KJVonly v only KJV

Chad;
You will find that very often Dr. Bob will state you are either ignorant, uneducated, dishonest, heretical, evasive, (fill in the blank) if you disagree with his position. At least that has been my experience. I have been on the receiving end of it and have also witnessed it happen to others as well. Often he mocks. It has been my experiance that unless you "Tow the party line" you are accounted "less than".
Oh well.
To the point of the question. It has also been my experience that MOST KJVO men that I know hold a variety of positions on this issue. I think a person choosing to designate themselves as OKJV likely do so hoping to deflect the venom many in the "Multiple Choice Version" camp send our way.
BTW; I do not know where the idea that MV = Modern Version. I have always heard it in context as Multiple Versionists.
Anyway...

My stripe of folks could care less if you are using the Readers Digest version, IF!!! you are using it to win the lost to Christ. We do not promote it, (using multiple versions) but we will not denigrate someone using them in service to our King. Our problem is when "good godly scholars" bring charges against the KJV claiming it is "out of date", "poorly translated" "uses the incorrect MSS" etc, etc, etc. Them's fightin' words.

So... I identify myself as believing the KJV is inerrant, and the only accurrate version for the English peole of today. I do not subscribe to the "advanced revelation hoooey".

In His service;
Jim

 

Then you are in the clear minority among KJVO's. I'ave had my salvation my faith questioned numerous times here on the BB. I've been told by KJVO's my Bible is a "perversion" on three times (one of those when I was quoting from the KJV... go figure).

THe claim of KJVO's is typically not based on those arguements, however. They're based upon the premise that there is to be one sole authoritative translation for everyone. I can find no scripture that supports that claim.

There's no question that advanced revelation is not scripturally supportable. As far as your statement that the KJV is the "only accurrate version for the English peole of today", it is worthy of personly opinion, but scripture does not support this if you adhere to that to the point of requiring all Christians of the English tongue to believe the same thing.

 

Amen Chad. Sometimes folks' comments on this board would lead one to believe that they think the BB is representative of the world of believers at large.

Go figure.
Robycop;
THe claim of KJVO's is typically not based on those arguements, however. They're based upon the premise that there is to be one sole authoritative translation for everyone. I can find no scripture that supports that claim.
-------------------------------------------------
That is inaccurate sir. One sole authoritative version for all ENGLISH speaking people perhaps, but not "for everyone" in toto. I know of not one single KJVO including Doc Ruckman, who believes as you have portrayed us here.

In His service;
Jim

 

In his book Why I Believe the King James Version Is the Word of God Peter Ruckman, Pensacola: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1988, p. 4, Dr. Ruckman says (explaining to a Spanish speaking person that the KJV IS God's Word) and that If it weren't for England, we wouldn't know where you're at. He says that latitude and longitude are given to every airplane in the air and every ship in the sea by the equator and England and that you can't even locate Pensacola without finding England. He says that if you put out a distress call, and say, "I'm in trouble," they ask, "What's the longitude and latitude?" And you give England as the mark. He then asks how do you explain that? Absolute location is English location. Absolute time is English time and then asks why would you think that absolute truth wasn't English truth?.

Dr Ruckman doesn't want us to directly quote from his books (although it's not illegal according to "fair use") so we must indirectly refer to them if you are of a mind to comply with his wish.

However direct quotes from his book mentioned above concerning this very issue can be found at :

http://amen.net/lb/english/dangerruckmanism.htm#_ftn7 The Danger of Ruckmanism as Applied to Foreign Language Bibles By Calvin George.

BTW, I also believe that the King James Bible is the Word of God, just not the only one in English.

HankD

 

Thanks Hank. I stand corrected. Sam Gipp, and Doc Ruckman have indeed published such things.
Mea culpa.

BUT I DO NOT!!!

In His service;
Jim

 

I, for one, use only the KJV in my preaching, teaching, and study. In that sense I am OKJV.

I am not KJVO in the modern sense of the word. I believe that it is the best single translation based on the best body of texts - that is why I use it, pure and simple.

For those who disagree with me - that is their perogative and I do not think any of them are "less spiritual" than me because of their choice.

So yes - it is possible to be "OKJV" and not be "KJVO". If, of course, we think that we need to apply these fleshly labels. How about "my brother or sister" instead?

 

I hate to sound too, well mean, but it really doesn't bother me how they perceive me. I happy with my stand and will gladly stand before the Lord and answer for it one day. If I am wrong, He will sort me out.

 

Why is it so inconceivable to suggest that there are better translation choices, here and there, than what a human translator chose nearly 400 years ago? Why are they fighting words? Why not propose a better translation for certain passages/words if a different translation helps the listener understand the passage better?

Andy

 

Understood. My purpose is not to denigrate Dr. Ruckman as he seems indeed to be a brother in Christ but to point out his doctrinal abnormalities many of which are bizzare.

People are brought into his fold before they learn of his strange ideas (not just his KJVO position).

HankD

 

AV1611Jim(apparently quoting me):

Robycop;
THe claim of KJVO's is typically not based on those arguements, however. They're based upon the premise that there is to be one sole authoritative translation for everyone. I can find no scripture that supports that claim.
-------------------------------------------------

I don't remember typing those words. Are ya SURE it was I?

(Not taking offense; I was just wondering if I had the first stages of AZHD.)

As I've said many times, I have no prob with those choosing to use only the KJV. One of my fave teleministers, the late Dr. J. Vernon Mc Ghee, preached only from the KJV because that was the version he'd grown up with, and it was the most familiar English version to him...but he HAD studied the old languages, especially Koine Greek, and was quick to point out the faults and errors in the KJV, all of which have been discussed in this forum. Jim, you're incorrect in saying the KJV is inerrant because it's been shown right here in this "versions" forum that it DOES have a few booboos. However, I don't see these booboos really affecting any DOCTRINE or MESSAGES, in the text, but they DO shoot down the "perfect" and "inerrant" parts of the KJVO myth.

 

Do not assume that the BB is representative of those holding the view worldwide. I know of relatively few men who would question one's faith or salvation over a Bible version regardless of their view of that version.

In Christ

Chad </font>[/QUOTE]Before moving from Villa Rica, GA, my wife and son had an interesting experience.

A lady from a local "Hyles-type" church came by to trade Mary Kay supplies. While they were busy, her 8 year old and ours played. Her child eventually asked mine if he was saved to which he replied "yes"... then this 8 year old asked if my son was saved with a "King James Bible" saying, "You know you can't be saved without a King James Bible don't you?"

These churches are out there and probably more numerous than you might imagined.

 

I preach and memorize from only the King James but will use other versions and Greek and Hebrew dictionaries during study. I guess that makes me OKJV. The truth is that these labels can be misleading and many Christians in fundamental circles have no idea of the difference (of course if they are members of this forum they will learn in a hurry)

If you had asked me a few years ago I would have been quick to say I was KJVO because that is all we use at church. Then a well meaning church member purchased for me a subscription to Dr. Ruckman's newsletter, the Bible Believers Bulletin. It did not take me long to figure out that although I love the King James Bible I disagreed with this crowd on a lot of issues. My disagreements were not limited to versions of the Bible. Dr. Ruckman has a lot of crazy ideas. Among other things this twice divorced pastor believes that we will all be men in heaven (no women allowed), the lost will become literal worms in hell, and people will be saved by works during the tribulation, as he believes they were before Christ was born. The use of vulgarity and his angry tone were the first warning signs for me, then I looked at his content and found the real problem.

After this I purchased a couple of Gail Ripplinger's books and read them. Wow, I could post a long thread of inaccuracies in her books but to sum it up, major conspiracy theory. Now I am afraid to describe myself as KJVO (even though that is all we use in church) because I might be linked with these kooks (can I say that here or is that a personal attack?).

It is sad that we have to be so specific in our terminology and all this energy that could be spent winning the lost is instead wasted on refuting false teaching of so called Bible Believers.

 

Don't be discouraged brother. It's not wasted because It's the ongoing struggle of the church till He comes.

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

We use 4 versions of the Bible (KJV, NKJV,NASB,NIV) to bring the "sense" of the Scriptures to the newly saved adults called "little children" (as well as some of the "young men and fathers" - 1 john 2:13) in the Scripture.

Babes in Christ benefit greatly by these discussion here on the BB as well.

HankD

[ December 15, 2004, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

robycop3
2,000 Posts Club
Member # 221

posted December 15, 2004 09:58 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AV1611Jim(apparently quoting me):

Robycop;
THe claim of KJVO's is typically not based on those arguements, however. They're based upon the premise that there is to be one sole authoritative translation for everyone. I can find no scripture that supports that claim.
-------------------------------------------------

I don't remember typing those words. Are ya SURE it was I?
--------------------------------------------------

My bad. Brother, it was Johnv not you. Sorry!


Roseann Roseanna Danna used to say,..."nevermind".

 

No prob, Jim! Aint NUN a' us'n purfekt!