Interaction between KJVO and nonKJVO

[Jerry]

You did not hit a sore spot with me. One or two posters made it sound like you knew what you were talking about (when it came to using Elizabethan English), and you made some comment about your own skills or study, so I thought you were also doing the same - but when I saw the inconsistencies, I thought it prudent to point them out (in case some really did think you were an expert in this area).

[Annie]

You did not hit a sore spot with me. One or two posters made it sound like you knew what you were talking about (when it came to using Elizabethan English)' date=' and you made some comment about your own skills or study, so I thought you were also doing the same[/quote']
When did I do this? If you're referring to the following post, I'd ask you to note the word not.



Here is the rest of the post:

And here it is in "the NIV": Since I do not understand Elizabethan English as well as I would like to (as someone who does not speak that archaic language) I must (in studying the KJV) resort to studies of Greek and Hebrew to determine the meaning of archaic English words and expressions. These words and expressions are more clearly rendered in versions using modern English, my own language. So, you see that I was actually admitting my limitations, instead of what you thought I was saying. (That EE is difficult to wade through, isn't it?)


No one familiar with EE would think I was an expert in this area. I'm sure inconsistencies abound in my posts. Be that as it may, I'm glad you are not offended.

[Alimantado]

[quote="Jerry"]...I don't attempt to speak [Early Modern English] when I am not entirely sure how. [/quote]

I'm glad we don't apply that standard to our use of 21st century English on this forum! I know I'd be silent if we did.

[Ashlee]

Amen

[Behold the Lamb]

This thread is reminding me why I chose to read NKJV before I read KJV... :eek :puzzled:

[John81]

Believe it or not, I find the King James far easier to read than the New King James.

[Annie]

This thread is reminding me why I chose to read NKJV before I read KJV... :puzzled:

Believe it or not' date=' I find the King James far easier to read than the New King James.[/quote']

I suppose it all depends on what you're familiar with...I'd say most modern-day people would find it as hard to read the KJV as some of you did my EE posts. I think of Jerry in particular, who totally mistunderstood the meaning of one of my posts. It could be that he didn't read it carefully before he responded to what he thought I was saying. It does take a LOT of effort to read new material in an unfamiliar language, even if that language resembles modern-day English to some extent. The unfamiliar form, grammar and syntax of EE, in addition to the archaic words, can be frustrating to read, much less try to make sense of. Those of us who have been immersed in the KJV since infancy may not be sensitive to this fact, but it's true for the majority of people, I believe--those who have been raised in environments in which they have had no exposure to EE.

As I said, I certainly don't want this thread to turn into a debate about the merits/demerits of various versions; we all know where we stand on that issue.

Well, I'm back from my trip (and had a great time). In checking back in here, I see that no one has yet tackled the question I asked in my first EE post. I'm trying to discover how important the KJV issue is to everyone here...as in, how high on the list of priorities it is when you're seeking for the ideal church...or how far you go in "separating yourself" from ministries that are not TR-only or KJVO. I suggested a list for you to prioritize...Any takers? (I do appreciate Pastorj's response...Happy Christian's, too.)

[Guest Guest]

KJV issue is to everyone here...as in, how high on the list of priorities it is when you're seeking for the ideal church...

I wouldn't attend a church that didn't use the KJV. Most other KJVO's probably wouldn't either. How high a priority is it? It is right near the top. There are a number of "killer clauses" that would cause me not to join a given church. Not using the KJV is one of them.

[Annie]

Seth, would you attend a conference or a meeting at a church that is not KJVO? Send your children to a VBS at a church that uses the KJV from the pulpit/teacher's desk, but is not KJVO? Associate (socially) with Christians who are not KJVO? Be a part of Bible studies/classes with people who are not KJVO?

I'm fairly certain that few on here would join a church that is not KJVO...What I'm trying to figure out is the level at which you associate yourself with people who are not KJVO...and the reasoning behind your ideas.

[John81]

What do you mean by "associate with"? I've noticed many people have differing definitions of just what that means.

I have friends who use various MVs. I'm able to study and discuss Scripture with those who use MVs.

As for working with or supporting some ministry that uses an MV, that would depend upon exactly what they were doing.

It's also important to consider their doctrine. I know some who use MVs that are born again and they are mature in Christ and living for the Lord. However, I know far more who use MVs who are hold to rather liberal doctrines and probably are not born again.

[Guest Guest]

Seth, would you attend a conference or a meeting at a church that is not KJVO?

Not if they were not using the KJV. "Maybe" if they were using it but were not KJVO.

Send your children to a VBS at a church that uses the KJV from the pulpit/teacher's desk, but is not KJVO?

No.

Associate (socially) with Christians who are not KJVO?

Yes, to a limited degree.

Be a part of Bible studies/classes with people who are not KJVO?

Maybe. It would depend. Are these new Christians or older Christians that have made a definate choice against the KJV? I would put up with a lot of things from a babe in Christ that I would not put up with in someone that should know better.

[Annie]

What do you mean by "associate with"? I've noticed many people have differing definitions of just what that means.

I have friends who use various MVs. I'm able to study and discuss Scripture with those who use MVs.

As for working with or supporting some ministry that uses an MV, that would depend upon exactly what they were doing.

It's also important to consider their doctrine. I know some who use MVs that are born again and they are mature in Christ and living for the Lord. However, I know far more who use MVs who are hold to rather liberal doctrines and probably are not born again.

Thanks for responding, John. What I'm getting from you is that the KJVO stance is not as "important" a doctrine to you as the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith (such as the Virgin Birth, salvation by grace through faith, etc.).

I suppose I could use the word "fellowship" instead of "associate." What I mean by that term is the gathering together of fellow believers in which good, agreeable, unified study and fellowship around the things of God is possible, even natural. I could not have this kind of fellowship with an unbeliever (although I could interact socially with him), because we share no common ground at all in the spiritual realm. I could not have this kind of fellowship with a religious liberal...one who, say, espouses a social gospel. I could not have this kind of fellowship with someone who constantly makes "KJVO" an issue, or a test of faith.

[Annie]

Thanks for the responses, Seth. It seems that you limit your interaction with nonKJVO people more than John does. Do you elevate the KJVO stance to the level of "fundamental Christian doctrine?" If so, why (as in, on what biblical basis)?

[John81]

Thanks for responding, John. What I'm getting from you is that the KJVO stance is not as "important" a doctrine to you as the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith (such as the Virgin Birth, salvation by grace through faith, etc.).

I suppose I could use the word "fellowship" instead of "associate." What I mean by that term is the gathering together of fellow believers in which good, agreeable, unified study and fellowship around the things of God is possible, even natural. I could not have this kind of fellowship with an unbeliever (although I could interact socially with him), because we share no common ground at all in the spiritual realm. I could not have this kind of fellowship with a religious liberal...one who, say, espouses a social gospel. I could not have this kind of fellowship with someone who constantly makes "KJVO" an issue, or a test of faith.

Yes, the fundamentals of the faith are most important.

I've had very good Christian friends who used MVs. I've also been a part of Bible studies with some who used MVs. So long as we are of like-minded faith and seeking to follow Christ, I can fellowship/associate with those who use MVs.

[Guest Guest]

Do you elevate the KJVO stance to the level of "fundamental Christian doctrine?" If so, why?

Depends what you mean by "fundamental Christian doctrine". If you mean something necessary to be saved then no I don't. If on the other hand you mean something that is important for your Christian walk then yes I do. I don't think if you are using another English version you have the whole truth. Part of it, maybe, but it is corrupted. That means the Spirits sword is weakened and chipped. Not quick and powerful. I think the Spirit should have the perfect weapon...