1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured What is your understanding of KJVO?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Jordan Kurecki, Nov 2, 2018.

  1. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    100
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am seeking for clarity from those are consider themselves KJV, and who not:

    What is your understanding the KJVO position, can you define what you think it is, and what reasons do KJVO have that causes them to hold to the position.

    I am seeking to understand what people's understanding of the position is and if it lines up with my understanding of the position and my own reasons for holding to it.

    This is not a thread to debate the KJVO position, but for others to explain their understanding of the position.
     
  2. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    7,401
    Likes Received:
    482
    Faith:
    Baptist
  3. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    550
    Faith:
    Baptist
    My position is that KJVOs need to revert to KJVP forthwith.
     
  4. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    12,015
    Likes Received:
    990
    Faith:
    Baptist
    My understanding of the KJO position is that they believe the King James translation, when accurately interpreted, is as inspired as are the original manuscripts and the King James translation is God’s Word for English speaking persons. Also implied (with the “only” part) is that other translations, when accurately interpreted, are not God’s Word.

    I arrive at this conclusion based on conversations with a brother, pastor and friend who is KJO (and that is basically how it is explained in his church's bylaws). He cannot understand how one can hold a KJV in one hand, an ESV in another, and claim both to be God's infallible word (his explanation, not mine).
     
  5. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,793
    Likes Received:
    162
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Years ago, when I was helping moderate this forum of the Baptist Board, I, and a couple of other Moderators, came up with different classifications of the KJVO position. They have been modified a bit, but for the most part, I still agree with them.

    Definitions of KJV Only
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    100
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes I have seen the Definitions of KJV Only thread before.

    I guess I was looking at seeing how individuals here view KJVO.

    It seems to me that most of the attacks toward KJVO is almost always directed at position #4 and #5.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    12,015
    Likes Received:
    990
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It's definition #4 that I think of with KJVO (and that I believe implies an undercurrent of heresy rather than the outright second inspiration view of #5).
     
  8. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    22,454
    Likes Received:
    1,620
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In my view the ultimate position that KJVO adherents can take is to say the following "The 1611 English of the KJV text is 'reinspiration' and corrects the underlying Greek and Hebrew original language text".

    As far as I'm concerned this statement "cuts to the chase".

    Anything less is KJVP or the use of the KJV exclusively minus the "reinspiration" heresy.

    KJVE - King James Version Exclusively (without Rukmanisms)
     
    #8 HankD, Nov 2, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2018
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,609
    Likes Received:
    34
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Since the KJV is an English translation, the term KJV-only view would be used soundly and correctly to describe a certain viewpoint concerning English Bible translations, not concerning Bible translations in other languages. The accurate term KJV-only is used to define and describe any view that accepts or makes some type of exclusive, only claims for one English Bible translation—the KJV. Holders of a KJV-only view would in effect attempt to suggest, assume, or claim that the KJV is the word of God in English in some different sense than any other English translation is the word of God in English. While perhaps admitting the fact that the KJV is a translation, holders of a KJV-only view attempt in effect to treat the KJV as though it is in a different category than all other English translations or as though it is not a translation in the same sense (univocally) as other English Bibles.

    It is not reading only the KJV that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. It is not using only the KJV in teaching or preaching that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view.

    A KJV-only view would concern a person’s beliefs, opinions, and claims concerning the KJV, not his reading only it or using only it in teaching or preaching.

    Someone can accept the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus and still be KJV-only if they make any exclusive, only claims for the KJV. Any view that suggests or implies perfection, inerrancy, or inspiration for the KJV and any view that supposes or assumes that its translating is the word of God in a different sense (equivocally) than any other English Bible would be KJV-only. The subjective opinion or unproven assumption that the KJV alone is a perfect English translation or that the KJV is the final authority would be a KJV-only view. The subjective opinion that the KJV is the only faithful and true English translation would qualify as being a KJV-only view.
     
  10. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,793
    Likes Received:
    162
    Faith:
    Baptist
    After reading the definitions again, I realized that they had been modified quite a bit so that they barely resemble the definitions that I was involved with.

    This list* will be closer to how I would classify the different factions of KJVO. Each one is unique in itself, although some may overlap at times. I realize that not every KJVO will fit into one single group. Some may fit into two or three.

    Group #1


    This is a group of people who know little or nothing at all about the text issue. However, they have read some of the new translations and they do not like them. They do not like it that the modern versions leave out verses and large passages. They do not like the fact that many verses have been changed in such a way as to weaken or water-down many crucial doctrinal statements. This group of believes that the modern versions are inferior. They do not necessarily believe that the King James Version is in every way perfect, but they believe that it is the clearest and best. They have a distrust of all new versions. They want the King James Version to be used in their personal devotions, in their camps, and in their youth programs. They are strongly opposed to switching Bibles in their church and Sunday school.


    Group #2
    This group has studied the text issue and believes that the Traditional Greek Text is the right text to translate, and believe that the King James Version is the best translation of that text. 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 is the clearest and most accurate translation that we have in English today. They do not necessarily believe in the inspiration or inerrancy of any copy or translation, but they believe that the Traditional Text and the King James Version are, by far, the best, and so far above all others as to be beyond compare.


    Group #3
    This group believes that the Textus Receptus, usually one of Beza’s editions, is the perfect Word of God. They believe that all of the people who worked on the TR up to the point of the printing of that edition were able, collectively, to find all of God’s words. They believe that all of God’s words were preserved in the ancient manuscripts, versions, and translations and that God gave wisdom to such people, as Erasmus and Beza, so that all of the words of God were found and put into that edition of the TR. They believe that that edition of the TR is verbally identical to the original autographs. They believe that the King James Version is an accurate and trustworthy translation of the TR. As a result, they believe it is the best translation and do not want any other.


    Group #4
    This group believes in the Majority Text. They believe that if we exclude the few Alexandrian manuscripts and simply count the number of times a certain reading appears in the Byzantine manuscripts, that that will result in the correct reading. This group is strong King James Version Only advocates because the King James Version has in almost every case the majority reading. They believe that all modern versions, with the possible exception of the NKJV, are grossly inferior. Many in this group find many objectionable readings and notations in the NKJV also.


    Group #5
    This group believes that the King James Version translators were able to find all of the words of God. They do not know exactly what materials the translators had available, or exactly what their reasons were for using each word. 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. They believe the errors in the King James Version can be attributed to printers and copyist errors.


    Group #6
    This group believes for the most part what group #5 believes, except they take it a step farther. They believe there are absolutely no “provable” errors whatsoever in the King James Version. The other groups would consider this group as “extreme.” They believe that the King James Version translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit to pen the words of God into the English language. They believe the King James Version is accurate to the point of correcting the manuscript evidences. They believe that the modern versions are Satanic, counterfeit bibles. They believe that salvation is dependent upon hearing the true Word of God from the King James Version; all other versions represent “corruptible seed.” They consider all users of modern versions to be liberal in doctrine and practice.




    *Descriptions of these various groups were collected in part from the following source: Seventy-five Problems with Central Baptist Seminary’s Book THE BIBLE VERSION DEBATE by Lloyd L. Streeter © 2001
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  11. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,994
    Likes Received:
    3,429
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That would be all KJVOs. Ignorance is their mantra.

    If they had studied the text issue they would know there is no such thing as "The Traditional Greek Text." There are over 30 Greek texts all referred to as "the TR" - and all different. And that number does not include the Majority Text of Hodges and Farstad, the Family 35 text of Wilbur Pickering, or the Byzantine Textform of Robinson/Pierpont.

    The vast majority of "TR Only" adherents believe Scrivener's TR is the perfectly preserved Greek text (even though it did not exist prior to 1880).

    Which is often in the minority.

    This group would be astonishingly ignorant if they believed the above. First off that was the point of Scrivener's TR. It included a textual apparatus to show where the reading adopted by the KJV translation committees got that reading. By admitting "they do not know exactly what materials the translators had available, or exactly what their reasons were for using each word" they admit the are just guessing with no factual basis for those guesses.

    Provable errors of what? Errors of grammar? Errors caused by textual variants? Errors of fact? Errors of history? Errors of prophecy? Errors of promises? With no elaboration the statement is meaningless.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    33,300
    Likes Received:
    804
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You have to conclude though that the Tr behind the Kjv itself was inspired and perfect, and none by KJVO would think that was true!
     
  13. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    33,300
    Likes Received:
    804
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Would they allow for those versions in same family tree as say the Geneva as also being word of God in English?
     
  14. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    22,454
    Likes Received:
    1,620
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In the originals only.
     
  15. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    7,401
    Likes Received:
    482
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Good to know, plus having the info on what they were more like originally. Thanks.
     
  16. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    33,300
    Likes Received:
    804
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Which we do not have, so the KJVO falls apart!
     
  17. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    12,015
    Likes Received:
    990
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What??!!! You lost another manuscript?
     
  18. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    33,300
    Likes Received:
    804
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Since I hold to the Critical text superiority, some would say lost a lot of them!
     
  19. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    22,454
    Likes Received:
    1,620
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well, no not according to the KJVO folks who believe the AV 1611 English text is inspired.

    That is why God inspired the 1611 English text to perfectly preserve His word according to them.

    It is an element of faith for them.
     
  20. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    33,300
    Likes Received:
    804
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Illogical and bad faith though!
     
Loading...