KJVO?

[zeke25]

Yes that much is quite clear.

I really don’t know what an exact definition of a KJVO person is. Can you please tell me. Is it…

1. A person who prefers the KJ over all other Bibles?

2. A person who will only use the KJ and refuse all others?

3. A person who believes the KJV translation is inspired and without error? If so, can it be a KJB off the shelf today, or must it be the original KJB first published?

4. A combination of 2 or more of the above?

5. Or a different definition not listed here. Please give a full definition.

I can’t discuss the topic without a complete understanding of that which we are speaking about.
Thank you.

 

[StanJ]

I really don’t know what an exact definition of a KJVO person is. Can you please tell me.
I can’t discuss the topic without a complete understanding of that which we are speaking about.
Thank you.

Then I suggest you Google it. My OP was pretty clear, as is the issue.

 

[zeke25]

Then I suggest you Google it. My OP was pretty clear, as is the issue.

Sorry, I thought you were serious about wanting to discuss the issue. The internet is ambiguous and so is your OP.

 

[Tex]

King James version is possibly the worst English translation out there. And I'm including "The Message" too.

 

[StanJ]

Sorry, I thought you were serious about wanting to discuss the issue. The internet is ambiguous and so is your OP.

I am, and when I get serious questions I'll address them. Ambiguous is as ambiguous does.

 

[zeke25]

I am, and when I get serious questions I'll address them. Ambiguous is as ambiguous does.

You did receive a serious question. The problem is that you do not want the term defined because it will expose two things: your hidden agenda and your lack of understanding of the issue you raised. The issue you raised is not promoting understanding, instead it promotes confusion. It would help if you were reasonable as God calls all to be.

Isaiah 1:18 KJV, "Come now, and let us reason together, saith [Yahowah]: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."

The serious question is still on the table, and it deserves a serious answer.

I told you I did not understand the definition of KJVO. You have called me a liar. You bear false witness.

 

[lforrest]

Is the KJV more effective in spiritual warfare as some claim?

I imagine some verses may be more effective such as translations to "is" instead of "has" when revealing the eternal.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Is the KJV more effective in spiritual warfare as some claim?

I imagine some verses may be more effective such as translations to "is" instead of "has" when revealing the eternal.

I've always loved how the KJV employs more powerful wording than other versions. Consider 2 Corinthians 10 from the NIV:

4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.
5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

And then from the KJV:

4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;
5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

It isn't difficult to see how the KJV fires the imagination more than other versions. It's why I grew up reading the KJV in preference to all other versions. As a kid, the powerful imagery appealed to me. It still does today. Other versions have always seemed tame by comparison.

 

[StanJ]

You did receive a serious question. The problem is that you do not want the term defined because it will expose two things: your hidden agenda and your lack of understanding of the issue you raised. The issue you raised is not promoting understanding, instead it promotes confusion. It would help if you were reasonable as God calls all to be.

Isaiah 1:18 KJV, "Come now, and let us reason together, saith [Yahowah]: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."

The serious question is still on the table, and it deserves a serious answer.

I told you I did not understand the definition of KJVO. You have called me a liar. You bear false witness.

Zeke...very obviously your practise since you came on board here is to call people liars. You DON'T deal with the issues and only want to cause hostility. Every other poster has had no problem with the OP so to me it's obvious you just want to equivocate and NOT commit to who you are. I don't hide in the shadows, and I know only one enemy of the church that does. Feel free to get on board with this thread or not, I really don't care. The truth is the same regardless of who is defending it.
Oh, and BTW, Is 1:18 is more accurately translated as "come let us settle/argue the matter", and I have no need to argue that Jesus forgave my sins.

I've always loved how the KJV employs more powerful wording than other versions. Consider 2 Corinthians 10 from the NIV:

4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.
5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

And then from the KJV:

4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;
5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

It isn't difficult to see how the KJV fires the imagination more than other versions. It's why I grew up reading the KJV in preference to all other versions. As a kid, the powerful imagery appealed to me. It still does today. Other versions have always seemed tame by comparison.

I'm 60 and have never liked it although I have memorized a lot of it since I was saved in 1971. It was the version my church used. At that time I used J.B. Phillips and when the NIV came out I used the NIV. My experience was that preachers spent a good 10 minutes of their sermons explaining what the KJV meant. I get it now but at 17 it never appealed to me. Glad you like it and appreciate it's imagery but I get the same from the versions I use and as I said before, the J.B. Phillips was the best for me.

 

[Tex]

I've always loved how the KJV employs more powerful wording than other versions. Consider 2 Corinthians 10 from the NIV:

4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.
5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

And then from the KJV:

4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;
5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

It isn't difficult to see how the KJV fires the imagination more than other versions. It's why I grew up reading the KJV in preference to all other versions. As a kid, the powerful imagery appealed to me. It still does today. Other versions have always seemed tame by comparison.

Actually, the reason you like it so much is the reason why I despise it. The KJV intentionally makes poetry where there isn't any. Many times it's great and powerful, like you say, but many passages are butchered for the sake of emotional response.

 

[StanJ]

dup

 

[zeke25]

StanJ,

You said, "Zeke...very obviously your practise since you came on board here is to call people liars. You DON'T deal with the issues and only want to cause hostility. Every other poster has had no problem with the OP so to me it's obvious you just want to equivocate and NOT commit to who you are. I don't hide in the shadows, and I know only one enemy of the church that does."

Please point out where I have called someone a liar?

Please point out where I have not dealt with an issue in which I have entered.

I have not been hostile.

It was obvious to you that I was a KJVO person on another thread, until I told you differently. You have not established a track record for being a good judge of character.

I have not hidden in the shadows, my posts are quite clear, lengthy, and there is no hidden agenda.

I find it interesting that every thing you have accused me of, you yourself are guilty of that very same accusation. Don't worry though, I will not attempt to engage you in conversation again. I have a brick wall nearby that is much more responsive than you and it makes no false judgements or false accusations.

One final thing however, you have accused me of being an enemy of the church (but of course you haven't a clue what church means, but we will go with the standard explanation that most people think it is). Once again, as you point a false finger of accusation against me, you have three more fingers pointing back at yourself. You are quite transparent, I have dealt with you before in years past. 1 John 5:16.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Actually, the reason you like it so much is the reason why I despise it. The KJV intentionally makes poetry where there isn't any. Many times it's great and powerful, like you say, but many passages are butchered for the sake of emotional response.

It's just a matter of taste, isn't it? Growing up, I was one of those boys who dreamed of slaying dragons and I had a very fertile, romantic imagination. The KJV spoke to me in a way no other version did. Praise God that we have so many styles to choose from today!

 

[Tex]

Bah! Emotions! Imagination! What cursed gifts!

Just kidding =)

 

[ccfromsc]

Wow! This is getting heated already! Ever notice that the KJV ONLY cause division and strife whereever they go? I say most of the problem lies in this: translating into English. In translating the New Testament for example, the greek has 3 words for love: agape, phileo and eros. So when in any translation which word from the greek do they mean for "love?" Another point that is agravating is that KJV ONLY types will this anology: the Bible verse here says "listen" in the perverted NIV they changed it to "hear" then they go on some tirade about "apostasy" of the new translation. :wacko:

 

[shturt678s]

Wow! This is getting heated already! Ever notice that the KJV ONLY cause division and strife whereever they go? I say most of the problem lies in this: translating into English. In translating the New Testament for example, the greek has 3 words for love: agape, phileo and eros. So when in any translation which word from the greek do they mean for "love?" Another point that is agravating is that KJV ONLY types will this anology: the Bible verse here says "listen" in the perverted NIV they changed it to "hear" then they go on some tirade about "apostasy" of the new translation. :wacko:

Thank you for caring!

No correction intended...4 types of "love" where there are about 4 main diverse views of agape that can result in a free for all fist fight after church thus have to go easy on this one my brother.

Old man with a cane, Jack

 

[ccfromsc]

There are some really great translations for today. I like the HCSB, The NIV (2011 update), The ESV, The NLT for starters. And they are all the Word of God. Now the KJV Only will have a cow. There are some others that are not bad either. Such as the CEV, NCV, The Voice for starters. Do the KJV Only realize that when the pilgrams came here they did not like the KJV. They used the Geneva Bible and others used the other Authorized Bible of the king known as the Bishop's Bible.

 

[FHII]

I am a KJVO guy.... Sort of. It is the version I stick with, quote and believe.

BUT!

I'm not against all other versions. Some I am against, but not all. Sometimes I even look at other versions to see what they say, but in the end, I stay with what the KJV says. If I am in a debate with someone who uses something other than the KJV, I do acknowledge their version (but I will also let em know what the KJV says). 9 times out of 10, it isn't a problem.

Why do I like the KJV? Well, first off, it is the version my Pastor uses. Second, I am more familiar with it and comfortable with it. But what impresses me the most about the KJV is the history of it and how it came to be. Not one man with a single bias or even a few men. But dozens of scholars who really didn't like each other commissioned by a king who wasn't going to look well on failure to deliver a Bible that was accurate.

Now, let me tell you what I don't accept: The practice of switching Bibles based on what a verse says. In other words, if you are reading the KJV and come across a verse you don't agree with, do you find another version to believe about that one verse? If so, you might as well write your own Bible, because you are trying to make the Bible line up with your own beliefs; not the other way around. Now if I don't like what the KJV says, too bad! I change MY beliefs based on that!

So, if you are an ASV type of guy or girl... Stand by it! No ill feelings from me. Just don't switch Bible versions when you can't prove your point by the one you read.

So yes, I'm KJVO, but not in the sense that I look down on other versions.

 

[Tex]

@ FHII

The KVJ is extremely poetic, to a fault. Often it doesn't matter, but it is simply not academic enough for the depth demanded too many times for me to consider it a serious translation.

If you look at the original languages, you'll find that the KJV intentionally spruces it up. Augustine found it boring and basic for a reason.

 

[StanJ]

Biblegateway.com has all the versions one would ever need to study. No doubt there is one there that would suit anyone.