A need for a reverse-litmus test

[stilllearning]

The issue of a “litmus test” was brought up in Salty’s thread(“Baptist Standard on the KJV”), and the article was true in that regard; I do sometimes, use the KJV, as a litmus test(if someone uses it in Scripture references).

Now to the point, of needing a “reverse-litmus test”: It must be called that, because there is already a litmus test in play, whenever anyone shows support for the KJB; Immediately they are in danger of being branded as a backwards doofus, therefore every time anybody praises the KJB, they must automatically say...“Oh but I am not KJVO”.
--------------------------------------------------
I have also decided to use that link that Salty posted to start a personal list, of authors that are KJV detractors(this link is full of them); A list like this will be important to have as time goes by, so that I will be aware of those authors who have a problem with "honesty".

The problem with honesty, I am referring to is the fact that this writer(Ken Camp), painted all KJVO people as those nuts who believe in double inspiration. But every "informed" Christian, knows and will admit(if they are honest), that the vast majority of KJVO people do not hold to this extreme position.
--------------------------------------------------
One more thing;
The article repeated a charge, that I have read here many times; “That KJVO people have no Scripture to support their position.”

This is also a false charge: Remember, the real issue in the “real KJVO” debate is “the Doctrine of preservation”; And there is lots of Scripture to support this.

 

[annsni]

I'm sorry but I agree with the statements of that author. I've seen clearly the double inspiration assertion and I've also never seen support for the KJVO doctrine in Scripture.

 

[Salty]

...and I've also never seen support for the KJVO doctrine in Scripture.

Oh, boy here we go again.

Ann, I suppose you are one of those who believe that "If the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul -- then its good enough for me"?

Salty

 

[JesusFan]

The issue of a “litmus test” was brought up in Salty’s thread(“Baptist Standard on the KJV”), and the article was true in that regard; I do sometimes, use the KJV, as a litmus test(if someone uses it in Scripture references).

Now to the point, of needing a “reverse-litmus test”: It must be called that, because there is already a litmus test in play, whenever anyone shows support for the KJB; Immediately they are in danger of being branded as a backwards doofus, therefore every time anybody praises the KJB, they must automatically say...“Oh but I am not KJVO”.
--------------------------------------------------
I have also decided to use that link that Salty posted to start a personal list, of authors that are KJV detractors(this link is full of them); A list like this will be important to have as time goes by, so that I will be aware of those authors who have a problem with "honesty".

The problem with honesty, I am referring to is the fact that this writer(Ken Camp), painted all KJVO people as those nuts who believe in double inspiration. But every "informed" Christian, knows and will admit(if they are honest), that the vast majority of KJVO people do not hold to this extreme position.
--------------------------------------------------
One more thing;
The article repeated a charge, that I have read here many times; “That KJVO people have no Scripture to support their position.”

This is also a false charge: Remember, the real issue in the “real KJVO” debate is “the Doctrine of preservation”; And there is lots of Scripture to support this.

Think that majority of us here on the BB would allow you to hold per your own convictions that KJV is:

best English translation
best to memorize
best "sounding"

You can hold to those and not get "grief" its just that most will say CT aree superior, there ARE better modern English versions

trouble comes when you try to say KJV ONLY auth /English Bible
That it is MOST accurate
That it is Superior to even hebrew/Greek texts

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

because there is already a litmus test in play, whenever anyone shows support for the KJB; Immediately they are in danger of being branded as a backwards doofus, therefore every time anybody praises the KJB, they must automatically say...“Oh but I am not KJVO”.

I always support the King James Translation of the Holy Scriptures and have yet to be branded a backwards doofus. I also have never said - 'I am not KJVO.'

One more thing;
The article repeated a charge, that I have read here many times; “That KJVO people have no Scripture to support their position.”

This is also a false charge: Remember, the real issue in the “real KJVO” debate is “the Doctrine of preservation”; And there is lots of Scripture to support this.

There is not a shred of Bible evidence to support one version onlyism in any language.

 

[Amy.G]

trouble comes when you try to say KJV ONLY auth /English Bible
That it is MOST accurate

I'm not KJV only but this statement of "most" accurate is used repeatedly by people who prefer the modern or critical texts. That road runs both ways.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

....this statement of "most" accurate is used repeatedly by people who prefer the modern or critical texts. That road runs both ways.

Supporters of the CT and translations based on them often claim that their choice as 'most accurate.'

Neither side really knows which is 'most accurate' since we don't have the originals.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I always support the King James Translation of the Holy Scriptures and have yet to be branded a backwards doofus.

Well, I may have been called a backwards doofus and worse, but not on the basis of my support for the King James Authorised Translation.

 

[JesusFan]

Supporters of the CT and translations based on them often claim that their choice as 'most accurate.'

Neither side really knows which is 'most accurate' since we don't have the originals.

thinks it depends on just HOW one says it...

I do think CT is superior to a degree, but also hold that the MT is still a good valid Greek text, and that it would be nice to have a modern version based upon it!
The TR crowd tend to see that text ONLY good one all other corrupted texts
The MT folks tend to at times say that, not as fervent though as TR do!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The TR crowd tend to see that text ONLY good one all other corrupted texts
The MT folks tend to at times say that, not as fervent though as TR do!

Can you validate that? I am part of the general crowd talked about here and would not hold to the view that the CT are corrupt. I propose that there are many who would agree with me.

 

[Van]

Is there a "KJV" based on the CT? I think it would be pretty simple to edit a NKJV and eliminate the stuff not found in the critical text. So the real problem, it seem to me is that some of us do not want to turn loose of what others of us believe are additions by uninspired "helpful" scribes. After all if the critical text was good enough for Paul....

 

[JesusFan]

Can you validate that? I am part of the general crowd talked about here and would not hold to the view that the CT are corrupt. I propose that there are many who would agree with me.

I think you are part of the main group that would hold that MT is better, CT still viable.

Addressing more the group here that posts that it got corrupted by corrupt renderings/inserts by scribes etc That crowd see the TR especially and lessor degree MT as pure, CT was made real bad by revising/inserts/ etc done it it...

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Addressing more the group here that posts that it got corrupted by monks and priests "inserting/putting pagen doctrines" in text etc...

That crowd see the TR especially and lessor degree MT as pure, CT was made real bad by revising/inserts/ etc done it it...

A very small number, I contend

 

[JesusFan]

A very small number, I contend

yes...

usually just found in the KJVO "faithful" camp, a very small, but VERY vocal minority!

 

[Mexdeaf]

The true "litmus test" should be whether KJVO (or any other doctrine, action or 'ism' for that matter) brings one closer to being like Jesus, or whether it does the opposite. (Ephesians 4:11-16)

The answer to me is quite obvious.

 

[JesusFan]

The true "litmus test" should be whether KJVO (or any other doctrine, action or 'ism' for that matter) brings one closer to being like Jesus, or whether it does the opposite. (Ephesians 4:11-16)

The answer to me is quite obvious.

Actually, iF one is reading ANY good bible version, and I do count the KJV as a good version, the Holy Spirit will bless that to bring you more into image of Christ, as long as you practice what you read!

Think better question is will holding something like KJVO cause me to 'stunt" my growth IF I look down at those who hold that other version are just as good, some actually better?

 

[stilllearning]

Hello C4K

You said..........

“I always support the King James Translation of the Holy Scriptures and have yet to be branded a backwards doofus. I also have never said - 'I am not KJVO.”

You know, as I was typing the words... “they must automatically say...Oh but I am not KJVO”, you came into my mind.
Indeed I have never seen you say that. You are the exception!
--------------------------------------------------
You also said.......

“There is not a shred of Bible evidence to support one version onlyism in any language.”

Except for the fact, that NOONE in the New Testament, used more than one translation in a single language.

But as I have said, the issue of “onlyism”(as you put it), is really an issue of preservation.

IF God preserved His Word for us(and He did), than NOONE should be using more than one translation in their own language.

Using more than one English version of the Bible, is saying....“God could not preserve His Word for me, so I need to search for the truth myself!”

 

[jbh28]

Except for the fact, that NOONE in the New Testament, used more than one translation in a single language.

It's spelled, "none."
Well, I'm not going to take the time to argue about this other than there was only one available. So you are not comparing like things. I could say that they used ALL the translations available to them.

But as I have said, the issue of “onlyism”(as you put it), is really an issue of preservation.

no, we all believe the Bible is preserved.

IF God preserved His Word for us(and He did), than NOONE should be using more than one translation in their own language.

Not true. English translations are man made translations from one language to another. Also, it's still spelled "none."

Using more than one English version of the Bible, is saying....“God could not preserve His Word for me, so I need to search for the truth myself!”

No, false accusations. Did God write the words to the KJV? If you say yes, you believe in double inspiration and that's false doctrine. If you say no, then you just contradicted yourself.

 

[JesusFan]

Hello C4K

You said..........


You know, as I was typing the words... “they must automatically say...Oh but I am not KJVO”, you came into my mind.
Indeed I have never seen you say that. You are the exception!
--------------------------------------------------
You also said.......


Except for the fact, that NOONE in the New Testament, used more than one translation in a single language.

But as I have said, the issue of “onlyism”(as you put it), is really an issue of preservation.

IF God preserved His Word for us(and He did), than NOONE should be using more than one translation in their own language.

Using more than one English version of the Bible, is saying....“God could not preserve His Word for me, so I need to search for the truth myself!”

except that IF theory of preservation is correct, ONLY the Greek/Hebrew texts would be the ones God would watch over, NOT any translation from those texts...

Apostles sure used a lot of the Septuigant to write their texts with, so was isnt THAT version considered to be the Bible for us today?

For that matter, why not the Geneva Bible as the English Bible for us today instead of KJV, as reformers used it for their study and many think its superior to the KJV in some areas?

And WHICH KJV would be the one for us to use?
1611/1789 Cambridege edition or what?

 

[Mexdeaf]

Actually, iF one is reading ANY good bible version, and I do count the KJV as a good version, the Holy Spirit will bless that to bring you more into image of Christ, as long as you practice what you read!

Think better question is will holding something like KJVO cause me to 'stunt" my growth IF I look down at those who hold that other version are just as good, some actually better?

My point is that if we must have a "litmus test" or a "reverse litmus test" let it be Christ and not a particular BV.