KJVO question

[Logos1560]

And why do these men get so agitated when when we refer to the "King James Version," rather than calling it the "King James Bible?"

It may be a result or by-product of their human KJV-only reasoning or exclusive only claims for the KJV.

Some KJV-only advocates often do not even refer to the KJV as a version or as a translation as they may use only the name King James Bible for it, and they may suggest that only the KJV should be called the Bible.

KJV-only author Troy Clark asserted: “I will never call inspired Scripture a ‘version’” (Perfect Bible, p. 30). After referring to the King James Bible, Jim Ellis declared: “I don’t call it the King James Version” (Only Two Bibles, p. 17). D. A. Waite asserted: “I call the King James Bible the Bible” (Foes of the KJB, p. 44), but he also admitted: “The King James Bible is a translation” (p. 46). In a personal word in William Grady’s book Final Authority, Jack Hyles maintained that “the King James is not A version, but THE Bible” (p. iii).

D. A. Waite claimed: “The New King James Version is not a Bible, but a version” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 19), showing KJV-only inconsistency.

 

[Van]

Yet another whipping of a dead horse thread, going over the same ground. Like Calvinists, the KJVO crowd does not care about truth, they are in the my view, right or wrong, camp.

 

[robycop3]

What do the KJVO who believe that God miraculously preserved the KJV, but no other version, base that belief on?
How did they choose the KJV as the version they choose to believe this about?

They invented the idea, maybe after reading the jive of Ruckmen, Riplinger, etc.

They certainly didn't TRUTHFULLY get it from the KJV itself, as the KJVO myth is not found in the KJV whatsoever.

 

[George Antonios]

What do the KJVO who believe that God miraculously preserved the KJV, but no other version, base that belief on?
How did they choose the KJV as the version they choose to believe this about?

It's a good and just question, but let me ask you this:
How do you prove, along the same lines of evidence that you require of the KJVO position, that our 66-book canon is right?

 

[37818]

How do you prove, along the same lines of evidence that you require of the KJVO position, that our 66-book canon is right?

Interesting question. The KJV as a translation only goes to 1611. Our 66 Book Bible it's tradition to the first century at best.

 

[Reynolds]

Yet another whipping of a dead horse thread, going over the same ground. Like Calvinists, the KJVO crowd does not care about truth, they are in the my view, right or wrong, camp.

It is not. I asked a specific question about KJVO. All the rambling into other stuff is not my fault.
I will restate orig question more plainly.
What do KJV only base their belief on, of the 1611 translation process being inspired?

 

[Salty]

Interesting question. The KJV as a translation only goes to 1611. Our 66 Book Bible it's tradition to the first century at best.

and actually, the original 1611 included the 14 additional books
1611 KING JAMES VERSION (1611 BIBLE)

 

[George Antonios]

Interesting question. The KJV as a translation only goes to 1611. Our 66 Book Bible it's tradition to the first century at best.

So your answer is: "length of tradition".
But the Christian canon issue was settled by about 350AD, only 250 years after the last book was written, give or take.
We are now 400 years past 1611.
So the length of KJB tradition is longer now than it was circa 350AD when the canon was settled.

My point being this: we all live by faith (or lack thereof) at the end of the day, KJVOs and non-KJVOs alike.

 

[George Antonios]

and actually, the original 1611 included the 14 additional books
1611 KING JAMES VERSION (1611 BIBLE)

So your answer is also: "length of tradition".
How interesting...

Also, you know well that the 14 books were standard is most Bibles of the day and that they were set apart within the volume and identified as non-canon. Why not mention that?

 

[Salty]

So your answer is also: "length of tradition".
How interesting...

Also, you know well that the 14 books were standard is most Bibles of the day and that they were set apart within the volume and identified as non-canon. Why not mention that?

I am saying you are incorrect.
I simply stated that the original 1611 included the Apocrypha
but modern day KJO - 1611 - DO NOT consider the Apocrpha
My post has NOTHING to do tradition.

 

[George Antonios]

I am saying you are incorrect.

You began your post in line with @37818 with the word "and"

and actually

so that's why I thought you agreed with him.

I simply stated that the original 1611 included the Apocrypha

That's precisely my point of contention. You did not qualify that misleading statement.
You can still buy today KJB (and others) with the Apocrypha therein. So what?

 

[Reynolds]

It's a good and just question, but let me ask you this:
How do you prove, along the same lines of evidence that you require of the KJVO position, that our 66-book canon is right?

I am not attacking KJV. I use it more than any other version. I believe it is as good as any version. My question is, what do the branch of KJVO that believe in inspired translation, base that belief on?

 

[Salty]

You began your post in line with @37818 with the word "and"



so that's why I thought you agreed with him.



That's precisely my point of contention. You did not qualify that misleading statement.
You can still buy today KJB (and others) with the Apocrypha therein. So what?

much ado about nothing
as I tell my wife - thats what you get for thinking

 

[37818]

But the Christian canon issue was settled by about 350AD, only 250 years after the last book was written, give or take.

Then it would not be the word of God.
The New Testament books were accepted as Scripture when they were received by the first century receiptant church or churches and copies were made and given to other first century churches. Scripture was Holy Scripture when it was written. Not when those irregular 4th century churches wanted them as Scripture.

 

[JesusFan]

Then it would not be the word of God.
The New Testament books were accepted as Scripture when they were received by the first century receiptant church or churches and copies were made and given to other first century churches. Scripture was Holy Scripture when it was written. Not when those irregular 4th century churches wanted them as Scripture.

True, as the entire 66 inspired canonized books were all completed by end of first century, being copied and circulated around, and were already even then see as the scriptures from God

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Well, that could be said as a joke. But the truth is, if KJVonlyism was correct, the KJV would correct the Greek.

ok, I misunderstood you. I thought you were claiming that is something you believe was true.. I agree with you here.

Thank you and I ask forgiveness

 

[37818]

Thank you and I ask forgiveness

Brother I was not offended.

 

[Logos1560]

My point being this: we all live by faith (or lack thereof) at the end of the day, KJVOs and non-KJVOs alike.

KJV-only advocates put blind faith in assertions and claims that are not true, thus deceiving themselves.
They assume some of their claims through use of fallacies such as begging the question. The Scriptures warn believers about being deceived.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Yet another whipping of a dead horse thread, going over the same ground. Like Calvinists, the KJVO crowd does not care about truth, they are in the my view, right or wrong, camp.

Thank you for bringing your irrelevant anti-Calvinist comments to yet another thread, I can't wait to see what unrelated thread you shoe-horn them into next.

 

[Van]

Thank you for bringing your irrelevant anti-Calvinist comments to yet another thread, I can't wait to see what unrelated thread you shoe-horn them into next.

Yet another off topic effort to belittle others by the use of fallacious argumentation. And addressing those that read between the lines to pour their presuppositions into the text is the topic of this thread.