Is KJO a Biblical concept

I voted

"I like the KJV - but I use many others as well"

 

I voted "other answer" because, while the KJV is outdated & has its share of goofs & booboos, its archaic English is no challenge for me. However, it IS a challenge for many others, especially those for which English is a second language.

As for the manuscript issue, I believe GOD preserved all the ancient Scriptural mss. we have, & since we weren't there when they were made, & we don't know who made most of them when or where, or what their sources were, we have no authority to criticize any of them.

 

To me KJOnlyism is not tenable. The inerrant word of God is not changable, Psalms 119:89. The KJV is a translation, and translations are changable. 1611-1779 there are KJV cases in point.

 

Psalms refers only to the Originals!

 

I am much more concerned about the translation policy, as one can use the nest Greek/Hebrew texts, but still give to us gender inclusive or dynamic renderings!

 

There's absolutely NO Scriptural support for the KJVO (..snip) ONE! No doctrine of faith/worship is true without Scriptural support. Thus, the KJVO (snip) is false.

Bottom line !

 

Some would see this as a diving issue among the brethren though....

 

Right, but, to answer the OP question, NO, the KJVO myth is NOT Biblical.

 

Are you absolutely sure? Not sure where I read it, but I feel certain that Paul used ONLY the KJ as he missionaried!!
{Before some of you bust a gusset, this IS sarcasm!}

On a serious note though, I once heard a preacher (early 50s as I recall) peddling [I assume] the KJVO myth, & he commented over & over as follows concerning the KJV:
"There may be a T not crossed, but I doubt it; there may be an I not dotted, but I doubt it; there may be a comma misplaced, but I doubt it---" yada, yada, yada for about 5-6 solid minutes.
This was LONG before I ever heard of KJVO, so I had no idea why he was being so adamant about this, but looking back I'm sure that KJVO was his point.

 

I chose "other", as I view the AV as the most reliable and trustworthy English translation of the Bible to-date.

It's choice of manuscripts and its use of predominantly Formal Equivalency translation technique has yet to be surpassed in anything I've seen in the 42+ years that I've been a believer.
To me, the underlying Textus Receptus and Ben Chayyim Masoretic texts are the correct ones from which to build a solid and faithful translation from, and I will only consider other translations ( in any language ) that are built on these two collated Greek and Hebrew texts.

In addition, I feel that anyone who thinks that the "KJV" is flawless, should probably look at it a bit closer...
I don't think it's perfect, but I do think it's far better, even using the English language of its day, than anything currently in print.

When someone comes along with a better one, I will consider it.
So far, I have not seen one that is better...
And I doubt that I will.

Plus, I've loved it since I first heard the Gospel in 1978.

 

OK to prefer the KJV for legitimate reasons, but believing or telling others, especially newer Christians that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation is WRONG; that doctrine is patently-false.

NO, the KJVO myth is NOT a Biblical concept; it's totally man-made ! Therefore, the ONLY place for it among Christians is in the trash can.

 

You know that the same reasoning is used by those who prefer the Niv/Nas/Esv etc!

 

KJVO would be elevating the Kjv almost to being the fourth member of the Trinity!