Should KJVO be called a cult?

[Winman]

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.

OK, but didn't they both use the TR Greek text for their translations? That is the same text behind the KJB.

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

The Reformation was not exactly a revival, more like a revolution against the Catholic church, but if you want to redefine it, OK.

 

[Winman]

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

I don't know of any church that prohibits it's members from using other versions if that's what they want to do, though they might prohibit a sermon or class to be taught in church from another version. What's wrong with that? I am sure that many churches that use the NIV or ESV might do the same.

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

Amazing isn't it? What does that tell you about these versions? Why is it that no one believes they are correct?

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

OK, that was a long time ago in England, how does that relate to hundreds, if not thousands of Baptist churches who CHOOSE to use the KJB only today?

Why is it that only the KJB causes people to believe it is correct? Can you explain that?

 

[Logos1560]

I've always believed I was using a 1769 edition.

You are mistaken and misinformed. You evidently have never examined an actual Oxford edition of the KJV that was printed in 1769. I pointed out a number of differences between the 1769 and present KJV's in a post on the second page of this thread.

Most present KJV editions are based on the 1769 Oxford edition, but they are not the 1769 edition, having around 400 changes from it. Some present KJV editions are based on the 1873 Cambridge edition edited by Scrivener, and a few are based on the 2005 Cambridge edition edited by David Norton.

There are thirty or more varying editions of the KJV in print today. In 2011, Cambridge University Press was printing at least six varying editions of the KJV.

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.

The original text for the KJV prepared by the KJV translators whether handwritten or a printed edition of the 1602 Bishops' Bible with all their changes handwritten on it is no longer known to exist.

The makers of the KJV had been given unbound copies of the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible as their starting point, and at least one of those copies with some handwritten changes made by the KJV translators has been found.

But is the 1769 edition an accurate rendition of the 1611 version with edits in 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769 for spelling and punctuation?

All the edits or changes made to the 1611 edition of the KJV were not merely "spelling and punctuation."

The 1611 KJV was revised in the 1616 London edition, in the 1629 Cambridge edition, in the 1638 Cambridge edition, in the 1660 London edition, in the 1743 Cambridge edition, in the 1762 Cambridge edition, in the 1769 Oxford edition, in the 1817 Cambridge edition, in the 1829 Oxford edition, in other Cambridge and Oxford editions in the 1800's, in the 1850's American Bible Society edition, in the 1873 Cambridge edition, in the 2005 Cambridge edition, etc.

 

[Rippon]

There are thirty or more varying editions of the KJV in print today.

And they are all perfect --even though they differ with one another. Doncha' know there are 30 forms of perfection? As long as each edition is known as KJV each one is perfect with no mistakes whatsoever.


:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh

 

[evenifigoalone]

Does every thread that mentions the KJV have to turn into a brand new debate?

 

[Rippon]

Does every thread that mentions the KJV have to turn into a brand new debate?

Well, when error-filled posts rear their ugly heads they have to be met head-on.

 

[Yeshua1]

The formal definition of a cult is a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies, or a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

This begs the question, "What is a sect?"

A sect is a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination, or any group, party, or faction united by a specific doctrine or under a doctrinal leader.

However, the common everyday definition of a cult, as we almost-always use that word, is an apostate religious org with a name, a headquarters building, and a specific leader or body of leaders, E. G. the "Watchtower" of the JWs.


We tend to view a cult or sect in a negative light, assuming all cults or sects are evil. We use the labels on the JW or Mormon denominations, or for Branch Davidians & other small religious groups which are quasi/pseudo-Christian, "having a form of godliness but denying the POWER thereof".


But, is KJVO a cult? In a word, NO. Not by our common everyday definition of 'cult'. KJVO has no central org, no headquarters, nor any one leader or body of leaders. It's merely a false doctrine believed by some people of almost every Christian religious denomination in the English-speaking world. Different people believe KJVO in differing degrees.


So, while a group of KJVOs believing the KJVO myth to the same degree might get together to form a little cultlet, there's NO universal KJVO cult.


Thus, I'm rather skeptical when I see a reference to "the KJVO cult". Few KJVOs believe exactly alike, but they DO share one fact in common...they're all INCORRECT in believing any part of the KJVO myth in any degree whatsoever.

The most ardent supporters of the Kjv have cultic behaviors, as they have elevated the Kjv bible to a place/standing that would almost have them worshipping the book, and they also see all other texts and versions as somehow inspired by satan, so yes, would classify the fervent ones in that way!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.




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.

Think that those such as gail and Ruckman and others involved in the myth of the Kjv being ONLY version are cultic, if not downright cults, as they almost have a worship of the book!

 

[robycop3]

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.

The AV 1611 itself proves this premise wrong. It has this marginal note for the 2nd "them" in V7:"Heb. him, I. euery one of them." the premise itself comes straight outta 7TH DAY ADVENTIST Dr. Ben Wilkinson's book, via Ray & Dr. Fuller...the "founding fathers' of the KJVO myth.

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

Not when the vast preponderance of evidence is against that interp.

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

It's called the "Scriptural manuscripts" that God has preserved for us.

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

You don't have to. GOD preserved ALL the ancient Scriptural mss. we have. That's easy!

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.

Some are factual; others are opinion and guesswork.

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:

Just like a victim of a fatal disease who keeps visiting various doctors until he finds one who tells him he's NOT fatally ill.

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.

But you know the first English Bible brought to what's now the USA was the GENEVA BIBLE. And the first "Reformation" Bible was Luther's German Bible.

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

That's cuz mosta the MVs haven't existed that long. It was quite a while before the KJV became the #1 English version, and it took the interference of the British govt. to replace the Geneva with the KJV.

However, the KJV is still the MOST-PRINTED book in history, if not the most-read, even though the KJV's history is short compared to that of the Latin Vulgate.

The great revivals came under the KJB.

And there could yet come more under some other version.

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.

But can you, or anyone else, PROVE they're supposed to be there?

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:

The KJV, as are all other English Bible translations, is the product of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men.

Now, nothing wrong with using only the KJV, long as one doesn't spread the false KJVO MYTH. Apparently, YOU subscribe to it, as you repeated the false "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" and said you'd recommend people switch to the KJV.

I posted the man-made origin of the KJVO myth...derived from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book by two dishonest authors, a myth that's given rise to charlatans such as Ruckman and Riplinger.

Fact is, GOD IS NOT LIMITED to the KJV nor any other one English version. He keeps His word current in English & the other major languages. Again, nothing wrong with having a "pet" version, but there's plenty wrong with dissing every other version but one's fave. Now, while there ARE bogus and cult-specific versions out there, the TRUE Christian will quickly recognize them.

Now, while I stated in the OP that KJVO isn't a cult, I don't hesitete to call it a FALSE DOCTRINE, based upon a packa lies and tall tales.

 

[robycop3]

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.

And by the same token, passover isn't Easter, either.

 

[robycop3]

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.

There's a point where faith leaves off and guesswork & opinion begins. And the KJVO myth has passed that point by a large measure.

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

Not one true Baptist argues otherwise.

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.

Well, actually, it's the TREE of life. Please check the Greek for yourself.

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.

That's why GOD chose to preserve well over 5K manuscripts or fragments thereof of His written word. We have those mss. from which to make translations of His word in our languages, and with which to check the accuracy of those translations.

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.

There's NOTHING in God's written word that limits Him to any one translation in a given language. GOD may present His word to us any way He jolly well chooses. There's simply not the least quark of the slightest implication in Scripture supporting the KJVO myth.

WE KNOW the MAN-MADE origin of KJVO. However, NO KJVO can show us anything from GOD supporting such an idea.

 

[robycop3]

I don't know of any church that prohibits it's members from using other versions if that's what they want to do, though they might prohibit a sermon or class to be taught in church from another version. What's wrong with that? I am sure that many churches that use the NIV or ESV might do the same.

Aint seen one yet. However, I HAVE seen more than one shingle in fronta a church reading "1611 KJV Only" or similar.

Amazing isn't it? What does that tell you about these versions? Why is it that no one believes they are correct?

Of those who support only one given version, only the KJVOs claim their pet is perfect, while ignoring or glossing over its obvious goofs.

OK, that was a long time ago in England, how does that relate to hundreds, if not thousands of Baptist churches who CHOOSE to use the KJB only today?

That's cuz their leadership has subscribed to the false KJVO myth, & they've led others into the same fallacy.

Why is it that only the KJB causes people to believe it is correct? Can you explain that?

Again, cuz they don't know any better. They bypass such goofs in the KJV as "Easter" in Acts 12;4, or "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10. The "perfection" claim is one of the lies of the KJVO myth.

 

[Rippon]

I HAVE seen more than one shingle in fronta a church reading "1611 KJV Only" or similar.

And even if the sign out front doesn't say 1611 KJV it will at least indicate that the KJV is a primary (if not the central core) doctrine of a local body.

I think it's a "sign" of a twisted congregation in need of some spiritual overhaul.

I challenge anyone to find a church that makes a big deal of any modern version so far as to place that version as a distinctive doctrine in a sign in front of an assembly.

 

[robycop3]

Think that those such as gail and Ruckman and others involved in the myth of the Kjv being ONLY version are cultic, if not downright cults, as they almost have a worship of the book!

As I said earlier, two "churches" that meet the common definition of "cult" are "paster" Steven Anderson't Faithful Word IFB church of Phoenix, AZ, & Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptict Church of Topeka, KS.

Among Anderson's goofy anti-everything rhetoric, he claimsta worship the KJV, while there's nothing more to say about Westboro; we all know how apostate it is.

And yes, a whole cultic industry has grown from the KJVO myth. Rucky & Rippy each have their own camps, along with those of other lesser lights such as Moorman, Bynum, waite, etc. And all their stuff is phony as a Chevy F-150.

 

[Rippon]

The Reformation was not exactly a revival, more like a revolution against the Catholic church, but if you want to redefine it, OK.

It was certainly a revolution, but most certainly a revival of massive proportions. I am not the only one who believes this.

"The Reformation was a great revival founded upon the bedrock of Scripture." Brian Schwertley

"Thus the Reformation itself was a revival..." Roland Lamb

Those two were Calvinistic quotes. But on the other side there is a work by Elmer L. Towns and Douglas Porter called :"The Ten Greatest Revivals Ever." Chapter 8 deals with the Reformation.

 

[sag38]

The other day I saw a bumper sticker which read, "If you ain't saved by the KJV then you ain't saved." Heresy on a bumper sticker and how sad for the KJVO crowd that some come to this heretical conclusion.

 

[robycop3]

The other day I saw a bumper sticker which read, "If you ain't saved by the KJV then you ain't saved." Heresy on a bumper sticker and how sad for the KJVO crowd that some come to this heretical conclusion.

Thing is, no one is or has ever been saved by the KJV. Only JESUS saves.

Now, for years, on many discussion groups, and on the internet, I've heard the definitions for many types of KJVOs. Dr. Bob set forth such definitions in this forum. I don't count "KJV-PREFERRED" as KJVOs cuz they recognize other English Bible translations as valid, even though they don't use them but very little, if at all.

However, the line is drawn when one doesn't believe any other English Bible translation is valid. That's a FALSE belief, derived from a cult official's book. And become too-enthralled with that false doctrine can lead to cultic behavior.

But, as I said earlier...Being KJVO whatsoever is simply...INCORRECT.

 

[Salty]

The other day I saw a bumper sticker which read, "If you ain't saved by the KJV then you ain't saved." Heresy on a bumper sticker and how sad for the KJVO crowd that some come to this heretical conclusion.

So how did people get saved before 1610?


Does anyone have a valid reference in which a preacher actually has been quoted as saying that a person can only get saved by a KJV?

 

[sag38]

The bumper sticker was quite clear. The name of a baptist church, in South East Mississippi, was named on the sticker. I can't remember the name though. Sadly, there are false teachers/preachers out there who advocate this false teaching. To bad the rest of us baptists have to have our identity soiled by this type of foolishness.

 

[evenifigoalone]

So how did people get saved before 1610?


Does anyone have a valid reference in which a preacher actually has been quoted as saying that a person can only get saved by a KJV?

The pastor at my childhood church--repeatedly. Practically no sermon went by without mentioning this, actually.