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

[Salty]

If someone believes in teh KJVO view and they believe that the KJV is the Word of God to the English speaking people, what false doctrine will they be engaging in? What doctrine given in Scripture does that belief contradict?

From your question - that is not a false doctrine.
You said "...the KJV is the Word of God to the English speaking people,"
Now when :"...the KJV is the ONLY Word of God to the English speaking people,"
does it become a false doctrine.
I have read the Bible thru - cannot find one reference where the KJV is the only true version......
If I missed it - let Robycop and me know

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I've thought about starting NLTO and telling everyone that they can't understand the Bible because they don't believe and trust the divinely inspired NLB.

Here's the weird thing though...
Essentially no one would be bothered by that.
Logos wouldn't wax eloquent quoting absurdly long passages of his own book which no one reads all the way through, Roby wouldn't particularly care.
You could start such a thread and even start a movement like Ruckman and it wouldn't garner 1 1/10th the ire that KJVO does.
It's a strange phenomenon.

 

[church mouse guy]

You won't find one, because that is by far the most reasonable explanation, usually assumed by almost all serious students of Scripture. (well, the conservative ones anyway).

Right, he was pretty serious in Deut. about Sabbath-keeping, and a million other commands not given to Cain....why assume it was his "sister" anyway? It could have been his great-great-great niece for all we know. The age difference would have been insignificant. Have you even put any serious thought into this???

He forbids it certainly at this point, that doesn't mean he always did.

His essential nature doesn't change, but his policies and requirements for his creatures might.
That sort of distinction escapes you.

Why assume that?

Right, because they are aware of the fact that there is no evidence of it being forbidden until explicitly verboten in the Mosaic Torah.
You are inventing laws and doctrines WITH ZERO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT.....just as you accuse KJVO'S of doing. That is pointed out to you occasionally, but you only care to be consistent about a particular dying and increasingly irrelevant issue.

We are, you were speaking of despising teaching of doctrines with ZERO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT.....such as teaching commands which are not in Scripture such as forbidding incest amongst pre-Torah peoples, and inventing creation histories out of whole cloth....both being doctrines with zero Scriptural support.
Along with the KJVO myth, you should reject such man-made doctrines.

Thanks!

If there is no law against an act, then it is legal.

 

[rsr]

Here's the weird thing though...
Essentially no one would be bothered by that.
Logos wouldn't wax eloquent quoting absurdly long passages of his own book which no one reads all the way through, Roby wouldn't particularly care.
You could start such a thread and even start a movement like Ruckman and it wouldn't garner 1 1/10th the ire that KJVO does.
It's a strange phenomenon.

Anyone who thought it was serious would, of course, oppose it. We had a poster years ago who was Alexandrian Only. Of course, it was a joke.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Anyone who thought it was serious would, of course, oppose it. We had a poster years ago who was Alexandrian Only. Of course, it was a joke.

The reasonable would, but, honestly, I don't have that kind of faith in my fellows.
I sincerely believe it would be seen as quirky but non-problematic.
There is an anti-kjvo derangement which is as crazy as the most virulent Ruckmanitism.
You are assuming these discussions are based upon reason, they are largely not.

Why do we have anti-kjvo crusaders obsessed with what is a theological side-show of a side-show.
Things eventually leave the mind and become part of our blood.....like anti-kjvo sentiment.
I imagine if .05% of the populace were NLTO or whatever, (as is probably the case with KJVO) essentially no one would care.

Eugene Peterson mocks God with what is essentially a blasphemous deceit which millions of Christians confuse for a "translation" and all the blood is spilled on this KJVO nonsense.
Has Roby (for instance) ever taken the time to discern the trash that the sheeple are reading and warned against the confusion it engenders?

Does Logos (who is essentially a Bible-translation obsessive) begin threads warning people not to be deceived by mistaking trash like The Message for a Bible?
Do either of those passionate "freedom-readers" EVER start threads suggesting worthwhile and faithful translations to suggest people read? Do they write tomes and offer them for sale to protect the faithful from such garbage?

No, they harp on the one pet non-issue which confuses an insignificant and dying minority of otherwise sincere and faithful Christians while The Message and others of it's ilk run amok deceiving Christians by the millions. There is seriously something wrong here, and it isn't reasonable.

 

[Salty]

...why assume it was his "sister" anyway? It could have been his great-great-great niece for all we know. The age difference would have been insignificant. Have you even put any serious thought into this??? ...

Okay, lets say Cain did marrry his great... niece -

The only way Cain could have had a niece - for for Able or Seth to have had children by their sister....

Any plausible for the boys of Adam and Eve - fro not being married to their sister(s) - I'm listening.....

 

[Salty]

.

Why do we have anti-kjvo crusaders obsessed with what is a theological side-show of a side-show. ...

Because the KJO people keep it up - we just want to show them there is NO Scriptural support for such a doctrine. And IMHO - to those folks - it is doctrine.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

The only way Cain could have had a niece - for for Able or Seth to have had children by their sister....

Well, or any of the other probable multitude of sons they had, yes....

Any plausible for the boys of Adam and Eve - fro not being married to their sister(s)

No, invariably, at least one of them would have had to.
The assumption in Roby's sentence was that Cain would have. We don't know that.

- I'm listening.....

What for?
There's nothing to explain.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Because the KJO people keep it up

So what?
Practically no one is listening to them anyway, and their only support comes from other KJVO folks who otherwise wouldn't likely begin a discussion about the topic.
I would bet though, that if you counted threads begun on the topic it is a FAR greater number of anti-kjvo folks who begin threads on the topic than KJV folks.
I would guess it's probably 3 to 1 who keeps bringing the topic up for discussion.

- we just want to show them there is NO Scriptural support for such a doctrine.

You, maybe.
For others it is an unhealthy and deranged obsession, I can't believe I am the only one who can see this.

And IMHO - to those folks - it is doctrine.

Only to some.
To many others it isn't.
I used to be KJVO, but I never confused it for a Bible doctrine.
It was always an issue of faithful textual criticism, faithful translation methodology and Philosophy and a plausibly held belief that God had providentially protected the Originals from corruption, and that "MV's" were all Alexandrian corruptions blah blah.
It was a belief that Satan is a deceiver who will little by little might corrupt the text, if able, and fleece the sheep, and that Modern Versions were the camel's nose in the tent to.....

I don't know....

….Maybe the eventual embrace of blasphemous texts like "The Message" being read and taken seriously by naïve and easily fooled Christians who wouldn't have dreamed of such things when the RSV were first introduced.

It is that way for MANY MANY KJVO folks.
Even when I was KJVO I never thought that Psalms was a prophecy about English Bible translations....
And no, I wasn't "KJV preferred" or any meaningless non-term James White would invent, I was KJVO.

At no point was any anti-kjvo book meaningful in my change of view, (and I read many of them) never was a thread on this board or any other of any effect. It was simple curiosity, study of original languages amongst other things etc..
The issue would practically die if the anti-kjvo crusaders would let it simply age and die it's natural death.

 

[Rob_BW]

Here's the weird thing though...
Essentially no one would be bothered by that.
Logos wouldn't wax eloquent quoting absurdly long passages of his own book which no one reads all the way through, Roby wouldn't particularly care.
You could start such a thread and even start a movement like Ruckman and it wouldn't garner 1 1/10th the ire that KJVO does.
It's a strange phenomenon.

Uh, proof?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Uh, proof?

It's a bald assertion, of course I couldn't prove it.
You, of course, know that, and wouldn't demand "proof" of such a subjective and unprovable statement in most other circumstances.
You are too intelligent for that.
Why demand "Proof" now???
Why so defensive?
I think it's plausible and based on observation over years of being unfortunate witness to these threads.
Do you think it's entirely unreasonable?
I don't think you do.
I think I've hit on something others have observed, and some people don't like it.

 

[robycop3]

If someone believes in teh KJVO view and they believe that the KJV is the Word of God to the English speaking people, what false doctrine will they be engaging in? What doctrine given in Scripture does that belief contradict?

None, if that's the limit of their belief in the KJV. I, too, believe the KJV is the word of God. But I believe that several other English versions are, as well, not to mention non-English ones. But if one believes the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation out there, then one believes a man-made false doctrine.

 

[GoodTidings]

None, if that's the limit of their belief in the KJV. I, too, believe the KJV is the word of God. But I believe that several other English versions are, as well, not to mention non-English ones. But if one believes the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation out there, then one believes a man-made false doctrine.

Doctrine is defined as those biblical principles that form the foundation for practical Christian living. So for a doctrine to be a "false doctrine," it has to be something that would violate the doctrines revealed in Scripture. While KJVO might be seen as "wrong" from a historical or linguistic perspective, it would not qualify as "false doctrine."

 

[robycop3]

Again, no answer except to deflect and accuse me of something I have never advocated. No wonder it's impossible to have a rational conversation with you.

With all due respect, Sir, the canon question was settled long before my great-great-great-great-great grandpa was born, and I have no reason to question it, as it was an act of God's, accepted by billions of Christians for many hundreds of years.

OTOH, the KJVO myth was popularized well within my lifetime, and is entirely man-made. While the making of the KJV may be due to the influence of God, so were the making of many other translations, both in English & in other languages as well. But the belief of just one translation's being the ONLY valid Bible translation we have, is entirely of MAN'S making.

 

[robycop3]

Doctrine is defined as those biblical principles that form the foundation for practical Christian living. So for a doctrine to be a "false doctrine," it has to be something that would violate the doctrines revealed in Scripture. While KJVO might be seen as "wrong" from a historical or linguistic perspective, it would not qualify as "false doctrine."

Well, actually, it IS, as a "doctrine" is any idea or principle that's TAUGHT as being true. And the KJVO myth IS taught in more than one congregation.

 

[GoodTidings]

Well, actually, it IS, as a "doctrine" is any idea or principle that's TAUGHT as being true. And the KJVO myth IS taught in more than one congregation.

Respectfully, it is not a doctrine. It might be an opinion, a very strongly held opinion, but it is not a "doctrine."

 

[Rob_BW]

It's a bald assertion, of course I couldn't prove it.
You, of course, know that, and wouldn't demand "proof" of such a subjective and unprovable statement in most other circumstances.
You are too intelligent for that.
Why demand "Proof" now???
Why so defensive?
I think it's plausible and based on observation over years of being unfortunate witness to these threads.
Do you think it's entirely unreasonable?
I don't think you do.
I think I've hit on something others have observed, and some people don't like it.

Lol, I'm defensive?

I'm sorry that I think bald assertions (your words) shouldn't hold much weight in an argument/debate.

Let me ask a question. You call your bald assertion a "strange phenomenon." Why is that?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Well, actually, it IS, as a "doctrine" is any idea or principle that's TAUGHT as being true. And the KJVO myth IS taught in more than one congregation.

The sphericity of the earth is also taught in more than one congregation....that doesn't make it "doctrine".
It could be taught in a non-doctrinal way, as manuscript criticism, translational history and philosophy and has often been taught in precisely that way.
I've heard it that way many times, including pastors who insist that, while they are strongly KJVO, they do not believe it is a Biblical Doctrine, but rather one of faithful adherence to the original autographs faithfully preserved.
That is not in any Theological sense "doctrine".

This will mean nothing to you because that is not what you want to hear but, let the reader beware.

 

[GoodTidings]

From your question - that is not a false doctrine.
You said "...the KJV is the Word of God to the English speaking people,"
Now when :"...the KJV is the ONLY Word of God to the English speaking people,"
does it become a false doctrine.
I have read the Bible thru - cannot find one reference where the KJV is the only true version......
If I missed it - let Robycop and me know

That kind of makes my point about it being a strongly held opinion, but not a "doctrine." The KJVO crowd views the KJV as the Word of God to the English speaking people. That is something that can be debated, but I don't think it qualifies as "doctrine" per se.

I am not defending the KJVO view, but I can think of a hundred other teachings that do fall under the heading of "false doctrine" that are far more dangerous. I know KJVO people and I have never seen any of them veer off into wild and crazy teachings and off-the-wall theology. As a rule, they hold to sound doctrine, the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith.

If being KJVO led to falling into some fringe pseudo Christian cult, that would be different.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Lol, I'm defensive?
I'm sorry that I think bald assertions (your words) shouldn't hold much weight in an argument/debate.

When a bald assertion is made with no pretense that it is anything other than a bald assertion reasonable people (which you are as a rule) do not demand a "Proof".

When you read a tome which begins with the phrase "Once upon a time"...do you start seeking citations?
This is no different.
It is an opinion I make from personal observation, and I don't think I'm the only one who sees it this way.
In a strange sense, your demand for "Proof" cements that opinion in my mind.
I think my statement hit a nerve.

Let me ask a question. You call your bald assertion a "strange phenomenon." Why is that?

Because I think that it is strange.