condense and optimize his words in scores of different attempts at getting the message to English speakers, varying in words by as many as 65,000 words, and claiming they are all saying the exact same things as God said originally.
There are MANY challenges to your gnostic KJVONLYism on this forum. Your posting history repeatedly shows avoidance of them - due to an almost total inability to adequately deal with them in any kind of reasonable manner. So, when you talk about claims that cannot be proven - Look at KJVONLYism long and hard before you look at anything else.
I am not a spokesman for a movement. Why someone else believes what they preach is something they must answer for themselves. I am answering for myself and I have given many scriptural reasons why I believe God preserves words. You have scoffed at scriptural reasons, further evidence for a low view of inspiration.

As long as you claim divine knowledge as the reason for rejecting word for word preservation you will be a part of this discussion.

Also, promoting this unusual definition of inspiration is not convincing.
 
Last edited:

robycop3

Well-known member
KJV bible believers knows that sinners are saved by hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ and believing it from the heart. They are not saved by believing the deep things of God. Just because a sinner gets saved does not guarantee spiritual maturity and many Christians never progress much in their understanding of the great salvation. Spiritual maturity is a calling of God for every Christian. We are called to be sanctified. This takes effort. Salvation from the penalty of sin takes no effort, only repentance and faith in the testimony of God concerning Jesus Christ. Personal sanctification requires obedience and effort. Here is where I learned what I just said.

1 Cor 1:1 Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth,

to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, (this is salvation and this sanctification is the position of a believer in the body of Jesus Christ, put there by the Spirit when they believed)

called to be saints, (this is different. we are already sanctified positionally , now we are called to be sanctified practically. this is on the individual)

with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's (gentiles) and our's (Jews, Paul was a Jew):


There are different reasons for believing anything. Some people who believe any bible is the word of God are in cults. The TULIP doctrine where soul liberty is not taught is much more of a cult than believing God preserved his very words. This ever expanding group can never have a practical sanctification that requires effort because God has already determined everything and nothing he has decided can be changed. It is all of God, they say.

What is worse? Believing the KJV Bible or believing determinism, or some other of the cult like theological systems we find here?
NOWHERE does GOD support the KJVO myth. I, & others have posted its man-made origin, & the fact it has NO Scriptural support at all, which PROVES its origin is NOT of GOD. All true doctrines of faith/worship are found only in Scripture, & any others are man-made. There's only one ultimate source of those doctrines-SATAN.

Why does a Christian want to believe a satanic doctrine? Because Satan ia the master deceiver, & he can even fool some Christians in some things. Remember, he can seem as an angel of light. Once a person is hooked & in thrall to the KJVO myth, it takes the power of the HOLY SPIRIT to free that person from that false doctrine.

Our aim here is to prevent people from falling for that false doctrine in the first place. We see the results of people submitting to it in such as Stephen Anderson, Jack Hyles, Will Kinney, & many false authors such as Riplinger whose purpose is to milk the KJVO cash cow they've made.

The KJVO myth is but one of countless false doctrines Satan has made. While there are bigger & worse ones, it's the focus of this sub-forum, and one that's easily disproven. Again, our aim is to try to keep people from believing it, as it's plainly false.
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
How silly. You are indeed a topic of this conversation because you take a completely opposite position on inspiration and preservation of the words of God. IYour theology is not based on scriptural or biblical grounds as you demonstrate in this comment. It is subjective reasoning. You reason that God could not preserve his actual words because you have been studying words for 40 years that you are sure are not God’s words (or at best a condensed or optimized likeness of them) and you conclude this is proof that no belief or teaching is omitted in any MV. What a claim. You may be charged of not knowing what you are talking about but you cannot be charged with a lack of self confidence. It is way off the charts.


No, you are not being honest about your view of inspiration. Logic and reason must conclude, after reading your words, that you do not believe the words in the manuscripts were inspired, but the message only was inspired of God. Otherwise, you would not be willing to condense and optimize his words in scores of different attempts at getting the message to English speakers, varying in words by as many as 65,000 words, and claiming they are all saying the exact same things as God said originally.

I am not a spokesman for a movement. Why someone else believes what they preach is something they must answer for themselves. I am answering for myself and I have given many scriptural reasons why I believe God preserves words. You have scoffed at scriptural reasons, further evidence for a low view of inspiration.

As long as you claim divine knowledge as the reason for rejecting word for word preservation you will be a part of this discussion.

Also, promoting this unusual definition of inspiration is not convincing.
A common delusion among KJVOers is that they have the ability to read minds.

No KJVOer would ever consider that their preconceptions are not totally accurate.
 
Top