What's the AUTHORITY for "King-James-Version-Only"?

[utilyan]

Well, the Emperor is not ever considered an expert on the language. He has to use a different level of Japanese, a very polite level. (Japanese has about 5 levels from childish up to addressing an exalted person.)

But I get what you are saying, I think. You believe that the preservation of Scripture applies to the truths expressed; is that correct?

I think that sounds right, I agree.

 

[robycop3]

Even if you read a portion of Scripture - say from the NASB on the radio - they highly request that you also state - this scripture form the NASB. Not sure if its legally required.
But you are totally correct about the making money. But that would only apply to non- KJ versions as well as study notes. So lets say you have a KJV Scofield Bible - you can legally copy (for profit) verses from that Bible- but there are limitations on using the Scofield study notes

Interesting that it is Murdock is involved.

True. And virtually every KJV edition published in the USA has copyrighted material in it, be it the glossary, study notes, illustrations, or other extratextual material.

But I'm glad my Cambridge KJV is copyrighted! Thus know I have a GENUINE copy, made as the men of Cambridge U. who worked on it intended for it to be.

 

[robycop3]

There is no authority for KJVO

Correct. That's why I ask the question of authority to every KJVO I speak to. I hope it sinx in to each of them that they're believing a doctrine of faith/worship that's NOT FROM GOD. I hope they present something or someone they believe is an authority so they can be proven wrong.

Personally, I believe SATAN originated the KJVO myth, & uses it to create strife and dissension within congregations, and between congregations, as well as to create doubt about the validity of some perfectly-legitimate English Bible translations.

Seems most KJVOs are blinded to the FACT there's nothing from GOD supporting KJVO.

And in all this, I'm not faulting anyone's PREFERENCES.

The late Dr. J. Vernon Mcgee, a well-known radio preacher, summed it up well. He made a five-year radio program, Thru The Bible, in which he gave his personal insights & the meanings as he saw them of every verse in the KJV. However, he was NOT KJVO, as he often said. He was born in 1904 & grew up with the KJV, & continued to use it as it was the English translation he was most familiar with. But he made it plain that he believed the KJV had some booboos, and in his radio show he pointed them out as he came to them. He once said he knew the KJV wasn't the only fish in the pond, but it was the one he'd caught.

Still waiting for the KJVOs to justify their belief in the KJVO myth.

 

[Salty]

Robycop -- evidently the KJO folks think they will be bashed in this thread.
I would say that is NOT the case.
It should be noted that the word "authorized" in the Authorized King James Version simply means that the King of England - King James - is the one who authorized that version.

 

[robycop3]

Robycop -- evidently the KJO folks think they will be bashed in this thread.
I would say that is NOT the case.
It should be noted that the word "authorized" in the Authorized King James Version simply means that the King of England - King James - is the one who authorized that version.

Don't wanna bash the KJVO PEOPLE, but I wanna keep bashing the KJVO myth.

For doctrines of worship/faith, no authority = no VERACITY.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

...I wanna keep bashing the KJVO myth.

I understand what you're saying and appreciate that you are attacking the position and not the people; however, the KJVO position is no myth. There are hundreds of good men and good churches who hold very dogmatically to this position. Just because you happen to disagree with their conclusions about the issue does not make the whole thing a myth.

Many learned men have studied the issue and hold a KJVO viewpoint. Many good men, well-versed in biblical languages, hold to the KJVO teaching.

So, although it may be an erroneous conclusion in your opinion, it is certainly no myth.

 

[Yeshua1]

I understand what you're saying and appreciate that you are attacking the position and not the people; however, the KJVO position is no myth. There are hundreds of good men and good churches who hold very dogmatically to this position. Just because you happen to disagree with their conclusions about the issue does not make the whole thing a myth.

Many learned men have studied the issue and hold a KJVO viewpoint. Many good men, well-versed in biblical languages, hold to the KJVO teaching.

So, although it may be an erroneous conclusion in your opinion, it is certainly no myth.

The big problems are that the 1611 translators themselves denied it, there are few reputable scholars that have held it, and it is caused to divide the body....

 

[Pastor_Bob]

The big problems are that the 1611 translators themselves denied it,

I don't think any modest author would consider their work an "end all" on the topic at hand. I wouldn't have a very high opinion of a preacher who declared after his message, "This is the best message on this subject that anyone has ever preached. No other messages needed."

there are few reputable scholars that have held it,

I would argue that there are quite a few. Of course "scholars" is very subjective.

and it is caused to divide the body....

I have been in churches since I have been saved (42 years ago) that have exclusively used the KJV. It has in no way divided our body. I can't think of one single incident in which it has divided any of the churches with which I've been associated. Of course, I believe the body of Christ is the local, visible church.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't think any modest author would consider their work an "end all" on the topic at hand. I wouldn't have a very high opinion of a preacher who declared after his message, "This is the best message on this subject that anyone has ever preached. No other messages needed."


I would argue that there are quite a few. Of course "scholars" is very subjective.


I have been in churches since I have been saved (42 years ago) that have exclusively used the KJV. It has in no way divided our body. I can't think of one single incident in which it has divided any of the churches with which I've been associated. Of course, I believe the body of Christ is the local, visible church.

The Kjv itself does not divide the Body, but the Cult of the KJVO certainly has!
2 of the worst things to have entered into the local churches has been Charasmatic Chaos, and the KJVO!

 

[robycop3]

I understand what you're saying and appreciate that you are attacking the position and not the people; however, the KJVO position is no myth. There are hundreds of good men and good churches who hold very dogmatically to this position. Just because you happen to disagree with their conclusions about the issue does not make the whole thing a myth.

Many learned men have studied the issue and hold a KJVO viewpoint. Many good men, well-versed in biblical languages, hold to the KJVO teaching.

So, although it may be an erroneous conclusion in your opinion, it is certainly no myth.

Well, men once dogmatically held that the whole universe revolves around the earth, but were they RIGHT?

One of the definitions of "myth" is a widely-held but FALSE idea.

And KJVO IS a myth because it was made by MEN outta thin air. It's just a tall tale, same as the stories about Paul Bunyan & Babe the blue ox. It's just-as-false & phony as a Ford Corvette.

Unfortunately, with some people who were exposed to this doctrine, it hardened into dogma with them. They simply cannot see the FACT that there's NOTHING FROM GOD to support that doctrine whatsoever; therefore it CANNOT be true.

The things of GOD are far-above the things of man. Now, if this were some doctrine of man's, such as saying the Alabama college football dynasty is the greatest ever, one could just point at the recent game scores. But with things of GOD, absolute proof is required. And that proof is in His written word. There's simply NOTHING in His written word supporting KJVO, not even in the KJV itself. So, no matter who declares what in support of KJVO, the FOUNDATION is missing, and it has no support!

That's why I continually ask KJVOs for AUTHORITY for the KJVO myth.

 

[robycop3]

I don't think any modest author would consider their work an "end all" on the topic at hand. I wouldn't have a very high opinion of a preacher who declared after his message, "This is the best message on this subject that anyone has ever preached. No other messages needed."


I would argue that there are quite a few. Of course "scholars" is very subjective.


I have been in churches since I have been saved (42 years ago) that have exclusively used the KJV. It has in no way divided our body. I can't think of one single incident in which it has divided any of the churches with which I've been associated. Of course, I believe the body of Christ is the local, visible church.

A common KJVO game is "MAH skoller kin whup YER skoller!"

And, while I attend various churches besides my home church to hear their messages, I WILL NOT set foot in one that has "KJV Only" or similar on its shingle, as I know it's carrying at least one false doctrine.

 

[thatbrian]

A common KJVO game is "MAH skoller kin whup YER skoller!"

And, while I attend various churches besides my home church to hear their messages, I WILL NOT set foot in one that has "KJV Only" or similar on its shingle, as I know it's carrying at least one false doctrine.

There is a whole package that goes along with KJVO. It's not just one's view regarding a Bible translation that is troubling, but these people and churches often tend to miss the gospel by a country mile. That's an infinitely greater problem.

 

[Rippon]

the KJVO position is no myth. There are hundreds of good men and good churches who hold very dogmatically to this position. Just because you happen to disagree with their conclusions about the issue does not make the whole thing a myth.

Just because hundreds of people who cling to KJOism does not negate that that belief system is a myth.

Many learned men have studied the issue and hold a KJVO viewpoint. Many good men, well-versed in biblical languages, hold to the KJVO teaching.

I highly doubt "many" have held to it.

How many New Testament Bible scholars hold to it?

Are you sure that you believe in KJVOism or KJVP?

 

[Rippon]

I have been in churches since I have been saved (42 years ago) that have exclusively used the KJV. It has in no way divided our body. I can't think of one single incident in which it has divided any of the churches with which I've been associated.

If someone --(a member or visitor) would come in with another version would an elder (I mean deacon --you guys probably don't have elders) give spiritual counsel to that person because of that non-KJV?

 

[thatbrian]

I have been in churches since I have been saved (42 years ago) that have exclusively used the KJV. It has in no way divided our body. I can't think of one single incident in which it has divided any of the churches with which I've been associated. Of course, I believe the body of Christ is the local, visible church.

Of course not. You are in an echo chamber. Anyone who isn't KJVO would never step foot in any of the churches, and if they did accidentally, they would never return.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

There are way too many replies to get to them all, but I wanted to reply to this one.

If someone --(a member or visitor) would come in with another version would an elder...give spiritual counsel to that person because of that non-KJV?

If visitors notice any differences in their version from what is being read from the pulpit, some might ask about the issue. If they ask, we would share with them very concisely why we exclusively use the KJV. If they desire more information, we'll give them more information. If they do not ask, we do not make it an issue. Their salvation is far more important to us than their version of choice.

 

[Rippon]

If visitors notice any differences in their version from what is being read from the pulpit, some might ask about the issue. If they ask, we would share with them very concisely why we exclusively use the KJV. If they desire more information, we'll give them more information. If they do not ask, we do not make it an issue. Their salvation is far more important to us than their version of choice.

You didn't understand what I was trying to convey.

If someone came into your assembly with a non-KJV Bible would that person be questioned about it by someone in your congregation --especially an authority figure?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

You didn't understand what I was trying to convey.

If someone came into your assembly with a non-KJV Bible would that person be questioned about it by someone in your congregation --especially an authority figure?

I apologize, brother. I thought I answered that exact question. No one in our church, from the pastor on down, would question any visitor on their version of choice.

 

[Salty]

I apologize, brother. I thought I answered that exact question. No one in our church, from the pastor on down, would question any visitor on their version of choice.

Thus you are more of KJ Prefered as opposed to King James Only

 

[Rippon]

Many learned men have studied the issue and hold a KJVO viewpoint. Many good men, well-versed in biblical languages, hold to the KJVO teaching.

"I cannot think of a single great theological writer who has given his energies to defend a high view of Scripture and who has adopted the TR since the discovery of the great uncials and, later, the papyri and other finds. The theologically and biblically sensitive and precise writings of such men as Benjamin B. Warfield, James I. Packer, John W. Wenham, and others all defend 'inspiration' in the classic sense, but none of them feels forced to follow the TR as a result."

D. A. Carson : The King James Version Debate : A Plea for Realism p.71