KJVOnly or KJV?

[Baptist4life]

While I agree with the anti-KJVOnly stance, I have to wonder if it's THAT you all find upsetting or is it the KJV itself? It seems that it's the KJV that gets all the ridicule, not the KJVOnly stance. Most of the posts here are about how the KJV is wrong or outdated in their translation. I notice when someone posts something in support of the KJV that it gets a lot of negative responses and the same people all post and support each other in their general dislike of the KJV. Surely you all can see this? I'm just wondering which it is?
I've used it my whole life and PREFER it because I am most familiar with it, and it seems that I'm a second class citizen in here because I like it. I'm NOT KJVO, but I've taken up a DEFENSE of it here, because it DOES seem, TO ME anyway, that it's being attacked or degraded on here. IMHO anyway. So which is it? Are most of you non-KJV users and choose to degrade those who like it? Frankly< I'm tired of reading posts praising the MV's while almost laughing at the KJV.

 

[thomas15]

.....I notice when someone posts something in support of the KJV that it gets a lot of negative responses and the same people all post and support each other in their general dislike of the KJV. Surely you all can see this? I'm just wondering which it is? .

What it is, is: Some folks on this forum think that if a poster states that they like the KJV and read the KJV but don't belive that it is the only correct translation of the Bible, this this is somehow anti-KJV.

That is what it is.

.....I've used it my whole life and PREFER it because I am most familiar with it, and it seems that I'm a second class citizen in here because I like it. I'm NOT KJVO, but I've taken up a DEFENSE of it here, because it DOES seem, TO ME anyway, that it's being attacked or degraded on here. IMHO anyway. So which is it? Are most of you non-KJV users and choose to degrade those who like it? Frankly< I'm tired of reading posts praising the MV's while almost laughing at the KJV.

No one has attacked the KJV that I can tell. What is being said is that there are translation errors in the KJV and there are some errors (or differences with other MS evidence) in the TR used to translate the KJV and that there are some translators bias in the translation itself. Also there is some obsolete vocabulary and out of date grammar. No one is calling you a second class person however some here are getting tired of the thin skin of those who think that anyone who will not fall on a sword for the KJV and who has nice things to say for the MVs is of the devil. Also, there is some justifiable criticism of some of the big name KJVO proponents and their scholarship or lack thereof.

Why is it that if someone says that they like the KJV or read the KJV but also like the NIV they are treated like tax collectors? That is the question you should be asking in my opinion.

I don't mean to come across as a mean guy, I'm just calling it the way I see it.

 

[Baptist4life]

Why is it that if someone says that they like the KJV or read the KJV but also like the NIV they are treated like tax collectors? That is the question you should be asking in my opinion.

I don't like the NIV.That is MY opinion, it has NOTHING to do with what others like. If you want to read that version, I have ZERO problems with that. I have a friend who I consider a VERY Godly man, who loves his NIV Study Bible. We have NO doctrinal disagreements and he believes EXACTLY the same as I do. I think the fact that he's been a Christian a much SHORTER time than I have has a lot to do with his preference. Meaning that the NIV was a prominent version when he got saved. I've been a Christian for 46 years and the KJV was pretty much "it" when I was growing up. Therefore I prefer and understand it very well. To each his own. I guess maybe I'm too sensitive, but it just seems like certain posters have disdain for those who use the KJV, with insinuations that there are better, more understandable versions available. What I'd like to see is someone admit that the KJV is an excellent translation that is perfectly fine for those who prefer it. I get tired of posters telling everyone that the KJV is "outdated" "past it's time" and "not understood by those who use it". That isn't true. To the average guy who picks it up, MAYBE he would have trouble with some of the words, but for those who've used it all our lives, it's as understandable as any version out there to us. A simple acknowledgment of that fact would be nice.

 

[Mexdeaf]

While I agree with the anti-KJVOnly stance, I have to wonder if it's THAT you all find upsetting or is it the KJV itself? It seems that it's the KJV that gets all the ridicule, not the KJVOnly stance. Most of the posts here are about how the KJV is wrong or outdated in their translation. I notice when someone posts something in support of the KJV that it gets a lot of negative responses and the same people all post and support each other in their general dislike of the KJV. Surely you all can see this? I'm just wondering which it is?
I've used it my whole life and PREFER it because I am most familiar with it, and it seems that I'm a second class citizen in here because I like it. I'm NOT KJVO, but I've taken up a DEFENSE of it here, because it DOES seem, TO ME anyway, that it's being attacked or degraded on here. IMHO anyway. So which is it? Are most of you non-KJV users and choose to degrade those who like it? Frankly< I'm tired of reading posts praising the MV's while almost laughing at the KJV.

Maybe you come across as more than a KJVO than a KJVP because of the nature of your postings. I am just calling it as I see it.

I personally cannot recall ever starting a thread that degraded the KJV. And may I state that I believe that comparing the KJV with other versions is just as worthy a project as comparing MV's with the KJV is.

I have been through the war, if I may call it that. I have been confronted with KJVO as a Bible college student, as a pastor and as a missionary. It was as a missionary that I came to understand the damage that the FALSE- I make no apologies for using that word, but it is what it is- the FALSE teaching of KJVOism that God has preserved His Word in one solitary single language and in one solitary single translation of that language.

I have seen the confusion it has caused on the mission field, the doubts that it has cast upon reliable and trustworthy (and some not quite so reliable and trustworthy, but that is all that they have) translations of God's Word, just because it does not measure up (in man's opinion) to the KJV. How can that be of God, who is not the author of confusion?

I don't think that ayone on this board hates the KJV. If there is someone that does a pox be upon them and their house. It is a beautiful and trustworthy translation, although not perfect just as NO translation is perfect. Like it or not, it has been bypassed by other more modern versions that use more modern English.

 

[mcdirector]

If you are happy with the KJV, then this is not a debate/discussion in which you must engage.

You don't have to read those posts.

Please know that I'm saying this in my sweetest kindest typing voice.

And the thing about being a Christian a long time - many of us have been too. Most of us were raised on the KJV. We just branched out. There are folks here who use the KJV out of preference and very much support MVs.

It must be the angle from which we approach the posts because I don't read any disrespect for the KJV in the posts to which you refer. I read information that broadens my understanding.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I don't like the NIV.That is MY opinion, it has NOTHING to do with what others like. If you want to read that version, I have ZERO problems with that. I have a friend who I consider a VERY Godly man, who loves his NIV Study Bible. We have NO doctrinal disagreements and he believes EXACTLY the same as I do. I think the fact that he's been a Christian a much SHORTER time than I have has a lot to do with his preference. Meaning that the NIV was a prominent version when he got saved. I've been a Christian for 46 years and the KJV was pretty much "it" when I was growing up. Therefore I prefer and understand it very well. To each his own. I guess maybe I'm too sensitive, but it just seems like certain posters have disdain for those who use the KJV, with insinuations that there are better, more understandable versions available. What I'd like to see is someone admit that the KJV is an excellent translation that is perfectly fine for those who prefer it. I get tired of posters telling everyone that the KJV is "outdated" "past it's time" and "not understood by those who use it". That isn't true. To the average guy who picks it up, MAYBE he would have trouble with some of the words, but for those who've used it all our lives, it's as understandable as any version out there to us. A simple acknowledgment of that fact would be nice.

Sorry sir, but that is your opinion only, unless you can find some REPUTABLE evidence to back up those claims.

I acknowledge that folks who have used it all their lives may understand it very well. I used the KJV exclusively for the first 20 years of my Christian life before I went to the mission field and started using the Reina-Valera 1960. I still think in KJV although I now use the ESV and NIV more.

 

[annsni]

I think the KJV is a wonderful version - and a faithful one for many to use. I find no fault with the KJV. I DO take issue with those who say that the KJV is the only version that is valid, that the other versions are "perversions" and that God stopped working in 1611 (not in those words but the KJVO stance says just that, IMO). I have used the KJV and know many verses in that version thanks to my going to Christian school in the 70s as a youngster. However, I've seen the truth of the fact that there are other versions out there that are more accurate to the language of today. Some of the newer versions are easier for a reader today to understand since we don't speak that sort of KJV language. I personally am enjoying the ESV and also use the NIV, NASB and NKJV.

I've never seen anyone attack the KJV other than saying that the language is outdated (it is - that's a fact) and that there are other versions that are easier to understand in today's language. That's all. It's the KJVO stance that we do not support. The fact that you posted the "interesting article" that you did that contains untruths and support of a well-known rabid KJVOliest has made you seem to stand out as a KJVOlier too. I'm sorry if I've mistaken your views on that. I certainly did not find that article interesting or a "good read", honestly, and it shows a very extreme, extrabiblical teaching that is attacking God's Word.

 

[Baptist4life]

Sorry sir, but that is your opinion only, unless you can find some REPUTABLE evidence to back up those claims.

OK, this good enough for you?

More contrasts with the KJV. I'm just giving added weight to the fact that the Anglican Version is woefully out-of-date. A contemporary English reader of Scripture needs to study a more modern version so that understanding will result.The KJV family has had its day.

 

[Dale-c]

When people take the KJV alone = God's Word Alone idea then any one who says anything short of this is attacking the Word of God.


I have not seen any one here attacking the KJV.

B4L, could you cite someone who has attacked the KJV?

 

[Baptist4life]

I have not seen any one here attacking the KJV.

B4L, could you cite someone who has attacked the KJV?

OK, I'm DONE with guys on here! Apparently you only see what you want to see. THIS to me is an ATTACK on the KJV.

Originally Posted by Rippon

More contrasts with the KJV. I'm just giving added weight to the fact that the Anglican Version is woefully out-of-date. A contemporary English reader of Scripture needs to study a more modern version so that understanding will result.The KJV family has had its day.

I've seen people post similar things about MV's and they get chastised badly for it. I won't continue to try to converse with people who are blind by choice. :BangHead:

 

[Rippon]

I have not seen any one here attacking the KJV.

B4L, could you cite someone who has attacked the KJV?

Yeah Dale-c,I'd like BFL to offer some proof of attacks made against the KJV here on the BB.

 

[Salty]

Originally Posted by Rippon

More contrasts with the KJV. I'm just giving added weight to the fact that the Anglican Version is woefully out-of-date. A contemporary English reader of Scripture needs to study a more modern version so that understanding will result.The KJV family has had its day.

I do not see that statement as an attack. You MUST admit there are several words in the KJV that are archaic - words that have a better translation in modern contemporary language.

Like yourself, I was brought up on KJV - and I still prefer it - though I do use several other versions as well. Currently, I preach out of the NJKV

In Post # 3 you said:

To the average guy who 
picks it up, MAYBE he would have 
trouble with some of the words

That is the exact reason it is not a "perfect translation".

Looks like we will just have to agree to disagree.

Salty

 

[preachinjesus]

While I agree with the anti-KJVOnly stance, I have to wonder if it's THAT you all find upsetting or is it the KJV itself? It seems that it's the KJV that gets all the ridicule, not the KJVOnly stance.

I don't care for the King James Version. I don't like the renderings and find the language archaic. As well there are places where I think the translators just missed it when it came to certain areas.

As well I don't have a problem critiquing mankind's versions of God's revelation. The Bible, regardless of its version, is just a book and not divine. It is reasonable to be respectful of the text but critical of its translation.

I have no problem critiquing other versions, including the one I use on Sundays. These are just mankind's translations of the original.

As for the King James Only stance...it is anathema and not even something I care to engage in because of the poor history, logic, and theology behind it.

 

[Logos1560]

THIS to me is an ATTACK on the KJV.


Originally Posted by Rippon

the Anglican Version is woefully out-of-date.
Why do you consider that statement an attack? The KJV can accurately and factually be called "the Anglican Version" since all the translators of the 1611 KJV were members of the Church of England [or Anglican Church]. Examples have been given in some other threads about how those Church of England views of the translators may have influenced the translating in at least a few cases.

The KJV does have many archaic words and phrases; therefore, it does have out-of-date language in many cases. The KJV has more archaic words than most KJV-only advocates admit, and it is not understood as easily as some claim. Even KJV-only authors, who claim to have studied the meaning of the words in the KJV, will disagree about the claimed meaning of some archaic words used in the KJV. The average KJV reader even if he grew up reading the KJV is less likely than a person who studied the archaic words to know their meaning.

Perhaps the adverb "woefully" in the statement could be considered stronger than necessary.

The statement definitely is not as strong of negative statement about the KJV as some KJV-only advocates will post about modern versions.

 

[Amy.G]

Originally Posted by Rippon
More contrasts with the KJV. I'm just giving added weight to the fact that the Anglican Version is woefully out-of-date. A contemporary English reader of Scripture needs to study a more modern version so that understanding will result.The KJV family has had its day.

Here is why this statement could be interpreted as an attack:

woe⋅ful   
–adjective 1. full of woe; wretched; unhappy: a woeful situation.
2. affected with, characterized by, or indicating woe: woeful melodies.
3. of wretched quality; sorry; poor: a woeful collection of paintings.

Also saying that the KJV has "had it's day" could be interpreted to mean that it is no longer a viable version and should be discarded.


If someone were to say that MV's are "woeful" and have had their day, it would be considered an attack on modern versions.



I think B4L has a valid point.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi preachinjesus

In this response, you have demonstrated the best reason in the world, to be KJVO.

The moment a person, starts believing the lies told about the Bible, and turns from there KJVO stance, this is how they start looking at God’s word.........

Qt. preachinjesus
“The Bible, regardless of its version, is just a book and not divine. It is reasonable to be respectful of the text but critical of its translation.”

--------------------------------------------------
For your information, the Bible is divine.

It is a supernatural book, that can change peoples lives, if they believe it.

You call yourself, “preaching Jesus”, but “what do you preach from”, if your Bible is not divine?
--------------------------------------------------
This is the problem that we are facing today:

Most preachers, are out there, convincing people that the Bible can not be trusted, yet at the same time they are telling people, to “trust Jesus for salvation”.

Is it any wonder, that Islam, is the world’s fastest growing religion!?!?

 

[EdSutton]

While I agree with the anti-KJVOnly stance, I have to wonder if it's THAT you all find upsetting or is it the KJV itself? It seems that it's the KJV that gets all the ridicule, not the KJVOnly stance. Most of the posts here are about how the KJV is wrong or outdated in their translation. I notice when someone posts something in support of the KJV that it gets a lot of negative responses and the same people all post and support each other in their general dislike of the KJV. Surely you all can see this? I'm just wondering which it is?
I've used it my whole life and PREFER it because I am most familiar with it, and it seems that I'm a second class citizen in here because I like it. I'm NOT KJVO, but I've taken up a DEFENSE of it here, because it DOES seem, TO ME anyway, that it's being attacked or degraded on here. IMHO anyway. So which is it? Are most of you non-KJV users and choose to degrade those who like it? Frankly< I'm tired of reading posts praising the MV's while almost laughing at the KJV.

Am I the only one who finds it the least bit strange that one who claims to prefer the KJV, has not in the last 75 posts he made quoted one single verse from an authentic KJ-1611? Nor has quoted any complete verse, at all, from any edition of the KJV, in 74 of those 75 posts?

Does that seem to not add up, somehow, or is it just me??

FTR, I did read every one of the last 75 posts you made, before responding, here. After that, I really could see no good reason to take any more time to read the remaining 40.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I've been a Christian for 46 years and the KJV was pretty much "it" when I was growing up.

That would mean you became a Christian in 1962, if my math skills are correct, which is around the same time as me.

FTR, regardless of exposure, background, or preference, the only English Bible and/or NT around in say, 1965, was the KJV
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
well that is, at least provided you do not count the -

RSV
ASV
Berkley
'Moffat'
'Goodspeed'
DBY
Phillips
Williams
RV
Beck
YLT
NASV (now NASB)
Weymouth
AMP
RV
D-R
NWT
Knox
JPS
BBE

plus many more than the 20 I have listed.

Were any of them available? Yes, for I personally purchased "off the shelf" at least 10 different versions of those above, counting the KJV, in the first several years that I was a Christian.

Ed

 

[thomas15]

..... To the average guy who picks it up, MAYBE he would have trouble with some of the words, but for those who've used it all our lives, it's as understandable as any version out there to us. A simple acknowledgment of that fact would be nice.

Well Baptist4Life, I have been a Christian for much less time than you but still for over 30 years. In those 30, I have had more than a few episodes of backsliddenist (a word that I just made up). The thing is my friend, I didn’t have parents who took me to church every week from the time of my birth. If I had been so blessed, then I may very well be a lot more comfortable with the KJV than I am today. But still, I own many copies of the KJV and even have a copy of the 1611 reprint. My first Bible was a KJV. I struggled with it for several months and finally purchased a copy of the (horror) Living Bible. It was with the LB in hand that I accepted Christ as Savior in 1977.

In an effort to understand the KJVO perspective, I have read several books from both sides of the issue. I have researched the TR and other translations and still cannot agree with those who proclaim KJVO. But that is just me and I do not fault anyone who enjoys the KJV best.

Not to brag, but I spend a minimum of 15 hours per week studying the Bible. I don’t think it could be said I’m lazy but I feel that my study time is better spent studying the text and not looking up words in the dictionary. I’m on track to finish reading the Bible from Gen 1 to Rev. 22 by Dec 31. This will be the second full reading of the Bible in 2008 for this camper.

It could be said of me that I’m at least of average IQ. However, I think for today it is better to use an MV for witnessing as those who are not saved have no idea what we are talking about when we speak 17th century English. Revival is from the Lord, not man and not man’s languages.

The last thing I want to do is offend anyone. For that reason, when I attend a KJVO church, there is one within walking distance of my home, I take a KJV with me. I don’t take a Geneva translation or Tyndale or even my original spelling KJV 1611. No, I take my 1769 BB update. I don’t agree with their position but I get no pleasure debating the issue with them. This is what they believe and I respect their right to believe it. To me it is the fundamentals of the faith that are important. Using a particular translation of the Bible in English is not a fundamental of the faith.

In my opinion Baptist4Life, I don’t think anyone wants you to quit this forum, I know I don’t. I’m not a big poster here. I do think you would be well served though by taking a deep breath and acknowledge that we are saved by grace through faith in the risen Christ. Not by works, not by attitude and not by a particular version of the Bible. The translation of the Holy Bible called the King James Version was not available to any man for the first 1600 years of the church age, and then it is still after 400 years only available to those who speak the English language.

Tom

 

[Mexdeaf]

Well Baptist4Life, I have been a Christian for much less time than you but still for over 30 years. In those 30, I have had more than a few episodes of backsliddenist (a word that I just made up). The thing is my friend, I didn’t have parents who took me to church every week from the time of my birth. If I had been so blessed, then I may very well be a lot more comfortable with the KJV than I am today. But still, I own many copies of the KJV and even have a copy of the 1611 reprint. My first Bible was a KJV. I struggled with it for several months and finally purchased a copy of the (horror) Living Bible. It was with the LB in hand that I accepted Christ as Savior in 1977.

In an effort to understand the KJVO perspective, I have read several books from both sides of the issue. I have researched the TR and other translations and still cannot agree with those who proclaim KJVO. But that is just me and I do not fault anyone who enjoys the KJV best.

Not to brag, but I spend a minimum of 15 hours per week studying the Bible. I don’t think it could be said I’m lazy but I feel that my study time is better spent studying the text and not looking up words in the dictionary. I’m on track to finish reading the Bible from Gen 1 to Rev. 22 by Dec 31. This will be the second full reading of the Bible in 2008 for this camper.

It could be said of me that I’m at least of average IQ. However, I think for today it is better to use an MV for witnessing as those who are not saved have no idea what we are talking about when we speak 17th century English. Revival is from the Lord, not man and not man’s languages.

The last thing I want to do is offend anyone. For that reason, when I attend a KJVO church, there is one within walking distance of my home, I take a KJV with me. I don’t take a Geneva translation or Tyndale or even my original spelling KJV 1611. No, I take my 1769 BB update. I don’t agree with their position but I get no pleasure debating the issue with them. This is what they believe and I respect their right to believe it. To me it is the fundamentals of the faith that are important. Using a particular translation of the Bible in English is not a fundamental of the faith.

In my opinion Baptist4Life, I don’t think anyone wants you to quit this forum, I know I don’t. I’m not a big poster here. I do think you would be well served though by taking a deep breath and acknowledge that we are saved by grace through faith in the risen Christ. Not by works, not by attitude and not by a particular version of the Bible. The translation of the Holy Bible called the King James Version was not available to any man for the first 1600 years of the church age, and then it is still after 400 years only available to those who speak the English language.

Tom

I salute you, Sir. Eloquently spoken. And my sentiments exactly.