Now we're getting into opinion! I'm not a KJVO guy. So I have no need to pursue conjecture.
-
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
Now we're getting into opinion! I'm not a KJVO guy. So I have no need to pursue conjecture.
Not subjectivbe opinion, as its proven true words have taken out new meanings and understandings over the years in English
Take that up with a KJVO person and you'll see what I'm talking about.
I have no horse in this race, it's all good with me on this subject.
Look at section 2 for the word changes.
That is why the Nkjv had the right approach, as in using same materials the 611 Kjv team did, but updated into wording as we pronounce it and understand it for today
For me, there's something about the style of poetry in the 611 KJV that sets it apart from other versions.
It feels in the heart that it's coming from straight from God, in His own special way.
I agree it may very well be my imagination, but nevertheless, it has its attraction.
I could be bias in that as far back as I can remember from a child I was memorizing Scripture from the 1611 KJV.
Will agree itsreads and sounds more "majestic", but does not mean its perfect as KJVO stated and hold
Last edited:
If you've read my previous posts, I've said several times the 1611 KJV is not perfect, but neither is any other version.
I've also said and believe that anything man has taken part in cannot be perfect, referring to translations into other languages.
But God has delivered His Word to us and none of us will have an excuse if we fall short of His promises.
Heb. 2:1-4
"Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.
For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;
How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?"
What do you think of the older Bibles, Tyndale, Geneva, Matthew's Bible? Bibles older than 1611?
I think they and the versions to come were the reason God placed His hand on King James 1 to oversee the commission of His official Word.
This doesn't mean I'm a KJVO fanatic. For me, it means even though those translators leaned this way and that way with doctrine, The truth of God's Word is found in the 1611 KJV. You are expected by the Lord to search for the truth yourself!
Let me clarify as to leave no doubt in the mind, the 1611 KJV is not the only version with God's truth.
It's the style of the 1611 KJV and the time that God chose to do it, that appeals to me.
How do you feel about the NASB? That is how my (1995) copy describes itself
God is in charge of his word. He can do what he pleases. It is ironic that the common idea now is that men can do anything they want with God's word, but he can't. Men say God's word cannot change and then they paraphrase it and condense it and even apply modern western culture to it and then they tell us they are the smartest people in the room. It all started down hill when the word of God was confused and denied in the Garden with the result of many men have gone to hell since.
There is a danger here for sure. God has two ways of pivoting in his redemptive purposes. The first is dividing history dispensationally and the other is to do transitions within those dispensations. For instance, the first coming of Jesus Christ was under the dispensation of "Law" and that did not change while he lived, but when he was presented to Israel as the Messiah of Israel it was a transition for them and they were obliged from that time to believe in his person as both the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God. Those who refused would not be justified. After the cross there was a different dispensation for Israel with a different result of their faith, see 2 Cor 3 here. Jesus Christ would remain the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God but now they will have Jesus Christ indwelling their mortal bodies forever and permanently in the person of the Holy Spirt. Now we have progressive revelation of the ways of God.
God has the liberty to transition by translating his word and he has done it in the past with perfection. He translated Hebrew into Greek and who can claim it is not inspired?
There was a major transition during the days of the translating of the English Bible.
There is a danger here for sure. God has two ways of pivoting in his redemptive purposes. The first is dividing history dispensationally and the other is to do transitions within those dispensations. For instance, the first coming of Jesus Christ was under the dispensation of "Law" and that did not change while he lived, but when he was presented to Israel as the Messiah of Israel it was a transition for them and they were obliged from that time to believe in his person as both the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God. Those who refused would not be justified. After the cross there was a different dispensation for Israel with a different result of their faith, see 2 Cor 3 here. Jesus Christ would remain the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God but now they will have Jesus Christ indwelling their mortal bodies forever and permanently in the person of the Holy Spirt. Now we have progressive revelation of the ways of God.
God has the liberty to transition by translating his word and he has done it in the past with perfection. He translated Hebrew into Greek and who can claim it is not inspired?
There was a major transition during the days of the translating of the English Bible.
If you like the 1611 KJV you will most definitely like the pre -1611 Versions. Tyndale's New Testaments, 1526, 1534 and final revisions 1535,36. Matthew's Bible 1537, Geneva Bible 1560. Coverdale's Versions, Great Bible. Bishop's Bible. So on and so forth.
I have read portions of the Geneva Bible. When I was in deep study of Calvin, I was influenced to familiarize.
I'm pretty sure you're right, I did like the Geneva.
Last edited: