Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

The #1 problem with KJVOism

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by marke View Post

    Do you then believe God gives some other translation besides the KJV to His people to study, honor and believe?
    God had already been involved in the translating of the Scriptures into English many years before 1611. The Scriptures do not teach your implied opinion that God directly gave the KJV in any other sense that He was responsible for guiding in the translating in the pre-1611 English Bibles or in post-1900 English Bibles such as the NKJV.

    You claim your own human, non-scriptural opinion concerning the KJV rather than presenting any positive, sound, just, true, or scriptural case for it.

    Even KJV-only authors have admitted that English-speaking believers read, believed, studied, preached, and honored the 1560 Geneva Bible as the word of God in English for as long as 100 years.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by marke View Post

      I have not encountered these mysterious KJVOists and the strange things you claim they believe. Do you have specifics we could look at together?
      You have encountered them since some of them post at this forum. You yourself also make claims for the KJV that display the same erroneous KJV-only reasoning.

      You have closed your eyes to the specifics. You can see some of the specifics in some of your own posts and in the posts of other KJV-only advocates who have posted at this forum. Do you not read your own posts? You can also see the specifics in KJV-only books that you have read such as those by David Cloud. You have mentioned the names of KJV-only sources that you have read or consulted.

      You have chosen not to understand what constitutes KJV-only reasoning and why it is incorrect, and it is not because you have not been presented with sound evidence and sound, scripturally-based reasons why.
      Last edited by logos1560; 02-18-19, 12:08 AM.

      Comment


      • #78
        [QUOTE=marke;n5829747] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Trucker View Post
        Here's what you said, Marke:

        ]Obviously God's word has been altered even if only by the process of honest, sincere, and informed translating. ... by men, Marke.[/QUOTE

        You assume the best translation God can give us is corrupted? I don't. God gives us understanding of His perfect Word in response to our prayers for wisdom and understanding and He is not forced to give us a corrupted Bible to study.
        Matter of fact, God doesn't do error which proves God didn't produce the KJV. As has been your standard operating procedure since you've been posting here, you again resort to the old diversion dance routine instead of addressing the issue you're presented with anything of relevance and substance. You're playing your usual games, Marke.

        I don't assume, I know there are errors in the KJV, Marke ,,, any edition of the KJV you wish to cite. Errors you have yet to specifically admit when you've shown!
        Joh 8:36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. [NIV]

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

          God had already been involved in the translating of the Scriptures into English many years before 1611. The Scriptures do not teach your implied opinion that God directly gave the KJV in any other sense that He was responsible for guiding in the translating in the pre-1611 English Bibles or in post-1900 English Bibles such as the NKJV.

          You claim your own human, non-scriptural opinion concerning the KJV rather than presenting any positive, sound, just, true, or scriptural case for it.

          Even KJV-only authors have admitted that English-speaking believers read, believed, studied, preached, and honored the 1560 Geneva Bible as the word of God in English for as long as 100 years.
          Yada yada yada. Let me ask again, has God given His people today a Bible they can trust for accuracy and inspiration as they seek to obey God's command to study the Scriptures?
          I am not a NPB-Onlyist (No Perfect Bible Onlyist), nor a NA/UBS-Onlyist. Marke

          If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. C. H. Spurgeon

          For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorized Version. C.H. Spurgeon

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

            You have encountered them since some of them post at this forum. You yourself also make claims for the KJV that display the same erroneous KJV-only reasoning.

            You have closed your eyes to the specifics. You can see some of the specifics in some of your own posts and in the posts of other KJV-only advocates who have posted at this forum. Do you not read your own posts? You can also see the specifics in KJV-only books that you have read such as those by David Cloud. You have mentioned the names of KJV-only sources that you have read or consulted.

            You have chosen not to understand what constitutes KJV-only reasoning and why it is incorrect, and it is not because you have not been presented with sound evidence and sound, scripturally-based reasons why.
            Let's look at this. I asked for specifics. Here is what I got:

            You did something wrong which we will not identify or detail. Others said bad things we will not talk about or explain. We have posted arguments we will no longer repeat. And so forth.
            I am not a NPB-Onlyist (No Perfect Bible Onlyist), nor a NA/UBS-Onlyist. Marke

            If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. C. H. Spurgeon

            For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorized Version. C.H. Spurgeon

            Comment


            • #81
              [QUOTE=Trucker;n5830041][QUOTE=marke;n5829747]
              Originally posted by Trucker View Post
              Here's what you said, Marke:



              Matter of fact, God doesn't do error which proves God didn't produce the KJV. As has been your standard operating procedure since you've been posting here, you again resort to the old diversion dance routine instead of addressing the issue you're presented with anything of relevance and substance. You're playing your usual games, Marke.

              I don't assume, I know there are errors in the KJV, Marke ,,, any edition of the KJV you wish to cite. Errors you have yet to specifically admit when you've shown!
              Let's say, for purpose of avoiding the distraction, that the KJV is corrupt. Now, do you believe God gives His people today any other translation which can be trusted for accuracy and authority when studying the Scriptures?
              I am not a NPB-Onlyist (No Perfect Bible Onlyist), nor a NA/UBS-Onlyist. Marke

              If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. C. H. Spurgeon

              For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorized Version. C.H. Spurgeon

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by marke View Post

                Let's look at this. I asked for specifics. Here is what I got:

                You did something wrong which we will not identify or detail. Others said bad things we will not talk about or explain. We have posted arguments we will no longer repeat. And so forth.
                I knew that this would be the diversionary response that you would give since you have made it before. I thought of even writing the typical response that you would make since it was so predictable. Your diversionary response is not the actual response that you were given.

                The truth is that you have been given many more specifics than you provide. You choose to stick to vague, non-specific, unproven, or practically-meaningless claims or opinions that you cannot prove to be factually true or to be scripturally true. When you make a claim that is wrong or that is based on a fallacy, it has been properly pointed out and explained to you. You choose not to see the errors pointed out in your human reasoning.

                The same scripturally-based points that answer your incorrect, non-scriptural claims have been repeated over and over. You choose not to read carefully the responses that you have been given or you choose to forget and avoid them or pretend that they have not been posted. The posts are still there so you could reread them. The same scripturally-based truths will be presented again, but you will not engage in any serious discussion of them. You will not answer questions that you are asked, and you will not back up the claims that you make. When you provide a specific statement to discuss or answer, it is properly answered but you then divert and ignore the clear pointing out of the problems with what you claimed.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by marke View Post
                  I have not encountered these mysterious KJVOists and the strange things you claim they believe. Do you have specifics we could look at together?
                  When it comes to elevating the KJV over God we have your own post in this very op! You may not have intended to communicate that message but that is in fact what you did. If that wasn't your intent then stupid questions like the one just asked aren't the correct response. The appropriate resonse once this idolatry is pointed out is an unequivocal statement, "My apologies dear readers, I did not mean to give the impression I honor God's word in the KJV above God himself."


                  But that isn't what happened.


                  Instead you thought it was a neat response to answer me with Ps. 138:2.


                  It was not.


                  Here is another example of the kinds of problems frequently occurring in the KJVO board: At the beginning of this op (posts # 8 & 11) one poster attempted to turn the posting of verses around on the posters. Instead of discussing the veracity of the KJV over other translations the comments and inquiries became about whether other posters accept or reject the verses. Of course every Christian here accepts the verses in our Bible! The poster eventually went so far as to accuse another of being a "Manuscript believer, not a Bible believer." That poster is making an equivalency between the KJV and the Bible but not the manuscripts from which the KJV is taken and the Bible. Of course that argument has nothing to do with this conversation but this form of ad hominem occurs often in the KJVO board.

                  In post #39 another poster insinuated the dissent were liars by quoting Pr. 30:6. The essence of these "You're not Bible believers" arguments is church dividing. These arguments divide the body of Christ into the true believers (the KJVOists) and the false believers (those not KJVOists). This is not only a no true scotsman fallacy but the Bible has a term for those who unjustly divide the body of Christ. The term is "devil." All such arguments prove self-indicting but the average KJVOist is oblivious to what they have done! There's another problem with this argument, too: it is a salvation-by KJVOism! In other words, it's a wroks-based salvation. So the essence of these body-attacking arguments is to betray a bad ecclesiology and a bad soteriology.

                  Two posters beside you posted in this very op for you to observe and here you are asking me "Do you have specifics we could look at together?" when the more germane reality is that whether we agree or disagree over the KJV we should have had you join us in repudiating fallacious arguments no matter who makes them!


                  So look at what you have become. Look at what KJVOism does to otherwise well-meaning believers in Christ.


                  I shouldn't have had to post a single word of this post. Anyone including you can read through the posts in any of the ops in the KJVO board and see this sort of misconduct. The fact the question was asked is evidence of a problem because you have encountered these non-mysterious KJVOists and the strange things they claim. You have simply chosen to overlook and ignore them.

                  Look at what you have become.

                  If you are going to remain a KJVOist, marke, that is certainly your prerogative but do it making a better case than the ones attempted here and the ones attempted in every single other op in this board. Do it because God word expects us to be responsible with our words.

                  "A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." (Mt. 12:35-37 KJV)


                  Do you think this standard does not apply to cyber-forum posts? Of course it does. So be mindful when making your case for KJVOism, or realize what I have posted is correct and the KJV isn't actually a superior translation and thinking too highly of the KJV leads to a variety of problems, including but not limited to corrupt ecclesiology, corrupt soteriology, and at its worst it can become idolatrous.
                  All verses cited or quoted or in the NAS unless otherwise noted.

                  “if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not win the prize unless he competes according to the rules.” (2 Tim. 2:5)

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    [QUOTE=marke;n5830143][QUOTE=Trucker;n5830041]
                    Matter of fact, God doesn't do error which proves God didn't produce the KJV. As has been your standard operating procedure since you've been posting here, you again resort to the old diversion dance routine instead of addressing the issue you're presented with anything of relevance and substance. You're playing your usual games, Marke.

                    I don't assume, I know there are errors in the KJV, Marke ,,, any edition of the KJV you wish to cite. Errors you have yet to specifically admit when you've shown
                    !
                    Let's say, for purpose of avoiding the distraction, that the KJV is corrupt. Now, do you believe God gives His people today any other translation which can be trusted for accuracy and authority when

                    Let us say, for the purpose of getting right to the issue:

                    [1] I have not one shadow of doubt that there are far better English translations available today for today's monolingual English speaking seekers. Any one of several, thank you.

                    [2] As one not totally ignorant of the problems involved in translating I do not believe any English translation is a 100% perfect translation. I do believe there is absolutely no reason to doubt any of the historical Cardinal Christian Doctrines as they are presented in any one of several great modern English Translations.

                    Note that I will straight up,no dancing, addressing the issue[s] you present me with. I don't have to use subtleties or diversions. Try it, Marke, you could regain a lot of lost respect.
                    Joh 8:36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. [NIV]

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by marke View Post

                      "...For thous hast magnified thy word above all thy name." Psalm 138:2.
                      It is funny how you chose this verse from the KJV.

                      There is NOTHING above the name of God. NOTHING. In fact, the NAME OF GOD IS GOD's WORD. Such a statement is an oxymoron.

                      The KJV lies here and other places.

                      The Geneva got it right...

                      Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thine holy Temple and praise thy Name, because of thy loving kindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy Name above all things by thy word.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Josheb View Post
                        When it comes to elevating the KJV over God we have your own post in this very op! You may not have intended to communicate that message but that is in fact what you did. If that wasn't your intent then stupid questions like the one just asked aren't the correct response. The appropriate resonse once this idolatry is pointed out is an unequivocal statement, "My apologies dear readers, I did not mean to give the impression I honor God's word in the KJV above God himself."

                        But that isn't what happened.
                        Instead you thought it was a neat response to answer me with Ps. 138:2.
                        It was not.
                        I disagree. God magnifies His Word and I magnify His Word. I see no contradiction or problem with that.

                        Here is another example of the kinds of problems frequently occurring in the KJVO board: At the beginning of this op (posts # 8 & 11) one poster attempted to turn the posting of verses around on the posters. Instead of discussing the veracity of the KJV over other translations the comments and inquiries became about whether other posters accept or reject the verses. Of course every Christian here accepts the verses in our Bible! The poster eventually went so far as to accuse another of being a "Manuscript believer, not a Bible believer." That poster is making an equivalency between the KJV and the Bible but not the manuscripts from which the KJV is taken and the Bible. Of course that argument has nothing to do with this conversation but this form of ad hominem occurs often in the KJVO board.
                        You and another poster argued over the value or accuracy of the KJV wording over various manuscripts which may or may not have supported the exact wording of the KJV? How is that a problem?

                        In post #39 another poster insinuated the dissent were liars by quoting Pr. 30:6. The essence of these "You're not Bible believers" arguments is church dividing. These arguments divide the body of Christ into the true believers (the KJVOists) and the false believers (those not KJVOists). This is not only a no true scotsman fallacy but the Bible has a term for those who unjustly divide the body of Christ. The term is "devil." All such arguments prove self-indicting but the average KJVOist is oblivious to what they have done! There's another problem with this argument, too: it is a salvation-by KJVOism! In other words, it's a wroks-based salvation. So the essence of these body-attacking arguments is to betray a bad ecclesiology and a bad soteriology.
                        The Bible tells us there will be disagreements in the church. It does not say those who disagree with the Episcopalian views are of the devil or those who love one Bible translation over another are of the devil. I certainly do not think those who read other Bibles are unsaved, nor do I believe those who love the KJV are not right with God supposedly for that reason.

                        Two posters beside you posted in this very op for you to observe and here you are asking me "Do you have specifics we could look at together?" when the more germane reality is that whether we agree or disagree over the KJV we should have had you join us in repudiating fallacious arguments no matter who makes them!
                        You will just have to forgive me if I tend to only answer posts directed to me or if I do not read every post. However, if you wish to address me with questions about what someone else posted then you should post the details in your address to me because I may never have read your conversations with others.

                        So look at what you have become. Look at what KJVOism does to otherwise well-meaning believers in Christ.
                        What have I become? Someone willing to challenge bad posts and flawed arguments?

                        I shouldn't have had to post a single word of this post. Anyone including you can read through the posts in any of the ops in the KJVO board and see this sort of misconduct. The fact the question was asked is evidence of a problem because you have encountered these non-mysterious KJVOists and the strange things they claim. You have simply chosen to overlook and ignore them.
                        If you don't want me responding to your arguments then do not address them to me. But if you wish me to answer your arguments don't assume I am familiar with your past posts. If you wish to bring up an argument about something when addressing me then just give me some details so I will know what you are talking about.

                        Look at what you have become.

                        If you are going to remain a KJVOist, marke, that is certainly your prerogative but do it making a better case than the ones attempted here and the ones attempted in every single other op in this board. Do it because God word expects us to be responsible with our words.
                        I strongly support the KJV. If you think that is wrong then just give me your reasons. I cannot answer for what others here may say, but if you ask me about my beliefs or wish to challenge my views then just spell out what you have a problem with or wish me to respond to and I will.

                        "A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." (Mt. 12:35-37 KJV)


                        Do you think this standard does not apply to cyber-forum posts? Of course it does. So be mindful when making your case for KJVOism, or realize what I have posted is correct and the KJV isn't actually a superior translation and thinking too highly of the KJV leads to a variety of problems, including but not limited to corrupt ecclesiology, corrupt soteriology, and at its worst it can become idolatrous.
                        I do not repent for a single word of my posts here. There is nothing idle I can be accused of in anything I have said here, not in the wildest stretch of anyone's imaginations.

                        I am not a NPB-Onlyist (No Perfect Bible Onlyist), nor a NA/UBS-Onlyist. Marke

                        If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. C. H. Spurgeon

                        For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorized Version. C.H. Spurgeon

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          [QUOTE=Trucker;n5830356][QUOTE=marke;n5830143]
                          Originally posted by Trucker View Post

                          Let's say, for purpose of avoiding the distraction, that the KJV is corrupt. Now, do you believe God gives His people today any other translation which can be trusted for accuracy and authority when

                          Let us say, for the purpose of getting right to the issue:

                          [1] I have not one shadow of doubt that there are far better English translations available today for today's monolingual English speaking seekers. Any one of several, thank you.

                          [2] As one not totally ignorant of the problems involved in translating I do not believe any English translation is a 100% perfect translation. I do believe there is absolutely no reason to doubt any of the historical Cardinal Christian Doctrines as they are presented in any one of several great modern English Translations.

                          Note that I will straight up,no dancing, addressing the issue[s] you present me with. I don't have to use subtleties or diversions. Try it, Marke, you could regain a lot of lost respect.
                          You like other translations better than the KJV? So what? I prefer the KJV over other translations and you have a serious problem with that? That should not bother you. I cannot explain why it does.
                          I am not a NPB-Onlyist (No Perfect Bible Onlyist), nor a NA/UBS-Onlyist. Marke

                          If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. C. H. Spurgeon

                          For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorized Version. C.H. Spurgeon

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            [QUOTE=marke;n5830546][QUOTE=Trucker;n5830356]
                            Originally posted by marke View Post

                            You like other translations better than the KJV? So what? I prefer the KJV over other translations and you have a serious problem with that? That should not bother you. I cannot explain why it does.
                            Your pleasure in the KJV is contrary to reason. A tyrant king wanted his OWN translation. He had it produced to his own standard and approval. Every single copy has his name.

                            You promote a dead tyrant king that usurped the authority of the church as the Pope of England.

                            That is all you promote we have God's Word without having to settle for a dead kings private interpretation.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

                              I knew that this would be the diversionary response that you would give since you have made it before. I thought of even writing the typical response that you would make since it was so predictable. Your diversionary response is not the actual response that you were given.

                              The truth is that you have been given many more specifics than you provide.
                              Yes, in the darkened past somewhere that nobody sees today, but especially unseen in this up-to-date-post.

                              You choose to stick to vague, non-specific, unproven, or practically-meaningless claims or opinions that you cannot prove to be factually true or to be scripturally true. When you make a claim that is wrong or that is based on a fallacy, it has been properly pointed out and explained to you. You choose not to see the errors pointed out in your human reasoning.
                              You again fail to offer specific arguments to supposedly refute my specific errors you do not specifically spell out. As always. What "practically meaningless" claim are you talking about specifically, and why are you saying I am wrong? Let's discuss this accusation in detail, shall we? I am prepared to answer any objection you have with my views. Be specific.

                              The same scripturally-based points that answer your incorrect, non-scriptural claims have been repeated over and over.
                              And you dismissed and/or ignored my responding refutation of your 'refutations?' Why is that?

                              You choose not to read carefully the responses that you have been given or you choose to forget and avoid them or pretend that they have not been posted.
                              Really? Can you prove that rather disrespectful accusation? No, not at all.

                              The posts are still there so you could reread them.
                              You know full well that I do not argue past hidden posts in answer to present false charges and claims. If you wish to renew past allegations then bring them boldly forward and repeat them specifically in the present where I can answer them in front of everybody.

                              The same scripturally-based truths will be presented again, but you will not engage in any serious discussion of them. You will not answer questions that you are asked, and you will not back up the claims that you make. When you provide a specific statement to discuss or answer, it is properly answered but you then divert and ignore the clear pointing out of the problems with what you claimed.
                              I respond to your posts and you do not like my responses. Dismissing my responses without further argument is not an indication that I refuse to debate my views, it is evidence that you refuse to answer my counter arguments.

                              I am not a NPB-Onlyist (No Perfect Bible Onlyist), nor a NA/UBS-Onlyist. Marke

                              If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. C. H. Spurgeon

                              For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorized Version. C.H. Spurgeon

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by praise_yeshua View Post

                                It is funny how you chose this verse from the KJV.

                                There is NOTHING above the name of God. NOTHING. In fact, the NAME OF GOD IS GOD's WORD. Such a statement is an oxymoron.

                                The KJV lies here and other places.

                                The Geneva got it right...

                                Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thine holy Temple and praise thy Name, because of thy loving kindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy Name above all things by thy word.
                                If you think the KJV lied then what must you think of the millions of Christians over 400 years who believed the KJ Bible to be the Word of God?
                                I am not a NPB-Onlyist (No Perfect Bible Onlyist), nor a NA/UBS-Onlyist. Marke

                                If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. C. H. Spurgeon

                                For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorized Version. C.H. Spurgeon

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X