That is your non-true and non-scriptural opinion. You are advocating a modern doctrine of men that is not taught in Scripture.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Do you have any thoughts on the idea that, "KJVOnly", has within it an initial, "V", which stands for, "Version"?
- Thread starter Alan Dale Gross
- Start date
The KJVO group were bashing the superior Geneva Bible way before that date though
I think all the KJVO crowd has screws loose in their noggins.
I'm not one of them, but I personally know many, many of them.
Basically what they are saying is that the 1611 KJV is the only version inspired by God (don't explode on me here, lol).
They base this on the following.
They believe in the "Infallible Word of God."
If the Word of God is infallible, then which version is it that's infallible?
They say it's the 1611 KJV.
As far as the long, long list of reasons they prefer the 1611 KJV, and believe it's the only one, I'm sure you've all heard those arguments.
But they do not use the 1611 edition. They use different updated editions of the King James Version.
KJV-only reasoning is inconsistent since KJV-only advocates should know that the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles.
If the 1611 KJV is the only version inspired by God, does KJV-only reasoning suggest that the KJV was a revision of pre-1611 English Bibles that were not inspired of God? If so, from where do they claim that the KJV gets its attribute or quality of inspiration if it was not also present in the pre-1611 English Bibles?
Most KJV-only advocates also do not claim that the KJV's underlying Hebrew Masoretic texts and Greek Textus Receptus texts were inspired and perfect since they know that the KJV was based on multiple, varying editions and since they do not accept them as the authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations. Thus, the KJV could not receive the claimed attribute or quality of inspiration from the multiple, imperfect printed original-language editions. Although many of them deny claiming a second inspiration, their view in effect seems to imply it.
The term inspiration is actually the term for the process of the giving of all Scripture to the prophets and apostles according to the KJV itself, not the term for any post-NT translating process.
iwillblessthelord
New Member
Hey Alan, love the passion you’re bringing to this discussion! Your post really got me thinking about how the Holy Spirit works through Scripture to bring truth to life. I see this as a beautiful dance between God’s Word and His Spirit, and I think you’re onto something big here.
You’re right that the Bible isn’t just a book—it’s alive, powered by the Holy Spirit, like you said with those verses from Isaiah and Hebrews. From a psychology angle, I’d say this speaks to how God’s Word can transform our minds and hearts. It’s not just about reading the words but letting the Spirit make them real in our lives, like a counselor guiding us to truth. Historically, early Christians like Augustine talked about this too—how Scripture’s inspiration comes from God breathing life into it, no matter the version (Septuagint, Masoretic, or others).
I hear you on the “letter vs. spirit” thing. It’s like when Jesus called out the Pharisees for following rules but missing the heart of God’s law—love and mercy. The differences in translations? They’re like different lenses on the same truth. The Holy Spirit doesn’t get hung up on the exact wording but uses it to point us to Jesus. Historically, the early church used the Septuagint a ton, and the New Testament writers quoted it freely, showing God’s okay with some variation as long as the core message shines through.
What do you think about how the Spirit guides us when we read different versions? Got any favorite verses where you’ve felt that “life” jump off the page?
They, the KJVO folks are referring to the 1611 KJV authorized by king James in 1604 then published in 1611, with Elizabethan English.
It has undergone mainly spelling corrections, but the core is unchanged.
It was authorized for the Church of England.
The 1611 edition has undergone more than just spelling changes and corrections in typical post-1900 KJV editions.
As many as 190 whole English words not found in the 1611 edition have been added, around 60 words in the 1611 edition have been omitted, and many more words have been changed.
There would be over 2,000 changes or differences that would affect the sound, and over 1,000 changes in the categories that D. A. Waite identified as being substantial. In his 1985 booklet, Waite himself had listed and identified the following categories as substantial or changes of substance: “adding a word,” “omitting a word,” “changing a tense,” “changing a word,” “changing number [plural/singular],” and “changing a case” (AV1611 Compared, pp. 4-5, 20-23).
Those editions are not inspired, so they say. Only the original with its spelling corrections, with the core in tact.
Personally, I believe the Holy Spirit can and does speak to man through the Word of God from any edition.
But what do I know?
I should also state that after many years of conversation with these folks, they are more concerned with correct Biblical Doctrine.
Not the translations that lean this way or that way, and we all know there are such versions.
These KJVO folks that I know, hundreds of them, I know which ones I can go into deep conversation with, and who I can't.
I bring up to them the major blunder in the KJV in Acts 2:38 (and other ones) where the KJV translators leaned toward baptismal regeneration.
These type of translations are found in all versions. So I'm at odds in my own ranks with the Brethren, but I know who I can discuss and who I know I can't.
These KJVO folks are God loving believers, but they are outspoken and fly into a rage if you bring up some of things I've mentioned.
I have to handle it with kids gloves, so to speak. Paying very close attention to who I'm talking to.
I'm not the only one in the fundamental ranks that see's it this way, there are many more just like me.
Look closely at the word changes and tell me what core doctrine has been altered.
They are as the article says, minor alterations.
In the early 1600's a word was spelled this way by one and that way by another.
The English language was a work in progress at that time, more so than later.
The problem though is still that some words and terms have totally different meanings today than when translation into 1611 English