The ONE QUESTION whose correct answer proves the KJVO myth false...

[Twisted]

You may merely assume by fallacies opinions that you cannot prove to be true since you make no positive, clear, scriptural case for them.

I could have the same post-1900 edition of the KJV in my hand as you may have in your hand so your accusation against me would condemn my KJV and yours. Why would you condemn your own KJV?

Why you avoid naming and identifying which specific edition of the KJV that you claim to have in your hand?

I'm not avoiding anything. This one I got at the dollar store. Paperback. Cheap newsprint paper.

So you want someone to use the scripture they have to prove by using the scripture they have that what they have is scripture? I like your "logic".

Of course, all I need to do is BELIEVE what I have. If you do or don't is none of my concern.

 

[logos1560]

This one I got at the dollar store. Paperback. Cheap newsprint paper.

Which specific publisher printed this edition? Does it have a date for its printing?

Perhaps I may have a copy of it too.

 

[Twisted]

Perhaps I may have a copy of it too.

Then may I suggest you believe what you read and spend your time trying to live it.

 

[logos1560]

Then may I suggest you believe what you read and spend your time trying to live it.

Why didn't you provide the information to identify that edition?

Do you practice what you preach? I do read the KJV, and I try to live by the truths stated in the word of God.

Too many times it seems that KJV-only advocates refuse to live by truths that are presented to them from the KJV.

 

[Twisted]

Why didn't you provide the information to identify that edition?

Because it drives you nuts that I won't. Have you ever sought counseling for your issue?

Too many times it seems that KJV-only advocates refuse to live by truths that are presented to them from the KJV.

Great subject for another thread. You should start it.

And I've seen NIV, ESV, etc. advocates have the same problem.

 

[logos1560]

Because it drives you nuts that I won't.

Your assertion is not true. It does not bother me at all. I was merely interested to see if you were informed about the KJV text in that edition.

I know for a fact that some cheap KJV editions have a computer-based KJV text that has some new errors and changes unintentionally introduced in them by the person who first typed up this text on a computer.

 

[Twisted]

Your assertion is not true. It does not bother me at all. I was merely interested to see if you were informed about the KJV text in that edition.

I know for a fact that some cheap KJV editions have a computer-based KJV text that has some new errors and changes unintentionally introduced in them by the person who first typed up this text on a computer.

Thank you for your concern, but I'm good.

 

[logos1560]

Thank you for your concern, but I'm good.

Are you suggesting that you choose to remain uninformed and misinformed concerning verifiable facts about variations and differences in the many varying editions of the KJV?

 

[Twisted]

Are you suggesting that you choose to remain uninformed and misinformed concerning verifiable facts about variations and differences in the many varying editions of the KJV?

I'm totally informed. As I said, I'm good.

 

[logos1560]

I'm totally informed. As I said, I'm good.

Really? If you are totally informed, why don't you share the facts in order to be edifying to others instead of keeping the truth hidden?

 

[logos1560]

I'm totally informed.

Since you assert that you are "totally informed," please share your total understanding concerning the KJV with readers.

 

[logos1560]

I'm totally informed.

Your boast of being "totally informed" or having total knowledge is not supported by your non-informing posts. You fail to back up what you claim.

Your posts concerning the Bible translation issue or KJV-only issue do not demonstrate that you are even well-informed much less "totally informed."

How many different editions of the KJV have you examined and compared?
Have you carefully compared the original 1611 edition of the KJV to any post-1900 KJV edition?
Have you examined and compared the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision to the 1611 KJV?
How many books by biased KJV-only authors have you even read?

 

[Twisted]

Your boast of being "totally informed" or having total knowledge is not supported by your non-informing posts. You fail to back up what you claim.

Your posts concerning the Bible translation issue or KJV-only issue do not demonstrate that you are even well-informed much less "totally informed."

How many different editions of the KJV have you examined and compared?
Have you carefully compared the original 1611 edition of the KJV to any post-1900 KJV edition?
Have you examined and compared the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision to the 1611 KJV?
How many books by biased KJV-only authors have you even read?

I've "backed it up" to myself, which is all that matters.

You are such a moron to live a life like you present here on this forum. I feel so sorry for you.

 

[logos1560]

Along with making vain, empty boasts and displaying pride in their own imperfect human reasoning, do KJV-only advocates use carnal smear tactics and name-calling to avoid their burden of proof?

 

[robycop3]

Still, no KJVOs will step up to try to address the fact that their myth is not supported by Scripture, even in the KJV itself.

 

[tmjbog]

Still, no KJVOs will step up to try to address the fact that their myth is not supported by Scripture, even in the KJV itself.

It's a position taken by faith. Once the position is taken by faith, prior versions are ignored and later versions are demonized. Also a position the KJV translators did not hold.

 

[Twisted]

Still, no KJVOs will step up to try to address the fact that their myth is not supported by Scripture, even in the KJV itself.

Don't know what "myth" that you are referring to, bu the KJV surely does support itself that it is holy scripture. II Tim 3:16 is in the KJV.

Unless....unless this guy is creating some strawman saying that the KJV needs to have a verse that says the KJV itself is scripture. Good grief, I hope things haven't slipped to that level of stupidity.

 

[Twisted]

It's a position taken by faith. Once the position is taken by faith, prior versions are ignored and later versions are demonized. Also a position the KJV translators did not hold.

More "strawmen". You make'em up as you go, don't ya?

But why did you ignore this? We were doing so well agreeing with each other?

 

[robycop3]

It's a position taken by faith. Once the position is taken by faith, prior versions are ignored and later versions are demonized. Also a position the KJV translators did not hold.

The KJVO's "faith" is merely guesswork.

 

[robycop3]

Don't know what "myth" that you are referring to, bu the KJV surely does support itself that it is holy scripture.

A myth is a traditional, sometimes widely-held belief in something that's been proven false, such as the myht of the Easter bunny. A doctrine is anything that's taught. And the KJVO myth - not the KJV itself - is a myth.

II Tim 3:16 is in the KJV.

It's in a lotta other versions as well.

Unless....unless this guy is creating some strawman saying that the KJV needs to have a verse that says the KJV itself is scripture. Good grief, I hope things haven't slipped to that level of stupidity.

If God had supported KJVO, He woulda let us know. I can't begin to guess what words He woulda used. But God has made His will for mankind known thru His written word, and we don't see any of His word supporting the KJVO myth.

The man-made, cultic, dishonest origin of the current edition of the KJVO myth has been posted on more than one occasion. There's not one quark of Scripture supporting it. Since only GOD can create TRUE doctrines of faith/worship, and NO Scripture exists supporting KJVO, we can only conclude it's false.