What does it mean to you to be KJVO?

KJVO is all about the KJV being the ONLY valid translation of God's Word to the complete and total exclusion of other translations.This is different than only KJ or KJ preferred.Some KJVO folks go so far as to say if you were quoted scripture from a non-KJV of the Bible when you accepted Christ then you are not really saved.

Only KJ folks generally recognize that there are other valid translations of God's Holy Word but they are most comfortable with and trust thier KJV of the Bible and stick to it.That is very close to many KJV preferred's who recognize the other translations as valid but prefer to stick with the KJV.They may, and for some often consult other translations for a variety of reasons.

 

If I bought a car and it never gave me trouble why should I get another one? I was brought to Christ years ago by Evang. Bill Rice. He used the KJV. For as long as I remember my Dad used the KJV. I used the KJV in Bible school and have preached out of it for over 30 years. Why should I change?

 

You ever try driving a Ford Model T on the freeway?

 

ford sucks. period.

i use the KJV - cause i grew up with it. i can understand it better then the other versions.

 

Those of us who are "KJVO" but who are honest about things understand that most of the MVs contain the word of God. There is usually enough preserved in tact for a person to get saved and it is quite evident that this is so. One would have to be a fool to say that brethren who use other translations are not saved because of this.

The illustration best used for this fact is that one can lead someone to Christ by presenting the gospel story even in their own words. For example, in many areas of the world the word of God is illegal to possess yet brethren still lead people to the Lord with the Scripture they have memorized or in their own words.

The issue is that we who believe the KJB is the preserved word of God in the English language understand that every doctrine and every jot and tittle is of the utmost importance for proper grounding and Christian growth. Some may disagree, but this is what we believe nevertheless.

The main idea that is at the core of the KJB being what we claim it to be, other than the Scripture that are usually cited (and rejected) is that it is proven. It has been proven over the last almost 400 years in the English-speaking world. There was a time when the KJB was almost exclusively used by English speaking people. But over the last hundered or so years there have popped up at least ten dozen other English "versions" of God's word, and look at Christianity now. It is almost like no two brethren can agree anymore. Confusion. Caused by the devil. I'm sure he looks at Christendom these days and says "mission accomplished".

I do have a solemn warning for those who fear God, though. I have not seen any "KJVonlyers" do this but I have seen "MVers" do it: and that is when we say that the Holy Spirit of God guided us to the KJB I have seen some mock that. Beware, for I would not dare to mock anyone who told me the Holy Spirit guided them to whatever version(s) they read. I think that is a very serious offence and brethren ought to be very careful before mocking such a holy thing.

There is no such thing as "extra-biblical" revelation, but anyone who is saved knows that there is Holy Spirit conviction and guidance, and only God knows why He guides some down one path and others down the other. We will all give account for our words and deeds, let us not forget that.

Lest we let the adversary get the upper hand, we remember:

John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

I post this because I have seen some nasty and unloving comments from both sides.

The PhatCat

 

Why live in an insulated home when you can pay the fuel bill?

I was brought to Christ by a fellow student who used the ASV. For as long as I can remember my family never read the Bible. It just collected dust. The first time I tried to read it I understood almost nothing. Later, after I became a Christian I read that Bible and still understood little until I bought a NAS. Then God's word came alive because I understood what I was reading.

 

Gas that is.

 

To me when I see KJVO, I automatically think of people that state the KJV is the ONLY true translation.
I am KJ preferred. I preach from it, teach from it, I have used it all my life, but I also read others.
Not everyone that says they are KJVO are ruckmanites. They are sincere Christians.

Now, having said that, I do have a pet peeve....
It bothers me to see churches use "KJV 1611" in their advertisements when they don't actually use the 1611. If they do, great. But be honest about it. If the 1769 is the same as a 1611, then just use "KJV" in your ads. Otherwise it is misleading.

But that is just one of my hang-ups. So don't crucify me for it.
Maybe next week, I'll have another pet peeve... I'll call it "harry" or "fred" or "bob".......

 

I think PhatCat summed it up for me as well. There are many of us who hold to the KJ because we believe it is THE preserved Word of God in the English language. That does not mean that one cannot get saved by using another version, nor does it mean that when going to another country you'd use our English translation as a foundation for translating into that other language.

I think that rather than trying to make categories for everyone, we should just ask the individual what they think.

 

One who believes:

a) the KJV is exclusively the Word in English

b) believes the words of the KJV are themselves inspired and exclusively correct

c) makes belief in KJVOnlyism an article of faith or test of one's spiritual status

 

but Scott J, it's unfair to add your c) to the definition of KJV only OR Only KJV. Not everyone who holds to your a) and b) also acts in accordance with your c). But because you include all 3 points in your definition, you hear "KJVO" and you automatically react to that person as if they are heretical.

Not just you, but many people on this board apparently hold to your same three-part definition, and thus react in an improper way to anyone who says they are KJVO.

 

to which I say

 

Not really since they won't encroach upon the Christian liberty of those who do not share their convictions.

There are only KJV people who don't even make this a test of fellowship (which should have been another point).

Why wouldn't a person who thought a and b not think c? Not trying to limit anyone but if I thought a and b... I would certainly think c... and wouldn't fellowship with them.

No. I am more than willing to let someone state their position here before reacting to a label. In fact, many people who are KJVO or otherwise on this issue couldn't tell you why. They've never researched the issue for themselves but have just accepted what someone taught them.

So when someone says they are KJVO or repeats the mantra, my first impulse is to give them the benefit of the doubt... that they are not fully informed.

Actually I endeavor not to react but to respond. A certain gentleman in the versions forum right now is making some pretty wild statements to include insenuations that those of us who disagree with him aren't (fill in the blank).

I have used the KJV all my life. I honor it... but I will not adopt false beliefs about it nor make it an idol.

 

Dear brother,
I hope this doesn't sound harsh, but what an arrogant statement. This is exactly the type of statement the evolutionist would make about the Christian who believes the creation account.

Now I'm not attacking you or picking on you, brother, but I have heard/read this ignorant statement many times before. It is both foolish and hurtful to make such assumptions about people. For instance, no one knows the vast library that Bapmom might have on this subject, no one knows how many degrees she might have or how many years of personal research she may have done on this subject. Those who make those generalizations don't know what kind of "looking into" PhatCat may have done.

I don't think you have read here where someone said that YOU were uninformed and just "believe the mantra" and repeat it. For all I know, you may have a double PhD in modern Bible versions, and I won't insult you by "assuming" otherwise.

There seems to be a scary trend around here for people to just discount it when a "KJVO" says that were convicted by the Holy Spirit. That is very scary. Do they not believe in HS conviction? Do they know for sure it hasn't happened? Talk about arrogance. Talk about judging.

There is no reason why we can't get along and just get to work for Christ without the frivilous squabbling. Do you say that the Holy Ghost convicted or didn't convict you about which translation you read? Good, who am I to mock that and assume it can't be? Good for you, now that we have stated our positions, let's go forward.

One more thing: Many who are not "KJVOs" ask and ask and ask and ask for Scriptural and/or extrabiblical proof for their convictions. When it is given, they mock, scorn, laugh or otherwise discount it. Hey, if it doesn't do it for you, then get over it and move on because hundreds perish daily into a Christ-less eternity while you continue to ask for something you obviously don't want and won't believe anyway.

Please, this was not an angry or condescending post, just a totally honest answer to the initial question.

May God bless the brethren as we thank Him for His mercy and grace!

 

to which I say

</font>[/QUOTE]gtbuzzarp,

my post was a comment on his definition, and not a statement as to the rightness or wrongness of KJV Only.

 

Scott,

you said a) and b) have to lead to c). I just don't agree with that. I can fellowship with people who are not KJV only. Perhaps you were referring to ecclesiastical fellowship? and if you were then I would agree there.....as a church my church does not fellowship with other churches that are not KJVonly....but as a local church unto ourselves we have that prerogative.

I would not judge a person's salvation based on what version they use...actually I don't judge how "spiritual" they may or may not be based on their Bible version either.

In other words, KJVO is a basis for ecclesiastical separation to me, but not one of personal separation. Being KJVO means we only read the KJ, and it is the preserved Word of God in the English language. If translating into another language Id use the TR, and not the KJV. Within the framework of my personal friendships I do not consider KJVOism as part of the equation.

 

Here is what KJVO means to me:

1. THe King James version has stood the test of time.

2. The translators of the KJV were guided by The Holy Ghost (Who cares if they were paedobaptists.... They believed in Jesus!)

3. The KJV is God's Word in english.

4. As a general rule one uses only the KJV for reading and study.


Here is what I think:

A. The KJV is a good english translation.

B. There are several of bad translations now.

C. You don't need to translate from the KJV to other languages. You work from hebrew and greek.

D. In principle, God could guide another group of english translators.... I am just not sure if I have seen that yet.

E. I think it is strange to have so many arguments over jots and tittles if they aren't really important (as is argued by some).

F. I think it is strange that some would argue that God has nothing to do with translation while they are convinced that God has a hand in their own daily lives.

 

No I didn't. I said that if I believed a and b then I would also believe c.

You mean you can fellowship with people that you genuinely believe have denied God's Word?

That and any other fellowship that identified me with what they believe or compromise with what they believe.

I am in agreement with the original fundamentalists concerning fellowship for the most part. They had various denominations and interpretations but centered around a respect for and acceptance of the authority of the Bible.

Therefore, if I thought someone denied the Bible... I couldn't fellowship with them.

Isn't that inconsistent? On the one hand you contend they are not using God's Word. On the other hand you allow that they have been genuinely saved and are being sanctified through use of a different Bible version. If it weren't God's Word, would it be able to make one wise unto salvation? Would it be "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works"?

I disagree that this describes KJVO sufficiently. Exclusivity is the key. I believe use the KJV exclusively in church. It is the official version of my church. I agree that it is the Word of God and that the Word has been preserved in the KJV.

 

I know, but the OP wanted to know what KJVO mean to you. So anyone's opinion, no matter how right or wrong, or whether you agree with it or not,is valid in this thread. Just being a pest, don't mind me

So since I'm guilty of not sticking to it either I better post something.

To me I guess to KJVO is a mismosh of Dr Bob's #3-#5 definitions on the Bible Versions/Translations page.