Why are so many post "KJVO"?

Thanks Franklin. I never thought of that. I have read the "To the reader" in the oldest KJV I have which goes back to a copyright of 1976. It's not a 1611 but I will check it out.

 

Another legit suggestion (as opposed to the 'funny' about the GRT), would be to acquire an actual reproduction KJ-1611 in Gothic type (or more likely the KJ-1612 edition in Roman type, preferably with the actual usage of the "long 's'" where applicable, although I'd really prefer the Gothic, here ), with the Apocrypha, prefaces, and "side notes" all included, and ask, should someone bring this subject up, why they are using an altered and 'counterfeit' edition, one that has been "changed" more than once, and stolen to boot? Consider that ONLY KJV editions printed by Oxford or Cambridge (or by someone to whom they have assigned such rights), these days are "genuine", especially if their edition happens to be by some other printer. None of the owners, among the Church of England, the English Crown, Oxford or Cambridge have ever relinquished ANY of their 'Royal Prerogatives' or 'Crown Copyrights' to any KJV, BIS, GRT, or RV editions of the Bible, to my knowledge, at any time. Where do these KJVO get off the bus from, assuming that it is somehow 'OK' for 'stealing' the Bible by some government legislative edict, including US Copyright Laws??

FTR, partly for that reason, the last 3 KJVs I have acquired over the last 40 years are genuine 'Oxford' editions.

Do I expect those of such mindset to actually change? Not really, but it may shut them up, when they realize you happen to actually do know more about their favorite Bible version, than they do. You do not have to accept any of the presuppositions (actually biases) offered, and there is no reason to even allow your own beliefs to be discouraged by their position, and certainly not to allow this 'rot' to allow your own "faith to be trashed", in any manner.

FTR, I seriously doubt that many could even easily follow Gothic type and 1611 spelling, to begin with.

As another said, though, actually carefully read the prefaces, and I'd suggest making some notations where their (KJVO) arguments are not in agreement with those of the KJV translators, and I might actually suggest you read the instructions actually given to the translators to begin with, which can also be found on-line.

One 'standard' point to bring up is the reading of I John 5:12 in the 1611 Edition, vs. the reading in the 1769 'Blaney' edition. Ask which is the correct reading, since you would like to have some quick answer ready.

Sorry, C4K. Couldn't resist 'stealing your thunder' on this citation.

Ed

 

That's alot of good info Ed. Thank you. My mom-n-law has a 1611 with the unchanged king's english. I will try to get a closer look at it next time I'm over there. Just getting within three feet of it should spark her to throw something at me.:BangHead:

I guess I'm tired of the mindless statements she continues to hurl at my wife, our bibles, and our church. There are many issues I could take up with her and probably be somewhat successful at but with her mentality, she would be the only one not to see it. I suppose one day I may just tell her that since we don't use "the bible", that I guess me, her daughter, and her grandchildren are all going to hell but we'll trust Jesus all the way there!:laugh:

Thanks again!

 

Your mother has probably been indoctrinated into the KJVO cult. It's hard for a Zebra to change its stripes and it's hard for a KJVOnlyist to change his or her mind. And, that's ok. What bugs me is when the KJVO wants me to wear his or her stripes. I have never tried to get anyone to change his or her version of the Bible except a lady who carried the New World Translation (The Jehovah Witness's Bible). But, there have been serveral times where a KJVO person has personally attacked my Bible translation.

 

That describes my frustration to a tee. Of course I understand about the NWT, but I don't have a problem with someone who wants to be KJVO. Just don't tell me I don't have the "real bible", especially if the argument you make is superficial and based on tradition. When taken to it's logical conclusion, the South American Indians will not have it either because it had to be translated into their native tongue. For cryin' out loud! Somebody get down there and teach 'em some of the king's english before they die!

 

That is not the case. There is a team of translators working on only some of the various and multiple languages in South America. To give a translation in every language will not happen. An example is Paupa New Guinea where alone, it is a land mass with over 1,000 different languages and only about 3 have any of the Bible in their language.

Missionaries are there and they are also in PNG. The task is stupendous to say the least. What are YOU doing to make sure they have a Bible?

Try contributing to a group dedicated to having the Bible translated into a specific area of peoples: http://www.firstbible.net/

 

Harold I think you missed the point.

 

No, I really didn't.

 

Are the Wycliffe Bible Translators and New Tribes Mission groups OK, here?

Or is it necessary to 'require' the use the TR as the basis for the translation of the NT to be an acceptable group?

Just curious!

Ed

 

Now I understand, Harold is probably KJVO. And yes, the TR is the basis for his brand of Bible translators. http://www.firstbible.net/docs/Doctrinal Statement.pdf There is nothing wrong unless he wants to force this view on the rest of us. I would guess that he is upset because time is spent translating the Bible into our current English usage instead of devoting more money and energy into translating the Bible for people groups who do not have a Bible in their language. If so, he has a good argument, but I would question the attitude.

 

I am a member of an organization that is in the very front of the field with concern to missionaries and ALL the work they do including providing bibles, among so many other things. You know, it was meant to be satirical. The fact is, with God's sovereignty and our obedience, HE can and will do His will, without regard to which language their bible is in.

 

Harold, please forgive me. I did not seem to come across harsh and I actually combined two thoughts into one statement. I in no way wish to demean the work of so many that are diligently converting God's Word into an understandable language. It is an admirable task to say the least. I am a member of a Southern Baptist church as I'm sure many here are. While not perfect, the Southern Baptist International Missions organization is remarkable concerning their efforts of evangelism and missionary work. I'm sure I don't have to go into detail. I have also contributed to Wycliff because of their endeavors to distribute scripture around the world. Again, another remarkable organization. My particular calling, however, is to disciple the young people of our church and perform missionary work in our local community. Sadly, some of the people who need Christ the most are right under our noses and they are neglected every day by our own churches.

 

I really believe your comments about any motis operendi on my behalf is completely atrocious behavior to say the least.

There is no reason to "question" YOUR attitude, it's quite simple, yours is more like one laden with the poison of asps under your tongue according to the way you've responded to a call to support a group devoted to getting the Bible into the hands of peoples who have NO BIBLE!

My observations here conclude to nothing less than a total absence of charity and Christian behavior.

If you have things like this to say about anyone, my understanding is that you should make these sort of attacks on a person via private messaging.

I can only attribute your attitude to absolute ignorance of my motive.

 

It doesn't seem a bit of curiosity here, but more of a challenge of sorts or at least a provocation.

I will have to answer you with this question: What is it you have against the TR?

 

No, this is neither a challenge nor provocation.

I have nothing against the TR, per se, although I tend to lean more towards a true Greek MT position, for the NT. FTR, I have several times mentioned BB Member Nigel, who is currently involved in the translation of the TR into 'contemporary English', even as I write this, and on an exactly equal basis with BB Member John of Japan, who is also involved in the translation of Scripture into the Japanese language, who is not using the TR for the NT basis, at least to my knowledge. In fact, I use my 1967 genuine KJV Edition and my 1989 NKJV Edition, as my Bibles, mostly because I have not found a good edition with the strictly MT NT position in a version that I can easily obtain.

However, the doctrinal position of the organization you are recommending IS fully consistent with the position of KJVO for English speakers peoples, and supports ONLY MT and Masoretic texts for translation for speakers of other languages. (I would directly quote this, but unfortunately, I so not have the ability to get 'pdf' files to copy, and is one reason I detest 'pdf' to begin with, only opening such when absolutely necessary.)

I contrast that to the doctrinal stance of the Wycliffe Bible Translators and New Tribes Missions (both of whom I have supported) and I'm going to 'tack on' Christian Literature Crusade (CLC) , and whose doctrinal stances and positions reads as follows.

I just find these statements more Biblical and preferable to being given a "strong implication" as to "what" one should believe (and use), here, as concerns Biblical texts. I do not care one whit what one's own personal preference is, in these translation efforts, for the text(s) used.

However, I also simply see no good reason to encumber anyone with any unneeded "additional baggage" here.

Ed

 

Ok Harold, I was simply making an observation. If I was wrong then I apologize. But, I would imagine, from your response, that my observation was pretty close to the truth.

 

I believe to the contrary, Sir. I think it is more how you've adjusted your thinking and have formed a framework to respond to anyone who offers rationality into the mix and begin to lash out at them for what you presume to know and you know absolutely nothing about.

I have never stated my stance on the subject and as experience and record shows, I won't bother, so presume all you wish.

 

Did I read this right!?:thumbs:

 

yet you just loaded your "baggage" onto another's wagon and expressed the entire whit of what you object to and in your own personal preference.

I find this amusing to say the least!:laugh:

 

I sense a big chip on someone's shoulder. "Go ahead, I dare you, knock it off." Good grief!!