Were you KJVO? If so... what brought you to the truth?

[FSSL]

I grew up in a KJVO/P church. As a young man, my dad was gifted a NIV. That became my version of choice.

What convinced me against the teachings of my own church? Lies. Liars who told lies and made up controversies where none existed.

I came across the footnote at the end of the book of Mark. The KJVOs attempted to use that ending to convince me the NIV creates doubt and confusion.

At least the NIV was footnoting an issue that the KJV Bible never addressed. The same with the TR Greek text. At least UBS/NA gave full information with nothing to hide.

 

[Boomer]

I grew up in a KJVO church and attended a Christian school that was under the umbrella of a neighboring Hyles style church. I attended a KJVO Bible college and worked as a youth pastor for 5 years in a KJVO church.

After taking the pastorate in my current church, I began to preach consecutively through books of the Bible, starting with a series through 1John. By the time I had preached through 1John, 1 & 2Peter, James, and half of 1Corinthians, I had studied the Scriptures thoroughly enough to see the idea of a perfect English translation disintegrate before my eyes.

The straw that broke the Camel's back came for me as I was reading my devotions through the book of Acts and happened upon Acts 12:4. Even though I had read Acts 12:4 many times before, I was struck for the first time by the inappropriateness of the word "Easter" in that context. Why would the resurrection-denying Jews care about waiting until after "Easter"? Wouldn't they rather be more interested in waiting until after Passover? I did some reading on that verse, and came away from my studies with a changed mind.

I was quite a bit nervous about forsaking the idea of a perfect English translation. I felt like I was apostatizing and forsaking God's promises. So I asked myself, "Self, what promise has God made to create or preserve a perfect translation?" The answer was shocking to me . . . There is no promise from God in the Bible that says He would give us a perfect English translation. God  gave inerrant scriptures in the originals . . . promised to preserve them (the Jot and Tiddle in Matthew are indeed Hebrew rather than English characters). When I realized that I was not forsaking a promise from God, I became convinced that I must view inspiration as an act promised by God in the original autographs only.

The practical result in my life? I have complete confidence in the Scriptures. They were inspired by God, and have been preserved by God through the means of multi-focality in the  copies made by the early church copyists (NT) and the careful work of the OT scribes.

I still use the KJV as my personal and preaching Bible, but I also employ the use of several English translations when I study. I would classify myself as KJVP rather than KJVO these days.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I was saved in a KJVO church. Like FSSL said. The liars and the lies made me change.

Like a friend of mine says....

You can't "un-see" the Truth. Truth forever changes a person.

 

[Boomer]

You can't "un-see" the Truth. Truth forever changes a person.

No doubt about it!

 

[IFB X-Files]

God  gave inerrant scriptures in the originals . . . promised to preserve them (the Jot and Tiddle in Matthew are indeed Hebrew rather than English characters). When I realized that I was not forsaking a promise from God, I became convinced that I must view inspiration as an act promised by God in the original autographs only.

I enjoyed your testimony but IMO you have a position foreign to scripture.  When Jesus read Isaiah in the temple (and gave the jot and tittle promise), He read a scroll that was a copy of a copy, etc.

When Paul told Timothy he had the holy scriptures, Timothy had only ever read copies.  Jeremiah destroyed the "originals", then rewrote them adding material.

So to say that the "originals" (as the original writings) are only inspired is foreign to the scriptures and, again IMO, a man-made doctrine.

 

[Boomer]

God  gave inerrant scriptures in the originals . . . promised to preserve them (the Jot and Tiddle in Matthew are indeed Hebrew rather than English characters). When I realized that I was not forsaking a promise from God, I became convinced that I must view inspiration as an act promised by God in the original autographs only.

I enjoyed your testimony but IMO you have a position foreign to scripture.  When Jesus read Isaiah in the temple (and gave the jot and tittle promise), He read a scroll that was a copy of a copy, etc.

When Paul told Timothy he had the holy scriptures, Timothy had only ever read copies.  Jeremiah destroyed the "originals", then rewrote them adding material.

So to say that the "originals" (as the original writings) are only inspired is foreign to the scriptures and, again IMO, a man-made doctrine.

I think you may be missing my point here. When I say that inspiration occurred in the originals only, I mean that there was only one instance of inspiration for each book of Scripture.

For instance, God gave the book of Romans by inspiration to Paul. That act of inspiration took place one time . . . the time that Paul originally wrote it down. I do not think any translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit (otherwise they would not need manuscripts to work from).

It is true that we do not have the original autographs, but that does not mean that we do not have the words of the original autographs (here we speak of preservation). As long as a copy of Scripture reproduces what the original autographs said, it is Scripture.

I do believe the KJV is inspired, but I do not believe the KJV translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit in their translation. I can call the KJV inspired only as it renders in English the sense of the original languages. In other words, the KJV derives its inspiration from the source it was translated from.

Because I hold the derivitive view of inspiration in translation, I can confidently say that the Geneva Bible and the Bishop's Bible (for example) are the inspired Word of God as well as the KJV . . . even though there are differences between these versions. I do not, however, make the claim that any translation is inerrant like the original autographs.

The problem with the KJVO argument against the original language autographs is that nobody knows what the original manuscript of the 1611 KJV says either. That's why there are major differences between the different editions of the KJV. So to argue that we must have the KJV only because it solves the problem of lost originals is self-defeating because we also do not have the original KJV 1611 manuscript.

 

[praise_yeshua]

God  gave inerrant scriptures in the originals . . . promised to preserve them (the Jot and Tiddle in Matthew are indeed Hebrew rather than English characters). When I realized that I was not forsaking a promise from God, I became convinced that I must view inspiration as an act promised by God in the original autographs only.

I enjoyed your testimony but IMO you have a position foreign to scripture.  When Jesus read Isaiah in the temple (and gave the jot and tittle promise), He read a scroll that was a copy of a copy, etc.

When Paul told Timothy he had the holy scriptures, Timothy had only ever read copies.  Jeremiah destroyed the "originals", then rewrote them adding material.

So to say that the "originals" (as the original writings) are only inspired is foreign to the scriptures and, again IMO, a man-made doctrine.

I think you may be missing my point here. When I say that inspiration occurred in the originals only, I mean that there was only one instance of inspiration for each book of Scripture.

For instance, God gave the book of Romans by inspiration to Paul. That act of inspiration took place one time . . . the time that Paul originally wrote it down. I do not think any translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit (otherwise they would not need manuscripts to work from).

It is true that we do not have the original autographs, but that does not mean that we do not have the words of the original autographs (here we speak of preservation). As long as a copy of Scripture reproduces what the original autographs said, it is Scripture.

I do believe the KJV is inspired, but I do not believe the KJV translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit in their translation. I can call the KJV inspired only as it renders in English the sense of the original languages. In other words, the KJV derives its inspiration from the source it was translated from.

Because I hold the derivitive view of inspiration in translation, I can confidently say that the Geneva Bible and the Bishop's Bible (for example) are the inspired Word of God as well as the KJV . . . even though there are differences between these versions. I do not, however, make the claim that any translation is inerrant like the original autographs.

The problem with the KJVO argument against the original language autographs is that nobody knows what the original manuscript of the 1611 KJV says either. That's why there are major differences between the different editions of the KJV. So to argue that we must have the KJV only because it solves the problem of lost originals is self-defeating because we also do not have the original KJV 1611 manuscript.

Where a copy or even translation is wholly accurate to the original, that work can be said to have derivative Inspiration. I don't think I've meet anyone that would deny this.

The problem begins when someone takes an obvious error and wants to "over look" it solely based on some "need" to believe God has inspired their choice in the Scriptures.

 

[praise_yeshua]

God  gave inerrant scriptures in the originals . . . promised to preserve them (the Jot and Tiddle in Matthew are indeed Hebrew rather than English characters). When I realized that I was not forsaking a promise from God, I became convinced that I must view inspiration as an act promised by God in the original autographs only.

I enjoyed your testimony but IMO you have a position foreign to scripture.  When Jesus read Isaiah in the temple (and gave the jot and tittle promise), He read a scroll that was a copy of a copy, etc.

When Paul told Timothy he had the holy scriptures, Timothy had only ever read copies.  Jeremiah destroyed the "originals", then rewrote them adding material.

So to say that the "originals" (as the original writings) are only inspired is foreign to the scriptures and, again IMO, a man-made doctrine.

Are you actually saying that this exact same situation is what we have today? Really?

First, Jesus is the One who gave the Scriptures.
Second, Timothy DIDN'T have the entirety of what exists today and probably read from a Greek text of the OT.
Third, Jeremiah was inspired to "add" to the Scriptures.

How can you make such a comparison and pretend its applicable to what exists today?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

What brought me to the truth was the fact that the LOL Cat Bible was superior to the KJV.  That is, the original LOL Cat Bible.  The current one is filled with CATholic perversions.

 

[FSSL]

LOL CAT is purrfect!

 

[rsc2a]

Alright. Here meow...

 

[Izdaari]

I was never KJVO. The arguments for it never seemed reasonable to me, and I didn't even care for the KJV that much in comparison to other versions.

 

[prophet]

Read everything I could, came to the conclusion the the last good English TRANSLATION was the AV.
Use the Wycliffe, Tyndale, and AV, to see English progression.
Use DNT (Darby's) NKJV, and E.S.V. to see that my first point was spot on.

8)

Earnestly Contend

 

[praise_yeshua]

Read everything I could, came to the conclusion the the last good English TRANSLATION was the AV.
Use the Wycliffe, Tyndale, and AV, to see English progression.
Use DNT (Darby's) NKJV, and E.S.V. to see that my first point was spot on.

8)

Earnestly Contend

So the "AV" is perfect?

 

[Walt]

God  gave inerrant scriptures in the originals . . . promised to preserve them (the Jot and Tiddle in Matthew are indeed Hebrew rather than English characters). When I realized that I was not forsaking a promise from God, I became convinced that I must view inspiration as an act promised by God in the original autographs only.

I enjoyed your testimony but IMO you have a position foreign to scripture.  When Jesus read Isaiah in the temple (and gave the jot and tittle promise), He read a scroll that was a copy of a copy, etc.

When Paul told Timothy he had the holy scriptures, Timothy had only ever read copies.  Jeremiah destroyed the "originals", then rewrote them adding material.

So to say that the "originals" (as the original writings) are only inspired is foreign to the scriptures and, again IMO, a man-made doctrine.

Raises my hackles; this is such an idiot response, usually heard from the "God wrote the KJV crowd" - Yes, the original manuscripts have fallen apart, but we are talking of the original languages, which were carefully preserved in the apographs. I think that the term "inspiration" has been thrown around too much, and that, Biblically, it refers to THE act when God had man write down His very words.  This happened one time; after that, there were faithful copies made, and we will have copies of the actual words God gave man today.

 

[Walt]

I grew up in a KJVO/P church. As a young man, my dad was gifted a NIV. That became my version of choice.

What convinced me against the teachings of my own church? Lies. Liars who told lies and made up controversies where none existed.

I came across the footnote at the end of the book of Mark. The KJVOs attempted to use that ending to convince me the NIV creates doubt and confusion.

At least the NIV was footnoting an issue that the KJV Bible never addressed. The same with the TR Greek text. At least UBS/NA gave full information with nothing to hide.

The entire OP just assumes that KJVO position is a falsehood, and does not define that position.