Featured What is your understanding of KJVO?

Jordan, rather than retype or paste, I'll link to a couple of things I wrote that may generally apply to your question.

Categorizing “KJV-Only” beliefs

My View of King James Only

 

My position is that KJVOs need to revert to KJVP forthwith.

 

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

 

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)

 

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.

 

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

 

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!

 

Would they allow for those versions in same family tree as say the Geneva as also being word of God in English?

 

In the originals only.

 

Good to know, plus having the info on what they were more like originally. Thanks.

 

Which we do not have, so the KJVO falls apart!

 

Since I hold to the Critical text superiority, some would say lost a lot of them!

 

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.

 

Illogical and bad faith though!