The "V" in KJV

[Dr. Warren Wierdsbe]

Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Something has been heavy on my heart for some time now. I know that all who are members of the Godly Landover Baptist Church believe in the AV1611 King James Bible. This is only right and proper, as it is the only Bible in the world, and all other claimants to that name have been proven to be lies from the devil.

http://www.av1611.org/articles.html#KJV

However, it's the "V" that bothers me. We all know what we mean when we use it, but it still gives the lie to the inerrancy of the King James Bible, because it means "Version." The King James Bible is not a "version" of the Bible. IT IS THE BIBLE!!!!

We have warned our High School graduates yearly since I became a pastor, to watch out even if they went to a "Bible" college, because compromisers and liberals will say things that sound good, like, "The Bible holds the Truth," or "contains the Truth." It does no such thing. THE BIBLE IS THE TRUTH!!!

Now I know that "AV" also means "Authorized Version" and the liars would like to tell you that it was authorized by King James of England. Nothing could be further from the truth. IT WAS AUTHORIZED BY GOD HIMSELF!!! That's right, God authorized King James to take down God's Word and protected it from any error. Where other "bibles" differ, that's when we know they are Satanic in origin. So the "AV" doesn't bother me. But using the "V" at the end, for King James Version, sows seeds of doubt about Who actually authorized it.

Can we agree to begin using the more correct and devout title,

"AV1611" or "AV1611 King James Bible" so as to give The Book the respect It deserves?

In Christ,
Warren

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: The "V" in KJV

There are so very few times I find a compelling argument such that I would change something I did or believed, however, I do believe that this is an instance where to change to AV1611 increases the Godliness of the World and is thus to be approved.

Many thanks, I for one will adopt it and feel even more righteous (if that is possible.)

[Nobar King]

Re: The "V" in KJV

My only hesitancy is that people might not recognize the designation. It might take a long time to get your idea adopted widely.

[Dr. Warren Wierdsbe]

Re: The "V" in KJV

My only hesitancy is that people might not recognize the designation. It might take a long time to get your idea adopted widely.

Brother, I appreciate your concern. However, I don't spend much time worrying about if folks can handle the truth. I just preach it. I am merely begging God's Faithful to think about the words they use. If AV1611 is confusing, I believe that just a short time using "AV1611 King James Bible" would defuse all confusion and could soon be shortened to AV1611.

In Christ,
Warren

[Mad Prophet Helmholtz]

Re: The "V" in KJV

What about changing it from "King James Version" to "The Official Bible(tm)"?

That way, all other versions, Catholic, NIV, etc. would be "Unauthorized and unofficial" versions. I also think a way we could drive home the point of the validity of the KJV is to list God as the author on the cover. Ever look at a Stephen King book? His name is in big huge letters, and those books $ell $ell $ell! If people saw a book, written by God, which it is, I'm sure people would be more inclined to read the KJV than other versions.

[Dr. Warren Wierdsbe]

Re: The "V" in KJV

What about changing it from "King James Version" to "The Official Bible™"?

That way, all other versions, Catholic, NIV, etc. would be "Unauthorized and unofficial" versions. I also think a way we could drive home the point of the validity of the KJV is to list God as the author on the cover. Ever look at a Stephen King book? His name is in big huge letters, and those books $ell $ell $ell! If people saw a book, written by God, which it is, I'm sure people would be more inclined to read the KJV than other versions.

So we are "selling" God now? Since when did we need to do that? All we are called to do is preach the Word. Besides, when some atheist or troublemaker or Cattylicker gets on here and sees "The Official Bible ™" won't they be prone to assuming it's either just some version or the Cataholic mishmash?

And if you will notice your own post, you are assuming that the AV1611 King James Bible is just another version of the Bible, even though you know better. Your language betrays you in its imprecision.

all other versions, Catholic, NIV, etc

That's the kind of thing that makes the faithful think there may be something good in those "other versions" when we know they are Satan-Spawned!

I do, however, begin to like the idea of putting the Author's Name on the cover and spine. Which name should be used?

http://ldolphin.org/Names.html

In Christ,
Warren

[Capt. Aaron Portway]

Re: The "V" in KJV

Brother, I appreciate your concern. However, I don't spend much time worrying about if folks can handle the truth. I just preach it. I am merely begging God's Faithful to think about the words they use. If AV1611 is confusing, I believe that just a short time using "AV1611 King James Bible" would defuse all confusion and could soon be shortened to AV1611.

In Christ,
Warren

What about KJ-AV 1611?

Or just KJAV 1611? Call me old fashioned, but it makes me feel full of the love of Jesus when I think of the Godly King James and all he did for True Christians™

When I see AV, all I can think of is AV club, those geeks that ran the 16mm movie projectors in grade school. I don't want to think of some greasy, four-eyed loser when some one is referring to God's Book.

[Mad Prophet Helmholtz]

Re: The "V" in KJV

So we are "selling" God now? Since when did we need to do that? All we are called to do is preach the Word. Besides, when some atheist or troublemaker or Cattylicker gets on here and sees "The Official Bible ™" won't they be prone to assuming it's either just some version or the Cataholic mishmash?

Dr. Wierdsbe,
I wasn't advocating "selling God", but merely trying to reforumulate a successful marketing strategy to spread the Word, and also maybe to direct some well-needed money to fund some of the new construction at Landover. I made a point about King's novels selling, not because they are good, but because of an excellent marketing strategy. You do have a point about calling it just The Official Bible(tm) because people might not think it's KJV. How about something more along the lines of "King James: The Official Bible(tm)"?

And if you will notice your own post, you are assuming that the AV1611 King James Bible is just another version of the Bible, even though you know better. Your language betrays you in its imprecision.

That's the kind of thing that makes the faithful think there may be something good in those "other versions" when we know they are Satan-Spawned!

Technically, it is a version of the Bible. The Correct one, for that matter. And, by definition, other "Bibles" are indeed versions, albeit wrong ones. For example, if Michael Moore rewrote the Bible, it would be a "version" of it, just a completely fabricated piece of male bovine dung "version".

I do, however, begin to like the idea of putting the Author's Name on the cover and spine. Which name should be used?

http://ldolphin.org/Names.html

I would think "God" would suffice, since it's the most common apellate. Certainly not "Jehovah" since people would mistake it as another Watchtower Tract. "Elohim" might be twisted around by Raelians. Maybe just stick with God?

[Dr. Warren Wierdsbe]

Re: The "V" in KJV

Dr. Wierdsbe,
I wasn't advocating "selling God", but merely trying to reforumulate a successful marketing strategy to spread the Word, and also maybe to direct some well-needed money to fund some of the new construction at Landover. I made a point about King's novels selling, not because they are good, but because of an excellent marketing strategy. You do have a point about calling it just The Official Bible™ because people might not think it's KJV. How about something more along the lines of "King James: The Official Bible™"?




Technically, it is a version of the Bible. The Correct one, for that matter. And, by definition, other "Bibles" are indeed versions, albeit wrong ones. For example, if Michael Moore rewrote the Bible, it would be a "version" of it, just a completely fabricated piece of male bovine dung "version".



I would think "God" would suffice, since it's the most common apellate. Certainly not "Jehovah" since people would mistake it as another Watchtower Tract. "Elohim" might be twisted around by Raelians. Maybe just stick with God?

I know that technically, it is a "version" of the Bible, but only in the most technical sense. I do like your suggestion of "King James: The Official Bible" except that it relegates the word Bible to the subtitle. I must say, however, to be fair, that Bible is the last word in what I was suggesting as well.

I like your spirit and interest in this matter, and it's not as if I were trying to regulate and dictate how we use the terms. I am merely attempting to bring to the forefront of our minds, the way in which refer to that holiest of Books, the Authorized King James Bible of 1611.

In Christ,
Warren

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: The "V" in KJV

The Authorized King James Bible of 1611.

The AKJB1611? Why not? It seems to slip off the tongue. It also separates those who, and here I agree with Dr Weirdby, prefer the sloppy use of nomenclature, i.e. less Christian, churches.

[Pastor Rune Enoe]

Re: The "V" in KJV

So the "AV" doesn't bother me. But using the "V" at the end, for King James Version, sows seeds of doubt about Who actually authorized it.

Dear Brother

Impressed as I am by your eloquence and erudition, I still think you're seeing a danger where there is none. Where is your faith?

The same argument that you make against King James' name could be made against every book in the Bible. Moses didn't write the books of Moses, God did. Joshua didn't write the Book of Joshua, God did, and so on.

This never bothered Jesus, who once said (Mark 7:10) For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

We all know of course that Moses didn't pull The Ten Commandments out of his sleeve, and yet Jesus was not afraid of saying "Moses said". And why should He, when everyone knows that The Ten Commandments were "written with the finger of God" (Exodus 31:18).

Another example is the famous prophecy about the 30 pieces of silver. Matthew writes (or rather: God writes): "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet" (Mt. 27:9).

It is well known that this prophecy is found in the Book of Zechariah, and not in Jeremiah, "And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver." (Zechariah 11:12)

So why did Matthew (or God) write Jeremiah when he meant Zechariah? I'll quote Augustine writing on the Harmony of the Gospels, De Consensu Evangelistarum, vol. 3, chapter 7 "The same consideration might also fitly suggest the duty of accepting unhesitatingly whatever the Holy Spirit has given expression to through the agency of these prophets, and of looking upon their individual communications as also those of the whole body, and on their collective communications as also those of each separately. If, then, it is the case that words spoken by Jeremiah are really as much Zechariah's as Jeremiah's, and, on the other hand, that words spoken by Zechariah are really as much Jeremiah's as they are Zechariah's, what necessity was there for Matthew to correct his text when he read over what he had written, and found that the one name had occurred to him instead of the other?"

Augustine points out, that all prophets are the same because they are all mere meat puppets operated by God. Why should Matthew bother to distinguish between Zechariah and Jeremiah? A Jew is a Jew is a Jew. Only God's word matters.

What I'm trying to say in so many words is not to worry about whose name is at the top of each book or on the cover of the Bible. We all know God wrote it. They don't call the Bible God's Word for nothing.