Featured The KJVO Movement Is Headed Down

The Movement has been a blight upon Christianity, and used by satan to try to divide the body! KJVO and Charasmatic Movements both deserve to be put into the grave!

 

As an individual, your opinion is accepted as your view. However, comma, the view of most modern scholars such as Dr. Wallace, is that the Johnannine Comma at 1 John 5:7 is a corruption of the text. Thus it is not found in many modern versions such as the NASB95, the LEB and the WEB. As others have noted, the beauty of expression in the NKJV, vastly outshines other modern updates of the KJV. If they would have corrected the corruptions using the Byzantine Text, it would make a fine study bible. As it is, the objective student needs to verify using the WEB that the passage under study is not a corruption.

 

Not sure of your point but I agree that my opinion is that the Comma is authentic scripture (if that is what you imply).

HankD

 

The point is that your view is very much a minority view, and it is too bad the NKJV did not eliminate the TR corruptions as held by the majority of modern scholars.

 

In August it will be sixteen years since I showed up on the BB... I read and study and quote from my KJV daily, since the age of 13, I'm now 71... I had no idea there was a KJVO battle until I showed up here. I told someone on another board the brethren of the KJVP seem to always get sucked into this fight... There are KJV brethren who just want to be left alone and we don't care what version you read but we prefer the KJV... The quote above by JOJ explains exactly how I feel... Remember I am of the KJVP brethren and the P also stands for Peace... Brother Glen

 

Eh!

HankD

 

All the blight and division and rancor hasn't come just from those who are King James Only.

Amen, Brother. There are a large number of people who use, prefer and intend to keep using the King James Bible but don't have a battalion serving in the Bible Versions war.

There are some who are not just anti-KJVO, but are anti-King James.

 

Perhaps the following won't be out of order here, which is exceprted from a blog post I wrote awhile back:

Maybe I'm out of touch. I think the average conservative Christian -- regardless of what he or she thinks about the various versions -- generally considers that what he or she reads and studies is reliable as the word of God, and approaches Bible study that way. We risk hurting them by extended diatribes over the unreliability of this or that version just because we don't prefer it. Let us use caution. The "Bible Wars" – KJV versus modern versions – usually flame up much more heat than light. Whether it is trashing the KJV or accusing modern translators of being Satan’s siblings, this approach does little or no good for the average Christian. Wou, whether you be a KJV-Only extremist or an anti-KJV elitist: tone down your rhetoric and consider your "weaker" brothers and sisters in Christ. Attacks on the Bible rather than on extremist positions about the Bible can undermine people's faith in their Bible, whichever one they are using. Will we destroy our brothers, for whom Christ died?

 

Those advocating KJVO are indeed a blight, as they judge all others who do not see things their way as being wrong... And also seek to divide true from false christians based upon just that!

 

King James was an evil man --a deviant. It's a shame that a Bible translation was named after him.
It should have been called something like the 1611 William Tyndale Revision.

Think about what you said, "some are anti-King James" meaning the 1611 revision.
Some simply do not like that version for multiple reasons.

Are some anti-NIV? Of course. They may dislike it for a number of reasons.

If it is wrong to dislike the KJV, it is equally wrong to dislike the NIV.

Remember to be consistent.

 

The line, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, refers to calling something by a different name but does not alter the essence of the thing. KJVP is just another name for KJVO folks, and so the movement may be going down as in underground, rather than away.

 

NKJVp is my usual (I like the Scrivener TR), KJV, RSV, NIV, ESV most of the traditional standards.

HankD

 

Perhaps you are right about most, but here are an example of disparaging the KJV and those who use it.

It's not unusual to hear this kind of stuff if you use the KJV.

 

You mean is.

Are you completely unaware of the abuse the NIV has taken for years?

 

My thought is not really about liking or disliking. Most people within my realm of experience (and I'm not talking about the Baptist Board) tend to couch their objections to the King James Version in language that says they are opposing King James Onlyism. If they object they should be straightforward about it.

I think the approach I advocated in post #49 is consistent. I discuss Bible versions on the Baptist Board, but don't spend time in the pulpit or my blog "disliking" modern versions like the NIV. I think this is one of the downsides of those who promote the King James Version (especially on the World Wide Web). Many online writings that are about the King James Bible are diatribes against modern Bible versions and offer little to nothing in the way of positive promotion of the KJV or helpful suggestions to the reader of the KJV.

 

Yes, I do mean "is". Thanks. The context of the answer was not about the NIV, but Salty saying that this is not usually said about the KJV -- "most will not disparage those who are KJO."

Are you then advocating that one abuse should be met with another?