The KJVO Movement Is Headed Down

[Squire Robertsson]

As for your point #1, I would better say "it's the church's version of record."
As for your point #2, he on more than one occasion has stated while preaching, "the NAS better renders this passage, xxx yyy zzz."

1) The KJV, replete with all its TR corruptions is not "the version of record."

2) Your beloved Pastor, since he knows what the Greek text actually says, must therefore go to the NASB when dealing with the KJV corrupt passages. If not, then my view he is a cloaked KJVO Pastor.

[quote] The majority of manuscripts and Westcott and Hort agree against the textus receptus in excluding Luke 17:36; Acts 8:37; and I John 5:7 from the New Testament, as well as concurring in numerous other readings (such as "tree of life" in Revelation 22:19). Except in a few rare cases, writers well-versed in textual criticism have abandoned the textus receptus as a standard text.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Yeshua1]

1) The KJV, replete with all its TR corruptions is not "the version of record."

2) Your beloved Pastor, since he knows what the Greek text actually says, must therefore go to the NASB when dealing with the KJV corrupt passages. If not, then my view he is a cloaked KJVO Pastor.

"The majority of manuscripts and Westcott and Hort agree against the textus receptus in excluding Luke 17:36; Acts 8:37; and I John 5:7 from the New Testament, as well as concurring in numerous other readings (such as "tree of life" in Revelation 22:19). Except in a few rare cases, writers well-versed in textual criticism have abandoned the textus receptus as a standard text."

So you received training under dean Burgeron, Dr Wallace, and The Alands to know which translations are bad or good?

 

[Yeshua1]

As for your point #1, I would better say "it's the church's version of record."
As for your point #2, he on more than one occasion has stated while preaching, "the NAS better renders this passage, xxx yyy zzz."

[/QUOTE]
Guess this means Van actually would be under "anything but KJV" person!

 

[Van]

Note the avoidance of the issue?

Y1 rather than addressing the position, questions my character and qualifications. Thus he uses a logical fallacy. To support his position? Nope. He has no dog in this fight, he prefers the NASB. No, he simply disparages those do not agree with his false theology.

Did we learn whether the beloved church Pastor goes to the NASB when teaching the TR corrupt passages in the KJV? Nope.

Show me a KJVP advocate that rejects the TR corruptions, and I will agree that person is not a cloaked KJVO advocate. But are there any? I suspect the answer is no. If so then that is evidence the movement is going underground.

 

[Yeshua1]

Note the avoidance of the issue?

Y1 rather than addressing the position, questions my character and qualifications. Thus he uses a logical fallacy. To support his position? Nope. He has no dog in this fight, he prefers the NASB. No, he simply disparages those do not agree with his false theology.

Did we learn whether the beloved church Pastor goes to the NASB when teaching the TR corrupt passages in the KJV? Nope.

Show me a KJVP advocate that rejects the TR corruptions, and I will agree that person is not a cloaked KJVO advocate. But are there any? I suspect the answer is no. If so then that is evidence the movement is going underground.

Are you using the term corrupted in same way those holding to KJVO would, as in the bible version translated from the TR is bad itself?

 

[Van]

Show me a KJVP advocate that rejects the TR corruptions, and I will agree that person is not a cloaked KJVO advocate. But are there any? I suspect the answer is no. If so then that is evidence the movement is going underground.

 

[Reynolds]

It is my judgment that the KJV Only movement is fractured and discredited (as a movement, not speaking of individual IFB churches). As evidence, note that the Dean Burgon Society is fractured. They found out that Riplinger had been divorced twice, so they split with her, quit selling her stuff, and wrote books against her.

Again, this year Ruckman died. It remains to see what will happen to his little Bible institute and his publishing company, but I predict a downtrend due to the fact that there appears to be no heir apparent (unless you count Samuel Gipp).

One DBS faction started the William Carey Bible Society, which never supported any Bible translators to my knowledge. In a huge irony (judging by how they attacked me when I was a missionary to Japan for simply giving a bad Amazon review to the Williams book on translating), their website has been taken over by a Japanese company in the "water trade" (immoral activities, run by Yakuza gangsters), with articles about how to handle security in the "water trade."

I am past wearied of the Bible versions debate. It seems the people who debate the most about the versions seem to do the least about actually doing what all those versions agree on. Actually living out Gods commands (and they are pretty plain in all versions) is much more important than bickering over two words in translation that are meaningless. I bet God gets great pleasure when a man with little education wins souls using the Living Bible or the message. I wonder how much pleasure He gets frpm listening to people bicker and fight about lexicon and source manuscripts. I only personally know one Dr of the Greek language. He told me years ago "What I don't understand in The Word no longer bothers me. What bothers me is I know one day I will have to stand before Jesus and answer for why I did so little with the parts I fully understood." He also told me one time "I was much more useful to God when I was an uneducated country preacher than I ever was to Him after going to seminary and getting a bunch of letters piled up after my name."

 

[TCassidy]

Show me a KJVP advocate that rejects the TR corruptions, and I will agree that person is not a cloaked KJVO advocate. But are there any? I suspect the answer is no. If so then that is evidence the movement is going underground.

My bible of preference, for preaching, is the KJV and I prefer the Byzantine Textform over the TR (any of the 33 editions, all different), and recognize what most people call the "TR" today, Scrivener's text, did not exist until the latter years of the 19th century.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Taking a page from the British Prime Minister's Wednesday Question Time:

I refer my right honorable colleauge to my answer to his point # 2 in post #81.​

IOW, he doesn't get on the translation hobby horse.

​

Did we learn whether the beloved church Pastor goes to the NASB when teaching the TR corrupt passages in the KJV? Nope.

 

[Van]

Point 2 avoids answering the question.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

No, it doesn't. It means when the NASB has a better rendering he goes with the NASB. It also means he doesn't go out of his way to disparage the KJV. He has more important battles to fight than the version battle. The version battle is not being fought in San Franciso like it is in other locales.

Point 2 avoids answering the question.

 

[Reynolds]

No, it doesn't. It means when the NASB has a better rendering he goes with the NASB. It also means he doesn't go out of his way to disparage the KJV. He has more important battles to fight than the version battle. The version battle is not being fought in San Franciso like it is in other locales.

I am not so sure what happens in San Fran is a good thing. I had to go there one time and I felt like I was in Hell. That place is wicked. I am from the Bible Belt and talk about culture shock.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Think of it as a mission field. It is home to aggressively evangelistic pagans. Then, it's folks with mindsets like yours who over the years have not come to or stayed in the City to do battle with them.

I am not so sure what happens in San Fran is a good thing. I had to go there one time and I felt like I was in Hell. That place is wicked. I am from the Bible Belt and talk about culture shock.

 

[Reynolds]

Think of it as a mission field. It is home to aggressively evangelistic pagans. Then, it's folks with mindsets like yours who over the years have not come to or stayed in the City to do battle with them.

The Lord would most definitely have to call me to that mission field before I would end up there. I can deal with a lot if places. I even kind of like Vegas. San Fran completely weirded me out.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

If William Carey, Adoniram Judson, or Hudson Taylor had that kind of attitude, they'd have never gone to India, Burma, or China.

The Lord would most definitely have to call me to that mission field before I would end up there. I can deal with a lot if places. I even kind of like Vegas. San Fran completely weirded me out.

 

[Van]

No, it doesn't. It means when the NASB has a better rendering he goes with the NASB. It also means he doesn't go out of his way to disparage the KJV. He has more important battles to fight than the version battle. The version battle is not being fought in San Franciso like it is in other locales.

But that was not the question! Does he go to the NASB to teach 1 John 5:6-8? That is the question. No need to change the question. I suspect you will not answer it, because either you do not know, or his behavior reveals more than a preference for the KJV. A willingness to teach what a majority of scholars agrees is corruption.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Making an unfounded assumption eh? IIRC, when he preached through the book of 1 John (known locally as 101 messages on 1 John), he went with the NASB. Initially, you weren't specific in your question. So, I gave a general answer.

But that was not the question! Does he go to the NASB to teach 1 John 5:6-8? That is the question. No need to change the question. I suspect you will not answer it, because either you do not know, or his behavior reveals more than a preference for the KJV. A willingness to teach what a majority of scholars agrees is corruption.

 

[rlvaughn]

So, I gave a general answer.

And yet your general answer shows he is not KJVO. The rest of us got it.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Please, let me expand on my "version of record" comment.

By version of record, I do not use the term to mean:

• it is considered the best version or
• there are not better or more accurate translations of a given passage.

By version of record, I do mean:

• it is the version English-speaking people think of when Scripture is read aloud. This goes to the reason men like John Burgeon included the lectionaries of the Greek Orthodox Church in their search for evidence of a given textual reading.
• it is the benchmark version to which other translations are compared. IOW, is a particular version worse, just as good as, or better than the KJV?

At least, that's how and why I use the term. Other folks may differ. It's not a hill I'm willing to die on.

 

[Reynolds]

If William Carey, Adoniram Judson, or Hudson Taylor had that kind of attitude, they'd have never gone to India, Burma, or China.

Are you saying The Lord did not call them there? Stepping into any type ministry without The calling of The Lord would not be advisable.