Featured Is the KJVO Movement Dying?

Please show us some Scripture that supports the KJVO myth. Without any Scriptural support, the KJVO myth is false.

 

The evidence is in it's pages in many, many places, where it claims to be the word of God. It never says anywhere that it is a translation or only a translation. And it never leads me to believe that it cannot be trusted to be true. I have been quoting it here as if it is true. Jesus Christ says his words are spirit and life and I have been reading them, quoting them, and believing them. Are you saying they may not be exactly true and if what you say is more true, where does that leave me? Do I really have life because I believe these words are true?

You say no? Are you arguing for a true message but not true words?

 

The same evidence in effect would be in most English Bible translations so those verses do not actually support and teach exclusive only claims for only one English Bible translation--the KJV.

The KJV itself teaches that the inspiration of all Scripture concerning the process of the giving of Scripture to the prophets and apostles, and not concerning one English Bible translation in 1611.

When it is speculated, assumed, or claimed that the term Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 must refer to copies and especially even to post-NT 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.

Would including all copies of the preserved original-language Scriptures in effect make inspiration include any errors introduced by imperfect men in their copying of Scripture? Are all Bible translations Scripture in the same sense (univocally)? If Bible translations cannot exist without the indispensable process of inspiration, then it would be necessary for all Bible translations to be made by it. If all Bible translations are Scripture given by inspiration of God, then none of them are not Scripture.

Steve Combs observed: “If 2 Timothy 3:16 applies to a copy or translation, then every time a translation is made, it is inspired, and every time a copy was made it was inspired” (Practical Theology, p. 35; Translator’s Greek Grammar, p. 22). Steve Combs wrote: “Copies and translations have to do with the transmission of Scripture through history. Inspiration pertains to the entrance of Scripture into history” (Translator’s Greek Grammar, p. 22).

Including all printed translations of Scripture would in effect 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 attempting to apply it selectively or particularly 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.

Can a universal term be limited to only one particular thing made from it? 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 states to try to make it say something additional to which it does not directly and clearly refer? Could KJV-only advocate strain, stretch, or even possibly twist a verse to try to make it speak their own KJV-only sense or to fit their man-made KJV-only scheme?

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 only one English 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? Do KJV-only advocates try to take 2 Timothy 3:16 and improve it in effect as being to all intents a new revelation that supposedly teaches something that it does not state?

 

If the claim is made that the words are the words of God, they either are the words of God or they are not the words of God. If God is speaking of the message only of being his he does not say it. Also, Jesus said plainly in John 6:63 that the words he speaks are spirit and they are life. I can be convinced that he was speaking only to those Jews to whom he came at his incarnation and not to the world at large if you can make a biblical case, in context, for it, But I cannot understand how a man can translate the words of Jesus differently hundreds of times and even paraphrase them in various ways in the same language and maintain the spiritual content of the words. Why would God command anyone to do this and where does he make the claim in any Bible that he did?

Maybe I am misunderstanding what it means that the words are spirit and they are life. Help me!

Jn 12:44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words (message???), hath one that judgeth him: the word (message????) that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

I wonder what language the Father spoke to the Son in? It is the word of the Father no matter who speaks it.

 

That would be true of the original-language words of Scripture directly given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles, but the Scriptures do not say that is true of post-NT translation decisions made by men who are not prophets and apostles. When you try to apply your claim to post-NT translation decisions, it may involve use of the either/or fallacy.

The Scriptures directly state and teach that words added by men would not be inspired words of God, and the makers of the KJV acknowledged that they added words for which they had no original-language words of Scripture.

The Scriptures do not state nor teach that the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of men not given directly words by inspiration are all the words of God. The Scriptures does not suggest that inaccurate translations or mistranslations and that errors introduced by men are the inspired words of God.

Do you try to claim that the errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV are the words of God?
Do you try to claim that the errors in the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV are the words of God?

 

Do you fail to apply your claim to the making of the KJV? The makers of the KJV translated the words of God differently many times and sometimes even paraphrase them in various ways in English.

One Greek verb is translated by the following words in English in the KJV: to cumber (Luke 13:7), to make without effect (Rom. 3:3), to make void (Rom. 3:31), to make of none effect (Rom. 4:14), to destroy (Rom. 6:6), to loose (Rom. 7:2), to deliver (Rom. 7:6), to bring to naught (1 Cor. 1:18), to do away (1 Cor. 13:10), to put away (1 Cor. 13:11), to put down (1 Cor. 15:24), and to abolish (2 Cor. 3:13).

The same Greek verb is rendered by the following different English words: to reject (Mark 6:26), to despise (Luke 10:16), to bring to nothing (1 Cor. 1:19), to frustrate (Gal. 2:21), to disannul (Gal. 3:15), and to cast off (1 Tim. 5:12).

The Greek word spoudazo was translated the following ways by the KJV translators: endeavour (Eph. 4:3, 1 Thess. 2:17, 2 Pet. 1:15), do diligence (2 Tim. 4:9, 21), be diligent (Titus 3:12, 2 Pet. 3:14), give diligence (2 Pet. 1:10), be forward (Gal. 2:10), labour (Heb. 4:11), and study (2 Tim. 2:15).

Many other examples can be found on a page entitled "Lax Renderings of King James' Revisers" in the introduction to Young's Literal Translation. Robert Young listed several examples of Biblical words rendered forty to ninety different ways in English in the KJV.

Charles Butterworth wrote: "There are places in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament where the wording of one passage is exactly like the wording of another, but the King James Version makes little or no effort to reproduce this literal duplication" (Literary Lineage of the KJB, p. 219). One example in the Old Testament would be Isaiah 35:10 and 51:11. Concerning these two verses in Isaiah, Barclay Newman and Charles Houser observed: “These two passages, which are identical in the Hebrew text, were rendered in significantly different ways by the translators” (Burke, Translation, p. 78).

The KJV translators rendered the Hebrew word chereb as "sword" over 300 times. They also translated this same Hebrew word as "mattocks" (2 Chron. 34:6), "axes" (Ezek. 26:9), "tool" (Exod. 20:25), and "knife" or "knives" (Josh. 5:2, 1 Kings 18:28, Ezek. 5:1). Another Hebrew word is translated both as "weapon" (Job 20:24) and "armour" (1 Kings 10:25, 2 Kings 10:2) in the KJV. The KJV translators rendered the Hebrew word maatsad as "tongs" (Isa. 44:12) and "ax" (Jer. 10:3). An additional example is kidon that is translated "target" (1 Sam. 17:6), "shield" (1 Sam. 17:45), "spear" (Jer. 6:23), and "lance" (Jer. 50:42). In the KJV, the Hebrew word agmon is rendered "hook" (Job 41:2), "caldron" (Job 41:20), "rush" (Isa. 9:14), and "bulrush" (Isa. 58:5). "Leeks" (Num. 11:5), "herb" (Job 8:12), "hay" (Prov. 27:25), and "grass" (Job 40:15) are renderings of another Hebrew word in the KJV. The KJV has both "rie" [rye] (Exod. 9:32, Isa. 28:25) and "fitches" (Ezek. 4:9) as its translations of another Hebrew word.


Why did the KJV translators translate the same Hebrew word qaath as "pelican" at Leviticus 11:18, Deuteronomy 14:17, and Psalm 102:6 but as "cormorant" at Isaiah 34:11 and Zephaniah 2:14? They translated the same Hebrew word as three different trees: oak (Isa. 1:30), teil (Isa. 6:13), and elms (Hos. 4:13). Unger's Bible Dictionary stated that this tree at Isaiah 6:13 and Hosea 4:13 "should be terebinth" (pp. 1136, 1145). Another Hebrew word was rendered as "oil tree" (Isa. 41:19), "olive tree" (1 Kings 6:23), and "pine" (Neh. 8:15). Other examples could be given where the KJV translators translated the same word by very different animals, birds, trees, etc., in English.

Until KJV-only advocates consistently and clearly explain the many same-type variations in the translating of the KJV, are they not hypocrites to condemn variations in other English Bible translations?

 

I hope and pray the KJVO issue does die...... and soon! Then I won't have to read Logos' mega paragraph responses any more and he can find another obsession.

 

I feel the same way about JD731.

 

You do err because you do not know your bible.

Jhn 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Rom 10:13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Rom 10:14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
Rom 10:15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”
Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?”
Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.


I am sorry but your stance on this issue is completely heretical.

 

This is written before the gospel of Jesus Christ. Question; Did they believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God and that they could have life through him because of the miracles? I trow not!

Here is testimony from God himself that miracles and OT scripture that promised the very person whom they rejected would come and be the Son of God and their savior and they did not believe.

Rom 10:Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

What was it?

4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

You either do not know the promises in the OT scriptures or you plainly do not believe them. You surely do not know history.

It bugs me when people who holds heretical teachings correct me with scriptures that teach what they say is heretical.

Read your passages again. It is written in 58 AD. This is after most of the persecution that Paul and other preachers had to endure from their countrymen because they did not believe in Jesus and viewed their preaching as a threat to the Mosaic Law. The pronouns are all pointing to "israel." The church of Jesus Christ is a mystery of this age and cannot be found by any man in the OT scriptures. It is revealed in the NT because of the rejection by the Jewish nation and people of Messiah Jesus. Paul is writing about things THAT ARE when he writes. This is 18 years after God had opened the door of faith to gentiles and accepted us into the church by faith. The point of this, he says in the same context is to provoke Israel to jealosy and some may be saved. There is a marriage supper that God has prepared and because his own nation rejected Jesus, he is gathering gentiles to fill his house. His intention is that the guests at the feast will also become the bride. There is typealogical precedence for this in the OT beginning, but not limited to, the history of Adam and Eve. The church is going out into the highways and hedges to compel them to come. We will teach them the Bible when they get saved.

The Bible makes sense, only if you believe the words and follow the logic and refrain from being unreasonable. The Bible is not a book of religion like you are trying to make it out to be.

1 Pe 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

 

I am quite sure being shown scripture that refutes your error bugs you. You do know that what you are posting here is not orthodox even among Baptists. Do you not? As for the rest of your post it lacks clarity. Scripture is clear that faith comes from hearing the word of God.

 

So, you believe the KJV's goofs, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4 and the ADDITION of the phrase "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5?

 

I am taking time here to help you. You and your Reformed brethren view the scritures as a book of religion without context. It does not matter that Romans 10 is in a Israel context becuse that does not exist in your thinking. The time element does not matter. The covenants of God with Israel does not matter. If Jesus Christ had not spoken his parables at the last days of his eartthly ministry outlining the future from that time onward it would have been the same to you because you do not recognize him as a prophet and you do not accept the covenants he made with Israel as contracts that he is bound by oaths to keep although he has sworn with an oath to each one of them. I have read the oaths and I know where they are in scripture and I can quote them to you. But, would you reason with me? Doubt it!

 

I believe the words written in my Bible. If I wind up at the judgement and God asks me the same question you are asking me and likewise condemns me for believing it, I will know at that time I have made a huge mistake.I sure will be hoping all the words are not as goofy as those because the laugh will surely be on me.

 

Your personal beliefs do not determine what the Scriptures state and teach. False teachers may sincerely belief their understanding and interpretations of Scriptures, but their incorrect belief does not determine what the Scriptures state and teach.
Your believing your own KJV-only opinions does not make them become true and scriptural.

You make no positive, consistent, clear, sound, true, and scriptural case for any claim that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England men in 1611 and as later printed imperfectly by printers and editors in over 100 varying KJV editions.

 

I think we have taken this as far as it can go. You are obviously a man of no faith. You have never presented anything Godward for me or anyone else to believe. You are obsessed with a relentless attack on believers. The Jews were cast off because they did not believe the miracles of Jesus and you do not believe the miracle of inspiration even after I showed you that Jesus Christ is, according to himself and God the Father and the Spirit, "the word of the Lord." God is an eternal being and everywhere present at one time.

1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

The word of the Lord has personality, I believe. The word of God is said to be living.

Thanks for the conversation.

 

What is obvious is your choice to bear false witness. You disobey a clear command of God. I have faith in God and in what God revealed in the Scriptures. I have read and studied the KJV over 50 years, and I accept and believe it as what it actually is. The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English. I believe in the miracle of inspiration. The word of the Lord endureth before the 1611 KJV was ever made so that the existence of the word of the Lord does not depend upon the KJV.

I have presented sound scripturally-based points for my beliefs concerning the Scriptures. My scripturally-based view concerning Bible translations is like the view of the early English Bible translators including the makers of the KJV.

Disagreeing with human, non-scriptural exclusive only claims for the KJV is not an attack on believers' acceptance of what the Scriptures teach. You seem to expect others to have blind faith in your human KJV-only opinions and in your private interpretations. Your understanding of inspiration is inconsistent and faulty. The 1611 edition of the KJV with its errors was not made by a miracle of direct inspiration of God.