Please Read and Give input Here

While you did a fair job "labeling" the "various degrees" of "KJBO"(AKA:Bible[from protestant manuscripts] believers),you forgot to catagorize the "union's" various degrees of members also..


I think your "list" is not as precise as it could be;seem to be picking on Bible believers to me...

 

I don't think the first 3 are even "KJVO" in the first place. Personally, I wouldn't even include them in the list.

 

"KJBO"(AKA:Bible[from protestant manuscripts] believers)

 

Paranoid. Dr Bob's list is fair assessment of the KJVO's. Disagree? then take him at his word and clarify the variations.

 

Aaaaaaarrrrggghhhh!

I just got out of the KJVO movement and am now forced back in at #1.

Jason

 

Seriously, though, Dr. Bob. I agree with Brian that numbers 1 and 2 aren't KJVO positions.
KJVP is not KJVO. Things different cannot be the same. Hahaha.

Another suggestion, although I don't know exactly what we would call it, would be a division between 3 and 4. Also, I think number five could be divided into Ruckman/nonRuckman. That would give us our previous number of 5.

Jason

 

Hardly..

I cannot change ones pre-conceived notions...including yours..

 

AA- Have you ever considered that you might have preconcieved notions? I used to have lots of them when I was a KJVO...then frankly I learned the truth about MSS, translations, etc.And the Truth set me free!

 

STANDARD? Who sets these standards??? Who are the authors of those "authorities" that you are following???

 

When I first came to the BB, I was solidly a #4 with leanings into #5. After much study, I would consider myself a strong #2 who also believes #3 and has my foot in the door of #4.

 

The "only" part of "KJV-only" means "only". #1 and #2 are NOT "only".

#3 is not KJV-only, it is TR-only. Someone can be TR-only and think the LITV or similar is the best English translation.

I think most KJV-only supporters fall into #4, but I'm not sure about the use of the word "inspired", that blurs into #5. I think "perfectly preserved that which is inspired" would be a more accurate description for #4.

And you forgot #6: those that believe that Jesus and Paul and others literally carried around a leather bound, red-letter, Cambridge KJV with them, and that the concept of a "translation" done in 1611 under King James is a fabricated myth. Yes, I've met a couple of these folks (not on this board).

 

Pfft...I have better things to do with my time....This whole premise of "labeling" the various degrees of "KJBO" is just plain silly.

Oh,OK.That's ALL I needed to know.

 

KJVO #1 "I PREFER THE KJV"

This group believes the KJV is the best single English translation available today. This is based on its history, usefulness, beauty, etc. It does NOT mean that there might not be a better English translation possible and that other present translations are "bad".

These are only marginally KJVonly and should NOT be lumped in with discussion on other issues.

I would drop the editorial comment at the end.

KJVO #2 "I BELIEVE THE UNDERLYING GREEK/HEBREW TEXT OF THE KJV IS BEST"

This group believes that the MT (Majority Text) or the TR (Textus Receptus) -- even though there are obvious differences in the two -- are "superior" to all other Greek documents and more closely reflect the original autographs. They do not believe that the TR or the Majority Text is perfect in any one printed copy. They believe that the King James Version, based on this text, is the clearest and most accurate translation that we have in English today.

I would strike “They do not believe that the TR or Majority Text is perfect in any one printed copy”, mainly because of the Scrivener Text.

KJVO #3 "I BELIEVE IN THE RECEIVED TEXT ONLY"

This group would consider the TR has either been "supernaturally preserved" or even "inspired" and hence remain inerrant through the providential hand of God. They believe that the TR is verbally identical to the original autographs.

They consider any English translation from "inferior" Greek texts of W/H (Wescott & Hort) or UBS/Nestle-Aland (United Bible Society) as to be sub-standard and inaccurate.

I think “supernaturally preserved” implies open miracles, and therefore contradicts “inerrant through the providential hand of God”. Perhaps:

This groups considers the TR to have been kept pure by the providential hand of God, or perhaps even through a string of miraculous events.

KJVO #4 "I BELIEVE THE KING JAMES IS INSPIRED"

This group, by far the majority of the KJVonly, believe that the KJV itself, as an English translation, is inspired and therefore inerrant. A person who would dare to defend or even use another translation of the Bible are rejecting the "true" and "real" Bible, the only Word of God.

To this group, any "change" (added words, omitted words or verses, different choices of English words, modern words) is deviation from the truth and therefore "corrupt". The standard is always the KJV. They believe that God providentially gave the translators wisdom and guided them so that they translated all of the words correctly. As a result, they believe the King James Version is the perfectly preserved Word of God in the English language.

"The King James Bible Alone = The Word of God Alone."

I would change the title to read “I BELIEVE THE KING JAMES IS PERFECT”
And I would change the first paragraph to read: This group considers the KJV text to be perfect. I would strike the last sentence as well.

 

The title of this is correct, though. I came out of this group. They do believe the KJB is inspired.

 

I think the KJV is inspired. But I think many, when reading that, would automatically think of double inspiration or advanced revelation. I think the KJV is perfect, but derived inspired.

 

I believe that no two KJVOs are EXACTLY alike, and, try as we may, we can "fit" them only into general categories, same as they could do us. This is evidenced by those who say, "I'd change this in Category X and that in Category Y." However, you HAVE made a good attempt at separating wheat from chaff.

Personally, I believe the majority of KJVOs are actually "camp followers" who've been influenced by the work of some sensationalsit author as gail Riplinger. I see that they're generally stumped when asked for PROOF for their assumptions. many a KJVO simply CANNOT TELL US why he/she is KJVO except to say, "I believe the KJV's the best Bible" or something similar. When asked WHY it's best, they say, "Well...uh...because it IS."