1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Clarifying KJVO

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Jordan Kurecki, Jul 4, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,921
    Likes Received:
    129
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Even though I myself am KJVO, I guess technically I am very heavily King James Prefered but the word preferred seems to weak for my position. I am seeing a lot of nutty and quirky arguments for the King James Bible, and I am tired of responding to straw man arguments. For example no you do not have to use a KJV to be saved, and yes the word of God existed before 1611. To help clarify my position and to distinguish it from other extreme KJV positions I want to post this:

    I agree with David Cloud:

    “If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has given infallible Scripture in the original Greek and Hebrew writings and that He has preserved that in the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text and that we have a beautiful translation of it in the English language in the Authorized Version, call me “King James Only.”

    If “King James Only” defines one who believes modern textual criticism is heresy, call me “King James Only.” Prior to the Internet era, I spent hundreds of dollars to obtain the writings of the men who have been at the forefront of developing the theories underlying modern textual criticism, and I have read them. They are not dependable. They refuse to approach the Bible text from a position of faith in divine preservation. Most of them are out-and-out heretics, and I refuse to lean upon their scholarship. I am convinced they do not have the spiritual discernment necessary to know where the inspired, preserved Word of God is located today.

    If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has preserved the Scripture in its common use among apostolic churches through the fulfillment of the Great Commission and that He guided the Reformation editors and translators in their choice of the Received Text and that we don’t have to start all over today in an to attempt to find the preserved text of Scripture, call me “King James Only.” The theories of modern textual criticism all revolve around the idea that the pure text of Scripture was not preserved in the Reformation text but that the Reformation editors, because of their alleged ignorance and or lack of resources, rejected the best text and chose, instead, an inferior one. In fact, modern textual criticism is predicated upon the theory that the best text of the New Testament (the Egyptian or Alexandrian) was rejected in the earliest centuries and was replaced with a corrupt recension that was created through the conflation of various manuscript readings (the Byzantine or Traditional text) and that the corrupt text became the dominant text throughout most of church history (for 1,500 years) until the best text was rediscovered in the 19th century. You are free to accept such views if it suits you. I, for one, believe it is absolute nonsense.

    Similarly, if “King James Only” defines one who rejects the theory that the “preserved” Word of God was hidden away in the Pope’s library and in a weird Greek Orthodox monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai (a monastery which has a room full of the skulls of dead monks) for hundreds of years, call me “King James Only.”

    ON THE OTHER HAND, I WILL NOT ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY” IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:

    If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the KJV was given byinspiration, I am not“King James Only.” The authority of the King James Bible is the product of preservation, not inspiration. The term “inspiration” refers to the original giving of the Scripture through holy men of old (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). At the same time, I agree with the Pulpit Commentary when it says, “We must guard against such narrow, mechanical views of inspiration as would confine it to the Hebrew and Greek words in which it was written, so that one who reads a good translation would not have ‘the words of the Lord.’” To say that the King James Bible is the inspired Word of God in the English language because it is an accurate translation of the preserved Hebrew and Greek is not the same as saying that it was given by inspiration.

    If “King James Only” defines one who believes the English KJV is superior to the Hebrew and Greek texts upon which it was based, I am not“King James Only.” In fact, I believe such an idea is pure nonsense, as it would mean the pure and preserved Word of God did not exist before 1611.

    If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible is advanced revelation over the Hebrew and Greek texts that God gave through inspiration to holy men of old, I am not “King James Only.”

    If “King James Only” defines one who believes that we do not need to study Greek and Hebrew today or that it is not important to use lexicons and dictionaries, I am not “King James Only.” God’s people should learn Greek and Hebrew, if possible, and use (with caution and wisdom) study tools. When the Bible says that “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” we know that the words they spake were Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words. But foundational to the study of the biblical languages is a thorough understanding of the textual issue. We must study the right Greek and Hebrew, and we must also be careful of original language study tools, because many of them were produced from a rationalistic perspective and with great bias against the God-blessed Received Text.

    If “King James Only” defines one who believes the preserved Word of God is available only perfectly in English, I am not “King James Only.” The Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and Greek Received New Testament translated correctly into any language is the preserved Word of God in that language, whether it is German, Spanish, French, Korean, or Nepali.

    If “King James Only” defines one who believes that translations in other languages should be based on English rather than (when possible) Greek and Hebrew, I am not “King James Only.”

    If “King James Only” defines one who believes that a person can only be saved through the King James Bible, I am not“King James Only.” It is the gospel of Jesus Christ that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), and even a Bible that is textually corrupt contains the gospel.

    If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible’s antiquated language is holy or who believes the KJV could never again be updated, I am not “King James Only.” I doubt the KJV will ever be replaced in this apostate age, but to say that it is wrong to update the language again after the fashion of the several updates it has undergone since 1611 is not reasonable. Having dealt extensively with people who speak English as a second or third language, I am very sympathetic to the very real antiquation problem in the King James Bible. At the same time, I am not going to trade an excellent Bible with a few problems due to old language for a Bible filled with error due to a corrupt text and/or a corrupt translation methodology (e.g., dynamic equivalency).

    If “King James Only” defines one who believes that he has the authority to call those who disagree with him silly asses, morons, and jacklegs, and to treat them as if they were fools because they refuse to follow his (or her) peculiar views, or if it defines one who threatens to sue those who challenge him (or her), I am not “King James Only.”
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Prayers Prayers x 1
  2. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,543
    Likes Received:
    2,740
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Do you know that the Translators on the 1611 Kjv saw themselves as revising prior versions such as Tyndale and Geneva, and that they did not see their own work as being perfect, and that others afterwards would revise and update even their translation? they claimed no inspiration, no perfect version?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,921
    Likes Received:
    129
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Irrelevant.
     
  4. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    32,243
    Likes Received:
    1,670
    Faith:
    Baptist
    IMHO - KJO - would mean Only the KJV-
    Use the term J+K- Preferred
     
  5. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,921
    Likes Received:
    129
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes and I do believe English speakers should only read and study the KJV. I believe all other versions are not as accurate and profitable.
     
    • Prayers Prayers x 2
  6. Reynolds

    Reynolds Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2014
    Messages:
    11,574
    Likes Received:
    2,030
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I actually believe quite a few versions are more accurate. I like King James best because it is what I grew up with and what I memorized scripture from.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Rob_BW

    Rob_BW Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    1,234
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have trouble comprehending the idea of a perfect translation when I know that living languages change.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Reynolds

    Reynolds Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2014
    Messages:
    11,574
    Likes Received:
    2,030
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You judge it by its accuracy at time of translation.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    584
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There are 66 books in the Bible as you well know. But you take it as an article of faith that in each and every verse the KJV comes out on top being clearly superior than every other English translation. Even though you haven't read and compared other translations. ….Right, got it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    584
    Faith:
    Baptist
    But over the last 400 plus years it has been found that the KJV was lacking in a number of areas in which the revisers had no clue how to translate particular passages. They were guessing. We have access to more accurate information today.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    231
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Like D. A. Waite, David Cloud tries to advocate a contradictory position of being KJV-only and not-KJV-only at the same time.

    David Cloud's own stated KJV-only reasoning has not been demonstrated to be consistent, sound, and scriptural. He is not actually nearly as reasonable and balanced as he tries to suggest. David Cloud would not even examine the evidence mailed to him and would not consider and accept the facts that proved that Waite's claim of only 421 changes that affect the sound between the 1611 edition and the Oxford KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible was incorrect until Waite revised his count up to over 1,000. David Cloud misrepresents and distorts the views of believers who disagree with KJV-only reasoning.

    David Cloud claims to be willing to accept an updating of the archaic language in the KJV, but he in actual practice he does not accept it. David Cloud has been unwilling to accept updated revisions of the KJV such as the 1833 Webster's Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Bible-believing Baptists, the New Scofield, the King James II, the NKJV, the Modern KJV, the 1994 21st Century KJV, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, the King James 2000 Version, the King James Easy-Reading Bible, etc.
     
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    231
    Faith:
    Baptist
    David Cloud does not really clarify what constitutes a KJV-only view, and he does not actually demonstrate that his form of KJV-only view is reasonable, balanced, and sound. Cloud's own KJV-only view still involves use of fallacies [erroneous reasoning] and use of unjust measures [double standards]. It is clear from Cloud's own writings that he in effect applies different measures and standards to the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV than he applies to the 1982 NKJV.

    David Cloud referred to the Geneva Bible as "an edition of the Tyndale" and to the KJV as "another edition of Tyndale" (Rome and the Bible, p. 106; Faith, p. 510; Glorious History of the KJB, p. 102). Cloud also referred to the KJV as “a revision of the Tyndale Bible” (Faith, p. 577). Cloud also noted: "Our Authorized English Bible is a direct descendant of Tyndale's faithful Version" (O Timothy, Vol. 14, Issue 5, 1997, p. 10). Cloud asserted: “In fact, the King James Bible is a revision of that line of Received Text English Bibles stretching back to Tyndale in 1524” (For Love of the Bible, p. 8).

    David Cloud maintained that the predecessors of the KJV were "the same basic Bibles" (For Love of the Bible, p. 48). Cloud added: "They were based upon the same Greek text and employed the same type of translation methodology" and were “formal equivalencies” (p. 48). David Cloud suggested that the earlier English versions such as the Geneva Bible “differed only slightly from the King James Bible” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 92). David Cloud maintained that “all of these English Bibles from 1526 until 1611 were based on the Greek Received Text” (Ibid.). David Cloud noted that the Geneva Bible was “a product of persecution and spiritual revival, having been produced by men who were in exile for their faith” (Glorious History of the KJB, pp. 132-133). Cloud pointed out: “The Geneva Bible was a milestone in many important ways” (p. 122).

    Would David Cloud apply the same measures and admit that the KJV and the NKJV would be "the same basic Bibles" in the same way that he claimed for the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV? Would Cloud say that the NKJV differs only slightly from the KJV in the same way that he claims that the Geneva Bible differs from the KJV? Would David Cloud refer to the NKJV as being an edition of the KJV in the same way that he referred to the KJV being an edition of Tyndale's? If not, it is clear from the actual facts that he is not using the same measures/standards.

    There would be greater actual textual differences between Tyndale's and the KJV than any David Cloud could suggest between the KJV and the NKJV. There are the same-type differences in translation between Tyndale's and the KJV as there are between the KJV and the NKJV.

    There are hundreds and likely even thousands of places where the NKJV follows the KJV in making revisions and improvements to the 1560 Geneva Bible, suggesting that the NKJV is actually better and more accurate than the Geneva Bible which David Cloud praises.
     
    #12 Logos1560, Jul 5, 2018
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2018
  13. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,543
    Likes Received:
    2,740
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How do you feel about the Nkjv, or the modernized KJV versions, such as by Jay green?
     
  14. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,543
    Likes Received:
    2,740
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The Nkjv should be his preferred choice, just based upon the more complete understanding of the culture, texts, and biblical words used today.
     
  15. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,543
    Likes Received:
    2,740
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The only real KJVO position, in order to be consistent, would be the 1611 Kjv itself.
     
  16. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,543
    Likes Received:
    2,740
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Which makes sense, as the Kjv revised and updated the Geneva, and in like fashion, the Nkjv the kjv!
     
  17. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,543
    Likes Received:
    2,740
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So why would you, or other KJVO, have them saying something they never held with, as they did not see their finished product as being "perfect"
     
  18. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    7,115
    Likes Received:
    1,802
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Jordan,
    I 'liked' your O.P. because I think it is a good and reasonable explanation of your preference for the KJV. It is similar to the position of the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS) in Britain and of several English Pastors whom I know and respect. In Britain, KJV-only churches are more likely to be Reformed than Fundamentalist.

    However, that does not mean that I agree with it. I believe that the Scriptures should be translated into the language of ordinary people (so far as is possible while being faithful to the text). That is not the case with the KJV. I preach from it occasionally, and I find that I spend far too much time translating it into English rather than preaching. Some years ago I actually tried using the KJV for my private study and although I have studied Shakespeare, I found it much harder going than the NKJV and soon switched back.

    Nor do I believe that the T.R. has been providentially preserved. Verses like 1 John 5:8 are in only a tiny number of MSS, and it is very hard to argue that God preserved them when they are found less often than Critical Text verses. I certainly believe that the Majority Text or the Byzantine Text (almost identical) has been preserved by God and I appreciate the NKJV textual notes that help me find them.

    Finally, I believe that KJV-onlyism plays into the hands of C.T. supporters. Churches are steadily abandoning the KJV and when they move to another translation, they are as likely to adopt the ESV or NIV as the NKJV, especially as KJV-only folk spend so much time attacking the NKJV. If the NKJV is really not good enough (which I dispute), then for goodness' sake let's have another modern-language translation using the Traditional Text that we can all support.
     
  19. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,921
    Likes Received:
    129
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I’m assuming you actually mean 1John 5:7?

    “It should also be noted that Michael Maynard significantly points out that there are only 5 remaining Greek manuscripts that even contain the epistle of 1 John in whole or in part that date from the 7th century or before. That is a whole lot of time to have past by with only 5 partial Greek witnesses that remain today that were written within the first 700 years of Christianity.”

    JEROME tells us that certain Arian scribes were removing this section of Scripture from the Greek manuscripts.

    It is found in several Greek texts - Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elziever, Scrivener and Modern Greek Bible; it is quoted by several church fathers as Cyprian 250 AD, Athanasius 350 A.D., Priscillian -380 AD, Varimadum 380 A.D., Jerome 420 AD, Victor Vitensis 430 A.D., Fulgentius (late 5th century), Cassiodorus 580 A.D, and is found in many ancient versions of the Bible including the Old Latin, and is found in some copies of the Syriac, Armenian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.

    Although not found in most Greek manuscripts, the Johannine Comma is found in several. It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century).

    There are at least two Greek lectionaries (early didactic texts usually containing copious scriptural citations) in which the Comma appears (Lectionaries #60, dated to 1021 AD, and #173, dated to the 10th century).


    It was part of the text of the Old Latin Bible that was translated in the second century, as it witnessed by some remaining copies that we have today. It is found in "r", a 5th century Old Latin manuscript, "q", a 5th to 7th century O.L. mss, and "l" another 5th century O.L. mss.“


    http://brandplucked.webs.com/1john57.htm
     
  20. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,777
    Likes Received:
    1,010
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Jordan, I think you can safely put yourself in the KJVO camp.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...