The ONE FACT that stops KJVO in its tracks...

[robycop3]

I am thinking that the KJV only people are in decline. It is a part of Fundamentalism, isn't it? Who believes that anymore?

I'm an indy fundy, & neither I nor my church believe the KJVO myth nor any other MAN-MADE doctrine of worship.

 

[church mouse guy]

I'm an indy fundy, & neither I nor my church believe the KJVO myth nor any other MAN-MADE doctrine of worship.

I don't believe in KJVO either. Those people wouldn't like me.

On the LDS cult, do you watch YouTube blogger Doris Hanson's weekly show called Polyagmy: What Love Is This? She points out a lot of incest in Utah and elsewhere among Mormons.

Also, Mohammad allowed for 1st cousins to marry. But then so do several US states I think.

 

[Salty]

This Thread by Dr. Bob may be helpful

 

[robycop3]

oooo…..
Black with green eyes?
cool.

I've discovered the secret with cats, never let women raise them, they're actually cool creatures, but you can't let a woman get ahold of them too young. Raised by a man; they can be cool. Please post a pic of the cat!

BTW. I honestly didn't mean any form of deceit or anything with my post. I can see how calling it a "phenomenon" as though it was observable fact might trip someone up, but, it was just opinion. I didn't think anyone would take it any other way, but, I do stand by it.

There's a guy who posts (or did) semi-regularly for whom no iteration of the NIV can do any wrong.
Without actually asserting it, he might as well be NIVO...the only person who ever takes him to task for it is Yeshua, who, I think, just likes to get him going.
That is what I mean. (I'm forgetting his name) but old threads where anyone questions the NIV get this dude going like you wouldn't believe, it's hilarious to watch.

This is what I mean.
I maintain that if anyone (without actually being KJVO) were to start a thread extolling the KJV's virtues and explaining how superior it is, and how amazingly well translated and how people should not read anything else, you would see the Logos's (who's moniker is "Logos 1560" and no one accuses him of being Geneva only??) and the Roby's come out in force to denounce KJVO ism etc...
I'm not KJVO....I do die a little on the inside when I read from something else....but I sincerely believe the anti-kjvo forces are now doing more damage than the old KJVO's in their heyday did.

Well, ACTUALLY, ALL "one-version-onlyism" is wrong. After all, God is not limited.

 

[robycop3]

And Eugene Peterson, "translator" of The Message has (to no one's surprise) come out as being gay-affirming and for "gay marriage".

In your quest to ensure no one has followed false doctrines respecting the use of Bible versions, you have yet to come out against that blasphemous trash publicly.
You have, however, ceaselessly attacked KJV onlyism.

Well, ACTUALLY, I have; just not recently. I've come out against the NWT of the Jabroney False Witlesses, & the "Clear Word" of jack Blanco for the Seven-Day-Adlibber cult as well. And, I don't care for any mostly-paraphrased version. (All legitimate versions have SOME paraphrasing or a few words added for clarity due to language differences.)

 

[robycop3]

I don't believe in KJVO either. Those people wouldn't like me.

On the LDS cult, do you watch YouTube blogger Doris Hanson's weekly show called Polyagmy: What Love Is This? She points out a lot of incest in Utah and elsewhere among Mormons.

Also, Mohammad allowed for 1st cousins to marry. But then so do several US states I think.

Not surprised at almost anything the Mor(m)ons might do. "Quick Joey Small" Smith & Brigand Young decided to include polygamy in their cult, so, as the big kahoonas, they could have harems. So, I'm not surprised that they have incest as well.

 

[MartyF]

And Eugene Peterson, "translator" of The Message has (to no one's surprise) come out as being gay-affirming and for "gay marriage".

You’re right - this is proof that Calvinism leads to the path of destruction . . .

 

[GoodTidings]

I'm just stating another fact about him. Guess he doesn't read the book he worships very well, whose sources were originally authored by Jews & whose main figure is a Jew.

All I am saying is that his anti-Semitism isn't the fruit of being KJVO. And I agree he doesn't read the Bible at all. And I would say that is likely not an authentic follower of Jesus. No saved person could be so vile as he.

 

[robycop3]

The fact remains that the KJVO myth has NO Scriptural support & therefore cannot be true. And if one carefully reads the preface to the AV 1611, one will see that not even the KJVO makers were KJVO themselves. (As their boss, Archbishop Bancroft, died in 1610, I don't know if he edited that preface or not.)

That FACT of no Scriptural support should've killed the KJVO myth long ago, but its proselytes still cling to it despite its being proven false.

 

[Salty]

The fact remains that the KJVO myth has NO Scriptural support & therefore cannot be true. And if one carefully reads the preface to the AV 1611, one will see that not even the KJVO makers were KJVO themselves. (As their boss, Archbishop Bancroft, died in 1610, I don't know if he edited that preface or not.)

That FACT of no Scriptural support should've killed the KJVO myth long ago, but its proselytes still cling to it despite its being proven false.

BUT Scripture clearly shows that the Apostle Paul was KJO !!!!

 

[Dave G]

The fact remains that the KJVO myth has NO Scriptural support & therefore cannot be true.

To me, that's an interesting, if slippery slope that you're on, Roby.

When you state "myth", I'm interested to know what you think is "mythical" about someone who sees differences in the translations, and then asks, "why?".
Is it a myth that, for example, the ESV and the KJV not only read very differently in certain passages, but in some they read vastly different?
Should no one be concerned?

It's all the same no matter what the glaring differences are, right?

I actually agree with you on this point:
There is no Scriptural support to back up one version over another.
But there are people who inherently know their Saviour's words, no matter which language they are in ( John 8:47, John 10:27 ).

I know that I will find many of them in the ESV, but I wouldn't use it because it makes heavy use of the CT for it's manuscript base.
I also know that compared to the KJV and some others, the large majority of today's English translations are very different then my trusty AV...because of those same manuscripts being used as a base.

Simply put,
I cannot find any other logical reason for committees to keep making them ad nauseum, other than money.

 

[Dave G]

And if one carefully reads the preface to the AV 1611, one will see that not even the KJVO makers were KJVO themselves.

I agree.

But when was the last time you ran into an English bible that was more accurate when compared to the Majority Text than the KJV?
Young's Literal?
The NKJV?

I'm sure it's a matter of opinion, but I never have.

When I see one, I'll let you know.

(As their boss, Archbishop Bancroft, died in 1610, I don't know if he edited that preface or not.)

Are you aware that God can use men to do His will?

" For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled." ( Revelation 17:17 )

I believe He did, with some of the work developed during the Reformation.
I think the Lord used William Tyndale for His glory, and that the bulk of the work done in the later "KJV" relied heavily on Tyndale's.

But I don't believe He used men with many of the trsalations being developed today.
Why?

Because we're still on the "we-cannot-know-God's-words-until-all-of-the-extant-manscripts-are-discovered train...
To me, there's still no end in sight and it only gets worse.
There also have not been any major discoveries of manuscripts since the Dead Sea scrolls, if I'm not mistaken.

Do you have a solution to the never-ending English translation debacle?
If it really was a matter of getting to the best one, I think we should have been there long before now.

That FACT of no Scriptural support should've killed the KJVO myth long ago, but its proselytes still cling to it despite its being proven false.

I agree...so, why won't it die?
I'll tell you why...

Because people see the differences, and rather than trust any of the new ones, many are simply holding on to what they know is a good one.
It's kind of like the guy who loves his old '57 Chevy, and hates the "newfangled" stuff.

If and when another really good one comes along ( like the difference between the Old Latin and Jerome's ), then I'm sure they will probably jump ship and this will go away like a bad dream.


Hey....give it time.
It took almost 50 years for the AV to take over from the other Reformation-era Bibles.

 

[Dave G]

BUT Scripture clearly shows that the Apostle Paul was KJO !!!!

We both should know the answer to that, Salty.

He spoke both Hebrew and Koine Greek ( Acts of the Apostles 21:37-40 ).

 

[Dave G]

Well, ACTUALLY, ALL "one-version-onlyism" is wrong. After all, God is not limited.

He's also not the author of confusion...which is what's been going on in the English-speaking world for over 150 years now.

 

[tyndale1946]

BUT Scripture clearly shows that the Apostle Paul was KJO !!!!

You know Salty you may have something there... King Jesus Only!... Brother Glen

Btw... Since there has been so much flack about the King James Version (UH who could that possibly be?)... My future quotes will be taken from The King Jesus Only Bible!

 

[robycop3]

BUT Scripture clearly shows that the Apostle Paul was KJO !!!!

"Gimme the KJV that Paul used ! !"

 

[robycop3]

To me, that's an interesting, if slippery slope that you're on, Roby.

But I have snow shoes on.

When you state "myth", I'm interested to know what you think is "mythical" about someone who sees differences in the translations, and then asks, "why?".
Is it a myth that, for example, the ESV and the KJV not only read very differently in certain passages, but in some they read vastly different?
Should no one be concerned?

The "four Gospels" all read differently in every Bible, and so so the versions of the "Lord's Prayer" in Matthew & Luke I could ask, "Which is correct ?"

It's all the same no matter what the glaring differences are, right?

So, can YOU PROVE one is correct and the other one incorrect?

I actually agree with you on this point:
There is no Scriptural support to back up one version over another.
But there are people who inherently know their Saviour's words, no matter which language they are in ( John 8:47, John 10:27 ).

I know that I will find many of them in the ESV, but I wouldn't use it because it makes heavy use of the CT for it's manuscript base.
I also know that compared to the KJV and some others, the large majority of today's English translations are very different then my trusty AV...because of those same manuscripts being used as a base.

Can you *PROVE* which mss. are the ones God prefers? After all, HE preserved ALL of them!

Simply put,
I cannot find any other logical reason for committees to keep making them ad nauseum, other than money.

Can you find any reason for making the KJV when the Geneva & Bishop's versions were popular in the English-speaking world, other than the desire of some Anglican clerics to have a new version made ?

And thru it all, the FACT remains that GOD does NOT support any one Bible translation in any language, nor one particular set of Scriptural manuscripts. So, the KJVO myth remains as false now as it was on the day of its man-made invention.

 

[Dave G]

The "four Gospels" all read differently in every Bible, and so so the versions of the "Lord's Prayer" in Matthew & Luke I could ask, "Which is correct ?"

They all are.

I'm surprised you would ask that.
It's all God's inspired word.

So, can YOU PROVE one is correct and the other one incorrect?

Can I prove that the Textus Receptus is the superior text base?
No.

Can I prove that most English translations today are based on an even smaller cross-section of mss than the AV?
I think that was done a long time ago.

Can you *PROVE* which mss. are the ones God prefers? After all, HE preserved ALL of them!

Of course not.
Can you?

I feel in my spirit, that the TR is the correct one.

However, It cannot be proven in a court of law.
If you ask many "KJVO's" / "KJVP's", they would probably tell you the same thing.

However, I probably could make a very convincing case before a jury, of your apparent bias against the AV.

Which leads me to a question...
What exactly is it that you hate about the AV?

 

[Dave G]

Can you find any reason for making the KJV when the Geneva & Bishop's versions were popular in the English-speaking world, other than the desire of some Anglican clerics to have a new version made ?

A better translation, just as the translators said in their preface.

Can you find a reason that the need for a better translation exists today?
If so, which one, and if God-sponsored, why isn't it finished yet?

And thru it all, the FACT remains that GOD does NOT support any one Bible translation in any language, nor one particular set of Scriptural manuscripts.

That you know of.
What you may consider fact, another person may consider bears looking in to..

Respectfully,
There's are many reasons people may disagree with your evaluation, Roby.

So, the KJVO myth remains as false now as it was on the day of its man-made invention.

Was that in 1881 with the advent of the Westcott and Hort Critical Text, or the English RSV in 1885?
I think you've missed the problem.

The big question I have for you is...are we there yet?
Again, if today's English translations were being made in order to get to a better translation, as the KJV was, then why are there so many, and being developed and released in such quick succession?

It's about money, Roby....not getting a better translation.

If I were guessing, I'd say that what bothers you most about "KJVO", is that you don't want anyone to force you into using something that is 400 years old.
No one is trying to do that.

The argument is, it's more accurate....not easier to read than many others.
The argument is, it's based on the TR, which is far more accurate with regard to the Majority Text than the CT is.

Therefore, it's even more accurate, overall, than the NASB, with respect to manuscript base.

Accuracy and faithfulness, Roby.
Not readability.

 

[robycop3]

I agree.

But when was the last time you ran into an English bible that was more accurate when compared to the Majority Text than the KJV?
Young's Literal?
The NKJV?

I'm sure it's a matter of opinion, but I never have.

When I see one, I'll let you know.

That's because your mind is locked in on the KJVO myth. Actually, the NKJV, & NASV are more-accurate translations. They don't have many of the goofs the KJV has, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4.

Are you aware that God can use men to do His will?

" For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled." ( Revelation 17:17 )

I believe He did, with some of the work developed during the Reformation.
I think the Lord used William Tyndale for His glory, and that the bulk of the work done in the later "KJV" relied heavily on Tyndale's.

But I don't believe He used men with many of the trsalations being developed today.
Why?

Because we're still on the "we-cannot-know-God's-words-until-all-of-the-extant-manscripts-are-discovered train...
To me, there's still no end in sight and it only gets worse.
There also have not been any major discoveries of manuscripts since the Dead Sea scrolls, if I'm not mistaken.

Do you have a solution to the never-ending English translation debacle?
If it really was a matter of getting to the best one, I think we should have been there long before now.

Again, that's because you're locked in to the KJVO myth. Seems you're in thrall to it. That's equivalent to being hooked on the Model T & rejecting all modern cars.

I agree...so, why won't it die?
I'll tell you why...

Because people see the differences, and rather than trust any of the new ones, many are simply holding on to what they know is a good one.
It's kind of like the guy who loves his old '57 Chevy, and hates the "newfangled" stuff.

Some people were raised on the KJV, such as the late J. Vernon Mc Gee, but he acknowledged the goofs in the KJV & certainly didn't condemn any legitimate newer version. However, he continued using the KJV cuz it was the version he was most familiar with, while encouraging people to use the version(s) they were most-comfortable with.

I'm age 71, but I wasn't saved til age 30. Not long afterward, my dad & I almost got into a fight with some people who condemned us for teaching an impromptu public Bible-reading session using the NASV. After that, I started studying to see if KJVO were true, & found it wanting in many points, til I knew-not guessed-it was nothing but a man-made myth & false.

If and when another really good one comes along ( like the difference between the Old Latin and Jerome's ), then I'm sure they will probably jump ship and this will go away like a bad dream.

it SHOULD have, a long time ago. it's as false as Paul Manafort's testimony.

Hey....give it time.
It took almost 50 years for the AV to take over from the other Reformation-era Bibles.

And that's ONLY cuz it was enforced by the British govt, which was then the strongest on earth, which forbade the printing or sale of any other version within its realm, kinda like Hitler did in Germany with Mein Kampf & Mao did in China with his "Little Red Book".

I readily admit the KJV was the best English Bible version OF ITS TIME, but that time is long over. Much of its English is no longer in use. While the '57 Chevy was a vast improvement over the Model T, my new Fusion with all-wheel drive & turbocharged 6 is a vast improvement over the '57 Chevy. (I owned one! It was a fine car, but the Fusion has it beat in comfort, performance, handling, & gas mileage.) it's MUCH-easier to teach Scriptural truth from a modern-language version.(I primarily use the NKJV & NASV.)