• 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"?

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member
I have often wondered why anyone would spend more than a second and a half being concerned
over anything relating to anything associated with the term, "KJVOnly".

1.) "KJVOnly" is the presumed, supposedly, professed position of the proponents of what is termed, "KJVOnly", by them?

HOW IS THAT, EXACTLY? Their "Version" is "perfect", or something too perfectly close to that, to be contained in a "Version",
and yet, it is still stood for and referred to as a "Version"? What gives?

2.) And, then the ones who throw themselves into opposing the "KJVOnly" proponents are opposing those who believe they have a special, "Version"?

WHY?

WHY? WHY?

Because, why acknowledge an inherently, self-sabotaging assertion?

Like, "Hey, somebody said their "Version", was.....HEY, WAIT A MINUTE...!!!!!"

"VERSION"???

THEIR "VERSION" WAS???

Tell me, I'm missing something.

Just another excuse out there in space, to go around and around about nothing?

I don't get it...
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
HOW IS THAT, EXACTLY? Their "Version" is "perfect", or something too perfectly close to that, to be contained in a "Version",
and yet, it is still stood for and referred to as a "Version"? What gives?
The King James Version is a version or translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

In his glossary, William Grady defined version as “the translation of a literary composition from its original tongue into a second language” (Final Authority, p. 330).

To claim that the KJV is not a version would be to deny the truth.

Seeming to try to deny the truth, some KJV-only advocates do not refer to the KJV as a version or as a translation as they may use only the name King James Bible for it.

KJV-only author Troy Clark asserted: “I will never call inspired Scripture a ‘version’” (Perfect Bible, p. 30).
After referring to the King James Bible, Jim Ellis declared: “I don’t call it the King James Version” (Only Two Bibles, p. 17).
KJV-only author Stephen Gentry maintained that the KJV “is a translation and not a version” (God’s Word to Man, p. 3).
KJV-only author Brandon Peterson wrote: “I call it the King James Bible, because I do not see it merely as a ‘version’ of God’s word” (Sealed, p. 41). KJV-only author Kevin Christy wrote: “The King James Bible is not a version, but the Holy Bible” ((Meaning, pp. 1-2).
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
I have often wondered why anyone would spend more than a second and a half being concerned
over anything relating to anything associated with the term, "KJVOnly".

1.) "KJVOnly" is the presumed, supposedly, professed position of the proponents of what is termed, "KJVOnly", by them?

HOW IS THAT, EXACTLY? Their "Version" is "perfect", or something too perfectly close to that, to be contained in a "Version",
and yet, it is still stood for and referred to as a "Version"? What gives?

2.) And, then the ones who throw themselves into opposing the "KJVOnly" proponents are opposing those who believe they have a special, "Version"?

WHY?

WHY? WHY?

Because, why acknowledge an inherently, self-sabotaging assertion?

Like, "Hey, somebody said their "Version", was.....HEY, WAIT A MINUTE...!!!!!"

"VERSION"???

THEIR "VERSION" WAS???

Tell me, I'm missing something.

Just another excuse out there in space, to go around and around about nothing?

I don't get it...
The problem is Kjvo very militant, and are causing division and battling among the body of Christ
 

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member
KJV-only author Troy Clark asserted: “I will never call inspired Scripture a ‘version’” (Perfect Bible, p. 30).
After referring to the King James Bible, Jim Ellis declared: “I don’t call it the King James Version” (Only Two Bibles, p. 17).
KJV-only author Stephen Gentry maintained that the KJV “is a translation and not a version” (God’s Word to Man, p. 3).
KJV-only author Brandon Peterson wrote: “I call it the King James Bible, because I do not see it merely as a ‘version’ of God’s word” (Sealed, p. 41). KJV-only author Kevin Christy wrote: “The King James Bible is not a version, but the Holy Bible” ((Meaning, pp. 1-2).

KJV-only author Troy Clark

Jim Ellis declared: “I don’t call it the King James Version”

KJV-only author Stephen Gentry

KJV-only author Brandon Peterson

KJV-only author Kevin Christy

Yep, look like you've got five nutcases there.

Because, like you said:
The King James Version is a version or translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.
+
In his glossary, William Grady defined version as “the translation of a literary composition from its original tongue into a second language” (Final Authority, p. 330).
=
To claim that the KJV is not a version would be to deny the truth.

So, denying the truth is not a good thing to be doing.
Seeming to try to deny the truth, some KJV-only advocates do not refer to the KJV as a version or as a translation as they may use only the name King James Bible for it.


"The Translation Rules".

"1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the

Bishops’ Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the
original will permit."

"14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the

Text than the Bishops’ Bible: Tindoll’s, Matthew’s Coverdale’s,
Whitchurch’s, Geneva."

"Again, they came or were thought to come to the work,
not exercendi causa (as one saith) but exercitati, that is, learned, not to learn..."

...


Here are a few quotes from Edgar J. Goodspeed's

"The Translators to the Reader : Preface to the King James Version 1611".​

/ edited by Edgar J. Goodspeed.​

Authors: Goodspeed, Edgar J. (Edgar Johnson), 1871-1962, Miles Smith.
Print Book, English, [1935]
Edition: View all formats and editions
Publisher: University of Chicago Press, Chicago, [1935]

"Of all the forms of the English Bible, the most distinguished and widely cherished is the King James Version."

"Even if the version were itself less eminent as an English classic or a liturgical masterpiece
the extraordinary prestige it enjoys would give it a consequence all its own."

"The King James Version is predominantly the Bible of the layman, and it will undoubtedly continue to be so for a long time to come."

"This commendable activity began immediately upon the first publication of the version in 1611
and continued intermittently until 1769 when, under the hands of Dr. Blayney of Oxford, it reached its present form."

"Comparatively few verses in the version have escaped such improvements and modernizations, and most verses contain several such changes."

"It has also corrected the numerous misprints of the version, so that it is now of the most accurately printed books in the world."

Etc., etc., etc.

The makers of the version in their day felt that the work called for some explanation and defense,
and entrusted the writing of a suitable preface to Myles Smith, of Brasenose College, Oxford, afterward Bishop of Gloucester.
His Preface for many years stood at the beginning of the version."



The problem is Kjvo very militant, and are causing division and battling among the body of Christ

I'm sorry that they are out on a limb looking back at a 3 foot gap between the limb they are on and the rest of the tree.
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
"This commendable activity began immediately upon the first publication of the version in 1611
and continued intermittently until 1769 when, under the hands of Dr. Blayney of Oxford, it reached its present form."
Today's varying post-1900 KJV editions are not the 1769 Oxford KJV edition.

As many as 400 more changes and corrections were made to the 1769 Oxford KJV edition in a typical post-1900 KJV edition.

In 2017, a reprint edition of the 1769 Oxford folio edition was made available by The Bible Museum [Litchfield Park, AZ] so the actual KJV text of the 1769 can be obtained and examined to see that it is not the present form in post-1900 KJV editions.
 
Last edited:

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member
"The following is a table of
New Testament (NT) quotations of the Old Testament (OT)."

What I am interested in seeing is how God Shows His Standard Criteria
for what He Considers to be Equally Inspired, where we see the direct differences,
between the Old Testament verses and where and how they are quoted,
when we see and read them in their New Testament applications.

Then, we can take note and concentrate on the differences between the three versions which we can also see, secondarily, and yet, those versions are all Inspired, also.

God already Demonstrated His Standard for what He Still Considered Inspired,
in all the instances where the Old Testament is quoted in the New Testament.

Are they both True? Then, are each of those three versions True?

Let me ask you this way: Will God's Holy Spirit Testify to their Validity?

Will The Holy Spirit Witness to what they are all saying as being True?

How about this, then? “So shall My Word be that Goeth Forth out of My Mouth:
It Shall Not Return unto Me void, but It Shall Accomplish that which I Please”
,
is a Bible verse from Isaiah 55:11.

In those three versions, Will the Holy Spirit take the Words as they are written?
And Bear the Testimony to ANYTHING THOSE BIBLES HIT, ONCE THEY ARE OPEN?

IS THERE A HOLY SPIRIT THAT IS ALIVE, WHICH JESUS SAID MAKES THE BIBLE
"SPIRIT" AND THAT THE WORDS IN THE BIBLE, IN IT'S VERSES ARE "LIFE"?


THE HOLY SPIRIT WITNESSES TO BRING LIFE, OR CONDEMNATION, BY GOD'S WORDS
AND THE HOLY SPIRIT IS ALIVE FOREVERMORE, OMNIPRESENT, AND ON THE JOB.

There has never been a time when the Fruitfull Works of God's Marvelous Light weren't
Operating by the All Powerful Presence of the Holy Spirit, Who Makes it where
God's Words, "Goeth Forth out of My Mouth:
It Shall Not Return unto Me void, but It Shall Accomplish that which I Please".


Thats How God Does things.

You can attempt to criticize God and yet He Turns that all around to be your critic;


"For the Word of God is Quick, and Powerful, and Sharper than any twoedged sword, Piercing even to the Dividing Asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a Discerner (critic) of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Hebrews 4:12.


Do you think God Will have His Word Bounce Off you and Return Void, to Him?

No? You know why? God's Word is Inspired, by the Living, Breathing, Holy Spirit.


The Word and the Spirit always Work Together.

And that Inspiration doesn't always fall along in the same set of tracks.

God is O.K. with that. The Bible is still Inspired and by that, I mean what God Means,

"All Scripture is Given by Inspiration of God, and is Profitable for Doctrine,
for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness:"
II Timothy 3:16.

THERE ISN'T ANYTHING THE WORD OF GOD AND SPIRIT OF GOD CAN'T DO,
Except what The Triune Godhead has already Resolved to Not Do, to start with.

Give yourself a break.

The Word of God, in the Gospel Message, is the Power of God Unto Salvation.

While this Bible, which is The Inspired by the Holy Spirit WORDS OF GOD HIMSELF TEACHES US THAT WE ARE NOT TO EVER HAVE FELLOWSHIP WITH THE UNFRUITFUL WORKS OF DARKNESS,
“Faith Comes by Hearing, and Hearing by the Word of God” is a Bible verse from Romans 10:17. It means that Faith is a Result of listening to the Message of the Gospel, EMPOWERED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT.

ARE YOU GOING TO TELL ME THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS DEAD?

KJVOnlies and Anti-KJVOnlies both need to abandon the letter of the law.


Even Google knows at least that much;

"Letter of the law" refers to the exact wording of a law, following its literal meaning, while "spirit of the law" refers to the intended purpose
or underlying principle behind the law, essentially the reason why the law was created, even if not explicitly stated in the text itself;

"meaning one can technically follow the letter of the law
without fully adhering to its intended spirit.

"Key points to remember:
  • "Literal vs. Intent:"
    "Letter of the law" focuses on the literal words written, while "spirit of the law" focuses on the intended goal of the law."

  • "Potential for Conflict:"
    "Situations can arise where someone might strictly follow the wording of a law ("letter") but still be seen as violating the true intent or purpose of the law ("spirit")."
In the quotes of the Old Testament SPIRIT OF THE LAW
where we learn more about God
when they are taught in the New Testament SPIRIT OF THE LAW;

"The left column carries the NT citations,
the middle the Septuagint (LXX)
and the last column the Masoretic (MT).

"The NT and MT traslation is the Authorized Version, the LXX, Brenton's.

"All obvious quotes have been included; it excludes strong allusions or verbal parallels (e.g., Matt. 24:15 ~ Dan. 9:27 or 12:11) such as those listed in The Greek New Testament, 4th rev. ed. (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1983), 891-901.

"This chart allows anyone without Greek to easily see, at a glance, the major differences that exist between the various versions.


"For another analysis of the quotations,
see R. Grant Jones's "The Septuagint in the New Testament."

"Caution: Brenton's translation is based on a rather eclectic reading of the Greek text of the LXX. The standard LXX text is to be found in the Göttingen edition, and has yet to be translated. Next best is Rahlfs's edition, widely available. Find a Septuagint here."


Table of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament,

in English translation.​

 
Last edited:

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member
"The following is a table of
New Testament (NT) quotations of the Old Testament (OT)."

These tables give a FAR, FAR, FAR BETTER COMPARISON than those above.
Old Testament Passages Referred to or Quoted in the New Testament.

They give the O.T. passage, in a side by side comparison with the N.T.

Genesis.
...
Genesis 1:27;
"So God Created man in His Own Image, in the Image of
God He Created him; male and female He Created them."

=
Mark 10:6;
"But from the Beginning of Creation,
‘God Made them male and female.’


...
Genesis 2:2;
"And on the seventh day God Finished His Work that He Had
Done, and He Rested on the seventh day from all His Work that He Had Done
."
=
Hebrews 4:4;
"For He has somewhere Spoken of the seventh day in this way:
“And God Rested on the seventh day from All His Works.”
 

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
Intrigued about the change from v to b (KJVersion to KJBible) in some writers. This seems morphing the only sect's position another exit down the road to absurdity.

From an ANGLICAN "version" adapted 85% from previous "versions" of the Bible
To the AUTHORIZED "version" of the Bible
To the King James "version" of the Bible
To the King James "Bible" itself
 

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member
Intrigued about the change from v to b (KJVersion to KJBible) in some writers. This seems morphing the only sect's position another exit down the road to absurdity.
Amen.
From an ANGLICAN "version" adapted 85% from previous "versions" of the Bible
To the AUTHORIZED "version" of the Bible
To the King James "version" of the Bible
To the King James "Bible" itself
Right.

When the King James translators instructions
were to stay as close to the previous 'version', the Bishops Bible, as possible...
just like you said, first thing;
From an ANGLICAN "version" adapted 85% from previous "versions" of the Bible
Wow. The Road to (even more) Absurdity is right!
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I have often wondered why anyone would spend more than a second and a half being concerned
over anything relating to anything associated with the term, "KJVOnly".

1.) "KJVOnly" is the presumed, supposedly, professed position of the proponents of what is termed, "KJVOnly", by them?

HOW IS THAT, EXACTLY? Their "Version" is "perfect", or something too perfectly close to that, to be contained in a "Version",
and yet, it is still stood for and referred to as a "Version"? What gives?

2.) And, then the ones who throw themselves into opposing the "KJVOnly" proponents are opposing those who believe they have a special, "Version"?

WHY?

WHY? WHY?

Because, why acknowledge an inherently, self-sabotaging assertion?

Like, "Hey, somebody said their "Version", was.....HEY, WAIT A MINUTE...!!!!!"

"VERSION"???

THEIR "VERSION" WAS???

Tell me, I'm missing something.

Just another excuse out there in space, to go around and around about nothing?

I don't get it...
A "version" is a particular form of something differing in certain respects from an earlier form or other forms of the same type of thing. That's what the KJV is. It's not the only English Bible form there is. Thus, it's a version. Every Bible translationthat differs from any other translation at all is a version. AND REMEMBER, THE AV 1611 MAKERS THEMSELVES CALLED THEIR WORK A "VERSION" !
 
Last edited:

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
"This commendable activity began immediately upon the first publication of the version in 1611
and continued intermittently until 1769 when, under the hands of Dr. Blayney of Oxford, it reached its present form."
In his new 2025 book entitled THE TEXT OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE, KJV defender Laurence Vance wrote: "Modern King James Bibles have not been updated directly from the 1611 Authorized Version" (p. 181).

KJV defender Laurence Vance wrote: "There are 750 differences between the 1769 Blayney edition of the Authorized Version and modern King James Bibles: 461 Old Testament and 289 New Testament" (p. 220).

Laurence Vance wrote: "There are 263 differences between the Cambridge and Oxford editions of the Authorized Version" (p. 228).
 

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member
differences

What I am interested in seeing is how God Shows His Standard Criteria
for what He Considers to be Equally Inspired, where we see the direct differences,
between the Old Testament verses and where and how they are quoted,
when we see and read them in their New Testament applications.

These tables give a FAR, FAR, FAR BETTER COMPARISON than those above.
Old Testament Passages Referred to or Quoted in the New Testament.

They give the O.T. passage, in a side by side comparison with the N.T.

God already Demonstrated His Standard for what He Still Considered Inspired,
in all the instances where the Old Testament is quoted in the New Testament.

Are they both True?

Let me ask you this way: Will God's Holy Spirit Testify to their Validity?

Will The Holy Spirit Witness to what they are all saying as being True?

How about this, then? “So shall My Word be that Goeth Forth out of My Mouth:
It Shall Not Return unto Me void, but It Shall Accomplish that which I Please”
,
is a Bible verse from Isaiah 55:11.

In those three versions, Will the Holy Spirit take the Words as they are written?
And Bear the Testimony to ANYTHING THOSE BIBLES HIT, ONCE THEY ARE OPEN?

IS THERE A HOLY SPIRIT THAT IS ALIVE, WHICH JESUS SAID MAKES THE BIBLE
"SPIRIT" AND THAT THE WORDS IN THE BIBLE, IN IT'S VERSES ARE "LIFE"?

THE HOLY SPIRIT WITNESSES TO BRING LIFE, OR CONDEMNATION, BY GOD'S WORDS
AND THE HOLY SPIRIT IS ALIVE FOREVERMORE, OMNIPRESENT, AND ON THE JOB.

There has never been a time when the Fruitful Works of God's Marvelous Light weren't
Operating by the All Powerful Presence of the Holy Spirit, Who Makes it where
God's Words, "Goeth Forth out of My Mouth:
It Shall Not Return unto Me void, but It Shall Accomplish that which I Please".

That's How God Does things.

The Word and the Spirit always Work Together.

And that Inspiration doesn't always fall along in the same set of tracks.

God is O.K. with that. The Bible is still Inspired and by that, I mean what God Means,
"All Scripture is Given by Inspiration of God, and is Profitable for Doctrine,
for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness:"
II Timothy 3:16.

Lies, on the hand, are not Inspired.
the Holy Spirit WORDS OF GOD HIMSELF TEACHES US THAT WE ARE NOT TO EVER HAVE FELLOWSHIP WITH THE UNFRUITFUL WORKS OF DARKNESS
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
According to the Scriptures themselves, it could be soundly concluded that inspiration would be a term for the way, method, means, or process by which God directly gave the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles or for the way that the words proceeded from the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Matt. 4:4, Eph. 3:5, Deut. 8:3).

The process of the giving of all Scripture to the prophets and apostles is by a miracle of inspiration of God, but the Scriptures do not state that the post-NT process of translation is by the same process of direct inspiration.

The same guiding of the Holy Spirit of truth available to the Church of England makers of the KJV [if they were all actual believers] was and is still available to other believers who translate the preserved Scriptures in the original languages into present-day English and into other languages.

Non-scriptural modern KJV-only teaching is an unfruitful, non-edifying work of human beings.
 
Top