With KJVOs it has never really been about the mss

  • Thread starter Thread starter admin
  • Start date Start date
A

admin

Guest
At what I think was the apex decade of KJVOism (1990s) a 21st century KJV tried to get acceptance.

All it did was attempt to remove the archaisms.

Even that was rejected by the KJVO community.

Why? Because the issue with KJVOs is neither about translational accuracy nor mss. It is about the so-called mystical superiority of the KJV.

Also, as we see on this forum, as long as you quote the KJV, you can interpret it any way you want.
 
admin said:
At what I think was the apex decade of KJVOism (1990s) a 21st century KJV tried to get acceptance.

All it did was attempt to remove the archaisms.

Even that was rejected by the KJVO community.

Why? Because the issue with KJVOs is neither about translational accuracy nor mss. It is about the so-called mystical superiority of the KJV.

Also, as we see on this forum, as long as you quote the KJV, you can interpret it any way you want.
Click to expand...

KJVO is a mystic cult. They treat the Bible as if it were an idol.
 
bgwilkinson said:
KJVO is a mystic cult. They treat the Bible as if it were an idol.
Click to expand...

My observation is that their approach is one of "magical thinking".
Some of them treat of the KJV not only as an idol, but also in a manner very similar to the manner in which Kabbalists (followers of Jewish mysticism) treat of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Those who believe that every single English letter and punctuation mark (and even perhaps in only a particular single edition!), are somehow perfect, Divinely ordained, and incapable of alteration, seem to be approaching a level of imagination that borders on occultism.
 
I certainly agree with the fact that many staunch KJV defenders are stuck in a rut and will not even consider an updated edition of the KJV. In my opinion, they fail to realize that our current KJV was updated several times. The reason for this dogmatic position in my opinion is their fear of what the brethren would say if they even considered a newer edition of the KJV.

I personally use the NKJV for my Bible reading. I carry it to church because it is close enough to the KJV that I can follow along easily. I would consider myself more of a Received Text Only than a KJVOnly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top