KJV hate

[Yeshua1]

So you’re gonna alert the mods and claim I’m trolling? Saying things people don’t want to hear is not trolling. If I am banned for trolling than this board is no different than cancel culture. Wow!

Your responses to me have been mostly hateful in my opinion. Most responses in this thread have been in a demeaning manor against those that are KJV. But shut me down I guess brother.

No, not the Kjv, but towards exposing the error of KJVO!

 

[Reynolds]

So if I ask a question in a post then don’t respond that is grounds for a mod smack? That is ridiculous.

I think I’m rubbing some the wrong way cause I’m stating my opinion which is unpopular.

No. You are rubbing people the wrong way because you refuse to dialogue in a normal manner. You expect everyone to answer you questions , yet you answer none of our questions. I believe I have answered every question you asked me. You are yet to answer one of mine.

 

[Southern Fried Baptist]

No. You are rubbing people the wrong way because you refuse to dialogue in a normal manner. You expect everyone to answer you questions , yet you answer none of our questions. I believe I have answered every question you asked me. You are yet to answer one of mine.

I will not name names of posters that have shown hatred or dislike for KJV outside of this thread. That will surely get me banned. Baptist for life has posted several threads though that prove my point. What else can I do for you?

 

[Southern Fried Baptist]

No, not the Kjv, but towards exposing the error of KJVO!

Your opinion is it’s error to believe in a superior translation.

 

[Southern Fried Baptist]

Really? Though no direct tie had been proven, I think it fair to say Calvin had his hand in the process. It's definitely not a study Bible.

Do we want to talk about King Jimmy and his moral values?

Did this man named King David write any of the Bible? Seems like he did. Seems like he was a murderer as well.

I won’t compare King David to John Calvin. John Calvin was not repentant for his sins against non calvinists.

 

[Southern Fried Baptist]

No. You are rubbing people the wrong way because you refuse to dialogue in a normal manner. You expect everyone to answer you questions , yet you answer none of our questions. I believe I have answered every question you asked me. You are yet to answer one of mine.

well I answered two for ya.
Sorry. I will work on that.

 

[Conan]

Brother, I am curious how you view these posts as being in response to “Onlyism”. The KJV...the Model T Bible Version thread asserts that the KJV is out-of-date. It is not even in “OUR language.” KJV’s Textual Error claims that the KJV editors made a mistake in italicizing “he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also” in 1 John 2:23. KJV Wrongly Translates the Hebrew states that the KJV translation “desperately wicked” in Jeremiah 17:9 is a wrong translation. These are specific and direct assertions about the King James translation, its translators, and its editors. In what way are they a response to “Onlyism”?

Thanks.

Brother at the times of those post they were in response to post's by "onlyist" were they not? Seems I remember back and forth post's that way.

 

[Conan]

I won’t compare King David to John Calvin. John Calvin was not repentant for his sins against non calvinists.

Weren't some of the KJV Translators calvinist? Isn't the Geneva Bible in the KJV?

 

[Southern Fried Baptist]

The KJV doesn’t include footnotes

 

[JonC]

You are the one who will have to decide whether you should or should not hate the KJV, and the reasons for your choice. "Hate" is not a word I would generally use even in describing translations that I do not think are good translations. This sounds at least like a mild dislike:

Personally I do not understand how a Christian could dislike (even mildly) the KJV, the ESV, or the NIV.

I understand disagreeing with the direction the KJV took (in regards to the Anglican requirements/ committee edits). But all translations have similar external influences (whether athe Church of England, as with the KJV, or a particular translation philosophy, or a specifically tgeology).

But God has used those translations (and several others) to communicate His Word to people. To even mildly dislike God's Word because of an English translation is almost (if not exactly) blasphemy.

Today the KJV may be a barrier to some towards salvation, but God's Word is amazingly communicated through many translations and many languages.

I would hope all believers would rejoice in that.

 

[Reformed]

Hate the KJV? I suppose there are those that do. I respect the KJV. It is not my translation of choice, but I often refer to it.

 

[Conan]

The KJV doesn’t include footnotes

The real 1611 KJV came with marginal notes.

 

[Reynolds]

The real 1611 KJV came with marginal notes.

Most "My 1611 KJV" folks have never seen one and couldn't read it if they did.
It took me a while to learn to read a real 1611.

 

[rlvaughn]

Personally I do not understand how a Christian could dislike (even mildly) the KJV...

Today the KJV may be a barrier to some towards salvation...

I do not agree, but if I did think the KJV was an barrier towards salvation, I could see that as a reason to dislike it.

 

[JonC]

I do not agree, but if I did think the KJV was an barrier towards salvation, I could see that as a reason to dislike it.

The gospel itself is a stumbling block to many. This is no reason to dislike the gospel.

The KJV is a barrier, but no more than other things (excuses?) people may have for dismissing Christ.

The KJV is often difficult for today's teens to handle. Perhaps this is due to laziness (not willing to work with past language elements in order to interact with an ancient text written in Greek and Hebrew). But it is a legitimate barrier (none of my son's friends "get" Shakespeare....because they do not take the time to overcome what is archaic in the language).

I suggest you would be wrong for disliking the KJV simply because it is a barrier to some. There are other translations these can read and the barrier is not the fault of the translation itself (it was written so as not to be archaic, but time has moved on and the language has changed).

 

[JonC]

So if I ask a question in a post then don’t respond that is grounds for a mod smack? That is ridiculous.

I think I’m rubbing some the wrong way cause I’m stating my opinion which is unpopular.

Dude, you are supposed to be Southern Fried. We don't care how unpopular our opinions are, we just say 'em anyway. No PC in the South.

 

[rlvaughn]

The gospel itself is a stumbling block to many. This is no reason to dislike the gospel.

The KJV is a barrier, but no more than other things (excuses?) people may have for dismissing Christ.

The KJV is often difficult for today's teens to handle. Perhaps this is due to laziness (not willing to work with past language elements in order to interact with an ancient text written in Greek and Hebrew). But it is a legitimate barrier (none of my son's friends "get" Shakespeare....because they do not take the time to overcome what is archaic in the language).

I suggest you would be wrong for disliking the KJV simply because it is a barrier to some. There are other translations these can read and the barrier is not the fault of the translation itself (it was written so as not to be archaic, but time has moved on and the language has changed).

I am not going to dislike the KJV, period. You are the one who suggested that it is a barrier to the salvation to some in a way other versions are not, but now you say no more than other things, so I am not sure what you are getting at. Mentioning the gospel itself as a stumblingblock is an apples to oranges comparison.

 

[JonC]

I am not going to dislike the KJV, period. You are the one who suggested that it is a barrier to the salvation to some in a way other versions are not, but now you say no more than other things, so I am not sure what you are getting at. Mentioning the gospel itself as a stumblingblock is an apples to oranges comparison.

I was using that as an illustration. I know people for whom the KJV was a barrier. They ended up understanding the gospel through another translation. So the question is not "if" the KJV can be a barrier to some people because it is.

The question becomes other things- like whether other translations are worth the effort if the barrier overcome is due to a lack of effort. Or if the KJV is only a barrier to the handful of people I know of, are these few souls worth the effort?

Personally, I commend Christians who will take the time to develop a translation that communicates God's Word to any given people.

 

[rlvaughn]

Well, I guess we could say the book of Isaiah was a barrier to the salvation of the eunuch of Ethiopia, Acts 8:30-31.

 

[Logos1560]

Unfortunately the Geneva Bible is a John Calvin study Bible. And he is a murderer. .

The 1560 Geneva Bible is not a John Calvin study Bible. John Calvin was not one of its translators. The great majority of the KJV translators were Calvinists just as the translators of the 1560 Geneva Bible were.

The Church of England makers of the KJV could be said to have blood on their hands since at least two of them were involved in having two men burned at the stake for their beliefs. Several of the KJV translators were members of the Court of High Commission that was involved in persecution of professed believers who disagreed with any Church of England doctrines. The KJV translators were not repentant for their sins in persecuting others for their faith and for denying them liberty in Christ.

The Church of England makers of the KJV accepted the Church of England's doctrine of baptismal regeneration kept from the Roman Catholic Church.