KJVO?

[aspen]

It is superstitous.

It is also ironic that KJVO folks tend to be the most fanatical about rejecting other forms of Christian authority.

Get that KJV out of your own eye before you criticize the pope in mine

 

[shturt678s]

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

Perfect! Was wondering if you could answer an age old question regarding "1" version that omits Jn.7:53-8:11 as this obviously is not an integral part of John's gospel contextually nor grammatically? A spurious section for sure although may well be true, but not inspired in the original. Biblegateway.com doesn't have this version that I can find???

Old curious Jack

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

It is superstitous.

It is also ironic that KJVO folks tend to be the most fanatical about rejecting other forms of Christian authority.

Get that KJV out of your own eye before you criticize the pope in mine

LOL. I do believe that Canterbury is the Protestant Holy See even if unwittingly so. I came to that conclusion because most Protestant denominations abandoned opposition to contraceptives following the lead of the Anglican Church in the 1930 Lambeth Conference. It seems that the Church of England is, and continues to be, an authority to them and so the affinity to the authorized KJV is not surprising.

 

[Tex]

The only Holy See that should be followed is the Rock, as specified in Psalm 62. Peter was nicked named "rock" because he said "You are the Christ".

 

[FHII]

@ 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.

Well, first, that's a matter of opinion. But if it were true, I'd like to know if there is anything wrong with God being poetic? Psalms and Songs of Solomon are pretty much by nature meant to be poetic. Parts of Job are also very poetic, but what's wrong with that? As for "not academic enough".... Again, a matter of opinion and one that is not a very good opinion (in my opinion). Perhaps you are smarter than me, but I can spend a good couple of hours studying and contimplating a single verse.

You said the KJV intentionally spruces it up... Perhaps other versions intentionally water it down. As for Augustine.... Ummm... Who???? Who is Augustine and why should I care? Furthermore, he found it boring and basic but you find it too poetic? Yea... Ok.

It is superstitous.

It is also ironic that KJVO folks tend to be the most fanatical about rejecting other forms of Christian authority.

Get that KJV out of your own eye before you criticize the pope in mine

Yea.... As opposed to Catholics, I suppose. Could you give me a history lesson of the Great KJVO inquisition and how many people were murdered as a result of that?

I haven't read all the posts on this thread, but I might be the only KJV guy here... Yet have I insulted anyone other than folks who hop from Bible to Bible to make it line up with their own doctrine? Or some guy named Augustine whom is unknown (because the only guy named Augustine I know of who is historical never read the KJV)?

Look, I do know KJVO folks can be rough, but I ain't of that crowd. But I'm not of the crowd who is going to sit idle either.

 

[Tex]

Well, first, that's a matter of opinion. But if it were true, I'd like to know if there is anything wrong with God being poetic? Psalms and Songs of Solomon are pretty much by nature meant to be poetic. Parts of Job are also very poetic, but what's wrong with that? As for "not academic enough".... Again, a matter of opinion and one that is not a very good opinion (in my opinion). Perhaps you are smarter than me, but I can spend a good couple of hours studying and contimplating a single verse.

You said the KJV intentionally spruces it up... Perhaps other versions intentionally water it down. As for Augustine.... Ummm... Who???? Who is Augustine and why should I care? Furthermore, he found it boring and basic but you find it too poetic? Yea... Ok.

It's not a matter of opinion at all. It is either intentionally made poetic (thus changing scripture) or not. It's a question of fact.

There is nothing wrong with God being poetic, especially considering the psalms. This is why I said "often it doesn't matter".

It is not academic enough because there are many times where what is said in the text is not what is meant.

2 Timothy 2:15
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" KJV

Studying shows that I'm approved by God, who is a workman that doesn't need to be ashamed and is rightly dividing the word of truth? Oh wait, "shew" means "present". Studying presents an approved self to God, I am a workman that doesn't need to be ashamed, and I will rightly divide the word of truth? Maybe this should be really broad... Intellectual activity honors God, and so I don't need to be ashamed of studying, and I'll rightly handle the bible? The better solution is pick up another translation.

2 Timothy 2:15
"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." ESV

The Latin is "sollicite cura te ipsum probabilem exhibere Deo operarium inconfusibilem recte tractantem verbum veritatis", which roughly says "Do careful dilligence to present in an approving way unto God, a faultless workman rightly handling the word of truth." The Latin is certainly closer to the ESV. I wish I knew Greek so I could see that comparison too. Overall, the KJV is objectively not academic enough. It is not an opinion, it is a fact. NKJV is much better, but still makes the mistakes of translations like NIV (watering down). The best example of that is Isaiah 64:6, which I've never seen correct.

Isaiah 64:6
We have all become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment... ESV
But we are all like an unclean thing,
And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags... NKJV
All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags... NIV

Really it should read:

"We have all become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous deeds are like a bloody menstral rag"

For some reason, no one wants to talk about period blood...

Finally, you should really know Augustine. He was a great Christian intellectual around 380-405 AD. He wrote books on theology, largely doctrine, but also dabbled in how Christianity and government should blend. He converted late in life, but even after his conversion, Augustine didn't think the bible was an entertaining read. He called it "basic" and "bland" in his Confessions (another book he wrote on his conversion, conquering sin, etc.). If you're a reader, I highly recommend Augustine's confessions. He's a sharp cookie.

 

[FHII]

It's not a matter of opinion at all. It is either intentionally made poetic (thus changing scripture) or not. It's a question of fact.

There is nothing wrong with God being poetic, especially considering the psalms. This is why I said "often it doesn't matter".

It is not academic enough because there are many times where what is said in the text is not what is meant.

It is a matter of opinion, Tex. Either that or of ignorance as to what the true facts are.

To say it is more poetic than other versions is a matter of opinion. However, if you understand the written rules the translators were given, you will see no where were they told to intentionally make it more poetic. In fact, they were instructed to follow the Bishop's Bible ("The ordinary Bible read in the Church") as much as possible UNLESS a translation from another Bible (for example, the Geneva Bible) was more accurate with the original text.

In other words, the entire purpose of of the KJV was to get rid of translations that intentionally changed the meaning of a verse as well as to get rid of misleading marginal notes. It's very purpose was against what you accuse the KJV of doing. If it indeed is more poetic (again, a matter of opinion) it was not done intentionally.

As a matter of reference, the rules used for the translation of the KJV that I refer to can be found in the Hendrickson Publishers' 1611 edition.

Your two examples are purely a matter of individual understanding, and not a fact that the change was made "to spuce it up". Thus, because you are using these verses based on your understanding of both the verse and the words in the verse, it is a matter of opinion. First off, you bring up 2 Tim 2:15 and the KJV is actually correct in its translation and more to the point than other translations. When it says "study to show thyself approved..." it is true that the Greek word originally means "to be diligent". Words don't often translate perfectly from language to language. In this case, "be diligent" or "do your best" is too broad to describe what must be done. Be diligent in doing what? When you read the rest of the verse as well as the entire chapter, it is speaking of being diligent in understanding and knowing the scripture. In other words, "studying". It's not merely toiling away at intellectual activity as you suggest. It is about learning, understanding and being able to teach others the Truth of what God is about (remember, Timothy was studying to be an evangelist under Paul's tutelage. It was paramount that he knew and understood the scriptures so he could teach the Truth and combat ignorance and outright lies and corruption of the Truth).

Your second example is a matter of understanding of individuals as to what "filthy rag" is. I had no problem understanding what was said. You probably could've tried to use Mark 7:19 in the same sense when it talks about meats entering the belly and going out the draught. Our language today has a different word for "draught" which would be more plain. Yes, personally I would prefer that word be used because it would upset the "holierthanthou" crowd. It is however, a matter of the language of the day. In 1611 I imagine no one had a problem understand what the word "draught" was.

In both of these cases, for one to say, "It should've said..." is a matter of individual experience in language. That by nature makes it a matter of opinion. I will give you that the KJV often uses words that are rarely used today and some may be of the opinion that it needs to be updated as a result. It is my opinion that it doesn't. The Bible need not be dumbed down as a matter of convienence for others (and that's what a lot of versions mean to do). In fact, it is dangerous to do so in that every time you water down a verse, you get farther away from the original meaning.

As for Augustine... Oh, you mean the Augustine who lived in the 5th century! Yes, I know who he is. Ok. Well, he wasn't around when the KJV was around, he wasn't around when the English language was around and he was barely around when what we call the Bible existed. His opinion of what scriptures he read has no bearing on this conversation.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

I am amazed at how apparently rational Christians can fall for this latest false teaching of King James Version Only.
Not only do they fall for it, but they are irrational and fanatical in their views to the point of claiming the KJV is the ONLY inspired word of God.

What do you think?

The KJVO issue is not a recent controversy. It has been a contentious divide for 100's of years. One fact that is resident within any translation of the scriptures is the translator's bias. The translator's biased interpretative opinion is stated for truth rather than what is actually true in some of the very important texts. This fact is the cause of what is endlessly argued on religious forums. No matter what translation of scripture is referenced to suborn a stated fact quoted in the scriptures the fact is countered with the scriptures by the protester's biased opinion of all scripture.This OP is but an example; "Every KJVOnlyite is fanitical" is the OP's author's true stated opinion, but he has forgotten that even our idle words are accountable according to the scripture. Have a good day StanJ.

 

[StanJ]

The KJVO issue is not a recent controversy. It has been a contentious divide for 100's of years. One fact that is resident within any translation of the scriptures is the translator's bias. The translator's biased interpretative opinion is stated for truth rather than what is actually true in some of the very important texts. This fact is the cause of what is endlessly argued on religious forums. No matter what translation of scripture is referenced to suborn a stated fact quoted in the scriptures the fact is countered with the scriptures by the protester's biased opinion of all scripture.This OP is but an example; "Every KJVOnlyite is fanitical" is the OP's author's true stated opinion, but he has forgotten that even our idle words are accountable according to the scripture. Have a good day StanJ.

No it is not, but with the advent of forums like this and those that hold those views learning how to use these features, it becomes more and more of an issue to the point where theses KJVOnlyists run from forum to forum disrupting and condemning those that don't accept irrational POVs.
I have not encountered one KJVO supporter that is NOT fanatical about it. To assert that an English version is inspired and the ONLY inspired Bible is just plain irrational when you think about it. Despite the incontrovertible truth that the KJV has many errors in it, those supporters deny this. It is almost cult like.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

No it is not, but with the advent of forums like this and those that hold those views learning how to use these features, it becomes more and more of an issue to the point where theses KJVOnlyists run from forum to forum disrupting and condemning those that don't accept irrational POVs.
I have not encountered one KJVO supporter that is NOT fanatical about it. To assert that an English version is inspired and the ONLY inspired Bible is just plain irrational when you think about it. Despite the incontrovertible truth that the KJV has many errors in it, those supporters deny this. It is almost cult like.

So it isn't cult like to judge a KJVOnliist cult like, aye StanJ? Translations of the scriptures always have errors, but it is guidance by God's spirit whereby one is lead to understand all truth. Maybe a move to Quebec might be the solution to your problem since French is in vogue. Specifically what are these irrational POV's that you judge to be so irksome? For me there is not any contemporary POV taught by any religious organization about salvation that is other than false, but I am not a KJVOnlyist and neither do I discredit the Bible.

 

[StanJ]

So it isn't cult like to judge a KJVOnliist cult like, aye StanJ? Translations of the scriptures always have errors, but it is guidance by God's spirit whereby one is lead to understand all truth. Maybe a move to Quebec might be the solution to your problem since French is in vogue. Specifically what are these irrational POV's that you judge to be so irksome? For me there is not any contemporary POV taught by any religious organization about salvation that is other than false, but I am not a KJVOnlyist and neither do I discredit the Bible.

Nope, calling a spade a spade was what Jesus did all the time and we are to do likewise. I was born in Montreal Teddy and am FLUENT in French. How about you? If your little spirit voice tells you something that is contradicted by God's written word, then I would call for the church to excorsize you Teddy.
Cults always say THEY are the only right way...just like you just said Teddy.

 

[Tex]

I didn't even know there were people that thought KJVO until I got here. What a silly notion.

 

[StanJ]

I didn't even know there were people that thought KJVO until I got here. What a silly notion.

Only to those that are NOT deceived Tex.... sadly.

 

[Chuckt]

I am amazed at how apparently rational Christians can fall for this latest false teaching of King James Version Only.
Not only do they fall for it, but they are irrational and fanatical in their views to the point of claiming the KJV is the ONLY inspired word of God.

What do you think?

I am King James preferred. I read the King James as well as other Bibles.

According to the recent study by LifeWay Research, 62 percent of American adults own a King James Version Bible and 82 percent of those who read the Bible at least once a month own a KJV.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/poll-reveals-king-james-bibles-enduring-popularity-49949/

That is a large percentage of American adults to call irrational or fanatical. The point is that they are reading the Bible and your statement sounds prejudicial against your brothers and sisters.

 

[StanJ]

That is a large percentage of American adults to call irrational or fanatical. The point is that they are reading the Bible and your statement sounds prejudicial against your brothers and sisters.

The stats are slightly skewed if you read them. I won a KJB and I read the Bible at least once a month. I hardly ever read the KJV.

 

[Chuckt]

The stats are slightly skewed if you read them. I won a KJB and I read the Bible at least once a month. I hardly ever read the KJV.

How are they skewed? And why do you care if people who read the King James Version don't infringe on your rights? Why does it bother you that people are reading their version of the Bible?

And why don't you read the Bible more than once a month?

 

[Shirley]

I decided not to read the last half of the posts. When I was growing up it was forbidden in my Religion to read anything except for the King James- and I remember a Mentally slow girl at my religious School being beaten severely with a paddle b/c she was unable to memorize the entire chapter perfectly. We were required to memorize scripture-- word for word- and therefore we were only allowed to read one Bible. The old King James only!!!! My Father prays with thee and thou to this day. God help me to forgive their small mindedness!!!

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

How are they skewed? And why do you care if people who read the King James Version don't infringe on your rights? Why does it bother you that people are reading their version of the Bible?

And why don't you read the Bible more than once a month?

I'm beginning to like you already.

 

[StanJ]

How are they skewed? And why do you care if people who read the King James Version don't infringe on your rights? Why does it bother you that people are reading their version of the Bible?

And why don't you read the Bible more than once a month?

The stat was;
62 percent of American adults own a King James Version Bible and 82 percent of those who read the Bible at least once a month own a KJV.

It doesn't say 62% read the KJB and it doesn't say that the 82% of those who read more than once a month read the KJB. This stat is about those who own a KJB and I do.
I didn't say or imply that I care if anyone reads the KJB or that it infringes on my rights, or that it bothers me. This is all in your lack of understanding in what I wrote, or your deliberate equivocation of it. You should try not to project onto someone's writing, but read it as it is written.

I also didn't say I didn't read the Bible more than once a month, I said I read it AT LEAST once a month. In fact I read it EVERY day.

I decided not to read the last half of the posts. When I was growing up it was forbidden in my Religion to read anything except for the King James- and I remember a Mentally slow girl at my religious School being beaten severely with a paddle b/c she was unable to memorize the entire chapter perfectly. We were required to memorize scripture-- word for word- and therefore we were only allowed to read one Bible. The old King James only!!!! My Father prays with thee and thou to this day. God help me to forgive their small mindedness!!!

It can only be forgiven if they acknowledge it Shirley, and most of them WON'T. IMO it is more an issue of being legalistic than it is of being small minded. God can expand our minds, but as is evident in the Bible, legalism is the bane of Christianity, as it is opposed to a personal relationship with God.

 

[Chuckt]

I decided not to read the last half of the posts. When I was growing up it was forbidden in my Religion to read anything except for the King James- and I remember a Mentally slow girl at my religious School being beaten severely with a paddle b/c she was unable to memorize the entire chapter perfectly. We were required to memorize scripture-- word for word- and therefore we were only allowed to read one Bible. The old King James only!!!! My Father prays with thee and thou to this day. God help me to forgive their small mindedness!!!

I'm sorry that small minded people did that to her.

It is important to know that the good outweighs the bad. The King James represents the Bible being made available to people who might not have had it before. There were other Bibles but it was used in the time of the Reformation and almost all of the creeds we have today came out of the Westminster Confession of Faith. So I see this Bible as partly responsible for the Reformation and I am still waiting the modern reformation from modern Bibles which we don't have. In fact, Christians have stopped buying the NIV because of inclusive language and I don't really depend on the NASB because Westcott and Hort were Posttribulationists. So what do you really have today that people are using? They are divided. Churches have the King James. Some still have the NIV. Others are using the ESV. Some colleges are using the NASB.

As far as the manuscript evidence goes, when someone made a mistake, they put the manuscript on the shelf and didn't use it. What we have people doing today is picking up the manuscript that wasn't used and they are saying it is in better condition so lets trust it. The reason that some manuscripts are in better condition is because no one read them for 1,000 years.