Why I am no longer a KJVO

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Salty, Jul 5, 2011.

  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,131
    Likes Received:
    221
    Were you at one time previously a KJVO.

    If so, what caused you to drop the theory of the inspiration of KJV?

    (based on KJO #4 of Dr Bobs definition)

    Please, this thread is only for those who have made a turn a round on KJO.
    If you find a response you totally disagree with, please start a new thread.
    I simply would like to understand why folks have changed.

    As far as my self, I was never KJVO - you might call me KJ preferred - since that is the version I grew up with, memorized from and studied.
    I do use a variety of version at the present time.

    Salty
     
  2. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    Not sure that I was ever a KJVO person, but that's about all I knew up until the last few years.

    I still don't "hate" the KJV. I still stand by the fact that it didn't invent the words "baptism" or "baptize" and wrote a tract defending that position. You'll note that my signature is a quote from the KJV. I still try to read from it every day.

    I just believe that there are also other versions that are God's Word as well.
     
  3. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    For me, it was a simple look at the facts and the truth of God's Word. The claims of KJVO were tested and found wanting. No Scriprual substance. No factual substance. No logical substance. There was nothing to hold to. I also looked at those making the arguments. The KJVOs I knew jettisoned much orthodoxy. Those who were KJVP or MVP were Bible believers, evangelistic, and warm, loving Christ-followers. While I can't sall all KJVOs I've ever met are bad, I just couldn't find any of my ilk who were like the MVP/KJVP crowd.

    I suspect I'll get blasted. Let me say again: I'm not attacking anyone on here. I'm just saying this was my experience. But I didn't go from KJVO to KJVP/MVP based on experience. I did it based on God's Word, truth/facts and logic, in that order.

    I made the change long before the Internet, by the way. If it were up to message boards like this, I dunno what I would do. Has anyone changed their Bible version view based on message boards or chat rooms?
     
  4. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not my view on BV's but my soteriology has definitely changed due to the BB.
     
  5. abcgrad94

    abcgrad94
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    5,533
    Likes Received:
    0
    Same here. As far as the internet boards, yes, the BB has played a part in my switching from KJVO to KJVP. After meeting and debating and fellowshiping with others here, I've found the brainwashing I'd received about the other "perversions" and those who read them just wasn't true.
     
  6. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    As much as I have always respected the KJV, don't think I was ever KJVonly. If you could see my KJV you prolly wouldn't recognize it for all the corrections made.

    I have used the KJV all my life and have not intention to change; I read it, teach and preach from it. I also have my Greek and Hebrew and French versions, and many of the newer versions for reference. A man would be a fool not to study "the word", the essence of what has been copied down through the years.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  7. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    This.

    Does God mean ALL or does He only mean all of one certain translation into English made during the early 1600's and sponser by a human king named James?

    Does God mean what He says clearly or do we question Him because we just can't comprehend how someone can profit from the "Message"?

    Why do some trust God to save their souls when they obviously don't believe He is capable of preserving the Word?

    Honestly, people just need to read their Bibles. Its profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness and it really doesn't matter what translation you are reading from.
     
  8. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,267
    Likes Received:
    619
    This is my experience as well. I was raised in a IFB that used the KJV and denigrated other versions. After interacting with other Christians that explained the faults of KJVO (on another board) and doing my own research on the internet I have become educated on the subject and no longer accept the shallow arguments of KJV-onlyists.

    While I still use the KJV for personal reading and study I do sometimes consult with the NIV for clarity on certain passages and prefer the NKJV for public reading of scripture.
     
  9. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    So then the New World Translation is acceptable?
     
  10. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    I might not like it personally, but that doesn't mean God won't use it for His own purposes, clearly stated above in the scripture I quoted.

    What? You think God can't turn corruption to His own purpose for His own glory? He saved you didn't he? Yeah, and He saved me too. Between us that should prove that He can preserve His own no matter the attack of the evil one. :)
     
  11. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Define acceptable.

    However, if that was the only Bible someone had and they were seriously searching for the truth, there is enough truth in the NWT for a person to be saved. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, but if that is all there is to be used, God can and will use it.
     
  12. humblethinker

    humblethinker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    0
    I came to realize my error last summer when I, for unrelated reasons, had to leave my church of 20 years. Upon researching the issue I was convinced. I was also amazed at how little information there was on the subject. I'd say the information is adequate but... Let's just say that the kjvo belief was so certain that when I 'escaped' it I was surprised at how few Christians even knew about the kjvo issue. I am still trying to overcome some of the ramifications of no longer believing the way all of my friends believe. I have a lengthy story with a timeline detailing all my steps toward enlightenment. I hope to soon make my story public...

    I must say that without access to the Internet I don't know if I would have ever come to think otherwise about the kjvo. I particularly found the book, Unbound Scriptures, by Rick Norris and Doug Kutilek's writings at kjvonly.org to be a tremendous help.
     
  13. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was KJVO by default, as were many, it was about the only version that most of us knew and used.

    I still recall the first time I picked up a RSV. I was rather shocked that they had "watered down" the Bible that way. Same for the NIV, not to mention the new darling of the masses, the Living Bible paraphrase.

    If those were what some folks were using, I would turn from them and stay firm on the KJV -- the REAL Bible.

    The very next thing was that a mentor gave me a NKJV study Bible, and we actually started to go through the text in weekly studies. I came to realize that I didn't need to translate from an archaic form of English into modern language forms, and also, some of the words were different -- but correct in modern English. That began my foray into different translations.

    As I progressed in my education, including biblical languages, I became able to do my own translation work and soon realized that the KJV had some issues, many of which have been documented here and elsewhere. That is not to say that it is a BAD translation -- it is not! I still prefer its stylized readings for formal occasions, funerals, weddings, etc., where it fits the occasion, but for study, preaching, teaching, etc., I greatly prefer other versions.

    I still get a tad upset when I think back to the way I was forced to memorize one version as if it were THE absolute Word of God. These days, I know what the Word says, but not so much the exact word-by-word memorization of ONE particular text. I prefer that the text and inferences it presents be clear than be accurate to one set of translators who had their own agenda, at one specific point in the history of the church.
     
  14. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    GL, I'm a little confused. Did you think these translations were "watered down" because of their use of modern language or was there some other reason for the thought?

    I was actively raised KJVO. My father still stands by the belief. I was specifically taught that other versions were trashy attempts pervert the Word of God and only untaught, unspiritual people who weren't really saved dared to use one of "those". "Real" Christians used the KJV. :rolleyes: Matter of fact, use of other versions is part of the overall conspiracy to move the country away from Christianity. :rolleyes:

    I was taught well. But like so many of my parents beliefs when I compared it to scripture, I found it to be a preference/tradition of man rather than a command of God. As I posted before, we men aren't responsible for preserving God's Word. He's perfectly capable of that all by Himself.
     
  15. DiamondLady

    DiamondLady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  16. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    Both language and content. The language "seemed" so irreverant. I was raised to speak of God in terms of Thee and Thou, with a bunch of shalts and shalt nots thrown in for good measure. That seemed like a special language for religious use, and it was cemented into my thoughts by preachers ("ministers" in the parlance of the Lutheran denomination) who took on an entirely different persona once stepping up (yes, they had raised pulpits that hung off the wall of the church in all the churches I attended as a youth) into the pulpit. It was all thee, thou, sing-song, with weird cadence, that just smacked of religion, and the RSV had none of that.

    It was also some of the verses that were changed around and/or "left out." I didn't have any idea about the textual variants of the historical manuscripts way back then, so if a Bible translation changed something that I knew by rote, then it was probably the work of the devil in my mind (and the minds of those who taught me).

    Of course, none of that is/was true. Just perception from someone who only knew one way to be the right way.

    I heard similar...

    Yup... Logic, rational propositions, any semblance of educated commentary, or even a broad-based knowledge of Scripture were all missing in the worldview of those who's mission in life was to protect me from the devil, who was working hard to pervert the Word of God.

    Ironically, as I now stand after 20+ years of higher education, self-study, and pastoral experience, I realize that those who were working SO hard to save us were missing most of the main points about the God they claimed to serve. They were ALL about legalism, rules, regulations, works, etc., and seemingly knew nothing of the grace of God, the imputation of righteousness, the missio dei, the kingdom of God, and a few other REAL BIG issues of biblical Christianity.

    And, no, for those who will insinuate that my education has liberalized me. It decidedly has not. I am more staunchly biblical and conservative now than ever before. Being pious and wrong does not actually make one more biblical (i.e., "I just want Jesus and the Bible, and that is enough for me...") KNOWING the Word, theology, doctrines, history of the church, heresies, errors in doctrine, wars fought over doctrine, and the true languages of Scripture all help to inform, correct, and yes, rebuke the one who comes to grasp what it is that God says.
     
  17. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    This deal about KJVO strikes me a like like the times when Fundementalists would NOT engage current views on Bible/faith/theology and basically went into the "us no more" mode...

    Almost like having higher education/degree study etc meant "devil work" like just Bible and nothing else!
     
  18. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    The more I learn, the more I discover how ignorant I really was back when I thought I knew it all.
     
  19. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Legendary coach John Wooden once said "It's what you learn - after you think you know it all - that counts the most"
     
  20. michael-acts17:11

    michael-acts17:11
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    857
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have questions & a comment for any KJVo's on here. I cannot find KJVists who will honestly answer these questions.

    1. If God preserved His Word, and He did, then why did the KJV have to be edited so many times from 1611 through 1769?
    2. If the Tyndale and Geneva Bibles were the inerrant and inspired Word of God, then why do we need the KJV?
    3. If previous Bibles contained errors, then does that not mean that God did not preserve His Word inerrant through the centuries?
    4. KJVonlyists always quote Psalm 12:6, claiming that God's written Word had to be purified seven times. Does this doctrine not presume that the sritten Word was not whole & inerrant for centuries until it was purged of the dross(error) seven times?

    KJVo's tout the kingly authorization of the KJV as proof of it's legitimacy, The KJV1611 was authorized by a pagan king, contained the Apocrypha & was used by Catholics. The Tyndale & Geneva Bibles were translated & used by Christians. The KJB was edited numerous times, but the Tyndale & Geneva did not have to be edited so many times.
    You praise the fact that the KJB was authorized by a king, but kings were not originally by God's plan. The Israelites demanded a king out of the wickedness of their hearts. The fact that a king authorized the KJB does not add to its credibility as the Word of God. If it does, then your bible lacks credibility.
     

Share This Page

Loading...