What is your understanding of KJVO?

[Yeshua1]

In the preface of the book Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials by Kirk DiVietro, H. D. Williams wrote: “The false application of ’is given,’ to translations throughout the centuries must stop. Inspiration of translations is a false doctrine concocted by men to justify a position when they were caught proclaiming a doctrine that cannot be substantiated by the Scripture; by the grammar of passages in question, or by history” (p. v). Phil Stringer asserted: “The verse does not say that the words that God gave are preserved, transmitted, or translated by ‘inspiration’” (Brown, Indestructible Book, p. 394). D. A. Waite wrote: “There is no scriptural proof that any translation of God’s Words is inspired of God” (A Warning, p. 32). Charles L. Surrett wrote: “There is no theological reason (no statement from God) to believe that a translation into any language would be inspired in the same way that the original writings in Hebrew and Greek were. No translation has been ‘God-breathed,’ as 2 Timothy 3:16 says of the originals” (Certainty of the Words, p. 75).

D. A. Waite pointed out: "You cannot corrupt and change the Greek and Hebrew text and correct it with the English King James Bible or any other language version" (Foes, p. 6). Waite claimed: "You can't produce in English something that was originally given in Hebrew and Greek" (Fuzzy Facts, p. 33). Waite commented: “The people who say that God has breathed out the King James Bible are in serious error” (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 94). H. D. Williams wrote: “Every person holding the view that the King James Bible is inspired, derivatively inspired, derivatively pure, or derivatively perfect is not only linguistically and historically incorrect, he is theologically incorrect” (Pure Words, p. 21). Williams wrote: “If we attribute purity and inspiration to the translated Words of God in any language, we are in reality claiming double inspiration, double purity, and double Apostolic and prophet-like men who chose them and who wrote them” (p. 63).

IF they want to stick to derive inspiration from the Greek text, than all versions off any of the Greek texts commonly used would grant that to all translations!

 

[HankD]

Isn't the truth though that there is very high agreement between the Bzt and the Critical texts, with no major doctrines affected either text?

That depends on how you define "major". For some to choose the wrong variant at all is "major".
Sometimes there can even be 3 or 4 choices in in the apparatus they will be classified A,B,C...etc by probability.

But in my estimation and overall there are no "major" doctrinal differences.

 

[Yeshua1]

That depends on how you define "major". For some to choose the wrong variant at all is "major".
Sometimes there can even be 3 or 4 choices in in the apparatus they will be classified A,B,C...etc by probability.

But in my estimation and overall there are no "major" doctrinal differences.

my point is that lets say the modern version does not have the 1 John 5:7 right as per your take, there is still plenty of passages supporting the trinity still in them!

 

[HankD]

my point is that lets say the modern version does not have the 1 John 5:7 right as per your take, there is still plenty of passages supporting the trinity still in them!

Yes, in my estimation - but it lacks EARLY Greek witness but 5 or 6 late 14th century plus.
Does have early Latin mss and Church Fathers and old itala.

See The Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 Michael Maynard, 1955, Comma Publications, Temp, AZ, 332 pages.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

See The Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 Michael Maynard, 1955, Comma Publications, Temp, AZ, 332 pages.

See also https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.tbsbibles...508415DA/Why-1_John_5_7-8_is-in-the-Bible.pdf
The fact that I reference it does not necessarily mean that I agree with it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, in my estimation - but it lacks EARLY Greek witness but 5 or 6 late 14th century plus.
Does have early Latin mss and Church Fathers and old itala.

See The Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 Michael Maynard, 1955, Comma Publications, Temp, AZ, 332 pages.

I don't think that we should go extreme on this issue, regardless if the version includes this or not!

 

[HankD]

I don't think that we should go extreme on this issue, regardless if the version includes this or not!

I'm not sure what you mean. To me the Johannine Comma is Scripture. It's not extreme its just what I believe.
I don't know why it didn't survive in the earlier Greek mss. Augustine said it was in the Koine mss in his day though he didn't quote it in the Greek.

Greek: John 5:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm not sure what you mean. To me the Johannine Comma is Scripture. It's not extreme its just what I believe.
I don't know why it didn't survive in the earlier Greek mss. Augustine said it was in the Koine mss in his day though he didn't quote it in the Greek.

Greek: John 5:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν

I am just suggesting that regardless how we come down as to if it should be included in the Bible, does not mean a translation that states no is automatically a bad one, or that we need to divide on issues such as this in the Body of Christ!

 

[robycop3]

We simply don't know if the Comma is original Scripture or not. Far as I'm concerned, either retaining it or omitting it harms nothing. There are plenty of undeniable verses supporting the fact of the Holy Trinity.

 

[Rev. Paul R. Jones]

I am seeking for clarity from those are consider themselves KJV, and who not:

What is your understanding the KJVO position, can you define what you think it is, and what reasons do KJVO have that causes them to hold to the position.

I am seeking to understand what people's understanding of the position is and if it lines up with my understanding of the position and my own reasons for holding to it.

This is not a thread to debate the KJVO position, but for others to explain their understanding of the position.

I like the KJV and it is my most used translation. I teach two Bible classes and members use the NIV, NLT, KJV, NKJV, and a few others. I teach from the KJV but I also call on others to read from their translation. My purpose is to train disciples to reach the lost by witnessing about Jesus and what he has done in their lives. If someone is winning souls with the NIV then I am not going to question the work of the Holy Spirit. All Bible translations are just that- translations. Just my thoughts as a chaplain.

 

[rlvaughn]

Brother Jones, welcome to the Baptist Board. I encourage you to stop by the New Members Forum and introduce yourself when you have time.
New Member Introductions

 

[Logos1560]

what reasons do KJVO have that causes them to hold to the position.

Do KJV-only advocates have any actual consistent, sound, scriptural reasons that cause them to hold to their modern KJV-only position?

I have read over 150 books and pamphlets by KJV-only advocates, and I do not find that they present a positive, clear, consistent, sound, just, true, scriptural case for a KJV-only position.

Human KJV-only reasoning typically involves the use of fallacies [false arguments] and the use of unscriptural, unjust divers measures [double standards]. Human KJV-only reasoning is inconsistent, unjust, disorderly, and in some aspects unscriptural.

 

[HankD]

Do KJV-only advocates have any actual consistent, sound, scriptural reasons that cause them to hold to their modern KJV-only position?

I have read over 150 books and pamphlets by KJV-only advocates, and I do not find that they present a positive, clear, consistent, sound, just, true, scriptural case for a KJV-only position.

Human KJV-only reasoning typically involves the use of fallacies [false arguments] and the use of unscriptural, unjust divers measures [double standards]. Human KJV-only reasoning is inconsistent, unjust, disorderly, and in some aspects unscriptural.

There is only one potential reason that could validate the KJVO position.

That the KJV translators are included in the passage :
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The logical fallacy : "they were moved" - That would apply today but not in 1611.

 

[robycop3]

Do KJV-only advocates have any actual consistent, sound, scriptural reasons that cause them to hold to their modern KJV-only position?

I have read over 150 books and pamphlets by KJV-only advocates, and I do not find that they present a positive, clear, consistent, sound, just, true, scriptural case for a KJV-only position.

Human KJV-only reasoning typically involves the use of fallacies [false arguments] and the use of unscriptural, unjust divers measures [double standards]. Human KJV-only reasoning is inconsistent, unjust, disorderly, and in some aspects unscriptural.

The whole KJVO myth is unscriptural. I'm amazed that any professing Christian, especially a baptist, can believe such a totally man-made false doctrine.

How about it, KJVOs? Without any Scriptural support, BY WHAT AUTHORITY do you believe the KJVO myth?

 

[Dave G]

How about it, KJVOs? Without any Scriptural support, BY WHAT AUTHORITY do you believe the KJVO myth?

Firstly,
It depends on what the different "KJVO's" out there express, as to why they hold to what was ( up until 1881 ) the most popular and considered accurate English translation of the Bible. It is the singular height of the Reformation era English Bibles, hands down, in my opinion.

Secondly,
What parts of the issue do you consider myth, and what parts ( if any ) do you see as having weight?
With respect, if you think it's all a load of hogwash, then I find no reason to answer any of the questions you might pose that are related to this subject.

Thirdly ( and I cannot point this out enough ),
Based on careful reading of several translations, do you see any problems with the way other English Bibles are translated when compared to something that's been around ( and used by God to call His saints ) for 400+ years?
Have you even looked at it that deeply?
If not, then perhaps a more informed decision is in order.



Granted, long use and tradition should not determine whether something we hold in our hands is the Bible...God's leading should determine that for any child of His, as I see it.
But if you find it objectionable that there are people out there who insist on sifting through the newer translations to find out if they were done correctly, or even looking at them closely to determine whether or not they really ARE the words of God Himself, then there's nothing to speak of, if you'll pardon the expression.


I consider myself very familiar with Late Middle English definitions of many terms; and at this point in my studies, I am also convinced of the AV's accuracy given the manuscripts that were available in 1604 when it was begun.
In addition, I am only further convinced of its accuracy given the manuscripts that are now available, because ( from my research ) most of the newer translations are based on less manuscript evidence than what was available to the "KJV" translators in 1604.
For example, I know of very few English translations that are based on the MT, instead of the CT, and that doesn't even address those few that are based solely on the TR.
Just because the manuscripts are older, does not make them more accurate or faithful.. and just because the CT is preferred by most scholars, does not mean that I agree with them.


Nothing that has been discussed over the years, either on this forum or on the many others that I have read and / or participated in, has caused me to abandon that which I started out using in 1978.
Despite the vitriol leveled against the "Despised Authorized" by many ( even here ), I prefer it above all others, and will continue to prefer and trust in it above all others...regardless of any errors in translation that it may have.
However, I will not force any of my brothers and sisters to adopt that which I prefer for personal reasons.

Simply put, I have no Scriptural authority to demand that anyone adhere to a particular translation;
Whether it be in English, Espanol, Francais, Deutsch, or any other tongue, I will trust the Lord to put His words into the hands of His children in whatever language they speak and understand.



Lastly,
I don't buy into most of the "KJVO" hype that is circulating these days, though I once did agree with some of it.
I've seen through "Ruckmanism", "Riplinger-ism" and some of the other things bouncing around, and I don't care to repeat any of it...
But I do see some things that are not right, in my eyes, and I think that they bear closer investigation.

Myths are an interesting thing...
Part truth, and largely, part error, in my estimation.
Take truth, layer it thickly with hype and misinformation, and out comes a myth;
But it's the truth that's hidden that needs to be drilled down to the center of.



At the end of it all, I believe in two things:
Inspiration and Preservation.
I also believe that God uses His children to do many things, and the Devil uses his children to try and counter the Lord's efforts in many things.

" For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]." ( Ephesians 6:12 ).

If you don't think anything is going on ( at the spiritual level ) in the translation department, I urge you to think again.

Apologies for the editorial, but I like to be thorough.




May God bless you richly, good sir.

 

[HankD]

We simply don't know if the Comma is original Scripture or not. Far as I'm concerned, either retaining it or omitting it harms nothing. There are plenty of undeniable verses supporting the fact of the Holy Trinity.

Yes but the Comma distills it down to one verse. Not that this fact is the only one giving credence to its authenticity.

You know I am not KJVO. Once was, now no.

 

[37818]

Yes but the Comma distills it down to one verse. Not that this fact is the only one giving credence to its authenticity.

You know I am not KJVO. Once was, now no.

God promised that He would make a liar out of those who add to His word, Proverbs 30:5-6. In 1 John 5:7-8, the Comma gives witnesses which are only 5 witnesses, counting the Holy Spirit twice, both in Heaven and on Earth. Those who choose to believe the Comma will need to make a special pleading to justify this, after this is pointed out.

 

[MB]

Dave said

At the end of it all, I believe in two things:
Inspiration and Preservation.
I also believe that God uses His children to do many things, and the Devil uses his children to try and counter the Lord's efforts in many things.

In my opinion the reason for so many different translation is nothing more than Confusion. If people can't understand it that's their fault. They don't want to understand it.
MB

 

[HankD]

God promised that He would make a liar out of those who add to His word, Proverbs 30:5-6. In 1 John 5:7-8, the Comma gives witnesses which are only 5 witnesses, counting the Holy Spirit twice, both in Heaven and on Earth. Those who choose to believe the Comma will need to make a special pleading to justify this, after this is pointed out.

I'm not worried in the least.

Those who take away from His word are also in big trouble.

Deuteronomy 12:32 Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.

 

[37818]

Dave said


In my opinion the reason for so many different translation is nothing more than Confusion. If people can't understand it that's their fault. They don't want to understand it.
MB

God protects His word (Proverbs 30:5-6).
Take John 13:2, "being ended" and "during." The majority reading and its oldest reading P66 are being rejected for the less difficult reading "during" in the modern translations.