-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why do KJVO Deny the originals, And Accuse others Of "hating" KJV?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
- Status
Probably for the same reason cals accuse non cals of denying the sovereignty of God.It is nothing more than an attempt to demonize those who have opposing views and shut down debate.
could be, but justsemms that many of them seem to go out of the way to infer we "hate" the Kjv!
I believe it's because in trying to argue against KJVonlyism, most people do it by pointing out the flaws in the KJV. The KJVO's take that not as an attack on them, but as an attack on the KJV. I must say, I tend to agree. If you have a problem with KJVOism, make your argument against that thinking, instead of demeaning the KJV. JMHO. I've seen the KJV called "outdated, antiquated, past it's time, and should be done away with" comments posted on here over the years. If that's NOT attacking the KJV, I'd like to know what you call it. Those comments have NOTHING to do with being KJVO, but are simply a put down of a well loved version of the Word of God.
Last edited by a moderator:
Taking the thinking, reasoning, or claims of KJV-only advocates and applying them consistently including to the KJV is showing the serious problems with a KJV-only theory.
Just as many cals seem to go out of their way to "infer" we do not believe in the sovereignty of God. Both are equally wrong and equally childish.
Which is attacking the KJV. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see it. I've seen post of yours, pointing out mistake after mistake in the KJV, without even once mentioning KJVOism.
What do those comments have to do with KJVO?
Originally Posted by Logos1560
Taking the thinking, reasoning, or claims of KJV-only advocates and applying them consistently including to the KJV is showing the serious problems with a KJV-only theory.
Which is attacking the KJV.
No, it is not. It is showing the problems with the KJV-only arguments.
Are you actually suggesting that the arguments of a KJV-only theory are so wrong and faulty that a consistent application of those arguments and claims is actually attacking the KJV?
Are you implying that KJV-only advocates are in effect attacking the KJV if they use arguments or make claims that cannot be consistently applied to all translations including the KJV?
Are you saying those comments ^^^^ are NOT demeaning a version of God's Word?
If you cannot make an argument against KJVO without tearing down the translation then apparently you have no real argument.
Did the makers of the KJV have no real arguments when they rejected the claims for a Latin Vulgate-only theory and when they acknowledged that editions of the Latin Vulgate were not perfect and had some errors?
Did the makers of the KJV in effect supposedly tear down and attack the pre-1611 English Bibles when they indicated that there were some imperfections and blemishes in them, that any renderings "not so agreeable to the original" could be corrected, and that some renderings in them could be updated, made better or improved?
Did the makers of the KJV in effect supposedly tear down and attack the pre-1611 English Bibles when they indicated that there were some imperfections and blemishes in them, that any renderings "not so agreeable to the original" could be corrected, and that some renderings in them could be updated, made better or improved?
just saying that the logic of the KJVO position is not consistent, but the KJV itself is still a fine english version of the bible!
Well, then - let's adjust that statement a bit and see where it leaves us:
If you cannot make an argument against the (insert your least-liked translation choice here) without tearing down the translation then apparently you have no real argument.
Hmm...
Hmmm, how many other translations out there do people believe are the only authorized version besides the KJV.
"Tearing down the translation" needs to be defined. When we point out flaws in what KJVO advocates deem as a perfect translation and the only inspired Bible of the English language --is that tearing down in your estimation? If that's what you think you are mistaken (and you [probably know you are wrong anyway).
What would being authorized by a secular state government or ruler have to do with which version believers should read?
Where is your sound evidence that shows that the KJV was actually ever officially authorized after it was ready for printing?
Are you forgetting the first actual authorized English version--the Great Bible?
The Bishops' Bible was the second authorized English version, not directly authorized by royal authority but authorized by the archbishop.
The 1560 Geneva Bible was the authorized English version in Scotland.
Daniell noted that a copy of the 1579 edition of the Geneva Bible printed in Scotland “was ordered to be in each parish kirk [church]” (Bible in English, p. 295). KJV-only author Robert Sargent acknowledged that the Geneva Bible “became the official version of Presbyterian Scotland in 1579” (English Bible, p. 197). Samuel McComb observed that the Geneva Bible “became the version sanctioned in Scotland both by Church and State” (Making, p. 46). William Whitley asserted that the Geneva Bible “became the Scotch Authorized Version” (Jacobus, Roman Catholic and Protestant Bibles, p. 34). John Eadie noted that editions of the Geneva Bible printed in Scotland had been “dedicated to him [King James VI] in 1576-9” (English Bible, II, p. 178). In his introduction to the facsimile edition of the 1560 Geneva Bible, Lloyd Berry wrote: “The Bassandyne Bible, as it was known, was a reprint of the second edition of the Geneva Bible, the folio of 1561, and contained a dedication praising James VI (later James I of England) for having authorized its publication” (p. 21). David Norton noted that “his [James] approval was invoked on the title page of the first Geneva Bible printed in Scotland” (KJB: a Short History, p. 82). William Beloe indicated that the 1610 edition of the Geneva Bible printed at Edinburgh by Andro Hart had on it: “Cum Privilegio Regiae Majestatio” (Anecdotes of Literature, Vol. 2, p. 332). MacGregor observed that “the first generation of Scotsmen to enjoy the benefits of the Reformation was reared exclusively upon this version” (Literary History, p. 145).
The Church of Scotland was a more spiritual or godly church during the 1500's and early 1600's than the compromising Church of England. Compared to the Reformation in England and Ireland, MacCulloch pointed out that “the Scottish Reformation proved the most thoroughgoing” (Reformation, p. 368). Bradstreet noted that “the leaders of the Scottish Church were true Reformation saints with a strong doctrine of grace apart from ecclesiastical works” (KJV in History, p. 84). By what consistent reasoning or just measures should the authorized version of Scotland be ignored while the claimed third authorized version of England must be used? Does the endorsement of a more godly church give a translation more authority than the endorsement of a more doctrinally unsound church? Bobrick observed that the Geneva Bible "enjoyed de facto official status, and some of its bindings in folio even had 'Queen Elizabeth Bible' stamped on their spines" (Wide as the Waters, p. 215). Robert Girdlestone asserted that the Geneva Bible “from 1560 to 1640 was practically the authorized version of the English people” (How to Study the English Bible, p. 11). Anderson noted that Queen Elizabeth had granted and given privilege and license to John Bodeleigh to print “the English Bible, with Annotations, faithfully translated and finished in this present year of our Lord God, a thousand, five hundred and three score, and dedicated to us” (Annals of the English Bible, II, p. 324). The 1582 edition of the Geneva Bible printed by Christopher Barker at London included these words on its title page: “cum privilegio Regiae Majestatis” (Waterland, Works, X, p. 342).
A valid case can be made for the Geneva Bible being the standard consensus English Bible for most English-speaking believers before the KJV was ever made.
jonathan.borland
Active Member
We don't hate the KJV, and we certainly don't hate KJVOs, because the Bible says to love your enemies.....
I DO hate those who continually, knowingly and militarily promote a lie.
jonathan.borland
Active Member
Sorry, I was just trying to crack a joke...
I know many are just mislead on the issue. I pity them. But those who knowingly use misdirection and malicious lies to slander the Word, I detest. I have seen the fruit of their false doctrine on the mission field.
- Status