KJVO

It has recently been said, "KJVO... we just will not tolerate or coddle it in any way shape or form. Every "cell" of this "cancer" needs to be traced down and obliterated..." That is the attitude some have towards those that would stand for the King James Version, and its lineage.

The battle is not over the use of synonyms in the English language, but has to do with different and contradictory readings. The notion is advanced, believe the text, while accepting the text is likely corrupted, therefore read and hear based on, “Yea, hath God said...” while feigning to believe the text. You must see white as being black, and you must call it black.

The Antiocian, or Textus Receptus was advanced, and the Alexandrian was not used for the most part, till Westcott and Hort advanced the Alexandrian again, and generated much confusion evident today in the myriad of conflicting English versions. In 1952, the RSV based on the altered Greek was promoted, saying, "Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other." Yet that RSV was based on a different foundation, not using the same foundation as the KJB but instead the foundation used for all the many new versions frequently appearing today, containing contradictory readings. Things different are not the same.

 

There are those that would like to go beyond words with there distain of the authoritative King James Version Bible.

See what price Tyndale paid for the readings. But we must remember the weapons of our warfare are not carnal.

Christians previous laid down their lives for the readings now contained in the King James Bible! How can we forget them? Now scholars are convincing the masses there are no certain readings, except what they allow on any given day, till they decide on a new reading.

Are we to abandon the readings they had, and now embrace new readings?

It shows by such things being said, against the KJVO, some are now trying to get the nerve to cause real harm, wanting to conquer the people with the doctrine of the Nicolaitans (Rev 2:6, 15). With these things, it is soon realized we each stand alone with our Lord, and answer to Him.

 

I commend you. You have my identity down pretty good. Most people stumble over my name, especially the first few times, but you got every letter right. Yes, it's Krajcik.

But the other part, no, I'm an angler, really enjoy fishing. Fishing Web Page

And as for loyalty to the crown, I am a lifetime member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, a member of the Marine League, and a member of the Marine Corps Association, plus held rank of Sergeant, US Marine Corps. You have no reason to question my loyalty to the United States. You are way off base. What’s your problem?

[ January 01, 2003, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: Bob Krajcik ]

 

More on the thinking I am loyal to the Crown.

Perhaps it was thought I was from Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, UK.

Read more carefully. In my profile I have my location listed, Mansfield, Ohio USA. It has always been that way.

 

Oh boy.

I am aware of that. I was thinking to diffuse his sarcasm.

Say, you wouldn’t be using sarcasm to say my Bible is not trustworthy, would you? Haven’t you said you believe the readings, at least conditionally believe the readings? Does that make you an Anglican that is a backslider?

I’ll be more careful next time.

Actually, what I accept is the authoritative word of God, and I have that in my wholly true and wholly complete King James Version Bible.

 

Not wanting to mislead or misunderstand you based on what you said previous, now, do you say my Bible is trustworthy as it is, or is it trustworthy if other sources are considered along with it?

Just a few questions to help clarify your position, giving you ample opportunity to clearly state your position so it will not be possible for me to misrepresent you, since you will have finally clearly stated your position.

</font>

• Is my KJV Bible trustworthy with Mark 3:5 and John 2:15? Are the versions that take out the words “without a cause” in Matthew 5:22 trustworthy, even though they show Jesus a sinner for being angry?</font>
• Is my KJV Bible trustworthy where it says “prophets” in Mark 1:2, and are other versions trustworthy where they say “Isaiah” in Mark 1:2?</font>
• Is my KJV Bible trustworthy where it says David killed Goliath, and are the other versions that say Elhanan killed Goliath also trustworthy?</font>
• Is my KJV Bible trustworthy in Matthew 6:13, and are the versions that delete those fourteen words used in my Bile also trustworthy?</font>
• Is my KJV Bible trustworthy in Mark 10:24, and are the versions that make it hard for everyone to enter the kingdom of God, as they have Mark 10:24, also trustworthy?</font>
• Is my KJV Bible trustworthy in Luke 4:4, and are the versions that say, well, they don’t say what we are to live by, but are they also trustworthy there?</font>
• Is my KJV Bible trustworthy where it tells me whom to believe in, with John 6:47, and are the versions that do not say whom to believe in there also trustworthy?</font>
• Is my KJV Bible trustworthy where it tells me about fasting, in verses Acts 10:30; 1 Corinthians 7:5; 2 Corinthians 6:5; 2 Corinthians 11:27; Matthew 17:21; Mark 9:29; and are the versions that delete reference to fasting also trustworthy?</font>
• Are there times fasting is indeed needful, as my KJV Bible says, or is that not true, and if it is true, how is one to know that from the versions that delete reference to fasting?</font>
• Must multiple choice version hopping be used to find the truth, and when the truth is found, how is a person to know they have the truth, if contradictory sources are to be perused?</font>
• Should a person be a Christian, Baptist, Buddhist, Muslim, Roman Catholic, Jehovah Witness, Mormon, etc etc all at once to be sure of having all the bases covered, if they are required to peruse different and contradictory versions of “trustworthy” versions to get it right?</font>
• Is my KJV Bible trustworthy at Romans 14:10 where it tells me about the Judgment Seat of Christ, showing we will be giving account to God, and showing Christ to be God, and are the versions that leave out the Judgment Seat of Christ et al also trustworthy?</font>

I am aware you could explain these things away by using the conflicting Greek sources, but what about English? You have said the KJV Bible is so hard to read, so why must we instead have to learn Greek to finally get it right? Or will you do it for us, so you will be the channel of communication?

 

Oh?

I suppose it is a matter of perspective. I don't see it the way you do.