What does it mean to you to be KJVO?

I am KJP. I am confident that the KJB is the Word of God. I see no reason to change. I am not sure about some of the other versions. I know many of them are faulty. I will stick with what has been working well for 37 years. The KJB.

 

A person can use the KJV only without carrying the dead bird of the KJVO MYTH around his/her neck. I cannot sit here and truthfully say the HOLY SPIRIT did NOT lead you to the KJV. But OTOH, no KJVO can truthfully say the HOLY SPIRIT didn't lead me to use several versions, or someone else to use only the NASV, etc, etc.

I don't criticize anyone for using only the KJV until/unless they criticize others for their choices. And I will unrelentingly fight against the FALSE KJVO MYTH.

The KJVO myth is that false doctrine which says the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation. That myth is NOT SUPPORTED whatsoever by Scripture, and that fact alone makes it false.

 

Surely you must have something better to do with your time.

 

What makes it false is that we choose and we cannot choose Gods Word it Chooses us! The Whole issue of KJVO is an deversion from the truth and casting doubt on the Truth! when such statements are made when they are attacking the very core that our faith was established then that is both incorrect and a false way or doctorine! If one chooses God's word that is! The Modernists say this vesion while the KJVo say this translation But God says "THIS is "MY" Beloved Son hear ye HIM" So then We should listen to Jesus and King Jesus has Ordained the KJB and Not any other in English! [Attack on the Bible deleted]

[ May 19, 2006, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Could you please share any evidence my brother that King Jesus ordained any version in any language?

Is this part of what being KJVO is? Do all KJVOs claim that King Jesus ordained a translation?

 

Hogwash! You're trying to foster a definition on connotation. I use only the KJV, except for German, Greek, Hebrew, etc. editions, but I differ heartily from Ruckman, Riplinger, & company. I reject KJVP because it smacks of one simply preferring one version over the other for style, etc. So, I'm KJVO and I don't want you or anyone else, for that matter, telling me what I am or what I believe. I don't care about the stigma.

It seems that it's the MV crowd who want to define and sort out the KJV folks according to KJVP or KJVO. My friend, things are not so easily pigeonholed. Beliefs and positions are complex matters that defy classification and sorting. :smilewinkgrin:

 

It’s the same evidence, my brother, that you use to accept the Bible as the Word of God. It’s called faith. I assume that you believe God has revealed Himself in the original autographs of the sixty-six books comprising what we know as the Old and New Testaments. Can you provide compelling evidence that such beliefs are true? It would appear that you are arguing from and demanding evidential apologetics from the KJVOs instead of the presuppositional apologetics that you will undoubtedly need to support your faith. Is it fair to disparage and place harsher demands upon another’s differing viewpoint when one’s own view is founded on a similar basis? Like your faith in the original autographs, some KJVOs believe that God has preserved His Word for the English-speaking world in an English translation, the KJV. As you would support your faith in the sixty-six books of the Bible, to the inclusion of all Scripture and to the exclusion of spurious works, by canonization of Scripture through the church, the KJVOs can point to almost four hundred years of approval and use of the KJV by the believing church. Can you say your faith is more valid, superior, or more reasonable than the KJVOs? Not without some presuppositional arguments and we are back again to faith. Edward F. Hills in his perceptive work uses the term “logic of faith.”

The answers to your two other questions are NO and NO.

C4K, I am of the opinion that you are a close relative of KJVO but you are scared away by the nut cases who have sensationalized and scandalized the label.

 

This is very true Tim. An attack is an attack and hurts the kingdom.

 

Man how I hate that anyone is made to feel this way. But I have seen it go the other way too. Way too many discussions here have turned into some very ugly sessions.

Part of the freedom we have as Christians is IMHO to state our view (hopefully eloquently), counter (hopefully kindly), and allow the Holy Spirit to convict us on areas in which we need to learn more or change.

All this head thumpin' (again IMHO) shows that we have decided to do the Holy Spirit's job for Him (or don't think He's workin' fast enough).

I've never seen someone argued, berated, or riduculted into coming to know Jesus. Just th opposite has been true. They have dug their heels in and suffered greatly.

 

Now that I've posted twice skirting the edges of the topic . . .

I think KJVO means that
-the KJV is used and all other versions are excluded.
-KJV is the preserved, inspired Word of God.
-all (or at the very least most) modern versions are not inspired and as such are not considered God's Word.

I do know people who use the KJV only because it is what they grew up on, but don't feel that it is the only version that is God's Word. I wouldn't call them KJVO.

 

Id like to state something else on this issue......I agree with you, mcdirector. It does go both ways. Now that Ive been here for some time Ive seen a few KJVOs who assume they are going to be attacked and so they are aggressively defensive right from the get-go. I also realize that the vast majority of people here are NOT attacking us. Perhaps we are afraid of it and so we assume it will happen. OTOH, some of us are just wanting to pick a fight, and that bothers me to no end because then maybe we'll get lumped in together with those who are spoilin' for a whuppin'.

Although, sometimes its hard to take the general statements which insinuate things about KJVOs without necessarily identifying a specific person. These kinds of statements I think we all take as directed to us KJVOs as a whole, and perhaps is the majority of what we mean by "attack".

This is just me own take on it. I don't intend to come across as having a martyr's complex. I do want to acknowledge my appreciation of those who can discuss this with respect on both sides.