Men in our Church meet to discuss anything concerning the Scripture,

[Salty]

In another Thread Charlie 24 stated:

Twice a month the men in our Church meet to discuss anything concerning the Scripture, if you have a question this is the time to ask. ... Then I thought, I'm not the only one who tells this story. I'm not the only one who considers the KJV to be the only version for me.

So you only use the KJV? Because your dad did, your grandpa did, your great-grandfather did?
Have you actually read other versions?
The KJV has an overall reading level of about a College Freshman.
On the other end, I have used the Gods Word Translation which is based on a 4th grade level.
Used often iby Appalachia pastors; many who may have less than a HS diploma.

BTW - some 40% of junior college freshman needed to take remedial English classes.
Now, I call myself KJV-P - P= Preferred as like many my age - grew up with only the King James. BUT, then I did discovered other versions as well. I have found them to be helpful for several reasons. Only reason, there are some 400 obsolete words in the KJV

 

[Charlie24]

In another Thread Charlie 24 stated:

So you only use the KJV? Because your dad did, your grandpa did, your great-grandfather did?
Have you actually read other versions?
The KJV has an overall reading level of about a College Freshman.
On the other end, I have used the Gods Word Translation which is based on a 4th grade level.
Used often iby Appalachia pastors; many who may have less than a HS diploma.

BTW - some 40% of junior college freshman needed to take remedial English classes.
Now, I call myself KJV-P - P= Preferred as like many my age - grew up with only the King James. BUT, then I did discovered other versions as well. I have found them to be helpful for several reasons. Only reason, there are some 400 obsolete words in the KJV

Well good for you, Salty, I'm glad you find that helpful.

 

[Salty]

Well good for you, Salty, I'm glad you find that helpful.

and you dont?

 

[Ben1445]

I find that there are more people who are anti KJV than there are KJVO.
Without the definitions given by the BB I would say that I am KJVO. But when using BB definitions, I would be a KJV preferred.
I have never been able to find anything wrong with the KJV that would prevent me from using it. There are some issues with other versions that claim better reading levels but don’t have the same meaning as the KJV. It may be easier to read “The cat ate a meal.” But it doesn’t carry the same meaning as “the mountain lion consumed its entire prey.” Although the first technically means the same as the second, the second means much more than the first.
But I recognize that most people here are not saying don’t use the KJV. They are against the ruckman groups. So am I. But I don’t tear down the KJV to go after false teaching. I go after the false teaching. Satan doesn’t need any help attacking Christians. Let’s just focus on the real issues instead of tearing down the Bible.
I prefer the term Ruckmanisn instead of KJVOism. Call it what the problem is and don’t gather in these fringe problems.
I am not upset with people who go to churches that don’t use the KJV. But I don’t think I would like to recommend a church to anyone unless they did use the KJV. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t ever. It is just what I think is the best option. But that doesn’t make me a ruckmanite. I don’t see the value in tearing down people who use the KJV based on the version itself.

And I never met a serious Bible student that had never heard of a Websters 1828. I’ll allow that they might exist. But there are probably not many and I imagine there is turnover.

 

[Salty]

Let me make it clear, I am NOT Anti-KJV!
In fact, I do not know ANY Anti-KJV folks!
Yet many KJO will tear down non-KJO

So what is the difference between Ruckmanisn and KJVOism.

Quick question -
Suppose you have a friend that wants a recommendation for a good Bible-Believing church - but the closest KJO is over 50 miles away.
Yet, there are 5 Non-KJO only all within 10 miles - which church would you send them to?

and finally
Do you find the NKJV as an acceptable version - if not - than why not?

 

[Charlie24]

and you dont?

No, I don't find the other versions helpful, in fact, quite the opposite.

I've read portions, bits and pieces of the NAS and the NIV, but I've used the KJV so long before I tried the other versions that my mind can't grasp what's being said. That sounds strange I guess, but let me try and explain.

If you quote a verse from the KJV my mind automatically picks up on it and several other related verses and it takes place instantly.

If you quote any other version my mind can't relate to it, it's foreign to me. I have to go to the KJV for my mind to pick up on it and gather the context with the other associated verses and then I'm on it.

As I've said many times before here, the KJV is the only version I will use, but I'm certainly not against you using any version that works for you.

 

[Charlie24]

No, I don't find the other versions helpful, in fact, quite the opposite.

I've read portions, bits and pieces of the NAS and the NIV, but I've used the KJV so long before I tried the other versions that my mind can't grasp what's being said. That sounds strange I guess, but let me try and explain.

If you quote a verse from the KJV my mind automatically picks up on it and several other related verses and it takes place instantly.

If you quote any other version my mind can't relate to it, it's foreign to me. I have to go to the KJV for my mind to pick up on it and gather the context with the other associated verses and then I'm on it.

As I've said many times before here, the KJV is the only version I will use, but I'm certainly not against you using any version that works for you.

If you're going to use the KJV a Greek Lexicon is a must. There are key words in the KJV that requires you to work for what you learn.

When you've been at it long enough to study those keys words throughout the entire KJV there's no turning back, nothing else makes sense, and I'm not going to another version and confuse that pattern of thinking that flows like a river.

 

[Charlie24]

If you're going to use the KJV a Greek Lexicon is a must. There are key words in the KJV that requires you to work for what you learn.

When you've been at it long enough to study those keys words throughout the entire KJV there's no turning back, nothing else makes sense, and I'm not going to another version and confuse that pattern of thinking that flows like a river.

Sometimes, but not as often as I get older, I wonder why I read a post with the NAS, NIV, etc. and it just doesn't register, then I turn to the KJV and read it and feel my mind loading up from past studies. I can't explain it but that's exactly what happens.

 

[Ben1445]

Let me make it clear, I am NOT Anti-KJV!

I believe you. I read it in your first post.

In fact, I do not know ANY Anti-KJV folks!

I do.

Yet many KJO will tear down non-KJO

This is not helpful either. But there is one thing in their favor. They are consistent. They don’t say I can use any version I want but you can’t use yours. This double standard is what I see being the more offensive error.

So what is the difference between Ruckmanisn and KJVOism.

The focus.
KJVO ism emphasizes the version.
Ruckmanism emphasizes the teacher/teaching.

Using BB definitions there is really not supposed to be a difference. But there is a difference. It is attaching the name of a good translation to a bad teaching.

Quick question -
Suppose you have a friend that wants a recommendation for a good Bible-Believing church - but the closest KJO is over 50 miles away.
Yet, there are 5 Non-KJO only all within 10 miles - which church would you send them to?

I believe that I have already sent people to their within 10 miles churches.

I don’t recommend Ruckman churches (whether they claim him or not). There are enough churches around that I could recommend several locally.

and finally
Do you find the NKJV as an acceptable version - if not - than why not?

It is not acceptable to me. It is not one that I accept for my own use.
I am not saying that nobody else can. Our church doesn’t do a version check at the door. We don’t mandate a version to be carried. We do specify which will be taught. It is better when everyone knows what to expect. It is a bit extravagant to change versions every week or carry several Bibles to church.
Word choice affects the weight of the meaning.

 

[Salty]

In another Thread Charlie 24 stated:

Now, I call myself KJV-P - P= Preferred as like many my age - grew up with only the King James. BUT, then I did discovered other versions as well. I have found them to be helpful for several reasons. Only reason, there are some 400 obsolete words in the KJV

Opps, not sure, what I was thinking!
I am not really KJV-P
Rather I am KJV-T - T=Tradition.
As stated previous - us old folks grew up with the KJV - as that was the most used version.

 

[Salty]

I do.

I had stated i had never met an Anti-KJV individual.

So what have those individuals stated that makes them anti-KJV?

 

[JesusFan]

I find that there are more people who are anti KJV than there are KJVO.
Without the definitions given by the BB I would say that I am KJVO. But when using BB definitions, I would be a KJV preferred.
I have never been able to find anything wrong with the KJV that would prevent me from using it. There are some issues with other versions that claim better reading levels but don’t have the same meaning as the KJV. It may be easier to read “The cat ate a meal.” But it doesn’t carry the same meaning as “the mountain lion consumed its entire prey.” Although the first technically means the same as the second, the second means much more than the first.
But I recognize that most people here are not saying don’t use the KJV. They are against the ruckman groups. So am I. But I don’t tear down the KJV to go after false teaching. I go after the false teaching. Satan doesn’t need any help attacking Christians. Let’s just focus on the real issues instead of tearing down the Bible.
I prefer the term Ruckmanisn instead of KJVOism. Call it what the problem is and don’t gather in these fringe problems.
I am not upset with people who go to churches that don’t use the KJV. But I don’t think I would like to recommend a church to anyone unless they did use the KJV. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t ever. It is just what I think is the best option. But that doesn’t make me a ruckmanite. I don’t see the value in tearing down people who use the KJV based on the version itself.

And I never met a serious Bible student that had never heard of a Websters 1828. I’ll allow that they might exist. But there are probably not many and I imagine there is turnover.

ONLY those into KJVO