"KJV separates the men from the boys!"

AV1611Jim: Interesting.
KJVo is man made. So is KJV?
uh uh!
KJV is God's word therefore NOT man made.
Unless I misunderstood you.

I beg to differ.

God's word was made by God.

The KJV, an English translation of God's word, was made by 47 men whose names are known.

 

Texas Sky...

The MSS argument has been going on for several generations & is no more closer to being solved now than it was then. But let's look at some KJVO points about it that are proven wrong.

First, the KJVOs love to point to the scholarly attributes and qualifications of the AV translators...UNTIL THEIR WORK GOES AGAINST THE KJVO MYTH! An example...Many KJVOs say the LXX didn't exist in Biblical times. However, the AV men credit the making of the LXX to PTOLEMY PHILADELPH(Ruled Egypt 282-246 BC).

Next, some of'em automatically dismiss any mss that they believe have come from Alexandria as corrupt. Their problem: They cannot tell us with any truth if the cup is half-full or half-empty. They CANNOT prove which, if any, ms is corrupt. All they can do is GUESS.

And, about the tale of Sinaiticus being found in a trash can...they have NEVER considered the possibility that GOD might have WANTED it found, and that's why it wasn't destroyed centuries earlier. Same with Vaticanus. It's well-known that the RCC quickly destroyed any mss they considered corrupt. Now, WHY did they keep Vaticanus hidden for centuries? And if they DIDN'T consider it corrupt, why did they not preach from it? Again, could GOD'S hand be in it? The KJVOs simply won't consider those possibilities.

The whole KJVO myth is based upon misinformation, hearsay, fishing stories, DISHONESTY, and such guesswork as we have seen here. It certainly is NOT of GOD!

 

The Seventh-day Adventists also believe in the Trinity and the deity of Christ. Arguing guilt by association makes no better sense than arguing that the KJV is the one and only perfectly preserved Word of God. How can we expect to expose the KJO gang for what it really is if we think and argue as irrationally as they do?

 

Well, leave it up to the Baptists...

Oh, wait...I'm Baptist. Whoever and whenever it got started, KJVO is still loopy.

 

I don't think KJVO is all that loopy. It is human nature and a common Christian problem to overemphasize a good thing.

KJV, traditional music, modest dress, modelling the NT church, avoiding alcohol, etc.

 

The topic should read

"Thy Authorized version separateth thy men from thy sons."

 

It's one of your Kentucky colloquialisms?

HankD

 

Thomas,

The only evidence I've ever seen for KJVOism prior to 1930 (Wilkinson) is a quote of W.B. Riley's in which he makes reference to some (unnamed, if I recall correctly) late 19th century men whose stance in regards to the KJV has been taken much more recently to have been nascent KJVOism. It's unclear to me though from Riley's quote whether these men (whoever they were) can rightly be said to have been early KJVOnlyists; or whether they were what we would now simply term 'KJV-preferred'.

Do you know of any more definitive evidence of KJVOism prior to Wilkinson (names, quotes, etc)?

 

The CURRENT KJVO myth is based upon the party line of Wilkinson, Ray, and Fuller. Those latter two authors copied heavily from W's error-filled book, and, unlike their predecessors, had the power of modern media to help them hawk their wares.

Now, while I acknowledge without hesitation that there have been KJVOs ever since there's been a KJV, it was not a well-known nor popular stance till modern times. There was a long period when the KJV was "the Bible" to the English world, but as time passed and the language advanced, it was apparent that the KJV was being left behind, and new Bibles were made. Until the late 1950s, the KJVO issue was largely discussed in scholarly circles and didn't involve the general public too much. However, as sales of modern Bibles began to perk up, those who actually believed the KJVO myth began to team up with authors who recognized a "cash cow" to publish pro-KJVO stuff. With the help of modern media and printing mechinery that could turn out books by the million, the myth was established throughout the English-using world. This is the same myth that originated with Wilkinson, Ray, & Fuller, with some modern additions tacked on by the likes of Ruckman, Riplinger, and a few others. Most of the others simply re-package the old party line garbage into a differently-colored bag.

There were others before Wilkinson who insisted Psalm 12:7 is about God's words, but that view was little-known and less-believed before modern times.

As for the KJVO poster-boy, Dean John Burgon, he had but one modern Bible to consider...the RV...and even now, few believe it's a very good version. Burgon felt that the Textus Receptus could stand a thorough revision, and he was open to a new Bible being made that took ALL the mss known to him into account. He didn't live to see the newer Bibles now in use, and many other mss have been discovered since his death. I mention Burgon because some KJVOs recognize him as the founder of the current KJVO myth,(Dr. Waite's "Dean Burgon Society") which he was NOT.

While we should be cognizant of the fact that there were a smattering of KJVOs in the "old days", they drew very little attention in their lifetimes and there was not a core of "KJVOers" as there now is, who stick to the one set of doctrines, even though they've all been proven false. The current KJVO myth is a modern thing.

 

So, does that mean the devil inspired the KJB?

 

First: "KJVO" is not a "myth", unless you're in league to help create a myth.

Second: KJVO is not attributed to any man, or group of men, except where either has culminated the "myth"

We believe God when He said He preserved His Word: 100% Why don't you?

 

"...such fogies in Biblical knowledge are few, and their funerals are nigh at hand." -Riley

OUCH! I wasn't aware that Riley disagreed with them.

So is it our understanding, that by believing in the inerrancy of the KJV, that these men would have by extrapolation also denied that other translations are God's Word as well?

To my mind, that is the deciding factor as to whether they can rightfully be termed KJVO in the modern sense: did these 'old conception' men believe that ONLY the KJV was the Word of God?

 

Not. That is simply illogical and an insult of Great men of God's integrety, but I see that isn't quite discouraged here.

 

So, Frank, are you saying in reply to my question that modern KJVOism doesn't believe that ONLY the KJV is God's Word (at least for English-speaking peoples)? That seems at odds with everything I know in regards to KJVOism.