Why are the KJVO's edited when...

Terry,

Much has been said by both sides of this issue.

If you think that the non-KJVOs are not edited, you are sadly mistaken, as I have been edited many times (and I am one of the tamer ones!). Of course, I cannot speak for everyone.

True, that was something that should not have been posted. And, although pretty much the same is posted reguarly by many in the KJVO camp, it is no excuse to retaliate in like manner.

It is high time that we, as Christians and fellow Baptists, started cleaning up our own act around this forum. All the snide remarks and implied conclusions are not befitting any child of God.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Hi folks, haven't been around for a while. I thought I might answer this. It is possible the editors just didn't see it. But, it also appears that whoever wrote this didn't mean it as an attack to any person or to the Bible; they just feel like other Bibles should be accepted as God's word and they blame the lack of this acceptance on Satan.

That is just my opinion. I didn't read the post, so I have to base it on the one sentence you quoted.

Have a great day,
Phillip

PS HI Trotter!

 

Well Terry, one reason is that all the moderators seem to have an mv bias and are opposed to the KJVO truth. I have yet to see one moderator who is KJVO, and I strongly feel we never will.

I have seen moderators attack those who are KJV and when the KJVO replied in a kinder manner, got critisized for it.

Just all a part of the sign of the last days as far as I am concerned.


Jim

 

You've not looked very well Jim.

I know that I have received much criticism for editing posts of those who attack people on your "side" of this issue.

Just yesterday I edited a post which referred to King James in a forbidden manner.

 

I do not see in your quote any attack against God's Word or any of God's people. Perhaps the ones who need to repent are those who are making false accusations against individuals rather than their theological position.

 

I don't believe they are overlooked, Terry. I have been edited several times in my defense of the MV's against the kjvO status, even though I am KJV myself. I'm not complaining about it. Those who use the MV's are often attacked as unintelligent, unsaved, "satanic" or "satan controlled". Do you not consider these attacks by the KJVO side? Many of them are not edited, especially when they are made by one certain party whom I shall not name at present.

AVL1984

 

Yep, I can vouch for that, C4K...because I called King James "King <edited as predicted >"...LOL (I know you're going to edit it again...so go ahead ) and I'm a KJV user myself. Sic em CK4, er me I mean!

AVL1984

Anyone wanting to know what I called King James...please PM me, or email me at [email protected] night, it was just another name for James. Sorry C4K..had to lighten the mooooooood a bit.

[ September 20, 2004, 06:42 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

The funny thing is, as most of you know I only use the KJV except for ocassional reference to the NKJV.

Sorry I had to edit your point again AVL . But, you understand . This term is specifically banned in the "11 Simple Rules for Posting" in reference to "his" Bible so I interpret the rules to mean his name as well. Click here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/1849.html

for the rule (and the edited name)

My point, as moderator is this. Nearly every one on the "Anti-KJVO" side has been edited, many by me. However, NONE of them treats me as an enemy. Only one side does that, and they do it over and over again.

<edited for a typo>

[ September 20, 2004, 06:49 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

I know...I know...I just had to try and lighten the mood. It was getting far too "crazy" for my tastes. I think the moderators are usually pretty fair and balanced, otherwise I never would have returned from the other forums I was posting on. I agree, King James was a King and deserves our respect (at least the title). His commission did give us a very beautifully worded translation of the Bible. I still use it and love it today. Even my wife who grew up on the KJV and a few other versions likes the KJV for the beauty of the language. Of course, we both can read and understand Shakespear...LOL!

God contiue to bless the moderators and the BB.

AVL1984

 

I have been a Moderator here for nearly two years. The majority of the time I have moderated the BV/T Forum (except for brief periods for sanity's sake).

The following is a direct quote from our Doctrinal Statement.

Church Web Page
I am sure that my fellow Moderators would label me with the KJVO crowd. If it were not for the radical element that is present among KJVOs, I would be able to accept that label without a disclaimer.

 

Terry_Herrington said:

Why is the things said against the MVs edited constantly, while those things said the KJV is so often overlooked.

Simple. You're being persecuted because deep down inside we all really know that KJV-onlyism is true.

 

Just a few Thank You(s) to:

Trotter, Dr. Bob and Pastor Bob for some Christ like love and sanity.

Rhetorical Question for everyone:
When we bring the Word of God to a foreign speaking country, how do we translate it? From the original language (Greek & Hebrew) or the KJV? If the KJV is the end all and be all, then we should use it – which of course we don’t.

What then is the purpose of Multiple Versions in the English language but an attempt to communicate The Word of God to English Speaking people? Are some "better" translations? Of course, and which one that is, is open for brotherly debate. But God's grace is not limited to one version only. I say all this with the understanding that some translations are very poor works and less superior to others. Yet even these poor works are better off in the hands of someone than no work at all.

“The Bible has been providentially preserved in the traditional Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, and therefore has been preserved for English-speaking people” through the time consuming work of many translators, such as William Tyndale, and then The KJV 1611, and then the 1769, and then, and then, and then..... Very few people today could even read the 1611, and that’s no slap in the face to the 1611. Let’s rejoice that we have original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts in the forms of Textus Receptus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus. It seems to me that KJVOist are actually supporters of the Textus Receptus vs. the Codex group, more so than the KJV vs. multiple versions. A debate over the Byzantine and Alexandrian text groups seems more legitamate than the English translations of them.

As asked before, is one better than another – a matter for brotherly debate, but these are what our soverign God has kept for us to use for His Glory and our Joy. And I praise him for the KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV and the others I forget to name.


For His Glory and Our Joy,

GSW

 

There have been debates/discussions/arguments among scholars for well over a hundred years about the validity of the several "families" of manuscripts, with no resolution in sight. And often, among the people on each side of the KJVO question, it's "MY scholar can whup YOUR scholar".

Back to the question of this thread...it seems the anti-KJVOism folks are more careful to not engage in namecalling or badmouthing someone else's Bible version(s) of choice, nor to question the FAITH of one whose choices are different from theirs. Look at how many times the mods have had to edit out the one word "perversions" when used in reference to Biblew versions. How often have the NON-KJVOS used that word thus? And how many times have OTHER ATTACKS on modern BVs had to have been edited?

I myself have had some of my offerings edited, and have no complaints. Like most of us, I need some restraint at times.

If we(KJVOS or not) don't want our posts edited, we should think a little before clicking the "post" button.

 

Oh so a few cosmetic changes have been made so you all supposedly look good huh?

Wouldn't surprise if your edits of your like minded posters were all pre arranged including the "attacks" you claim to have gotten.

 

Thanks Cranston, thats the second mid morning laugh I have gotten to enjoy this morning. One constant about you, your are always good for a chuckle.

 

Just the other day Pastor Bob edited one of my posts. I had gone beyond the originally intended theme of the thread by drawing (anti-KJVO) conclusions when these were not in the spirit of the original question. In retrospect, I think it was entirely proper for Pastor Bob to edit my post, and I wasn't miffed in the slightest.

So it isn't just KJVO's who get edited.

 

Oh so a few cosmetic changes have been made so you all supposedly look good huh?

Wouldn't surprise if your edits of your like minded posters were all pre arranged including the "attacks" you claim to have gotten. </font>[/QUOTE]Check the history Jim, you will find a great number of snips and edits of "the other side." If on the other hand, you are determined to see a grand conspiracy here, it will do no good to do a search.

Personally, I'm not smart enough to organise a conspiracy such as you propose.

 

LOL...give 'em "Cain", C4K!

AVL1984