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

UGC said:
not because I need any evidence that the KJV is the "only version" (why KJV-"O" can be misleading). .
Click to expand...

The accurate term KJV-only is not at all misleading. Perhaps you may try to smear and attack the accurate term in order to try to rationalize your attempts to defend KJV-only reasoning.

The KJV is an English Bible translation so clearly and soundly the term KJV-only would apply only to English Bible translations, not Bible translations in other languages.

A KJV-only view involves someone who believes and advocates exclusive, only claims for one English Bible translation--the KJV. Suggesting that the KJV is the word of God translated into English in a different sense than other English Bible translations would indicate KJV-only reasoning. Reading only the KJV and teaching from only the KJV is not what constitutes KJV-only reasoning. Many believers who read the KJV are not KJV-only.

The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same way that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1560 Geneva Bible are the word of God translated into English and in the same way that post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English.
 
UGC said:
And anyway, the KJV was already the widely accepted, tried and true version it was by 1881 so critiquing the ladder against the one that came before it is acceptable reasoning, it is not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning would be if you tried to defend the New Version's readings for their own sake over the KJV's.
Click to expand...

The 1560 Geneva Bible was already the widely accepted, loved, believed, tried and true English version before 1611 so critiquing the ladder [the KJV] against the one that came before it should be acceptable reasoning according to your own stated reasoning. Nevertheless, KJV-only advocates will not accept trying the KJV by the standard and accepted 1560 Geneva Bible that came before it.

Does a consistent, just application of your own statement assert that it would be circular reasoning to try to defend the new version's readings in 1611 for their own sake over the Geneva Bible's?

When compared to the same standard and greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, there are some places where the 1560 Geneva Bible is better, clearer, and more accurate than the 1611 KJV is.
 
logos1560 said:
KJV-only... The KJV is... the term KJV-only... A KJV-only view involves... the KJV. Suggesting that the KJV... KJV-only reasoning... the KJV... the KJV... constitutes KJV-only reasoning... the KJV... KJV-only. The KJV is the word of God translated into English... [the KJV]... KJV-only advocates... trying the KJV... the 1611 KJV is.
Click to expand...
He's still going!
 
Using double standards [unjust divers measures], some unsoundly try to claim that inaccurate renderings in present-day English Bible translations are "corruptions," but they do not likewise assert that inaccurate renderings in the KJV are "corruptions."

By not showing themselves to be consistent seekers of the truth and by not applying scriptural truths justly, their own hypocrisy and unrighteous judgments are exposed.
 
logos1560 said:
Using double standards [unjust divers measures], some unsoundly try to claim that inaccurate renderings in present-day English Bible translations are "corruptions," but they do not likewise assert that inaccurate renderings in the KJV are "corruptions."

By not showing themselves to be consistent seekers of the truth and by not applying scriptural truths justly, their own hypocrisy and unrighteous judgments are exposed.
Click to expand...
One case here where Ruckman knocks the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus for containing the Apocrypha while not mentioning the KJV also contained it.



1591564783982.png
 
Ruckman was so bright his mom called him "son".
 
Well, I see the KJVOs here are just-as-stumped by the "lack of Scriptural support" fact for the KJVO myth as they are on countless other forums. This is the main fact that proves the KJVO myth false, & KJVOs have no answer for it.
 
robycop3 said:
Well, I see the KJVOs here are just-as-stumped by the "lack of Scriptural support" fact for the KJVO myth as they are on countless other forums. This is the main fact that proves the KJVO myth false, & KJVOs have no answer for it.
Click to expand...
Robocop and logos troll many Christian sites all with the same messag which is read what we think is the best for you. Do not rely on the Holy Spirit just their supposed wisdom of men.
 
Leatherneck0311 said:
Robocop and logos troll many Christian sites all with the same messag which is read what we think is the best for you. Do not rely on the Holy Spirit just their supposed wisdom of men.
Click to expand...
So is your purpose in life to resurrect years-old threads with your vapid opinions?
 
Leatherneck0311 said:
Lol, look in the mirror lately ? Careful you will see the reflection of an internet liudmouth.
Click to expand...
Here you are railing at a thread on the forum because of the author, instead of proving you're capable of interacting with it like a rational person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top