KJVO Authority

Even if one is a KJVO, the KJV is given no greater authority than any other translation.

But there are many people who are KJV preferred who get lumped into the KJVO category. KJVP folks know the difference.

 

perhaps it's more a question of emphasis. in my opinion the mv'er has to uphold the validity of each christian, relying on his own judgment, picking and choosing from all extant manuscripts and all possible definitions of all greek/hebrew words in their attempt to reconstruct the word of god. this provides, in many cases, plenty of wiggle room for many to effectively ignore or at least weaken whatever teachings they don't like. i have personally observed this with homosexual and feminst related issues.

the kjvo position is based more on a reasonable yet ultimately faith-based acceptance of the king james translation. a greater emphasis is placed on submitting to a trustworthy authority rather than relying on and exalting one's own textual/linguistic abilities.

but ultimately both groups exercise both mind and faith. imo, the modern versions / critical texts have the burden of proof to justify their extensive changes vis a vis the TR/KJV, and have failed to do so. modern godless theories of textual criticism will never supply a good enough reason to tamper with our received word of god.

[ March 26, 2003, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: timothy 1969 ]

 

So you mean to tell me that the KJV is of greater authority than the Greek and Hebrew it came from? Heresy.

 

So you mean to tell me that the KJV is of greater authority than the Greek and Hebrew it came from?

than all possible, yet incorrect, misinterpretations of the correct greek and hebrew, and all incorrect greek and hebrew texts? yes, that's exactly what i'm saying.

Heresy.

should i be exceeding glad?

 

Hmmm.... so the summation is that the texts the KJV translators used were imperfect, but the KJV they composed is perfect. Sounds Joseph Smith-ish to me.


So if I want to come up with a "perfect" German Bible, should I use the same texts as a sourse, or should I translate the KJV into German? And which of there would be a "perfect" translation? Or maybe only the us English speaking folks were given a perfect tralslation. Of course, since Elisabethan ENglish is no longer the King's (or Queen's) Enslish, then it seems English speakers don't have a perfect translation in their language at all.

Oh yeah, KJVOism makes total sense to me

 

Hmmm.... so the summation is that the texts the KJV translators used were imperfect, but the KJV they composed is perfect.

no, not really.

So if I want to come up with a "perfect" German Bible, should I use the same texts as a sourse, or should I translate the KJV into German?

neither you nor i can "decide" to make a perfect translation. i think a good, new translation in german would translate from original languages using the kjv to help select appropriate renderings.

And which of there would be a "perfect" translation? Or maybe only the us English speaking folks were given a perfect tralslation.

i have no opinion on other TR based translations, but given the history of the last 400 years does your supposition really seem so incredible?

Of course, since Elisabethan ENglish is no longer the King's (or Queen's) Enslish, then it seems English speakers don't have a perfect translation in their language at all.

this is a canard. everyone here can understand the kjv with minimal effort. imo, this age of apostasy would not be the best time to attempt an update of the language.

Oh yeah, KJVOism makes total sense to me

your rolly eyes communicates to me that you can't believe how stupid i am. is that really what you intended to communicate?

 

when did this start being true? By what authority do you say that the men in 1611 decided to make a perfect translation but men today cannot?? That doesn't seem to be based on good theological or logical reasoning.

 

Romans 8:16.

[ March 28, 2003, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

...i think a good, new translation in german would translate from original languages using the kjv to help select appropriate renderings.
And I think that a good german translation would tralslate from the original, regardless of the kjv or any other translation.

i have no opinion on other TR based translations, but given the history of the last 400 years does your supposition really seem so incredible?
That only English speaking folks were given a perfect translation? It sound not only ridiculous, but imperialistic.

everyone here can understand the kjv with minimal effort.
Then minimal effort will let anyone know that "We do you to wit" (2 Cor. 8:1) means "We make known to you." I suppose minimal effort will also tell anyone that "Let" means "to hinder" (it now means "to allow"), "Prevent" means "to go before" (it now means "to keep from happening"), that "Corn" means grain (not the crop grown today), or that "Brass" means "Bronze" (brass was not available yet). Or what about "Advertise" in Num 24:14, which meant to "advise", instead of the contemporary definition of solicitation via publication.

imo, this age of apostasy would not be the best time to attempt an update of the language.
Why not? Wouldn't this "age of apostacy" be the time when an updated version be most needed?

your rolly eyes communicates to me that you can't believe how stupid i am. is that really what you intended to communicate?
Not at all. It was meant to communicate my disapproval with the beief that the KJV is perfect and the only acceptible translation for the Christian.

 

Romans 8:16 ... Polyversionism = Cult

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
And this has what to do with versionism of any kind, be it poly or mono???

 

It has everything to do with the Spirit bearing witness to the truth;it's not rocket science.

[ March 28, 2003, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

Maybe to some extent. I use the NKJV primarily because I am not won over yet by arguments for the Alexandrian texts. On the other hand it could be that it is the KJV/NKJV/Byzantine texts that have added changes. 1 John 5:7 certaintly is an addition. Regardless neither family of manuscripts are heretical and there is no such thing as a perfect translation. Many KJV Only's are making the Anglican Church's authority greater than the Biblical writers when they claim KJV perfection and thus teach extra Biblical revelation.

 

Now that´s funny. There is a new Translation in Germany based on the TR only. It´s a very good translation (even better that Luther´s version ) But: Many German Christians are not satisfied with the choice the translators made with some words and think that the words found in the KJV would be a better choice.

Alex

P.S.
God bless America!

 

Well, I"ll never get used to calling Jesus "Mein Herr" (My Lord), but "Herr" is a more accurate translation of kurios than the Old English, "Lord". Today, we probably would have used "Master" (in the respective title sense), but referring to Jesus as Lord has stuck, even though many don't know what the word "Lord" effectually means, save the occaisional Madrigal Dinner or Renaissance Faire.

But hey, whatever sweetens your coffee... or should I say, was macht dein koffee suiss.

 

when did this start being true? By what authority do you say that the men in 1611 decided to make a perfect translation but men today cannot?? That doesn't seem to be based on good theological or logical reasoning. </font>[/QUOTE]The men in 1611 did not "decide to make a perfect translation"; they decided to do the best they could with the material they had to work with, and they were well aware of its imperfection (and of the implausibility of attaining complete and enduring perfection). They wrote an extensive essay to their readers that points this out. Of course, that essay is not canonical, not itself part of what we call the Word of God.

Haruo

 

when did this start being true? By what authority do you say that the men in 1611 decided to make a perfect translation but men today cannot?? That doesn't seem to be based on good theological or logical reasoning. </font>[/QUOTE]The men in 1611 did not "decide to make a perfect translation"; they decided to do the best they could with the material they had to work with, and they were well aware of its imperfection (and of the implausibility of attaining complete and enduring perfection). They wrote an extensive essay to their readers that points this out. Of course, that essay is not canonical, not itself part of what we call the Word of God.

Haruo </font>[/QUOTE]I agree. I was pointing out the inconsistency of arguing that we can't decide to make a perfect translation while arguing that there is a perfect translation that someone made in times past.

 

I agree. I was pointing out the inconsistency of arguing that we can't decide to make a perfect translation while arguing that there is a perfect translation that someone made in times past.

no inconsistency. the kjv translators did not decide to make a perfect translation. it was the providential work of god. can i prove it? no. i can't prove jesus was resurrected either. it's a matter of faith.