KJVO

[Yeshua1]

I am quite a big fan of James White (less so of Carson), but neither of them did anything of the sort.

The book by Rick Norris does that though!

 

[rlvaughn]

Which book, this one?
https://www.amazon.com/Unbound-Scriptures-Review-KJV-only-Publications/dp/0974546208

 

[Rippon]

I am quite a big fan of James White (less so of Carson), but neither of them did anything of the sort.

When I said they 'obliterated' the KJVO stance I did not mean that they blasted the KJVO out of existence, but in their separate works destroyed the foundations of the KJVO premise.

BB Warfield obliterated German rationalism in his may writings. Did he cause it to go away? No, but his work in the field totally debunked the premise and pretensions of that movement.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

I have read most of the books mentioned above.

I was at a conference with Dr. Dell Johnson while reading Norris' book. He asked if he could peruse it for a couple of nights. I agreed on the condition that he write any thoughts in the margin, which he did.

I have all three of David Sorenson's books on the version issue. I recommend them. I also have a book by Metzger on the other side of the issue.

My problem with many of the books mentioned above is that they use shallow arguments to defend the KJV. The KJV can be defended scholarly without resorting to taking verses out of context.

 

[Yeshua1]

Which book, this one?
https://www.amazon.com/Unbound-Scriptures-Review-KJV-only-Publications/dp/0974546208

That would be the one!

 

[Yeshua1]

I have read most of the books mentioned above.

I was at a conference with Dr. Dell Johnson while reading Norris' book. He asked if he could peruse it for a couple of nights. I agreed on the condition that he write any thoughts in the margin, which he did.

I have all three of David Sorenson's books on the version issue. I recommend them. I also have a book by Metzger on the other side of the issue.

My problem with many of the books mentioned above is that they use shallow arguments to defend the KJV. The KJV can be defended scholarly without resorting to taking verses out of context.

The big problems are that many Kjvo make it seem like any who do not agree with their view would be saying the Kjv id a bad version, we do see it as being a good translation, but NOT either without any mistakes/errors in it, nor the only transaltion approved by God for us to use!
And one can support beither a KJVP, but NOT KLJVO!

 

[Ready to Harvest]

However, those three seemtabee the best sellers of pro-KJVO stuff.

But they all fail on the MOST-IMPORTANT FACT that makes all pro-KJVO arguments moot: the lack of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO.

Read "Thou Shalt Keep Them." It isn't new and it is nothing but scriptural exposition for the doctrine of preservation of the original language words.

 

[Ready to Harvest]

Which book, this one?
https://www.amazon.com/Unbound-Scriptures-Review-KJV-only-Publications/dp/0974546208

Seems like he is a bit greedy on the price there

 

[Yeshua1]

Read "Thou Shalt Keep Them." It isn't new and it is nothing but scriptural exposition for the doctrine of preservation of the original language words.

That dctrine does NOT require the TR/KJVO position though to be true!

 

[Ready to Harvest]

That dctrine does NOT require the TR/KJVO position though to be true!

The doctrine they defend does. It says that every word has been preserved through usage of his churches since the words were inspired. This is scripturally defended. There were periods of hundreds of years that the texts now promoted as accurate were not used, so they are disqualified.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

The big problems are that many Kjvo make it seem like any who do not agree with their view would be saying the Kjv id a bad version...

I agree that you cannot stereotype proponents of the modern versions anymore that one should stereotype defenders of the KJV. They are as diverse as can be. One is of Ruckman, another of Cloud, another of Fuller, another of Gipp, another of Grady, another of Carter, another of Sightler, another of Streeter, another of Sorenson, another of Hills, etc... Each group having unique differences even among themselves.

I have found that the less one studies the issue for himself, the more likely he is to stereotype and make assumptions regarding the position of those on the other side of the debate (the same can be said of most debates).

I have, by the way, read authors who believe that the KJV is an inferior translation; albeit, they are few.

 

[Rhetorician]

How many of you have read books from reliable authors from both sides of the KJVO debate?

I would say that two books arguing against the KJV only debate would be
James White's the KJVO controversy
D.A. Carson's the King James Ony Debate
Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible by Mark Ward

Then for the side of the KJVO I would say
Faith vs the Modern Bible Versions by David Cloud
For love of the Bible by David Cloud
the KJV defended by Edward Hills
Defending the King James Bible by D.A. Waite

I do not consider G.A. Riplinger a good source for the KJVO position and Ruckman is definately iffy at the very least.

a worthy mention, though not necessarily a KJO position, is the Revision Revised by Dean Burgon, Dean Burgon utterly obliterated the Textual theories of Wescott and Hort in this book, and many of the textual choices made by Wescott and Hort that were destroyed by Dean Burgon have made their way into many of our modern translations.

I am just curious how many of us on both sides of this have read books from the other side?

What is really needed is John of Japan to jump in here and give his scholarly opinion of these many issues. He is qualified indeed to help all who seek wisdom and understanding on the topic.

sdg!

rd

 

[Yeshua1]

What is really needed is John of Japan to jump in here and give his scholarly opinion of these many issues. He is qualified indeed to help all who seek wisdom and understanding on the topic.

sdg!

rd

What is intresting is that he supports the Bzt text over the critical one, and yet he does not holkd to KJVO!

 

[Rippon]

What is intresting is that he supports the Bzt text over the critical one, and yet he does not holkd to KJVO!

Why would that be surprising? Holding to the Byzantine Priority has no bearing on favoring the KJVO position. Dr. Maurice Robinson, T.Cassidy and others denounce the KJVO stance.

 

[John of Japan]

I hold to Verbal Plenary Preservation. I reject Ruckmanism. I dont believe the KJV is the only valid Version. Plenty of other languages have God's preserved word. I also havent found anything textually wrong with the KJVER or KJ21.

If you are referencing the H. D. Williams/D. A. Waite VPP, those guys say they are open to other than the KJV, but in practice they defend the KJV as inerrant.

 

[John of Japan]

Might I encourage you to read Cloud or Waite for a more balanced viewpoint?

Sorry, but I don't find Waite to be balanced at all. For example, until she turned on them, the Dean Burgon Society sold all of that (heretical) woman preacher Riplinger's stuff.

And Williams viciously attacked me personally on Waite's website. My crime? I gave a bad Amazon review of his book on translation--because he was not a translator, and ignorant in the subject matter. Those people are unbalanced.

As someone on the side of KJVO, I would not recommend Riplinger, Ruckman or Gipp as sound defenders of the KJVO position.

And this we agree on.

 

[John of Japan]

What is really needed is John of Japan to jump in here and give his scholarly opinion of these many issues. He is qualified indeed to help all who seek wisdom and understanding on the topic.

sdg!

rd

Hi, Friend Rhet.

Thank you for the kind words. I'll jump in when I can--we're in the middle of our missionary conference right now.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Sorry, but I don't find Waite to be balanced at all. For example, until she turned on them, the Dean Burgon Society sold all of that (heretical) woman preacher Riplinger's stuff.

And Williams viciously attacked me personally on Waite's website. My crime? I gave a bad Amazon review of his book on translation--because he was not a translator, and ignorant in the subject matter. Those people are unbalanced.

And this we agree on.

That is true. Riplinger's books are garbage in my opinion. I do admit that I see some problems with Waite's writings as well now that I think about it. Can't say I have read anything by Williams. Waite's book on defending the KJV has good sections dealing with the KJV translators lingusitic skills, and the issue of the foundational language texts, I did feel like his section on KJV being better because of it's superior theology to be basically circular reasoning, he does have a good section on the translation technique of the KJV. I don't agree with everything Waite says, but he makes some good points. But personally, Cloud's books on the KJV are why I am KJVO.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I hold to Verbal Plenary Preservation. I reject Ruckmanism. I dont believe the KJV is the only valid Version. Plenty of other languages have God's preserved word. I also havent found anything textually wrong with the KJVER or KJ21.

the KJVER as far as I know, has an error in that it says Christ is a living spirit, while in the KJV it says quickening spirit. Living spirit is an error, to quicken means to make alive, the Greek word means to vitalize, to make alive, or to give life. living is an error.

Other than that I have not really seen problems with the KJVER.
I can't remember if it retains the singular and plural 2nd person pronouns or not, but I am a fan of retaining the thees and thous for clarity and accuracy.

 

[Rippon]

I am a fan of retaining the thees and thous for clarity and accuracy.

You don't use those words in daily conversation, do? In every language of the Bible or portion thereof, the goal is to communicate in the vernacular. Your pernickety little shibboleths need to be dropped.