Is the KJV shown proper respect by avoiding the truth?

[Logos1560]

Do some seem to assume or suggest that the KJV is not being properly respected if the same measures/standards are applied to it as are applied to other English Bible translations?

If KJV defenders apply certain measures/standards to other English Bibles, is it not fair and just when the same exact measures/standards are also applied to the KJV?

Should more respect be shown to the KJV than to the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it is a revision?

Does partiality have to be shown to the KJV translators in order to show proper respect to the KJV?

Would avoiding or ignoring the truth concerning the KJV and its making be showing proper respect to it?

 

[Logos1560]

the KJV is a sound translation with no more human shortcomings than any other translations and no translation disputes affecting any doctrine and a much better translation than some later ones.

The KJV may have all the same type human shortcomings as the present English Bible translations have.

Is it possible that KJV defenders may try to maximize the shortcomings of other English Bibles translations and try to minimize those of the KJV?

It has not been demonstrated that the KJV is a much better overall English translation than the NKJV is.

Actually there were at least one or two translation disputes affecting doctrine concerning the KJV--at least concerning some verses that concern the doctrine of church government. It is a documented historical fact that some believers in the 1600's maintained the Church of England makers of the KJV changed some renderings in the pre-1611 English Bibles to different renderings more favorable to Church of England episcopal church government views. It was also suggested that the KJV was made more favorable to the divine right of kings view held by King James I than the 1560 Geneva Bible was.

 

[Yeshua1]

The KJV may have all the same type human shortcomings as the present English Bible translations have.

Is it possible that KJV defenders may try to maximize the shortcomings of other English Bibles translations and try to minimize those of the KJV?

It has not been demonstrated that the KJV is a much better overall English translation than the NKJV is.

Actually there were at least one or two translation disputes affecting doctrine concerning the KJV--at least concerning some verses that concern the doctrine of church government. It is a documented historical fact that some believers in the 1600's maintained the Church of England makers of the KJV changed some renderings in the pre-1611 English Bibles to different renderings more favorable to Church of England episcopal church government views. It was also suggested that the KJV was made more favorable to the divine right of kings view held by King James I than the 1560 Geneva Bible was.

How about how they viewed water baptism?

 

[Yeshua1]

Do some seem to assume or suggest that the KJV is not being properly respected if the same measures/standards are applied to it as are applied to other English Bible translations?

If KJV defenders apply certain measures/standards to other English Bibles, is it not fair and just when the same exact measures/standards are also applied to the KJV?

Should more respect be shown to the KJV than to the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it is a revision?

Does partiality have to be shown to the KJV translators in order to show proper respect to the KJV?

Would avoiding or ignoring the truth concerning the KJV and its making be showing proper respect to it?

Thd sad situation is that those who have the KJVO zeal po;;ute the well, as they sometimes cause those who other wise like the Kjv overreact to confront their errors down!

 

[church mouse guy]

The KJV may have all the same type human shortcomings as the present English Bible translations have.

Is it possible that KJV defenders may try to maximize the shortcomings of other English Bibles translations and try to minimize those of the KJV?

It has not been demonstrated that the KJV is a much better overall English translation than the NKJV is.

Actually there were at least one or two translation disputes affecting doctrine concerning the KJV--at least concerning some verses that concern the doctrine of church government. It is a documented historical fact that some believers in the 1600's maintained the Church of England makers of the KJV changed some renderings in the pre-1611 English Bibles to different renderings more favorable to Church of England episcopal church government views. It was also suggested that the KJV was made more favorable to the divine right of kings view held by King James I than the 1560 Geneva Bible was.

Well, we have seen that one posted several times but it has not been explained how that relates to KJV-Only or if it stands up to scrutiny. As has been pointed out by others above, this all relates to complicated textual scholarship and hardly touched by a layman's internet message board. Suffice it to say that there are no serious errors in the KJV and that in reality it is a very good translation. Much better than the more recent 1952 Revised Standard Version, for example.

I am sure that all modern translations have the same unresolved problems of scholarship that the KJV has.

To say that Fundamentalist Baptists have gone wrong by using only the KJV is overblown. There reasoning may be wrong but their actual practice is benign and harms no one, including themselves. Most Protestant denominations have given way to liberal theology and ordained women and sodomites and set aside all of the fundamentals of the faith. And they are inside the churches and standing in the pulpits and they are not using the KJV. KJV-Only is such an insignificant issue that it is only by sensationalistic charges that Roby is able to post these threads. You really should be looking at the marxianity in today's denominations, including the SBC, that wants to accommodate everyone except Fundamentalists. I am not a Fundamentalist but Roby says that he is so I guess it is a fight within Fundamentalism but to me it is a tempest in a pot of tea.

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, we have seen that one posted several times but it has not been explained how that relates to KJV-Only or if it stands up to scrutiny. As has been pointed out by others above, this all relates to complicated textual scholarship and hardly touched by a layman's internet message board. Suffice it to say that there are no serious errors in the KJV and that in reality it is a very good translation. Much better than the more recent 1952 Revised Standard Version, for example.

I am sure that all modern translations have the same unresolved problems of scholarship that the KJV has.

To say that Fundamentalist Baptists have gone wrong by using only the KJV is overblown. There reasoning may be wrong but their actual practice is benign and harms no one, including themselves. Most Protestant denominations have given way to liberal theology and ordained women and sodomites and set aside all of the fundamentals of the faith. And they are inside the churches and standing in the pulpits and they are not using the KJV. KJV-Only is such an insignificant issue that it is only by sensationalistic charges that Roby is able to post these threads. You really should be looking at the marxianity in today's denominations, including the SBC, that wants to accommodate everyone except Fundamentalists. I am not a Fundamentalist but Roby says that he is so I guess it is a fight within Fundamentalism but to me it is a tempest in a pot of tea.

It would be one thing to have them support the kjv as their preferred translation, but when they go to the extremes of it being only valid english translation, and is perfect and inspired by God, they almost start to idol worshipping it. and do judge others who deny KJVO!

 

[church mouse guy]

It would be one thing to have them support the kjv as their preferred translation, but when they go to the extremes of it being only valid english translation, and is perfect and inspired by God, they almost start to idol worshipping it. and do judge others who deny KJVO!

It don't amount to a hill of beans.

 

[Yeshua1]

It don't amount to a hill of beans.

True, as regarding KJVO!

 

[church mouse guy]

True, as regarding KJVO!

Are you a Fundamentalist?

 

[Marooncat79]

KJVO is cultish

 

[Deacon]

Suffice it to say that there are no serious errors in the KJV ...

Are you a Fundamentalist?

Definitions needed:

Please define “serious error”.
Please define what you mean by “a Fundamentalist”.
​

Rob

 

[church mouse guy]

KJVO is cultish

Absurd. They are Fundamentalists who use one specified translation. No one is hurt by it.

 

[church mouse guy]

Definitions needed:

Please define “serious error”.
Please define what you mean by “a Fundamentalist”.
​

Rob

IFB. 1952 RSV is a bad translation but it is modern.

 

[rlvaughn]

KJVO is cultish

What do you mean by "cultish," and how do you define a cult?

 

[Logos1560]

To say that Fundamentalist Baptists have gone wrong by using only the KJV is overblown.

Do you suppose or try to invent a bogus strawman since it is not being claimed that fundamentalist Baptists have gone wrong by using only the KJV?

Your response does not deal with and answer the questions in the opening post.

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.

There are major and important differences between those who may teach and preach only from the KJV and those who teach a man-made KJV-only doctrine.

Human non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching is harmful. It is harmful to teach a tradition/doctrine of man in place of actual Bible doctrines of God (Mark 7:7-9).

 

[Logos1560]

It don't amount to a hill of beans.

When the Scriptures clearly condemn teaching a tradition of men as being a doctrine of God (Mark 7:7-9), it would demonstrate that it can and does in effect amount to a hill of beans.

When the Scriptures clearly condemn the use of unjust measures/standards [an abomination to the LORD], it is sound and scriptural to condemn the KJV-only view's use of unjust measures/standards in their allegations against present English Bibles other than the KJV.

When the Scriptures condemn the showing of partiality, the KJV-only view's showing of partiality to the Church of England makers of the KJV is significantly and scripturally wrong.

 

[church mouse guy]

When the Scriptures clearly condemn teaching a tradition of men as being a doctrine of God (Mark 7:7-9), it would demonstrate that it can and does in effect amount to a hill of beans.

When the Scriptures clearly condemn the use of unjust measures/standards [an abomination to the LORD], it is sound and scriptural to condemn the KJV-only view's use of unjust measures/standards in their allegations against present English Bibles other than the KJV.

When the Scriptures condemn the showing of partiality, the KJV-only view's showing of partiality to the Church of England makers of the KJV is significantly and scripturally wrong.

Well, the KJV is just a custom and tradition and a choice. If you are using the 1952 RSV, you have a worse translation. I don't care for Catholic translations either. What do you think about the 1960 Reina-Valeta?

 

[church mouse guy]

Do you suppose or try to invent a bogus strawman since it is not being claimed that fundamentalist Baptists have gone wrong by using only the KJV?

Your response does not deal with and answer the questions in the opening post.

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.

There are major and important differences between those who may teach and preach only from the KJV and those who teach a man-made KJV-only doctrine.

Human non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching is harmful. It is harmful to teach a tradition/doctrine of man in place of actual Bible doctrines of God (Mark 7:7-9).

KJV-Only is illogical and ignorant. They are a tiny minority. I myself don't know where else they are wrong about things. I use other translations when the KJV stumps me. I am older than the boomers and I don't think that boomers use the KJV. At one time the cults accepted only the KJV but one JW tells me that now they accept anything. What translation do you use everyday?

 

[Logos1560]

KJV-Only is illogical and ignorant. They are a tiny minority.

There may be still many more KJV-only advocates than you realize. They may not be a minority in some independent Baptist circles. Hopefully the number of them is decreasing, but I do not know that to be a fact.

Several years ago Gail Riplinger claimed that there were over 100,000 copies of her book New Age Bible Versions in print. Considering the many thousands of copies of the books by KJV-only authors such as Peter Ruckman, David Cloud, D. A. Waite, Gail Riplinger, and many others, those incorrect KJV-only writings have likely produced many KJV-only advocates. There are also KJV-only publications or newsletters in print. How many people read Ruckman's Bible Believers Bulletin when he was alive? The Sword of the Lord now promotes a form of KJV-onlyism in some books and in its conferences. There are still new KJV-only books being written and printed. I have copies of over 150 different books and booklets that advocate KJV-only claims.

In my city, almost every independent Baptist pastor except two or three is KJV-only. Some KJV-only pastors may be KJV-only in order to be accepted in their circle of preacher friends, but others are strongly and aggressively KJV-only, and they teach their congregation their non-scriptural, incorrect KJV-only opinions whenever they preach a sermon on the Bible itself, on their incorrect KJV-only view of inspiration and preservation, etc. Some may even make a comment advocating some KJV-only claim in almost every sermon. I have heard a good number of KJV-only preachers speak. I have heard church members repeating the erroneous KJV-only arguments that their KJV-only pastors or KJV-only Sunday School teachers have taught them.

KJV-only teaching is still a big issue and problem in fundamental, independent Baptist circles, at least in the South.

 

[Logos1560]

What translation do you use everyday?

For many years I read only the KJV. The Bible that I now usually carry to church and read most often is a KJV/NKJV Parallel Bible. I now often check a copy of the 1560 Geneva Bible since it can help reveal places of episcopal bias in the KJV.

When I am not providing a comparison of Bible translations, the verses that I cite are cited from the KJV.