Anyone want to discuss KJVO ?

fwGod

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2005
1,404
532
✟65,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Even today, the exact meaning of the Hebrew word "re'em" isn't known; only that it's a large, fierce herbivore, which makes it possible to be any of several of today's animals.
[from the wikipedia] The Hebrew word re'em was translated monokeros (unicorn) in the Septuagint. In 1899, Johann Ulrich Duerst wrote that the re’em was most likely the aurochs or urus (Bos primigenius), an extinct species of cattle that once ranged through the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, India, and Asia.

If not that, I would sooner refer it to the antelope Oryx rather than wild ox and certainly not refer to a mythical animal as the unicorn.

Other Bible translations at least made the effort to refer to a real animal when they used the words wild ox, which has two horns as the Oryx do. Psalm 92:10 speaks of one of the horns being exalted over the other which is precisely to convey a person being exalted over another person, or a circumstance. The unicorn has no comparative other horn to convey that.
I don't fault the AV men for calling it "unicorn", as unicorns are depicted on both KJ's & Britain's coats-of-arms. The AV men weren't zoologists, & they had no reason to doubt the existence of unicorns. ('Tis likely they never saw a lion, either.)
It's unfortunate that Britain used a mythical animal in one side and a real lion on the other side. One wonders what they intend to convey by that. But it's hardly a valid reason to accept that God actually meant a unicorn.

The translators used 'unicorn' which was most likely all that they bothered to be informed about, but it wasn't the original prophets intent when they spoke the message of God.. I can't accept that God would use a mythical animal to convey his truth.. even as Jesus' parables, always using real things to convey spiritual truth.
But as Strong In Him said, such things as animals' names don't affect DOCTRINE, so I'm not too-concerned with them.
They do strongly effect and influence such people as the unbelievers who use the unfortunate translated or substituted words or phrases in the Bible to mock it and/or use them as a reason not to believe.
 
Upvote 0

fwGod

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2005
1,404
532
✟65,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Also you didn't answer the question which you quoted in your reply.
Well, you don't always choose to answer everything, do you? But I don't mean to imply that I'm not choosing to answer on the same grounds that you did.

I didn't because I've forgotten what I've quoted in my previous post and I'm too lazy to go back and look at it. Too bad that this posting functions by not including all posts in the thread. Or, the person who asks for an answer is too lazy not to re-post as a reminder of what was said.
The demonic accusation goes both ways then?
I have not ever said or implied that the KJV is demonic. But if you think I implied it then that is merely how you perceive it which does not line up with what I've actually been saying.

Or don't you like to hear the actual information so you consider it to be demonizing the KJV? That is your view, not mine. I've only stressed the attitude and false accusations of the KJVOA, or the actual history or translating issues surrounding the KJV, I've never directly said anything against the KJV itself. I've not advised anyone to not read or cherish the KJV.

You apparently have assumed that because I object to the KJVOA unfounded accusations against the modern Bibles.. I don't have a King James Bible or that I choose not to read it, or as you suggest, that I demonize it. You'd be wrong in that assumption.
I have been memorizing the promises using the KJV more often than I do from the modern versions.
Using the KJV primarily because I'd been given a KJV small pocket New Testament when I was in Sunday school from which I had to learn some verses. I still have it.
So when I grew up I bought the KJV. Another reason is because most non-KJVOA preachers use the KJV to preach from. When I use scripture quotes in my posts, I don't know if you noticed but I use the KJV.

I don't in any way despise the KJV. Far from it. So separate what I say against the KJVOA from my respecting the KJV Bible by quoting from it in my posts.
 
Upvote 0

Dansiph

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2018
1,349
1,001
UK
✟119,794.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Well, you don't always choose to answer everything, do you? But I don't mean to imply that I'm not choosing to answer on the same grounds that you did.

I didn't because I've forgotten what I've quoted in my previous post and I'm too lazy to go back and look at it. Too bad that this posting functions by not including all posts in the thread. Or, the person who asks for an answer is too lazy not to re-post as a reminder of what was said.

I have not ever said or implied that the KJV is demonic. But if you think I implied it then that is merely how you perceive it which does not line up with what I've actually been saying.

Or don't you like to hear the actual information so you consider it to be demonizing the KJV? That is your view, not mine. I've only stressed the attitude and false accusations of the KJVOA, or the actual history or translating issues surrounding the KJV, I've never directly said anything against the KJV itself. I've not advised anyone to not read or cherish the KJV.

You apparently have assumed that because I object to the KJVOA unfounded accusations against the modern Bibles.. I don't have a King James Bible or that I choose not to read it, or as you suggest, that I demonize it. You'd be wrong in that assumption.
I have been memorizing the promises using the KJV more often than I do from the modern versions.
Using the KJV primarily because I'd been given a KJV small pocket New Testament when I was in Sunday school from which I had to learn some verses. I still have it.
So when I grew up I bought the KJV. Another reason is because most non-KJVOA preachers use the KJV to preach from. When I use scripture quotes in my posts, I don't know if you noticed but I use the KJV.

I don't in any way despise the KJV. Far from it. So separate what I say against the KJVOA from my respecting the KJV Bible by quoting from it in my posts.
The demonic comment was because others in the thread are saying the KJVO position is from Satan. I have probably missed some messages but not on purpose. I probably did assume things but I have said in this thread that I know people can respect the King James without being KJVO. I'm really thinking this conversation (not yours and mine but the whole thing) has ran its course.
 
Upvote 0

fwGod

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2005
1,404
532
✟65,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The demonic comment was because others in the thread are saying the KJVO position is from Satan. I have probably missed some messages but not on purpose. I probably did assume things but I have said in this thread that I know people can respect the King James without being KJVO. I'm really thinking this conversation (not yours and mine but the whole thing) has ran its course.
I see then that you've gone as far with it as you can, and as far as you want to. I respect that.

I am going to refresh my education on the topic by reading again from different sources that make the statement that the KJVO doctrine is from satan, and read why they make that claim. As well as read articles from those who were formally well entrenched in the KJVO doctrine, and have since gotten out of it.. they know best what is wrong with that doctrine. They know best if it is from satan or not.
 
Upvote 0

Dansiph

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2018
1,349
1,001
UK
✟119,794.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I see then that you've gone as far with it as you can, and as far as you want to. I respect that.

I am going to refresh my education on the topic by reading again from different sources that make the statement that the KJVO doctrine is from satan, and read why they make that claim. As well as read articles from those who were formally well entrenched in the KJVO doctrine, and have since gotten out of it.. they know best what is wrong with that doctrine. They know best if it is from satan or not.
There is a book which I haven't read and is not written by a Christian (I think?) and it's called "God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible". I've heard it's a good book for the most part. My suggestion would be to not see KJVO people as ignorant. I don't think that's a good place to start your re-reading into the subject.
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
This doesn't address the substance of my post; it's just a reiteration of what you've already said. It's a cookie cutter post which you could past onto any response which essentially means this isn't a discussion; you're just broadcasting.

You're defending an incorrect English translation of what Paul wrote, instead of what he actually wrote there.
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I see then that you've gone as far with it as you can, and as far as you want to. I respect that.

I am going to refresh my education on the topic by reading again from different sources that make the statement that the KJVO doctrine is from satan, and read why they make that claim. As well as read articles from those who were formally well entrenched in the KJVO doctrine, and have since gotten out of it.. they know best what is wrong with that doctrine. They know best if it is from satan or not.

The best proof that the KJVO myth is from Satan is that it lacks any Scriptural support at all. The ONLY doctrines of faith/worship that are true are those derived from Scripture.

Another proof is the ORIGIN of the current KJVO myth. Its "foundation stone" is a CULT OFFICIAL'S book, which was DISHONESTLY, although legally, plagiarized. GOD simply does NOT use dishonesty to accomplish His will.

Those proofs are aside from some other proofs, such as many points of that doctrine simply being WRONG.

As I said, Satan has accomplished his aims of causing strife & dissent among Christians, & of casting doubt upon God's word in English translations, including the KJV.

So, KJVOs, think it over - Do you REALLY want to keep believing a doctrine invented by Satan ?
 
Upvote 0

fwGod

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2005
1,404
532
✟65,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
There is a book which I haven't read and is not written by a Christian (I think?) and it's called "God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible". I've heard it's a good book for the most part. My suggestion would be to not see KJVO people as ignorant. I don't think that's a good place to start your re-reading into the subject.
One review of the book stated that the author is not a scholar and therefore I take it to mean that he is not so accurate as other authors are who've written similar books. So his book would not interest me.

I appreciate that you mean well. And I don't include you in this following example..

It's hard not to see the KJVO people as ignorant. In one article, that I just found moments ago.. a KJVO person argued that the NIV is faulty (using a stronger word than that) because he stated that it omitted the phrase "come in the flesh" citing 1 John 4:3. He's right that the phrase isn't there. However, 1 John 4:2, the immediate verse before (vs.3), the phrase is definitely there.

Now either he's relying on people not looking for themselves. Or, he's never looked at it himself but only saying what those KJVOA's are willingly ignorant of and passing on the misinformation to anyone who will listen. Thus anyone could begin to formulate the wrong idea that the NIV is not a reliable Bible.

When all the while the KJVOA's demonstrate themselves to be the untrustworthy ones.
 
Upvote 0

John Helpher

John 3:16
Supporter
Mar 25, 2020
1,345
479
45
Houston
✟85,316.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
You're defending an incorrect English translation of what Paul wrote, instead of what he actually wrote there.

This still isn't dealing with the substance of my comments. Anyone with a disagreement could say this kind of thing, (i.e. since you're wrong anyway I'm not gonna listen to your position). I presented several rebuttal to your argument. Would you care to comment on the substance of those rebuttals?
 
Upvote 0

Dansiph

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2018
1,349
1,001
UK
✟119,794.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
One review of the book stated that the author is not a scholar and therefore I take it to mean that he is not so accurate as other authors are who've written similar books. So his book would not interest me.

I appreciate that you mean well. And I don't include you in this following example..

It's hard not to see the KJVO people as ignorant. In one article, that I just found moments ago.. a KJVO person argued that the NIV is faulty (using a stronger word than that) because he stated that it omitted the phrase "come in the flesh" citing 1 John 4:3. He's right that the phrase isn't there. However, 1 John 4:2, the immediate verse before (vs.3), the phrase is definitely there.

Now either he's relying on people not looking for themselves. Or, he's never looked at it himself but only saying what those KJVOA's are willingly ignorant of and passing on the misinformation to anyone who will listen. Thus anyone could begin to formulate the wrong idea that the NIV is not a reliable Bible.

When all the while the KJVOA's demonstrate themselves to be the untrustworthy ones.
I understand you don't want to read the book and I'm fine with that. It is one I'll read myself but I've got a list of three or four to read so I won't be getting it yet.

I'm not convinced of the other English versions. However, I'm not finished looking into it. I don't know it all (far from it). I don't think I'd ever make the switch and this is partly faith. Which I don't think is a bad thing? I believe the King James Bible, it's what got me saved. I even had a NIV when I was a teenager although I was not saved. I remember being unmoved by anything I read in it. The first time I heard the KJV I was taken aback. I got saved shortly after.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

fwGod

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2005
1,404
532
✟65,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I understand you don't want to read the book and I'm fine with that. It is one I'll read myself but I've got a list of three or four to read so I won't be getting it yet.

I'm not convinced of the other English versions. However, I'm not finished looking into it. I don't know it all (far from it). I don't think I'd ever make the switch and this is partly faith. Which I don't think is a bad thing? I believe the King James Bible, it's what got me saved. I even had an NIV when I was a teenager although I was not saved. I remember being unmoved by anything I read in it. The first time I heard the KJV I was taken aback. I got saved shortly after.
My salvation came through the KJV too. So it's a special treasure.. way before I have heard about any Christian group being so militant about reading only the KJV.

When I was younger my parents bought some few Bibles that were not KJV.. the LB paraphrase, and a new testament that has 4 different translations in it, plus another that has 8 different translations in it.. all because my dad taught Bible classes to the pre-teens in the church so he felt that reading from updated English Bibles would help them understand better.

So I've been quite comfortable with reading most any different version. Which means that the matter of reading a variety of modern versions is not an issue.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
This still isn't dealing with the substance of my comments. Anyone with a disagreement could say this kind of thing, (i.e. since you're wrong anyway I'm not gonna listen to your position). I presented several rebuttal to your argument. Would you care to comment on the substance of those rebuttals?

Not trying to be smart-aleck, but your rebuttals are opinion vs. fact. remember, Paul was a highly-educated man, & if he's meant "the" root, that's what he would've written. The Greek writing in the ancient mss. of 1 Timothy are the witnesses for my comments.
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Do you believe the Bible is preserved? The words Paul wrote?
We have over 5K ancient mss. & parts of mss. known to us of New Testament Scripture, more mss. than we have for any other ancient writings. And I believe GOD has definitely preserved them, their contents having been in constant use for over 1900 years.
 
Upvote 0

Dansiph

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2018
1,349
1,001
UK
✟119,794.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I don't believe you.

If pastors believe that the Hebrew and Greek have value, then they're not KJVO people.
KJVO means they only use the KJV in English not that they think it's superior to the Hebrew and Greek. To not think the Hebrew and Greek have value is an extreme position.

One of the Pastors which comes to mind is Pastor Steven Anderson. Whatever you think of him he's good with languages and is KJVO.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
KJVO means they only use the KJV in English not that they think it's superior to the Hebrew and Greek.

No, that's exactly what KJVO is.

If someone just thinks that the KJV is the best English translation, that's a perfectly reasonable preference.

To not think the Hebrew and Greek have value is an extreme position.

It's an extreme position that several people here on CF take; when people oppose KJVO, that's what they're opposing.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
KJVO means they only use the KJV in English not that they think it's superior to the Hebrew and Greek. To not think the Hebrew and Greek have value is an extreme position.

One of the Pastors which comes to mind is Pastor Steven Anderson. Whatever you think of him he's good with languages and is KJVO.

Not all KJVO folk are alike.

There are different types of KJVO folk:

Some KJVO folk believe that the KJV is not without some minor flaws but it is the only best Bible to use. The creator of the Defined King James Bible believes this way.

Some KJVO folks believe the KJV is without flaw and it is divine and perfect. They believe it is a preservation of God's Word (Although they do believe the early copies of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts were also perfect and divine, too; They believe that the original languages can in some cases offer a deeper meaning).

Other KJVO folk believe it is wrong to read Modern Translations, and that it is not difficult to read. This appears to be the popular KJVO view that I do not hold to. I believe we can use Modern Translations sometimes as long we are making the KJV our final word of authority. I also think the KJV can be difficult to read, as well. But that is why we are to study to shew (show) ourselves approved unto God.

Some KJVO folk believe reading the KJV alone is a salvation issue. I also do not believe this way, either.

Other KJVO folk believe in defining words using the English dictionary AND by defining words using Lexicons (Dictionaries for the original languages). They hold an equal value to using both.

Other KJVO folk believe that any kind of original language study is bad or wrong. I don't believe this way.

Some KJVO folk believe that we should primarily look to using English dictionaries and that we should only rarely look to the Original Languages when absolutely needed or necessary. I believe this way. The reason for this is because the original languages are dead languages that are entirely foreign whereby we would have to rely 100% upon what some scholar says these words mean. If I were to read to someone the original languages to your average person, they would not understand me. If I were to ask your average person to read the Bible in the original languages and tell me what it means, they could not do so. Nobody has grown up in these cultures to truly know the nuances of these languages with 100% certainty. But seeing that some words in the KJV can only be defined best by looking to the original languages to get an actual understanding on that word (When the situation calls for it).

Side Note:

For other posters here who are Anti-KJVO:

My reply here is to Aspzan and to inform other readers (Who pass on by). If you want to debate with me, please don't. I am not interested in debating something that folks do not want to see.

So please do not reply to this post if you are Anti-KJVO.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Dansiph
Upvote 0