-
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!
Did God Bow To King James?
- Thread starter tyndale1946
- Start date
AV Defender
New Member
No, it is the KJV they dislike and the users of it by association with it.
I am confused. Where is the lie exactly? Is any of this necessary? I hear there is a PM system on this board?
And by King James do we mean James White? heheh Last part added for humor only.
Perhaps all the accusations of lying and so forth are not really productive to the thread and that we can simply point out where we disagree.
Or, maybe not.
Regardless I am going out to eat (Parent's Night Out). I hope all of ya'll have a great evening.
Charlie
And by King James do we mean James White? heheh Last part added for humor only.
Perhaps all the accusations of lying and so forth are not really productive to the thread and that we can simply point out where we disagree.
Or, maybe not.
Regardless I am going out to eat (Parent's Night Out). I hope all of ya'll have a great evening.
Charlie
No, it is the KJV they dislike and the users of it by association with it.</font>[/QUOTE]Um, I have been around folks who like using newer versions and have never heard anyone hate the KJV. They may find it difficult to read and may not consider it the most accurate, but never hate it. Nor, have I heard of anyone hating those who use the KJV. Many wonderful Christians use it.
Charlie
AV Defender
New Member
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kjvonlyistsarecultists/
Like I said It's about the KJV & those associated with it.....
[ December 13, 2002, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]
I know the moderator of that club fairly well, and they do NOT hate KJV users. That site was created as a parody, because a bunch of KJV-only extremists once called the person moderating that site, as well as me and several others, members of the "Alexandrian cult" (I still have my membership card around somewhere. 
) The moderator is very opposed to KJV-*onlyism*, but I assure you they do not "hate users of the KJV" - in fact, they use the KJV too. If you send me a private message or an email, I will give you their email address and you can ask them yourself.
) The moderator is very opposed to KJV-*onlyism*, but I assure you they do not "hate users of the KJV" - in fact, they use the KJV too. If you send me a private message or an email, I will give you their email address and you can ask them yourself.Dr. James White is one of the strongest opponents of KJVOism. Does he hate the KJV? A very quick view of one document produced this excerpt:
His correspondence with Ruckman I found interesting. Who is being charged with being hateful? Here is a link for whoever is interested. http://aomin.org/ruckcor.html
Even the yahoo group was not directed at the KJV nor those who read the KJV. It was directed at KJVOists, who are a very small minority of those who use the KJV.
Charlie
That is the tone of his argument. Not hate, but academic criticism.
His correspondence with Ruckman I found interesting. Who is being charged with being hateful? Here is a link for whoever is interested. http://aomin.org/ruckcor.html
Even the yahoo group was not directed at the KJV nor those who read the KJV. It was directed at KJVOists, who are a very small minority of those who use the KJV.
Charlie
I just listened to the debate between Waite and White. I must say that they handled the debate in a much better manner than we have. Regardless of which side you are on in this issue, we must see that a civil debate can be had on the issue, and must be had on this issue, as it must grieve our Lord to see his children fighting in such a way that could hurt someone's feelings.
Let's stick to the issues at hand, eschew all character assasination, and handle this debate (which is all it is) in a more respectable manner. There may be non-Christians visiting this site, you know.
That being said, I apologize if I was hurtful to anyone, oh, and by the way, I think both sides of the issue can flame away at Ruckman because he's asking for it! (where's our little Graemlin that holds a flame thrower?)
Let's stick to the issues at hand, eschew all character assasination, and handle this debate (which is all it is) in a more respectable manner. There may be non-Christians visiting this site, you know.
That being said, I apologize if I was hurtful to anyone, oh, and by the way, I think both sides of the issue can flame away at Ruckman because he's asking for it!
(where's our little Graemlin that holds a flame thrower?)
I have used the KJV and like it. I use the NKJV and like that one too. I also like the NASB and use it also.
The point that people that are anti the idea of KJV onlyism are making is not that they hate the KJV. The point is that the groups that encourage KJV onlyism are starting to suggest that it is a salvation issue, which it most definatley is not. The fact that there are churches "checking bibles" of newcomers at the church door is an absolute joke. It is at this point that the word Cult applies.
I have looked at both sides of the argument and it appears to me that the Extreme KJV only group do not have a case. Every argument they come up with is easily reversed. until we get to the real issue which is their hatred of Catholics.
It is suggested by KJV onlyists that having margins is wrong. Yet the 1611 version did.
They feel that the KJV is inspired by God, but cannot prove why the Geneva bible is wrong. Under their logic there can be no new bibles, which defeats there reasoning for replacing the Geneva bible.
It is a documented fact that there are translation (not doctrinal) errors in the KJV. Yet it is claimed to be perfect.
It is also racist that Gods word could only be translated into English.
A number of Extreme KJV onlyists are getting confused with the Word and the word.
and I could list heaps more, but anyone who has clearly reaserched the subject openmindedly knows this stuff anyway.
The point that people that are anti the idea of KJV onlyism are making is not that they hate the KJV. The point is that the groups that encourage KJV onlyism are starting to suggest that it is a salvation issue, which it most definatley is not. The fact that there are churches "checking bibles" of newcomers at the church door is an absolute joke. It is at this point that the word Cult applies.
I have looked at both sides of the argument and it appears to me that the Extreme KJV only group do not have a case. Every argument they come up with is easily reversed. until we get to the real issue which is their hatred of Catholics.
It is suggested by KJV onlyists that having margins is wrong. Yet the 1611 version did.
They feel that the KJV is inspired by God, but cannot prove why the Geneva bible is wrong. Under their logic there can be no new bibles, which defeats there reasoning for replacing the Geneva bible.
It is a documented fact that there are translation (not doctrinal) errors in the KJV. Yet it is claimed to be perfect.
It is also racist that Gods word could only be translated into English.
A number of Extreme KJV onlyists are getting confused with the Word and the word.
and I could list heaps more, but anyone who has clearly reaserched the subject openmindedly knows this stuff anyway.
Well, thank you, Ben. I will break my rule against posting in this forum.
I do not hate the KJV. Having been brought up on the KJV, I still think in the KJV. If I want to look up a verse on Biblegateway, I type in the KJV ... and then go to the MVs. It is a beautiful translation.
But for many years I have used the NASB (orange soft cover, yuck) and more recently the NET (you have to love those translation notes) and ESV. (In between were the RSV and NIV -- which I chose for my daughter -- and many others, especially the Phillips NT, for which I have a deep fondness.)
I deny no one to read and study the KJV, or even to believe it is the best translation. What I resent is the notion that anyone who uses a different translation is a heretic, even a tool of Satan.
The mythology of the KJVOs against the MVs is pervasive and disturbing in too many instances to count.
There can be reasonable disagreement about the validity of the various texts from which the translations are prepared. Unfortunately -- and there are some exceptions, few of which are being talked about here -- this is lost in a fog of fallacies.
I would remind folks here that KJVO is only a concern of a tiny corner of Baptists in a tiny corner of Christendom. Until I joined the board, I didn't even know it existed. I knew people who loved the KJV and preferred it. I had no idea of the lengths to which people such as Ruckman and Riplinger were prepared to go to slander fellow believers.
From personal experience, which I admit is limited, I have never heard a Christian utter such maledictions against fellow believers as I've seen in the KJVO debate. And, from my limited experience, the onus is on the KJVO folks.
If you want to read the KJV, that's fine with me. I'll do it too. When I repeat the 23rd Psalm, I always will quote the KJV. But I am not a heretic or a tool of Satan because I like other translations as well.
If you want a beautiful example of an MV, I suggest, "What could be more clear than this":
[ December 14, 2002, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: rsr ]
I do not hate the KJV. Having been brought up on the KJV, I still think in the KJV. If I want to look up a verse on Biblegateway, I type in the KJV ... and then go to the MVs. It is a beautiful translation.
But for many years I have used the NASB (orange soft cover, yuck) and more recently the NET (you have to love those translation notes) and ESV. (In between were the RSV and NIV -- which I chose for my daughter -- and many others, especially the Phillips NT, for which I have a deep fondness.)
I deny no one to read and study the KJV, or even to believe it is the best translation. What I resent is the notion that anyone who uses a different translation is a heretic, even a tool of Satan.
The mythology of the KJVOs against the MVs is pervasive and disturbing in too many instances to count.
There can be reasonable disagreement about the validity of the various texts from which the translations are prepared. Unfortunately -- and there are some exceptions, few of which are being talked about here -- this is lost in a fog of fallacies.
I would remind folks here that KJVO is only a concern of a tiny corner of Baptists in a tiny corner of Christendom. Until I joined the board, I didn't even know it existed. I knew people who loved the KJV and preferred it. I had no idea of the lengths to which people such as Ruckman and Riplinger were prepared to go to slander fellow believers.
From personal experience, which I admit is limited, I have never heard a Christian utter such maledictions against fellow believers as I've seen in the KJVO debate. And, from my limited experience, the onus is on the KJVO folks.
If you want to read the KJV, that's fine with me. I'll do it too. When I repeat the 23rd Psalm, I always will quote the KJV. But I am not a heretic or a tool of Satan because I like other translations as well.
If you want a beautiful example of an MV, I suggest, "What could be more clear than this":
[ December 14, 2002, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: rsr ]
No, it is the KJV they dislike and the users of it by association with it.</font>[/QUOTE]I am an opponent of KJVOnlyism and I support some MV's. However, I would make a very strange "hater" of the KJV since it is my primary Bible... and a very strange hater of its users since I am one.