Questions for KJVO's

I thought her Home Economic's degree would make her extremely well-qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject-at-hand. She's a liar. She cannot be trusted.

 

Wow: I've been gone for a year, and I still have yet to see anyone who can provide a SCRIPTURAL basis for the rejection of all other Versions of God's Word.

The King James Version is my personal favorite, although I use a 1611 Authorised Version - in other words: the REAL King James Bible. Mine has more than 66 books. But that is a personal preference, nothing more. There is no Scriptural basis for rejecting other Translations of God's Holy Word.

I have a Geneva Bible, though it is too big to take to church on Sunday. I have an NKJV that I love. I also have a Holman - which I have been using at church (the 1611AV is for my daily quiet time) Love my Tyndale and Wycliffe versions of the New Testament as well. Love my Septuagint too, though it doesn't work if our Preacher is preaching from the New Testament. Bottom line: I love God's Word.

For those of you who reject all other Translations, you really should examine why you are doing this, and your rationale/motive(s). I have never understood this, especially given the fact that the Anabaptists would not have used the King James Version if you gave it to them.

Regards,
BiR

 

This last statement caught my attention. I've never heard this before. Could you explain why they wouldn't have used it?
Thanks.

 

Good Evening annsni,

Actually, I have two: I have an older one with a hard cover that I purchased online (loaned it to my parents so I don't have it with me). The one I have purchased recently is the commemorative edition from Nelson:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1418544175/?tag=baptis04-20

(I don't like taking this one outside.)

Hope all is well with you and yours,
BiR

 

Hello Amy:

Twofold:
1. The motives behind the Authorised Version.
2. The fact that King James was not exactly a great man.

Hope all is well,
BiR

 

Hasn't failed me yet!!!

 

I have a Nelson 1611 reprint I ordered from Barnes and Noble a few years ago. It is really cool. I also have a 1560 Geneva and Tyndale's 1534 NT.

 

They were missing in early editions of the NIV. I think there was so much controvery over the missing verses the publishers replaced them with footnotes.

 

Did you ever stop to think that what you call "missing" may actually be added verses? If the passages in question do not exist in the ancient manuscripts that many modern versions are based upon --there is no problem.

 

Let me put it this way so it does not offend your MV sensibilities. When one has only had one version for over 300 years and suddenly another version comes along that has removed verses you are used to seeing in your Bible and reading in your Bible, the Bible you've used all your life, the you see the verses as MISSING. If you come to the party late and are only used to the MV then I suppose you would see the verses as ADDED in the KJV.

 

Diamondlady, I didn't know that you were over 300 years old.

If you choose to prefer the KJV that's great. Carry on!! The problem comes when someone who uses the KJV claims that it's the only "real" Bible. They apply all kinds of tests to the MV's to prove their point. But, when the same tests are applied to the KJV the KJVonlyist gets all up in arms claiming that the KJV is being attacked. Shouldn't the very KJV they claim to be perfect be able to with stand the very tests they apply to the MV's?

 

I would be interested to know which verses as well. I have a first edition NIV and think most of the controversial verses were in the footnotes in my copy. I never have liked the NIV so I may be wrong on this.

 

Thank you very much, Rippon. Your answer is dead on. Rather than start a new thread, since this is so close I want to mention something here. My daughter attends a KJVO (Inspired Belief from the pulpit) and names it every Sunday when he also says all the SBC's are liberal; and I grew up in a church more conservative than his. I've been visiting the church because this is a small town and I have some problems with a few of the SBC's who are a little better than though and political internally.

Anyway, my grandson who is six and starting to read was riding with me down the highway and we saw a truck with John 3:16. My daughter asked me not to discuss the KJV issue with him because she is beginning to believe it, but since she is very active in church for the first time in her life, I am not going to discourage her.

My grandson then quoted John 3:16 (That is all that was written on the truck, book, chapter and verse.) Then I asked him to tell me what it means--every sentence. He couldn't even give me a good answer that "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son." My point is, I went through the same struggle before some Bibles that were very weak, (like the Living Bible Paraphrase) that I would sit in church and read the stories rather than listen to the pastor who was using the KJV and going right over my little head.

Same thing with Good News for Modern Man both of which are weak, but as a child I could understand then and I actually learned a lot by reading them. With the KJV I would read a couple of verses and put it down, much like my grandson. If for no other reason, I believe the KJVO's biggest problem is trying to witness with a Bible that is not very easy to understand especially if you didn't grow up in church. This is the reason I have seen a lot of NIV's being used as pew Bibles in non-KJVO churches. I love the language of the KJV, but I have a problem when witnessing with a book to people who did not grow up in church or children.

This kind of confusion is just another factor that makes children think they are saved when they tell the preacher they "understand" the words when in reality they cannot repeat it back in the language they use daily. My grandson can repeat back everything if I read to him from a modern version, even the NASB. I tend to lean toward the NIV 2011 for enjoyment reading and my ESV and NASB for deeper study. Besides, the ESV is free for my Sony e-book reader. Good move on ESV's marketing because I read it first in e-book and bought one to make notes in.

I still tend to dust off my different versions of the Greek NT's and my Hebrew OT and struggle through them. . . . nothing like the actual words spoken in the Temple at the time. :thumbs:

 

I'm 54 and have been in church (conservative) and grew up with very good Christian parents. So, my point is, I didn't come to the party late. I have no problem with the missing verses and Rippon is dead on because if you will read the manuscripts you will note that there is a "disconnect" in the writing and its style and the end of Mark adds theology that we don't practice today. Should we be handling snakes and drinking poison to prove that we are Christians? I like the way the way most MV's handle it by adding it back in with footnotes, but if it was missing I wouldn't lose anything at the party.

 

I have asked for the missing verses in this arena before and never heard anything back.

 

My problem is a pastor standing in the pulpit every Sunday saying he has the only true Bible and then quotes Ripplinger. He then calls the NIV the Non-Inspired Version. To me that is very dangerous to talk about God's Word in this way. If you read the NIV, it is obvious it came from God and not the devil otherwise it wouldn't tell the gospels so well concerning the grace of Jesus' sacrifice for our sins.

Due to its loose translation I don't rate it as a great study Bible, either, but it certainly isn't a bad Bible for children and just easy reading when you are tired and just want some inspiration. I just bought a new copy of the 2011 edition and I am enjoying it right now; but since I'm attending my daughter's KJVO church, I will honor their request and not bring one into the church just out of respect. I can disagree with it and talk to the pastor about it, but I'm careful that I don't discourage some new Christian with that kind of argument between Christians. I know for a fact that the pastor has to be saved and is a good pastor, he just bought into a bad doctrine on the KJV issue; otherwise his preaching is excellent and very conservative.