Please Read and Give input Here

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Jan 5, 2004.

  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Asking anyone so interested to read the KJVO Definitions and then give your opinion on changes, clarifications, etc HERE on this thread.

    Hoping to cut out a lot of HEAT and focus more on LIGHT!

    Thanx in advance!
     
  2. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    While you did a fair job "labeling" the "various degrees" of "KJBO"(AKA:Bible[from protestant manuscripts] believers),you forgot to catagorize the "union's" various degrees of members also..


    I think your "list" is not as precise as it could be;seem to be picking on Bible believers to me...
     
  3. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think the first 3 are even "KJVO" in the first place. Personally, I wouldn't even include them in the list.
     
  4. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    "KJBO"(AKA:Bible[from protestant manuscripts] believers)

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  5. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Paranoid. Dr Bob's list is fair assessment of the KJVO's. Disagree? then take him at his word and clarify the variations.
     
  6. Refreshed

    Refreshed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aaaaaaarrrrggghhhh! :eek: :eek: :eek:

    I just got out of the KJVO movement and am now forced back in at #1.

    Jason [​IMG]
     
  7. Refreshed

    Refreshed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    0
    Seriously, though, Dr. Bob. I agree with Brian that numbers 1 and 2 aren't KJVO positions.
    KJVP is not KJVO. Things different cannot be the same. Hahaha.

    Another suggestion, although I don't know exactly what we would call it, would be a division between 3 and 4. Also, I think number five could be divided into Ruckman/nonRuckman. That would give us our previous number of 5.

    Jason
     
  8. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hardly..


    I cannot change ones pre-conceived notions...including yours..
     
  9. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    AA- Have you ever considered that you might have preconcieved notions? I used to have lots of them when I was a KJVO...then frankly I learned the truth about MSS, translations, etc.And the Truth set me free! [​IMG]
     
  10. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    These five are STANDARD (I found variations in three different books on the KJVO issue).

    I would say there are some sub-divisions in the #3, #4 and #5 categories.

    But think that #1 and #2 are often held by folks who would not want ANY PART of the "only" label.

    Maybe we will focus just on 3-5 when dealing with these issues??

    Still looking for "neutral" wording. I am a #1 (kinda) and know my co-moderator is a #4 (kinda) so we WILL keep tweaking this until we all have good working definitions for both sides of the issue.
     
  11. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    STANDARD? Who sets these standards??? Who are the authors of those "authorities" that you are following???
     
  12. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    When I first came to the BB, I was solidly a #4 with leanings into #5. After much study, I would consider myself a strong #2 who also believes #3 and has my foot in the door of #4.
     
  13. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    LOL, Pastor Bob! I just read the doctrinal statement of your church website. You DO fishtail all over 2-3-4!! 'Twill be fun discussing these.

    And A-A - rather than whine, make up your own definitions of 1-2-3-4-5 so that we can evaluate them. Maybe YOU will be the authority.

    (This 5 I listed were compiled from material from San Diego Baptist Theology Seminary, Central Baptist Theology Seminary, "The King James Only Controversy" and used in other discussions by D.A. Carson and Gleason Archer).
     
  14. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    The "only" part of "KJV-only" means "only". [​IMG] #1 and #2 are NOT "only".

    #3 is not KJV-only, it is TR-only. Someone can be TR-only and think the LITV or similar is the best English translation.

    I think most KJV-only supporters fall into #4, but I'm not sure about the use of the word "inspired", that blurs into #5. I think "perfectly preserved that which is inspired" would be a more accurate description for #4.

    And you forgot #6: those that believe that Jesus and Paul and others literally carried around a leather bound, red-letter, Cambridge KJV with them, and that the concept of a "translation" done in 1611 under King James is a fabricated myth. [​IMG] Yes, I've met a couple of these folks (not on this board).
     
  15. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I have heard - really - of #6 "The KJV was written in Eternity". It is the Bible that Moses and Abraham read (that where it says "Hebrew" was actually 1611 English).

    Some of them, it is reported [by their detractors], will not use a single English word that is not found in the AV1611.

    I think the old joke "it was good enough for Paul; it's good enough for me", strikes a little too close to home for this bunch!
     
  16. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pfft...I have better things to do with my time....This whole premise of "labeling" the various degrees of "KJBO" is just plain silly.


    Oh,OK.That's ALL I needed to know.
     
  17. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    KJVO #1 "I PREFER THE KJV"

    This group believes the KJV is the best single English translation available today. This is based on its history, usefulness, beauty, etc. It does NOT mean that there might not be a better English translation possible and that other present translations are "bad".

    These are only marginally KJVonly and should NOT be lumped in with discussion on other issues.


    I would drop the editorial comment at the end.

    KJVO #2 "I BELIEVE THE UNDERLYING GREEK/HEBREW TEXT OF THE KJV IS BEST"

    This group believes that the MT (Majority Text) or the TR (Textus Receptus) -- even though there are obvious differences in the two -- are "superior" to all other Greek documents and more closely reflect the original autographs. They do not believe that the TR or the Majority Text is perfect in any one printed copy. They believe that the King James Version, based on this text, is the clearest and most accurate translation that we have in English today.


    I would strike “They do not believe that the TR or Majority Text is perfect in any one printed copy”, mainly because of the Scrivener Text.

    KJVO #3 "I BELIEVE IN THE RECEIVED TEXT ONLY"

    This group would consider the TR has either been "supernaturally preserved" or even "inspired" and hence remain inerrant through the providential hand of God. They believe that the TR is verbally identical to the original autographs.

    They consider any English translation from "inferior" Greek texts of W/H (Wescott & Hort) or UBS/Nestle-Aland (United Bible Society) as to be sub-standard and inaccurate.


    I think “supernaturally preserved” implies open miracles, and therefore contradicts “inerrant through the providential hand of God”. Perhaps:

    This groups considers the TR to have been kept pure by the providential hand of God, or perhaps even through a string of miraculous events.

    KJVO #4 "I BELIEVE THE KING JAMES IS INSPIRED"

    This group, by far the majority of the KJVonly, believe that the KJV itself, as an English translation, is inspired and therefore inerrant. A person who would dare to defend or even use another translation of the Bible are rejecting the "true" and "real" Bible, the only Word of God.

    To this group, any "change" (added words, omitted words or verses, different choices of English words, modern words) is deviation from the truth and therefore "corrupt". The standard is always the KJV. They believe that God providentially gave the translators wisdom and guided them so that they translated all of the words correctly. As a result, they believe the King James Version is the perfectly preserved Word of God in the English language.

    "The King James Bible Alone = The Word of God Alone."


    I would change the title to read “I BELIEVE THE KING JAMES IS PERFECT”
    And I would change the first paragraph to read: This group considers the KJV text to be perfect. I would strike the last sentence as well.
     
  18. TheOliveBranch

    TheOliveBranch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,597
    Likes Received:
    0
    The title of this is correct, though. I came out of this group. They do believe the KJB is inspired.
     
  19. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the KJV is inspired. But I think many, when reading that, would automatically think of double inspiration or advanced revelation. I think the KJV is perfect, but derived inspired.
     
  20. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I believe that no two KJVOs are EXACTLY alike, and, try as we may, we can "fit" them only into general categories, same as they could do us. This is evidenced by those who say, "I'd change this in Category X and that in Category Y." However, you HAVE made a good attempt at separating wheat from chaff.

    Personally, I believe the majority of KJVOs are actually "camp followers" who've been influenced by the work of some sensationalsit author as gail Riplinger. I see that they're generally stumped when asked for PROOF for their assumptions. many a KJVO simply CANNOT TELL US why he/she is KJVO except to say, "I believe the KJV's the best Bible" or something similar. When asked WHY it's best, they say, "Well...uh...because it IS."
     

Share This Page

Loading...