Why are Tiny Sectarian Internet Cults Usually KJO?

What I do know is some KJV Bibles had special commentary and they only came in KJV editions the time, and that sort of skewed some scripture cos ppl relied on the commentary more than the actual scripture. there was one Bible called the Scofield Bible and cos Scofield was reading KJV it did not apply to other versions methinks

I am not criticizing the KJO position here. I do think it's an error but I don't have any special problem with the KJV. If you only want to use the 5e of the KJV that's perfectly fine with me, though I prefer by '95 NASB.

What I am curious about is why do many of the weird internet cults I see are KJO. These people are mostly American, have a random mix of beliefs which usually deny several elements of classical Christian views (non-Trinitarian, call Baptists non-Christian, and any number of esoteric exegesis no one had ever heard of before).

I think the more concerning thing than what version anyone uses is when people pick and choose what they want to believe from the Bible, like it's some sort of buffet. I had a friend I grew up with in Christian school that went on to get her M.Div and all that was that sort because she said that the Bible was man made so there had to be errors. I feel like if you don't take it all, then what authority have you got to decide which parts are valuable or not? It's like the Choose Your Own Adventure of religion. If you don't believe it all, then you have no consistency, in my book, and i can't agree with that.
As for versions, i presently prefer/start with the English Standard, but I like to look at the same verses in different versions and hear about the original language and context to get a fuller picture. I don't feel like the differences I've seen between versions have really changed the meaning or feeling that was intended from the original language so i don't feel like one's preference in version should be a cause for attack.
Maybe the people who are off the rails like the KJV because the language makes them feel like they sound more proper and respectable. Just an idea i had about it.

Have you tried e-sword? Or bishop or Bible time or anything from The gnome sword project... Basically they are all Bible apps.

One of the neatest tricks they have is, you can install different Bible versions, click on one verse and see that verse in all the Bible versions you have loaded. Very handy.

Have you tried e-sword? Or bishop or Bible time or anything from The gnome sword project... Basically they are all Bible apps.

One of the neatest tricks they have is, you can install different Bible versions, click on one verse and see that verse in all the Bible versions you have loaded. Very handy.

I am not criticizing the KJO position here. I do think it's an error but I don't have any special problem with the KJV. If you only want to use the 5e of the KJV that's perfectly fine with me, though I prefer by '95 NASB.

What I am curious about is why do many of the weird internet cults I see are KJO. These people are mostly American, have a random mix of beliefs which usually deny several elements of classical Christian views (non-Trinitarian, call Baptists non-Christian, and any number of esoteric exegesis no one had ever heard of before).

I am not even talking about major sects many Christians would put beyond the pale, like the LDS or Watchtower Society. No, these are either individuals or a tiny group who are affiliated with no church, who indeed feel no need to attend churches because they're all "false churches" according to the author of these poorly designed websites. These people are everywhere online, probably because they have too much free time and like trolling normal people on the internet.

Every time one of these people starts bothering me and telling me to reject Calvinism and embrace a bunch of doctrines never heard of by anyone before today they're always a KJVO person. I am not blaming the KJV for this, it teaches Orthodox Christianity. But some factor seems to attract one man pseudo Christian cult false prophets to the KJV.

Because the most convincing lies are those that are almost completely true. Cults like the JWs and Mormons don't have much hope, as they had to create their own bibles to support their cults.

I've gone off on tangents that are entirely off the wall with NASB and the KJV put it straight.

Conversely with difficult to understand passages of the KJV I seek out other versions and then sometimes look at the Greek to be more certain. You can get off track with KJV also though and it seems to manifest differently... and while I'm interested in fleshing that out, I'm missing something and only have vague notions of why that is the case. It's just idle curiosity for me lacking a burden.

It's still English and there are still things that get lost in translation...even if you read ancient Greek and Hebrew perfectly...language is imperfect right?

Seems like God is able to smooth out these gaps and that they are going to exist on some level due to our imperfection and we need to seek him on that.

Anyway, it could be that they lack this mentality?

The KJV English was already outdated by about a hundred years in 1611. The KJV revisers were mostly old guys who were used to that kind of language, but it wasn't in common use by 1611.

We don't technically use the 1611 today. There have been at least two major editions (NOT revisions) of the 1611 to standardize spelling, grammar, and modernize the font, which was changed from a Latin font to a Roman one. Here is what the 1611 looks like:

2Ki 11:4 And the seuenth yeere Iehoiada sent and fet the rulers ouer hundreds, with the captains, and the guard, and brought them to him into the house of the Lord, and made a couenant with them, and tooke an othe of them in the house of the Lord, and shewed them the Kings sonne.

^ And actually now that I look at it, that seems to be the 1611 spelling set in a Romanized font set so it's still more readable than the 1611.

The 1611 however was Early Modern English (or Elizabethan English, which is the same thing if I recall correctly) which is the same English that Shakespeare used. It's actually easier to understand than Shakespeare because he wrote in a very "low" English which was full of slang, idioms, figures of speech, and innuendo. The KJV was a "high" or more scholarly form of Early Modern English.

Admittedly the KJV is not the easiest to understand. It has its foibles as well, for example, the word "cockatrice" was already archaic at the time of the KJV, but the KJV translators didn't have an equivalent for the Hebrew word so they used "cockatrice" in the English. Stuff like this can throw some confusion into the mix, because the cockatrice is a mythical creature so the modern reader is just left with a great big, "Huh?!"

I really wanted to like the NIV, I honestly did. My brother went to a Christian school where they used it exclusively, and for a while I wanted an easier to understand version than the KJV. I did a lot of research on the NIV and where it came from... and found it to be corrupt and dubious. Here are some facts about the NIV.

- Dr. Virginia Mollencott, a lesbian, is one of its editors, which is probably a good part of why the NIV is so soft on homosexuality.
- The company that publishes the NIV and the publisher that puts out LaVey's Satanic Bible are owned by the same man.
- The NIV has had nearly a dozen editions which do not agree with each other, and they do a poor job of denoting the edition, leading to confusion.
- The NIV publishers have shown their allegiance to mammon in how they market the version. It is copyrighted, which they take very seriously, and there are editions like the "May The Faith Be With You" version (Star Wars spinoff) or the Amazing Creatures and Creations version (something like that, Harry Potter spinoff). These are blatant money grab attempts that show the publishers are serving mammon and not God.

Keith Piper's book, "Serious Omissions in the NIV Bible" was extremely eye opening for me. I won't use the Luciferian NIV.
https://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf

We don't technically use the 1611 today. There have been at least two major editions (NOT revisions) of the 1611 to standardize spelling, grammar, and modernize the font, which was changed from a Latin font to a Roman one. Here is what the 1611 looks like:

2Ki 11:4 And the seuenth yeere Iehoiada sent and fet the rulers ouer hundreds, with the captains, and the guard, and brought them to him into the house of the Lord, and made a couenant with them, and tooke an othe of them in the house of the Lord, and shewed them the Kings sonne.

^ And actually now that I look at it, that seems to be the 1611 spelling set in a Romanized font set so it's still more readable than the 1611.

The 1611 however was Early Modern English (or Elizabethan English, which is the same thing if I recall correctly) which is the same English that Shakespeare used. It's actually easier to understand than Shakespeare because he wrote in a very "low" English which was full of slang, idioms, figures of speech, and innuendo. The KJV was a "high" or more scholarly form of Early Modern English.

Admittedly the KJV is not the easiest to understand. It has its foibles as well, for example, the word "cockatrice" was already archaic at the time of the KJV, but the KJV translators didn't have an equivalent for the Hebrew word so they used "cockatrice" in the English. Stuff like this can throw some confusion into the mix, because the cockatrice is a mythical creature so the modern reader is just left with a great big, "Huh?!"

I really wanted to like the NIV, I honestly did. My brother went to a Christian school where they used it exclusively, and for a while I wanted an easier to understand version than the KJV. I did a lot of research on the NIV and where it came from... and found it to be corrupt and dubious. Here are some facts about the NIV.

- Dr. Virginia Mollencott, a lesbian, is one of its editors, which is probably a good part of why the NIV is so soft on homosexuality.
- The company that publishes the NIV and the publisher that puts out LaVey's Satanic Bible are owned by the same man.
- The NIV has had nearly a dozen editions which do not agree with each other, and they do a poor job of denoting the edition, leading to confusion.
- The NIV publishers have shown their allegiance to mammon in how they market the version. It is copyrighted, which they take very seriously, and there are editions like the "May The Faith Be With You" version (Star Wars spinoff) or the Amazing Creatures and Creations version (something like that, Harry Potter spinoff). These are blatant money grab attempts that show the publishers are serving mammon and not God.

Keith Piper's book, "Serious Omissions in the NIV Bible" was extremely eye opening for me. I won't use the Luciferian NIV.
https://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf

My best friend has a 1611 Bible. Itf veery hard too reade.

My best friend has a 1611 Bible. Itf veery hard too reade.

Check out this book. It helped me learn the basics about English translations.

I like the NIV more than I used to. I have had to give up wrong ideas I held on to about the KJV vs the NIV. I am growing fond of the CSB also.

We really can't decide these things based on which English translation that "we like" and call that the Spirit leading us. For the New Testament as an example, It is sill very important to make our decision on which translation is best based on which one does the best job of communicating in English what the author said in Greek and how his Greek readers would have understood him. That decision is made based on the verse in question and cannot be a blanket statement about the entire bible or book. Therefore when I study various passages and find a difference between the NIV, ESV, KJV, CSB etc, I have to dive into the reasons given by the different translation committees and decide which one I think presented the best case for the reason behind the translation they gave.

It is just not truth to tell people that such and such English translation is the best one, because it always depends on the passage in question. Thus is the nature of Translation from one language to the other and that fact is not going to change no matter how many new English translations are attempted. We have quite enough by now. I think all of the best scholars are promoting the NIV and endeavoring to keep it current with any new changes that are agreed should be tweaked. Tweaking because there are challenges still with ancient words that are ambiguous and new discoveries from ancient literature could always shed light on how those words were used at that time. And "tweaked" because there are continual discussions on some passages that scholars disagree on and it is decided that initial renderings were not accurate and need to be changed slightly. When this happens they do get accused of yielding to some kind of cultural shift but that is not what is going on, it is simply an openness to concede that mistakes were made in certain instances that have since been proven to be mistakes and need a revision in translation.

This book helped me and is a great source for the layman. It answers the question and helps you to answer the question for others "what is the best translation?"


"How to Choose a Translation for All It's Worth"
https://www.amazon.com/How-Choose-T.../ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Hmm, it's been ages since I've bought a book online (most of what I get are thrift store finds or library resources) but I'll keep it in mind.

NKJV seems to be a reasonable answer to anyone having issues with "KJVese"



I'll do a more proper reply when I've thought about it a bit more...

...the more concerning thing than what version anyone uses is when people pick and choose what they want to believe from the Bible, like it's some sort of buffet.

This doesn't surprise me. Many KJV onlyists are uneducated and don't really understand the history of the KJV. For example, I find it curious that a large number of KJV onlyists seem to be anti-Catholic and anti-ceremonial. By that I mean they reject rigid formalism and top-down n authoritarianism in favor of a more egalitarian and spontaneous form of worship.

But the vast majority of the KJV creators were Anglican ceremonialist who favored church regulated doctrine as opposed to individual freedom in matters of Biblical interpretation. A few were Puritans but they were mostly moderates and didn't put up much resistance. King James forbade the use of explanatory notes in the margins. He hated the Geneva Bible because it had such notes, which he felt undermined his authority and that of the Bishops.

I don't think it is very effective to read KJV to people today.

It's as if you don't love people enough to want to communicate in modern English.