This is a poll on the KJV
Is KJO a Biblical concept
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Salty, Sep 26, 2020.
?
-
The KJV is the only version to use - in fact others should learn English -so they can use the KJV
0 vote(s)0.0% -
The KJV is the ONLY version that English speakers should use
0 vote(s)0.0% -
I use the KJV is because that is what I grew up with - generally, I never use others.
2 vote(s)14.3% -
I like the KJV - but I use many others as well
5 vote(s)35.7% -
The KJV really is outdated - so I prefer 1 or more of the MV because I can understand them better
3 vote(s)21.4% -
The KJ is not a good version - thus why I use other versions
0 vote(s)0.0% -
No opinion
0 vote(s)0.0% -
Other answer
4 vote(s)28.6%
-
-
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I voted "other answer" because, while the KJV is outdated & has its share of goofs & booboos, its archaic English is no challenge for me.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.
-
-
-
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 ! -
-
Right, but, to answer the OP question, NO, the KJVO myth is NOT Biblical.
-
just-want-peace Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
{Before some of you bust a gusset, this IS sarcasm!:Whistling}
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. -
-