#3 KJV-Onlyism Commentary

Jason wrote this on his round 7.

However, I’m very concerned about the KJV-Onlyists who have been posting at the Baptist Board. If you have read their posts, then you probably share the same concern.

We can all cite multiple spelling and grammatical errors from all of the KJV-Onlyists. Why is this so? Why do they all have this in common?

It is of no surprise to me that the KJV-Onlyists seem uneducated. Look at the belief that they’re trying to defend! Look at they way they are trying to defend it!

End quote by Jason Gastrich.


Are we suppose to take this guy seriously ? What a cheap shot and a totally uncalled for paragraph. The more I read of this man, the more I can see a man that is full of himself. I am totally surprized no one else has commented on this, and I would urge everyone to read or reread Jasons round 7.
This is unnacceptable behaviour and in light of what the scriptures say about "mans knowledge" and "mans wisdom", Jason Gastrich needs his eyes opened.

 

.

Anyone who has read my posts knows that I do not put any mere man on the same level as the Holy Spirit and can tell the gist of what I'm saying is that it is quite possible that God could have used these men just as miraculously as he did the original authors. I remain open to this possibility because I have yet to see a clear error or contradiction in the KJV. There is nothing arrogant or illogical about this posture. It would be dangerously arrogant for me to pass judgement on it as erroneous without reasonable proof. I might be passing false judgement on the very words that will judge me (Matthew 7:1-2)! Thus, my posture is in fact humble and wise and indicative of the fear of God.

No man can prove the KJV is 100% God-inspired, however one error could easily disprove this theory. Show me a clear error such as the MV references to Isaiah in Mark 1:2. If you can, I for one will say, "Okay, I guess God in his infinite wisdom chose not to give us a perfect Bible in English." Meanwhile, our 21st-century opinions on what was or wasn't a synonym back then are really quite comical. It seems we can't even agree on what the word "synonym" means! I showed readers a marginal note by the translators. If that doesn't suggest the idea that they considered it a synonym, I don't know what would. And regarding word choices, we need to remember that those men lived and breathed fluent OT Hebrew and Koine Greek. One of them had read the entire Hebrew OT by age six, etc. Neither you nor I nor likely any scholar living today could touch the feet of these men with regard to their knowledge, especially considering that today the languages they translated are some 400 years older.

Seventeen rules governed the effort, necessary for order much like the rules of a debate. Perhaps the most controversial of these rules from today's standpoint was the third, which required "the old ecclesiastical words to be kept," such as "church" instead of "congregation." At first glance, this rule seems sectarian, but who are we to say that God did not ordain it or the other 16 rules? Moreover, it is not clear that they were not first suggested by the translators themselves. The 1557 Geneva Bible had mysteriously removed words such as "bishopricke" from Acts 1:20, for example. The word had been in English bibles since Wiclif's in 1380, but the Puritans saw fit to revise things. It is interesting to note the first rule of the translators, which instructed them to use the Bishop's Bible (1568) as a basis really fell flat. Only 4% of the KJV resembles the Bishop's, while it most resembles the Geneva. The Puritans of the Geneva were not on good terms with King James. In fact, the Puritan Cromwell was responsible for the death of James' son. The notion of King James' sectarianism was popularized by Alexander McClure in his 1858 work, "Translators Revived", from which can be seen a Puritan bias. Perhaps he was sectarian, perhaps not. But from a Biblical standpoint, these 17 rules (or political constraints if that's what you must see them as) placed the translators under the authority of a king, espousing the very Biblical concept of submission to a God-ordained monarch. Whether James himself was a man of God is irrelelvant. God called even Nebuchadnezzar his servant (Jeremiah 27:6). (By the way, I have never even seen a king, much less been commissioned by one to translate the very words of God. So much for my authority.) And yet it was the Puritans in the end whose version was most honored by the king's men. The way I see it: God really did ordain the KJV translation effort (or if you can't swallow that, I would not be so foolish as to declare it was not), therefore it was all under the authority of God anyway.

And as to whether or not God commissioned the translation in the first place, just look at the tremendous fruit the KJV has harvested. There is nothing ethnocentric in my stance just because I happen to speak English. And believe me, I understand ethnocentricity. I live in the US where we have something called the World Series in baseball, but how many nations do we ever invite to play? A tad arrogant we Americans are. Nonetheless, history shows that English-speaking people carrying the KJV have been extremely influential in spreading the gospel. German, the language of the Reformation, was another such language mightily used by God. Lo and behold, Martin Luther's translation into German was another great work translated from the same TR as the KJV. In fact, almost all translations before 1880 were TR-based. Had God planned to use the Chinese for worldwide evangelism, I suppose his first step would have been to give them a Bible translated from the correct manuscripts. Why did God originally pen the NT in Greek? I suggest one reason was because Greek was very well widespread at the time. Let us not forget that Jesus did not speak Greek, so the very words we honor as spoken by the Son of God were in fact a translation from Aramaic into Koine Greek. So, yes, perfect translations are possible; indeed, a most undeniable reality.

I suggest "Which Version Is The Bible?" by Floyd Nolen Jones, Th.D., Ph.D., an ordained Southern Baptist minister and former scientist, as a very thorough and straightforward work which very methodically lays out both sides of the issue. He also has the best Harmony of the Gospels I've ever seen as well as an excellent work on the Septuagint, all free downloads in .pdf format. Jones never even so much as passes the plate. You can find him on Amazon.com where others have published his works and are making a profit, but the free downloads are at:

http://floydjones.org/ebooks.html
http://floydjones.org/ebooks2.html

.

 

The reference in Mark 1:2 is directly related to how scrolls were identified. They were identified by the major prophet. That particular scroll that contained Malachi was identified by the major prophet of Isaiah.

I read the websites you gave and came to the conclusion that what he gave you was only a partial picture. It was not the whole picture.

The seminary I attended was involved in taking a look at the evidence. There were times when we disagreed with Aland, etc. We contacted them and at times changed their opinions. Textual criticism is not perfect. But in the past few years due to the new finds it has helped to improve that study. Even the KJV translators made choices too with what they had.

 

--------------------------------------------------
But, at some point, it seems we have to see a translation as scripture. While not evaluating his arguments themselves, to me, Will's most compelling point is to stress that the KJVO's, at least, have a book that they can point to as being God's Word, without qualifications.
--------------------------------------------------


Yes, and Baptists of the past also believed this, so this is not something foriegn, new, nor of false doctrine as many falsely claim:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would you care to quote from the pages below? I just visited all of them and none of them mention the KJV or its inerrancy.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pb.org/articles/mcfaith.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No mention of the KJV.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pb.org/articles/lcf1689.htm#Chapter%20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This page didn't even work.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ancbt.org/Beliefs/articles.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no mention of the KJV.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://carmichael/baptist.org/Articles%20of%20Faith/pcof1.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This page didn't even work.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nationalbaptist.com/images/documents/z6.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This page didn't even work.

Did you just copy and paste these pages from some web site? Half of them don't work and the others don't even mention the KJV.

Sincerely,
Jason
--------------------------------------------------


Jason, I guess you fail in your ability not only to rightly divide the word of truth as is evident in your debates with Will, but to comprehend things as well.


This was said:

--------------------------------------------------
But, at some point, it seems we have to see a translation as scripture
--------------------------------------------------


This is what I responded with:

--------------------------------------------------
Yes, and Baptists of the past also believed this, so this is not something foriegn, new, nor of false doctrine as many falsely claim:
--------------------------------------------------


Now Jason, using the brain that God gave you and that you have claimed you value so much, go back and read the links I have provided. Hint, try reading with comprehension and without the bias of your position. Your denial, or lack of comprehension abilities does not make your false accusations true. Baptists from generations past knew and believed the scriptures were infallible, and the very words of God. This belief that they are not, is only a modern belief, and FORIEGN to the beliefs and thoughts of generations of christians, even until this day.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Why were you soooo quick to ignore this:


--------------------------------------------------
Article One:Of The Scriptures
We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men supernaturally inspired;that it has truth without any admixture of error for its matter;and therefore is,and shall remain to the end of the age,the only complete and final revelation of the will of God to man; the true center of Christian union and the supreme standard by which all human conduct,creeds,and opinions should be tried.

--------------------------------------------------


Cannot have the final revelation of the will of God to man (this includes me, you and everyone else), nor the conduct, creeds, without the error free scriptures to which opinions should also be tried.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

michelle,

This is my last message to you. In my opinion, corresponding with you is a waste of time.

Three of your links didn't work. The other two didn't mention the KJV. Therefore, you have no case.

Good bye, michelle.

Jason

 

Such deceit Michelle. Clint has already called you on this once, and you do it again. You have pulled this quote out of context, that is, without finishing the defining sub-points. You are putting words into the authors mouth which he never intended to say. This is most deceitful of you. Here again is what he said:

Please note: "as originally written does not only contain and convey the Word of God, but IS the very Word of God.
"AS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN" That is a key phrase there. It has nothing to do with the KJV. Absolutely nothing.

Now look at #2, inspiration. "written by holy men of old..moved by the Holy Spirit..THEIR writings were supernaturally and verbally inspired and free from error as no other writings have ever been or ever will be inspired.

You have borne false witness to the link that you have provided. The author clearly says that only the original autographs are inspired and error free. No other writings well ever be inspired, and that includes the KJV.
DHK

 

--------------------------------------------------
Article One:Of The Scriptures
We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men supernaturally inspired;that it has truth without any admixture of error for its matter;and therefore is,and shall remain to the end of the age,the only complete and final revelation of the will of God to man; the true center of Christian union and the supreme standard by which all human conduct,creeds,and opinions should be tried.

--------------------------------------------------

I guess you also have the same problem Jason has - the inability to COMPREHEND.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

My point still stands: you disavowed the meaning of an english word in the KJV. The english meaning of the word is the same today as it was in 1611. If you truly believe that the KJV represents God's perfect word in the english language, you'll have to accept the english meaning of the word as it appears in the KJV. This is an either/or decision: either the english meaning of the word in the KJV is correct, or else it was an incorrect choice by the translators. You can't have it both ways.

 

He created me and you, didn’t He?

 

.

Thanks, gb, for not calling me arrogant and illogical. Here is the actual .pdf file I'm referring to:

http://floydjones.org/which.pdf

It is a 296-page document, so obviously it is only a partial picture. A full picture would take volumes, I suppose, but it is a very good start, not full of the typical ad hominems and a priori conclusions which plague this subject, and certainly a fuller picture than I can present in a forum such as this. He covers every angle as you can imagine a former scientist would. Please re-read it. It will take a few hours, but it will be worth it.

His explanaton of Mark 1:2 starts on page 28 (page 44 of the .pdf file) and he shows how the addition of the word Isaiah served Origen's gnostic agenda whereby he wished to dispell any notion that Jesus was God come in the flesh. The addition of Isaiah's name is much more sinister that it appears on the surface. We all need to look at this one very carefully.

.

 

Somehow you just don't get it. The Bible is not the KJV but rather the original texts of the Bible. The KJV is simply a translation of one among others.

Sometime ask your Spanish speaking friends how they would tranlsate Como estas and Como esta. In English they are translated exactly the same but they do not have the same meaning.

Another example is there are several words in Greek that are translated with one English word--love. Each of those Greek words have different meanings with some overlapping meanings.

 

.

Yes, I realize Mark 1:3 continues to quote from Isaiah 40:3. So, in fact, two prophets are quoted: Malachi and Isaiah. This is why the KJV makes more sense: "As it is written in the prophets (plural)..." Origen's addition of "Isaiah" (not to mention changing "prophets" to the singular) introduces an error, and a particularly diabolical one at that (see my previous post of a few minutes ago).

Thanks, Clint, for finding that one for me, a very common KJV objection. I was going to comment on it in my original post, but couldn't find it in my trusty KJV.

A typical KJV "defense" is that it is referring to "the book of the Prophets," of which Jeremiah was the first, so Zechariah 11:12-13 was included. Perhaps, but that doesn't do very much for my conclusion that Malachi should not be included in Isaiah, does it? Hmmm, a puzzling riddle, isn't it?

In reality, the answer is so simple that I'm surprised so many people (even KJV-defenders) miss it. The key is that the words were first "spoken" by Jeremiah, but not necessarily "written" by him. Zechariah may have been quoting Jeremiah (either an oral tradition or a manuscript now lost) some 100 years later, God then confirming the prophecy to Zechariah with fresh revelation.

I don't have many modern versions lying around, but I am wondering if any of them have had the audacity to change "Jeremy" to "Zechariah". If so, what manuscript(s) were they using? - certainly not the time-honored Textus Receptus.

Yes, I was shocked myself. I got it from Floyd Nolen Jones' "Which Version is the Bible?" under his section "A Brief History of the King James Bible", but he cites McClure. Again, the free download is at:

http://floydjones.org/which.pdf

Right-click and "Save target as ..." because it is a sizable download.

.

 

.

GB, It is interesting that you are bringing this up, because I (a KJV boy) was going to share the same thing.

Quite often, when translating from one language to another, you get two or more for one. For example, the English word you can be translated into Spanish as either tu, usted, or ustedes. Context forces the most logical choice.

I mentioned this in an earlier post, but similarly the Greek word pascha was tranlated in the KJV as both Easter and passover. The context of Acts 12:4 forced Easter whereas the remaining contexts forced passover.

.

 

Michelle's continued ommission to the above:
inspired perfectly and without error only in the originals
Why do continue to bear false witness?
It seems that you have an inability to comprehend because you are stuck in a rut of KJV onlyism and cannot think beyond that rut.
DHK

 

Another common criticism of the King James Bible bites the dust.


The alleged error.

A professed Christian posts this alleged error over at the Baptist Board.


Hebrews 6 - Verse 6. If they shall fall away

"And having fallen away". I can express my own mind on this translation nearly in the words of Dr. Macknight: "The participles , who were enlightened, , have tasted, and , were made partakers, being aorists, are properly rendered by our translators in the past time; wherefore, [Greek omitted], being an aorist, ought likewise to have been translated in the past time, "HAVE fallen away". Nevertheless, our translators, following Beza, who without any authority from ancient MSS. has inserted in his version the word si, if, have rendered this clause, IF they fall away, that this text might not appear to contradict the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. But as no translator should take upon him to add to or alter the Scriptures, for the sake of any favourite doctrine, I have translated [Greek omitted] in the past time, have fallen away, according to the true import of the word, as standing in connection with the other aorists in the preceding verses."

First of all, the allegation that the KJB translators got their translation of "IF they shall fall away" from Beza's Greek text, without any authority from ancient manuscripts, is pure baloney. This "scholar" has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. ALL the Greek texts read the same in this passage. It is not a question of which text is followed, as he erroneously claims, but rather of how to translate it.

Secondly, the man has only voiced his own peculiar opinion as to how the aorist should be translated. ALL major versions I am aware of frequently translate the aorist tense just as it is found in the King James Bible. Many others of equal or superior education would disagree with this man about what "the true import of the word" really is. This Bible corrector is just another puffed up, self-appointed critic who has no Bible anywhere on this earth that he considers to be the inerrant word of God.


The Conditional Participle

It is amusing to see how every man thinks he is an expert in Greek when it comes to criticizing the King James Bible. Anytime someone says: "All scholars agree that...." you should immediately know that the guy has no idea what he is talking about. All scholars do not agree on anything, and to say they do, is to be ignorant of the facts.

Participles in Greek are TIMELESS; that is, they can bear any relationship to time, including present, past, future or habitual. In his lengthy discussion of the Greek participle found in A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, A.T. Robertson says on page 1111: "The participle was TIMELESS." He then lists several examples of both present and aorist participles, showing how the sense of time is nowhere implied in either. He then says: "the aorist tense does not mean past or future time."

Mr. Robertson also shows the disagreements that exit among the "scholars". He says: "Goodwin holds that the aorist participle generally represents the action as antecedent to the principal verb. So Blass denies that the aorist tense implies antecedent action."

Here you have two "experts" who both radically disagree with each other.

Dr. Robertson says on page 1113: "One has no ground for assuming that antecedent action is necessary or an actual fact with the aorist participle."

Some of the "if" clauses in the King James Bible.

On page 1129 Dr. Robertson takes up the subject of the Conditional Participle. He notes that the conditional participle disappeared in the later Greek, but "It is still a common idiom in the New Testament." He then lists several examples of its use, including Luke 9:25, Romans 2:27; Galatians 6:9, 1 Timothy 4:4, and Hebrews 2:3.

A conditional participle is a verb form that "literally" does not contain the little word "if" but it can be implied or assumed by the immediate context. Most Bible versions, including the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, and Holman Standard all do this very thing, just as the King James Bible and earlier English versions.


One of the classic examples Dr. Robertson lists is that found by comparing Matthew 16:26 with Luke 9:25. In Matthew we read: "For what is a man profited, IF he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?". In this verse the little word "if" (or 'ean' in Greek) is present in the construction. However in the parallel verse in Luke 9:25 we find an aorist participle WITHOUT the little word "if".


Most Bible versions still correctly translate Luke 9:25 as "IF he shall gain the whole world". These include: the Geneva Bible, King James Bible, Revised Version, American Standard Version, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV and Holman versions.

Other Conditional Participles as found in the King James Bible and other translations.

The one found in Hebrew 6:6 is the one criticized by our Bible "expert with no Bible". Let's see what other Bible translators have done with this passage. In the KJB we read: "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened...IF THEY SHALL FALL AWAY, to renew them again unto repentance."

Bible versions that render Hebrews 6:6 as "IF they shall fall away" are: Coverdale 1535, Geneva 1599, Webster's 1833, KJB, RSV 1952, the 2003 ESV (English Standard Version), Third Millenium Bible, New Life Bible, The Message, NKJV 1982 and the 1984 NIV.

NIV - "IF they fall away"

The NASB is one of the versions that does not include the word "if" in this particular passage, but as we shall see, the NASB does include it in many other verses that have the same Greek construction. Here the NASB reads: "and THEN have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame." However it should be noted, there is no literal word for "then" either.

The Holman reads: "and who have fallen away, because, to their own harm, they are recrucifying the Son of God and holding Him up to contempt." Here is should be noted that there is no Greek text anywhere that reads "because, to their own harm" as the Holman has it.

Other Examples of the Conditional Participle

The following list of verses are other examples of where there "literally" is no Greek word for "IF", but it is rightly included in the English translation, being a Greek idiom that is expressed in English as "IF....".

Acts 15:29 "...that ye abstain from...fornication: from which IF ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well."

So read: KJB, NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, RV, ASV, NRSV, ESV, Bible in Basic English, World English Bible, 1998 Complete Jewish Bible, and Holman Standard.

Romans 2:27 "And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, IF it fulfill the law, judge thee..?"

So read: Tyndale, Geneva, RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, TMB, Weymouth, Webster, Douay-Rheims, and the Hebrew Names Version. The NIV says: "AND YET obeys", but again there are no Greek words for "and yet".

Romans 4:24 "But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, IF we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead."

So read: Coverdale 1535, Wesley 1755, Webster 1833, King James Bible, Bible in Basic English 1960, Douay-Rheims, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Galatians 6:9 "And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, IF we faint not."

So read: The RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, and Holman, to name a few.

1 Timothy 4:4 "For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, IF it be received with thanksgiving."

So read: The RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, NIV, and Holman, to name a few.

Hebrews 2:3 "How shall we escape, IF we neglect so great salvation"

So read: The RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV, and Holman, and many others.

Hebrews 10:26 "For IF we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins."

So read: The RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, and Holman among many others.

2 Peter 1:8 "For IF these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ."

So read: The RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, and Holman plus many others.

2 Peter 1:10 "...for IF ye do these things, ye shall never fall."

So read: The RV, ASV, NIV, NKJV, ESV, RSV, and the Holman Standard among many others.

The NASB has: " for AS LONG AS you practice these things, you will never stumble", yet there are no "literal" words for "as long as" either.

These are all examples of the use of the Conditional Participle in the various Bible versions. The person who initially brought up this alleged error in the King James Bible has openly admitted that he does not believe any Bible version or any single Hebrew or Greek text is the inspired, complete, inerrant word of God.

It is truly pathetic to see a man like this who admits he has no inspired Bible, who then turns around to criticize the King James Bible out of his own ignorance. This man is so perverse in his blindness to the truth, that when I show him things like this about how the grammar works or the meaning of Greek and Hebrew words, if he personally does not like how it is rendered in the King James Bible, and no matter how many other translators have rendered the passage in the same way, he will insist that he is right and everybody else is wrong.

I believe God has given him over to a reprobate mind, as far as the Bible version issue is concerned.

We who believe God has been faithful to keep His promises to preserve His inerrant words rejoice at having them in our beloved King James Holy Bible. As our blessed Lord said so many times: "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

Will Kinney