The KJVO Myth - Phony As A Ford Corvette !

[Dave G.]

I'll bet Pelvis used to drive one...

Sure once he got past the piston slap.

 

[Der Alte]

I drive a Kia Grand Caravan and my Wife drives a Dodge Sportage.

 

[Toro]

Ya but that's an abomination lol !!! I'm surprised it's not in the bible !

Back in the day, yes. Chevy/GM standards today....... Ford would be doing them a favor.

By todays standards. Dodge design, Ford built and Chevy I dont even trust to make the "Objects in mirror" sticker for the rearview mirror.

Sad that Dodge is the best design, sadder that Ford is the best built....times have certainly changed... never thought Id want a Ford for quality over a Chevy... but the day has come.

 

[Redwingfan9]

So, you put a gag order on God? As if he is not allowed to speak after our man-made canon is complete? This shows the true value of the Bible. It silences God.

That is nonsense. The canon of scripture closed with the death of the apostles. From there, the scriptures have been passed down for generations and it is entirely inappropriate to use fragments that have not been passed down. Furthermore, there is no new revelation. Anything new is redundant or more likely false.

 

[Saint Steven]

That's terrible advice, IMHO.

A good commentary will explain things, but also explain the reasons, so you can say "yes, that makes sense."

A good commentary will in fact refer to the original languages too.

In my experience, I have been quite disappointed with them.

 

[Saint Steven]

Does this mean the claim of biblical inerrancy is disputed by the bible itself?

Yes. Ask an atheist. They will be happy to point out all the errors. And much of time they are right.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I rarely use commentaries as well, just on the odd occasion...

 

[Saint Steven]

That is nonsense. The canon of scripture closed with the death of the apostles. From there, the scriptures have been passed down for generations and it is entirely inappropriate to use fragments that have not been passed down. Furthermore, there is no new revelation. Anything new is redundant or more likely false.

Everything stated in your post is wrong. IMHO

For starters, the canon wasn't written, it was collected and voted on by the Catholic Church. I hope you have thanked them for providing you with a Bible.

 

[robycop3]

I am with you on everything except you number 1. There is no Scriptural support for any Bible translation. Scripture came before our Bible translations.

Well, actually there is, where the HOLY SPIRIT caused Peter's preaching to be understood by his entire audience in whatever the best language of each person was. I know, that wasn't a written translation, but it's the same principle.

 

[robycop3]

I've argued with KJVO supporters before, your arguments are going to fall on deaf ears. They actually think that the KJV is an exact word-for-word transcription of history, and Adam and Eve were speaking English in the Garden of Eden. Then the record was lost and God divinely inspired King James to perfectly recreate it.

Hopefully, it'll keep some newer Christians from believing the KJVO LIE.

 

[robycop3]

While I agree wholeheartedly with the basic idea of this topic, we need some better points to make about it. Claiming there is no scriptural support seems like asking the impossible, or at least for a miracle. Where exactly would such a reference fit? Should Adam tells us what Bible translation he used for his morning devotions? KVO (left there by a Gideon, no doubt)

Remember, with God, ALL things are possible. If He had wanted us to be KJVO, He woulda communicated it to us in some words.

 

[robycop3]

Wouldn't the "current edition" violate the whole point of KJVO? Why not stick with the original?

Because there was a KJVO myth around before 1930, & today's edition is almost-entirely derived from Dr. W's book.

 

[robycop3]

How do other translations stand up to these sort of minimal complaints? Pretty remarkable if that the best we can do to discredit the book.

Not trying to discredit the KJV-just proving the KJVO insistence that the KJV is perfect is a LIE.

We must remember, ALL Bible translations are the products of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men.

 

[robycop3]

That's a valid complaint. But not enough to toss the whole book.

No need to toss it-just remember, it's NOT PERFECT, as the KJVOs say!

 

[robycop3]

Parliament and the King authorized the KJV, which is why it's called the authorized version. It has nothing to do with a cultist in the 1930's.

I personally use KJV exclusively but that is a personal preference. I prefer the old language, there is a richness there that is lost with the new translations. Additionally, it was translated from documents handed down by the church for centuries. The best argument against the newer versions is that they include fragments discovered in the last 2 centuries as part of their translation. Those fragments have not been handed down by the church, God did not hide his word from his people for nearly 2 thousand years.

But God DID PRESERVE all those mss. & fragments.

While I have no prob with Elizabethan English, many others do, especially those whose first language wasn't English.

 

[robycop3]

I have personally found that the KJV of The Bible best describes the born again experience. Of course Christ must first open your eyes and ears.

If you prefer it, fine. Just remember 2 things :

1. It's not perfect.

2. It's not the ONLY valid English Bible translation out there.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Just think - if it was perfect, then would God would have only favoured English speakers since 1611.

I thought He loved the whole world???

 

[robycop3]

Well I’m confused. I thought this thread was about being against KJVO, but I’m reading it as against the very version itself and not the mindset.

Part of the refutation of the KJVO myth is proving the KJV isn't perfect, as they say it is.

 

[Der Alte]

But God DID PRESERVE all those mss. & fragments.
While I have no prob with Elizabethan English, many others do, especially those whose first language wasn't English.

I have served in Korean churches for 40+ years and that is very true. So I usually do study in KJV, because that is what I grew up with, then switch to NIV for teaching and preaching.

 

[robycop3]

Actually the King James Version is the poorest translation of the Bible still in common use, with several thousand translational errors. The translators appointed by King James were simply not expert in the ancient languages, and it shows, on almost every page. Many of the errors are minor - singular vs. plural, verb tenses, etc. But some of them are plain ridiculous. For example, the KJV is the only translation of the Bible that mentioned unicorns. The translators translated the Greek term for "horned beasts" as "unicorns", instead of the obvious correct translation found in every other version of the Bible - "cattle", or "oxen".

Actually, the translators were chosen by the Anglican Church clerics. Their boss was Archbishop Richard Bancroft, who was the king's toadie. All KJ did was give them permission to make a new English Bible translation. Bancroft made all their rules.