Leatherneck0311
Well-known member
Could it be with all the new and supposedly better translations that folks just like getting their ears tickled ?
Why no attention to the horrible translation of the NIV and others yet crickets ?
- Thread starter Leatherneck0311
- Start date
Sorry, but my ears just aren't ticklish!
Besides, I've never heard of an NIV-Only group, whereas I have come across KJV-Only groups - two KJVO churches within 3 miles of me.
Maybe you can ask the PTB for a NIV-"Only" section...
Leatherneck0311
Well-known member
It is obvious that any new translation gets a pass from those who seem to enjoy trashing the KJV ,over anything including updating words ,while all the rest get a pass from exposing their errors and blatant destruction of the word of God. The new translations have had input from all sorts including sodomites I am sure they had no agenda.
well. didn't King James himself like the company of young men?
Sorry, but my ears just aren't ticklish!
Besides, I've never heard of an NIV-Only group, whereas I have come across KJV-Only groups - two KJVO churches within 3 miles of me.
Maybe you can ask the PTB for a NIV-"Only" section...
That would be hilarious.
Leatherneck0311
Well-known member
Only according to those with an agenda to besmirch God’s word.
So that would be a yes?
How about a Nas only?
If you know of such an actual group, be it NIV or NAS or ESV or CSB or NET or whatever - If you know of an actual group that has the same characteristics (in particular, that of dogmatic insistence that "This is the ONLY real, true Bible!") as KJVONLYists - feel free.
The Kjvo is the ONLY group that I am aware of that view their translation as they do!
How would applying the same exact measures/standards consistently and justly supposedly be trashing the KJV?
Is it when the same exact measures and standards used by KJV-only advocates to attack other present-day English Bibles are applied also to the KJV that the KJV is supposedly trashed?
Leatherneck031, have you demonstrated that the Scriptures teach your human KJV-only reasoning?
Your question does nothing towards providing a positive, clear, consistent, sound, scriptural case for any exclusive only claims for the 1611 King James Version.
Is it when the same exact measures and standards used by KJV-only advocates to attack other present-day English Bibles are applied also to the KJV that the KJV is supposedly trashed?
Leatherneck031, have you demonstrated that the Scriptures teach your human KJV-only reasoning?
Your question does nothing towards providing a positive, clear, consistent, sound, scriptural case for any exclusive only claims for the 1611 King James Version.
Leatherneck0311
Well-known member
Leatherneck0311
Well-known member
Unlike many I go and stay with what God lead me to. I don’t follow men nor their opinions.
Your question would suggest that you do follow the opinions of men, at least your own non-scriptural, human KJV-only opinions and likely the opinions of an exclusive group of Church of England men in 1611. Perhaps you demonstrate to readers of this forum that you can try to hide behind questions but you do not answer questions that are asked you.
Would you suggest that the God of Scriptures would contradict Himself and lead you to show partiality to one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England critics in 1611?
Last edited:
Leatherneck0311
Well-known member
Obviously you don’t acknowledge God’s leadership unless you give your approval. Your loss not mine.
You jump to a bogus, wrong conclusion since I completely acknowledge and accept God's leadership as provided in the Scriptures. I accept all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves.
You have not demonstrated from the Scriptures that you have God's approval and God's leadership for your human KJV-only reasoning.
Perhaps you are the one who is unwilling to accept certain scriptural truths to which you have not given your approval. Do you accept the scriptural truth that God does not show partiality? Do you accept the scriptural truth that the word of God is not bound which would mean that it is not bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England men in 1611?
Beloved Daughter
Super Member
Do you have any proof to support your claim? I'm sure we will all be happy to see it. The bottom there is no evidence of your claim. We know it, you know it.
Most angry KJVO's have learned over time, that there arguments can't even pass the common sense test.
Leatherneck0311
Well-known member
Since I follow God’s leadership and not yours I will stay where God led me. I am sure your logic and personal preferences will change God’s leadership and mind so when He leads me to a different translation then I will move on not before then.
Leatherneck0311
Well-known member
Leatherneck0311
Well-known member
Your response would be funny if not so pathetic. Have you ever personally seen anyone walk on water or raise the dead ? My faith is in God not men.
