Did I hear you correctly??

[Citadel of Truth]

I heard a preacher use an absolutely ridiculous piece of "evidence" in support of the KJV. Don't get me wrong, I love my KJV and still read it often. My current version of choice is the NKJV which I find very similar to my KJV.

Anyway, this preacher used the following verse to support his idea that the King James Version was the "true Word of God": "Where the word of a king is, there is power..." (Ecc. 8:4) implying the "king" here is prophetically referring to King James and the KJV. 

Now tell me, is that about the lamest defense for the old KJV that you've ever heard? If you've heard one more lame, I'd sure like to hear it.

 

[Vince Massi]

Lack of education is one of the pillars of the KJO movement. That verse was used to support KJO, until it was pointed out that Henry VIII had also authorized a translation.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Numerology is more lame, IMO.

 

[Ransom]

Now tell me, is that about the lamest defense for the old KJV that you've ever heard? If you've heard one more lame, I'd sure like to hear it.

Yeah, this is actually about as lame as they come. But I've been hearing it since the 1990s.

 

[Citadel of Truth]

Numerology is more lame, IMO.

I'm not familiar with numerology as it relates to the KJV issue. 

 

[Citadel of Truth]

Yeah, this is actually about as lame as they come. But I've been hearing it since the 1990s.

Wow! That's what I get for coming to the party late, huh?

Not only is it lame, it is a blatant mishandling of the scriptures. That takes it from just being dumb to being sin. IMHO, of course.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Personally, I think the KJV is a correct translation and desire no other.  However, there is a group who attempt to defend the accuracy of the KJV translation by inventing whole new heresies.  In my mind, these people lose all credibility to anyone not already entrenched in KJVO.  By reason, since their defense is heresy, then their position must be heresy and they hurt the very cause they are trying to defend.

 

[Ransom]

I'm not familiar with numerology as it relates to the KJV issue.

It's especially present with disciples of Peter Ruckman, who seems to love numerical patterns and number symbology, and uses them as "proof" of the KJV's special inspiration.

For example, a few years ago in the Bible Believers Bulletin he promoted the views of a Filipino Ruckmandroid who argued that in the KJV, Genesis 1:1 (the beginning of the Bible) and Rev. 22:21 (the end of the Bible) add up to the same number of words, consonants, and vowels as 1 John 5:7 (the end of the Church Age), and that this "mathematical miracle" is "ADVANCED REVELATION."

Not only is this pseudotheological nonsense, it only works for late editions of the KJV with certain exact spellings of the words.

Another example: Michael Hoggard's "King James Code." I believe G. A. Riplinger also appeals to numerological proofs, although the only thing that really comes to mind at the moment is her infamous "Acrostic Algebra."

 

[prophet]

Personally, I think the KJV is a correct translation and desire no other.  However, there is a group who attempt to defend the accuracy of the KJV translation by inventing whole new heresies.  In my mind, these people lose all credibility to anyone not already entrenched in KJVO.  By reason, since their defense is heresy, then their position must be heresy and they hurt the very cause they are trying to defend.

Exactly.

And any disingenuous "update", by the likes of the editor of the NKJV ( who wrote a book detailing his preference of other mss, over the received texts) , is not equal to say, the language updates in 1769, 1853, etc.

I think God wanted the Tyndale published, Wycliffes work to be advanced, etc.

I am happy with the kjv, for the English.
I use an update, that rabid kjvo's would damn.

I don't see why we need to go crazy over it, history already makes it the common English Bible.

Anyone reading Westcott and Hort's own handwritten letters, published by their sons, knows what they did, and how dishonest it was.

It isn't complicated to me.

 

[Citadel of Truth]

G. A. Riplinger also appeals to numerological proofs, although the only thing that really comes to mind at the moment is her infamous "Acrostic Algebra."

I found what you are talking about. It is nothing more than a cheap parlor trick. It severely damages her credibility (if she ever had any to start with). Resorting to such word games undermines any scholarship she may have.

Step 1:  (NASV-NIV)-AV = X 
Step 2:  NASV-NIV)-AV= X
Step 3:  (ASI+NV)-AV = X
Step 4:  ASI+NV-AV = X
Step 5:  SIN = X

 

 

[Citadel of Truth]

And any disingenuous "update", by the likes of the editor of the NKJV ( who wrote a book detailing his preference of other mss, over the received texts) , is not equal to say, the language updates in 1769, 1853, etc.

Hey, now, don't be hatin' on my NKJV! I'm definitely not NKJVO (Unless I can become the father of that movement and have it named after me), but I really find that it reads very nicely. For the most part, I ignore the footnotes that talk about the "older" and "more reliable" manuscripts.

My philosophy is, find a version and read it! 

 

[logos1560]

Anyway, this preacher used the following verse to support his idea that the King James Version was the "true Word of God": "Where the word of a king is, there is power..." (Ecc. 8:4) implying the "king" here is prophetically referring to King James and the KJV. 

Some KJV-only advocates suggest or try to suggest that the KJV is the only English translation authorized by a king, and that may be why they then appeal to that verse and why some of them emphasize calling the KJV the "Authorized Version".

The title page of the 1611 included the following clause:  "Appointed to be read in churches," and it referred to “his Majesty’s special commandment.”  John Eadie observed that this clause on the 1611 title page “has, so far as is known, no authority, no edict of Convocation, no Act of Parliament, no decision of the Privy Council, no royal proclamation” (English Bible, II, p. 204).  The Cambridge History of the Bible noted that “there is no evidence that James, Parliament or Convocation ever expressly commanded the Version either to be printed or to be used” (p. 457).  MacGregor noted that “so far as is known there was never any legal instrument conferring authority upon the version” (Bible in the Making, p. 180).  Stephen Miller and Robert Huber observed:  “There is no surviving evidence that the king formally gave it his stamp of approval, declaring it the official Bible of England” (The Bible, p. 179).  MacGregor added:  “Its appearance was the subject of no Act of Parliament, no royal Proclamation, no Edict of Convocation, no Privy Council decision” (Ibid.).  KJV-only author Robert Sargent claimed:  “King James I approved of the project and those selected to work on the translation, but he never issued any royal ‘authorization’” (English Bible, p. 231).  In his introduction of a facsimile reprint of the 1526 edition of Tyndale’s New Testament, David Daniell maintained that the KJV was “never, in fact, authorized” (p. i).  Norman Geisler and William E. Nix wrote:  “Strictly speaking, the so-called Authorized Version (KJV) was never authorized.  That tradition seems to rest merely upon a printer’s claim on the title page” (General Introduction, p. 565).  Christopher Anderson asserted that the acceptance of the proposal for a new translation by James at the Conference at Hampton Court “actually amounted to no authority at all in point of law; James was not then King of England” (Annals of the English Bible, II, p. 388).  Anderson maintained that at that Hampton Court conference that “strictly speaking, or according to the law, he [James] was not yet King of England, nor could he be, till the assembling of Parliament” (II, p. 368).  What does the claim that this translation was said to be authorized for use in the state churches have to do with which translation we should choose in a land of religious freedom?  Does God's Word actually teach that valid translations of God's Word must be made only under royal authority? 

    Edward Hills acknowledged that the Great Bible was “the official Bible of the English Church” (KJV Defended, p. 214).  Laurence Vance also admitted “the Great Bible was the first ‘authorized’ Bible” (King James, His Bible, p. 80).  Grady maintained that “the Great Bible had the distinction of being the first Bible to be officially authorized for public use in England’s churches” (Final Authority, p. 139).  Hannibal Hamlin and Norman Jones noted that “the Great Bible was officially authorized” (KJB after 400 years, p. 4).  John Eadie affirmed that the Great Bible “had been formally authorized by the crown” (English Bible, II, p. 204).  William Loftie wrote:  “In the strict sense of the word the only version ever authorised was the Great Bible referred to specially in a proclamation of Henry VIII, dated in 1538” (Century of Bibles, p. 5).  John King and Aaron Pratt contended that the Great Bible was “the only English Bible ever officially authorized by a monarch” (Hamlin, KJB after, p. 67).  Andrew Edgar maintained that the Great Bible “bore on its title page the imprimatur of civil authority” (Bibles of England, p. 286).  Did the Coverdale’s Bible and Matthew’s Bible cease to have any authority for readers after the alternative Great Bible was printed?  Why not use the first "authorized version" [the Great Bible] or the second "authorized version" [the Bishops'  Bible]?  Did the Great Bible cease to have any authority for readers after a claimed second authorized translation was printed?  If the first translation under royal authority such as the Great Bible really declared to us the Lord's will, then all title by conquest by another translation would be unlawful. 

Would KJV-only advocates apply their inconsistent reasoning attempting to link a translation to the word of a king also to a church?  Would they suggest that the proper or correct church would be the one authorized by the word of a king--a state church such as the Church of England? 

 

[prophet]

The above post makes my case for why I call KJVO an insult.

Thank you

 

[Steven Avery]

disciples of Peter Ruckman, who seems to love numerical patterns and number symbology, ...  a Filipino .... who argued that in the KJV, Genesis 1:1 (the beginning of the Bible) and Rev. 22:21 (the end of the Bible) add up to the same number of words, consonants, and vowels as 1 John 5:7 (the end of the Church Age), and that this "mathematical miracle" is "ADVANCED REVELATION."

And I agree with you that this de facto endorsement of Periander Espalana in 2005 and then later in 2009 was a mess from Ruckman's side.  Afaik, this is the only time that Peter Ruckman entered such a morass. 

The concern is adding numbers in various ways, ELS or special revelation, not questions like the identity of "666" or "7" for completion. 

One time does not a pattern make, although it should be noted. I consider Gail Riplinger far more problematic in this area.

Steven

 

[Ransom]

The concern is adding numbers in various ways, ELS or special revelation, not questions like the identity of "666" or "7" for completion. 

None of which were raised, which should be a pretty good clue that I was not concerned with them.