Ed's Catalogue of KJVO Doubles

---407 - KJVOs are alloed to determine that the KJV1769 is accurately translated by MV users are not allowed to determine that thier specific MV is accuragely translated.

 

---804 - People who have read the KJV1769 that is called "the KJV1611" are experts in the KJVs (all flavors) and the MVs (all flavors) and the original language sources (all flavors) -- they are experts without having read the other KJVs, MVs, or original language sources.

 

---023 - Even if you make a mistake understanding the KJV1769 (AKA:
KJB) you are right; but even if you correctly understand the MV you are wrong.

 

---210 - Exalt the scholarshi0p of those who promote the KJVO myth (even if SDAs & Anglicans); minimize good, godly scholars that work with MVs even if Baptists).

 

Thank you, Brother Ransom. Henseforth
that DOUBLE will be called #211.

Micah 6:11 (KJV1769):

Shall I count them pure
with the wicked balances,
and with the bag of deceitful weights?

Micah VI:11 (KJV1611):

(BTW, this is just opposite the page in
Micah that says "Ioel" or Joel)

||Shall I count them pure with
the wicked balances, and with the bag
of deceitfull weights?

Sidenote: Or, shall I be pure with, etc.

"Or" indicates the second best translation.

Micah VI:11 (KJV1611):

Shall I be pure with
the wicked balances, and with the bag
of deceitfull weights?

 

They are just popping in this morning:

--- 107 - The Latin Vulgate is a bad translation, except where improved by use in the KJB.

--- 108 - The Lord "is not bound by rules of textual criticism" in the
KJV; but man is bound by rules of textual criticism in the MVs.

 

---024 - In the KJV, typos are of God; in the MV, typos are of the evil one.

---025 - With the KJV "by thier good fruits ye shall know them"; with MVs by there bad fruits ye shall know them.

 

This week started out a goldmine of Double Standards:

---504 - KJVOs may use a translation: KJV1769. MV users may NOT use their translation, just the true words of God, the KJV1769.

---721 - This conversation was so classic, i coppied it whole:

KJVP: " ... think I'll tackle one proof text ... Genesis 3v1 ... "

KJVO who denies the "KJVO" label: "It might do yourself and others well, if you read the scriptures as a whole, rather than focus soley on one verse."

--- 026 - KJVOs may base the4ir belief on one nisunderstood verse like Psalm 12:7. MV users may not base tehir beliefs on one verse at a time

 

---603 - The footnoes are not scripture in the KJV
but are scripture in the nKJV.

 

--- 804 - Westcott & Hort are evil idiots
when collecting Greek source texts;
they are good geniuses when indentifying
evil Alexandrian texts.

 

Bro.Bill in a now closed thread:

//Ed,
Is there any chance you could update your catalogue of KJVO double standards .I think I want to print it out for reference to use when discussing things with them.//

Actually there is a problem. The
.txt file i have it in is NOT compatable
with the BB editor

 

Bro.Bill in a now closed thread:

//Ed,
Is there any chance you could update your catalogue of KJVO double standards .I think I want to print it out for reference to use when discussing things with them.//

No problem.

Ed's Catalogue of KJVO Doubles

(Caveat: not all KJVO-ists practice all
the given Double Standards. This compilation
makes KJVOs look bad, but most KJVOs are good
people and nary an individual KJVO practices
all these Double Standards. (Some do get close
though )
------------------------------

000 - Generic Double Standards

---001 - Reading an MV offends God; reading a KJV does not.

---002 - Only KJVOs have the right to understand the KJB.

Deluded MV people don't undertand how to read anything,

especially MVs.

---003 - "It is written" in the KJBs indicate it is God's

written word of truth. "It is written" in the MVs is a

preverse trick of Satan.

---004 - Believing the KJV is the written word of GOd is an

act of faith. Believing an MV is the written word of God is

an act of doubt.

---005 - In the KJV things that are the same are diferent.

With MVs things that are not the same are different.

---006 - "KJV" must always be capitalized, while "mv" must

never be capitalized.

---007 - Anti-KJVOs enjoy bashing those who stand for the

preserved word of God; KJVOs enjoy instructing others in

righteousness.

---008 - Anything good that happened 1701-1900 is due to the

positive influence of the KJB.Anything bad that happened

1901-2004 is due to the negative influence of the MVs.

Corrollary: nothing bad happened 1701-1900 and nothing good

happened after 1901

---009 - The KJB is inerrant as I understand it; it is not

inerrant as you understand it.

---010 - Genesis 1:1-Revelation 22 are the Word of God if in

the KJV, but are NOT the Word of God if in a Modern Version.

---011 - Any passage in the KJV claiming to refer to God's

perfectly preserving His Word is talking about the KJV... the

same does not hold true for the passage in any other version

(including ones pre-KJV).

---012 - People who are "against the KJV" may think they are

reading new versions to understand them better and because of

the more recent manuscripts, but they really do so because

the KJV "puts them in their place, such as saying 'hell'

instead of hades'" rather than because of the old english,

manuscripts, etc.. People who are against mv's, on the other

hand, have seen the light and are the only ones not deceived.

---013 - It is alright to dis a MV (or pre-1611 English

versions) but
is bad to dis a KJB.

---014 - If you believe that more than one version is the

word of God, then even though you can give scriptural

evidence of more than one version being the word of God, your

final authority is your own self. BUT.... If you believe

that the only word of God in the English language is the KJV,

then even though you can give absolutely no scriptural

evidence of that, your final authority is the Spirit.

---015 - It is alright for the KJBO to ignore that there have

always been a proliferation of translations even the

"meanest" of which are the Word of God (according to the KJB

translators) so they can concentrate on "the book of the

month club"

---016 - The KJV is exempt from the adding prohibition of

Revelation 22:18.

--- 017 - The conjecture of an unlearned KJVO-ite is more

significant than the learned proofs of a MV-ite.

---018 - If the MV is found to be written at the Fifth Grade

level of reading comprehemsion -- it has been DUMBED DOWN.

If the KJV1769 is found to be written at the 5th Grade level

of reading comprehension -- it is perfecter than ever!

---019 - Don't use facts.
Facts confuse me.
God is not the author of confusion.
Dirty demonic confuser

---020 - I believe what the Bible says if it is a King James

Version 1769 or 1762 edition but not if it is a kJV1611

edition or KJV1873 edition or //shudder// a MV.

---021 - No difference between two Editions of the KJV are

enough to spoil it; the slightest difference between two

versions of non-KJV Bibles is sufficient to spoil it.

---022 - Demeaning the MVs magnifies the KJV.

---023 - Even if you make a mistake understanding the KJV1769

(AKA: KJB) you are right; but even if you correctly

understand the MV you are wrong.

---024 - In the KJV, typos are of God; in the MV, typos are

of the evil one.

---025 - With the KJV "by thier good fruits ye shall know

them"; with MVs by there bad fruits ye shall know them.

--- 026 - KJVOs may base their belief on one misunderstood

verse like Psalm 12:7. MV users may not base their beliefs

on one verse at a time

---027 - In a MV, it is a bug; in the KJV, it is a feature.


100 - The sources

---101 - the MV's come from Alexandria, which is Egypt, which

is always evil and a type of sin and bad (contrasted to the

Byzantine Catholic texts from Syria). Of course, JESUS came

from Egypt after being saved from Herod there, and never even

went to Syria, but . . .

---102 - the Hebrew and Greek sources were translated from

the KJV before the KJV existed???

---103 - The LXX is a bad translation, except where improved

by use in the KJB.

---104 - the variations in the Textus Receptus (TR) are the

same, all 47 of them that are documented in the KJV1611

---105 - - some KJVOs attack the persons involved in

production of other Bibles (Westcott and Hort, NIV committee

memebers, etc) as if that therefore discredits their work,

when they are unwilling to recognize/admit/discuss the KJV

translators, Erasmus, etc., who in most instances were much

more "shocking" in their beliefs and actions.

---106 - The source texts backing the KJV are pure; the

source texts backing the MVs are corrupt -- this is true even

when both use the same source text.

--- 107 - The Latin Vulgate is a bad translation, except

where improved by use in the KJB.

--- 108 - The Lord "is not bound by rules of textual

criticism" in the
KJV; but man is bound by rules of textual criticism in the

MVs.


200 - Authorized Version, Final Authority

---201 - The logo "Authorized Version" on a KJV means that it
has been authorized by God Almighty; such a non-textual
inscription on any non-KJV is an abomination.

---202 - The KJV1769 is the only "Authorized Version" that

was authorized by God. Abominations like the KJV1611 edition

authorized by King James are not really AV. Abominsations

like the KJV1873 authorized by the head of the Church of

England are not not really AV.

---203 - It is alright to make your KJV1769 your Final

Authority, but NOT any one MV or any group of MVs.

---204 - if you cannot understand the KJV; your pastor, the

supreme authority on the language, is allowed to decipher it

for you

---205 - It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the local church pastor

to decipher any archaic or difficult words in the KJV;

however, even a Hebrew/Greek scholar is an abomination before

God.

---206 - "I don't care what the Latin Vulgate says, and I

don't need to know what it says." -- apathy (I don't care)

and ignorance (I don't know)

---207 - Any change in a MV (however slight) is large; any

change in a KJB (however large) is slight.

---208 - In KJVs: things that are different are the same; in

MVs: things that are different are not the same

---209 - The KJV is the "final authority", but that authority

does not teach or say to believe in KJV-onlyism!

---210 - Exalt the scholarship of those who promote the KJVO

myth (even if SDAs & Anglicans); minimize good, godly

scholars that work with MVs even if Baptists).

--- 211 - KJV-onlyists accuse non-KJV-onlyists of having no

objective standard with which to critically evaluate modern

versions (and hence we are supposed to believe that all of

them are equally faithful); however, they reserve the right

to evaluate any modern version against their subjective and

arbitrary standard, the KJV.

300 - TDB


400 - The translator(s)

---401 - It is alright to have the AV be authorized by a

homosexual king; it is not alright for a MV to be checked for

style by a homosexual style consultant.

---402 - Scholars contribulated to the KJV (this is alright);

scholars contributed ot the MVs (this is bad and invalidates

the MVs).

---403 - It is alright for baby sprinkling Anglicans to

translate the KJV; it is a sin for Westcott and Hort to let a

Greek scholar who is a Unitarian to help make the Greek

source from which the MVs are translated.

---404 - The scholarship of the KJV translators far surpassed

that of anyone who ever worked on a modern version. But when

something the translators wrote in their preface or a

footnote supports the reading of a MV, then their words are

"merely man's opinion."

---405 - The NIV is not to be trusted because of the

involvement of Virginia Mollenkott on the translation

committee. But Virginia Mollenkott herself is courted by

KJV-onlyists as a reliable source of information about the

translation of the NIV.

---406 - One Bachelor of Home Economics writing on Bible

interpertation > (is greater than) a dozen each of: Doctor of

Hebrew, Doctor of Greek, Doctor of Ancient Languages, etc.

(that is Gail A. Riplinger, GA /GA = God's Adviser/)

---407 - KJVOs are allowed to determine that the KJV1769 is

accurately translated by MV users are not allowed to

determine that thier specific MV is accurately translated.

500 - the editions

---501 - The KJV has editions, the MVs have versions

---502 - There are 5000 minor changes (spelling) and about

150 major changes (entire words and phrases) in a typical

KJV1769 Oxford or 1762 Cambridge revision from the AV1611.

But those changes don't count. Yet an MV "must" be bad

because THEY change the words from sacred AV1611.

---503 - Revisions/editions to the KJV are done to correct

printing errors and spelling changes due to the English

language being perfected. Now English is so corrupted no

version of the Bible can be enhansed.

---504 - KJVOs may use a translation: KJV1769. MV users may

NOT use their translation, just the true words of God, the

KJV1769.

600 - the margin notes

---601 - the margin notes in the KJV
are of Devine origin; the margin notes
in the MV are of demonic origin

---602 - Marginal notes by translators should not be
read; they show the divine, inspired translators were
confused and we know God is NOT the author of confusion

---603 - The footnotes are not scripture in the KJV
but are scripture in the nKJV.


700 - translation, the results

---701 - It is alright for the KJV to use
lower case "spirit" but MVs must
use upper case "Holy Spirit".

---702 - It is alright for the KJV to call
Joseph the father of Jesus, but the MV cannot do that.

---703 - It is not misleading in the slightest for the KJV

reader to have to read "tried to" into the "did flatter" in

Psalm 78:36, but the NASV is of course really, really

misleading because "tried to" has to be read into the

"deceived".

---704 - You can call the Holy Ghost "it" in the KJV;
but you dare not call the Holy Spirit "it" in an MV.

---705 - In the KJV you can understand that some things
in the KJV are the opinion of ungodly folk and ungodly
entities. In the MV everything has to be the saying of God
Almighty.

---706 The HOly Spirit can reveal truths from a KJV
but not from a MV.

---707 - Textual criticism in the KJV book of Revelation

strengthens the KJBs. Textual criticism in the MVs are

flawed.

---708 - It is Godly for the KJB to add Revelation 1:11 to

the text. It is devilish for the MV to take Revelation 1:11

away from the text.

---709 - KJVOs point out faults they perceive exist in other

versions while totally ignoring the fact that those same

"faults" exist in the KJV. Some examples:
-
709A - Modern translations refer to Joseph as being Christ?s

?father? (Lk 2:33) and Mary and Joseph as being Christ?s

?parents? (Lk 2:43)."
-
So does the KJV. See Lk 2:48,27,41
-
709B - The NASB refers to Christ as being ?offspring? (Lk

1:35).
-
So does the KJV. See Rev 22:16
-
709c - The KJV exalts Christ more than the modern versions.
-
John 1:18 - NIV, NASB call Christ God, but the KJV doesn?t
Titus 2:13; 2 Pe 1:1 - NIV, NASB call Christ God but the KJV

speaks of Christ and God as being two different people
Rom 1:3 - KJV says that Christ was ?made? (created?)
Lk 1:35 - KJV calls Christ a ?thing?. Every other valid

version I've ever read calls Him "Holy One" or Holy Child",

not a holy "thing".

---710 - Only God can be worshiped in the MVs but the KJV

says that Nebuchadnezzar worshipped Daniel? (Dan 2:46)

---711 - You can say all manner of evil falsely against an MV

without getting God's attention; but just say a word that

might be construed as slightly unkind against one of the many

KJVs and God will probably zap you with a bolt of lightning.

---712 - Some KJBOs defend a
Greek term "Christ" that offend Jews
when there is a perfectly Good English Term:
"Anointed One". BTW "Anointed" is used instead
of "Christ" in the KJV1611.

---713 - paraphrasing is alright in the KJV but taboo for the

MVs

---714 - If evil men use a MV for bad, the MV is invalid; if

evil men use the KJV for bad, the KJV is still valid.

---715 - It is alright that the KJV translators added
words to clarify the tranlsation; it is bad that the MV
translators added words to calarify thier translations

---716 - This conversation was so classic, i coppied it

whole:
KJVO Myth buster says: ----------------------------
Since Scripture is our highest written authority,
any doctrine ABOUT Scripture MUST BE SUPPORTED somewhere
in Scripture in order to be valid. The total lack
of any such support, empirical or implied, renders the KJVO

myth wrong.
--------------------------------------------------
Apparently this isn't true for the mvo's
who only believe the message or saying is important,
and not the written words of scripture.
They have nothing sound and accurate to rely upon.

--717 - The NKJV is wrong for adding the word God, but the

KJV is correct for adding the word God. (Genesis 44:7,

Genesis 44:17, Joshua 22:29, Joshua 24:16, 1 Samuel 12:23, 1

Samuel 14:45, 1 Samuel 20:2, 1 Chronicles 11:19, Job 27:5,
Lu 20:16, Romans 3:4, Romans 3:6, Romans 3:31, Romans 6:2,

Romans 6:15, Romans 7:7, Romans 7:13, Romans 9:14, Romans

11:1, Romans 11:11, 1 Corinthians 6:15, Galatians 2:17,

Galatians 3:21, Galatians 6:14.)

--718 - Even though the sunburst design on the KJV's original

title page is also a common motif on Mormon temples and other

occult art, it gets a pass. But the Celtic "triquetra" knot

on the spine of the NKJV is "satanic" because it is also a

common Wiccan/occult symbol.

---719 - It is OK for a Bible to use "dynamic equivalence" as

long as it's the KJV doing it.

---720 - When one Hebrew or Greek word can be translated

using two or more English terms, if the context does not help

to select one of the words -- what the KJV translator does is

inspired, what the MV translator does is guess.

---721 - This conversation was so classic, i coppied it

whole:
KJVP: " ... think I'll tackle one proof text ... Genesis 3v1

... "
KJVO who denies the "KJVO" label: "It might do yourself and

others well, if you read the scriptures as a whole, rather

than focus soley on one verse."



800 - the authors

---801 - NEW AGE VERSIONS is the inerrant word of God And

Riplinger (G.A. Riplinger). It is the result of a through

life-time study of all MVs by Priestess Gail Riplinger.

---802 - You can say all manner of evil falsely against

Westcott and Hort and still be saved by grace; but if you say

anything against Riplinger or Ruckman, even God's truth, then

you will be zapped with a bolt of lightning.

---803 - When David Otis Fuller "defends" the KJV by

plagiarizing Seventh-day Adventist Benjamin Wilkinson,

quoting SDA founder Ellen G. White, their documented apostasy

is unimportant. But the modern versions are discredited

because of the alleged occultic or apostate beliefs of

Westcott and Hort (though when closely scrutinized, these

accusations turn out to be hearsay or outright falsehoods).

--- 804 - Westcott & Hort are evil idiots when collecting

Greek source texts; they are good geniuses when indentifying

evil Alexandrian texts.


900 - the languages

---0901 - Requiring English users to learn the original

Hebrew (O.T.) and Greek (N.T.) is bad. Requiring

non-English users to learn English so they can enjoy the

AV1611 KJB (1769 edition) is good.

 

Sorry, my floppy drive went bad,
i went to another comptuer and e-mailed
the file to this comptuer and then
the soft line returns had turned
into double hard returns.

I hate Bill Gates

I'll run and reformat my file.

 

Thank you Sister Marcia, that is:

--718 - Even though the sunburst design on the KJV's original title page is also a common motif on Mormon temples and other occult art, it gets a pass. But the Celtic "triquetra" knot on the spine of the NKJV is "satanic" because it is also a common Wiccan/occult symbol.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------
And to this, I suggest you go and read the preface to the KJB
by the translators. They explain quite clearly the reasons
why they were doing a translation.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bro Tony: “Ed,

“Here is another KJVO double standard. It is perfectly legitimate to see the KJV translators as authoritative when it supports the KJVO position, but not when they do not.

“In the same preface the KJV translators do not claim for themselves and their version what the KJVOist claim.”

Bro Tony: this has already been documented:

---404 - The scholarship of the KJV translators far surpassed
that of anyone who ever worked on a modern version. But when
something the translators wrote in their preface or a
footnote supports the reading of a MV, then their words are
"merely man's opinion."

 

I just found this one
in a closed topic. I'll look for your
other one shortly.

Actually there is very
little new ideas going about, but we
go over and over and over the same
material. This is not good for the long timers
but might be of some use for the new comers?

May God put some real good blessings on
Bro Tony today and for his family and his
ministry. Amen!