KJVO

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Bob Krajcik, Dec 29, 2002.

  1. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  2. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    > That is the attitude some have towards those that
    > would stand for the King James Version, and its
    > lineage.

    No, it is not about the stand for the KJV. It is about the stand for KJVO. There is a difference.

    > 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.

    Actually, KJV-onlyism has NOTHING to do with either the Alexandrian texts or the Textus Receptus, and all discussion about them is a smokescreen. KJV-onlyism is about the view that the KJV is word-for-word perfect, and any change from it is a corruption. Since *BOTH* the Alexandrian texts AND the TR and non-Alexandrian texts differ from the KJV, it does not matter one iota (in the context of KJV-onlyism) which is the better line of texts since the KJV does not match ANY of them 100%. "Things different are not the same."
     
  3. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I have heard this before;it is nothing but incoherent drivel!!! It is all about the KJV the final authority. It flies in the face of their final authority,themselves & reconized scholarship,Ad Nauseam...... Of course, the KJV & it's users,believers will never go away....

    [ December 29, 2002, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]
     
  4. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  5. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,456
    Likes Received:
    93
    You're an Anglican, are you, Krajcik? and accept the authority of the crown?
     
  6. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 ]
     
  7. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    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. :D
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob,

    I think the point was not about your national loyalty but rather about your versional loyalty, accepting the authority of the Crown and the church of England.
     
  9. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just like loyalty to the corrupt Alexandrian Greek texts of Origen,Wescott& Hort,Nestle et al and themselves as authority;from which ALL Alexandrian per-versions come from...

    [ January 01, 2003, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: JYD ]
     
  10. Author

    Author
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://abooks.com/images/aralph.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    0
    I ask this in seriousness, how do you know the Alexandrian texts were corrupt and not the other way around? Since we don't have the original mss., how can we be sure which version is correct?

    From what I've read of Clement and Origen, there seems to be much to admire there. I have not looked into Hort and Wescott yet, but I will. ... However, just so far as overall scholarship goes, I would think Alexandria was far superior to Antioch from simply a historic viewpoint and, thus, more to be trusted. Alexandria was a center of learning, Antioch more a center of commerce.

    --Ralph

    [ January 01, 2003, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Author ]
     
  11. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh boy. [​IMG]

    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. [​IMG]

    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.
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know of anyone with such loyalty. Our concern is the whole God preserved deposit of manuscript evidence rather than the 7 or 8 that Erasmus used. These men you list do not consider themselves an authority. They list the evidence for you to check out for yourself. Nor are there any Alexandrian perversions. You are referring to faithful translations of God's word into modern vernacular. It is something that is desparately needed in this age.
     
  14. Wisdom Seeker

    Wisdom Seeker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    5,702
    Likes Received:
    0
    I enjoyed reading all of your posts. You sure know allot about why you believe what you believe and why you use the KJV or not. I too use only the K.J.V. but I have read other versions... I just prefer the K.J.V. for researched reasons that I will not go into as I don't want my personal reasons picked apart.

    I would also like to applaud you all for discussing something that can often become heated...without being uncharitable...it makes it nice for someone like me...to get something from all the sides presented...without all the fuss and fighting that usually presides over topics such as these.
     
  15. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  16. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Bob - Glad to see you are healthy and back on the bandwagon for the kjvo cult. :eek: You also know MY position (as apparent from carefully using the "kjvo cult" when I post to you!!) :D

    Watch your bp, brother. Will enjoy discussing this vile kjvo cancer that has contaminated the precious Word of God. [​IMG]

    I grew up thinking the real enemy of historic fundamental baptists were to the LEFT. I am coming to realize that those to the RIGHT are just as bad. Or worse.
     
  17. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    IMHO the most significant verse in the
    Holy Bible, God's written word for us,
    is Romans 10:9.

    Romanes X:9 (KJV1611):

    That if thou shalt confesse with
    thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and shalt
    beleeue in thine heart, that God hath
    raised him from the dead, thou shalt be
    saued.

    Romans 10:9 (KJV1769):

    That if thou shalt confess with
    thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
    believe in thine heart that God hath
    raised him from the dead, thou shalt be
    saved.

    Romans 10:9 (NLT):

    For if you confess with
    your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe
    in your heart that God
    raised him from the dead, you will be
    saved.

    Romans 10:9 (nKJV):

    that if you confess with
    your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe
    in your heart that God
    has raised Him from the dead, you will be
    saved.

    Romans 10:9 (RSV):

    because, if you confess with
    your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe
    in your heart that God
    raised him from the dead, you will be
    saved.

    If there is no difference, then they
    are same-same! Blessed be the Lord who
    gave us His holy written word in many
    forms.

    [ January 01, 2003, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Ed Edwards ]
     
  18. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh?

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

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob Krajcik: "Is my KJV Bible trustworthy ... ?"

    IMHO, yes. BTW, which one do you use?

    Is my New Century Version (NCV) trustworthy?

    Romans 10:9 (NCV):

    If you use your
    mouth to say, "Jesus is Lord," and if you
    believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from
    the dead, you will be saved.

    Fifty years ago i first said "Jesus is Lord"
    and first believed in my heart that God
    indeed raised Jesus from the dead.
    So then Jesus became my savior as well as my Lord.
    That is 1952 when i was saved. I'm still saved.
    Jesus is still my Lord. Jesus is still my Savior.

    Obviously the NCV didn't exist fifty years ago,
    but it does today. It the NCV trustworthy?
    Am i still saved? I think so.
     
  20. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,456
    Likes Received:
    93
    "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?"

    Those versions most definitely are trustworthy which DO NOT INSERT those words into Jesus' mouth. It is not up to translators to change His words because they have difficulty accepting those exact words. And it does not matter whether that silly scotsman and his cronies stuck those words in there. I reject their 'authority' by which the KJV is Authorized.
     

Share This Page

Loading...