King James Version

When I made that post I checked your profile and your recent posts list indicated that there weren't anymore for you. Glad you are still here.

 

I don't know that anyone here at th BaptistBoard has anything against the KJV at all. In fact, I would think that many here not only have nothing against the KJV, but prefer to be KJVO in their beliefs.

Pappy,
Why did you think that BaptistBoard.com had anything against the KJV??? Or, did you think that at all when you asked the question???

 

Thanks for clearing that up

 

As has already been stated, it is not in the User Agreement; it is a guideline for this forum. Number 9 clearly states:

It was never my, nor the others who developed these rules of courtesy, to impose these guidelines in any other forum. These rules were placed here to help in making the debate more civil in this specific forum.

To violate these guidelines is to forfeit your privilege to join in the debate. Unfortunately, those who failed to adhere to these guidelines very often had difficulty adhering to the rules that were posted in the User Agreement and usually didn't last long on the Baptist Board.

 

Pappy:Just a notice. I have read on here and seen people like me get banned, blasted, and so what for saying what they believe in. I think that is wrong. Think about it. Okay?

Actually, they were banned after repeated warnings to get their acts together. The rules are plainly posted, and fairly enforced. I've been here a few days now, and I've not seen anyone banned just for being KJVO. However, notice is served that the vast majority here, and the vast majority of Baptists in general are NOT KJVO.

About the KJV, yes, I am KJV ONLY! I read the real deal.

So do I, but not just in one version.

You read what ya wanna, just tell me, why not read just the KJV? Why is the other better?

Let's start with current English.

Ummmm, just finished up a KK donut..good stuff!

I live near a private bakery that makes, IMO, the best donuts this side of heaven. But KK aint bad...

 

Pappy:The KJV and the NIV are DIFFERENT! Why can't we stick with just one version? What a confusion.

The Gospel of Matthew & the Gospel of Luke are different. Which one is right?

 

Pappy:look at sound D..yall bash him like crazy!

He ASKS for it. He uses ad-hominem, plus, he makes all these outlandish claims which he cannot back with evidence.

I've dealt with him in the past, different place, with his using another handle...same then as now, same false doctrine, same sweet demeanor, same lack of proof.

 

Pappy:My goodness. What makes the other versions better than the KJV? That is so crazy.

What makes them WORSE? That's even crazier.


They are both different -- But as a dear friend once said, this is all the things that have to take place before God comes back!

There are no two English Bible versions the same. Why? BECAUSE GOD AND HIS WORD ARE ALIVE & IN CHARGE. God causes/allows all language changes, and He fits His word into the language style He's made current now. And he isn't limited to English in doing this...He made, and still controls, ALL languages.

Speaking of different...Samuel, Kings, & Chronicles are differing narrations of the SAME EVENTS. Do you pick-n-choose among them?

 

Pappy:Just to let you know, I stand for what I believe in..I wont hide behind names or be "scared" of being banned. You can't be scared in the world..you have to face reality. Just to let you know.

Then, face THIS reality...There's absolutely NO Scriptural support for the KJVO myth. In fact that myth is a recent(1930) addition to the Christian worship experience. Please read the archives of this board to see where it came from.

 

Now that I've answered some of your posts, Pappy, lemme explain a coupla things...

First, when we launch what appears to be an attack upon the KJV, it's to debunk the false assertion that it's absolutely perfect.

Second, I, and most others like me, use the KJV, but aren't limited to it. Sure, we know the various versions differ among themselves, but the various books of the Bible differ among themselves, in the same version, while narrating the SAME EVENTS. But we Christians accept all of 'em anyway. Why? Because we know each account was written by a different witness, and these various witnesses had differing powers of observation, memory, and writing abilities. Some of them may have been direct witnesses of certain events, while others wrote secondhand accounts.

Whatever principles YOU use to believe the differing accounts within one given version MUST BE APPLIED to the differences between versions, or else you're using a DOUBLE STANDARD.

No, we have no beef against the KJV or any other valid Bible version...but we have a BIG-TIME beef against the man-made false doctrine MEN have built around the KJV, a doctrine not supported in any way by the KJV itself.

 

I come from a large church (KCBT.org) that believes and teaches KJVO. I see its existance as a doctrine as helpful but non-essential. I think it is pointless to argue about.

My opinion is that I dont tend to agree with all of the arguments typically employed by KJVO advocates. I dont think KING JAMES VERSION ONLY is that accurate of the truth...rather, KING JAMES VERSION is the BEST is more representative of my view.

1. I think the KJV is the best because it most clearly and readibly allows the reader to know exactly what the Bible says....and when I say bible I mean the Majority Text. This is one point with which KJVO's I agree with. Our Bible should be based upon the 90+% of texts that all agree....and not based upon the very few that disagree (even if they are the oldest) as is done with some versions including the NIV.

2. But the KJV allows you to best no what the Bible says in that it does not make you dependent on the translation into the english because it is a TRUE Word for Word translation. Using a Strong's COncordance you can see every single word in its original greek or Hebrew and then look up every where in the Bible where this same word is used.....thus, you can define the word by seeing how the Bible uses the word and not by seeing how a man translated it. I do not know of any other english Bibles in which you can do this.

3. When the KJV does insert words (typically to make the reading more understandable in the english language)....well the inserted words are always placed in Italics so that you know that they were inserted.

4. The KJV is highly sensitive to the differentiation of word variations....That is, the KJV uses old english, and at times this can be a disadvantage in that it takes more effort to understand it at first...but eventually it becomes an advantage in that you see how it uses a larger variety of words inorder to preserve subtle differences in meaning. For example....or For ensample. What is the difference? eXample? eNsample? Well....look it up, these are words used by the KJV inorder to preserve subtle differences. Why thee, thou, the etc? well the KJV uses these words to draw a distinction and infuse meaning while preserving the simplicity of the text while not adding too many new words.

This last point...well, might not be a very easy one to understand for those who have not studied using a KJV but it is something that I have discovered and helped me to discover subtleties in the Bible I had previously been unaware of.

All in all, I think the KJV enables a mature believer to study the Word of God in a way that is deeper then can be done with a dynamic equivalency or paraphrase bible...or with any current translations asserting to be "word for word" translations.

 

THe topic of this thread is a contnetion that the BB is against the KJV. We still have seen no evidence to support that claim. None.