Real poll: anti- or pro- KJVs

I answered neither. It is a faithful translation of the Bible, so I am not against it. However, the KJV is not my preference, so I'm not "pro-KJV" in that sense.

Putting it this way: if someone in my church asked me if reading the KJV was ok, I'd say yes. If someone in my church asked me for a recommendation of a certain translation, I wouldn't likely recommend the KJV.

 

I use the NIV and cross reference with a KJV, but "pro-KJV" carries a bit of "onlyist" baggage so voted "neither"

 

KJV is fine. I usually read the NKJV and the NIV at times. KJV is always read from the pulpit.

 

I voted neither pro or for. While I think there are much better modern english formal equivalence translations (ESV, NASB and to some extent the HCSB), I have no problem if someone is KJVP. I would rather read in the language I speak, not one that my ancestors spoke hundreds of years ago in England.

 

I only use the KJV because of the reasons:

1. The KJV superiority over modern versions.

2. The KJV accuracy over modern versions.

3. The KJV perfection over modern versions reflecting to CLEAR doctrines of the Bible.

4. The KJV has no contradiction; modern versions have many contradictions.

5. The KJV was derived from 99% manuscripts over modern versions with 1% MSS.

6. The KJV was produced by God-chosen translators; modern versions were produced by catholicized, apostates, "mixed" (unbelieving and believing) translators.

7. The KJV is the best translation for almost 400 years.

8. The KJV is what I recommend to everyone.

 

Think with me. When Jesus called Pharisees, "Hypocrite," would you call Jesus a "slander"? Would you silence Him?

 

I voted pro KJVs. As I have said many times before, I am not at all against the KJVs - they are beautiful and mostly-accurate translations fo God's word. What I am against is the KJVO line of thought. At least 75% of Askjo's reasons for using only the KJV are debunked myths conjured up by a few people who want to "live large" selling books. Books by writers such as Gipp, Riplinger and Ruckman belong in the fiction section right beside the comic books - they certainly don't belong in anyone's list of credible works.

 

I voted "FOR" the King James Bible! raying:

The Authorized
King James Bible
Unchanging Accurate​

 

Askjo, it is ridiculous to liken your slanderous and hateful lashings with Christ calling the Pharisees hypocrites. Christ's deity allowed Him to righteously and truthfully say the Pharisees were hypocrites - after all, Christ is God and as such He is the creator of the world (John 1:1-3). You certainly are not deity, and your slanderous statements are not made with any authority but your own backing them. Comparing yourself with Christ is ridiculous if not bordeing on blasphemy.

As always, Askjo, I am paying God will show you His real truth and cause you to abandon the man-made half-truths and falsehoods of those such as Gipp, Riplinger and Ruckman. You need to stop following the tachings of such Pharisees and start following the truth of God's word.

Sorry for the slight detour, Ed!

 

But Jesus knew their hearts... and YOU don't.

Keith M got to it before I did.

 

God has truly used the various KJVs for nearly 400 years. I would hardly call the KJVs unchanging since there have been various revisions down through the years. The doctrines taught in the KJV are unchanging and accurate. The legitimate MVs are also accurate, teaching the same doctrines as the KJVs. Not a single legitimate MV teaches anything contrary to the deity of Christ, His virgin birth, His sinless life, His substituionary death, His burial, His victorious resurrection, and His atoning blood. God's word is alive and prospering today, whether it is found in the KJVs or in the various legitimate MVs available to us. Thankfully God has chosen to provide His word for us in various English Bible translations we can understand. He didn't stop bringing His word to us in 1611 as some folks seem to think.

:godisgood:

 

I'm pro the KJ because it is what I started out with and still use 90% of the time or more. I do like the ASV 1901 a lot and the NASV I have used some. So of the ones I have read I'm not anti any of them.

 

There is one true Bible and that is the King James Bible - nothing added to it. Don't give me another Bible[Attack on the Bible deleted]

Matthew 24:35 - "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

God promised to preserve His words... and if it wasn't in the King James Bible, then where is it?

As far as the "revisions" it had down the years... care to point out what (what EXACTLY) changed in those revisions? If you can't, I will. May I add there was FOUR actual EDITIONS...1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769 - no more. Don't made it sound like it was revised ten times.

Yes, God is good, and so is His Holy and Unchanging Word!

 

Pappy, I second that. Amen! AMEN!

 

WRONG!

I am not a Gippitie - Strike one!

I am not a Riplingerite - Strike two!

I am not a Ruckmanite - Strike Three!

You are OUT!

 

Pappy, let's not hijack this thread to yet another discussion of the KJVO myth. The KJVs are good English translations of God's word -nothing more, nothing less. God has the power to preserve His word for us in the various English Bible translations we have available today. Thankfully He chose to do so.

We both voted we are pro-KJVs and let's just leave it at that.

 

Then what are you, Askjo? You cdertainly espouse many of the same falsehoods these "writers" promote. What exactly is it that you call yourself? An "original thinker?"

One thing is certain, Askjo, you certainly ARE hilarious!