Supposedly "KJV Only" Refuted At This Link

[Yeshua1]

" 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.

What if the TR itself is the Greek text deviation from the originals, and thus the Kjv is also then?

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

What doctrines have the modern versions "corrupted" then?

 

[robycop3]

Yes, Hell is Not the Lake of Fire!

HUH?
Well, it's sure not hades!

 

[robycop3]

Correct. Only Jesus can confirm His words to you that the KJV was kept by those who loved him & His words per the warning given from the Father by Jesus in John 14:23-24 & John 15:20 in regards to His disciples sayings.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. KJV

John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. KJV

If you believe the KJVO myth, then please provide SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for it. Without Scriptural support, it can't be true.

 

[Logos1560]

its use of the "Received Text" in the Greek....

Do you clearly identify that "Received Text" and where to find it?

Glenn Conjurske observed: "Whatever they [KJV-only people] say against the Greek text of the modern versions will apply with equal force against the Greek text of Tyndale and Coverdale. That there is often a difference in degree I freely grant, but I contend that in no way affects the question. The doctrine which contends for a perfect text and a perfect version cannot legitimately or consistently tolerate any degree of variance from its immaculate standard. They cannot have it both ways. To claim that either the text or the version of Tyndale is 'the same basic Bible' as the King James Version is in reality to give up their position altogether" (Bible Version Controversy, p. 152).

Glenn Conjurske noted: "The King James Version does not entirely agree with any edition of the Textus Receptus" (p. 146).

Glenn Conjurske asserted: "These editions of the Textus Receptus all differ from each other, and the King James Version differs from every one of them" (p. 236).

Glenn Conjurske asserted: "No man can construct a Greek text which exactly agrees with the King James Version, unless he does it dishonestly--unless he purposely falsifies the Greek text, in order to conform it to the Latin Vulgate in those places where the King James Version follows the Vulgate instead of the Greek" (p. 181).

Glenn Conjurske wrote: "But it will be said that the differences in text in the new versions are greater and more numerous. This is undoubtedly true (except in the NKJV, which is translated from the same text as the KJV), but it does not affect the question. It is a difference in degree, not in kind" (p. 151).

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you clearly identify that "Received Text" and where to find it?

Glenn Conjurske observed: "Whatever they [KJV-only people] say against the Greek text of the modern versions will apply with equal force against the Greek text of Tyndale and Coverdale. That there is often a difference in degree I freely grant, but I contend that in no way affects the question. The doctrine which contends for a perfect text and a perfect version cannot legitimately or consistently tolerate any degree of variance from its immaculate standard. They cannot have it both ways. To claim that either the text or the version of Tyndale is 'the same basic Bible' as the King James Version is in reality to give up their position altogether" (Bible Version Controversy, p. 152).

Glenn Conjurske noted: "The King James Version does not entirely agree with any edition of the Textus Receptus" (p. 146).

Glenn Conjurske asserted: "These editions of the Textus Receptus all differ from each other, and the King James Version differs from every one of them" (p. 236).

Glenn Conjurske asserted: "No man can construct a Greek text which exactly agrees with the King James Version, unless he does it dishonestly--unless he purposely falsifies the Greek text, in order to conform it to the Latin Vulgate in those places where the King James Version follows the Vulgate instead of the Greek" (p. 181).

Glenn Conjurske wrote: "But it will be said that the differences in text in the new versions are greater and more numerous. This is undoubtedly true (except in the NKJV, which is translated from the same text as the KJV), but it does not affect the question. It is a difference in degree, not in kind" (p. 151).

Excellent point that reinforces to us that only the Originals were inspired by God and fully Inerrant!

 

[Yeshua1]

Supposedly, "KJV Only" is refuted at this site.

"KJV Only" advocates refuted!

I am opening a thread to address the claim to prove or reprove with His help all that is being presented at that site for our discussion where hopefully, iron sharpening iron can take place on both sides of this discussion.

There is a lot of information at that site so picking certain points out of it in making a small post to prove or disprove is okay, but you are free to address all points but try to limit a point or a few points per post since members do not like to read long posts.

Thanks in advance for sharing either side for this discussion by His grace & by His help for teh edifying of the body in Christ's love.

This one really does refute KJVO!
The Origin and Danger of KJV- Only-ism ; Kent Hovind et al Refuted

 

[robycop3]

The KJVO myth is easily refuted by the fact that it has no Scriptural support, even in the KJV itself.

 

[Logos1560]

Glenn Conjurske contended: “The main tenet of this [KJV-only] system, which exalts a human and imperfect translation to the place of perfection, giving it an authority equal (or superior) to the original, is a tenet of Romanism, which no Protestant ever believed before the advent of the present generation” (Bible Version, p. 62).

 

[Hark]

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.

If you consider the lost books of the Bible are not accepted in the Bible because of verses in those lost books running contrary to the accepted scripture, then the debate about translation should be boiled down to not sowing doubts in His words. In other words, no translation cannot be contrary or opposing the truths in His words in other parts of that version Bible. If it is, then you may understand why I rely on the KJV, because changed message declining from the testimony of His Son or supporting false teaching or false spirits is why it is hard to correct anyone in that Bible version they are using that tales selected verses that supports that heresy or apostasy.

Is not keeping the faith the good fight or not?

So while debunking relying on the KJV only for the meat of His words as if that means KJV-Onlyism, for all that is claimed for what KJVOnlyism is meant to represent as supposedly claimed by both sides of this debate, then that would be considered as throwing the baby out with the bath water & with it any chance of using meat to discern good & evil with Him by the KJV.

You cannot prove the Holy Spirit cannot use tongues for uttering His intercessions in almost all modern Bibles per Romans 8:26-27 even though John 16:13 says in all Bibles that the Holy Spirit cannot speak or utter anything from Himself in representing Himself when He can only speak what He hears whereas the KJV keeps the truth in His words by saying that He cannot even utter His groanings in Romans 8:26 even though other Bibles cast doubts in His words in believing some kind of sound is uttered.

How does this relate to keeping the faith? Modern tongue speakers are preaching another gospel, another Jesus, another spirit to receive ( 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 & 1 Timothy 4:1-2 & 2 Thessalonians 2:1-15 in order to get this tongue for private use that comes with no interpretation but is gibberish nonsense ( Isaiah 8:19 & 1 John 4:1-6 ) Proof of this other calling is by receiving that tongue as a sign or as evidence; 1 Corinthians 14:20-22 in spite that tongues were not to serve as proof or a sign to the believer themselves for receiving anything from the Lord; not as a sign of salvation, not as a sign of God calling them into the ministry & not as a sign that they got this other baptism of the Holy Ghost by that sign f tongue ( Matthew 12:39 ).

So no matter how you try to reason by intellectual prejudices against relying only on the KJV for the meat of His words to discern good & evil, you have to ask yourself what are you called to do... keep the faith in Jesus Christ or keep railing against relying only on the KJV? To me, you cannot do both.

 

[Hark]

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.

That is a famous deflection from the issue at hand, often parroted by those refusing to stick to the issue at hand.

Proof? Try applying that to every Bible version in English then.

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

Since you can get KJV in a foreign language as well as other English versions, then the proper use of applying His words goes to non-contrary translation in any English Bible that does not sow doubts to His words in other parts of that bible version..

You cannot prove the Holy Spirit cannot use tongues for uttering His intercessions in almost all modern Bibles per Romans 8:26-27 even though John 16:13 says in all Bibles that the Holy Spirit cannot speak or utter anything from Himself in representing Himself when He can only speak what He hears whereas the KJV keeps the truth in His words by saying that He cannot even utter His groanings in Romans 8:26 even though other Bibles cast doubts in His words in believing some kind of sound is uttered.

How does this relate to keeping the faith? Modern tongue speakers are preaching another gospel, another Jesus, another spirit to receive ( 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 & 1 Timothy 4:1-2 & 2 Thessalonians 2:1-15 in order to get this tongue for private use that comes with no interpretation but is gibberish nonsense ( Isaiah 8:19 & 1 John 4:1-6 ) Proof of this other calling is by receiving that tongue as a sign or as evidence; 1 Corinthians 14:20-22 in spite that tongues were not to serve as proof or a sign to the believer themselves for receiving anything from the Lord; not as a sign of salvation, not as a sign of God calling them into the ministry & not as a sign that they got this other baptism of the Holy Ghost by that sign f tongue ( Matthew 12:39 ).

So no matter how you try to reason by intellectual prejudices against relying only on the KJV for the meat of His words to discern good & evil, you have to ask yourself what are you called to do... keep the faith in Jesus Christ or keep railing against relying only on the KJV? To me, you cannot do both.

 

[Hark]

" 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.

Differences do affect doctrines which is why I rely on the KJV for the meat of His words to discern good & evil with Him by His words..

You cannot prove the Holy Spirit cannot use tongues for uttering His intercessions in almost all modern Bibles per Romans 8:26-27 even though John 16:13 says in all Bibles that the Holy Spirit cannot speak or utter anything from Himself in representing Himself when He can only speak what He hears whereas the KJV keeps the truth in His words by saying that He cannot even utter His groanings in Romans 8:26 even though other Bibles cast doubts in His words in believing some kind of sound is uttered.

How does this relate to keeping the faith? Modern tongue speakers are preaching another gospel, another Jesus, another spirit to receive ( 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 & 1 Timothy 4:1-2 & 2 Thessalonians 2:1-15 in order to get this tongue for private use that comes with no interpretation but is gibberish nonsense ( Isaiah 8:19 & 1 John 4:1-6 ) Proof of this other calling is by receiving that tongue as a sign or as evidence; 1 Corinthians 14:20-22 in spite that tongues were not to serve as proof or a sign to the believer themselves for receiving anything from the Lord; not as a sign of salvation, not as a sign of God calling them into the minsry & not as a sign that they got this other baptism of the Holy Ghost by that sign f tongue ( Matthew 12:39 ).

So no matter how you try to reason by intellectual prejudices against relying only on the KJV for the meat of His words to discern good & evil, you have to ask yourself what are you called to do... keep the faith in Jesus Christ or keep railing against relying only on the KJV? To me, you cannot do both.

 

[Hark]

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

I do not know everything that makes up the KJVO myth since no one can really say that is what KJVO is really all about. Both sides say different things but I say I rely only on the KJV for the meat of His words as I trust Jesus as my Good Shepherd to help me understand His words & apply them, even when discerning the changed messages in modern Bibles that supports heresy & apostasy. So He will have to do that for you if you trust Him to do it over all your teachings from men to see.

 

[Hark]

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

Since the arrest was made during the days of the unleavened bread which follows the day of Passover, it cannot be after that specific day of Passover. Since the origin of the word Easter was not Hebrew nor Greek origin, its meaning that the festival of the 7 days of unleavened bread to be in relations to the Passover day should not be missed.

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

I know Who those verses are talking about. In fact if you compare the 2, your versions seems to want to give credit & the glory to God the Father through Jesus Christ rather than to Jesus Christ as God & Savior as the KJV has it. I am sure if you speak with those that deny the deity of Christ, that they would apply your version in that way.

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.

In any known manuscripts? Did you know that the phrase "Majority Greek Text" is not meaning ALL Greek manuscripts but a selected amount out of the many? Most of the Greek texts collated were from Eastern Orthodox that had a vested interests in changing the texts to combat Sabellianism for why there were not that many Book of 1 John among them as well as 1 John 5:7 written as is in the KJV.

Dr. Van Soden did not collate more than 400 out of the 5,000 Greek texts.

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

Since hell is thrown in the lake of fire, then the lake of fire is the lake of fire. But if you were to be discerning, you would have done a word search to find this in the NIV of 2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;....NIV

Now how can you be in hell awaiting the judgment as in the final judgment of being put in the lake of fire unless hell is a different holding area than the lake of fire? So no matter how you do not like this, hell is hades & sheol. If contenders were making a big deal about hell, then why hades & sheol since they both are accepted as representing that same place? Since modern Bibles has hell written as a holding place before the final judgment, it is not a mistranslation, now is it?.

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 !"

Nothing in your list addresses the KJV as changing the message that can be taken out of context to support false doctrine by that changed message in that verse.

 

[Hark]

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?

The NIV of 2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;....NIV

Contenders should pray & lean on Him to prove everything taught for why they are anti-KJVOnlyism. Hell is used in modern Bibles and if angels are in chains in hell, awaiting their final judgment which has to be the lake of fire, then hell cannot be the lake of fire.

 

[Hark]

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.

The NIV of 2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;....NIV

Closed eyes? Why don't we all prove our own beliefs & "facts" with His help. Does hell exists in the Bible versions that has sheol & hades in it? One can do a search at Bible Gateway, select your Bible versions & put hell in the search engine to see.

One has to question from your point of view, why then hades or sheol? Why not just use one reference & not another referring to the same place? But since they do, then applying hell as proven by 2 Peter 3:4 is the same as referring to sheol or Hades. Therefore no mistranslation.

 

[Hark]

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

Scripture told you how the Holy Spirit would bear witness in leading you to do also in worship; to testify of the Son to glorify the Son & thereby God the Father. You are not led by the Spirit of God in worship to honor, nor glorify the Holy Spirit but the Son, & by Him, God the Father.

Scripture told you what the Holy Spirit will do.. John 15:26-27 & John 16:14 So are you led by the Spirit to do that in worship or not?

 

[Conan]

So no matter how you try to reason by intellectual prejudices against relying only on the KJV for the meat of His words to discern good & evil, you have to ask yourself what are you called to do... keep the faith in Jesus Christ or keep railing against relying only on the KJV? To me, you cannot do both.

You are certainly wrong here. A believer can recognize the KJV as the word of God, and be mature enough to know that it is not always right, but contains mistakes that should be corrected to have the word of God more complete. To pretend the KJV is always right is fantasie and a man made lie, devoid of accurate Bible study.

 

[robycop3]

Th

I do not know everything that makes up the KJVO myth since no one can really say that is what KJVO is really all about. Both sides say different things but I say I rely only on the KJV for the meat of His words as I trust Jesus as my Good Shepherd to help me understand His words & apply them, even when discerning the changed messages in modern Bibles that supports heresy & apostasy. So He will have to do that for you if you trust Him to do it over all your teachings from men to see.

The KJVO myth is the false doctrine that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation, & that it's perfect.

I have posted the MAN-MADE ORIGIN of the current edition of that myth elsewhere in this "Bible Versions" forum. But NO believer of the KJVO myth can support that myth with SCRIPTURE from the KJV.(Or any other version)

Dr. Bob has posted an excellent rundown of the definitions of the KJVO myth in this forum at the beginning of it, in the "sticky posts" column.

Have you ever asked your self WHY some of the wording is changed in newer versions, besides getting rid of the archaic English? The MAIN reason is that some of the renderings are WRONG. For instance, "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is an outright GOOF. Newer versions replace it with the CORRECT rendering od "passover".

Now, while MVs have their own mistakes, the KJV is chock-full of them !

 

[Logos1560]

I do not know everything that makes up the KJVO myth since no one can really say that is what KJVO is really all about. .

Your opinion is incorrect.

KJV-onlyism is really all about making exclusive, only claims for only one English Bible translation and about in effect trying to imply perfection or near perfection for that one imperfect English translation. Human KJV-only reasoning suggest that the KJV is the word of God translated into English in a different sense than any other English Bible is the word of God translated into English.

Glenn Conjurske observed: "Most of the King James Only men have of late been shy of the word 'perfect,' but if they ascribe to the King James Version what practically amount to perfection, their scruples abut the word 'perfect' signify nothing" (Bible Version Controversy, p. 127).