T
The Glory Land
Guest
I do prefer the KJ version, but I'm not a KJ only. Just checking 
Not that I've noticed, and I don't miss them. The KJVO cult is not only heretical, it's boring too.
W
wheatpenny
Guest
There are a couple of KJVOs here. Lisa Ruby (a KJVO from the other forum) just joined yesterday, and I've seen a few KJVO posts, but I don't remember who posted them.
T
The Glory Land
Guest
Izdaari said:
Why do you call them a cult, they believe in Jesus the Christ and that the Bible is the Word of God. ???
The Glory Land said:
Well, to be fair, not all KJVO ought to be characterized as cultists. Some just think that's the best translation, which IMO is wrong (it's a good translation, state of the art in 1611, but far from the best currently available) but not necessarily cult-like.
But the more extreme ones, such as Ruckman and others like him, definitely qualify. They don't believe the Bible is the word of God, but that one particular translation is. Some of those believe you can only be saved from the KJV, and if you use another translation, it's not a real Bible but a per-version. Those are nutty heresies, cult stuff.
I have a KJV and a NKVJ. Does that count?
The Glory Land said:
Someone has never visited www.baptist1611.com
The very definition of cult group-think over there.
Agent P said:
I like the RSV. And it's twin descendants, the NRSV and the ESV.
T
The Glory Land
Guest
I still don't think this, that the KJ only believers are a cult. They stand firm on what the bible teaches. There are roll calls for the man and women in the bible. The bible is clear when it says that the man is the head of the household and Christ the head of the Church. If they believe that the KJ version is the only true bible, so be it.
C
Castor Muscular
Guest
Vandal said:
NKJV?????? Heretic!!! Heathen!!! Repent!!!!
T
thethinkingrebel
Guest
The Glory Land said:
R
redgreen5
Guest
Someone on another board was asking about NASV vs. NKJV. Here was my response:
http://bibleversiondiscussionboard.yuku.com/sreply/57742/Updated-NASB-or-the-NKJV
I'll amend my response to say that the ESV is a much, much better translation than I had originally thought. In doing a five-version comparison (KJV, NKJV, NASV, HCSB and ESV) I've often found the ESV is the *only* version that actually gets a translation correct. This happens more often than you might think. It's also more elegant and less robotic than the NASV.
http://bibleversiondiscussionboard.yuku.com/sreply/57742/Updated-NASB-or-the-NKJV
I'll amend my response to say that the ESV is a much, much better translation than I had originally thought. In doing a five-version comparison (KJV, NKJV, NASV, HCSB and ESV) I've often found the ESV is the *only* version that actually gets a translation correct. This happens more often than you might think. It's also more elegant and less robotic than the NASV.
The ESV is considered the most formal equivalent translation to have popular appeal.
In my travels through the US, THE NIV and ESV are the most often used.
In my travels through the US, THE NIV and ESV are the most often used.
Sweet!!! ;DCastor Muscular said:
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2012
- Messages
- 1,188
- Reaction score
- 136
- Points
- 63
A few quotes from the faithful of that site.FSSL said:
On the Scofield Bible - "Here is a subtle but important change in the Scofield text: Matthew 22:20 KJB should read:
And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
If you have an Old Scofield Reference Bible like I do, check this verse. Mine says:
And he said unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
The difference? The Old Scofield has the word 'said' instead of 'saith.'
Is this a big deal? YES! 'Saith' is present tense, 'said' is past tense. This is a present tense passage. If there is one error then I am sure that there are others like these."
Here is a response on the Scofield post: "Bro. Mongol, I appreciate your response, but my concern isn't with the notes. My concern is with the text. The Old Scofield Bible has changes within the text that differ from the standard Oxford text used. Thus, I'm leaning on burning my Scofield."
Another response on the Scofield post: "Well I wished I had never bought them.I am so against people adding their name to the Holy Bible.. I believe it encourages the perversion crowd who doesn't know better. James is synonimous with Jacob in most countries .So King James /Jacob / Israel."
Another Response: "I'm at the point where I wish I had never bought mine either....
I HATE it when people change God's perfect word!"
Concerning the FFF: "The FFF is owned and operated by jesuits."
Concerning Nelson KJV's: "Found corrupted words in both of my Thomas Nelson KJV Bibles.
One of them is Nelson KJV Reference Bible. Check your Bible across this list. " One response: "Thanks for the link. It's hard enough explaining the KJV vs Modern Version issue to new Christians, and then having to tell them that not all KJV's are to be trusted! Satan is making it very hard for people to find the pure words of God in these last days."
Many believe the only perfect King James preserved is the "Perfect Cambridge Edition" (PCE) published around 1900. A couple of comments on that.
QUOTE (Bible Believer;38662)
Any edition of the KJ bible,whether it be a Nelson,Cambridge,Oxford,Holman,Local Church or others are ALL the perfect, preserved words of God.
Please forgive me, but that makes no logical sense. By what then do we have the authority to declare ANY KJV to be the perfect and preserved words of God?
I think Bible Protector is the only one who has it right. It is not correct to say they are all pure if they are not all pure. I'll stick with the PCE. No double-mindedness for me. Response from "ruckyite" - "Spelling differences? I see new words!
Exodus 23:23: the Hivites, and the Hivites
Matthew 26:39: farther, further
Nahum 3:16: fleeth, flieth
I even saw completely different punctuation in many verses! I do not wish to be hypocritical and destroy our witness to the KJV by saying they are all the same when Bible Protector is showing us they are not!"
Concerning Strong's Concordance: "I have a Strong's Exhaustive King James Concordance..some of the little words are not present, so it is not IMO exhaustive.
I don 't use the Greek and Hebrew renderings, because I believe in the infallible KJ translation.
But I agree with Cody in his above post...buyer beware!
I'm with Doc Ruckman..throw the impostors out..O..U...T...Out !"
Concerning Bibles in other languages: "QUESTION: If there is a perfect Bible in English, doesn't there also have to be a perfect Bible in French, and German, and Japanese, etc?
ANSWER: No. God has always given His word to one people in one language to do one job; convert the world. The supposition that there must be a perfect translation in every language is erroneous and inconsistent with God's proven practice."
A response: "Other language bibles are only as perfect as the english bible from which they are translated from,the KJV,because there are no reliable Greek or Hebrew text,or a TR that is reliable. Jay P Green,Scriveners TR etc.."
QUOTE (Bible Believer;28772)
I would say inspiration had ceased with completion of the KJ.
Amen!
Concerning a Bible Dictionary: "Get a Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary. Also, check out the info on the AVPublications website. Lexicons are the new age attempt at "Yea, hath God said" in order to get people away from faith in the KJB."
Why would anyone think of that mindset as being a cult? Sounds as reasonable as Lisa Ruby.
T
The Glory Land
Guest
It is good to have back up and good reinforcement. 
T
thethinkingrebel
Guest
In reference to Biscuit's post...
These people are, seriously, insane!
They claim not to be double minded, yet claim the KJV is the perfect word of God in English, the can't decide which version of the KJV is perfect!
Wow. They claim Lexicons are New Age? Hahahhaha "Yeah, hath God said?". No its "Erm, what does that Greek/Hebrew word mean in English?"
Then we need a 200 year old dictionary in order to understand this perfect translation we have to convert the modern world? Do these people know how ridiculous this is.
Tell some guy in Africa who has no money "the translation of the bible in your language, that has assisted in your sancitification, and brought you to repentance at the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross..its evil". "You need to learn English, get a Perfect Cambridge KJV, an 1828 Websters dictionary and become a baptist".
Fruitcakes.
These people are, seriously, insane!
They claim not to be double minded, yet claim the KJV is the perfect word of God in English, the can't decide which version of the KJV is perfect!
Wow. They claim Lexicons are New Age? Hahahhaha "Yeah, hath God said?". No its "Erm, what does that Greek/Hebrew word mean in English?"
Then we need a 200 year old dictionary in order to understand this perfect translation we have to convert the modern world? Do these people know how ridiculous this is.
Tell some guy in Africa who has no money "the translation of the bible in your language, that has assisted in your sancitification, and brought you to repentance at the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross..its evil". "You need to learn English, get a Perfect Cambridge KJV, an 1828 Websters dictionary and become a baptist".
Fruitcakes.
thethinkingrebel said:
It's nice to see intolerance and hypocrisy on both sides of the issue.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2012
- Messages
- 1,188
- Reaction score
- 136
- Points
- 63
It's nauseating to think I used to be caught up in this crap.
Mongol Servant: These KJB-haters, are under CONVICTION from the Holy Spirit, and are constantly being prodded about their filthy rotten sin of UNBELIEF in the Holy Bible. They run from "manuscript-to-manuscript" with their little Greek/Hebrew "study aids" and attempt to get away from the conviction of the Holy Spirit. With all of those Roman catholic inspired/instigated "versions" like the HCSV, NASV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ASV, ad nauseum, they can run from unholy doctrine to unholy doctrine, just like kiddies in a sand box.[/b][/b][/color]
2Tim215: Is the Christ portrayed in the new versions the same as the He who is the Word in the KJV? If not, then how does He differ? Is there a difference in ones salvation if saved by a gospel presented from a new version or if led to salvation from someone who uses a new version? In other words - if one is saved believing in the Christ of the new versions is his/her salvation a true salvation based on a true Christ or a false one?
Sword1611: A few years ago when I had moved to another state and was looking for a church, I attended one that was up the road from my home. Everyone was super friendly and the reception felt good. But the moment I sat down and picked up a bible that was in a wooden holder behind every pew, I knew I would never come back. On the cover it said: "BIBLE." My spirit was troubled because it left out the word: HOLY.
BiblebelieverAV1611: The reason I use the King James Bible is because it is easier to understand than the modern versions. The Bible says that 'God is not the author of confusion'.
Sacha: A man who teaches that the King James Bible is not inspired is a liar.
Cody (the Administrator): God doesn't want his people to dig down into the grave of dead languages now abandoned. Our study should instead be horizontally across the pages of scripture, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, in the English Text of the Authorized Version. God preserved and gave his words in English in the Authorized Version - believe it, study it, live by it. Don't trade it's holy words for a mess of dead Greek pottage.
Mongol Servant: These KJB-haters, are under CONVICTION from the Holy Spirit, and are constantly being prodded about their filthy rotten sin of UNBELIEF in the Holy Bible. They run from "manuscript-to-manuscript" with their little Greek/Hebrew "study aids" and attempt to get away from the conviction of the Holy Spirit. With all of those Roman catholic inspired/instigated "versions" like the HCSV, NASV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ASV, ad nauseum, they can run from unholy doctrine to unholy doctrine, just like kiddies in a sand box.[/b][/b][/color]
2Tim215: Is the Christ portrayed in the new versions the same as the He who is the Word in the KJV? If not, then how does He differ? Is there a difference in ones salvation if saved by a gospel presented from a new version or if led to salvation from someone who uses a new version? In other words - if one is saved believing in the Christ of the new versions is his/her salvation a true salvation based on a true Christ or a false one?
Sword1611: A few years ago when I had moved to another state and was looking for a church, I attended one that was up the road from my home. Everyone was super friendly and the reception felt good. But the moment I sat down and picked up a bible that was in a wooden holder behind every pew, I knew I would never come back. On the cover it said: "BIBLE." My spirit was troubled because it left out the word: HOLY.
BiblebelieverAV1611: The reason I use the King James Bible is because it is easier to understand than the modern versions. The Bible says that 'God is not the author of confusion'.
Sacha: A man who teaches that the King James Bible is not inspired is a liar.
Cody (the Administrator): God doesn't want his people to dig down into the grave of dead languages now abandoned. Our study should instead be horizontally across the pages of scripture, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, in the English Text of the Authorized Version. God preserved and gave his words in English in the Authorized Version - believe it, study it, live by it. Don't trade it's holy words for a mess of dead Greek pottage.