Saviour/Savior...

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by robycop3, Jan 4, 2014.

  1. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    One of the most-ridiculous KJVO arguments I've ever seen is over the spelling of "Savior". I was actually told by a KJVO, very hatefully, a few years ago that I was using a corrupt Bible that dishonors Jesus by calling Him "Savior" insteada "Saviour"! At first, I couldn't decide whether to laugh or punch the man out, but I chose the PEACEFUL course, telling myself that, long as that gent lives, I'm not the STUPIDEST person on earth.

    Since then, I've seen that same goofy and ignorant argument appear several times on the internet. I'm not sure, but I believe it was started by a dude called Nic Kizziah who wrote a piece of garbage about "counterfeit KJVs."

    The reason for the "Saviour" spelling in the KJV is very simple...it's a BRITISH version. The British spell most words derived from Latin that end on "or" with "our", I. E. "colour, labour, rancour, endeavour", etc. while we spell most of them with simply the "or" ending, which is the original Latin spelling. Now, neither the British nor we are incorrect in these spellings; it's simply that we are Americans & they are British.

    And that, of course, applies to "Savior". It's the VERY SAME WORD, in both spellings!

    IMO, this whole argument is just another desperate KJVO attempt to manufacture some excuse to attempt to justify their doctrine.
     
  2. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    RC3: If you think that KJVO-er was a few bricks short of a load, how 'bout this line of reasoning I read somewhere:

    The KJV's rendition of the word "saviour" contains seven letters.

    Seven is the number of "perfection."

    Therefore, only the KJV's usage of the word "saviour" is the perfect way to apply this word when it is applied to Jesus Christ!!! :BangHead:
     
  3. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am King James only, and I don't care how you spell Saviour as long as you read the King James only. :laugh:
     
  4. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    That is well said. God bless you, Winman.
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The spelling "Savior" can be found in the first Oxford edition of the KJV printed in 1675.
     
  6. Jkdbuck76

    Jkdbuck76
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,263
    Likes Received:
    64
    I bet our neighbours in the KJVO camp don't realise the practise of labouring through a dictionary.
     
  7. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Why? There are plentya other good English versions available.
     
  8. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Part of civilisation.
     
  9. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    To be fair I doubt any of our KJVO friends here would hold to that extreme.
     
  10. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    The premise of the Op seems almost like a parody of the KJVO movement --if that is possible.
     
  11. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    When i first saw it in an article y'all are probably familiar with, I dismissed it as being the product of someone who was three fries short of a Happy Meal, as I did with the man I mentioned in the OP, but I recently saw it mentioned on a dedicated, no-satire KJVO site.

    Still, reminds me of "Gimme da KJV dat Paul used!"
     
  12. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    Correct........and he's wasting his time if his intention were to evoke a legitimate discussion of that form of argument on this board........because no one who posts here would use it.

    But, that's not his intention at all.

    His intention with this is not to discuss that particular issue, it's simply to throw some dirt upon anyone who would stick up for the KJV above other translations.....

    It's a thread designed to "Poison the Well".

    That's all this is.
    It's tatamount to someone arguing that "centre" is more righteous than "center". (granted it does look kewler)...........but that isn't the point.

    It's just Robycop...Poisoning the Well against any pro-KJV argumentation which exists whatsoever.....it's standard operating procedure.

    Winman doesn't care if you spell it "saviour" or "savior" (and he doesn't know one way or the other... I wouldn't care....... (nor do I know one way or the other). franklin seems to at least appreciate the KJV..........and he doesn't care. (nor does he likely know one way or the other).
    Jordan is decidedly KJVO and I bet you a million dollars.......he doesn't care if you spell it "saviour" or "savior"...and he probably doesn't know which particular edition of the KJV did or didn't spell it that way...

    Only a prize idiot cares, or even wastes their time researching such a non-fact.

    What's truly telling and sad.........is that the likes of some KJV haters have so obsessed themselves....that they actually KNOW (one way or the other) whether any given edition of the KJV spells it one way or the other...

    See here:
    What human would waste their adult life on knowing a non-issue, non-fact like this?????
    What a stupid, irrelevant, and sad thing to be aware of.
    I'd respect the anti-KJV types if they didn't obsess over strifes of words and English spellings of no significance whatsoever.......KJVO's I know aren't aware of it, and don't care.
    What a waste of one's life...........spend some quality time fishing with your kids!
    Only someone on the level of Peter Ruckman would even know such an irrelevant non-fact.....or care to post it.
     
    #12 Inspector Javert, Jan 6, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 6, 2014
  13. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's not a grammatically meaningful sentence.
    What does it mean to "realise the practise of laboring through a dictionary"?

    How, pray tell, does one "realize the practise" of anything?
    What in the formerly 9 (now 8) planet-inhabited Solar System does that even mean?

    And is it:
    A.) KJVO's who start threads about the spelling "Saviour" or "Savior" on B.B...?

    ORRRRR....

    B.) Is it actually non-KJVO's who start threads about the spelling of "Saviour" or "Savior" on B.B?

    Care to answer this one?
     
    #13 Inspector Javert, Jan 6, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 6, 2014
  14. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    Seconded........:wavey:
     
  15. Jkdbuck76

    Jkdbuck76
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,263
    Likes Received:
    64
    No. I'm being stupid in my post. Intentionally.
     
  16. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    ............ahhhh, didn't catch the sarcasm :wavey:
     
  17. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    You're PARTIALLY right...which is unusual for a KJVO. (Usually, they're completely WRONG on Bible version issues.) I DO intend for this fact to be against the KJVO myth, to show the IGNORANCE of some KJVOs. (But C4K is correct in saying to his knowledge there's no one here who supports such hooey.)

    here's where I first saw this garbage:http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html

    At the time I disregarded it as the rant of someone whose tractor didn't make full pulls, same as I disregarded the bunk of the man I mentioned in the OP, guessing he'd read that article & was so eaten-up with the KJVO myth that he chose to believe it.

    But I call attention to it ONLY cuz I HAVE seen it on the net recently. (Note: These are from a KJVO site.)
    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Doctrines/saviour_heresy.htm

    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer's Corner/saviour_or_savior.htm

    These are just two examples. a Google search will reveal many more.

    Again, just goes to show the desperation of KJVOs in trying to justify their myth.

    NOW, PERHAPS, INSPECTOR, YOU CAN EDIFY US ALL BY PROVIDING SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR YOUR KJVO MYTH?
     
    #17 robycop3, Jan 7, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 7, 2014
  18. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's not an issue of "Scriptural Support" at all, and I think you know that.
    I don't have "Scriptural Support" for the proposition that 2+2=4 in base 10....but I believe it. I imagine you do as well.

    Do you have ANY "Scriptural Support" for the proposition that most modern translations i.e. NKJV, NIV, ASV etc...are reliable translations of the originals and that the N.W.T. is corrupted crap?
    No, you don't....but you believe it.

    It's not a "Scriptural Support" issue, it's a textual criticism issue (which there aren't strictly speaking precise instructions for in the Bible) and I think you know that. You aren't stupid, you know full well (or should) that it is no more reasonable to demand "Scriptural Support" for any KJVO position than it is to demand "Scriptural Support" for the idea that there are 26 letters in the English alphabet.................There are no such verses. Perhaps you've never quite thought about that before, or, alternatively, you are being somewhat disingenuous when you continuously try to slip that demand past us.....we aren't fooled by it.

    Granted, if I were trying to argue that Psalm 12:6 was "Scriptural Support" for the notion that God divinely preserved the Scriptures in the KJV, then, you have a "Scriptural" argument to demonstrate that position is ill thought out, and obtusely ethno-centric.......but unless and until someone argues as such, than it really isn't a "Scriptural" argument at all.
     
  19. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The KJV-only issue is not strictly or solely a textual criticism issue.

    Where do KJV-only advocates present and advocate any principles of textual criticism that they will apply consistently to all translations?

    Those who actually advocate a KJV-only theory reject all English translations made after 1611 even if they are translated from the same original language texts as the KJV.

    KJV-only advocates repeatedly will criticize and attack other English translations such as the NKJV for translational issues as was seen in a recent thread.

    Even moderate KJV-only advocates such as D. A. Waite, who strongly condemn and reject Ruckman's views, still attack the NKJV. Waite claimed that “the New King James Version is the most dangerous Bible version on the market today” (Defects in the NKJV, p. 8).

    David Cloud asserted that “the New King James Version (NKJV) is a deception” (Answering the Myths, p. 201).
     
  20. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
     

Share This Page

Loading...