Words that offend

"Bible corrector" is already a banned word .

 

Lemme add "Whicheverversionist" and "You have no final authority", two catchphrases of a certain One-Versionismist.

Not to mention "Bible Of the Week Club".

 

Here is what stands at the moment

Notice the "etc" which leaves latitude for moderator discretion.

 

The term "Bible believers" as used by the KJVO is very offensive to me, as it implies that anyone who doesn't use the KJV doesn't believe the bible.

I have been guilty of using loaded monikers, and I was totally aware of them as I typed them. The whole KJVO war that has raged off and on here draws out the passion on both sides... hence, I don't come to the BV/T forum much anymore. In fact, the whole stink of it almost drove me from the BB altogether.

 

Personally I find the use of "King James Bible" (KJB) by the onlyists extremely offensive. After all, the KJV is merely one translation or version of God's word in English. With this single phrase the onlyists place the KJV above all other Bible versions. Of course the KJV is the Bible, but so is the NKJV, the NASB, the NIV, etc.

 

What do we do about this one ?

 

I'm horribly offended that "Bible" made its way into the translation's name. God forbid!

 

Gotta secondguess ya on that'n, Keith! After all, we have the Geneva Bible, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, and many who say, "New American Standard Bible. I gotta say if it's not allowed for one version, it shouldn't be allowed for any version.

 

I'm almost as offended that it went from "Authorized Version" to "KJ Version" when KJ only AUTHORIZED its making. After all, the "Great Bible", authorized by Henry VIII, didn't become the "King Henry VIII Version".

But all that went down while my ancestors were Sherwood Forest highwaymen, so no need to worry about it now.......KOWABUNGA!

 

Glad you mentioned that, Roger! When we speak of the NASB we are speaking of the New American Standard Bible. HCSB refers to the Holman Christian Standard Bible. NAB refers to the New Amreican Bible. However, King James Bible is not the title of any version of the Bible. Those who speak of the KJB are choosing to re-title the KjV because they do not like the truth that the KJV is nothing more than a Bible version translated by human beings in their native language. If Bible is part of the title of the work, then by all means use B instead of V when referring to the version. Otherwise don't try to re-title what has already been titled under another name. Of course many of the onlyists use the word Bible only when referring to the KJV - all pothers are versions. I feel this is a deliberate slap in the face to those who don't follow the KJVO way of thinking.

 

Have to diagree with you there. The 1611 version does not, as far as I know have a title or a name. Both of those are man-made so KJV or KJB would simply be a matter of preference as far as I can tell.

 

You're right about the 1611 KJV, Roger. But I still feel the use of KJB is a deliberate affrontery to those who do not follow the KJVO belief. KJV is the accepted traditional use.

Right there on the copyright page of the Thompson Chain-Reference Bible it says King James Version.

Right there on the title page of Nelson's King James Study Bible it says King James Version.

Right there on the title page of the Matthew Henry Study Bible it says King James Version.

Right there on the cover of the Master Study Bible it says King James Version. And on the title page it says Authorized King James Version. After all, what is good for one side is good for the other side. If the onlyists don't want to be provoked then they should not deliberately provoke the non-onlyists.

And on the title page of the New Scofield Refernce Bible it says Authorized King James Version.

I submit that being more than just a matter of preference the onlyists buck tradition and refer to the KJB merely as a taunt against those who do not agree with their thinking, much the way they feel the use of the word myth along with KJVO is a slap in their faces. If the onyists don't want "freedom readers" to refer to the KJVO myth then they should also refrain from the use of provocative phrases.

 

I don't find offensive the terms that KJVO use that are intended to be offensive. It just reveals their lack of understanding and [snipped].

 

Here are some of the words I object to:

"It is quite obvious that most KJVO supporters view lying and hypocrisy as acceptable."

"......you are again repeating the very same deliberately inflammatory falsehood."

"......do you simjply enjoy spreading falsehoods?"

"......you deliberately misrepresented what was said."

"......the KJVO myth and the tactics of misrepresentation that go along with it."


A.F.

 

A.F. why don't you go back and look at the context of some of those comments?

After the use of the often-refuted claims that non-onlyists attack the KJV was repeated and it was shown the attacks are not against the KJV, the same comment was once again repeated. That is when it was said that the same "deliberately inflammatory falsehood" was being repeated.

In another instance I was accused of saying something I had not said. I commented that I was giving the accuser the benefit of the doubt and assuming my original post had not been read correctly. I also noted that the alternative was that "you deliberately misrepresented what was said."

A.F., again I will give the benefit of the doubt here. I will assume that your memories of the incidents were somewhat clouded and that when you reread the comments you did not read all of the exchanges. The alternative here is that you deliberately took these "inflammatory comments" out of context to try to make your point.

 

Keith:

Nowhere in my post did I point the finger at you.

A.F.

 

The title of my 1611 Edition is "The Holy Bible". No offense will be taken if you desire to call it this or THB for short.

 

Then, by that same token, no offense should be taken when someone refers to any other valid version as the "Holy Bible". I have an NKJV with those words on the cover.