Is KJVO a mental disorder?

[Ransom]

The Christian who believes that God is able to keep and preserve His pure and infallible words; that same Christian has a sound mind and is filled with the precious Holy Spirit.

The one that praises fools who burn Bibles and spreads idiotic YouTube videos full of easily debunked codswallop, is a nincompoop and a laughingstock.

 

[Biblebeliever]

The one that praises fools who burn Bibles

I have been over this with you before Scott.
When are you going to get through your thick head that the NIV is not a real bible.

It is one of Satan's bibles.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The one that praises fools who burn Bibles

I have been over this with you before Scott.
When are you going to get through your thick head that the NIV is not a real bible.

It is one Satan's bibles.

Well, the ESV is one of God's Bibles.  I know.  I have a signed copy. 

 

[bgwilkinson]

The one that praises fools who burn Bibles

I have been over this with you before Scott.
When are you going to get through your thick head that the NIV is not a real bible.

It is one Satan's bibles.

BB you are blaspheming the Holy Spirit by ascribing his work to Satan.

 

[Ransom]

When are you going to get through your thick head that the NIV is not a real bible.

Snort. You wouldn't know a "real bible" [sic] if it bit you on the backside, you Bible-burning buffoon.

It is one Satan's bibles.

I guess you'd know. You're the one with your nose lodged firmly between his hindquarters., so I imagine you've had a chance to see his bookshelf.

 

[Steven Avery]

Nope. Never. I never would call God's word corrupt or perverse. That blasphemy comes from the KJVO.

False.  Corruption is the common and proper term in textual circles for errors of various sorts that got into the manuscripts and editions. And any text that is perceived to be far from proper is seen as a corrupt text.  The corruption could be obvious scribal blunders and/or textual errors.

And a text with a huge number of errors, like Vaticanus, or the Westcott-Hort recension, is thus a corrupt text.

If a person truly thought their Critical Text ESV or NIV was close to the autographs, and they were honest, they would assert that the Received Text and the AV are corrupted texts.

Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

I realize that you are not interested in understanding the meaning of Psalm 119:140.

We can go round and round discussing corruptions, errors and variants. However, two things will not move the discussion forward until you honestly admit:

1) You have no interest in the meaning of "very pure" in Psalm 119:140.
2) You have no interest in laying aside your fallacy of composition.

I have yet to see someone on our side say that the "KJV is corrupt." Unlike the KJVO, we do not let variants change our opinion of the "very pure" scripture.

Has anyone ever seen a KJVO exegete Psalm 119:140? I haven't.

 

[Citadel of Truth]

Has anyone ever seen a KJVO exegete Psalm 119:140? I haven't.

"Your word is very pure; Therefore Your servant loves it."

If I may, I do not believe the contention would be with defining "very pure" as much as it would be with defining "Your word."



Slipping back into the shadows now to let you scholars do your thing.... 8)

 

[FSSL]

Has anyone ever seen a KJVO exegete Psalm 119:140? I haven't.

"Your word is very pure; Therefore Your servant loves it."

If I may, I do not believe the contention would be with defining "very pure" as much as it would be with defining "Your word."



Slipping back into the shadows now to let you scholars do your thing.... 8)

It is only a contention when the KJVO approaches this passage. God's word is God's word.

 

[Biblebeliever]

The one that praises fools who burn Bibles

I have been over this with you before Scott.
When are you going to get through your thick head that the NIV is not a real bible.

It is one Satan's bibles.

BB you are blaspheming the Holy Spirit by ascribing his work to Satan.

bgwilkenson,

No I am not.

Because the work of the modern versions is not the work of the Holy Spirit.

The Modern Versions attack the blood atonement, the Deity of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Birth, and even the Doctrine of the Godhead.

And the Holy Spirit would not be behind a translation that attacks those vital Doctrines.

 

[Biblebeliever]

Snort. You wouldn't know a "real bible".

I do know what a real Bible is. and I have one. It is the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Snort. You wouldn't know a "real bible".

I do know what a real Bible is. and I have one. It is the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

BP are you the one that Authorized your PCE?

 

[rsc2a]

After all, the Holy Spirit would rather have a translation that becomes the translation of choice for Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses.







(Disclaimer: I don't think the King Jimmy is any more or any less inspired than a whole bunch of other translations.)

 

[Ransom]

The Modern Versions attack the blood atonement,

No, they do not. You are a liar.

the Deity of Jesus Christ,

No, they do not. You are a liar.

the Virgin Birth,

No, they do not. You are a liar.

and even the Doctrine of the Godhead.

No, they do not. You are a liar.

One sentence.
Four lies.

What Christian could brazenly tell so many lies about the word of God, knowing full well that anyone who can read is able to see right through them?

I have ny doubts that Bibleburner is an authentic Christian. He isn't even trying to pretend.

 

[bibleprotector]

Snort. You wouldn't know a "real bible".

I do know what a real Bible is. and I have one. It is the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

BP are you the one that Authorized your PCE?

Are you talking to me? First, the PCE is not "mine", but the common heritage of Christians. Second, in regards to the use of the word "Authorized", that is traditionally used to describe the King James Bible, not specifically any edition. Third, the authority of any edition does not merely arise from some individual, so your implied accusation is incorrect.

Also your spelling is, in that context, imprecise. The word in normal use would be spelt "authorised", unless taken as a specific named title such as the Authorized Version.

 

[Ransom]

Also your spelling is, in that context, imprecise. The word in normal use would be spelt "authorised", unless taken as a specific named title such as the Authorized Version.

American English doesn't use the -ise suffixes for most words, dimbulb.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Snort. You wouldn't know a "real bible".

I do know what a real Bible is. and I have one. It is the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

BP are you the one that Authorized your PCE?

Are you talking to me? First, the PCE is not "mine", but the common heritage of Christians. Second, in regards to the use of the word "Authorized", that is traditionally used to describe the King James Bible, not specifically any edition. Third, the authority of any edition does not merely arise from some individual, so your implied accusation is incorrect.

Also your spelling is, in that context, imprecise. The word in normal use would be spelt "authorised", unless taken as a specific named title such as the Authorized Version.

What is your basis for calling your version an authorized version?

Who besides you call your version PCE?

 

[bibleprotector]

What is your basis for calling your version an authorized version?

The King James Version is often, commonly and publicly called the Authorized Version.

Who besides you call your version PCE?

The PCE is not a version, but an edition of the KJB. The PCE is a name given for what otherwise may have been referred to as the Cambridge Edition in regards to KJBs being published by them for a majority of the 20th century.

 

[bgwilkinson]

What is your basis for calling your version an authorized version?

The King James Version is often, commonly and publicly called the Authorized Version.

Who besides you call your version PCE?

The PCE is not a version, but an edition of the KJB. The PCE is a name given for what otherwise may have been referred to as the Cambridge Edition in regards to KJBs being published by them for a majority of the 20th century.

Here is another Cambridge Bible that I enjoy.
http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Paragraph-Bible-Apocrypha-KJ595/dp/052119881X/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418177602&sr=1-3&keywords=cambridge+paragraph+bible

Some of the things that I like are:
1. Bilson's fawning dedication to James.
2. Smith's TTTR with easy to read footnotes that are much more helpful than the original 1611.
3. All books are in this one, so you can read all the readings used in the Anglican church.
4. The calfskin is incredibly soft.
5. The footnotes and all margin readings from the original 1611 are faithfully reproduced.
6. Even the literal Hebrew meanings are noted such as him rather than them at Psa. 12:7 indicating people not words, the translators wanted us to know the true translation.
7. David Norton has a short preface explaining that he wanted to achieve as perfect a printing as possible.

BP this is one you should get if you do not have it.

I think it may be the most perfect printing yet.

Edit: fixed the link. - Scott

 

[bibleprotector]

I think it may be the most perfect printing yet.

Norton's work is wayward. Might I venture to suggest that's why it is not being taken up by people.