Supposedly "KJV Only" Refuted At This Link

Do you rely on the KJV to reprove the false teaching of KJV-onlyism with its showing of partiality in contradiction to the wisdom from God above, with its use of unjust divers measures [double standards], and with its advocating opinions or traditions of men?

The KJV itself does not teach human, non-scriptural claims for the KJV.

 

Would not a sound definition of the term translation be essential and crucial to understanding the Bible translation or KJV-only issue?

Sometimes and perhaps often it seems that the definition or meaning of the term translation is neglected or avoided, and its meaning is not considered in relationship to Bible truths or the whole counsel of God.

The very word translation by definition, when used to refer to something that is translated from one language into another language, would require its need of a source or sources from which to be translated and on which it is therefore dependent. By reason of its proper, exact definition concerning what constitutes its being a translation, it is unequivocally or univocally termed a “translation.“ Of what is it a translation? A translation is univocally a translation as a necessary consequence of its being translated from an original language source into a different language. What is more essential to the being, state, or constitution of a translation than having source or sources from which it was translated and derived? A Bible translation cannot be something other than what it is.

By definition and by the laws of causality and of non-contradiction, a Bible translation would be in a different state, classification, category, or order of thing or being than untranslated original language texts of Scripture. By definition, every dependent thing or being such as a translation depends upon something else for its making and existence. Is this property of dependence a primary or essential part of what constitutes a translation? A proper definition of a term would include the whole category or class of things which it seeks to define and would exclude what does not properly come under that term or name. Edward Carnell asserted: “For it is impossible to relate two different orders of being by the same terms with exactly the same meaning to each” (Introduction to Christian Apologetics, p. 145). Frank Turek noted: “A category mistake is when you treat something in one category as if it belongs in another category” (Stealing from God, p. 101). It should be clear that a Bible translation does not belong in the same category or classification as untranslated original-language texts of Scripture. A correct analytic statement would be true by virtue of the accurate meanings of its terms alone. A translation remains what it actually or truly is. Whatever is essential to its constitution as a translation is essential to it. By definition, a translation would not be the translation of nothing. By definition, a Bible translation is not the source or cause of itself or the foundation for itself. A translation cannot create itself. There could not be a translation without antecedent source or sources from which it is translated, to which it is related, and to which it may be compared and evaluated for accuracy. A translation without any antecedent underlying texts or sources to which it is related by being translated from them would not by definition be a translation. Likewise, a translation cannot be an exact or identical duplicate of its original language source or sources; otherwise, by definition it would not be a translation but would instead be an identical copy or duplicate.

A translation is not free from all causes and independent of all sources and authorities. By definition, a translation is of necessity translated from and based on something in another language or languages. By definition, a translation would be dependent upon something else for its existence. Translation would be a relative term since it is connected to another object. The source of a translation would be one of its essential causes since it would be necessary for the source to exist before a translation into another language could be made from it. Therefore, the correct use and true sense of the term translation indicate that a translation is an effect or consequence that presupposes a cause or causes on which it is dependent. Since a translation is an effect, it cannot be the rule or authority greater than its sources or causes. Can an effect surpass the authority of its cause? Any reasoning that would attempt to reverse cause and effect would be erroneous. Can the greater authority of the antecedent source(s) be denied and the authority of the consequent translation affirmed? Does some KJV-only reasoning seem to involve use of the fallacy of affirming the consequent while denying the antecedent? Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks asserted: “When we affirm the consequent, we guarantee nothing” (Come, Let Us Reason, p. 64). According to the laws of causality, of good and necessary consequence, and of non-contradiction, the preserved original language texts of Scripture cannot be and not be the authority, cause, source, and foundation for a translation at the same time and in the same respect. In his commentary on Matthew, Charles Spurgeon observed: “There is no possibility of the effect being higher and better than the cause” (p. 44). Reformer Francis Turretin asserted: “That which has a fallible foundation cannot be infallible because the effect cannot be greater in every respect than its cause” (Institutes, I, p. 39). According to the law of causality, a translation that has a beginning has a cause. A cause would need to be first in time, order, and authority over its effect. The necessity of a translation being dependent or being an effect or consequence indicates that it derives or acquires its authority from a greater authority than itself [its textual sources]. A translation that is not direct revelation from God or is not directly given by inspiration of God is not independent and underived since that translation depends on the greater authority of its antecedent underlying texts for its derived, secondary, consequent authority. How can there be a translation without a source and the standard on which it is based and to which it can be compared for accuracy?

By definition, the term translation would maintain that there is both a difference and a relationship between the consequent translation and its antecedent source or sources that can be compared and evaluated. A translation can be evaluated or tested for its accuracy in presenting the in-context meaning of the original-language words from which it is translated. A translation can be and will be either accurate or inaccurate since it is in a dependent, proportional relationship to its source or sources from which it is translated. In any places where a translation is inaccurate in relationship to its underlying texts or sources, it can be and should be corrected.

 

To even act like Jesus was referring to the English KJV Bible as a whole is ludicrous and error filled. A man made argument and taking the Words of Jesus out of context.

 

" But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." ( Matthew 4:4 ).

As believers, we live by every word of God, Dave.
90% agreement isn't good enough.
Any difference or departure from the originals that results in any word of God either being subtracted, added or changed just doesn't lead to a trustworthy Bible.

Just because differences don't affect doctrines, doesn't make me feel any better about it.
I want all of His words, because I live by them.

 

Mine says that His Father did:

" Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
24 whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it." ( Acts of the Apostles 2:22-24 ).

" But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
15 and killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses." ( Acts of the Apostles 3:15 ).

" Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities." ( Acts of the Apostles 3:25-26 ).

" be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, [even] by him doth this man stand here before you whole." ( Acts of the Apostles 4:10 ).

" The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." ( Acts of the Apostles 5:30-31 ).

" And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took [him] down from the tree, and laid [him] in a sepulchre.
30 But God raised him from the dead:" ( Acts of the Apostles 13:29-30 ).

Other references:

Acts of the Apostles 10:40
Acts of the Apostles 13:37
Acts of the Apostles 17:31
1 Corinthians 6:14
1 Corinthians 15:15
2 Corinthians 4:14.
Galatians 1:1.
Ephesians 1:20.
Colossians 2:12.

 

It is a fact that the 1611 KJV does not give an English rendering for every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God as found in the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. Sometimes one of the pre-1611 English Bibles gives an English rendering in their text which the KJV omits. How can the 1611 KJV be accurately said to be an every-word-of-God translation when it does not provide an English rendering for a good number of original-language words of Scripture?

Here is a clear example that affirms the truth of my observation. According to the KJV translators themselves, their Hebrew text at 2 Chronicles 29:25 has the Hebrew words for "by the hand of" even though they did not include them in their English text of the verse. The Geneva Bible and the Bishops' Bible include an English rendering "hand" for the Hebrew word for "hand."

Dave, according to your own stated reasoning, does this mean that the KJV does not contain all the precious words of God in your language and that the KJV is guilty of what you may inconsistently accuse other English Bibles?

2 Chronicles 29:25

by the hand of his Prophets [1560 Geneva Bible]

through the hand of the Prophets [1602 Bishops’ Bible]

by his prophets [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—"Heb. by the hand of”]

by the hand of His prophets [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

Here is a second example.

Nehemiah 9:30

by the hand of thy Prophets [1560 Geneva Bible; 1602 Bishops’ Bible]

in thy Prophets [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. in the hand of thy Prophets”]

by the hand of Thy prophets [YLT]

 

Every word from Deuteronomy 8:3 quoted by the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 4:4 is not found in the quotation in Luke 4:4. Six individual words [“that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”] spoken by Jesus as found in Matthew 4:4 are not preserved and presented in Luke 4:4.

Is this fact a hint or indication that the new KJV-only interpretation of Matthew 4:4 could be incorrect?

According to a typical KJV-only interpretation of Matthew 4:4, could early readers of the gospel of Luke who did not have a copy of the gospel of Matthew live by every word of God since Luke does not have six words quoted and stated by Jesus?

Would a just application of KJV-only reasoning concerning Matthew 4:4 suggest that the Holy Spirit was wrong to move Luke to omit six of the words stated by Jesus?
Would a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning in effect suggest that Luke 4:4 casts doubt on part of what is stated in Matthew 4:4? According to KJV-only reasoning, was it OK to omit or delete words in Luke 4:4 as long as they are somewhere else? Would a consistent, just application of KJV-only claims and assertions concerning Matthew 4:4 in effect condemn Luke 4:4 for not including and preserving every word that Jesus stated? Does Luke 4:4 clearly demonstrate or prove that the new KJV-only interpretation of “every word” at Matthew 4:4 could be faulty or wrong?

 

But does the KJV have ALL of them?
It has "Easter" in Acts 12:4 where Luke was writing about PASSOVER.

It leaves out the words "through our Lord Jesus Christ" in Jude 25.

It ADDS the words"and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5, words that are NOT found in ANY known ancient manuscript of Revelation in that passage.

It MISTRANSLATES "hades" and "sheol" as "hell" several times. The lake of fire is hell.

I can make a long list of mistranslations in the KJV which **PROVES** the KJV does NOT contain ALL of God's words He caused to be recorded for man. To still believe the KJV contains ALL of God's words is to be in thrall to Satan's false KJVO myth.

"THE KJVO MYTH-PHONY AS A FORD CORVETTE !"

 

If you actually believe the KJVO myth, then please show us some SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for it, as it CANNOT be true without any.

 

Respectfully,
I am of the firm belief that it does indeed contain every precious word of God in my own language, because of its use of the "Received Text" in the Greek....
But anything that makes use of the so-called "Critical Text" in the Greek, I consider to be both inferior and corrupt.

Not only do I consider the vast majority of English translations performed within the past 150 years to be inferior in quality, I consider them to be corrupt because of their use of something that I wouldn't go near even if I were tasked with being a translator of Biblical texts... and was paid handsomely to be one.

Gentlemen, let's face it:

We are at odds on this and probably always will be...and that makes me sad;
But what saddens me even more?
It's that I've met more people who hate the Bible that I love and use, here on a Baptist forum, than I probably would out in public ( and most of them aren't even professing believers and couldn't care less about Jesus Christ );

It's so bad that it amazes me every time I read a through a thread in this section.

 

If the Lake of Fire itself is Hell, then how can death and Hell be cast into the Lake of Fire in Revelation 20:14?

 

That may be your incorrect opinion or even your non-scriptural belief, but it is contrary to the actual facts.

You choose to close your eyes to the fact that the KJV translators themselves acknowledged that they did not provide an English rendering for every original-language word of Scripture in their underlying texts.

Which one of the textually-varying editions of "the Received Text" in the Greek available to them did the KJV follow 100%? Not one.

 

So, you overlook the KNOWN MISTRANSLATIONS found in the KJV as well as its other goofs & booboos?

This reminds me of a flat-earther who says, "Look out at the ocean from a ship. it's FLAT, aint it?"...while ignoring the ship sailing 26 miles away, slowly vanishing beneath the horizon. Or, he'll say, "That's just an optical illusion caused by the atmosphere."

 

Because the rendering 'hell' here is another of the KJV mistranslations of 'hades' that I mentioned. (I don't know what kind of entity 'death' is.)

 

Yes, the AV men took their best GUESSES at some of the words, especially the Hebrew names of animals, & names of places. There's the well-known example of "re'em", which the KJV calls 'unicorn'. They just GUESSED, same as modern translators do. All they know is it was some kind of big, fierce, herbivore, with the now-extinct auroch, a species of wild ox, being a good candidate.

So much for the wrong notion of the KJV's having EVERY word of God in it!

 

So we cannot worship the Spirit, who is also God?

 

Yes, Hell is Not the Lake of Fire!

 

Jesus ONLY stated that the Holy Spirit would inspire the NT books in the Koine greek, not in the Kings English!

 

same as saying that John in the word was with God and was God was the Kjv!