The KJV...the "Model T Bible Version

[Logos1560]

The Scriptures themselves are the proper standard for determining which teaching is sound and scriptural. Comparing the claimed number of followers of a certain teaching does not demonstrate whether a teaching is sound, true, and scriptural.

The preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations.

I correctly have compared and continue to compare KJV-only teaching to the Scriptures, and I find it to be a non-scriptural tradition of men and in some points unscriptural. The KJV-only use of unjust measures/standards [double standards] is unscriptural. The KJV-only use of fallacies [false arguments] is not scriptural.

Can KJV-only defenders present a sound view of inspiration from the Scriptures that they will apply justly from A. D. 100 until today?

Can KJV-only defenders present a sound view of preservation of the Scriptures that they will apply consistently and justly from A. D. 100 until today?

 

[church mouse guy]

The Scriptures themselves are the proper standard for determining which teaching is sound and scriptural. Comparing the claimed number of followers of a certain teaching does not demonstrate whether a teaching is sound, true, and scriptural.

The preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations.

I correctly have compared and continue to compare KJV-only teaching to the Scriptures, and I find it to be a non-scriptural tradition of men and in some points unscriptural. The KJV-only use of unjust measures/standards [double standards] is unscriptural. The KJV-only use of fallacies [false arguments] is not scriptural.

Can KJV-only defenders present a sound view of inspiration from the Scriptures that they will apply justly from A. D. 100 until today?

Can KJV-only defenders present a sound view of preservation of the Scriptures that they will apply consistently and justly from A. D. 100 until today?

As far as I know, there are no KJV Only people on this board and since it is a fading movement no one much pays any attention to it.

Do you say that KJV Only is a cult?

 

[Logos1560]

As far as I know, there are no KJV Only people on this board ?

I have noticed some KJV-only people still at this board. One or more is posting in the other denominations area.

Some KJV-only advocates just avoid posting in the Bible translation forum because they were not permitted by the rules to make some of their typical accusations against modern English Bibles.

Some who claim not to be KJV-only still make some assertions concerning the KJV that are typical of advocates of the varying forms of a KJV-only view. They still seem to esteem the KJV to be the word of God in English in some different sense than they would say of other present English translations. They do not seem to want to accept the application of the same measures/standards to the KJV that are being applied to other English Bibles.

D. A. Waite, a leading KJV-only author, denies being KJV-only even though he makes exclusive only claims for the KJV in his books. Waite would suggest that only followers of Peter Ruckman's views are KJV-only.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You fail to defend your own unproven assertion and allegation, and you especially fail to prove it to be true. Yes, you allege, but you do not prove. There is a big difference between the two.

I know....
I cannot prove with epistemic certainty that there are not pink unicorns on some as-of-yet-to-be-discovered Pacific Island.
You can't "prove" it either.
You like to use the word "proof" or more normally "demonstrated" (ad nauseum) but, I do not think you grasp the meaning of such terms any better than myself or even anyone else.

You do not prove that I supposedly invent any reasons to malign the KJV.

No, that's not something one can "prove" unless you essentially admitted it.
I simply note that you take opportunity at every possible junction to malign it and denigrate it at any possible turn.

I note your actions, not your words.
Your words are: "I don't hate the KJV, just false KJV-onlyism"
Your actions are: go to a thread which has the sole purpose of insulting that venerable work and which is not a pro-kjvo thread and post lengthy screeds which you've posted a million times before and no one cares about; which explain everything wrong about the kjv.

You may not even think that you loathe the KJV, maybe you believe you don't.
You simply invent opportunities to malign it every chance you get.

You have not answered nor refuted any of my accurate observations concerning the KJV

That's because I don't want to, and do not consider you particularly capable of reasoned debate.
You use phrases like: "It has not been demonstrated that________________"
When everyone but yourself knows that no one has tried to, so, we all screw up our face a little and think to ourselves,
"Yeah, ummmm….so... Is anyone TRYING to demonstrate that?"
"Has anyone even suggested such a thing in this thread?"
And we scroll back and notice no one has, and then we get more confused as to why you are tilting at windmills. And perhaps some of us conclude......
"Maybe he just despises the KJV whether he knows it or not"

and concerning a modern, non-scriptural KJV-only view.

That's because I'm not KJVO, and practically no one on this board is, so it's pointless.

I present accurate, verifiable information concerning editions of the KJV.

A lot of it is superfluous and proves little, but, I don't deny it is most likely overwhelmingly accurate.
Then again, knowing tons of accurate information is trivial unless you know the proper conclusions to draw with it.

You fail to prove that I supposedly hate the KJV.

It cannot be proven.
I do think you derive a somewhat unreasonable amount of pleasure posting denigrating information about it.

I read and accept the KJV as what it actually is.

Which is, if anyone has read your millions of denigrating lines of post about it....apparently one of the most horrific pieces of garbage ever made. Somewhere between the Koran and the New World Translation.

 

[Baptist4life]

..........it is a fading movement no one much pays any attention to it.......

I fully agree. However, it seems to me that some people here are trying their best to keep the KJVO thing going because they seem to have no life at all if the subject went away. It reminds me of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton trying their best to keep racism alive, because without it they have nothing. It's really a sad thing.

 

[Logos1560]

You simply invent opportunities to malign it every chance you get.

I do not invent any opportunities to malign the KJV.

I attempt to present the truth concerning the KJV. I make positive assertions concerning the KJV, and I have repeatedly acknowledged that the KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles are and as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are. I assert that the KJV is a good overall English translation. I still read the KJV. I teach from the KJV. I cite or quote verses from the KJV to present scriptural truths. My scripture references for my points are from the KJV.

Admitting and acknowledging the verifiable facts concerning the KJV is not maligning the KJV.

You fail to demonstrate that I am maligning the KJV.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I do not invent any opportunities to malign the KJV.

Yeah, you kinda do.

You fail to demonstrate that I am maligning the KJV.

I know....
But, a lot of people still see it that way, and I'm saying they have good reason to.

 

[church mouse guy]

I do not invent any opportunities to malign the KJV.

I attempt to present the truth concerning the KJV. I make positive assertions concerning the KJV, and I have repeatedly acknowledged that the KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles are and as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are. I assert that the KJV is a good overall English translation. I still read the KJV. I teach from the KJV. I cite and quote verses from the KJV to present scriptural truths.

Admitting and acknowledging the verifiable facts concerning the KJV is not maligning the KJV.

You fail to demonstrate that I am maligning the KJV.

Do you think that KJV Only is a cult?

 

[xlsdraw]

The Scriptures themselves are the proper standard for determining which teaching is sound and scriptural. Comparing the claimed number of followers of a certain teaching does not demonstrate whether a teaching is sound, true, and scriptural.

The preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations.

I correctly have compared and continue to compare KJV-only teaching to the Scriptures, and I find it to be a non-scriptural tradition of men and in some points unscriptural. The KJV-only use of unjust measures/standards [double standards] is unscriptural. The KJV-only use of fallacies [false arguments] is not scriptural.

Can KJV-only defenders present a sound view of inspiration from the Scriptures that they will apply justly from A. D. 100 until today?

Can KJV-only defenders present a sound view of preservation of the Scriptures that they will apply consistently and justly from A. D. 100 until today?

The KJV has been used by God's men, for hundreds of years, to produce unparalleled fruit across the world. It has not been established that you or Roby have any fruit at all. At least some of the writers, that You have listed in this attack thread, God has used mightily for the cause of Christ. Clinging tightly to the fruitful KJV.

It was good enough for my Grandfather. And it was good enough for his Grandfather. And it is good enough for me. For one simple reason. It has been ordained by God to be fruitful. The Holy Spirit has proven to work in association with it. Therefore, I don't need another translation and I will continue to support it.
And I will continue to support fruitful ministries that are attacked for being led to minister solely with the KJV.

 

[Logos1560]

That's because I don't want to, and do not consider you particularly capable of reasoned debate.
.

My posts would show that I am clearly capable of reasoned debate. I have demonstrated that I am willing to back up and present evidence for what I assert. I attempt to focus on examining and answering statements instead of posting personal insults as are made against me.

You should not throw out your allegations and put words in the mouths of others that you are unwilling to back up.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I fully agree. However, it seems to me that some people here are trying their best to keep the KJVO thing going because they seem to have no life at all if the subject went away. It reminds me of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton trying their best to keep racism alive, because without it they have nothing. It's really a sad thing.

YUP!!!
I think that may be as well.
Somewhat ironically, the anti-KJVO's have basically won the argument.
KJVO's are about as numerous and impactful as flat-earthers, but perhaps if you spent the last decade or two of your life fighting that battle you have nothing else upon which to base your personal identity?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

My posts would show that I am clearly capable of reasoned debate.

Do they?
They certainly show that you try to debate when no one is arguing with you.

I have demonstrated that I am willing to back up and present evidence for what I assert.

It often takes the form of disjointed and irrelevant facts.

I attempt to focus on examining and answering statements instead of posting personal insults as are made against me

.
No one is trying to insult you.
I'm sure you're a fantastic guy who loves his family and everything else.
Denigrating your posting habits?
Perhaps.

You should not throw out your allegations and put words in the mouths of others that you are unwilling to back up.

I'm not putting words in your mouth.
I freely acknowledge you do not admit to loathing the KJV
I simply observe you derive a perverse amount of pleasure posting negative and impugning information about its failures.

 

[Logos1560]

And I will continue to support fruitful ministries that are attacked for being led to minister solely with the KJV

You do not demonstrate that any ministry is being attacking for teaching or preaching only from the KJV. You jump to wrong opinions or incorrect bogus conclusions. I have not objected to anyone reading only the KJV or anyone preaching only from the KJV.

The accurate term KJV-only is used to define and describe any view that accepts or makes some type of exclusive, only claims for one English Bible translation—the KJV. Holders of a KJV-only view would in effect attempt to suggest, assume, or claim that the KJV is the word of God in English in some different sense than any other English translation is the word of God in English. While perhaps admitting the fact that the KJV is a translation, holders of a KJV-only view attempt in effect to treat the KJV as though it is in a different category than all other English translations or as though it is not a translation in the same sense (univocally) as other English Bibles.

It is not reading only the KJV that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. It is not using only the KJV in teaching or preaching that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view.

A KJV-only view would concern a person’s beliefs, opinions, and claims concerning the KJV, not his reading only it or using only it in teaching or preaching. Someone can accept the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus and still be KJV-only if they make any exclusive, only claims for the KJV. Any view that suggests or implies perfection, inerrancy, or inspiration for the KJV and any view that supposes or assumes that its translating is the word of God in a different sense (equivocally) than any other English Bible would be KJV-only. The subjective opinion or unproven assumption that the KJV alone is a perfect English translation or that the KJV is the final authority would be a KJV-only view. The subjective opinion that the KJV is the only faithful and true English translation would also qualify as being a KJV-only view. The accurate term KJV-only does not suggest that every person who makes KJV-only claims holds and accepts all the same ideas

 

[Logos1560]

Do you think that KJV Only is a cult?

I have nowhere claimed that KJV-only is a cult.

Perhaps in its extreme form, some of its advocates may become cult-like if they decide to put the opinions of men over the teachings of Scripture.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I have nowhere claimed that KJV-only is a cult.

In your defense...
Having read many of your posts....admittedly, I have never seen you claim that.

Perhaps in its extreme form, some of its advocates may become cult-like if they decide to put the opinions of men over the teachings of Scripture.

Also, a fair enough assertion.

 

[Conan]

King James English

 

[Wally]

Sorry if I am interrupting anything and I can certainly start a new topic if needed. I was just wondering if this, rather long tread, has addressed what differing people's understanding of what the Bible means by the 'preservation' of God's Word...?

So that it doesn't look like I'm deceptively leading here...what I am getting at is that is seems there are 2 basic understandings about preservation. Either the preservation is in a particular Bible or it is something found through studies of differing Bibles and/or studying the Greek scripts. Of course, if there is another options, please let me know.

Do let me know if I should start another tread though. Thanks!

 

[Reformed1689]

The problem is the bad Greek texts being used over the real better readings of the NT. This is why the NKJV remains currently the best choice of the modern Bibles. (I personally have gone back to using the KJV.) But if I recommend a modern Bible, the NKJV.

Bad based on what?

 

[Reformed1689]

The KJV says "peace, good will toward men." This is a universal blessing to non-repentant and repentant sinners.

Which goes against the rest of Scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

Definitely, if they reject the trinity doctrine as stated in the Ecumenical Creeds.

We base doctrines and theology upon Scriptures alone, not upon ANY Creed!