Is this guy KJVO?

I would say yes. The King James Version is certainly better than the RSV, especially in the New Testament. But sometimes the RSV does correct an error in the better KJV. True for every error it corrects it also introduces many other mistakes. But sometimes, even if in a tiny minority of times, it does have a better reading.

 

Still interesting to me that the Nas still retained believe 85-90 % of the Rsv!

 

Does this person name and identify the specific one Hebrew manuscript that is the "perfect copy" from which the KJV's OT was correctly translated and did he name and identify the specific one Greek NT manuscript that is the "perfect copy" from which the KJV's NT was translated and which it matches perfectly word-for-word?

 

The quotations that you provide clearly display or repeat KJV-only reasoning. Some of the ideas being presented evidently come from KJV-only sources. The KJV-only view's two lines or two streams of Bibles argument can be seen to underlie some of the inaccurate and misleading statements in what you quoted

The claims in what you quoted ignore or avoid the truth that the KJV is actually based on multiple, textually-varying original-language sources, and not on "a perfect copy".

 

So lets cut to the chase, I know what others believe and they can believe what they want but to me and my church and the brethren I associate with, among our people, The Primitive Baptist, its the KJV... I don't tell you what to use in your church, I tell you what we use in mine... Brother Glen

Bible: The Bible is inspired by God and is the sole rule and authority for faith and practice in the church. The King James Version of the Bible is the only holy text recognized.

Btw... Brother Robert in the answer to your question he is not KJVO, he is not telling you, you need to read what he reads, he is just telling you why he reads the KJV!

 

The answer would be crickets chirping!

 

And the Lord also uses other translations too!

 

By definition, that would be KJV-only reasoning/teaching--the making of an exclusive only claim for the KJV.

By claiming that the KJV "is the only holy text", the history and truth concerning the making of the KJV is in effect undermined or denied. How can the KJV be an "holy text" if the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it is a revision were not also holy texts? The 1560 Geneva Bible is the word of God translated into English in the same sense that the 1611 KJV is the word of God translated into English.

Does the above statement in effect attempt to deny the truth that the KJV is based on multiple, textually-varying original language texts and on multiple, textually-varying Bible translations including the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament?

The 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1982 NKJV would be holy texts in the same sense as the KJV would be regardless of whether you choose to acknowledge and recognize it.

 

How can the multiple, textually-varying printed editions of the Textus Receptus supposedly be a "perfect copy"?

The Church of England makers of the KJV did not follow 100% any one printed edition of the Textus Receptus available to them.

There were printing errors in the printed editions of the Textus Receptus. Sometimes the printed editions of the Textus Receptus kept or followed copying errors from Greek manuscripts. Erasmus introduced some readings from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome into his edited Greek NT editions. Erasmus and Beza also introduced some conjectures into their printed editions that are found in no known Greek NT manuscripts.

 

What about the other Bibles of that era also?

 

There still remains the necessity for the KJVO to plainly show to us just which Greek text and which Kjv version is to be regarded as now the perfect ones!

 

If the only English translation that this school claims divine inspiration for is the KJV, this course would be advocating KJV-only reasoning/teaching (making an excusive only claim for one English translation--the KJV).

If this school would claim that the KJV is the word of God translated into English in a different sense than other English Bible translations are the word of God translated into English, it would indicate KJV-only reasoning.

The course did not actually establish the divine inspiration of the KJV from the Scriptures since the Scriptures do not teach that the KJV is divinely inspired. Perhaps someone was trying to read into verses something that the verses do not state.

 

This person claims to see things that are not true. This person is being very careless or reckless with the facts or with the truth. This person does not prove his assumptions and assertions to be true.

The KJV does not spring from a line "altogether different" from the alleged "spurious line." Seventy to eighty percent or even more of the underlying text for the KJV would be the same as the underlying text for the RSV so that it is not "altogether different."

In addition, the KJV borrowed or followed many renderings from the claimed "spurious line" --from editions of Jerome's Latin Vulgate and from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. The editors of the textually-varying Textus Receptus took or followed some readings introduced from an edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome.

 

How much of the Kjv "borrowed" from Tyndale?