Comments for KJV Only Debate Blog http://kjvonlydebate.com Was 1611 the last word for the English Bible? Mon, 14 May 2012 23:58:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on What God Promises Concerning Preservation by Hewlett Packard Printer http://kjvonlydebate.com/2009/09/29/what-god-promises-concerning-preservation/#comment-88551 Hewlett Packard Printer Mon, 14 May 2012 23:58:49 +0000 http://kjvodebate.wordpress.com/?p=276#comment-88551 <strong>read more...</strong> [...]just below, are some totally unrelated sites to ours, however, they are definitely worth checking out[...]... read more…

[...]just below, are some totally unrelated sites to ours, however, they are definitely worth checking out[...]…

]]> Comment on Some of the Pro’s of the KJV by robycop3 http://kjvonlydebate.com/2010/05/10/some-of-the-pros-of-the-kjv/#comment-87974 robycop3 Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:44:19 +0000 http://kjvodebate.wordpress.com/?p=509#comment-87974 Peter says,"Can any non KJB person display one Bible that is perfect today?" OF COURSE we can-ANY VALID TRANSLATION. Each is perfect for GOD'S intended purpose. Now, Peter, can you show us any SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY for being KJVO? Of course not. Peter says,”Can any non KJB person display one Bible that is perfect today?”

OF COURSE we can-ANY VALID TRANSLATION. Each is perfect for GOD’S intended purpose.

Now, Peter, can you show us any SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY for being KJVO? Of course not.

]]> Comment on How to Get Banned from Commenting on this Site by robycop3 http://kjvonlydebate.com/2011/02/26/how-to-get-banned-from-commenting-on-this-site/#comment-87973 robycop3 Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:37:10 +0000 http://kjvonlydebate.com/?p=2068#comment-87973 Keith is well-known areond the internet as the worst kind of KJVO. He's called me a few choice names here-&-there before, so don't feel privileged!(LOL) He uses various handles, so don't be surprised if he makes a return under some other name. He has one small prob-HE CANNOT PROVE THING HE SAYS, and most other readers see through him. In Ruckmanesque style, he substitutes vitriol for FACTS, and actually does more harm to his cause than any of us Freedom Readers ever could. Keith is well-known areond the internet as the worst kind of KJVO. He’s called me a few choice names here-&-there before, so don’t feel privileged!(LOL) He uses various handles, so don’t be surprised if he makes a return under some other name.
He has one small prob-HE CANNOT PROVE THING HE SAYS, and most other readers see through him. In Ruckmanesque style, he substitutes vitriol for FACTS, and actually does more harm to his cause than any of us Freedom Readers ever could.

]]> Comment on A Critique of Thomas Holland’s View of the Last Six Verses in Revelation by robycop3 http://kjvonlydebate.com/2012/04/24/a-critique-of-thomas-hollands-view-of-the-last-six-verses-in-revelation/#comment-87972 robycop3 Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:26:40 +0000 http://kjvonlydebate.com/?p=2507#comment-87972 First, the KJV is NOT PERFECT. Two of its obvious goofs are "Easter" in Acts 12:4, & "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10. Now, while the KJV was the favorite English translation for a long time, the language has changed, while the KJV remains frozen in time, as are the works of Shakespeare. And, as the works of Shakespeare are, the KJV and every other Bible translation are WORKS OF MEN, God's perfect word translated by imperfect men. But God still superintends His word, as He also does all languages. As English changed, God caused His word to be translated into language current for the time. Thus, we went from Anglo-Saxon manuscripts to Wycliffe's English translation of the Latin Vulgate, to Tyndale's version, the "Great Bible, versions by Cranmer, Mathews, and others, to the Geneva Bible of Coverdale, Foxe, etc. to the Bishop's Bible, AV 1611 & a number of editions thereof, to today's translations. Again, God is very much in control of His own word, and keeps it in CURRENT languages, while keeping the older translations available as well. There's NO valid reason to be stuck with only one translation unless there are simply no others available. When one uses only one translation, one is at the mercy of the opinions of only ONE translator or team of translators. Given the many valid English renderings of a vast number of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek words & phrases, one can obtain a better overview of the Scriptures by studying several translations and giving the HOLY SPIRIT more material to work with as He teaches the Scriptures to the earnest student, precept upon precept. Now, NONE of these advocates of the KJVO doctrine, Dr. Holland included, have any SCRIPTURAL BASIS for their doctrine. We see JESUS HIMSELF used more than one "version"; just compare what HE READ ALOUD in Luke 4:16-21 with Isaiah 42:7 & Isaiah 61:1-3. So, please don't allow the KJVOs to discourage you from using the version(s) of your choice. They have no Scriptural authority nor the knowledge to back up their arguments. And, in all fairness to Dr. Holland, he lost a son to an auto accident shortly after "Crowned With Glory" was published. First, the KJV is NOT PERFECT. Two of its obvious goofs are “Easter” in Acts 12:4, & “the love of money is THE root of ALL evil” in 1 Tim. 6:10.
Now, while the KJV was the favorite English translation for a long time, the language has changed, while the KJV remains frozen in time, as are the works of Shakespeare. And, as the works of Shakespeare are, the KJV and every other Bible translation are WORKS OF MEN, God’s perfect word translated by imperfect men.
But God still superintends His word, as He also does all languages. As English changed, God caused His word to be translated into language current for the time. Thus, we went from Anglo-Saxon manuscripts to Wycliffe’s English translation of the Latin Vulgate, to Tyndale’s version, the “Great Bible, versions by Cranmer, Mathews, and others, to the Geneva Bible of Coverdale, Foxe, etc. to the Bishop’s Bible, AV 1611 & a number of editions thereof, to today’s translations. Again, God is very much in control of His own word, and keeps it in CURRENT languages, while keeping the older translations available as well.
There’s NO valid reason to be stuck with only one translation unless there are simply no others available. When one uses only one translation, one is at the mercy of the opinions of only ONE translator or team of translators. Given the many valid English renderings of a vast number of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek words & phrases, one can obtain a better overview of the Scriptures by studying several translations and giving the HOLY SPIRIT more material to work with as He teaches the Scriptures to the earnest student, precept upon precept.
Now, NONE of these advocates of the KJVO doctrine, Dr. Holland included, have any SCRIPTURAL BASIS for their doctrine. We see JESUS HIMSELF used more than one “version”; just compare what HE READ ALOUD in Luke 4:16-21 with Isaiah 42:7 & Isaiah 61:1-3.
So, please don’t allow the KJVOs to discourage you from using the version(s) of your choice. They have no Scriptural authority nor the knowledge to back up their arguments.
And, in all fairness to Dr. Holland, he lost a son to an auto accident shortly after “Crowned With Glory” was published.

]]> Comment on A Critique of Thomas Holland’s View of the Last Six Verses in Revelation by bibleprotector http://kjvonlydebate.com/2012/04/24/a-critique-of-thomas-hollands-view-of-the-last-six-verses-in-revelation/#comment-87971 bibleprotector Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:48:36 +0000 http://kjvonlydebate.com/?p=2507#comment-87971 Dr Thomas Holland's work is very good in that it seems to lead on from Edward F. Hill's position. It was these two who I think have been excellent examples of honest inquiry, and I find it quite unfair the way that Dr James White has dealt with these kind of men. In regard to the actual methodology of studying passages and the nature of textual criticism, it seems as if there is a cadre of scholars who have locked out any kind of dealing with the issue if it does not agree locked-step with their view. I found it refreshing to understand arguments such as appeal to the common faith, the universal priesthood of believers, and sensible dealing with the textual evidence of Dr Hills, and I believe that Dr Holland is quite acceptable. Often, the KJBO, TRO and the like appear to be "rustic" in comparison with the literati of the textual criticism world. I also personally object to the underlying criteria and assumptions of those scholars (who attack the perfection of the KJB), because they do not deal with the data as if God has at all been present in history, they merely humanise and rationalise everything so that the New Testament we have today is subject to some degree of error, and translation can never achieve its aim of perfect equivalence. My own position for arguing for KJB perfection stems from the views and arguments put forth by Dr Hills and Dr Holland, who although do not readily claim perfection for it, are yet quite willing to accept it as God-ordained. Too often people slip away from the KJB, through compromised “preference” positions, where modernising language of the old favourite is their selection, but eventually they drift toward the NKJV, and from thence, modern arrivals. I should like to see people turning the other way, accepting the arguments of Hills and Holland, and then progressing into the high country of KJB perfection. Dr Thomas Holland’s work is very good in that it seems to lead on from Edward F. Hill’s position. It was these two who I think have been excellent examples of honest inquiry, and I find it quite unfair the way that Dr James White has dealt with these kind of men.

In regard to the actual methodology of studying passages and the nature of textual criticism, it seems as if there is a cadre of scholars who have locked out any kind of dealing with the issue if it does not agree locked-step with their view.

I found it refreshing to understand arguments such as appeal to the common faith, the universal priesthood of believers, and sensible dealing with the textual evidence of Dr Hills, and I believe that Dr Holland is quite acceptable.

Often, the KJBO, TRO and the like appear to be “rustic” in comparison with the literati of the textual criticism world.

I also personally object to the underlying criteria and assumptions of those scholars (who attack the perfection of the KJB), because they do not deal with the data as if God has at all been present in history, they merely humanise and rationalise everything so that the New Testament we have today is subject to some degree of error, and translation can never achieve its aim of perfect equivalence.

My own position for arguing for KJB perfection stems from the views and arguments put forth by Dr Hills and Dr Holland, who although do not readily claim perfection for it, are yet quite willing to accept it as God-ordained. Too often people slip away from the KJB, through compromised “preference” positions, where modernising language of the old favourite is their selection, but eventually they drift toward the NKJV, and from thence, modern arrivals. I should like to see people turning the other way, accepting the arguments of Hills and Holland, and then progressing into the high country of KJB perfection.

]]> Comment on Some of the Pro’s of the KJV by Walter http://kjvonlydebate.com/2010/05/10/some-of-the-pros-of-the-kjv/#comment-87879 Walter Thu, 19 Apr 2012 08:10:35 +0000 http://kjvodebate.wordpress.com/?p=509#comment-87879 I may not be able to say that I have the "Pure Bible in my Hands", but I do have a copy of the Majority Text (EMTV and WEB) both on my Kindle and on my PC :=) I may not be able to say that I have the “Pure Bible in my Hands”, but I do have a copy of the Majority Text (EMTV and WEB) both on my Kindle and on my PC :=)

]]> Comment on Some of the Pro’s of the KJV by Erik http://kjvonlydebate.com/2010/05/10/some-of-the-pros-of-the-kjv/#comment-87759 Erik Thu, 12 Apr 2012 20:56:52 +0000 http://kjvodebate.wordpress.com/?p=509#comment-87759 You may feel free to take your unfounded and rude insults elsewhere. I will not justify your slander with a response. You may feel free to take your unfounded and rude insults elsewhere. I will not justify your slander with a response.

]]> Comment on Some of the Pro’s of the KJV by PeterAV http://kjvonlydebate.com/2010/05/10/some-of-the-pros-of-the-kjv/#comment-87757 PeterAV Thu, 12 Apr 2012 20:27:54 +0000 http://kjvodebate.wordpress.com/?p=509#comment-87757 Erik,You say you posses the true SCRIPTURES yet you dare not name it. How hypocritical of you. SCRIPTURES in the pure Holy Bible is ALWAYS in refernce to the COPIES and TRANSLATIONS! NEVER of the originals. You think you are so smart yet the scriptures shows you to be the fool. My case stands and you are found wanton. May the LORD rebuke thee. ******* PeterAV Every word of God is pure: Erik does not believe this verse aplies to today for us. No cloak for your sin EriK with a K. Erik,You say you posses the true SCRIPTURES yet you dare not name it.
How hypocritical of you.
SCRIPTURES in the pure Holy Bible is ALWAYS in refernce to the COPIES and TRANSLATIONS! NEVER of the originals.
You think you are so smart yet the scriptures shows you to be the fool.
My case stands and you are found wanton.
May the LORD rebuke thee.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:
Erik does not believe this verse aplies to today for us.
No cloak for your sin EriK with a K.

]]> Comment on Preserved and Pure? by PeterAV http://kjvonlydebate.com/2010/01/05/preserved-and-pure-2/#comment-87755 PeterAV Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:02:07 +0000 http://kjvodebate.wordpress.com/?p=356#comment-87755 I cannot for the life of me see how a truth seeking Christian can spend his whole life fighting against the very words of God and sit in judgment against it. All of you are corrupt and perverts. ******* Not one person will answer the easy question; Where is the pure Holy Bible? The one that I can put in my hands and open up and read. ******* Instead, just parlor tricks and slop from men. Then you wonder why some KJBO may tend to think you as actually unsaved. The fruit buddies, the fruit. You are against me because you are against the pure word of God. I cannot for the life of me see how a truth seeking Christian can spend his whole life fighting against the very words of God and sit in judgment against it.
All of you are corrupt and perverts.
*******
Not one person will answer the easy question; Where is the pure Holy Bible?
The one that I can put in my hands and open up and read.
*******
Instead, just parlor tricks and slop from men.
Then you wonder why some KJBO may tend to think you as actually unsaved. The fruit buddies, the fruit.
You are against me because you are against the pure word of God.

]]> Comment on Some of the Pro’s of the KJV by Erik http://kjvonlydebate.com/2010/05/10/some-of-the-pros-of-the-kjv/#comment-87754 Erik Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:52:09 +0000 http://kjvodebate.wordpress.com/?p=509#comment-87754 My name is Erik with a K. I believe we possess the true Scriptures, but I do not believe these verses (written in Hebrew 3,000 years ago) are meant to be applied to an English translation done 400 years ago. You realize this argument was first used by people supporting the medieval Latin translations of the text to justify that there was no need for the originals? Funny how history repeats itself. My name is Erik with a K.

I believe we possess the true Scriptures, but I do not believe these verses (written in Hebrew 3,000 years ago) are meant to be applied to an English translation done 400 years ago.

You realize this argument was first used by people supporting the medieval Latin translations of the text to justify that there was no need for the originals? Funny how history repeats itself.

]]>