The "only" version?

Hey Brother..... I’m definitely a King James guy, make no apologies and can careless who agrees or disagrees- it is my final authority.

That being said I sure do not look down at someone who uses something different. I worship the Lord not a book, albeit they are fairly close IMOP, however I have seen enough apostasy of KJVO churches, folks who play church on Sunday and are in the world the rest of the week.

God will honor those who trust, honor his Son as their only means of salvation.

Back in the days when folk did not read or right, slaves, etc. were some of the most God fearing men and women who walked, graced this earth and could not read a KJV, RSV, CSB, etc. They put in their trust, their soul in the hands of a person and sung hymns abt HIM.

If God can preserve our soul it sure reasons to me that he can preserve his word- and am thankful I am just to simple enough to believe it.

That is just me and no Greek, Hebrew, debates, scholars will ever change my heart.

I mean Mormon’s use a King James and they believe Christ and Lucifer were (spiritual) brothers.

Crazy world out there- Cain’s faith and Abel’s faith

2 cents from am old hippie baptist preacher


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That was @robycop3 word for which I had replied to, wondering what he generally knew about it as lies of the KJVO myth.

I believe the best way to address my reliance on the KJV and not by referring to whatever KJVO is about, is by how the KJV has kept the meat of His words to discern good & evil by without declining from the testimonies of the Son ( Psalm 119:157-158 ) as proof that those who loved Him kept His words from those that did not as prophesied in John 14:23-24 & John 15:20.


When all Bibles testify to the truth that the Holy Spirit cannot speak for Himself but speaks what He hears in John 16:13, then the KJV has it right by testifying in Romans 8:26 that even the groanings of the Holy Spirit cannot be uttered; hence the Spirit makes silent intercessions for us which is why the "he" in Romans 8:27 is about the Son that searches our hearts as confirmed in Hebrews 4:12-16 and thus the same "he" that knows the mind of the Spirit to give the silent intercessions of the Spirit to the Father since it is the will of God for Jesus Christ to be the only Mediator between God and men. 1 Timothy 2:5

So scripture is not to go against scripture; that is why the lost books are kept out of the Bible and that is how you can tell which Bible to rely on when Romans 8:26-27 does not run against the truth in John 16:13. Do discern that with Him regarding the defense of the gospel in keeping the faith when so many believers re going astray assuming that spirit that comes over them later on in life apart from salvation was the Holy Spirit and for assuming that because that tongue does not come with interpretation, that it is a prayer language of the Holy Spirit but John 16:13 in all Bible versions says it is not for He cannot.

God's gift of tongues is only for speaking unto the people as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:20-21 and not to be used as a sign towards believers to seek after for seeking a baptism of the Holy Ghost apart from salvation ( 1 Corinthians 14:22 ) for then that is not of Him at all. 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 1 Timothy 4:1-2 2 Corinthians 13:5 1 John 4:1-6

 

Salty, respectfully, that is not the KJV position that I hold to nor other KJVO people that I know.. The way I view it, the KJV is the best and most accurate translation of the Bible in the English language, I cannot speak about other languages, and while there were English translations prior to the KJV and after the KJV, my position is that the KJV is the most accurate and faithful English translation.

Now, does the NASV, ESV, and even the NIV contain Gospel truth, yes, There is a lot of truth that can be found in these other translations, the same goes with the translations that preceded the KJV. the "only" in the KJVO to me means that only the KJV should be used because of its superiority and purity as a translation. I suppose you could say that other translations contain parts of God's word, but I don't believe other translations are the best representation of the word of God in the English language. I will however say that I believe the pre 1611 English bibles were a lot more accurate and faithful than the modern versions that are out today. I would take a Tyndale, Geneva, or Bishops bible over a ESV, NASB, or NIV any day.

Though I suppose people will continue to beat down the strawman over and over again as if KJV people believed there was no word of God prior to 1611, there were good English translations before 1611, and of course, there were the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as well as other Ancient translations in other languages. But this fact does not negate the KJVO position if we define it as the KJV being the best and most faithful English translation. If you have something that is the best and most faithful, why would any serious student of the Bible use something else?

 

Well, honestly I abhor positions and thinking like that, I think it comes from a really sloppy communication, I think the point is that we shouldn't "correct" the KJV by referring to the Critical Greek texts, I am KJO but I personally have benefited greatly from Greek and Hebrew studies, it has really helped me in areas where the English translation can be somewhat vague, in fact for my Master's Thesis I am going to write on the benefits of Greek and Hebrew for the Bible Student, I don't see any problems with using Hebrew and Greek to refine and give more detail to our understanding of the English translation. a great examples is John 14 where Jesus said I will send "another" comforter, the word "another" is a Greek word "allos" which means another of the same kind, as opposed to the word "Heteros" which means another of a different kind, so in that way I would look at the Greek as filling in the outline that we see in the English, not correcting the English, but just expanding our understanding.

there is a KJO crowd out there that is anti Greek and Hebrew and I think this is an error.

So if the meme was saying that we shouldn't correct the KJV with corrupt critical Greek texts, then I agree, but if they are meaning that we can't add color from the Greek and Hebrew to our black and white English translation, then I disagree.

I am sympathetic to your concerns, there are a lot of KJO people running around that I believe are extreme, inconsistent, and ignorant about language in general, However there are people who are KJVO and have good reasons for being so. unfortunately the followers of Riplinger and Ruckman often cause the whole KJVO Camp to be painted with a broad brush.

 

And so it is with every version which lasts several centuries...

The Latin Vulgate reigned supreme for about 1000 years and yes there was a LVO following - mantra - "Latin is the language of heaven!".

 

LOL!

 

And what would those "good reasons" be?

 

So before the advent of the KJVO mentality there was no "O" mindset. That didn't try to get off the ground until 60 some odd years ago.

Some of the KJV revisers quoted from the Geneva Bible and other versions decades after 1611 in their sermons and writings.

Every KJVO individual needs to read The Translators To The Reader: The Preface by Miles Smith. It debunks ahead of time any notion of singularity of any Bible "version" in toto.

 

Yeah. My guess is you are probably dealing with a Ruckmanite, the attitude and spirit is similar to what I have seen in Ruckman's followers. They seem to think that being KJVO gives them the right to behave in an uncharitable manner and to speak harshly to other people. They need to learn to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. I think we could all stand to have a charitable spirit and to let our speech be always with grace and seasoned with salt.

And there is only one thing required for salvation, and that is believing in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for our sins. and I am sure glad that he died for us was buried and rose again!

 

Have you and your KJVO compatriots come to agreement as to which parts of some modern translations are not a part of God's Word?

For instance, consider the shorter books of Haggai, Philemon, 2 John, 3 John and Jude. Are there parts missing of the actual Word of God in those books?

 

Yeah the Only Movement of the KJV is just a baby compared with the LVO.

 

Yeah, you're right. If someone is KJVO they're not likely to read other versions for purposes of comparison.

That would probably destroy their KJVO faith. Secretly they might weaken a bit and exclaim within :"So that's what this verse means? I've always wondered but didn't dare ask"


Can you imagine the thought process of someone claiming their version is without error compared with all other translations (in English they are quick to say), but they haven't taken the time to read much of any other version or read biblical studies of any kind because the KJV was not cited?

 

KJVOnlyism is so pronounced in some quarters it's as if it's an article of the Faith.

Some of these churches which are not Confessional, have summaries of Our Beliefs.

And wouldn't you know it, # 1 is "We believe that the King James Version is the only perfect Word of God today." --or words to that effect.

That's their #1 priority in their belief system. The death burial and resurrection of Christ is important too, but not the most significant.

Many countries which do not have English as their native language have no such article of faith. Are they missing out? Or are the KJVOs adding something that actually detracts from the Christian Faith?