Featured How best to deal with KJV Onlyists.

As I said before, we have already had a long long thread on this topic so there really is not logic in covering that ground again.

 

The KJV does not actually defend itself any more than the preserved Scriptures in the original languages translated themselves into the KJV. You may believe your opinion, but that does not make your claim to be true.

You have not proven any KJV-only view to be true and scriptural from the Scriptures even as translated in the KJV.

The KJV does not state nor teach typical human KJV-only reasoning. The KJV does not suggest that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611. The KJV contradicts the showing of partiality to one exclusive group of Church of England men in 1611 since it clearly notes that the wisdom from God above is without partiality.

 

The 1611 edition of the KJV did not defend itself from having errors in it kept from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible.

The KJV did not defend itself from having a new printing error introduced into it in the 1769 Oxford edition, and the KJV did not defend itself from having that error remain in most Cambridge and Oxford editions of the KJV for over 100 years.

The 1611 edition of the KJV did not defend itself from having whole words added to it since there were over 170 whole words added to the 1611 edition that were not in it.

 

Of course it can. When it is correct it is a standard along with other versions which are also correct. When it is wrong it is in error and is not, along with other incorrect versions, the standard.

Again, most new versions skip over the better manuscripts and do not use them. I like Majority Text Versions and other Textus Receptus Versions, but the KJV, like you said is still a good version.

 

Dance much there @Conan?

We have had this discussion before so no need to rehash it again. And as I said the KJV was a good version for it's time, but better manuscripts have been found which have been used to improve the text that we have.

 

In Majority/Byzantine Texts I would agree. But those better manuscripts have not been used much to improve Critical Texts, that is, Nestle/Aland and Greek New Testament whatever edition they are at.

 

You have said that a number of times and we discussed it in another thread. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But since this thread is about how to deal with KJVonlyist's it really is not relevant to that discussion is it.

 

It will come up dealing with KJVOnlyist. Plus you asked why use the KJV. It is a main feature that cannot be avoided. Also when you make an inaccurate statement it should be corrected.

 

I doubt that @37818, @tyndale1946 or you are KJV onlyists but look at how you all try to defend the KJV. You all use the KJV because you think it is an accurate version. If you, not being KJV onlyists, are unwilling to see the the problems in the KJV then what do you think the possibility is of having a KJVonlyist change they minds?

 

We went through 286 posts on Textual Criticism so why should we cover that same ground again?

 

I see problems with the KJV. In my opinion all English Translations have some problems. But they are usually still highly accurate , valuable versions. We must use what we think are the best. Just because a bible has a few flaws doesn't mean it isn't highly valuable.

 

All translations because they are done by flawed men will be such. That is one reason that I have several translations on my system.