Should KJVO be called a cult?

[jbh28]

The church members believe it. Some like myself believe it because they believe God has promised to preserve his word to all generations, and we believe the KJB is that preserved word in English. Others probably believe because that is what they have been taught.

I won't use any other version. When I got saved 50 years ago, at first I had several different versions and that caused me to be confused. That is why I studied the subject. I came to believe the KJB is the preserved word of God in English.

No, lots of folks come to our church with other versions, nobody says a word to them. They can use whatever they want. Now, if they wanted to get up and preach from another version, that might cause some heads to turn.

One thing that concerns me is that those that are not kjv only will condemn those that choose to be so. What is written above, I don't have a problem with. I don't agree with it, but there's nothing wrong with a church wanting to only use the KJV. Obviously I don't agree with Winman on his first paragraph here, but I do have respect for a church that wouldn't condemn someone if they choose to read from another version. My church actually used the KJV. I read the ESV, but use the KJV when I teach. (yay for my ipad!)


As for the OP, no, KJVO(like what Winman has posted above) shouldn't be called a cult. There are some(Ruckman) that are more like a cult.

Generally speaking, I would say they are misguided and in error. Some KJVO churches are antagonistic towards those they consider to be in error. Case in point: there is a church on a back road to Annapolis, MD that has sign on their property that reads: "We only use the 1611 Authorized Version". What they are actually communicating to the public is, "We use the KJV, and if you do not, you are not welcome."

My though whenever I see a 1611 sign is, no you don't.

sometimes I wish they would read the 1611 are more importantly the margin notes and the preface. A lot of dumb ideas would go away quickly.

 

[KRJ]

There are some(Ruckman) that are more like a cult.

"Charity suffereth long, and is kind....." I love my King James Bible and I don't like Ruckman. He tests my charitable spirit.

My though whenever I see a 1611 sign is, no you don't.

I've always believed I was using a 1769 edition. I consider the 1611 version to be the document handwritten by the translators commissioned by King James. As far as I know, it does not exist. But is the 1769 edition an accurate rendition of the 1611 version with edits in 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769 for spelling and punctuation?

sometimes I wish they would read the 1611 are more importantly the margin notes and the preface. A lot of dumb ideas would go away quickly.

"In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters."

Now, if I could only get that first s in darkenesse to look like a long f.

 

[Winman]

I am still waiting on a Scripture reference that the KJV is the preserved Word in English.

One more questioned - why was the "preserved version" not even translated for well over 1400 years after the cannon was closed?

Salty

and I wont even get into which are the "preserved Word of God in other lanuages"

OK, let me see if I can explain this so you will understand (doubtful). I believe there are numerous scriptures that promise God will preserve his word to all generations. The most famous of course is Psa 12:6-7

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Now, I know you disagree with my interpretation of this scripture. And I disagree with yours. That is called a "tie".

Now, you are correct, it doesn't tell me where that preserved word is, or what it is called.

So how in the world am I gonna figure out which version is that preserved version God promised?

Well, for a long time I read lots of fancy books that made my head hurt. Some argued for the KJB, some argued against it.

Now, in my opinion, the folks supporting the KJB came out WAY ahead, the TR comes out way ahead of the CT in my opinion. But opinions are like natural gas, the only ones you like are your own. :laugh:

But there were other factors. One that rang true for me was history. I saw that the KJB came to prominence just as England became the world's first GLOBAL superpower. The sun never sat on the English Empire, and the Bible they took with them to the whole world was the KJB. And then America became the great missionary nation, taking the gospel to the world, and more so than not, it was the KJB they took with them.

The MVs cannot compete here, they are minor leagues compared to the KJB in history.

The great revivals came under the KJB.

But in the end, I realized that I could not PROVE which was that preserved version. All I knew is that ONE of them had to be the right one. It is not possible that the scriptures should both CONTAIN and OMIT the last 12 verses of Mark 16. Can't be done fellas, no matter how hard you try.

So make up your mind, they can't ALL be the preserved word of God.

I've made up my mind, and I'm going with the KJB. :thumbs:

 

[Winman]

Hehe.:laugh: I like you. You're funny.

Thanks, lot's of folks take themselves real serious all the time.

NEVER trust anyone who does not have a sense of humor, or thinks they're right all the time.

 

[Winman]

Hehe.:laugh: I like you. You're funny.

I like the kid sitting on the front bench with the light blue shirt on. You can tell he was invited by a friend and doesn't have a clue what's going on. He is wondering if he is in a madhouse! :laugh:

 

[KRJ]

But there were other factors. One that rang true for me was history. I saw that the KJB came to prominence just as England became the world's first GLOBAL superpower. The sun never sat on the English Empire, and the Bible they took with them to the whole world was the KJB. And then America became the great missionary nation, taking the gospel to the world, and more so than not, it was the KJB they took with them.

The MVs cannot compete here, they are minor leagues compared to the KJB in history.

The great revivals came under the KJB.

Can we trust circumstantial evidence?

From Holland vs US (1954):

"Circumstantial evidence in this respect is intrinsically no different from testimonial evidence. Admittedly, circumstantial evidence may in some cases point to a wholly incorrect result. Yet this is equally true of testimonial evidence. In both instances, a jury is asked to weigh the chances that the evidence correctly points to guilt against the possibility of inaccuracy or ambiguous inference. In both, the jury must use its experience with people and events in weighing the probabilities. If the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, we can require no more."

Circumstantial evidence. You can have a hanging on it.

 

[Winman]

Can we trust circumstantial evidence?

From Holland vs US (1954):

"Circumstantial evidence in this respect is intrinsically no different from testimonial evidence. Admittedly, circumstantial evidence may in some cases point to a wholly incorrect result. Yet this is equally true of testimonial evidence. In both instances, a jury is asked to weigh the chances that the evidence correctly points to guilt against the possibility of inaccuracy or ambiguous inference. In both, the jury must use its experience with people and events in weighing the probabilities. If the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, we can require no more."

Circumstantial evidence. You can have a hanging on it.

I wouldn't equate which Bible you prefer to a hanging. I am not sure this is a valid form of argument.

And circumstantial evidence is often correct.

 

[Winman]

Look if you guys want to read another version, I don't care. I don't start threads on the subject, read whatever you want.

But a church should be able to decide which version it wants to use, if only that everyone will be on the same page literally.

And what do you care if someone only believes in the KJB? If you believe the NIV is the only correct version, I don't care, believe what you want.

But one thing you can't argue is that the MVs and the KJB are the same thing. The scriptures can't both CONTAIN and OMIT the last 12 verses of Mark. That is impossible.

 

[KRJ]

I wouldn't equate which Bible you prefer to a hanging. I am not sure this is a valid form of argument.

Point taken. I just meant to show that circumstantial evidence can not be dismissed.

And circumstantial evidence is often correct.

That was my point. It is often correct. And sometimes incorrect. As is testimonial evidence. Testimonial evidence, as it is related to this thread, would be a recognized expert in textual criticism saying that one text is superior to another. He may be right.....or not.

 

[Winman]

Point taken. I just meant to show that circumstantial evidence can not be dismissed.

That was my point. It is often correct. And sometimes incorrect. As is testimonial evidence. Testimonial evidence, as it is related to this thread, would be a recognized expert in textual criticism saying that one text is superior to another. He may be right.....or not.

I must have misunderstood you. Sorry.

One thing I quickly realized when I studied this issue many years ago is that neither side can PROVE their view. In the end it is a matter of faith.

I believe there are a lot of scriptures that say God will preserve his word.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Look at this warning. If you add to God's word, God will add his plagues to you. If you take away from God's word, God will take your part out of the book of life.

These verses imply that you can know the word of God and identify it. How else could you know if you added or took away from it?

So, while it doesn't directly say God will preserve his word, it absolutely implies it.

So, God's preserved word has to be out there somewhere. And of all the versions I have seen, I believe the KJB presents the best evidence for being that preserved version in English.

My 2 cents.

 

[evenifigoalone]

One thing I quickly realized when I studied this issue many years ago is that neither side can PROVE their view. In the end it is a matter of faith.

True. It's not an entirely cut and dried issue. Both sides make good arguments.

 

[Winman]

True. It's not an entirely cut and dried issue. Both sides make good arguments.

The debates we have here often illuminate the differences between the KJB and the MVs. Just today in another thread another poster said the KJB interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:13 was wrong, and that his NASB was correct.

These same folks will come on this forum and try to tell you they all say the same thing and no doctrines are affected.

Read which version you want. And let me read the version I want.

 

[jbh28]

I've always believed I was using a 1769 edition. I consider the 1611 version to be the document handwritten by the translators commissioned by King James. As far as I know, it does not exist. But is the 1769 edition an accurate rendition of the 1611 version with edits in 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769 for spelling and punctuation?

It's mostly spelling and punctuation, but there are word differences.

Amazon and a few other places have copies. Not original, but the 1611 edition.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1565638085/?tag=baptis04-20

Here's a scanned image of original 1611
http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible

I have a copy of 1611, it was a cheap paper back for the 400 year anniversary. Has everything but the aprographa. Pretty cool though.

 

[jbh28]

OK, let me see if I can explain this so you will understand (doubtful). I believe there are numerous scriptures that promise God will preserve his word to all generations. The most famous of course is Psa 12:6-7

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Now, I know you disagree with my interpretation of this scripture. And I disagree with yours. That is called a "tie".

Well, yes your interpretation is wrong(even says so in the KJV margin notes ) But the doctrine you are speaking of is true and taught elsewhere in the Bible.

Now, you are correct, it doesn't tell me where that preserved word is, or what it is called.

So how in the world am I gonna figure out which version is that preserved version God promised?

Here's your error. No where in the Bible does it say that a version will be the preserved version God promised. He never promised a "version." So you have started out with a false premise. This is the major flaw with most KJV Only literature. It starts you out with this false promise. It sounds good, but completely false. This is why questions like "where was this promised version before 1611 KJV" get asked. It's there because if God promised a "version" we would have to have one before 1611. Of course we don't, and thus the interpretation that God promised a version is false.

Well, for a long time I read lots of fancy books that made my head hurt. Some argued for the KJB, some argued against it.

Now, in my opinion, the folks supporting the KJB came out WAY ahead, the TR comes out way ahead of the CT in my opinion. But opinions are like natural gas, the only ones you like are your own. :laugh:

The KJV came out ahead because you believed the false premise.

But there were other factors. One that rang true for me was history. I saw that the KJB came to prominence just as England became the world's first GLOBAL superpower. The sun never sat on the English Empire, and the Bible they took with them to the whole world was the KJB. And then America became the great missionary nation, taking the gospel to the world, and more so than not, it was the KJB they took with them.

The MVs cannot compete here, they are minor leagues compared to the KJB in history.

The great revivals came under the KJB.

That's just because the KJV was the version mostly being used at that time. The modern version were not around back then, so not a fair comparison. I guess we shouldn't use computers to any type of digital technology to give the gospel since it wasn't used during those times.

But in the end, I realized that I could not PROVE which was that preserved version. All I knew is that ONE of them had to be the right one.

Again, not correct. No version has to be this. God promised to preserved His words. They are preserved today just as they were before the KJV ever came out, just like before any English version came out.

It is not possible that the scriptures should both CONTAIN and OMIT the last 12 verses of Mark 16. Can't be done fellas, no matter how hard you try.

Never heard anyone say that. Not sure why you bring this up. No one says that they were and were not original writings. No one.

 

[Rippon]

If you believe the NIV is the only correct version, I don't care, believe what you want.

In the world of English translations the most radical proponents of the KJV cannot be matched. There is no group saying that any other version is THE correct one.

 

[Rippon]

It's not an entirely cut and dried issue. Both sides make good arguments.

Are you new to the subject by any chance? ;-)

 

[Rippon]

we believe the KJB is that preserved word in English.
I came to believe the KJB is the preserved word of God in English.

That kind of nonsensical belief is so irrational. Does every language group have to have "the preserved Word of God" for their native speakers? Do the Japanese, Chinese, German, French, Russian, Italian etc. have to have a particular translation that is THE definitive Bible?

This notion of the preserved Word of God in English is so in need of being debunked once and for all. If it is a cherished doctrine for you --then it needs to be applied across the board for all language groups....but that is not the case is it? You lose winman. ;-)

 

[evenifigoalone]

Are you new to the subject by any chance? ;-)

Not really. Grew up KJO, not KJO since about last year. I respect that people can do what they want, though, and I'm still pro-KJV.

 

[Salty]

...But a church should be able to decide which version it wants to use, if only that everyone will be on the same page literally..

Key word is WANTS - Not REQUIRED (by Scripture.)
and I agree - it is hard to have responsive reading when everyone has a different version.

And what do you care if someone only believes in the KJB? If you believe the NIV is the only correct version, I don't care, believe what you want. ....

I dont know of anyone who has ever said that a MV is the ONLY correct version. Please enlighten me.

...That's just because the KJV was the version mostly being used at that time. ....

Not to mention the fact that the King "appointed to be read in churches;" this new Modern Version called the Autorized King James

 

[Rippon]

The sun never sat on the English Empire, and the Bible they took with them to the whole world was the KJB.

Hmm...Adoniram Judson translated the Scripture into Burmese. The KJV did not figure in his work at all.

William Carey translated the Scripture into Bengali,Sanskrit and other languages. The KJV had nothing to do with his work.

The great revivals came under the KJB.

One of the greatest revivals was the Reformation --the KJV had absolutely nothing to do with it.