Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Textual/version stance


Which best describes your position on the KJV/KJVO/TR issue?  

3 members have voted

  1. 1. Which best describes your position on the KJV/KJVO/TR issue?

    • 1. I believe the King James Version is a faithful translation while also believing that there are other translations out there, including foreign language translations and Critical Text translations that are equally faithful. For instance, the NASB is a faithful translation to the texts it was translated from. The textual issue is as a non-issue. I use the KJV because I believe it to be the best translation although I don't have a problem studying from other versions to gain differing or a deeper perspective.
      6
    • 2. I believe that the Received Text is the accurate text and any Bible faithfully translated from it is God's preserved Word. I am not opposed to a new English (or any other language) translation from the TR as long as it is faithful and accurate.
      16
    • 3. I believe that the KJV is the only pure translation for English speakers and that nothing will ever replace the KJV in English no matter how archaic the 1611 English becomes.
      12
    • 4. I believe that the KJV is the only pure translation for English speakers. While accepting translations in other languages, I would still believe that the KJV is superior to all the rest.
      8
    • 5. I believe that the King James Version is the only true Bible in the world, that it - itself - was given by verbal inspiration of God in 1611, and that all nations should learn 1611 English in order to have the one, pure Bible.
      2
    • 6. I am not KJVO at all.
      9


Recommended Posts

  • Members
I have been told' date=' but have not researched this myself, that the term "KJVO" originated with the Ruckman crowd. A lot of good men have linked themselves with this crowd, not realizing that they were supporting ruckman's position. This is where the OKJV or more properly the TRO (TR Only) phrase came from.[/quote']

I recently read something stating it was thought the term KJVO "might" have originated with Ruckman.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 457
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Guest

[quote="Pastorj"]I just saw this poll, so I am sorry for not adding my thoughts earlier. I felt like I could fit in a couple of the categories.

I would simplify the poll to the following:
KJVP - Prefers KJV, but has no issue with other translations
OKJV (TR Only) - Believes that the KJV has been preserved for English Speaking people since it comes from the TR family of manuscripts. That any faithful translation that comes from the TR, would be also considered God's preserved Word.
KJVO - Believes that the KJV is the inspired Word of God and is the only translation that people throughout the World should use (Ruckmanism)
Non-KJV - Everyone else.

With this, I would be an OKJV or TR Only guy.[/quote]

You left out a large group of people.... which is the group I'm a part of. I'm KJVO, but like I said, I believe there are other faithful translations in a few other languages. I don't believe everyone in the world must learn English in order to have the Bible. Unfortunately, there isn't a good translation in most languages... or many languages have translations that are flawed, but there are a few faithful ones out there.

I find it funny that people don't like that term KJVO as soon as they find out it may have been coined by Dr. Ruckman. I haven't heard that before, so I don't even know if it's true... I know the King James Only position was around before Dr. Ruckman. I just don't know who coined the term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't have a problem with the term - I don't think Ruckman coined it. Either way, it exactly describes my position, and the position of most on these boards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Those who truly hold to a KJVO position (Ruckmanism) believe that everyone in the world must learn English so that they can read the only true Bible.

Those who would hold to an OKJV position (TR Only) would support any foreign translation that is faithfully translated from the TR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

[quote="Pastorj"]Those who truly hold to a KJVO position (Ruckmanism) believe that everyone in the world must learn English so that they can read the only true Bible.

Those who would hold to an OKJV position (TR Only) would support any foreign translation that is faithfully translated from the TR.[/quote]

That's not true. I believe the best way to tell if a translation in another language is good is by comparing it with the KJV. That doesn't mean that everyone has to learn English. There are lots of missionaries out there who are already doing the work of comparing foreign translations with the KJV to determine whether it's a good translation or not. The reason for using the KJV is so they can make sure that the doctrine is the same... even if the wording is slightly different in the other language.

I'm definitely not TR-Only. I guess I don't really fit into your description of "Ruckmanite", either. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Those who truly hold to a KJVO position (Ruckmanism) believe that everyone in the world must learn English so that they can read the only true Bible.

Those who would hold to an OKJV position (TR Only) would support any foreign translation that is faithfully translated from the TR.


Sorry - that may be a distinction you are making in your own life, but many here would not agree with that. I am KJVonly, and by that I mean that the KJV is the only Bible I use, read, study from, quote, etc. in English. I am for solid TR-based translations in other languages, and if I was somewhere that they spoke another language (such as Spanish), I would use the TR-based translation in that language that closely followed the preserved texts (and not some modern version or more liberal translation of the same texts).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

[quote]As to determining whether a foreign translation is good or not, I wouldn't compare them to the KJV, I would compare them to the Greek and Hebrew.[/quote]

:thumb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

[quote="KJB_Princess"]
That's not true. I believe the best way to tell if a translation in another language is good is by comparing it with the KJV. That doesn't mean that everyone has to learn English. [/quote]

In my thinking, that statement lends itself to the criticism that the original languages were insufficient.

I don't think we ought to be comparing a translation to a translation but to the original manuscripts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

[quote="5dumplings@home"][quote="KJB_Princess"]
That's not true. I believe the best way to tell if a translation in another language is good is by comparing it with the KJV. That doesn't mean that everyone has to learn English. [/quote]

In my thinking, that statement lends itself to the criticism that the original languages were insufficient.

I don't think we ought to be comparing a translation to a translation but to the original manuscripts.[/quote]

There are no "original manuscripts" still in existence. God used Hebrew in the Old Testament and Greek in the New Testament, so what's to say that God can't or wouldn't use English today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Oh...and, I am a "Ruckmanite" myself. Sorry guys, I enjoy Ruckman's approach...and feel he is right on target! :thumb

candlelight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

[quote="candlelight"]Oh...and, I am a "Ruckmanite" myself. Sorry guys, I enjoy Ruckman's approach...and feel he is right on target! :thumb

candlelight[/quote]

Prepare to be tarred, feathered, and rode out on a rail. Welcome to the club. :cool

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

[quote="KJB_Princess"][quote="candlelight"]Oh...and, I am a "Ruckmanite" myself. Sorry guys, I enjoy Ruckman's approach...and feel he is right on target! :thumb

candlelight[/quote]

Prepare to be tarred, feathered, and rode out on a rail. Welcome to the club. :cool[/quote]

Oh...this will be fun! :cooldude: :lol Ruckman is such a gentle soul. :smile :lol :wink Well, he is telling the truth...IMO. Someone needs to do it! BTW, have you seen Peter S. Ruckman on WHT...U-VERSE? It is awesome! :clap: I can't remember the day he is on...but, it is at 7:00 P.M. in the evenings up here in Cleveland, OH.

candlelight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

[quote="candlelight"][quote="KJB_Princess"][quote="candlelight"]Oh...and, I am a "Ruckmanite" myself. Sorry guys, I enjoy Ruckman's approach...and feel he is right on target! :thumb

candlelight[/quote]

Prepare to be tarred, feathered, and rode out on a rail. Welcome to the club. :cool[/quote]

Oh...this will be fun! :cooldude: :lol Ruckman is such a gentle soul. :smile :lol :wink Well, he is telling the truth...IMO. Someone needs to do it! BTW, have you seen Peter S. Ruckman on WHT...U-VERSE? It is awesome! :clap: I can't remember the day he is on...but, it is at 7:00 P.M. in the evenings up here in Cleveland, OH.

candlelight[/quote]

Amen! We don't have tv in our apartment, so we haven't watched that channel. I'm not sure if we can get it here in Eaton, OH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...