Is KJVonly a Cult?

"Gospel" means good news. We get it slightly confused today because it has been transliterated into English to refer to the Good News of Jesus Christ. We are only slightly confused though, because it almost all the occurances of gospel in the Bible, it IS refering to the gospel of Jesus Christ. I know of at least one place though where Paul uses the word to refer to the good news about Timothy or something like that, in which case it was correctly translated good news and not gospel.

 

pure and simple genius, nice to see you on the flip side!
Gina

 

Simple, "Gospel" isn't a transliteration. More accurately the word would be evangelize, which is almost identical in the Greek, meaning to preach the Good News.

 

pure and simple genius said:

"Gospel" means good news. We get it slightly confused today because it has been transliterated into English . . .

Actually, no. "Gospel" is English; it comes from the Anglo-Saxon "godspel" - "good spell," that is, "good story" or "good news."

It's a translation of the Greek evangelion, not a transliteration. If anything, it's the word "evangelist" that is the transliteration; English doesn't have an equivalent word meaning "bringer of good news" that is derived from the Anglo-Saxon.

 

Ransom,

Ransom [pure and simple genius said:
"Gospel" means good news. We get it slightly confused today because it has been transliterated into English . . .

Actually, no.....]

RR- so 'pure and simple genius' is not so much of a genius afterall, huh?

 

4 wellsjs,
You mentioned the AV was the 9th English Bible. Would you please list the preceeding 8 English Bibles? Thank you.

 

I hate to be such a schoolmarm, but isn't this thread supposed to be about whether the KJV-Only mentality constitutes a cult?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Roadrunner:
4 wellsjs,
You mentioned the AV was the 9th English Bible. Would you please list the preceeding 8 English Bibles? Thank you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>English Translations Efforts to render Scripture into English began with Caedmon’s paraphrases into Anglo-Saxon (A.D. 670). Bede (A.D. 735) is said to have translated the Gospel of John, completing it on the last day of his life. It was, however, John Wycliff and his associates (A.D. 1382) who are given credit for having first given the English the complete Bible in their own language.
Erasmus printed the Greek New Testament for the first time in 1516. Luther made his German translation in 1522-1524; and William Tyndale in 1525 brought out his English New Testament—the first printed one to circulate in England. Making use of Tyndale’s material where available, Miles Coverdale brought out his complete Bible in 1535.
From this point the history of the English Reformation and the history of the English Bible go hand in glove with each other. Coverdale’s Bible was followed by Matthew’s Bible in 1537. Then in 1539, Coverdale with the king’s approval brought out the Great Bible, named for its large size.
With the coming of Mary Tudor to the throne in 1553, the printing of Bibles was temporarily interrupted; but the exiles in Geneva, led by William Whittingham, produced the Geneva Bible in 1560. This proved to be particularly popular, especially with the later Puritans. Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, then had the Bishops’ Bible prepared, primarily by bishops of the Church of England, which went through twenty editions. Roman Catholics brought out their Rheims New Testament in 1582 and then the Old Testament in 1610. The period of Elizabeth was the time of England’s greatest literary figures.
With Elizabeth’s death and the coming of King James I to the throne at the Hampton Court Conference in January 1604, the king accepted the proposal that a new translation be made. The outcome was the King James Version of 1611. It is number nine in the sequence of printed English Bibles and is a revision of the Bishops’ Bible. - Holman Bible Dictionary<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

wells,
Thank you.

 

Dr. Bob,
So you are now prepared to say that because I believe that God is great enough
to preserve His word for me in my language,
and That my Bible, the King James Bible, is the inspired Word of God, that I am not a Christian? HEY, WHO GAVE YOU THE BOOK OF LIFE? How dare you! So people like me make you sick, huh? All I can say is that when the books are opened, and you stand before the Judgement Seat of Christ(notice I am giving you the benefit of the doubt)what will be your answer to how faithful you were to the Word of God? Oh, by the way, I don't shun the title. I AM KING JAMES ONLY

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by david reed:
Dr. Bob,
So you are now prepared to say that because I believe that God is great enough
to preserve His word for me in my language,
and That my Bible, the King James Bible, is the inspired Word of God, that I am not a Christian? HEY, WHO GAVE YOU THE BOOK OF LIFE? How dare you! So people like me make you sick, huh? All I can say is that when the books are opened, and you stand before the Judgement Seat of Christ(notice I am giving you the benefit of the doubt)what will be your answer to how faithful you were to the Word of God? Oh, by the way, I don't shun the title. I AM KING JAMES ONLY <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spoken like a true gentlemen who is patient with those who differ and in full control of his emotions. [read slight sarcasm here].

Perhaps I should not comment because this is not addressed to me and Dr. Bob is quite able to speak for himself. However, this type of response really gets to me. It is wholly without redeeming merit for this discussion. You have dealt with no issues (not even one). You have shown a spirit of animosity toward others.

IMO, you need to reconsider your technique and spirit if you desire to participate here. Disagreement is not a problem. Being disagreeable is.

[ September 11, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
The more I see of the KJVonly crowd and their fidelity to man-made doctrine while demanding that all others believe their way (and not use Satan's Bible as I was told on another thread -- I use the Greek and Hebrew and find calling them "Satan's" Bible more than mildly offensive) is more and more cult like.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's more than offensive, Dr. Bob - its blasphemous.

 

Psalm 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

 

david reed raved:

All I can say is that when the books are opened, and you stand before the Judgement Seat of Christ(notice I am giving you the benefit of the doubt)

My, how generous of you (and how typical of the KJV crowd).

So is KJV-onlyism a cult? A disproportionate number of its disciples seem to think they have some kind of special "lock" on salvation, which is certainly a cultic tendency.

[ September 12, 2001: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

As a former KJVonly, I can say without hesitation that the KJVonly movement is an immoral cult. The things I saw and heard while part of that faction are unfathomable for those who claim to know Christ and obey His Word.

 

Dr. Bob,
I am, and forever shall be KJO.
However, I sure could have posted
my reply to you in a much better way.
I believe what I believe, but I realize
that not everybody is going to believe the
same thing. I responded to you with more
emotion than with enlightenment. I have studied this topic diligently for the past
several years, but I have learned my lesson
about arguing over this point in this forum.
I am outnumbered, and I sure don't want to
look like a Rucmanite (which I most surely
am not) because I can think for myself.
also, to anyone else that I may have offended
by my attacking of Dr. Bob, I am truly sorry.

 

Some of the things said here, due in part to what david reed said to Dr. Bob, have shown the same animosity, only on a general level. I would prefer not to name any names, thank you.

So what about those KJV-onlyers who PREFER the KJV over the more modern translations? In my personal opinion, I have a parellel Bible, by the way (KJV/NIV) and I have found that I prefer the KJV over the NIV, and not because I think the NIV is erroneous or anything. I would just ask everyone on both sides to convey their thoughts and opinions in a Christian manner. The argument being made on your behalf loses it's luster when said in a very condescending, "you are an idiot" manner. I am not an idiot or involved in some sort of cult just because I PREFER the KJV over other translations...

Thanks!
Kathy
&lt;&gt;&lt;

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
As a former KJVonly, I can say without hesitation that the KJVonly movement is an immoral cult. The things I saw and heard while part of that faction are unfathomable for those who claim to know Christ and obey His Word.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm currently tryin to somewhat study the whole version controversy...I guess i'm kinda confused by the whole thing. Just a question: How is the KJVonly movement immoral? What unfathomable things did you see and hear? I'm not being sarcastic or hostile, just a sincere question, i've really been confused over this whole issue lately, and just wanted to know. God bless

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by uhdum:
How is the KJVonly movement immoral? What unfathomable things did you see and hear?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Me too. How can a "movement" be "contrary to established moral principles?" People can certainly fail morally, but I fail to see how the KJV "movement" or the majority of its defenders can be considered "immoral."