What is your understanding of KJVO?

[HankD]

Illogical and bad faith though!

According to us, yes.

 

[Zanasp]

I'm not too knowledgeable about it to be honest but the Church I'm looking at attending is KJVO. I only have KJV Bibles as I felt drawn to this version. I was told to get a NKJV but I just felt something was off when I read other Bible verses online from different Bibles.

edit: I didn't read your full post beyond the title, sorry

 

[robycop3]

My definition of KJVO is it's the belief that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation, The extreme or hyper-KJVO view is that the KJV is perfect.

My definition of KJVP is that one PREFERS the KJV above all other English versions, but NOT that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation. nothing wrong with KJVP. Just about every English Bible translation is preferred by a number of people.

My VIEW is that KJVO is false, and a myth, reasons being it has NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT & therefore nothing from GOD authorizing anyone to believe it - plus, its inherent false premises. The hyper-KJVO mindset is extra-false, as the KJV is far from a technically-perfect translation.

I call KJVO a "myth' because it's apocryphal and entirely MAN-MADE. Its current edition began with 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Ben Wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.

As the KJVO myth is taught in some congregations, it's also a DOCTRINE, albeit a FALSE one.

Please note that there's been several threads on this site dealing with KJVO's lack of Scriptural support, & that no KJVO will address that fact. like "Flat-earthers", they stubbornly cling to a false doctrine that has no basis in FACT.

 

[Baptist4life]

Roby...I know you and I have had our moments over the years, but I'd like to put that behind us and offer an "olive branch" if I may. Let me clarify for you, and everyone else I guess, my stance on KJVO. I DO NOT agree with KJVOism. Not one bit. My church preaches from the ESV and NKJV, while people in my congregation use any version they please. I PREFER the KJV because it's what I grew up reading, memorizing, and using my entire life. I don't want to change and try to learn Scripture from another version now. However, I have NO PROBLEM with anyone else using whatever version they want. As a matter of fact only a few people besides myself in the church I attend, still use the KJV. I guess my problem with the KJVO threads is that they all seem to demean the KJV in order to try to demean KJVOism. I don't feel I've defended KJVOism, but I do defend the KJV. Anyway, roby, I apologize for all the conflicts we've had, and hope that can be in the past, and forgiven. I'm KJVP, if you want to label me.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

That would be all KJVOs. Ignorance is their mantra.

"Dr. Riley goes on to say there were a group of men whom he describes as the "old conception," who believed the Authorized Version or King James Bible (hereafter AV) was inerrant. He states on page 11, "On this point we are inclined to think that, even unto comparatively recent years, such a theory has been entertained." He then ascribes this belief to ignorance, and says, "I think it would be accepted without fear of successful controversy that such fogies in Biblical knowledge are few, and their funerals are nigh at hand." Actually there are quite a few of us, and I for one am feeling just fine, thank you." Textual Criticism Fact and Fiction - a fresh look at Bible Inspiration Preservation and Translation by Dr. Thomas Cassidy

Ignorance is a tired old argument that is still untrue since the day you refuted it.

If they had studied the text issue they would know there is no such thing as "The Traditional Greek Text."

"Here is where the problem arises. No single edition of the Textus Receptus, available at the time of the translating of the King James Bible (1604-1611) is identical to the Traditional Text. Furthermore, no single edition of the Textus Receptus available to Dean Burgon was identical to the Traditional Text which underlies the King James Bible. And this is what produced the problem which Dean Burgon attempted to address. He believed, and rightly so, that no then-existing edition of the Textus Receptus conformed completely with the Traditional Text as embodied in the Byzantine Manuscript tradition. Thus, every Textus Receptus that the good Dean had available for his use was, in his opinion, in need of revision."
The Textual Position of Dean John William Burgon by Dr. Thomas Cassidy [emphasis mine]

"The Traditional text of the New Testament has existed from the time of Christ right down to the present." Textual Criticism Fact and Fiction - a fresh look at Bible Inspiration Preservation and Translation by Dr. Thomas Cassidy [emphasis mine]

"Churches all down through the ages have used the Traditional text. The churches of the reformation period all used versions based on the Traditional text. Martin Luther's German Bible was based on the Traditional text. The French version of Oliveton was based on the Traditional text. The Czech Version and the Italian version of Diodati were based on the Traditional text. All of the early English versions including William Tyndale's Bible, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, the Taverners Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and the Bishops' Bible were all based on the Traditional text." ibid [emphasis mine]

If there's "no such thing," why do you refer to it repeatedly?

 

[robycop3]

Roby...I know you and I have had our moments over the years, but I'd like to put that behind us and offer an "olive branch" if I may. Let me clarify for you, and everyone else I guess, my stance on KJVO. I DO NOT agree with KJVOism. Not one bit. My church preaches from the ESV and NKJV, while people in my congregation use any version they please. I PREFER the KJV because it's what I grew up reading, memorizing, and using my entire life. I don't want to change and try to learn Scripture from another version now. However, I have NO PROBLEM with anyone else using whatever version they want. As a matter of fact only a few people besides myself in the church I attend, still use the KJV. I guess my problem with the KJVO threads is that they all seem to demean the KJV in order to try to demean KJVOism. I don't feel I've defended KJVOism, but I do defend the KJV. Anyway, roby, I apologize for all the conflicts we've had, and hope that can be in the past, and forgiven. I'm KJVP, if you want to label me.

OF COURSE I forgive you! That's the CHRISTIAN thing to do! And I must ask YOUR forgiveness, as I've said some unkind things to YOU. We are both Christians & Baptists, and, while you're you & I'm me, there's no need to have wars of words. On certain matters, I agree to disagree with no hard feelings, & hope you feel the same!

As for KJVP, I have no prob with it, even though I prefer the NKJV & NASV, The main reasons are that those versions are in the everyday English of most English users & I don't have to stop in the middle of teaching to explain the modern meanings of some archaic terms in the KJV or older versions. Such preferences are akin to some, as myself, preferring Ford vehicles, while my next-door neighbors prefer Chevys. Both are good vehicles.

And I believe that, while you PREFER the KJV, you also realize there's no truth to the KJVO myth. While I believe the KJV is an excellent translation that has served English users for 400 years, it's far from the only valid English Bible translation.

 

[Baptist4life]

Thanks, roby......sure feels good making things right between us. (BTW, I'm starting to use my NKJV more often... )

 

[robycop3]

"Dr. Riley goes on to say there were a group of men whom he describes as the "old conception," who believed the Authorized Version or King James Bible (hereafter AV) was inerrant. He states on page 11, "On this point we are inclined to think that, even unto comparatively recent years, such a theory has been entertained." He then ascribes this belief to ignorance, and says, "I think it would be accepted without fear of successful controversy that such fogies in Biblical knowledge are few, and their funerals are nigh at hand." Actually there are quite a few of us, and I for one am feeling just fine, thank you." Textual Criticism Fact and Fiction - a fresh look at Bible Inspiration Preservation and Translation by Dr. Thomas Cassidy

Ignorance is a tired old argument that is still untrue since the day you refuted it.


"Here is where the problem arises. No single edition of the Textus Receptus, available at the time of the translating of the King James Bible (1604-1611) is identical to the Traditional Text. Furthermore, no single edition of the Textus Receptus available to Dean Burgon was identical to the Traditional Text which underlies the King James Bible. And this is what produced the problem which Dean Burgon attempted to address. He believed, and rightly so, that no then-existing edition of the Textus Receptus conformed completely with the Traditional Text as embodied in the Byzantine Manuscript tradition. Thus, every Textus Receptus that the good Dean had available for his use was, in his opinion, in need of revision."
The Textual Position of Dean John William Burgon by Dr. Thomas Cassidy [emphasis mine]

"The Traditional text of the New Testament has existed from the time of Christ right down to the present." Textual Criticism Fact and Fiction - a fresh look at Bible Inspiration Preservation and Translation by Dr. Thomas Cassidy [emphasis mine]

"Churches all down through the ages have used the Traditional text. The churches of the reformation period all used versions based on the Traditional text. Martin Luther's German Bible was based on the Traditional text. The French version of Oliveton was based on the Traditional text. The Czech Version and the Italian version of Diodati were based on the Traditional text. All of the early English versions including William Tyndale's Bible, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, the Taverners Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and the Bishops' Bible were all based on the Traditional text." ibid [emphasis mine]

If there's "no such thing," why do you refer to it repeatedly?

Dr. Riley wrote before the PRESENT EDITION of the KJVO myth came about.

As for the manuscript and Textus Receptus issues, it's a fact that no one manuscript, no edition or revision of the TR, and no edition of the KJV agree completely among themselves.

 

[TCassidy]

If there's "no such thing," why do you refer to it repeatedly?

Because if I said "The Byzantine Textform" the KJVOs would be too stupid to know what that was.

Notice also the difference between "Traditional Text" and "Traditional text." Got it now?

And thank you for proving that what I believed then and what I believe now is the same.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

And thank you for proving that what I believed then and what I believe now is the same.

Good to know that you haven't changed your position since you wrote these articles; because, I agree with you when you said, "I consider the Stuttgartensia and Alexandrian (WH) texts, from which all modern bibles are translated, to be corrupt. This is, I believe, easily demonstrated by the egregious errors contained in the versions translated from them...I believe the AV is inspired and inerrant because the preserved original language manuscripts from which it is derived are both inspired and inerrant, when correctly copied, which virtually all of the textual evidence suggests is assuredly the case. The charge of errors in the AV is an unfounded charge." Textual Criticism Fact and Fiction a fresh look at Bible Inspiration Preservation and Translation by Dr. Thomas Cassidy [emphasis mine]

 

[Pastor_Bob]

It's sad when you do not hold yourself to the same standard as you do everyone else here on the board. You state, "The charge of errors in the AV is an unfounded charge." Yet, when I state that a group of extreme KJVO (#6) believe there are no provable errors you reply:

Provable errors of what? Errors of grammar? Errors caused by textual variants? Errors of fact? Errors of history? Errors of prophecy? Errors of promises? With no elaboration the statement is meaningless.

Tell us, Tom, was your statement meaningless or were you simply grandstanding again? Or, does your statement, that you say you still believe, line you up with those whom you call "ignorant" and "stupid"?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Good to know that you haven't changed your position since you wrote these articles; because, I agree with you when you said, "I consider the Stuttgartensia and Alexandrian (WH) texts, from which all modern bibles are translated, to be corrupt. This is, I believe, easily demonstrated by the egregious errors contained in the versions translated from them...I believe the AV is inspired and inerrant because the preserved original language manuscripts from which it is derived are both inspired and inerrant, when correctly copied, which virtually all of the textual evidence suggests is assuredly the case. The charge of errors in the AV is an unfounded charge." Textual Criticism Fact and Fiction a fresh look at Bible Inspiration Preservation and Translation by Dr. Thomas Cassidy [emphasis mine]

Pastor Bob may I put to you the question that I posed in the previous thread?
My understanding would be that if a translation is deemed to be "without fault," then it must have been inspired by God and therefore double inspiration is in play.
I am not asking whether you believe the KJV is the word of God. I agree with the translators that " the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession....containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God" (though the translators had yet to encounter 'Gender neutral' versions!). I am asking if you believe it is somehow beyond improvement.

I shall be grateful if you would reply, as I need to know whether I ought to make an apology to @JonC.

 

[Yeshua1]

Roby...I know you and I have had our moments over the years, but I'd like to put that behind us and offer an "olive branch" if I may. Let me clarify for you, and everyone else I guess, my stance on KJVO. I DO NOT agree with KJVOism. Not one bit. My church preaches from the ESV and NKJV, while people in my congregation use any version they please. I PREFER the KJV because it's what I grew up reading, memorizing, and using my entire life. I don't want to change and try to learn Scripture from another version now. However, I have NO PROBLEM with anyone else using whatever version they want. As a matter of fact only a few people besides myself in the church I attend, still use the KJV. I guess my problem with the KJVO threads is that they all seem to demean the KJV in order to try to demean KJVOism. I don't feel I've defended KJVOism, but I do defend the KJV. Anyway, roby, I apologize for all the conflicts we've had, and hope that can be in the past, and forgiven. I'm KJVP, if you want to label me.

You would indeed be KJVP, and there is nothing wrong with that view, its just that the KJVO themselves are the ones saying that we demean the Kjv, by demanding its going to be either the only and perfect translation, or else demeaned by us!

 

[Yeshua1]

"Dr. Riley goes on to say there were a group of men whom he describes as the "old conception," who believed the Authorized Version or King James Bible (hereafter AV) was inerrant. He states on page 11, "On this point we are inclined to think that, even unto comparatively recent years, such a theory has been entertained." He then ascribes this belief to ignorance, and says, "I think it would be accepted without fear of successful controversy that such fogies in Biblical knowledge are few, and their funerals are nigh at hand." Actually there are quite a few of us, and I for one am feeling just fine, thank you." Textual Criticism Fact and Fiction - a fresh look at Bible Inspiration Preservation and Translation by Dr. Thomas Cassidy

Ignorance is a tired old argument that is still untrue since the day you refuted it.


"Here is where the problem arises. No single edition of the Textus Receptus, available at the time of the translating of the King James Bible (1604-1611) is identical to the Traditional Text. Furthermore, no single edition of the Textus Receptus available to Dean Burgon was identical to the Traditional Text which underlies the King James Bible. And this is what produced the problem which Dean Burgon attempted to address. He believed, and rightly so, that no then-existing edition of the Textus Receptus conformed completely with the Traditional Text as embodied in the Byzantine Manuscript tradition. Thus, every Textus Receptus that the good Dean had available for his use was, in his opinion, in need of revision."
The Textual Position of Dean John William Burgon by Dr. Thomas Cassidy [emphasis mine]

"The Traditional text of the New Testament has existed from the time of Christ right down to the present." Textual Criticism Fact and Fiction - a fresh look at Bible Inspiration Preservation and Translation by Dr. Thomas Cassidy [emphasis mine]

"Churches all down through the ages have used the Traditional text. The churches of the reformation period all used versions based on the Traditional text. Martin Luther's German Bible was based on the Traditional text. The French version of Oliveton was based on the Traditional text. The Czech Version and the Italian version of Diodati were based on the Traditional text. All of the early English versions including William Tyndale's Bible, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, the Taverners Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and the Bishops' Bible were all based on the Traditional text." ibid [emphasis mine]

If there's "no such thing," why do you refer to it repeatedly?

Except those of us who would hold to more of the Critical text would not see the church at large having anything close to the received text during the first several centuries, but something more akin to what is considered to be the Critical text in use today!
https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they...

 

[Yeshua1]

Dr. Riley wrote before the PRESENT EDITION of the KJVO myth came about.

As for the manuscript and Textus Receptus issues, it's a fact that no one manuscript, no edition or revision of the TR, and no edition of the KJV agree completely among themselves.

There is no consensus as to which TR/KJV would be seen as being THE correct version to use!

 

[Yeshua1]

Pastor Bob may I put to you the question that I posed in the previous thread?
My understanding would be that if a translation is deemed to be "without fault," then it must have been inspired by God and therefore double inspiration is in play.
I am not asking whether you believe the KJV is the word of God. I agree with the translators that " the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession....containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God" (though the translators had yet to encounter 'Gender neutral' versions!). I am asking if you believe it is somehow beyond improvement.

I shall be grateful if you would reply, as I need to know whether I ought to make an apology to @JonC.

I think he already answered you, when he stated that he sees the Kjv as being the perfect translation of the inspired perfect Greek text!

 

[Pastor_Bob]

My understanding would be that if a translation is deemed to be "without fault," then it must have been inspired by God and therefore double inspiration is in play.

I can see how you would arrive at that conclusion, my friend; however, I do not at all see it as "double" inspiration. It is simply "derivative" inspiration. That is not an original term of mine. "Derivative inspiration" means that the correctly translated and correctly coped translations "derive" their inspiration from the originally inspired writings in that they are an accurate translation of the original languages in our English language.

 

[Yeshua1]

I can see how you would arrive at that conclusion, my friend; however, I do not at all see it as "double" inspiration. It is simply "derivative" inspiration. That is not an original term of mine. "Derivative inspiration" means that the correctly translated and correctly coped translations "derive" their inspiration from the originally inspired writings in that they are an accurate translation of the original languages in our English language.

ALL decent translations can use that reasoning, as we do not have any inspired original texts to us, correct?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I can see how you would arrive at that conclusion, my friend; however, I do not at all see it as "double" inspiration. It is simply "derivative" inspiration. That is not an original term of mine. "Derivative inspiration" means that the correctly translated and correctly coped translations "derive" their inspiration from the originally inspired writings in that they are an accurate translation of the original languages in our English language.

Thank you, Pastor Bob, but may I press you a little further? Do you believe that the KJV as we have it today is perfect in the sense of being beyond improvement?

 

[Yeshua1]

Thank you, Pastor Bob, but may I press you a little further? Do you believe that the KJV as we have it today is perfect in the sense of being beyond improvement?

No need for improvement, as to him would be the perfect translation...