What does it mean to you to be KJVO?

[Bro Tony]

Pioneer,

I would wish you welcome to the BB, but you have come in here attacking the Word of God. You say these are your beliefs and are not intended to be an attack on any one else's point of view, but you have attack the Bible. When you call all modern English Bibles "counterfeits" you have attacked God's Word. I must reject your point of view as shameful and another man-made doctrine without any biblical backing. I love my KJV, and my NKJV, and my NASB, and my RSV and I will not stand by and let anyone who claims to be a believer attack God's Word.

Bro Tony

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by pioneer:
2. I believe that all modern English Bibles (from 1881 to the present) must be rejected as counterfeits, because they are polluted by the Westcott and Hort textual theory which changes and corrupts the word of God (II Corinthians 2:17; 4:2; Revelation 22:18,19).

What about modern English versions that are not based on the Westcott Hort type text, but are based on the same text as the KJV? Do you reject them too?

I believe that the King James Bible that I use today is substantially equivalent to the original 1611 edition.

I guess that would depend on your definition of "substantially." There are over 1,000 word changes from the 1611 to the 1762/1769. How do you decide which is the real perfect word of God?

I have held this position for over 30 years and I do not intend to change.

Are you saying that even if your position is proven to be wrong you would still refuse to change?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Pionerr: //... King James Bible (AV 1611) ... //

Show me a picture of what you are talking
about. Evidently different people define
these terms differently.

-------------------
Which King James Version do you use?
Here is a sample test:

1. Ruth III:15d (KJV1611):

... and he went into the citie.

2. Ruth 3:15 (KJV1769):

... and she went into the city.

3. Ruth 3:15 (KJV1873):

... and he went into the city.

I found (by survey) usually
following meaning for the following
terms given by KJVOs:

King James Bible -
1. most - KJV1769 Edition
2. next most - all three of the above
and the KJV1873 edition as well --
i.e. the KJB is all the KJVs

AV 1611 - Anglican un-american un-baptist bibles,,
namely the KJV1762 and KJV1769 Editions
from Cambridge and Oxford

KJV1611 Edition - KJV1611 Edition
---------------------------------

Anyway, Sir, your discriptor is undefined
and/or the defintion cannot be determined.

1Co 14:8 (KJV1611 Edition):
For if the trumpet giue an vncertaine sound,
who shall prepare himselfe to the battell?

 

[Rippon]

Michael Harding has a chapter in " God's Word In Our Hands : The Bible Preserved For Us " . He has an interesting footnote on page 361 regarding Erasmus .

Often in the current translation debate , ad hominem arguments against one who compiles and correlates the ancient manuscripts are dishonestly used to cast unnecessary dispersions upon a Greek text , manuscript family , or translation . If such arguments were legitimate ( and they are not ), the textual base of the KJV itself would have to be discounted . For instance , Erasmus , the Roman Catholic editor and initial compiler of the textual base underlying the KJV , was sharply attacked for some of his comments in the Annotations . Erasmus was justly criticized because of his heretical view of inspiration . During the time he assembled his Greek text to parallel his Latin translation , he believed that inspiration protected the biblical writers in matters of faith only , and not in matters of history , science , or factual accuracy . In Acts 10 , for example , Erasmus sttes in his notes that the original words of the apostle were in error , reasoning that divine inspiration extended only to their thoughts , and not to their words : " It was not necessary to ascribe everything in the apostles to a miracle . They were men , they were ignorant of some things , and they erred in a few places ."

 

[pioneer]

Originally posted by Bro Tony:
Pioneer,

I would wish you welcome to the BB, but you have come in here attacking the Word of God. You say these are your beliefs and are not intended to be an attack on any one else's point of view, but you have attack the Bible. When you call all modern English Bibles "counterfeits" you have attacked God's Word. I must reject your point of view as shameful and another man-made doctrine without any biblical backing. I love my KJV, and my NKJV, and my NASB, and my RSV and I will not stand by and let anyone who claims to be a believer attack God's Word.

Bro Tony

I am only answering the original question. This is not an attack on you or God's word. I have stated my particular position on the King James Bible. What is wrong with that?

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by pioneer:
I am a King James Bible believer. Yes, I describe myself as being King James only. I wish to answer the original question by quoting my own doctrinal statement:

The KJV superiority over modern versions is what we know about.

1. I believe that the King James Bible (AV 1611) is the only English Bible available to us today that is the true and perfect word of God.

Call the KJV, "The Bible"!

2. I believe that all modern English Bibles (from 1881 to the present) must be rejected as counterfeits, because they are polluted by the Westcott and Hort textual theory which changes and corrupts the word of God (II Corinthians 2:17; 4:2; Revelation 22:18,19).

I already told them about that. They called me a liar." You are right because we know about W/H.

3. I believe that the King James Bible (AV 1611) is to be our final authority in all matters of faith and practice (II Timothy 3:16,17).

The KJV is the FINAL AUTHORITY!!! I only use it for many years.

Before some of you start throwing insults and accusing me of being ignorant of the facts, I will add this statement: I believe that the King James Bible that I use today is substantially equivalent to the original 1611 edition.

They clashed with me, not because of the KJV, but because of the fact about the KJV.

These are my beliefs and are not intended to be an attack on any one else's point of view. Note: I have held this position for over 30 years and I do not intend to change.

I hold the KJV because of its certainity over modern versions.

 

[Bro Tony]

Pioneer,

You cannot see that in calling the MVs counterfeit, you are calling them false, ie. not the Word of God. If I said to you that the KJV is a counterfeit Bible, would you not see that as an attack on the Bible? Of course you would. You do not have the authority to make a claim that the NKJV, RSV, NIV, NASB, Holman et al. are counterfeit Bibles. They are the Word of God and calling them counterfeit is an attack against them. You can say anything you want about how wonderful the KJV is and I would agree, but your post doesn't just praise the KJV it slams the other versions of God's Word.

Bro Tony

 

[Bro Tony]

Well Pioneer,

Now you've done it Askjo agrees with you, who could argue with that?

Bro Tony

 

[pioneer]

So, you are telling me that, because I answered the original question in a truthful, honest, and respectful manner that I am somehow attacking the word of God? If my answer is an attack on God's word, then the original question shouldn't have been asked. An honest question deserves an honest answer.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Askjo: //The KJV is the FINAL AUTHORITY!!! I only use it for many years.//

Excuse me, Sir, but your FINAL AUTHORITY is
NOT the KJV but your understanding of the KJV.

Anyway, logically "KJV" is an unresolvable term.
We might know what you were talking about if you
used the term "the KJVs". There are more than one
of these KJVs, which do you claim is your
FINAL AUTHORITY.

Ed, the Ed who is documenting the
False Doctrines that come from misunderstanding of
the KJV1769.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Pioneer - you are new (others feign hurt or ignorance but are simply lying) so will cut you some slack.

You can say POSITIVELY what you believe. If it 100% your right to believe the KJV is the only Bible.

But when you say ALL OTHER BIBLES are NOT blah blah blah, then you have attacked MY translation of the Word of God.

I do not attack the AV1611 (my Scofield is a 1769 revision). I will not allow you to attack another (or all other) translations.

Pretty simple. HUGE difference in stating what you believe positively and in attacking others' beliefs negatively.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Bro Tony:
Pioneer,

You cannot see that in calling the MVs counterfeit, you are calling them false, ie. not the Word of God. If I said to you that the KJV is a counterfeit Bible, would you not see that as an attack on the Bible? Of course you would. You do not have the authority to make a claim that the NKJV, RSV, NIV, NASB, Holman et al. are counterfeit Bibles. They are the Word of God and calling them counterfeit is an attack against them. You can say anything you want about how wonderful the KJV is and I would agree, but your post doesn't just praise the KJV it slams the other versions of God's Word.

Bro Tony

David Cloud researched many names and found many evidences about them. I read his 3 booklets, and was awestruck to learn the facts. Those whom you defend attacked the Word of God and questioned God's Word. Pioneer and I believe in the KJV, not because it is the best one, but because it is the Word of God.

 

[Bro Tony]

Askjo,

David Cloud is no authority. I would not give you a dime for any of his booklets. Neither he nor you have the authority to condemn any version of the Word of God. My NKJV is the Word of God. Cloud can be your source of authority I will stand on God's Word.

Cloud and facts now there is an oxymoron.

Bro Tony

 

[pioneer]

I am not going to argue the point. Evidently we must think on different wavelengths.

 

[Bro Tony]

Let me try one more time. I hope I'm not wasting my breath. Pioneer, I have a simple question for you. If someone called the KJV a counterfeit Bible would you consider that an attack on the Word of God? That is what you have done in your statement toward the MV's. I have no doubt that is the truth as you see it, but just because you see it that way doesn't make it the TRUTH.

Bro Tony

PS--you agree to the rules in order to post on this board, you are not allowed to attack the Word of God.

 

[DesiderioDomini]

No, we think in actual truths, and you think in fantasy.

That is why EVERY SINGLE KJVN THIS BOARD has to avoid simple questions in order to keep their belief. To answer any question is to admit their belief is false.

You will be no different. Why waste the time?

 

[DesiderioDomini]

We DO however stand with open invitation to all who come sincerely seeking the truth in the matter of the King James Bible versus the Modern Versions. I don't know of a single KJBible defender who will lie to you or twist History or the Scriptures to make a point. If any do then they have other problems that need dealt with before the Lord and have no fellowship with the true defenders of God's Word.

This post shows incredible ignorance of Jim Oakley. Anyone who disagreed with him was met with RABID HATRED. The first question against his legalism unleashed a torrent of insults and satanic accusations.

Its a wonder why we can never trust anything a KJVO says. It is either intentionally twisted, or completely ignorant of the facts.

 

[pioneer]

Originally posted by Bro Tony:
Let me try one more time. I hope I'm not wasting my breath. Pioneer, I have a simple question for you. If someone called the KJV a counterfeit Bible would you consider that an attack on the Word of God? That is what you have done in your statement toward the MV's. I have no doubt that is the truth as you see it, but just because you see it that way doesn't make it the TRUTH.

Bro Tony

If someone calls the King James Bible a "counterfeit Bible" I do not consider that an attack on the word of God. If someone changes and corrupts the King James Bible, then I do consider that an attack on the word of God.

 

[Bro Tony]

Pioneer,

I would suggest some classes in logic. If someone speaks or comes against something they attack it.

Are you sayin in you last part that the translators of the MV's have changed and corrupted God's Word. Or are you just saying that the KJV is the only valid English translation of God's Word? If you are what did the English speaking people have before 1611? Did God leave them with only a corrupt Bible?

Bro Tony

 

[pioneer]

Originally posted by Bro Tony:
Pioneer,

Are you sayin in your last part that the translators of the MV's have changed and corrupted God's Word.

Bro Tony

Yes, that is what I am saying. End of discussion.