KJVO catfight!

FSSL

FSSL

Well-known member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
7,771
Reaction score
619
Points
113
Location
Gulf Shores, Alabama
Is there any doubt that KJVOism has splintered an already fractured toothpick? How many more iterations of the KJVO position do we need?

First, it was commonly taught (ala Thomas Strouse) that the 1769 KJV was the correct KJV.
Then, a movement sought to go back and use only the 1611. So, it was reprinted.
Larry Pierce gave us a tremendous tool (Online Bible) in the early 90s. KJVOs quite happily accepted the KJV in that software.
Now, a 20-something, Pentecostal in Australia made it his mission to further splinter the KJVOs into Pure and nonPure KJV Bibles.
Martin Richling, late in the game, set up multiple websites, stealing both Bibleprotector's tests and text.
Now we have Ruckman calling Martin out, Martin calling Ruckman a heretic, a diminutive lumberjack (husky394xp) calling out both Ruckman and Martin.

KJVOism... the divider of the brethren.
 
KJVO the religion Satan invented to distract Christians from the work of the ministry to calling other versions Satan's bibles. Blasphemy.
 
FSSL said:
First, it was commonly taught (ala Thomas Strouse) that the 1769 KJV was the correct KJV.
Click to expand...

KJV-only author Timothy Morton contended that "the 1762 and 1769 [editions] were to update the spelling" and that "by 1769 whatever slight textual errors that still remained were removed, and the text was finally free from any man-made error" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 42).

Joey Faust maintained that "nothing after 1769 is a true edition" (Common Man‘s Defense of KJV-onlyism, p. 43).   

Hugo Schonhaar wrote:  “The final two editions of the 1611 King James Bible took place in 1762 and 1769” (Woods, King’s Bible, p. 277).  James Melton also claimed that “in 1762 and 1769 the two final editions of the KJV were published” (Fighting Back, p. 29).  David Sorenson wrote:  “The 1762 and 1769 final editions involved spelling changes and even some word changes, which became necessary as the English language stabilized and spelling rules were established” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 137). William Bradley claimed that "the last one in 1769 made no changes in the text, only standardization of spelling, punctuation, and updated typeface" (To All Generations, p. 71). Dennis Anderson claimed:  “We know it [referring to the 1611 KJV] has gone through four revisions to correct misspelled words, the last one in 1769” (Flaming Torch, Summer, 1995, p. 6).  M. H. Tabb contended that “the seventh and final edition was in 1769, the ‘purified text’ at last” (Inspiration, p. 272).  Michael Bates referred to “the final, fifth publication (1769)” of the KJV (Inspiration, p. 324).  Jack McElroy asserted:  “In 1762 the Lord used Dr. F. S. Paris of the University of Cambridge and in 1769 Dr. Benjamin Blayney of Oxford to put some finishing touches on the work like enhancing the use of italics, correcting what printer errors remained, expanding marginal and introductory notes, and modernizing the spelling” (Which Bible Would Jesus Use, p. 168). 

The 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV made by Benjamin Blayney was not the "final" edition of the KJV, and it was not perfect and was not free from all man-made error.
 
It's great having you around Logos to provide solid research!
 
The perfect preserved word of God in 8000 versions. Got to love the odds that mine is the right one.
 
FSSL said:
Now we have Ruckman calling Martin out, Martin calling Ruckman a heretic, a diminutive lumberjack (husky394xp) calling out both Ruckman and Martin.
Click to expand...

KJV-onlyism is a crowd of circus clowns smacking each other over the head with squeaky hammers.
 
FSSL said:
Martin Richling, late in the game, set up multiple websites, stealing both Bibleprotector's tests and text.
Click to expand...

All righty . . . I never heard of Martin Richling till now, and having taken a look at his Web page, I hereby do attest that verily, he is like unto a crank and an crazy person.
 
The perfect KJV hasn't arrived yet. All 8,000 of them have Jesus asking "Whom" do men say that I am, when it should be "Who."
 
Vince Massi said:
The perfect KJV hasn't arrived yet. All 8,000 of them have Jesus asking "Whom" do men say that I am, when it should be "Who."
Click to expand...

You use "who" when the answer is the subject of a clause, and "whom" when the answer is the object.

Q: "Who/Whom stole the cookie from the cookie jar?"
A: "_____ stole the cookie from the cookie jar."

The answer to the question is the subject of the clause; therefore, "who" is correct.

Q: "Who/Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?"
A: "Some say that thou art _____."

The answer to the question is the object of the clause; therefore, "whom" is correct.

Put another way, if you can answer the question with "he" or "she," then "who" is the correct pronoun. If you answer it with "him" or "her," then "whom" is correct.

"Whom" is going out of fashion because it sounds kind of stuffy, is frequently used incorrectly, and is the butt of many grammar jokes. It's a grammar rule you can break without feeling too guilty. But don't fault the KJV for using it wrong when it does, in fact, use it correctly.
 
Nope.

"Whom" is the predicate nominative and is incorrect. Only "Who" can be the predicate nominative.  "I am Who" is correct. "I am Whom" is incorrect.
 
Vince Massi said:
"Whom" is the predicate nominative and is incorrect. Only "Who" can be the predicate nominative.  "I am Who" is correct. "I am Whom" is incorrect.
Click to expand...

You're free to believe whatever delusion you wish, but I note for the record that I have the Oxford English Dictionary, Fowler's Modern English Usage, Strunk and White, and the Chicago Manual of Style on my side.
 
KJVO catfight morphs into who/whom catfight. Film at eleven (or on youtube already).  ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top