why are MV believers ruled ...?

This is a debate forum. The proper method for a "protected thread" here is to request such from the moderating committee.

As a KJV user I find no scriptural basis for the perfect "authoritativeness" of the King James Version. I havenever seent he KJV mentioned in the Scriptures, no matter which edition of the KJV I examine.

Nevertheless I will be interested to see scriptural grounds for a "jot and tittle" perfect KJV.

 

For your interest the following is a link defining KJVo on the board.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/1993.html

I will not restrict this thread to only #4-5 if that is what you are seeking.

According to that link I am a KJVo#2 and therefore am free to express my opinion, even if this is a "protected thread."

 

There were not any KJVO's before the KJV. Long before English ever existed on the planet were believers. KJVO is a myth that did not even exist until near the end of the 1900's. Often KJVO's blame the degradation of America on the lack of reading the KJV. What they often fail to tell you is that many areas of the world where Christ is proclaimed and the church is growing the people do not even have a complete Bible. It has been shown that where the churches grow the fastest is where the church is persecuted amidst such evil.

 

The OP here borders on violation of rule #3

However,please be patient, the poster is new and is not used to how things work here yet.

Roger
C4K
Moderator

 

There's a topic already started on that very subject already, with both KJVOs and others participating. Please read it and comment, if you wish.

MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH...


The KJV nor any other translation in French, Spanish, Russian, Japanese, etc. can be the EXACT words of God because they were written in the languages His chosen authors used. For example, Moses wrote in proto-Hebrew, or even possibly in Egyptian, as the Hebrew of Malachi didn't yet exist.

Were the AV translators AV only? Here's what they had to say, in the preface of the AV 1611:

Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, IS the Word of God.
• 2 As the King's Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's Speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.

The original KJV itself nollies many of the KJVOs arguments.

The KJV is one of the items God uses to present His word in English...but it is NOT His exact words, as He didn't present His exact words in English to His prophets and scribes.

Yes, the KJV IS Scripture...but God is NOT limited in presenting His word in JUST the KJV, as the AV translators recognized. To say the KJV is the ONLY English version of God's word is more than simply incorrect...it's sheer FOLLY.

 

We also have repeated asked for scriptural support of their beliefs, to no avail. Perhaps you will succeed where we have not.

 

No, I'm quite sure we were using facts to discuss your "fact."

 

Interesting. How many times have I seen the other side of the issue quote the AV translators as if by doing so it would further prove their case? Yet when confronted by statements of those same AV translators which would equally appear to further our cause I have encountered a strange silence. To wit;
"But it is high time to leave them, and to shew in brief what we proposed to ourselves, and what course we held, in this our perusal and survey of the Bible. Truly good Christian Reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones ONE PRINCIPAL GOOD ONE not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark. (emphsis mine)

One principal good one out of many good ones. One principal Bible was their aim. Some would say that that would then make them the authors of KJB only. So NO it did not originate with some SDA feller. It originated with the AV translators themselves.

Although it may be truthfully argued that they themselves saw the inherent usefulness for a variety of translations for giving the sense of the Scriptures it cannot be deduced that they had many English translations in mind when penning such thoughts. The context of such comments will reveal they were specifically speaking of Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Spanish, French, Dutch et al. THESE were the variety of translations they were referring to when they approcahed the task of creating ONE PRINCIPAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Key word here Jim - thay wanted one principle "good" one, never did they imply one principle "perfect" one.

They simply wanted to do the best job possible in theur day and time and did an amazing time. We read nothing about "one perfect, final" Bible in English.

 

That is cool C4K. I get your point.
I thought the key word here was "PRINCIPLE" one.
Principle one as in the main one for faith and practice. Or the BEST one in English.

One often overlooked phrase of theirs is "not justly to be excepted against;"
What does this mean? Simply put into today's terms it means it cannot justly be objected to.

I have answered your question before but in anticipation of your asking yet again; My perfect Bible is the current edition of the Cambridge KJB.

Interesting how one man will read a certain work of literature and find something for which he can agree while a different man can read the same thing and find something just the opposite. I think this is primarily because we all bring baggage to the table when approaching something as near and dear to our hearts as God's words. It cannot be helped I suppose. We are but humans with frail frames, and were it not for the Holy Spirit, we would all flounder in a sea of confusion.

KJVo is right and good in my world. In others' worlds perhaps it has caused great damage. And yet further still with some men who are not necessarily pure of selfish motives, this thing causes great harm, (ON BOTH SIDES).


I provide the best evidence I have. It is convincing enough to me to put my complete faith in its veracity. Nevertheless, to convince others to change their point of view has never been my aim. Simply to give mine. Some think it is wrong. Fine and dandy. I happen to think they may be wrong. So there we stand, toe to toe neither giving in and neither edifying the other. This is why I fellowship with likeminded believers.
I hope I can seek peace with all men even in the midst of this heated disagreement.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

The problem with your spin of history is that they still never claimed perfection nor even finality. They didn't propose to make a "perfect" one but a "good" one.

Additionally, the context of the statements you posted is important to understanding their implications to our debate or lack thereof.

The KJV was created for the Church of England- To become the official text of the official, government church. These statements were political more than religious in nature. Of course if the official church were going to make an official translation they had a vested interest in assuring that they used whatever influence and actions necessary including force of civil law to make the people accept it.

The KJV didn't really overcome the people's affection for the Geneva until Laud outlawed the Geneva in the 1630's.

 

Honest question, please trust me on that.

Why did you choose that as opposed to the 1769 Oxford edition?

 

Not quite sure. LOL

My grandfather always used and preached from the Oxford. My dad taught from the ASV 1901 (Scofield). (memory is dim on my dad's Bible, I own my grandfather's now.)

I realize the following is PURELY subjective but;...the Cambridge is the one my mother gave me when I got saved in 1980. That in itself is interesting since her mother (missionary nurse to So. Africa, and her father, Nazarene preacher) both used the Oxford! Today it just "feels right" to use the Cambridge.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Well, thats as good a reason as any

 

Maybe because nobody disagrees with it. I have no problem with the goal of the KJV translators being to produce "a principle good one". I even recognized that they largely succeeded in this goal. But "principle" and "good" do not mean "exclusive" and "perfect".

No it did not. The KJV translators neither believed the KJV was perfect, nor exclusive, in being the word of God.

Again, I disagree. They had (and used) several English translations. The KJV itself was a revision of the Bishops' Bible. They were not referring to only non-English languages, for they said "Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible **in English**, set forth by men of our profession,...containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

 

So I created this discussion to allow KJBo folks a chance to discuss scripturally their beliefs about the authoritativeness of the KJB without an argument about dates.

Yeah, well, two pages in, and the "KJBo folks" haven't exactly buried you under a pile of Scripture yet have they? Bet there's a reason for that.