Featured "Is King James Onlyism Scriptural?"

Since you assert that you do not go by the Textus Receptus, it indicates that you may hold an extreme form of a KJV-only view that claims new, direct inspiration for the 1611 KJV.

Are you in effect suggesting that God failed to preserve the actual NT words He gave by inspiration to the apostles and NT prophets so that He had to give them again in English in 1611?

How would your view be that different from that of Peter Ruckman and his followers?

 

Here is what you said, The KJV IS outdated. it has an archaic language style & uses some words in manners no longer used.

The problem is so what. The words in question are well-known and I have heard this debate for 60 years. All translations have problems. Being archaic does not mean that the average person cannot figure out what it means. You have to consider that there is a terrible steep decline in our educational achievement here in America.

 

If all the archaic words are so well-known, why do KJV-only authors disagree concerning them? Some KJV-only authors claim that there are only around a dozen such words in the KJV while others may identify up to 600 or more.

 

How does the average person figure out what some of the archaic uses of words in the KJV means when those words are not found in a typical one-volume English dictionary and when for some words that are defined the definition for what the word meant in the 1500's or in 1611 is not given?

Even some KJV-only authors who are supposedly experts concerning the KJV have presented conflicting definitions concerning what some words mean in the KJV.

 

In my youth we used dictionaries. All of us. Today people have an electronic dictionary and bible access in their smartphone. Why should this spoiled generation be exempt from a little biblical research?

 

How many people know and use the following words?

abashed, abominable, abutted, acclaim, adder, adhere, admonishing, advocate, alcove, algum, allocate, allots, ally, aloes, appease, ardent, armlets, arrayed, astir, atonement, awl, banishment, battlements, behemoth, belial, bereaves, betrothed, bier, blighted, booty, brayed, breaching, breakers, buffeted, burnished, calamus, capital (not a city), carnelian, carrion, centurions, chasm, chronic, chrysolite, cistern, citadel, citron, clefts, cohorts, colonnades, complacency, coney, concession, congealed, conjure, contrite, convocations, crest, cors, curds, dandled, dappled, debauchery, decimated, deluged, denarii, depose, derides, despoil, dire,dispossess, disrepute, dissipation, distill, dissuade, divination, dragnet, dropsy, duplicity, earthenware, ebony, emasculate, emission, encroach, enmity, enthralled, entreaty, ephod, epicurean, ewe, excrement, exodus, factions, felled, festal, fettered, figurehead, filigree, flagstaff, fomenting, forded, fowler, gadfly, galled, gird, gauntness, gecko, gloating, goiim, harrowing, haunt, hearld, henna, homers, hoopoe, ignoble, impaled, implore, incur, indignant, insatiable, insolence, intact, invoked, jambs, joists, jowls, lairs, lamentation, leviathan, libations, loins, magi, manifold, maritime, mattocks, maxims, mina, misdemeanor, mother-of-pearl, mustering, myrtles, naive, naught, Negev, Nephilim, nettles, nocturnal, nomad, notorious, Nubians, oblivion, obsolete, odious, offal, omer, oracles, overweening, parapet, parchments, pavilion, peals (noun, not the verb), perjurers, perpetuate, pestilence, pinions, phylacteries, plumage, pomp, porphyry, portent, potsherd, proconsul, propriety, poultice, Praetorium, pretext, profligate, promiscuity, provincial, providence, qualm, quarries, quivers (noun, not verb), ramparts, ransacked, ratified, ravish, rabble, rawboned, relish (not for hotdogs), recoils, recount, refrain, relent, rend, reposes, reprimanded, reputed, retinue, retorted, retribution, rifts, roebucks, rue, sachet, satraps, sated, shipwrights, siegeworks, sinews, sistrums, sledges, smelted, somber, soothsayer, sovereignty, spelt, stadia, stench, stipulation, sullen, tamarisk, tanner, temperate, tether, tetrarch, terebinth, thresher, throes, thronged, tiaras, tinder, tracts, transcends, tresses, turbulent, tyrannical, unscathed, unrelenting, usury, vassal, vaunts, vehemently, verdant, vexed, wadi, wanton, warranted, wield, winnowing and wrenched.



ALL the above are from that "modern version" , the NIV. Not knocking the NIV, btw, just showing that the "words" in the KJV are not the problem. The vocabulary of our dumbed down society IS the problem. Claiming the KJV is hard to understand is a bogus argument.

 

I think that you are more interested in doctrines in the KJV than you are words. Some of these issues can be found on the internet I imagine and everyone has a cell phone with internet access anymore. I concede that the quality of American education has fallen.

 

2 Timothy 3:15 has not been demonstrated to refer to any translated copy of the Scriptures. You jump to a conclusion to which you do not prove the verse refers. It is not stated in the verse that there is any reference to a translation. If it is assumed that 2 Timothy 3:15 refers to a Greek translation of the Old Testament [the Greek Septuagint], it would actually be a serious problem for your KJV-only reasoning.

Concerning 2 Timothy 3:15, KJV defender Thomas Strouse observed: “The words ’holy scriptures’ translate hiera grammata, literally ’sacred’ or ’temple writings’” (The Lord God, p. 42). Concerning 2 Timothy 3:16, Thomas Strouse noted: “But the word ’scripture’ translates graphe, which means ’scripture’ and refers to the autographa.” Strouse added: “Paul obviously used a different word to differentiate between the apographa [copies] and the autographa [original autographs], especially with regard to the scope of inspiration” (Ibid.).

Do you get your claim that the term Scripture includes translations from William Grady, Peter Ruckman, or Gail Riplinger?
KJV-only author William Grady referred to “’all Scripture’ (i.e. autographs, copies, and translations)” (Given by Inspiration, p. 98). Peter Ruckman claimed: “The word ‘scripture’ in the Bible is ALWAYS used of copies or translations” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 354). Ruckman contended: “If it is SCRIPTURE, God gave it; if God gave it, the method He used was by inspiration” (p. 355). Gail Riplinger asserted: “’All scripture is given by inspiration of God…’—every word, every true copy and translation (2 Tim. 3:16)” (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 550). Riplinger suggested that the context in 2 Timothy 3:16 “includes copies and translations” (Ibid.). Riplinger claimed: “Bible inspiration, preservation, and translation are one” (p. 547). Riplinger claimed that “the verse—‘All scripture is given by inspiration of God’—is stating that the originals, the copies, and the vernacular translations are ‘given by inspiration of God’” (Hazardous Materials, p. 1162). David Cloud wrote: “We have seen that Paul’s doctrine of inspiration in 2 Timothy chapter 3 allows for copies and translations to be viewed as the inspired Word of God” (Way of Life Encyclopedia, p. 311).

Do KJV-only advocates demonstrate that 2 Timothy 3:16 is actually teaching that Bible translations are made by the process of inspiration of God? Do KJV-only advocates soundly prove that any reference to Scripture in the New Testament was a direct, clear reference to the KJV or that the readers of the Greek New Testament would have recognized any of its references to Scripture as referring to the KJV?

The assumption (likely involving the use of the fallacy of begging the question) that the KJV has to be directly given by a miracle of inspiration of God in order to be called scripture is not actually stated in 2 Timothy 3:16. It could also become an example of use of a false analogy if it is assumed that because two distinct things are alike in some ways or qualities that they must be alike in all ways or qualities. A sound definition of the term Bible translation would have a bearing on how the term Scripture could or should be used for one. A Bible translation can have proper derived authority from the greater authority of its underlying original-language Scripture texts. It is very possible and even likely that there could be some degree of difference in meaning in the use of the term Scripture when used for a Bible translation such as the Geneva Bible, the KJV, or the NKJV as compared when used for copies of the original-language Scriptures. Are translations a different category or classification that should be distinguished somewhat from untranslated original-language texts of Scripture? A Bible translation may be substantially or mostly the same as its underlying original-language Scripture text, but there are still differences between the two. A Bible translation with its different words in a different language can be compared to its underlying original-language texts, but it does not have the exact same, identical, specific original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. Mickey Carter asserted: “Things that are different are not the same. Bibles that are different are not the same” (Things That Are Different, p. 77). Do some KJV-only advocates attempt to ignore the truth that a Bible translation has different words than the original-language words given by inspiration of God? Would they in effect contradict their own claim and assert that different words are not different? There would be some greater differences between the original-language words and the English words in the KJV than the differences between the KJV’s English words and the NKJV’s English words.


When it is speculated, assumed, or claimed that the term Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 must refer to copies and especially even to translations, a consistent, just, and logical application of this speculative reasoning would in effect be asserting that it must include all that belong in the same sense (univocally) to those two classifications: copies and translations. Including all copies of the preserved original-language Scriptures would in effect make inspiration include any errors introduced by imperfect men in their copying of Scripture. Including all printed translations of Scripture would make inspiration include any errors made by translators or printers and include the conflicting and even contradictory renderings in varying Bible translations in different languages. Thus, consistency and just measures in applying the word “all” to Bible translations would be a serious problem for exclusive KJV-only reasoning concerning only one English translation. If the term Scripture in a univocal sense at 2 Timothy 3:16 is assumed to include Bible translations, KJV-only advocates have not demonstrated from the Scriptures that it should apply only to the KJV and not also to the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible and to post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV.

Could some KJV-only advocates attempt to read into or to draw from 2 Timothy 3:16 a specific conclusion about translating that has not clearly and legitimately been shown to be actually stated or taught by the verse? Do KJV-only advocates attempt to go beyond what 2 Timothy 3:16 actually states to try to make it say something additional to which it does not directly and clearly refer? The sixteenth verse of 2 Timothy did not actually directly assert that God gave all Bible translations or one English Bible translation by the process or method of inspiration. Do KJV-only advocates use the term inspiration with one meaning (univocally) when they attempt to apply it to Bible translations? Do they use the term Bible translation with one meaning (univocally) if they attempt selectively to try to call one translation Scripture while denying the same for other English Bible translations? Do they attempt to read their own subjective, modern KJV-only opinions that were not in the mind of Paul into this verse? Did the earlier KJV-only opinions shape the later KJV-only interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16? Is the modern KJV-only interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 possibly an example of eisegesis? Is this KJV-only interpretive result already found in the unproven KJV-only premise or premises with which the KJV-only reader began? Is every man teaching that 2 Timothy 3:16 is a reference to the KJV advocating a non-scriptural opinion of men? Could KJV-only advocates confuse what the text actually says and means with their way of reading it or into it? Are some KJV-only advocates setting up their own reason and private interpretation as the final canon of truth? Are some KJV-only advocates seeking to manufacture support in the Scriptures for certain non-scriptural, human dogma or tradition which they may have merely presumed or assumed by use of fallacies such as begging the question and have accepted without proper, consistent, sound scriptural support?

 

It would not be a bogus argument.

David Cloud, a leading KJV-only author, wrote: “Admittedly, the antiquated language in the KJV is difficult for new readers and especially for those who read English as a second or third language” (Glorious History of the KJB, p. 215).

 

But, that same argument can be made for the NIV. The NIV words I posted would also be "difficult for a new reader, and especially for those who read English as a second or third language", not to mention the semi illiterate people in the the USA. Most students in school do not understand half of the words they read in text books. Should we abandon those text books, or improve the vocabulary of the students? Again, bogus argument, imho.

 

Difficult words whose correct meaning can be found in present dictionaries are not the same problem as words for which readers think that they already know the meaning but that are actually used with a very different meaning. Words whose meaning have changed can mislead readers without them realizing it. Readers may look up the meaning of difficult words, but they may not look up the meaning of words which have archaic meanings.

For example, readers will likely not look up the meaning of "turtle" in a dictionary because they think that they know its meaning, but they may not know that it was used with a different meaning in the KJV.

Readers may not look up the meaning of "bravery" in a dictionary, but they may not know that this word was used with a different meaning in the KJV.

 

Song of Solomon 2:12 (KJV) The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing [of birds] is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land;

Jeremiah 8:7 (KJV) Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the turtle and the crane and the swallow observe the time of their coming; but my people know not the judgment of the LORD.

Isaiah 3:18 (KJV) In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of [their] tinkling ornaments [about their feet], and [their] cauls, and [their] round tires like the moon,

I think that you may be talking about the decline of the educational system.

 

The supreme irony is that we a very good Kjv for today, Nkjv, to clear up many of that archaic and outdated problems, but KJVO look at it as if a satanic bible!

 

I am by no means any different than the average person. I have no more difficulty understanding the KJV than any other modern version. There are words in every translation that most people are going to have to look up or figure out. There are numerous teens and adults in my church that use the NIV and other translations, and they struggle with some words in their versions, too. I repeat, for the third time, that's a bogus claim. Either that, or you hang around with some really dumb people.

 

Do you 'have' a problem with good English Y-1? Of course you do.

"...we have a very good KJV for today."

"....to clear up many archaisms, but KJVOs don't appreciate the NKJV."

I have told you many times that you need to use the NIrV. It would help you with your English. No kidding.

 

Everyone that has made that "gotcha" argument has failed to say how they're different.

 

No but a country that rejects the KJB ends up with a KGB instead.

 

Oh, so God's inspired words have an expiration date?
Despite the fact that your God and your Lord told you that his words shall not pass away?

How foolish! Seeking to correct a "heresy" you have pronounced your own!