My goodness... you really don't get it. Read my previous post again. Maybe three or four times.Sure; and it also applies to people who only think that they are Christians.
And you.That may in fact include you.
My goodness... you really don't get it. Read my previous post again. Maybe three or four times.Sure; and it also applies to people who only think that they are Christians.
And you.That may in fact include you.
Is it not true that the NIV does not include what is included by the kjv in such passages as Luke 9:55-56 and Romans 13:9?About 5 years ago was the first time I encountered these cultists online. Thankfully I've never met any in real life and
the KJV readers I know don't have a problem with other translations. The Onlyists have been ruthless in their attacks
on my preferred translations. Every charge I've checked up on has proved to be false. They don't acccept proof but
continue to repeat the same insults and detractions.
When the translation explains that the manuscripts vary or the exact meaning of the Hebrew word is uncertain,
it seems to upset the Onlyits. The alleged "missing verses" are always there to read.
The below example is the longest section of verses that differ in available manuscripts.
As can be seen quite clearly, they are not omitted. they are explained and included. (Mark 16:9-20)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark 16&version=NIVUK,KJV
Maybe some people do that. Some people use the term rightly, having done their homework.Calling something a cult is certain people's way of rejecting what is spoken without having to look into what they are saying; whether it is valid or not.
My goodness... you really don't get it. Read my previous post again. Maybe three or four times.
And you.![]()
Those who say, that those who believe tha kjv-only side of the kjv-only controversy are cultists, have not done their homework.Maybe some people do that. Some people use the term rightly, having done their homework.
Those who disagree, do so because they do not like the doctrine of the kjv and therefore they heap to themselves teachers (in the translators of other versions) to tell them what their itching ears want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3).The Textus Receptus (from which we get the kjv) is the correct stream.
That is foolish. You have completely misunderstood the verse.No. once I have read a post, I have read it. I don't go backwards when I am going through posts; because of the principle in Philippians 3:13.
Your assertion is incorrect.Those who disagree, do so because they do not like the doctrine of the kjv and therefore they heap to themselves teachers (in the translators of other versions) to tell them what their itching ears want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3).
No, it is not incorrect for the most part.Your assertion is incorrect.
Have you ever asked someone why they reject the TR? Or have you just invented an explanation that satisfies you, regardless of whether it is true? Or perhaps you are content with parroting the silly comments of others without giving them the critical thought they deserve.
Provide evidence to support your assertion.No, it is not incorrect for the most part.
You keep trying to make this about me. Why? Do you feel inferior?But truly, God knows your heart.
Provide evidence to support your assertion.
You keep trying to make this about me. Why? Do you feel inferior?
No, I am simply applying it an a way that you do not agree with.That is foolish. You have completely misunderstood the verse.
They'll do, for starters.
"Any difference is significant."
The evidence is in the fact that the kjv contains doctrines that people generally don't like and therefore they go to other translations because they want a different message. Other translations do give them a different message that tends to be watered down as compared to the kjv. The evidence is in the reading if you will read the kjv as compared to other translations; but is too extended in content for me to relate everything about it here.
I make it about you because I care about you and am making it my goal, while speaking with you, to minister to you.
I've been debating and having to defend my bible to these Onlyists for several years on this site.
I've researched the accusations quite a lot. KJV Onlyism is very cult like. I stand by that statement.
Again, I ask for evidence. Find a doctrine that "people generally don't like", and find someone... ANYONE... who has gone to another translation because they want a different message.The evidence is in the fact that the kjv contains doctrines that people generally don't like and therefore they go to other translations because they want a different message. Other translations do give them a different message that tends to be watered down as compared to the kjv. The evidence is in the reading if you will read the kjv as compared to other translations; but is too extended in content for me to relate everything about it here.
Insulting people is not an effective way to minister to them. I don't perceive anything in the way of "caring" from you.I make it about you because I care about you and am making it my goal, while speaking with you, to minister to you.
Here's the reality: there isn't a single primary or secondary doctrine that can't be found in the modern translations. NOT ONE. There isn't even a minor, disputable doctrine that can't be found in the modern translations. Your assertion is nothing but wind.
If I have insulted you then I apologize.Insulting people is not an effective way to minister to them. I don't perceive anything in the way of "caring" from you.
yea saying vipers most of the time is not the best way.I think if we just become the lips of god,that is the best way.If we are like hay Jesus i'll take care of this!! then of course the word of god will be mixed with pride. Insalt not in insult become lots wife that is the salt of the earth in the proper context of course.Again, I ask for evidence. Find a doctrine that "people generally don't like", and find someone... ANYONE... who has gone to another translation because they want a different message.
I won't wait.
Here's the reality: there isn't a single primary or secondary doctrine that can't be found in the modern translations. NOT ONE. There isn't even a minor, disputable doctrine that can't be found in the modern translations. Your assertion is nothing but wind.
Insulting people is not an effective way to minister to them. I don't perceive anything in the way of "caring" from you.