Which KJVO are you?

[Cix]

I think the majority of the KJVO on this board are of the following type. Agree? Disagree?

[KJVO #5 "I BELIEVE THE KJV IS NEW REVELATION"

This group believes that the KJV was supernaturally inspired in such a way that the English text itself is inerrant revelation. The Bible was "re-inspired" in 1611, rendering it in the English language.

These would say that the Greek/Hebrew should be changed to agree with the "new" revelation in 1611 and that all translations into other languages (Spanish, French, etc) should match the KJV.]

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

This isnt worth my time to argue. You can judge from my past statements what I am.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Dancing doesn't answer a straightforward question.

Are you this type of KJVo seems legit to ask?

BTW, I don't think most KJVo on the BB are this extreme. Personal opinion, but I've typed with all of them (that are still here, that is!!)

 

[HankD]

“new” or “advanced” revelation is the KJVO magic that turns “pascha” God’s Passover in Acts 12:4 to “easter”.

HankD

 

[Pastor_Bob]

I am a #2 but hold many #3 positions as well. I was a solid #4 for many years, then after much study landed firmly where I am presently.

 

[Ed Edwards]

I'm a KJVO#2.
Well actually I'm a KJV1611O#2
and a KJV1769O#1
I also am a HCSBO#1

Because the KJV1769 that most KJVO#5
use was produced AFTER 1700, it
is a Modern Version. So i guess
I'm a Modern Version user cause i
use a KJV1769

 

[robycop3]

I'm not KJVO at all...I don't use it as my PRIMARY Bible except to witness to the elderly. However, when any KJVO says I'm anti-KJV, I won't say they're LYING, but they ARE ignorant of the facts and absolutely WRONG. This "KJV all the way or nothing" approach is just another KJVO propaganda spin and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone, even other KJVOs.

 

[citizenofheaven]

I'm a 4

 

[TC]

A #1.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

#2

 

[HankD]

2.75

 

[Bob Rogers]

I consider myself somewhere in the 2 category.

HankD:

The other topic was locked before I could answer the part about the days of unleavened bread.

"In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even." - Exodus 12:18 KJV

Nison 14th is Passover. The week of unleavened bread is the week following Passover. Why would Herrod have been waiting for something to pass, that had already passed?

Bob

 

[michelle]

I think it is wrong to even put a label on my belief. This unfortunately seems to be blinding many to the truth, and many unfortunately do not understand others as a result of these labels. Many mv proponents do not like it one bit when they are labeled anti-KJB so why do they put a label on others?


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[natters]

michelle said "I think it is wrong to even put a label on my belief."

In michelle's case, I would agree.

michelle said "Many mv proponents do not like it one bit when they are labeled anti-KJB"

That's because we are not anti-KJB. The correct label, which I don't mind in the slightest, is anti-KJB-only.

 

[Su Wei]

Well, Michelle, i have to disagree. the term KJVo is somewhat ambiguous.

I don't mind being called a KJVO but i'm not for Ruckmanism.

I'm a #4.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
That's because we are not anti-KJB. The correct label, which I don't mind in the slightest, is anti-KJB-only.
--------------------------------------------------

It is still a label. I wouldn't mind being called anti-mv-only, as it is more accurately true. However, labels only cloud the real issue, and take a persons focus off from the truth of this issue. The labeling of this seems to be causing not only strife, but misunderstanding also. The label is being attacked, as well as the truth being shared, and the people sharing it, because of this false label. I am not a version only. I Only believe the word of God. God's word does not have a label. A label has been placed upon it, but that is by man's doing. Before the plethora of mv's, the word of God was believed, considered and refered to as the Holy Bible, not a version, not a translation, but the Holy Bible. The very scriptures, and word of God. I don't have a version or translation of God's Holy word, as if they aren't the word of God or the Holy scriptures, because I know I have them and do have them in my own language, to which a label has been attached to them.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Bob Rogers]

Ed Edwards:

Wasn`t there a KJV 1635 in there?

If readability was the only issue, I wouldn`t be bothered by all of the debate. The problem is, that there are serious doctrinal differences between the texts. The Alexandrian texts remove the virgin birth and the blood atonement. Those are much more serious issues than translating the names of holidays.

I`ve seen some things written about the KJV21; but I`ve never seen an accual copy. I asked a graduate of Dr. Ruckman`s school about it. He said, that he didn`t know alot about it; but it appears to be as straight as any. Something, that someone with things posted at http://www.biblebelievers.com didn`t trash, may not be all bad. Since my family came over in 1635 (my grandmother`s side were Jacobite Scots, that came over after "Bonnie Prince Charlie`s Revolt"), the difference between British and American spelling doesn`t mean so much to me.

The only things, that are significant to me are the texts and copywrites.

Bob

 

[natters]

michelle said "It is still a label."

So? I don't mind being labelled, as long as it's accurate.

You have provided no explanation why "KJV-only" is not an accurate label for you.

michelle said "I am not a version only."

Yes you are. You have repeatedly been asked which other versions besides the KJV you believe are the word of God, and I have never seen you name a single one. Now's your chance to prove me wrong.

 

[natters]

Bob Rogers said "The problem is, that there are serious doctrinal differences between the texts."

No there are not. Doctrinal differences are based on our interpretation of the text. Two peole can read the same text and come to "serious doctrinal differences".

Bob Rogers said "The Alexandrian texts remove the virgin birth and the blood atonement.

No they don't.

Bob Rogers said "Those are much more serious issues than translating the names of holidays."

An error is an error.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
michelle said "I am not a version only."

Yes you are. You have repeatedly been asked which other versions besides the KJV you believe are the word of God, and I have never seen you name a single one. Now's your chance to prove me wrong.
--------------------------------------------------


I explained this in that same post.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle