Which is your "definition" of KJV Only?

Therefore your KJVO stance is not based on anything remotely biblical -- only on a purely esthetic basis.

Really?! That's good to know. So now those of us who prefer versions other than those from the KJV family can now enjoy your favor.

 

B4L, I have a question for you. Do you think you may have more in common with Harold Garvey on the subject of the KJV than say Dale-c, Robycop3, Mexdeaf, Dr. Bob and myself? If so, then there's an affinity between you and Harold.

 

Well, the ONLY thing I have in common, I guess, would be my love for that version. I am not a KJVO, as he appears to be, so I would say our commonality ends there.
I'll try to clarify WHY I post so many pro-KJV posts. I truly feel that a lot of people, in trying to expose KJVOnlyism, say very derogatory (it seems to me) things about the KJV. And while I DO think there are other GOOD versions, I think there are too many versions out there today.
I also try to respect Harold's beliefs while not agreeing with him. I understand that a lot of you do not, nor do I, agree with him, but as Christians, there should be a kinder way to talk to him, no matter what HE says or does. Don't let others attitudes control how we respond.

 

You not only have posted pro-KJV items -- you have derided other versions. You have said that other versions are unnecessary. You are ultra-touchy.

It just seems to you. We point out the absurdity of the KJVO stance.

Name them.

And as "a Christian" you need to practice what you preach B4L.

 

I tried very hard to be civil with you Rippon. You asked me a question, I answered it as honestly as I could in a respectful manner. You then proceeded to "rip on" my answer. It would have been nice if you had responded in kind. I will no longer interact to you. God bless.

 

I find that laughable considering what you just told me in a PM.

As I said, you are ultra-touchy. I asked a reasonable question which you conveniently forgot to quote.

Promise?

 

I have no gripe with anyone using whatever version they feel comfortable with. I have close friends who use the NIV and they are good, strong, growing and busy Christians. I happen to believe that the NIV is an inferior translation, but I know it is popular and a lot of people disagree with me and I am fine with that.

In the end the Bible version issue is not a salvation impacting issue, so I am not going to lose a lot of sleep over it.

 

As Mr. Spock might say, while raising one eyebrow, "Strange, indeed, Captain!"

Why is it that multiple posters who here on this forum who have loudly and repeatedly proclaimed to be something other than "KJVO" (whatever that actually means) seem to be found whose posts which somehow always seem to be in agreement and support of "Only KJV?"

Something just doesn't quite seem to add up, here, at least to this old Central KY farmer.

Ed

 

It is not like it is a crime or a sin to use only the KJV Ed. A person can use, support and defend the KJV and not be "KJVO."

I think this board tends to cause people who might have more moderate positions into one corner of the other. I do see some of the posts on this board as anti-KJV and others as nutty KJVO.

I would like to see a more balanced view of the KJV take hold (both in terms of what the KJV is and what it is not).

A pro-KJV post does not a KJVonlyist make!

 

Of course not. I have posted multiple times that the two Bible editions that I use most are a 1967 genuine KJV, and a 1988 genuine NKJV, both of which come from the same underlying OT and NT texts. Ergo, I am neither "KJVO" or "anti-KJV" by any stretch. (FTR, I also would agree that the various later 'emendations' and 'editings' of the KJV are usually an improvement over the earlier editions, as well.)

Why?? Just tell it accurately, and there should be no problem, IMO.

BTW, would not any "real" consistent 'KJVO' have to argue for the inclusion of the Apocrypha as inspired Scripture, given that all the "genuine" KJVs included it in the Biblical text for more than 250 years? Maybe it's just me, or I may have missed it, somehow, but I don't seem to recall many 'KJVO'ers making such an argument.

I can't do much about any other who may (or may not) be a 'nut-case' from any POV, as I have enough to do with trying to keep my own posts relatively straight and clear.

I attempt to do exactly that. I can speak for no other, here.

Of course not, again.

However, I do prefer to address each Biblical passage individually, rather than attempt to make some blanket statement about any version. That is why one can find instances where I have approvingly quoted English Bibles for over 6 1/4 centuries, from Wycliffe's thru the TMB, and others where the ink is barely dry on the pages, when the rendering is especially accurate, IMO, as to the understanding of the written Word of God. I have made well over 8K posts over 3 1/2 years, here, and have supported the rendering of more versions than almost anyone at one time or another.

And why I support the work of such efforts with groups such as New Tribes Missions and Wycliffe Bible Translators, to name but two, in translating the Bible into the 2200 + languages where there is still no Bible in that language.

Ed

 

First, I am not in the KJVO camp of Ruckman, et al. To me it is a textual issue, and I do not believe for moment that God is limited to 17th century Elizabethan english.

Having said that, I do take exception to calling the translators of that Bible a bunch of "ungodly Anglicans." Are you delirious, or just plain ignorant? have you ever read the lives of some of those translators? Their devotional life and spirit would put us all to shame.

You use the Greek texts. Vaticanus, Sinaiticus? They were revised themselves 100's of times over centuries (and are generally - sometimes exclusively - relied on for the main support of MV's). So how do you know it is "God's words" and not some unknown Roman priest or otherwise that you are quoting?

Besides, a great amount of the KJV wording comes down from Wycliffe and Tyndale, and the Geneva Bible. So you can lay off the "ungodly Anglican priests" and let them rest in peace and enjoy their reward in heaven.

 

KJVOism is the assertion that the KJV is doctrinally and/or spiritually superior over all other English translations. There is nothing in scripture, Christian history, or the rules of English grammar and composition to suggest that any single English translation contains any doctrinal or spiritual superiority over any other English translation. Anyone who suggests that is guilty of false doctrine.

Some KJVOists take it further, and suggest that the KJV is superior over all translations, both english and nonenglish.

 

Admin note:

I am hoping to be able to leave this thread open, however I am disturbed by the rancour and vitriol which has invaded this and other threads on the topic.

I am, believe or not, reading Plato's Republic. I just finished Book I which is a dialogue on justice. The characters disagree sharply as they debate, but they never resort to personal attack or mean spiritedness. They destroy each other arguments without trying to destroy character.

Why is it that a lost man like Plato could see this aspect of debate and bothers in Christ, who are supposed to love each other, cannot?

Phrases like 'subtlety of the serpent' and 'he doesn't have a brain' do nothing to help a godly discussion. It is important to note than an attack on a point of view is not an attack on the person holding that point of view, or should not be.

There is no need for gentlemen, much less brothers in Christ, to resort to personal attacks or digging comments. It is ungodly and unhelpful no matter how destructive we think the opposing point of view might be.

Attack the position, not the holder of that position.

 

KJVO is one of Satan's major triumphs among Christians. it is a source of major squabbling within more than one church, and it's easy to see it's such a source right here on this board, and just about every similar board.

These squabbles are the result of Christians falling for a NON-SCRIPTURAL doctrine of worship. Common sense should tell a Christian that any doctrine of worship not found in Scripture has only ONE ultimate source...

 

Point taken- OUCH!

 

Which translation are you reading? I hope you are not reading one of those counterfeit translations by some spawn of Satan!


:smilewinkgrin:

 

It's the way you use the term that is so disrespectful.

 

Take what he says for what it's worth, positively speaking, he is not, but let the Lord have it and his words then attribute to the cause. The cause being we should maintain the word of God without so many deviates telling us what the Bible should say.

 

What about when a murderer "muddles"?

And have you looked in the mirror lately and seen you are not Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic?

have I ever said this? Then you must not realy despise me afterall.

Hyles was wrong to the extent his words used when he led some one to the Lord were the words he spoke as God inspired him to lead, but I wouldn't go so far as to say Hyles' words are the Bible.

Nice slanted attack there, Brother.:smilewinkgrin:

I'd stop guessing and realize words of testimony are what over comes the devil when coupled with the Blood of Christ.

My words have led others to the Lord as Ipointed them towards the words of God. I did not add anything to the mix God did not want there.
Well, at least I don't think I did.