KJVO?

KJVOnlyists tend to believe that the only valid English translation of the ancient texts is found in the KJV. They believe that the texts used by the translators was exactly like the originals, and they believe that the translators were somehow inspired to translate perfectly into English what was originally in ancient languages. Again, as I said in another post, just merely look through the various posts to see evidences of KJVO's. They are all over the place.

 

The problem is that the KJV does not match any of those manuscripts 100%. If the KJV is the "complete Word, inerrant, infallable, inspired Word of God" (as you said you believe), what do you do with the differences? Are those differences "errors" in those manuscripts, or can more than one thing be "the word of God" despite textual differences?

 

If you study the short history of the KJV Only movement, you will find that it has yet to solidify into a uniformly defined set of assertions. In other words, there is great variety within the movement as to how they explain the "perfection" of the English translation known as the KJV. The recently published book Thou Shalt Keep Them was complied by more than one KJV Only author, and has conflicting opinions within the book as to the issue of perfect preservation and the KJV.

Chick

 

It seems there are some who assert that the KJV is the ONLY inspired "Word" - being superior to its progenitor manuscripts even. The majority of "KVJOs" I know or have talked with claim that the manuscripts underlying the KJV are "inspired" as well.

It also seems that many of these Christians disapprove of the labels "KJVO" or "onlyist"!

As I see it every Christian believes that God has preserved His word. Some feel (like me) that preserving the "essence" of His word does not necessitate preserving a "word for word original" - obviously many do not agree! So to me the name "KJVO" to me does not seem to be pejorative!

 

By your own statement above, QS, why doesn't your group permit any teaching/preaching from another version, since you acknowledge that there are plenty of other valid English versions available?

 

The acronym "KJBO" was concocted by Bible Agnostics and relativist.But in a nut-shell,"whateverists" think that any "bible"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting authorities)-as long as it's "reliable"- that came from the Vatican's OFFICIAL mss.(Rev 17)and/or came from a monestary's DUMPSTER mss. are the word of God;but on the same token,the Bible believer KNOWS that Bibles from the Graeco/Syrian mss.of the reformation are the word of God,and the KJB is the distillation of those,and the rest are nothing but door-stops.


So,go ahead,use your silly acronyms,rant and rave,bend the truth,create web-sites,write books,call names,or whatever;truth is I,and others who hold the same conviction will never abandon the word of God(KJB)for nothing...

 

Anti-Alexandrian,

So you reject the KJBO label? Do you have a preferred name for the "KJBO" stance?

Obviously not every Christian agrees with your position!

 

Do you have a preferred name for the "KJBO" stance?


"Just Truth" sounds kinda nice!

 

KJVO = Truth?



Man, my ribs just recovered from the last time a KJVO tried to say something truthful. There they go again.

 

KJVO = Truth?

"Hey~don't find fault with what you don't understand... But, I am glad to see you laughin','cause you know the Bible sez a merry heart doeth good like a medicine.

 

Well I'm not sure of others, but I myself have no problem being called a King James Bible only-ist. I'm proud to be one who holds the truth. Course then again I'm one of these people who takes "narrow minded" and "Old fashioned" as compliments, so it's no wonder!

KJBO= truth. Now that I like! I'm going to remember that one!
~Miss Abby
Proverbs 31:30 KJB

 

KJVOs include a wide range of beliefs. Often their beliefs are made fun of by folks with only a rudimentary knowledge of Greek and almost no knowledge of Hebrew.

Those folks with a bit of knowledge use a lexicon or word study book as their source for correcting and criticizing the KJV because they heard their preacher doing that or they heard their professor at Bible school do that.

As a KJVO, I believe the KJV - any KJV edition (but not the NKJV or the KJII or other of Jay Green's translations) is superior to any edition of the NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV, RV, etc.

This view, of course, takes into account that printer's errors are not errors in the scripture.

I believe the KJV is without proven doctrinal error - that the words (not just the message) are precisely what God intended us to have when He preserved His words.

Even if you prefer to misinterpret Psalm 12:6,7 to be God's promise to preserve the poor and the needy from this generation for ever, it is still common sense to believe that what God originally gave by inspiration, He also preserved in a form that is accessible to us.

Some folks make fun of KJVOs because we are said to believe that that KJV is superior to the original manuscripts.
Fundamentally, the KJV is superior to the original manuscripts.

For that matter, the NIV, NASB, ESV, etc. are also superior to the original manuscripts (but not as superior as the KJV!).

How can that be? Think about it - we don't HAVE the original manuscripts!

Something we have - KJV, NIV, whatever, is far superior to something we don't have - its a matter of practicality.

MVs frequently distort the KJVO position to make a straw man they can tear down so folks will think they've won the argument.

Frankly, even if we had the original manuscripts, how much good would they do most Christians?

Most Christians couldn't read the original mss. So even if we had those original autographs - most Christians would still do better reading whatever version they currently read.

I've spent more than 30 years observing Dr. Ruckman, reading his books, listening to his tapes, sharing friendship and ministry with many of his Bible students.

I've noticed that, contrary to the accusations of some, Dr. Ruckman himself believes that folks can get saved by reading almost any version of the Bible including the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses.

As a KJVO, I can fellowship with anyone in the family of God even if they don't use the KJV.

 

Quote: "Some folks make fun of KJVOs because we are said to believe that that KJV is superior to the original manuscripts.
Fundamentally, the KJV is superior to the original manuscripts.

For that matter, the NIV, NASB, ESV, etc. are also superior to the original manuscripts (but not as superior as the KJV!)."

Thus the heresy of KJVO. There is no way a tranlation can be superior to the Inspired words of God. I may accept that they are equal, but not superior.

If you use the KJV. Praise God. But don't elevate it above what it truly is, A translation of the Bible.

 

A couple of posters here have stated that:

KJVO = truth

If you are KJV-only, have you ever looked at the doctrinal statements of Historic Baptists? Ever heard of the New Hampshire Baptist Confession, London Baptist Confession, or the Philadelphia Confession? How about the Reformed Westminster Confession? Nothing there about KJV-onlyism, nor any remarks about a 'perfect Bible' in English that's 'inspired'. Listen to what you are saying, will you? Historically speaking, Baptists (and other Bible-believing Protestant/Reformed people) have held to an inspired and inerrant original autographa, and the infallible copies of the Bible (historically known as preservation, not 'perfect preservation' as KJV0's have twisted it to mean). Your church and your pastor should be in agreement with this important doctrine(s) of the Bible (hence, Bibliology). If you are KJV-only, then you have a problem with the Bible and how it came down to us today. Baptists should never be so ignorant about their doctrines!

[snip]

[ January 19, 2004, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]

 

You obviously are ignorant of Church history yourself.Church history bears witness to the rejection of the dark-age Jesuit mss. of Alexandria and "bibles" that came from them.


And Church history shows that Graeco/Syrian mss. of the reformation and Bibles(KJB,Geneva,Old Latin,Luther,Waldenses,etc..) thereof are the word of God;the A.V. being the outstanding representitive of those mss. and Bibles...

 

Well, I reckon GrannyGumb-O is proud, (but not prideful,) to be KJB-O!

As I've said before-"Like begats Like, & my Bible came from Like". Whatever's in its ancestry is pure. (Those cows up the road is pure-bred & they don't go be mixing no scrubs with'em).

"Truth has a way of asserting itself, given time enough." .......Sure has been a l o n g time.!

 

You obviously are ignorant of Church history yourself.Church history bears witness to the rejection of the dark-age Jesuit mss. of Alexandria and "bibles" that came from them. </font>[/QUOTE]Any sources to cite?

 

That subtle devil - ah YES!!!

Now I wouldn'y necessarily say that KJVOism id heresy - but it's sure heading in that direction. I'd say more like Pharisaism - inveighing bitterly about English words and missing the big points of Christ's teaching!!

That subtle devil loves to see the body divided by human silliness! If anybody wants to see this check out the "Balaam's Ass Speaks" journal! This is an exapmle of picking up the Pharisee ball and REALLY RUNNING WITH IT. UGH!!!!!