The KJVO Myth Has NO Scriptural support!

Status
Not open for further replies.

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
There's simply NO Scriptural support for the KJVO myth. Therefore, it CANNOT be true.

Now, while one may PREFER the KJV (or any other one version), telling others that the KJV (or any other one version) is the ONLY valid English Bible translation is telling a lie.

Why pick on KJVO? Because that man-made myth has created a whole genre of literature, full of falsehoods, playing right into Satan's hands by causing strife and dissent among & between congregations.

**THE KJVO MYTH - PHONY AS A FORD CORVETTE !**
 

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The Origin of the Current KJVO myth
By robycop3

Ever wonder where KJVO-the false doctrine that the KJV is the only valid English Bible translation out there came from? Here's the skinny:

In 1930, a 7th Day Adventist official, Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson(1872-1968), published a book he named "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" in response to a squabble within the SDA cult. This book is a collection of snippets in favor of the KJV of God's holy word, and is full of goofs, such as the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". Apparently, Wilkinson didn't bother to check 0ut the VERACITY of any of the info he gathered. And he copied PARTS of Dean John Burgon's writings, omitting anything that was critical of the Textus Receptus.

He obtained a Scottish copyright for this book, which he apparently allowed to lapse many years ago, as interest in his book was mostly limited to the SDA cult, and for only a short time.

There's no doubt that SDA is a pseudo/quasi-Christian cult, and that Dr. W was a full-fledged SDA official, teacher, and preacher, who often argued for the inerrancy of Ellen Gould White's writings, placing them on a par with Scripture. Several SDA buildings and libraries are named after him.

In 1955, someone called J. J. Ray of Eugene, OR discovered that book, and wrote his/her own book, "God Wrote Only One Bible". Ray copied much of Dr. W's book verbatim in GWOOB without acknowledging him whatsoever, copying many of the goofs in Dr. W's book. Whether Ray obtained Dr. W's permission to use his book, or simply plagiarized it is unknown, but at any rate, Ray used the power of modern media to publicize his/her book, thus starting the idea of KJVO among some of the general public.

Now, try Googling "J. J. Ray" in the Eugene, OR. area. The only one I've found whose lifetime fit the 1955 timeline was a used-car salesman, now deceased, who apparently never published any book. Ray's company, Eye-Opener Publishers, only published that one book. Apparently, "J. J. Ray" is a pseudonym. Now, why would any REAL MAN(or woman) OF GOD use a pseudonym? Apparently, "Ray" was concerned that Dr. W might speak out about his plagiarism.

Then, in 1970, Dr. D. O. Fuller, a Baptist pastor, published "Which Bible?"(3rd revision, 1972), a book which copied much from both Ray and Wilkinson, including many of the original goofs. Like W and Ray before him, he didn't bother to check out the VERACITY of the material he published. And, while he at least acknowledged W, he made absolutely NO mention of W's CULT AFFILIATION. It was this book which brought the public's attention, especially in Baptist circles, to the other two boox, and to KJVO in general. Soon, a whole genre was developed of KJVO boox, all of which drew a large portion of their material from those first three boox.

Now, while Ray's plagiarism and Fuller's deliberate omission of W's CULT AFFILIATION might've been legal, it was certainly DISHONEST, not something any devout Christian would do!

Now, I have not forgotten Dr. Peter S. Ruckman's 1964 works, "Manuscript Evidence" and "Bible Babel". These goof-filled worx was derived largely from Wilkinson's and Ray's books, repeating many of their booboos, such as the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". and copying an erroneous chart from Ray's book. Ruckman referred to the title of Ray's book as "God Only Wrote One Book", which hints at the inaccuracy of Ruckman's work. However, Ruckman's works was not among the "foundation stones" of the KJVO myth, as were Ray's and Fuller's boox, both derived from Wilkinson's book.

Virtually every current KJVO author, from Riplinger to Bynum to Melton to Grady to whomever, uses material from those first three boox in their own work, often re-worded, but still the same garbage in a different dumpster. About the only newer material in any of these boox is their criticism of newer Bible versions as they came out. We see a pattern of DISHONESTY in KJVO authorship, as many of its authors copy from each other without any acknowledgement, all of them drawing from a KNOWN CULT OFFICIAL'S book! HOW CAN ANY CHRISTIAN, SEEING ALL THIS DISHONESTY AND ATTEMPTS TO CONCEAL OR JUSTIFY IT, BELIEVE KJVO IS FROM GOD?

These facts are easily verified, either on the Internet or in most public libraries. Unlike KJVOs, we Freedom Readers deal in VERIFIABLE FACT, not fishing stories, opinion, and guesswork. All the boox I mentioned are available online legally, in public libraries, many religious bookstores, or are for sale at various web sites of many religious book stores.

Thus, you see why I, and many other Christians who try to serve God in all aspects of life, are so vehemently against the KJVO myth! It's Satanic in origin, definitely NOT FROM GOD!

I challenge any KJVO to show us any book written before 1930 that is largely about KJVO, and which can be traced to having started the current KJVO doctrine.
 
Upvote 0

Monk Brendan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 21, 2016
4,636
2,875
72
Phoenix, Arizona
Visit site
✟294,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
There's simply NO Scriptural support for the KJVO myth. Therefore, it CANNOT be true.

Now, while one may PREFER the KJV (or any other one version), telling others that the KJV (or any other one version) is the ONLY valid English Bible translation is telling a lie.

Why pick on KJVO? Because that man-made myth has created a whole genre of literature, full of falsehoods, playing right into Satan's hands by causing strife and dissent among & between congregations.

**THE KJVO MYTH - PHONY AS A FORD CORVETTE !**
What's odd is that the translators of the KJV believed things that most KJVO people would repudiate.
 
Upvote 0

Pethesedzao

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2018
772
312
67
Bristol
✟24,854.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
There's simply NO Scriptural support for the KJVO myth. Therefore, it CANNOT be true.

Now, while one may PREFER the KJV (or any other one version), telling others that the KJV (or any other one version) is the ONLY valid English Bible translation is telling a lie.

Why pick on KJVO? Because that man-made myth has created a whole genre of literature, full of falsehoods, playing right into Satan's hands by causing strife and dissent among & between congregations.

**THE KJVO MYTH - PHONY AS A FORD CORVETTE !**
I fully agree with you but you will find it is the most accurate version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Call me Nic
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I fully agree with you but you will find it is the most accurate version.
Most accurate of its day perhaps; but not so currently.

But ANY translation will NEVER hold a candle to the original. EVER.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I fully agree with you but you will find it is the most accurate version.

Hi pethesedzao,

That claim always baffles me. We don't have a single piece of any original manuscript. Most of the copies that we do have, have nuances of difference among them. We don't have any way of 'knowing' that any copy that might be different from another copy is more or less accurate to the original manuscript. So, on what basis, do you know that you know; what hard evidence can you produce, to confirm that the KJ translation is any more or less accurate to the original manuscripts, over any other?

I mean, I'm in agreement that it is a translation that is valuable unto men to know their God, but then I also find that there are many other translations that suffice in that same capacity. I've always been one to believe that God caused His words to be written and recorded for us that we might know Him. All that He has done and is doing that we might have eternal life. So, I'm more inclined to encourage any believer to find a worthwhile translation of the Scriptures and learn from them all that they teach you.

I've read many, not all, of the various 'good' translations, and I haven't found yet a one that fails in what I believe was God's purpose in sending to us, through His people, Israel, His words. Yes, there are various slightly nuanced differences in how one translation words a particular passage over another. There may even be a very few cuts or additions to one or two passages when comparing one to another, but the purpose for which God sent His truths unto us is in no way denied by any of these very minor differences. However, I have yet, in years of researching, been able to find any historical evidence that one translation is more reliable to the original manuscripts than another. The reason is fairly simple to me. We don't have any of the originals by which we can make any accurate comparative analysis.

So, I'm more inclined to say to you that it's fine if you find the KJ translation to be a better translation than others, but you just can't make the claim, with any provable evidence, that it is more or less accurate to the original manuscripts.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

Call me Nic

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dec 27, 2017
1,532
1,627
.
✟481,735.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The Majority Text is the true word of God, which originated in Antioch. The Textus Receptus was a collection of faithful translations from the Majority manuscripts, of which the KJV is a faithful translation of.

The contemporary versions use the Alexandrian set of manuscripts, which were corrupted from the time of about 200 AD.
 
Upvote 0

Call me Nic

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dec 27, 2017
1,532
1,627
.
✟481,735.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Hi pethesedzao,

That claim always baffles me. We don't have a single piece of any original manuscript. Most of the copies that we do have, have nuances of difference among them. We don't have any way of 'knowing' that any copy that might be different from another copy is more or less accurate to the original manuscript. So, on what basis, do you know that you know; what hard evidence can you produce, to confirm that the KJ translation is any more or less accurate to the original manuscripts, over any other?

I mean, I'm in agreement that it is a translation that is valuable unto men to know their God, but then I also find that there are many other translations that suffice in that same capacity. I've always been one to believe that God caused His words to be written and recorded for us that we might know Him. All that He has done and is doing that we might have eternal life. So, I'm more inclined to encourage any believer to find a worthwhile translation of the Scriptures and learn from them all that they teach you.

I've read many, not all, of the various 'good' translations, and I haven't found yet a one that fails in what I believe was God's purpose in sending to us, through His people, Israel, His words. Yes, there are various slightly nuanced differences in how one translation words a particular passage over another. There may even be a very few cuts or additions to one or two passages when comparing one to another, but the purpose for which God sent His truths unto us is in no way denied by any of these very minor differences. However, I have yet, in years of researching, been able to find any historical evidence that one translation is more reliable to the original manuscripts than another. The reason is fairly simple to me. We don't have any of the originals by which we can make any accurate comparative analysis.

So, I'm more inclined to say to you that it's fine if you find the KJ translation to be a better translation than others, but you just can't make the claim, with any provable evidence, that it is more or less accurate to the original manuscripts.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
There are quotations of scripture like 1 John 5:7 that are found in the writings of the early church fathers which validate the family of manuscripts that the KJV is translated from.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: anna ~ grace
Upvote 0

Pethesedzao

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2018
772
312
67
Bristol
✟24,854.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Hi pethesedzao,

That claim always baffles me. We don't have a single piece of any original manuscript. Most of the copies that we do have, have nuances of difference among them. We don't have any way of 'knowing' that any copy that might be different from another copy is more or less accurate to the original manuscript. So, on what basis, do you know that you know; what hard evidence can you produce, to confirm that the KJ translation is any more or less accurate to the original manuscripts, over any other?

I mean, I'm in agreement that it is a translation that is valuable unto men to know their God, but then I also find that there are many other translations that suffice in that same capacity. I've always been one to believe that God caused His words to be written and recorded for us that we might know Him. All that He has done and is doing that we might have eternal life. So, I'm more inclined to encourage any believer to find a worthwhile translation of the Scriptures and learn from them all that they teach you.

I've read many, not all, of the various 'good' translations, and I haven't found yet a one that fails in what I believe was God's purpose in sending to us, through His people, Israel, His words. Yes, there are various slightly nuanced differences in how one translation words a particular passage over another. There may even be a very few cuts or additions to one or two passages when comparing one to another, but the purpose for which God sent His truths unto us is in no way denied by any of these very minor differences. However, I have yet, in years of researching, been able to find any historical evidence that one translation is more reliable to the original manuscripts than another. The reason is fairly simple to me. We don't have any of the originals by which we can make any accurate comparative analysis.

So, I'm more inclined to say to you that it's fine if you find the KJ translation to be a better translation than others, but you just can't make the claim, with any provable evidence, that it is more or less accurate to the original manuscripts.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
Let me say that some of the latter translations have severely weakened the Church of Christ Jesus due to their inaccurate interpretations...
 
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

Pethesedzao

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2018
772
312
67
Bristol
✟24,854.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Hi pethesedzao,

That claim always baffles me. We don't have a single piece of any original manuscript. Most of the copies that we do have, have nuances of difference among them. We don't have any way of 'knowing' that any copy that might be different from another copy is more or less accurate to the original manuscript. So, on what basis, do you know that you know; what hard evidence can you produce, to confirm that the KJ translation is any more or less accurate to the original manuscripts, over any other?

I mean, I'm in agreement that it is a translation that is valuable unto men to know their God, but then I also find that there are many other translations that suffice in that same capacity. I've always been one to believe that God caused His words to be written and recorded for us that we might know Him. All that He has done and is doing that we might have eternal life. So, I'm more inclined to encourage any believer to find a worthwhile translation of the Scriptures and learn from them all that they teach you.

I've read many, not all, of the various 'good' translations, and I haven't found yet a one that fails in what I believe was God's purpose in sending to us, through His people, Israel, His words. Yes, there are various slightly nuanced differences in how one translation words a particular passage over another. There may even be a very few cuts or additions to one or two passages when comparing one to another, but the purpose for which God sent His truths unto us is in no way denied by any of these very minor differences. However, I have yet, in years of researching, been able to find any historical evidence that one translation is more reliable to the original manuscripts than another. The reason is fairly simple to me. We don't have any of the originals by which we can make any accurate comparative analysis.

So, I'm more inclined to say to you that it's fine if you find the KJ translation to be a better translation than others, but you just can't make the claim, with any provable evidence, that it is more or less accurate to the original manuscripts.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
Many scriptures should be KJV only...
 
Upvote 0

anna ~ grace

Newbie
Site Supporter
May 9, 2010
9,071
11,925
✟108,146.93
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I feel for the KJV only guys. I think their goal is to hang on to a translation which doesn't muck around with gender roles, sexual morality issues, or the full deity of Christ. I can't fault them for that. I don't agree that the KJV is all one should / can use, but I think I get why they do it.
 
Upvote 0

Pethesedzao

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2018
772
312
67
Bristol
✟24,854.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Hi pethesedzao,

That claim always baffles me. We don't have a single piece of any original manuscript. Most of the copies that we do have, have nuances of difference among them. We don't have any way of 'knowing' that any copy that might be different from another copy is more or less accurate to the original manuscript. So, on what basis, do you know that you know; what hard evidence can you produce, to confirm that the KJ translation is any more or less accurate to the original manuscripts, over any other?

I mean, I'm in agreement that it is a translation that is valuable unto men to know their God, but then I also find that there are many other translations that suffice in that same capacity. I've always been one to believe that God caused His words to be written and recorded for us that we might know Him. All that He has done and is doing that we might have eternal life. So, I'm more inclined to encourage any believer to find a worthwhile translation of the Scriptures and learn from them all that they teach you.

I've read many, not all, of the various 'good' translations, and I haven't found yet a one that fails in what I believe was God's purpose in sending to us, through His people, Israel, His words. Yes, there are various slightly nuanced differences in how one translation words a particular passage over another. There may even be a very few cuts or additions to one or two passages when comparing one to another, but the purpose for which God sent His truths unto us is in no way denied by any of these very minor differences. However, I have yet, in years of researching, been able to find any historical evidence that one translation is more reliable to the original manuscripts than another. The reason is fairly simple to me. We don't have any of the originals by which we can make any accurate comparative analysis.

So, I'm more inclined to say to you that it's fine if you find the KJ translation to be a better translation than others, but you just can't make the claim, with any provable evidence, that it is more or less accurate to the original manuscripts.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
I can do all things through Christ WHICH strengtheneth me. KJV only
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Heavenhome
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

Pethesedzao

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2018
772
312
67
Bristol
✟24,854.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Most accurate of its day perhaps; but not so currently.

But ANY translation will NEVER hold a candle to the original. EVER.
I always preach and teach KJV but with up to date grammar to the glory of God.
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I feel for the KJV only guys. I think their goal is to hang on to a translation which doesn't muck around with gender roles, sexual morality issues, or the full deity of Christ. I can't fault them for that. I don't agree that the KJV is all one should / can use, but I think I get why they do it.
I get that. but there are better translations that do that too like the NASB 72. Or just get yourself an interlinear.
 
Upvote 0

Concord1968

LCMS Lutheran
Sep 29, 2018
790
437
Pacific Northwest
✟23,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I get that. but there are better translations that do that too like the NASB 72. Or just get yourself an interlinear.
I haven't run into anything objectionable in the ESV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: danbuter
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Let me say that some of the latter translations have severely weakened the Church of Christ Jesus due to their inaccurate interpretations...

Hi pethesedzao,

Ok, let's assume that your claim that some of the newer translations have weakened the Church of Christ Jesus and we can discuss that claim in another thread. How about let's just say that we stick with your initial claim and you provide the proof that you have, that I asked for, to substantiate your claim. Let's just say that.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
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

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Many scriptures should be KJV only...

Hi again pethesedzao,

Why do you continue to dance around the issue and not address questions put to you directly concerning the issue? Ok, I'll play. What 3 specific Scriptures lose their intent and meaning by not being written in the KJ translation form? Do you have the original manuscripts so that you know that you can prove that those three Scripture references were only copied correctly apart from all the other translations?

I hope that at some point you'll actually read my questions and answer my questions. So far, all you've been able to produce is 'your understanding of how things should be based on nothing more than, well, uh...it's your understanding of how things should be.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.