"KJVO" Beginnings

I'm not dancing at all. God had the Scriptures written in Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek. To suggest that any translation into another language is superior to God's chosen languages is "The Big Dance".

I merely happen to speak English. Your POV would preclude me from having access to "The Pinnacle" if I happened to speak say, only German, Chinese or Spanish! Or I would have to have a 'reverse translation' from the English back into one of those languages, rather than one directly from the Hebrew, Chaldeee and Greek, directly.

Sorry, Martin Luther, Calvin, Beza, Stephanus, and Erasmus! Oh yeah, and Paul, Moses, John, and the other 40 some-odd human authors of Scripture, and The Holy Spirit as well!! You guys did not understand that the English of the early 1600's was the "purest language".

The real "FACT" is that the Scripture was not written in English, at all, but in Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek.

That sort of stuff you are claiming, is hogwash and really is dancing - dancing in the mud of muddled minds!

Ed

 

As if we didn't know that!:laugh:

Wrong! The KJB is the Bible that everyone looks back to for reference, else you're caught up in the conglamoration of MSS in the Hebrew, Chaldean and the Greek.

It is the most eloquent and definable, thus pure? Yes.

Nope. people like you are still fighting over a threefold language barrier. we choose to have the Word of God forever settled, y'know, like it is in heaven!

Hmmm, reminds me of a model prayer I read once..... "Thy will be done on earth AS IT IS IN HEAVEN! "

 

Oh, BTW, you're ideal of God only able to inspire the Original languages makes Him to have died after the Canon was completed.

1. You either believe in advanced revelation. Or,

2. According to you, God can only speak to a man in three different languages, of which those who could not speak Greek remain lost becuase they couldn't understand the New Testament.

We, and God, choose to have the word perfectly preserved in material form, it's known to all the world as the King James Bible/ Authorized to be read in churches.

Your ideal could only at best have an alterable form of a Bible, at satan's demand!:BangHead:

 

That first sentence above is beneath contempt, and is a slander at the Lord, IMO.

I do not believe in "advanced revelation". That is your point of view. For you are claiming, albeit sub-silento, the KJV is the ultimate revelation, even superior to the languages God gave us the written word in. I suggest that the people of the world that speak only Spanish, for example or German or Chinese have so such pre-conceived notion of the primacy of the KJV, as you claim. Even the KJV translators claimed this -

That is something you will not avow, or at least have not been "setting foorth".

And I'm very sure the pronouncement of King James I is worth somewhat less than that of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, as to pronouncing a version to be read in the churches.

Ed

 

To refresh your memory, Rufus, this was covered befor in post 117. Here it is again.

The translators of the 1611 KJV had no intention of making the one supreme, end-all, better-than-any-other version, Rufus. And they certainly didn't start the KJVO movement.

 

PRIN'CIPAL, a. [L. principalis, from princeps.]
1. Chief; highest in rank, character or respectability; as the principal officers of a government; the principal men of a city, town, or state. Acts 25. 1 Chron.24.
2. Chief; most important or considerable; as the principal topics of debate; the principal arguments in a case; the principal points of law; the principal beams of a building; the principal productions of a country.

 

Here are some personal observations. For me
the history of the KJVO movement was news, not
history.

In 1966-67 I was stationed at Charleston AirForce
Base, and lived off-base in North Charleston, South
Carolina. I was working varying shift work
(collectively we worked 24-7) tracking Cargo planes
supplying our armed forces in Vietnam.

Anyway, when I was off during the day I could
listen all day (my wife had a day job) to the
local conservative Christian radio station.
There was a local Black preacher who preached and
his audience echoed (his audience echoed)
every phrase he said (every phrase he said).

Anyway, there was zero KJVO preaching, none, nada.
There were independent Presbyterian pastors, independent
Baptist preachers, independent charismatic preachers, and
"So Independent you couldn't tell which denomination
they was" preachers.

No mention that the King James Version was the Only
version God could bless, whereby one could be saved,
MVs were of the Devil, MV readers were hell bound, etc.
NO MENTION of and KJVO ideas; no mention of the KJB.

Well, there was this pamphlet I sent off decrying some version
that had errors (the KJV didn't have any errors). No mention
that there was more than one edition of the KJV, just nothing,
no mention that the original Translators of the KJV1611 Edition
had footnotes & the apocrypha). These are some ideas
that frequently omitted today by the KJVOs of today,
but apparently they didn't know back then they were KJVOs?
The anti-unknown-specific-MV pamphlet was distributed
by a new salesman of new KJVs.

So, for me, the whole history of the KJVO movement occurred
after 1967, when I was an Adult, when I was a Christian.
I realize there were a few books about KJVOism, but it
wasn't being preached in the pews of America yet, well
at least not over the radio.

I was getting & distributing Jack Chick Comics - nothing yet about
KJVO.

For me KJVOism (which I never embraced) was not obvious
until after 1968.

 

Fellerzz, we're getting off the theme of KJVO BEGINNINGS. As for KJVO itself, some of ya believe it or pretend to, while I & other Freedom Readers know-not guess nor opine-that it's phony as a football bat. But this thread is about its BEGINNINGS.

Does anyone seriously believe there was a KJVO doctrine before the 20th century? Dean Burgon & Co, while definitely against the RV in the 1880s, were certainly not against any new translation being made.

In another board, a gent says there WAS such a movement & tries to prove it by quoting several celebrities of the past, but I say there was no such movement then because the KJV had a virtual monopoly on the English-speaking world, and that his quotes were from people who were KJVP from lacka other choices.. While I cannot prove, of course, that the people of those times woulda accepted other English versions had they been available, he cannot prove that they wouldn't. Actually, it's moot since they've all passed on, but there's simply NO EVIDENCE supporting any KJVO movement before 1930.

 

You have stated what you believe what they were not doing, you have not stated what you believe they were doing.

It's quite clear that this is, in fact, what they were doing. The whole point of Rainolds request and the whole point of King James consent was to do this very thing. Please see James post for an understanding of the word "principal". If you disagree, please provide an alternate definition for this word. If you feel inclined, you might give me your definition of "only" as well.

 

Lacking any objective evidence to the contrary being offerred, what seems clear is that the 1611 KJV revisor's used "wink" in the sense of "overlooked" (see Webster's 1828 cited before); additionally, the personal interpretation above is not supported as a legitimate definition by the online American Hertitage Dictionary entry--

wink (wingk)

v., winked, wink·ing, winks.

v.intr.
To close and open the eyelid of one eye deliberately, as to convey a message, signal, or suggestion.
To close and open the eyelids of both eyes; blink. See synonyms at blink.
To shine fitfully; twinkle: Harbor lights were winking in the distance.
v.tr.
To close and open (an eye or the eyes) rapidly.
To signal or express by winking.​

Actual definitions of "overlook" found in the American Hertitage Dictionary are--

o·ver·look (o'ver-luk')
tr.v., -looked, -look·ing, -looks.

To look over or at from a higher place.
To rise above, especially so as to afford a view over: The tower overlooks the sea.

To fail to notice or consider; miss.
To ignore deliberately or indulgently; disregard.
To look over; examine.
To watch over; oversee. See synonyms at supervise.​

Authentic definitions of "wink" or "overlooked" are consistent and compatible with the context and meaning of the Acts 17 passage.

God does have "eyes" (Deut.13:18, 2 Sam. 15:25, 2 Kings 19:16, and others), but their state of being open or closed has no affect upon His omniscience, or omnipresence.

Perhaps, its not always about him?

Thank you for demonstrated this truth for us.

Assumptions are often wrong.

 

God’s word was written long before the canon was compiled and determined.

God never changed his word to accommodate you or anyone else. When he inspired his word it was finished not reinspired again and again and again and again. The KJV was corrected a few times. So which KJV is correct? If it was reinspired then why did your God make so many mistakes?

2 Timothy 3:16 is in past tense.

 

Salamander:We, and God, choose to have the word perfectly preserved in material form, it's known to all the world as the King James Bible/ Authorized to be read in churches.

The "we" is only half right. Here, it refers only to KJVOs. We Freedom Readers choose otherwise. And so does GOD. He's made His word available in several English versions, & in over 2400 other languages & dialects.

And human authorization doesn't mean diddly to GOD.

So, how about it, Sal...When did KJVO originate? Any evidence it did before 1930? And is it of GOD, or is it strictly man-made. We have lotsa evidence showing it's man-made. Any evidence it's from GOD? Or is that just parta of the old wives' tale?

 

I wonder how man ever lived for Christ without his KJV especially those who spoke English long before the KJV was ever written.

What about those who spoke Greek and Hebrew such as Jesus' disciples?

 

Ok, I'll agree with you, but you don't have a copy of His Inspired word by chance do ya?

We need a tonue in cheek smiley just for this occaision.:BangHead:

 

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And to think, you'll still argue with that.:BangHead:

 

What an idiotic statement. I don't know anyone who believes what you just said, except you maybe.

If the Word of God is only inspired in the Originals, then no one knows for sure what God said without some element of confusion.

Since we know the KJB is a perfect copy of God's Word, we'll stick with it. It is perfectly definable. That cannot be said about any version since. The reason why is the ever changing of the English language to fit every new idea of man.

You like to keep people guessing what the Word of God says according to the current understanding of our language, but that changes day by day.

The KJB has not changed, neither has God who inspired it.

So I will have to say when did "KJVO" begin? The very moment when God knew man needed a reference point to determine what the Bible says without any confusion!:godisgood:

 

Copy, yes. Original, no.

The KJVO folks do though. God only spoke to Paul in English.

 

Maybe you can educate me a little. Could you give me the name of one KJB translator who made the claim of the KJB translation being inspired by God? I have never read that anywhere.

So how many times did God inspire His word?

What makes you think you know the KJB to be a perfect copy of God's word? Even the translators do not make such a loud claim. Do you have the source of the copy of the KJB? Perhaps you should read the first few pages of a KJB to verify if what you wrote is true. I can assure you I have read a second edition and what you write is a lie according to the translators in the second edition.

Maybe it might help if you could possibly consider how an accident scene is reconstructed. They cannot do the accident again. But through proven means they can get quite close.

Didn't you know scripture is inspired many times but only once in English. Didn't you know when Paul wrote 2 Timothy he only wrote in English and the Bible was written in English. I wonder how it is that Jesus never knew English so his exact words could have been recorded.

I wonder why if the KJV was perfect the first time they had to edit it a few more times to get it right?

 

You're entitled to your opinion, though wrong it is! I said your ideal

You believe in advanced revelation alright, it is evident because you believe that the Bible has to change with the changes of men.

What you have also said in the above is a lie. I have never said the KJB is superior to the Originals.

The KJB translators said they produced the best that could be: i.e., the meanest of translations.

Your failure to expound youre point is noted.

It seems you have a problem with God calling a king to make sure all men could have a copy of His Word. That is unbiblical.

We have a Bible from those who knew God well enough to burn at the stake of the intellectuals. You have a plethora of Bibles that attempt to pacify the demands of the intellectuals.

"KJVO" must have begun with God and faith began with God.

Try John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

The KJB is a work of God. Deny it? Blasphemy!

 

OK so you believe the Word of God came to man by accident!:laugh: