When Did KJVO come Into Church?

[JesusFan]

I don't want to start a Cal vs Arm debate, but it just amazes me the number of Calvinists on this board who scream about God's sovereignty and yet claim that the KJV in inferior to other versions, comes from inferior texts, and adds words to the text (which is strictly forbidden by God) and somehow seem to ignore that in God's sovereignty He made the KJV to be the number one version used for 400 years.

No, it was not accidental that the KJV was used by God in a mighty way and you critics would do well to remember that and stop criticizing God's word.

Nne saying that the KJV is NOT a good version, its just that we do NOT see it as best/only version in English today...

there is some question if it was really any better than the Geneva bible at that time!

 

[Amy.G]

And before that He allowed the Vulgate to be number one for 1,000 years or so, and as (IF) time goes on it might well be the NIV or the ESV for the next 400 years...

Yeah, so? I'm not the one calling the KJV or any OTHER translation "inferior".

The "My Bible is more blessed than your Bible" argument doesn't hold water, either.

Then stop saying it.

 

[Amy.G]

Nne saying that the KJV is NOT a good version, its just that we do NOT see it as best/only version in English today...

there is some question if it was really any better than the Geneva bible at that time!

Uh, have you read this thread? It's been called "the Anglican version", "inferior" and has been accused of adding text that was never in the originals. All this in just this ONE thread.

if someone wants to use an antiquated less reliable translation, they are welcome to it.

elevating an Anglican made/slanted translation??

It is far less accurate than many modern versions. Reliability also implies understandability. With its antiquarian wording it has distanced itself from being as trustworthy as many modern versions.

Also,it has added many passages to the Word of God --to begin with.

Yes, we do know, the KJV followed inferior manuscripts and therefore has some passages not original. This makes it less accurate then more modern translations.

The quotes came from this 3 page thread.

 

[JesusFan]

Uh, have you read this thread? It's been called "the Anglican version", "inferior" and has been accused of adding text that was never in the originals. All this in just this ONE thread.








The quotes came from this 3 page thread.

Would just say that not saying that KJV a BAD version, very good one, just that others are superior, due mainly to advancements in knowledge of culture/history/texts/languages since 1611!

 

[Amy.G]

Would just say that not saying that KJV a BAD version, very good one, just that others are superior, due mainly to advancements in knowledge of culture/history/texts/languages since 1611!

By saying that others are superior you are saying that God gave the English speaking church an inferior bible for the last 400 years.

On this board, anyone who makes such a statement about modern versions is quickly scolded for criticizing them. I call that a "double standard".

 

[JesusFan]

By saying that others are superior you are saying that God gave the English speaking church an inferior bible for the last 400 years.

On this board, anyone who makes such a statement about modern versions is quickly scolded for criticizing them. I call that a "double standard".

God gave us the KJV, he also gave us Niv/Nasv/esv etc!

use version that you like best, ALL word of God in English!

 

[Winman]

Uh, have you read this thread? It's been called "the Anglican version", "inferior" and has been accused of adding text that was never in the originals. All this in just this ONE thread.

The quotes came from this 3 page thread.

There's a reason people hate the KJB.

 

[Amy.G]

God gave us the KJV, he also gave us Niv/Nasv/esv etc!

use version that you like best, ALL word of God in English!

Yeah, I know that. But that's not what we were discussing. :BangHead:

 

[Amy.G]

There's a reason people hate the KJB.

What is it? I'd really like to know what their problem is.

 

[Winman]

What is it? I'd really like to know what their problem is.

It's the Word of God.



[note from moderator: We have had some complaints. People need to pay attention to the quotations in the threads. A lot of people are making the opinion the KJV is not the best Bible for use today. They are NOT saying that God gave us a bad Bible for 400 years.

What they ARE saying is the KJV is written in a language not used today. I am not saying I agree or disagree, simply pointing out that this is a valid argument and I will not delete people saying the KJV is or is not a good Bible based on its style and date of the "English Language" to read TODAY! If the thread derails too far, we will shut it down. Otherwise, those of you who are not KJVO, please be careful how you speak about the KJV and those of you who are KJVO, don't get so upset when someone says the language is too old for today's younger readers. NOBODY said the KJV, as written and edited over the years is NOT a good Bible, they are simply saying it may not be the best for understanding it in today's English.]

 

[Amy.G]

It's the Word of God.

But they ALLLLL are don't you know? Even the Message and those like it......

 

[sag38]

Ok, Amy are you going to challenge Winmanfor his veiled attack or are you going to enact your on seeming double standard?

Actually, Winman I though better of you than to make such an ugly statement. While I don't always agree with Rippon's posts concerning the KJV there is no evidence at all that he doesn't like it because it is "God's Word."

 

[Winman]

Ok, Amy are you going to challenge Winman's his veiled attack or are you going to enact your on seeming double standard?

Actually, Winman I though better of you than to make such an ugly statement. While I don't always agree with Rippon's posts concerning the KJV there is no evidence at all that he doesn't like it because it is "God's Word."

I did not see Rippon's comments, I was making a GENERAL statement.

If a person believes in preservation as I do, then you must believe that only one version is correct, as all versions are different.

I personally believe the KJB is that correct version.

When I see the hatred for the KJB and those who hold to it, I conclude that there MUST be a reason for this.

 

[Mexdeaf]

There's a reason people hate the KJB.

NNE HERE HATES THE KJV! And you cannot prove otherwise.

 

[Mexdeaf]

What is it? I'd really like to know what their problem is.

I do not believe that I have ever stated a word against the KJV itself, but I have spoken stridently against the false teaching of KJVO. I have seen churches split, missionaries hurt, and Christians confused by the teaching of KJVO, but the KJV itself has not done those things, only those who misuse it to teach a false doctrine.

And as C4K (who is as balanced and patient a moderator as any I have ever seen) has said several times just recently, if anyone rags on the KJV itself - and "ragging' does not mean making comparisons or discussing differences in translation choices, or even stating one's personal preference regarding it - then that is what the little red triangle in the upper right corner is for.

Are we on page 10 yet?

 

[Rippon]

He made the KJV to be the number one version used for 400 years.

The Lord saw fit for the NIV to be the number one version for a number of decades now --worldwide.

No, it was not accidental that the KJV was used by God in a mighty way and you critics would do well to remember that and stop criticizing [a version of]God's word.

Are you suggesting that no critiques of any version of God's Word should be allowed?

 

[Rippon]

These kind of charges are unhelpful, no matter which side they come from.

Roger,most textual critics would indeed say,based upon available evidence, that the Received Text has included extra passages not in the original autographs. It is indeed helpful to state this.

 

[Rippon]

If a person believes in preservation as I do, then you must believe that only one version is correct, as all versions are different.

That is so nonsensical Winman. That "doctrine" of yours is a man-made edifice. On what do you base your novel theory? All ture Christians believe that the Lord has preserved His Word --but His Word is not embodied in a single version.

What do you think about the hundreds of versions in languages other than English? Or do you believe that the Lord has "preserved" His Word in only one version from each language group? Do you see how ridiculous it gets to preserve your preservation dogma?

I personally believe the KJB is that correct version.

When I see the hatred for the KJB and those who hold to it, I conclude that there MUST be a reason for this.[/QUOTE]

 

[Mexdeaf]

Uh, have you read this thread? It's been called "the Anglican version", "inferior" and has been accused of adding text that was never in the originals. All this in just this ONE thread.

The quotes came from this 3 page thread.

Opinions are like belly buttons- lots of people criticize the ESV, which is my personal choice, but I let it run like water off my back. Now if they take to LYING about it, that's another matter.

The KJV is the Anglican version. As to the other two statements, those are opinions. "Everybody has opinions and some stink worse than others." - 1 Opinions 5:13.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Sad to see good folks here caught up in the "only" sect. That IS (as win said) the logical conclusion of the man-made erroneous idea of preservation and the reason I am so opposed to it and its attack on the Word of God.

Odd to see it held by Baptists when even the cults, where KJVonly originated, have long ago recognized how it attacks the doctrine of inspiration.