Is the label "KJVO" an insult?

FSSL

FSSL

Well-known member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
7,771
Reaction score
622
Points
113
Location
Gulf Shores, Alabama
It is an acronym for "King James Version Only."

I do not see it or use it as an insult.

Do King James exclusivity advocates agree or disagree?
 
Well, I'm a KJVP.  I don't see why a KJVO would consider the label as an insult.  But what do I know, since I'm only a P.  ;)
 
It's not an insult. But it can be misleading, as James White says in his book, basically, there are various views under that title. Thus, I am KJBO, but not a like so-and-so or so-and-so. For example, I know there was an LXX before Christ was born, but plenty of KJBOs disagree with me and the KJB translators on that one.
 
There are different groups of Baptists with some differences in their views in certain areas, but there are still all properly called "Baptist." 

The same is true for many terms used to describe or identify various groups.

The term "KJV-only" has a definite, accurate meaning that properly describes a certain view.  KJV-only is a definite, specific, accurate term for the making of exclusive or only claims for one English translation since 1611--the KJV. 

The fact that there can be differences in some areas among KJV-only groups does not demonstrate that the term "KJV-only" is misleading or incorrect.

Perhaps some KJV-only advocates dodge or avoid considering the logical conclusions or implications to which their own KJV-only claims would lead.

 
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.

 
Then provide us with another term that you like.

It is just a descriptive term. I call myself a Calvinist. When issues are raised about baby baptism, I just brush it aside.
 
KJVo virtually always means the King Jimmy is the only acceptable Biblical translation for Christians and completely without error. Some will say it's the only acceptable translation for English-speaking peoples and,  in thise translations,  it should mirror The Jimmy as much as possible...basically a distinction with little difference.

If there are other definitions,  please feel free to provide them.

Aside: The reason cultists KJVoist are generally thought of as ignorant is not just because of their idolatrous views in this matter but the other views that so often coexist such as the extreme patriarchy, Trail of Blood,  hyper-dispensationalism, anti-education, etc, blah blah crap that goes with it. (See also: Is Michelle Obama a man? )
 
FSSL said:
Then provide us with another term that you like.

It is just a descriptive term. I call myself a Calvinist. When issues are raised about baby baptism, I just brush it aside.
Click to expand...

Baptists just call them baby dedications.  ;)
 
prophet said:
Since we all know there is no definition to "KJVO", the use of it is most assuredly playground bullying, and nothing more.
Click to expand...

Your claim is false since there are actual specific definitions for the accurate term "KJV-only." 

Your bogus accusations against those who properly use an accurate term could be considered the improper "bullying" and "insults."

Even some who hold that view have used that term to describe accurately their own view perhaps as early as the 1980's.
 
rsc2a said:
KJVo virtually always means the King Jimmy is the only acceptable Biblical translation for Christians and completely without error. Some will say it's the only acceptable translation for English-speaking peoples and,  in thise translations,  it should mirror The Jimmy as much as possible...basically a distinction with little difference.

If there are other definitions,  please feel free to provide them.

Aside: The reason cultists KJVoist are generally thought of as ignorant is not just because of their idolatrous views in this matter but the other views that so often coexist such as the extreme patriarchy, Trail of Blood,  hyper-dispensationalism, anti-education, etc, blah blah crap that goes with it. (See also: Is Michelle Obama a man? )
Click to expand...
Exactly.
And FSSL knows these assumptions and many more as well.
 
prophet said:
Rather than narrow down the specifics of someone's actual beliefs,
Click to expand...

Those who hold and advocate this supposedly undefinable view  have been repeatedly asked to make a positive, consistent, sound, scriptural case for their own actual beliefs or claims concerning the KJV.
 
logos1560 said:
y undefinable view  have been repeatedly asked to make a positive, consistent, sound, scriptural case for their own actual beliefs or claims
Click to expand...

Yes, Rick Norris, when are you going to define your view as to the identity of the tangible, readable, pure and perfect word of God?

Even one verse would help.

logos1560 said:
Your claim is false since there are actual specific definitions for the accurate term "KJV-only." 
Click to expand...

Which was the point of Prophet, your plural above.

When there are multiple conflicting defintions, that means there is no one accepted definition.

As with the "LXX".

Logic 101.

Steven Avery

 
Anyone else seeing a trend? KJVOs do not like to define terms. Why not?
 
Steven Avery said:
When there are multiple conflicting defintions, that means there is no one accepted definition.
Click to expand...

Since the KJV is an English translation, it should be obvious that the term "KJV-only" relates to English translations. 

Are there "multiple conflicting definitions" of the English word "only" so that it has no accepted definition?

The term KJV-only refers to those who make exclusive or only claims for one English translation--the KJV.

The fact that different people may word their definition of KJV-only differently does not demonstrate that they are giving supposedly "conflicting" definitions.
 
Steven Avery said:
Which was the point of Prophet,
Click to expand...
He actually claimed that there was no definition for KJV-only, not that there was more than one definition.

prophet said:
Since we all know there is no definition to "KJVO"
Click to expand...

The fact that an English dictionary may give more than one definition for an English word does not suggest that the word has no definition or even no accepted definition.
 
This is one of those rare occasions when I'll disagree with FSSL.  I see it as an insult, and a well-deserved one.  KJVO is its own religion and a prime example of irrational idolatry. 

If someone only uses the KJV, but doesn't believe in the nonsense about it being the only one true word of God, then that person is actually KJVP, not KJVO.  It is his #1 preference, and enough of a preference that he sees no reason to use other translations.  But he doesn't ascribe any magical uniqueness to it that makes it perfect vs all other "perverted" translations. 

 
The Rogue Tomato said:
This is one of those rare occasions when I'll disagree with FSSL.
Click to expand...

How dare thee! I bequest your rogue tongue doth persist no longer!

>:D
 
prophet... is your position different than Ruckman/Riplinger? Or do you just disagree with the manner by which they present the issue?
 
FSSL said:
Anyone else seeing a trend? KJVOs do not like to define terms. Why not?
Click to expand...
Yep. KJVO-ism collapses of its own weight when terms are carefully and accurately defined.

All the wiggle room evaporates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top