New page number limit

I agree that the overwhelming majority are anti-KJVO, but to say that "there are no ANTI-KJV here" is not 100% accurate. I have more than a few examples that I've saved over the years. Granted, some quotes are from those who no longer post here, but were posted here none-the-less.

 

I ran across an interesting verse last night in my reading through the Bible, Hosea 4:6.

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.
Because you have rejected knowledge,
I will reject you from serving as My priest.
Since you have forgotten the law of your God,
I will also forget your sons.

Oh, that is from the NASB, in case anyone wonders.

 

I agree that the overwhelming majority are anti-KJVO, but to say that "there are no ANTI-KJV here" is not 100% accurate. I have more than a few examples that I've saved over the years. Granted, some quotes are from those who no longer post here, but were posted here none-the-less. </font>[/QUOTE]Next time someone "hates" the KJV in here, let me know... I'll bring my ball bat with me...

 

Before I get started let me make something clear here, I am trying to be reasonable on these threads and as non-sarcastic as is possible for me, while the extreme biasment on here makes it somewhat hard to function sometimes I am doing my best. I am sure that many "anti-KJVO" people on here are honestly wrong and so I am trying to respect that. However this post has rather ticked me off for several reasons.
1. No one will answer the question I have posed several times on how it is possible to believe that separate versions from separate schools of thought are both "divinely inspired". I only get people that in so many words say that they recieve "divine inspiration" on what bible they are going to use today. Or I get my character attacked for being so "narrow minded" as to believe that God didnt inspire contradictory versions of His Word.

2. You are extremely unfair to threaten to cut my posts if I do not bow to a philosophy that is completely contrary to common sense. Why not tell me to start a forum on whether or not if you dont believe in the King James alone you are anti-KJV? I will be happy to listen to reason.
I have tried my best to get someone to explain to me how that believing that modern translations are superior to the King James and just as inspired as it is are not anti-KJV. They just wont do it.

3. Why didnt you condemn the guy that said that we where all cultists? Or did you and I missed it?
Or the guy that said that we where all uneducated?
Why are you just picking on me and my side? I will accept the rebuke,
if you rebuke them publicly and all the others who on this forum have said simular things.

I have tried to state my case as clearly and rationally as possible. Kindly explain these things soon.
In Christ,
KJVBibleThumper

 

Almost all those who would attack the KJVO position would also hold to the position that the KJV and the NKJV are translated from inferior texts. KJVOs would hold to the position that the Modern Versions are translated from inferior texts.

This, in my opinion, is at least a surface attack on the version itself whether the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, et al...

The issue then, at it's core, is a textual issue. Which text is reliable, accurate, and most closely represents the originals?

The problem I see is that most people have not taken the time to study the textual basis for the version of choice and therefore cannot debate on that level. Their arguments are reduced to the English translations and are then viewed as attacks on the versions themselves.

 

I think what we have here is a KJVO#5 telling us KJVO#2s
and KJVO#1s that we are KJVH = King James Version Haters.

And I don't want to put up with that for more than five pages.

See the discussion on the meaning of KJVO#1-#5 at:
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/4/1608.html?

 

Quite simply, my whole problem is the "Only" part of KJO. As with several other "Only" groups, they paint the rest of us with broad brushes like we are an inferior, mentally challenged, carnal race of believers - if they acknowlege that we can even be believers.

As I have heard one much wiser than myself ask, which KJV is the correct KJV? If the 1611 version was the end-all, then why can't I find a copy in the hands of any KJVO?

 

Easy answer, Thumper. None of the above.

God inspired the writers of Scripture, not a huddle of Anglican SCHOLARS (so many KJVO's condemn scholarship, but worship the work of these scholars). So, basically, no translation that you can possess is inspired.

Read the post, Thumper. You got a worning about flaming and using a false and imflamatory phrase, not your opinion. If you want to be a martyr, at least read the posts first.

No one here is doing that, Thumper. You come here with your presuppositions and try to hang your imaginations on anyone who will not bow and worship your 1769 KJV. I, for one, believe that the KJV is one of many translations, and each one is the word of God, but no one of them is perfect.

You really don't want my opinion on that one.

Most KJVO's on this Board condemn education, saying that it teaches that the KJV is wrong. I have never understood anyone being afraid of learning...but, then, if someone gets out from under their local KJVO "preacher" and learns that the other versions aren't hand-written by Satan...

No one is picking on "your side", Thumper. I have been chastened before, as have a great many of us who are anti-KJVO. It works both ways, bub.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Sort of, Pastor Bob. The main area of fighting against the KJVO is not on the textual level for the most part, although that is addressed on accassion. It is the fighting over some people who are trying to spread their rhetoric of the KJV being absolute perfect itself, when it is but the work of men.

As to the underlying texts, exactly how do you figure that a compilation by Erasmus is the closest to the originals when he only used a very small number of manuscripts, and those manuscripts were of only one family? Not to mention his reliance on the Vulgate?

Thanks.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Originally posted by Trotter

Sorry Trotter, I just came across this post. I apologize for not addressing it earlier.

We know that Erasmus had access to at least (10) complete manuscripts, (4) that he found in England, (5) at Basle, and (1) that was loaned to him from a friend.*

What is ironic is those who would criticize Erasmus for having few manuscripts with which to base his text will not conceed that the "actual" core of the modern critical text is based largely upon (2) manuscripts, namely "Aleph" and "B."


*Erasmus, A Study of His Life, Ideals, and Place in History pg. 163 by Preserved Smith, 1923

 

KJVOnlyists remind me of democrats. They talk loudly, try to overpower everyone else and use circular reasoning, hoping their opponent will eventually give up in frustration. They post long threads of scripture of which maybe one or two verses have relevence, if any at all, and then continue on with their circular reasoning, never really going to the underlying issues. Sounds ****** to me. I think we can stop threads from being hijacked by just deleting the portions of their drivel that doesn't apply in our replies to them.


AVL1984

[ August 31, 2004, 06:41 AM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]

 

Maybe then the moderators who feel this way need to post some books that should be read for presenting BOTH SIDES of the debate. I know that when I was in college in the 1980's there really was little or no debate on Bible Versions. I know that in the progression of time, I was asked to read "Evidence that Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell. I also have read papers from Dr. David Cloud, Dr. David H. Sorenson's "Touch Not the Unclean Thing" and Dr. Thomas Strouses papers on the subject. I have also read papers from the opposing viewpoint. In most of these cases, I have found that the KJVO crowd intentionally in parts of their papers have misrepresented Westcott and Hort on several points, printing only parts that are inflammatory and defaming while leaving other parts out.

As I have stated and will continue to state, I am kjVERSION preferred, but am not KJVO, though at one time I was. What made me leave the kjVO position? The intentional misrepresentation and attacks not only on the modern versions, but the attacks on the faith, salvation, integrity, morality and other things concerning those who used the MV's. I never saw that bitter hatred and misrepresentation coming from the side of those who used the MV's. I started using MV's as commentary to see if the doctrines and fundamentals were all intact in them. I started watching those who claimed they were saved through the ministry of the MV's and came to find that just as many of them were living Godly Christian lives as those who had claimed to use the kjV. I am not an apologist for the MV's, but I will stand for them, as I believe them to be just as much the Word of God as the kjVERSION.

Everyone wants us to accept the kjVERSION as perfect and inspired in our own language, yet they have to keep alluding back to the former languages. Sounds sort of Catholic to me. They do the exact same thing by referring back to the latin. It's ridiculous! Either we have the word of God ready to use in the English language, in any of the versions, or we don't. It's that simple, IMHO.

AVL1984

 

That is the issue my friend. I don't think many of your MV friends would agree with your take on this one.

 

That is the issue my friend. I don't think many of your MV friends would agree with your take on this one. </font>[/QUOTE]Why would they not, Pastor Bob? Please, expound upon us your wisdom. I think I'm missing something here.

AVL1984

 

The main problem the MV crowd has with the KJVO crowd is that they believe the KJV was re-inspired and there is no need to go back to the "original" languages. In fact, many believe that the KJV superceeds even the Hebrew and the Greek.

The issue is the text; we must go back to the underlying textual basis.

 

Personally, I as a kjV user, having been told all my life that the KJV is the perfectly preserved Word of God, could never understand why they would always go back to the "original languages". It always seemed very RCC to me for them to do, as I had been in many RCC services where it was Latin that had the pre-eminence, as if today's Christian couldn't understand the "preserved perfect" Word of God. It made me delve that much more deeply into the issue.
Many of those that I personally know in the MV crowd, including many at the church my wife and I attend, like to refer back to the original languages, and our pastor is quite fond of it, too, pointing out how the KJV translators either got it right or didn't and the NIV, NASB, etc., had a better translation of that particular verse. For many, I know it has been confusing, even just with those preaching the KJV doing it. It made them feel inferior, led to many of them not having a daily walk with God. Being a former interim pastor, and a lay preacher, I've seen it all in these areas. That's why I stand where I stand. I guess one would call me a Christian moderate to militant.

AVL1984