MIS-CHARACTERIZATIONS about KJVOs?

1) Unwilling to listen to reason.
2) Not as highly educated.

These are not my opinions, just what I see as stereotypes applied to KJVOs.

 

The above two posts are excellent examples of the mis-charaterizations commonly launched against KJVOs.

 

The biggest one is that all KJVOs are anti-intellectual. Some are, but most are not against studying - they just come to different conclusions as others.

And the next is too automatically loop them in with Ruckman and those other fanatical types. Most are nothing like the fanatics.

 

Many of these characterizations have come from the fact that the first, and the most KJVOs we communicate with are from the seamier side of the group. They're the squeaky wheels who get our grease, but grease is easily spread to where it's not needed. In fact, many "KJVOs" are actually "KJV-preferred", and while they may not use any other versions, they don't try to discredit them either. They just simply use only the KJV for various valid reasons, such as familiarity, and easier memorization since its English is different from the everyday English of today.

The first KJVOs I met were in a park in Cincinnati where my dad was reading from the NASB to some teenagers. These five men actually CUSSED & THREATENED us for using "the devil's bible", but since I'm a former semipro fullback & Dad is larger than I, and we picked up our ball bats & showed these men they'd have a real melee on their hands if they didn't leave at once, their discretion became the better part of their valor & they decided to run.

It took awhile for me to attempt to study KJVO from an unbiased viewpoint, especially after one of those men had called us "SOBs"(showing their Christianity), but I managed, praying all the while. I learned that men like those mentioned above are the small minority, and may have even been "Aryan Nation" members or something similar-and that indeed the Ruckmanesque KJVOs are but a small but vocal minority, but they are a minority that needs to be refuted at every turn, as some neophyte Christians actually BELIEVE them!

I hope that everyone on both sides of this issue takes the time to study the FACTS and makes an informed decision concerning the choice of Bible versions and in the fight against false doctrines.

 

I am not really sure that I am KJVO, since I don't meet all of some people's criteria, but I only use the KJV and will argue for the KJVO position. So, here's what bugs me:
1. Stereotyping the KJVO position and arguments. In fact, the KJVO positions and arguments are very diverse.
a. The KJVO opponents typically build straw men and easily demolish them with standard cliques. However, their straw men are miles apart from my own arguments and beliefs. Evidently, they fail to realize the diversity of the KJVO crowd which casts doubt upon their understanding of the whole matter.
b. These people don’t even know my position. They wrongly assume that my arguments are like other KJVO’s. I’ll bet a dollar to a donut (just a figure of speech since this is a Baptist board where betting is anathema) that they have never heard the KJV defended by linguistic theory and Stanley Fish’s deconstructionist theory. (Notice that I didn’t say that I believed it! Hey, if Sokel can do, then perhaps I can too. ) After all, are not Stanley and Social Context the darlings of the liberal intelligentsia?
2. Associating me with the KJVO nut cases with whom I violently disagree.
3. Intimating that anyone defending KJVO is not very bright. The problem is that these modern textual scholars, who know Greek, Hebrew, and the standard party line (i.e. modern textual arguments) don’t have the foggiest notion of scientific methodology (which they purport to use) and epistemology. Furthermore, most of them only know about textual criticism in the accepted paradigm but they are not thinkers who deal in theory and understanding. The difference is the same as between technician and scientist.

The advantage is mine in debate because they typically underestimate me. Furthermore, my arguments are novel to them. They flounder and thrash about when they’re out of their depth because they are only trained in the textual critic’s cliques and have never been challenged to think for themselves. They just believe what the old professor said. I love it!

(Disclaimer & apology: Please forgive me for writing in the first person but I can only speak for myself on this matter. I cannot speak for others holding the KJVO position. It is poor manners to personalize debate but I did feel it was justified in this case. Thank you.)

 

I think one common misconception against MV'ers is that they doctrinally disagree with them..

I read NAS mostly, and I go to a KJVonly church and have yet to find any doctrine I disagree with, though the Pastor will tell you that he believes the doctrine is different.

 

I've read the interesting replies by many here on this topic. Dr. Bob Griffin had placed a 'scale' of the types of KJV-o's and KJV-p's from 1 to 5, and I think it's very good. There are very many diverse views regarding the KJV-onlyists, and I am sure that many here who are either KJV-only or KJV-preferred do not hold to views of the extremely irrational KJV-onlyist (like Ruckman, Grady, and Riplinger).

A good point to make, and I speak for myself, is that one's own personal travails with the KJV-only controversy can cloud and color each person's view of the 'other' person who holds a different view. I tend to be sensitive to the 'jargon' that KJV-onlyists have since I too had such a mindset many years ago when I was a KJV-onlyist of the #4 type. There are many here who prefer (or, even only use) the KJV who don't place their 'dogma' above biblical doctrine. Much can be said of some who have views within the 'MV' camp, too. An earlier post had evaporated down the mischaracterizations of KJV-onlyists pretty well, I think. Perhaps one should also start a post about the mischaracterizations of MV-preferred persons like myself!

 

One thing that's NOT mis-characterized about KJVOs is that they bring up the same old long-refuted arguments time & time again. Some of the more imaginative ones will at least put the old garbage into a new, brightly-painted dumpster, but when that dumpster's opened, the smell's the same af from the old one.

How many times have we heard the following, in one form or another?

"The MVs leave out thousands of words"

"The NIV substitutes Satan for Christ in Isaiah 14:12"

"The MVs leave out the blood of Christ"

"The MVs leave out 1 John 5:7"

"The KJV was written in a higher Church English"

"The KJV had superior translators"

"Only the KJV is inerrant and perfect"

"The Alex mss are all corrupt"

"The MVs are the bibles of sodomite churches"

"The KJV is the Bible of the Reformation"

"The MVs are copyrighted in order to make money while the KJV is public domain"

"If you're not KJVO, you have no final written authority"

This is but a short list, and let's end it with this gem:

"Gimme the KJV that Paul used!"

 

Perhaps you don't read very well or don't comprehend very well. Not all KJVO's believe the same or use the same arguments. You are doing mindless stereotyping. I don't think that I believe any of the above. So, what do you know?

 

Hey, thanks! I didn't know that there was one out there.....

Just another point, too. Another poster made a (hilarious!) point about KJV-onlyism being the same old dumpster that's being used over and over again. He has a pretty valid point, I think. Pee-eww! This isn't a 'mischaracterization', but rather the listing of the same stupid-- and ignorant-- arguments KJV-onlyists use to rationalize their rants against the MV's. Those of us who use the modern versions are perceived to 'hate or despise' the KJV. This is simply NOT TRUE! I know of many verses in the KJV that I believe to be superior in translation to any modern version out there (a good example: 1 Cor. 13:8-10). OK, I've said enough here, perhaps I should post on that other site that the above mentioned poster had pointed out for me.

 

"they have never heard the KJV defended by linguistic theory and Stanley Fish’s deconstructionist theory."
I want to hear this line of defense.
Please show us how it goes...

 

Yeah - I'd love to see this. I was a Stanley Fish fan during my years as an undergraduate English comp major, as well as a linguistics nut, even helping teach a class. I say that it can't be done. (For Fish's CV, here it is: http://www.uic.edu/depts/engl/Stanley_Fish.htm)

 

Originally posted by paidagogos:

Perhaps you don't read very well or don't comprehend very well. Not all KJVO's believe the same or use the same arguments. You are doing mindless stereotyping. I don't think that I believe any of the above. So, what do you know?

What do I know? I know that every one of the arguments I posted have been, and are still used, by many KJVOs. Some may use only one, while others may use'em all. Proof? One need only look at the posts and archives of this board or others like it.

I didn't say every KJVO uses every one of these arguments, but I will continue to say that someone uses at least one of these arguments every day. Some KJVOs are creative enough to invent new fables with similar arguments, but basically they're the same stale candy in a new wrapper. This is NOT mis-characterization of the KJVOs who do this. We know that without any real evidence to support their myth that they must be constantly finding substitutes to present any argument for their myth whatsoever. In many cases, that myth means more to them than the truth.

 

YES, it's out there and published. Written by one of Fish's graduate students at Duke, it is not extensively developed but it does have some suggestive ideas. Personally, I don't believe it because it trivializes inspiration. Inspiration becomes a personal process in the individual rather than the words of Scripture. I came across it while researching a paper for the Foundation for Fundamental Studies. Please give me a few days to look it up in my notes and I will post back the gist of it here. I just don't have the time to do it now. Thanks for understanding.

 

Yeah - I'd love to see this. I was a Stanley Fish fan during my years as an undergraduate English comp major, as well as a linguistics nut, even helping teach a class. I say that it can't be done. (For Fish's CV, here it is: http://www.uic.edu/depts/engl/Stanley_Fish.htm) </font>[/QUOTE]Okay, I'll try to accommodate you. Please see my previous reply. Your skepticism is fine except it is rather narrow and confining--much like some KJVO's. A conclusion has been offered before hearing the evidence. Doesn't Proverbs have a comment on that?

You don't necessarily have to believe or agree with the defense but you must admit that one can argue from that perspective. So, it can be done. All kinds of specious arguments are possible. In fact, I think most of Stanley's arguments are specious reasoning. I was never his fan--Noam Chomsky, okay up to a pt. After all, these guys are just spouting words that really don't anything anyway--RIGHT?