The KJVO Myth Has NO Scriptural support!

joshua 1 9 said:

Give me ONE (1) example where another translations is better then the KJV.

Click to expand...

It is noted clearly in
ROMANS 2. (infinitely better!)
(I'll get the verse tomorrow, Yahuweh Willing)
Am 'running out the door' now, closing, going home.....

SHALOM !

yeshuaslavejeff said:

And how about the "translation" , or rather the ORIGINAL WRITTEN, TODAY ? by Yahuweh ! HALLELUYAH ! (available to whomever He Pleases)

Click to expand...

Yes the translation that Jesus gives us is an improvement over what we received from Moses. Only Jesus could add to what God gave to Moses. John 5:46 "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me." Deu 18:15 "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him."

nolidad said:

I have no problem with people pointing out unbiblical things in a sect of Christendom. The whole goal is not to condemn but to enlighten.

Click to expand...

Alright. Then here are a couple of the errors of the Baptist tradition which deny the plain and explicit teaching of Holy Scripture, and is out of line with biblical Christianity:

1) Baptists deny the grace and efficacy of Holy Baptism, even though Scripture says that we are born again by water and the Spirit (John 3:5), that we have been crucified and buried with Christ and given new life in Christ by Baptism (Romans 6:2-9, Colossians 2:12), we have been clothed with Christ in Baptism (Galatians 3:27), been sanctified by the washing of water by the word (Ephesians 5:26), having received the promised gift of the Holy Spirit by this same Baptism (Acts 2:38). Instead Baptism is regarded as an ordinance, a rite done as an outward expression of faith, which is completely unbiblical. Why then do Baptists deny the Scriptures here, and reject what the Church has always confessed and believed which is right here explicitly written in Scripture?

2) Baptists deny that the Eucharist is the true flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, even though Scripture clearly has the Lord Jesus Christ Himself say, "This is My body given for you" and "This is the cup of the new covenant in My blood poured out for you" (Luke 22:19-20) and also we have, "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 10:16) and do we not also read, " Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord." (1 Corinthians 11:27)? So since these precious gifts of bread and wine are the very flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, why do Baptists deny this and say it is merely a symbol, or merely a token, etc? Why not confess what Scripture says here, and which the Church has always confessed and believed?

-CryptoLutheran

nolidad said:

Yep He worshipped Mary- your own self owned content shows that!

..I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship' have very much in common in their causes and their results.

Click to expand...

So you didn't bother to read the full quotes then? Why am I not surprised. He plainly opposed the concept of maryolatory but he was correct that the desire to worship comes from the same need in human hearts.

"...The context makes it clear what Hort is talking about - the idea of mediation. In that sense, Mary-worship and Jesus-worship DO have much in common - they both involve worship of a mediator, they both stem from the idea that a mediator is required. One is good and correct, and one is sinful and wrong, but they still have some things in common..."

Click to expand...

Lost4words said:

Surely the modern versions must be more accurate as they have been put together from many more pieces of scripture that has been collated and studied in depth? More parchments are available to use when putting together the Bible correctly today than when the KJV was assembled?

Click to expand...

Would you rather be made "perfect" or "complete" by the inspired word of God?
I pick "perfect".

Phil W said:

Would you rather be made "perfect" or "complete" by the inspired word of God?
I pick "perfect".

Click to expand...

We've had this conversation. The Greek says 'complete' and 'perfect' by inference. 'Complete' is the better translation. Moreover the KJV is not the standard by which we judge other English translations of the scriptures.

Phil W said:

Would you rather be made "perfect" or "complete" by the inspired word of God?
I pick "perfect".

Click to expand...

If its complete, then it is perfect.

joshua 1 9 said:

Does that hold true for modern hebrew vs ancient hebrew?

Click to expand...

TO a degree - yes. Modern Hebrew still holds the ability to support various levels of meaning, as do Aramaic and Arabic. But word meanings (denotations) and more specifically connotations, have changed a lot.

joshua 1 9 said:

Give me ONE (1) example where another translations is better then the KJV.

Click to expand...

Why does the KJV (and every translation after it) call Jacob "James?"