:applause::applause: I've said that for years, but still got labeled KJVO, no matter what. Good luck.
Perhaps the reason you have been "labeled KJVO" on the Baptist Board, if such has actually occurred, regardless of how accurate the tag, is because on the BB, virtually every post you have made on this subject has taken a position that the KJV (1769 flavor, usually) rendering is the 'best' one for every discussion you have been involved in, plus your continued 'applause' for seemingly anyone who espouses any 'KJVO' position, regardless of whether or not their offered 'history' and/or purported 'facts' can stand up to objective scrutiny, or your own 'attacks' on other versions, ya' think??
Even some KJVO types (although I don't specifically remember this from you) have had the unmitigated gall to say my own genuine 1967 KJV edition is not really a KJV at all. Others have said they are ONLY supporting the "1611 King James" while citing what appears to be the 1769 text, and often from a 'counterfeit' Americanized edition, at that! I'm pretty sure that neither King James I nor any of the 1611 translators 'Authorized' Drs. Paris and/or Blaney (plus Dr. Scrivener) in their marvelous editing efforts, incidentally, all of which to my mind are a tremendous overall 'improvement' over the original 1611 edition(s).
As to the particular "Why?" you are (or may have been) "labeled KJVO" consider this:
You know the old adage: "When it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, eats with the ducks, has feathers like a duck, is always found with the ducks, etc. ..."
Why is one then surprised when another concludes that 'a duck' is what they are observing?
Incidentally, speaking of 'ducks,' when are you going to get around to answer my question directed to you about what Bible version or versions you would consider as "outdated" from some 4 mos. ago, after you deemed it an "attack" when another poster gave his opinion and suggested that the KJV language is, in fact, outdated, and you scathed him for this opinion??
I did ask a "non-confrontational" question about multiple older versions, and exactly what you might consider to be "outdated language" as you may recall.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1366555&postcount=49
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1358424&postcount=59
and you appeared to get mad about my question.
Baptist4life said:
And, Ed, you can add your name as to another one of the reasons I won't post on here any more.
I still would like an answer to the question I initially asked, plus see if you can actually identify, without looking it up, which citing is actually the KJV rendering, as well?
Still wonderin' but I'm not holding my breath while waiting for the response to the question(s).
Ed