Featured "Is King James Onlyism Scriptural?"

There are differences between King James Versions. There are many, many different editions of the KJV. If I were KJVOnly I would have a real 1611 edition and compare it to modern ones to know where the modern ones changed the original 1611 edition/editions.

 

Are you saying the old keep it simple, stupid? It is true that the American educational system is backwards with all that finger painting and basket weaving designed to prevent brain strain. They have a Dick & Jane Bible at Barnes & Noble. Ask for it by name. Tell them Sally sent you. (Not really but you see the need.) Sometimes if you get a soy latte they give you a free cookie--their coffee bar is better than most others. Cops do not get free coffee though because the Boomers can't make any money.

 

It is not a bogus claim, and your repeating your allegation does not make it true.

You dodged or avoided my sound point concerning how archaic words are a different matter than difficult words.

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.

 

One should keep the cookies on the bottom shelf but not everything is Pablum, as you know. God gave you teeth and He gave you a mind. In a vast universe, there still aren't enough words to describe everything exactly and succinctly. As has been pointed out by others, the other translations have some big words in them, too. I think that the average person can understand the KJV..

 

You do not practice what you preach since you failed to prove what you asserted about there being only one KJV. You challenge others to prove what they stated while you do not prove what you stated. Perhaps you were blindly repeating what you heard or read from a KJV-only source so that you have not checked the facts for yourself.

Perhaps your eyes are closed to seeing how they are different. Another thread has been started in answer to your unproven claim, and it will provide details. It pointed out the fact that whole words not found in the 1611 edition were added in later editions. There are so many actual differences that they all cannot be listed in one post. You could see the evidence yourself by comparing the original 1611 edition of the KJV with a present post-1900 edition.

Here is one example that would show that the 1611 edition of the KJV was not given by inspiration of God.

At 2 Kings 24:19, the 1611 edition of the KJV has the name of the wrong king, left uncorrected by the KJV translators from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible. The 1611 edition and sixteen more editions of the KJV printed in London have "Jehoiachin" at 2 Kings 24:19 which was later corrected to "Jehoiakim" in most editions of the KJV.

 

Yet again, another failure or refusal to identify the nature of those differences and the methodology employed in listing them.

 

"Note changes in spelling" Look at that, finally an admission, albeit squeezed out.

 

Thank you for that example! Point made. Moving on.

 

The poster not only noted changes in spelling, but also changes in words. You ignored that fact.
You seem to try to minimize the actual differences in KJV editions instead of dealing with the facts.

Over 170 whole words not found in the 1611 edition of the KJV were later added in many KJV editions.

 

At 1 Kings 11:5, the 1611 edition of the KJV has the name of the wrong group of people "Amorites" kept uncorrected by the KJV translators from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible.

This error in the 1611 edition of the KJV was later corrected to "Ammonites."

 

At Exodus 6:21, the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV has the name of the wrong person, "Zithri," likely taken from the name at the end of Exodus 6:22. This same error had been in a 1630 London edition of the KJV and in a 1722 Oxford edition of the KJV. This error at Exodus 6:21 remained uncorrected in most Oxford, Cambridge, and London editions of the KJV for 100 years until the 1873 Cambridge corrected it back to "Zichri."

 

What was wrong with Grammar there? the Nkjv is the Kjv translation updated for todays user, but shame that those in KJVO see it as being a false/fake Bible!

 

Kjv was not inspired!

 

I did not think perfect translation would ever need a correction!

 

There are different TR texts, and many different Kjv editions, so KJVO fails on its own logic!

 

"Let your conversation be, He that letteth" for examples?