KJVO is alive and well here at the BB

[JD731]

You do not prove your personal, subjective conviction to be true. I am not a member of any Reformed group.

Perhaps the Scriptures are not needed for most of the arguments for human, non-scriptural KJV-only teaching. The fallacies evident in many KJV-only arguments are not in agreement with the doctrine of truth taught in Scripture.

The Bible doctrines of inspiration and preservation are misunderstood, misrepresented, and distorted by the added, human, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions that make up much of KJV-only teaching.

You are conflicted on the KJV, teaching with one hand it is a great and wonderful book and with the other that it is a concoction made by a bunch of Church of England heretics.

You title yourself Logos1560 and as far as I know you have never publicly quoted the Geneva 1560. Of course in your thousands of quotes you have rarely quoted any Bible. And you accuse me of being "human" taught. You cannot go back and find one human I have quoted in the last 10 years. I can finds scores of humans you quote (very selective humans) in a single post at times..

Sorry, logos1560, you have left me very unimpressed and I believe you to be very, very conflicted, and maybe somewhat confused.

 

[Logos1560]

Sorry, logos1560, you have left me very unimpressed and I believe you to be very, very conflicted, and maybe somewhat confused.

Your human efforts to advocate your KJV-only opinions has not impressed me and many other believers. Human KJV-only reasoning is inconsistent and conflicted. You state your own understandings, your own private interpretations, and your own opinions in your posts, and you are human.

It is a consistent application of KJV-only claims that would suggest that the KJV was made by a bunch of Church of England heretics. It is KJV-only advocates who suggest that Calvinists are heretics, and the great majority of the KJV translators were Calvinists. It is a consistent application of KJV-only claims that would suggest that the makers of the KJV borrowed many renderings from the heretics who made the Roman Catholic 1582 Rheims New Testament.

I am not at all conflicted concerning the KJV. I believe the truth concerning the KJV. I accept the KJV as what it actually is instead of trying to claim that it is something that it is not as KJV-only reasoning suggests. The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English.

 

[taisto]

Yeah, I think KJVO is pretty close to a cult. But I never question anyone's salvation. That is between them and Christ.
1. I am not crying.
2. I am just pointing out that I am tired of wading through the long, cut-and-paste posts of the Fire-Breathers. Why do people think they can cut and paste long detailed arguments and think anyone will read them?

Thou hast truly stepethed into the dung withest both feet, brother Piper.
Laughest-out-loudeth!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Thou hast truly stepethed into the dung withest both feet, brother Piper.
Laughest-out-loudeth!

peace on earth good will to men - Google Search

 

[Piper]

Do you read them? There is such a thing as the ‘Ignore Feature.’

No, but I have to scroll past them, and I see new posts on threads I am interested in and think, "Oh, good, someone to discuss this with." But then I see these 2 page cut and paste red and blue huge font posts.

 

[Piper]

Why do you allow this to disrupt your calm mental state. Personally, I don’t pay them any attention.

I will try and re-gain my calm mental state.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No, but I have to scroll past them, and I see new posts on threads I am interested in and think, "Oh, good, someone to discuss this with." But then I see these 2 page cut and paste red and blue huge font posts.

Why not confront him privately to discuss his possibly tuning it down…. Some of these folks are in religious societies that use KJ text exclusively so it becomes habitual. I’ve tried myself to wade through it all & I find it difficult.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I will try and re-gain my calm mental state.

View attachment 8934

Great but don’t fall off the hill!

 

[Piper]

Why not confront him privately to discuss his possibly tuning it down…. Some of these folks are in religious societies that use KJ text exclusively so it becomes habitual. I’ve tried myself to wade through it all & I find it difficult.

I have several times. And I am accosted as attacking the man. I tried the ignore feature, but it makes some threads hard to read.

 

[Alan Gross]

KJVO garbage

When you say "KJVO", where does it fall in Dr. Bob's rules for the
Bible Versions and Translations;
Definitions of KJV Only

Do you believe there is a KJVO #5 here on the BB?

Yeah, I think KJVO is pretty close to a cult

I would definitely have to agree, if we are defining KJVO by the following ideas of Peter Ruckman (each of which is downright crazy IMHO).

That would be Dr. Bob's #5 KJVO. ( in my writing colorations I use this yellowy color to quote things aI don't care for).

the KJV is doubly inspired;

the KJV is advanced revelation;

the English KJV is as or more inspired than the original language Scriptures;

the KJV can be used to correct the original language Scriptures;

there is no need whatsoever to study the Biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek due to an "inspired" English translation;

the KJV cannot be improved on (The Defined King James Bible edited by D A Waite and S H Tow and published by Bible For Today is certainly an improvement of the KJV);

the KJV is the only Bible that has gospel or salvific content;

those who do not use the KJV are condemned to hell; and

all non-English speaking believers must learn English to know the Truth.

from:
NON-RUCKMANITE ANSWERS TO ANTI-KJV QUESTIONS
Dr. Jeffrey Khoo

argue your position as a KJV preferred member.

I argue my KJV Superior position, dependent on the CHANGE in the underlying original texts, which were critiqued 100 years ago and judged by the author of Which Version, Philip Mauro, for which he had a contemptible condemnation, I believe.

He and I and others see the reasons for using some manuscripts in translating a version of the Bible as zero.

This fellow has a thoughtful article and calls himself a KJVO, simply because he prefers to use it and not the modern versions.

Do you see anyone who doesn't like the modern versions as being Peter Ruckmanites?

When people do this to me, I definitely put them on ignore immediately.

They aren't even beginning to try to think honestly.

This fellow defines what he intends to mean by KJVO.

Get the Title. Although he is nowhere near a Ruckmanite.
Why I Am King James Only
By Ken Matto, D. Min.

"Since I have become King James Only, I have heard many ridiculous accusations leveled against those who are King James Only by those who are Modern Version Only.

"I have heard things like we worship the King James Bible, it corrects the Greek, we are a cult, cults use the King James, we are King James nuts, King James was a homosexual, the King James translators did not have all the manuscripts we have today, they were not as educated as our scholars today, and probably many others which I cannot think of right now.

"What I want to do in this monograph is to give the reasons why I am a King James Only person.

"Basically what King James Only (KJO) really means* is that a Christian uses only the King James Bible for all applications which include preaching, teaching, studying, application to life, counseling, evangelism, literature ministry, etc.

"It has nothing whatsoever to do with worship of the King James Bible."

*Sometimes, in cases like this where they are not Ruckmanites.

 

[Logos1560]

"Basically what King James Only (KJO) really means* is that a Christian uses only the King James Bible for all applications which include preaching, teaching, studying, application to life, counseling, evangelism, literature ministry, etc.

He defines the term incorrectly since that is not at all what is meant by those who use the term to describe a certain view concerning the KJV. It is not reading only the KJV that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. Reading only the KJV would not identify the person’s view or beliefs concerning the KJV. It is not using only the KJV in teaching or preaching that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. It is not preferring the KJV that constitutes a KJV-only view.

What is soundly considered to constitute a KJV-only view would concern a person’s beliefs, opinions, and claims concerning the KJV (his exclusive only claims for it), not his reading only it or using only it in teaching or preaching. Since the KJV is an English Bible translation, the term KJV-only would be used soundly and correctly to describe a certain view or teaching concerning English Bible translations, not concerning Bible translations in other languages.

The accurate term KJV-only is used by Bible believers to define and describe any view that accepts or makes some type of exclusive claims for only 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. In practice, KJV-only advocates accept no other English Bible as being the word of God translated into English in the same exact sense (univocally) that they would claim only or solely for the KJV. In typical KJV-only reasoning/teaching, no other English Bible is accepted as equal in authority to the KJV as a translation.

 

[37818]

I use the KJV as my primary translation to study the written word of God. I am anti-KJVonlyism.

 

[JonC]

I argue my KJV Superior position

And that is perfectly fine.

My argument is that the KJV is not a good translation today because it fails one of its intended purposes - to provide a translation in the vernacular. I also argue that it is not the best translation insofar as the translators had to work with what they had. I argue that there translation errors and places where poor choices were made. I also argue that one of the purposes of the KJV - that is, to provide a Bible that supported the English monarchy - is troubling.

BUT I also acknowledge that the KJV is God's Word, and a beautiful translation of Scripture. I often use the KJV.

We can discuss pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses, of various translations. We can do so with the source materials as well.

What we cannot do is demean God's Word because we don't like a translation.

For example - It is one thing to argue that the NIV is a superior translation to the KJV and another to condemn the KJV (and vice versa).

 

[JonC]

I will try and re-gain my calm mental state.

View attachment 8934

Enhance your calm, @Piper . Enhance your calm.

 

[JD731]

I use the KJV as my primary translation to study the written word of God. I am anti-KJVonlyism.

You are a progressive Christian, no? Do you believe there is a personal Devil, an adversary, called Satan?

 

[37818]

You are a progressive Christian, no?

No. I believe in the verbal plenary God breathed written word of God being handed down to us from the original autographs.

 

[37818]

In order to be a King James Bible version onlyist, one must effectively deny the verbal plenary God breathed written word of God being handed down to us from the original autographs.

 

[robycop3]

On this board, same as in most Baptist congregations, there are both Freedom Readers and KJVOs. As a Freedom reader, I have a low opinion of the KJVO myth, as I KNOW it's false and man-made, with absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, and therefore I denounce it.

 

[JD731]

No. I believe in the verbal plenary God breathed written word of God being handed down to us from the original autographs.

I don't think you believe that at all.

 

[Piper]

In order to be a King James Bible version onlyist, one must effectively deny the verbal plenary God breathed written word of God being handed down to us from the original autographs.

I'd say it is handed down to us in the multiplicity of manuscripts that attest to the original autographs.