Is the label "KJVO" an insult?

[prophet]

David Cloud is not KJVO in the sense that KJVO is described in this thread. He is firmly a TRonly man.

What other English translations does David Cloud accept as the inspired word of God?

If I read him correctly, Cloud doesn't accept any English translation as inspired, including the KJV.

If "King James Only" defines one who believes that the KJV was given by inspiration, I am not "King James Only." The King James Bible is a product of preservation, not inspiration. The Bible Version Question/Answer Database - pg. 8

That about sums up his and most TRO's position.

 

[Biblebeliever]

For me it is not an insult.

But to be more accurate; I consider myself a King James Bible believer.

And do keep in mind that Not all KJV-only advocates are King James Bible believers. Just because a man or woman professes to use only one Bible; that does not automatically mean that they are Bible believers.

 

[Ransom]

If I read him correctly, Cloud doesn't accept any English translation as inspired, including the KJV.

Apart from the KJV, which English translations of the Bible would David Cloud recommend that Christians read for personal devotion, corporate worship, and Bible study?

 

[prophet]

If I read him correctly, Cloud doesn't accept any English translation as inspired, including the KJV.

Apart from the KJV, which English translations of the Bible would David Cloud recommend that Christians read for personal devotion, corporate worship, and Bible study?

Obviously, if he is TRO, he will use the translation based on what he thinks the TR is, and use his Cloudy understanding of Greek to "shed light" on it.

 

[Citadel of Truth]

If I read him correctly, Cloud doesn't accept any English translation as inspired, including the KJV.

Apart from the KJV, which English translations of the Bible would David Cloud recommend that Christians read for personal devotion, corporate worship, and Bible study?

You're needlessly trying to back me into a corner on this issue when I in no way denied the fact that Cloud is KJVO. What I said was that he is "not KJVO in the sense that KJVO is described in this thread. He is firmly a TRonly man."

There can be no doubt that he is KJVO in many aspects; but, he is very far removed from the likes of Ruckman, Grady, and Riplinger. 

 

[Ransom]

There can be no doubt that he is KJVO in many aspects; but, he is very far removed from the likes of Ruckman, Grady, and Riplinger.

Balderdash. The end result of his flavour of KJV-only logic is exactly the same: KJV holy, NIV etc. unholy.

 

[Steven Avery]

It is obvious that if the AV is the pure word of God, the NIV is very corrupt.

And if you believe the NIV is the pure word of God, and are logical, you will consider the AV as very corrupt.

The only other possibility would be if they were both very corrupt.

 

[Ransom]

It is obvious that if the AV is the pure word of God, the NIV is very corrupt.

And if you believe the NIV is the pure word of God, and are logical, you will consider the AV as very corrupt.

The only other possibility would be if they were both very corrupt.

"only other possibility" . . . LOL . . . talk about a lack of a) imagination; and b) critical thinking skills.

 

[FSSL]

If you ignore the meaning of David's use of "pure" and the marginal note of the KJV translators... "pure" can mean anything Steve wants it to mean.

There is no valid logic which ignores the contextual meaning.

 

[FSSL]

A TRO is a KJVO who has had a semester of Greek.

 

[Izdaari]

A TRO is a KJVO who has had a semester of Greek.

The same answer works for both. TRO da bums out! 

 

[Citadel of Truth]

There can be no doubt that he is KJVO in many aspects; but, he is very far removed from the likes of Ruckman, Grady, and Riplinger.

Balderdash. The end result of his flavour of KJV-only logic is exactly the same: KJV holy, NIV etc. unholy.

And the best part about it? I couldn't care less either way. The truth is, for a TRO man to try and convince someone that he is not KJVO is like a man trying to convince his friend that he's not a racist. No matter what you say, it sounds racist. 

 

[subllibrm]

KJVO is a guilt-by-association insult.

If you have someone who claims to be KJVO, whether you know what they mean by it or not, you (esp. the OP's disingenuous author) can level at them all manner of assumptive accusations,  forcing them to defend themselves rather than address issues.

For instance, Ruckman and Riplinger.
Neither are defendable, yet any "kjvo" is forced to answer for their folly.

Rather than narrow down the specifics of someone's actual beliefs, the hurler of the op's insult is safe to cherry-pick and play whack-a-mole with the intended victim, constantly hammering them with assumptions.

Since we all know there is no definition to "KJVO", the use of it is most assuredly playground bullying, and nothing more.

Same thing for those who are all about the evils of CCM. Correct?

 

[subllibrm]

The Millennium KJV.

Simply an attempt to change a few words, which weakens the text (e.g. losing the stablish / establish distinction) and then slap on a dubious copyright claim along with a marketing program.  Not particularly relevant.

Steven Avery

BibleProtector copyrighted his "work". Have you given him what for yet?

 

[Steven Avery]

All writings, like commentaries and explanations, are automatically under copyright protection, unless they are put in the public domain or given some sort of specialty protection like with some open source. The computer representation, if it has propriety code or data forma, can also be protected.

Any copyright on an AV text would be invalid.  I've never seen any such claim from Matthew.

 

[bibleprotector]

BibleProtector copyrighted his "work". Have you given him what for yet?

Copyright is automatic in Australia if you write something original.

 

[subllibrm]

BibleProtector copyrighted his "work". Have you given him what for yet?

Copyright is automatic in Australia if you write something original.

But if I understand your project correctly, you didn't write anything original. You compiled what you decided were the pure(est) variants of the KJV and declared that to be the best of them all.

I'm still not sure what authority you have to make such declarations. Of course that was the point FSSL was making back when he asked about the discrepancy in your handling of spirit and Spirit. It matters when you say it matters and doesn't when you say it doesn't. Now that is some modernist (as you have been using the, otherwise undefined, term) thinking right there.

 

[Prin.Ciples]

BibleProtector copyrighted his "work". Have you given him what for yet?

Copyright is automatic in Australia if you write something original.

Wjhat a joke.... "Orginal"? Please.....

 

[Steven Avery]

But if I understand your project correctly, you didn't write anything original.

Then you have not read the material, e.g. the main PDF written by Matthew.

(Sixth Draft to) Guide to the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible
Matthew Verschuur
http://www.bibleprotector.com/GUIDE_TO_PCE.pdf
Published by Bible Protector
http://www.bibleprotector.com
Copyright © Matthew William Verschuur 2013
Sixth Draft 2013
Published in Australia

Afaik, the Bible itself does not have such a notice.
http://www.bibleprotector.com/KJB-PCE-MINION.pdf

 

[bibleprotector]

But if I understand your project correctly, you didn't write anything original.

There's a lot of original writing on my website, I have written blog articles, forum stuff, booklets, books, etc.

You compiled what you decided were the pure(est) variants of the KJV and declared that to be the best of them all.

Incorrect. It has been generally recognised that the Cambridge Edition "is the best", and there is an electronic copy of a specific Cambridge Edition which has been accepted which is presented on my website without any typographical discrepancy.

I'm still not sure what authority you have to make such declarations. Of course that was the point FSSL was making back when he asked about the discrepancy in your handling of spirit and Spirit. It matters when you say it matters and doesn't when you say it doesn't. Now that is some modernist (as you have been using the, otherwise undefined, term) thinking right there.

You are misrepresenting everything. The fact is that the word "Spirit"/"spirit" was not uniform in its presentation in early editions of the KJB, which is an entirely separate issue to the deliberate alterations being made in this regard in very recent decades.

The lack of standardisation in presentation of the printed English language in early years should not be confused with the deliberate changes made by some for theological reasons in recent years.