Does KJV-only teaching affect or harm Bible doctrine of Sanctification?

[HeirofSalvation]

Actually KJV-only advocates are not completely logically consistent within the scope of their incorrect KJV-only system.

Neither are Calvinists or even Arminians or Pre-millennials, Post-millenialls, Annihilationsists, Cessationists or any other Theological group as far as the demands you are going to place on them...namely, that they all have precisely the same identical views on EVERY nuance. Here's what you'll demand of them, which you will demand of no one else:

They are many times when what one KJV-only author asserts conflicts with or even contradicts what another KJV-only author states.

True of EVERY Theological view ever. Should they be clones? Constantly parrotting every single statement another makes?
You'd then accuse them of being parrots. They can't win with you no matter what they say.
If one of them argued that 2+2=4 You'd take exception with that person because another KJVO disagreed.

KJV-only advocates do not apply their own assertions consistently and justly to the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision.

Welcome them to the club of all imperfect groups composed of imperfect people.
No other group does either.
Some of them are smarter than others.
Some of them are more knowledgeable than others.
Some of them disagree with their own compatriots on numerous issues.

Please answer this question:
Do you have any idea how many KJVO advocates LOATHE Peter Ruckman with every fiber of their being?
As in, they'd probably think he's a Satanic plant whose sole purpose is to do damage to their view, like an antifa member going to a Trump rally to pretend to be a racist.

For example, many KJV-only advocates will praise the Geneva Bible and place it in their pure stream of Bibles while they inconsistently condemn the NKJV which has many if not all the improvements that the KJV made to the Geneva Bible and which also has many of the renderings where the Geneva Bible is better or more accurate than the KJV.

Sure, fair....
But the demands you are placing on them are not fair.
What I mean is, any individual KJVO must be logically constistent within their own given set of propositions. if one doesn't (by the way, not all KJVO's even care about the 'pure stream of Bibles' argument). I was one for years who knew the "purified seven times" theory was stupid. You want them all to agree with each other on EVERY minor point, and criticize them for not doing so.
That's a double-standard on an epic level.

They are also not logically consistent when they avoid the fact that the Church of England makers borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament,

Not if they happen to think that the Rheims was correct on one particular reading.....or, if, perhaps they simply agree with a particular rendering independent of whether they actually consulted the Rheims or not.

I do know this:
If the KJV happens to agree with the Rheims on one (usually Theologically irrelevant) passage even over against Geneva or something else....You automatically conclude that they "borrowed" from the Rheims with no evidence they even consulted it at all.[/QUOTE]

 

[HeirofSalvation]

By implication of my post. Their position is yes which is just plain silly

again, Japanese, Rotooru and speakers of other languages must learn English before they can progress in sanctification

No, many of them don't believe that.
You wouldn't know it if you only listened to Logos here:
But many KJVO's restrict their view to English speakers ONLY.

Therefore, that criticism doesn't apply to many of them

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Readers have seen how you have a lot of respect for KJV-only advocates and their false teaching since you repeatedly seek to defend them.

And they will soon see the double-standards and unjust weights and measures you use when criticizing them.

Perhaps you have not completely departed from all the KJV-only teaching that you were taught.

Perhaps I don't always throw out the baby with the bath-water.
Black and white thinkers (like KJVOs and perhaps yourself?) tend to do so.
Perhaps I can sometimes see the good tendencies that are prevalent in a group that I can Theologically disagree with.
I disagree with Calvinists (for instance) on basically everything, but I recognize that there are inherent strengths to many of the results of their points of emphasis and teachings.

No matter how sincere and passionate that they are in believing claims for the KJV that are not true, it is not an excuse or justification for their KJV-onlyism.

This is not remotely within the scope of your O.P. but, yeah....o.k.

The majority of their modern KJV-only teaching is false teaching that is not taught in the Scriptures.

We all know (except for like the maybe two remaining KJVOs left on this site). Yay for you for fighting that epically meaningful fight.

They read into verses many things (that the verses do not state) to try to support their non-scriptural KJV-only teaching.

Yes, everyone does.
That includes me, that includes you.
That includes all imperfect persons.
So what?
Also, "THEY" are not a monolith which always agrees with one another on every (or even many points of doctrine).
You paint them (with an unjust weight) as though they are, and as though it is unique to them over and against any other Theological group:
That's a double-standard and an unjust measure and you live your life applying it to, and only to, KJVOs.
Why?

 

[Marooncat79]

No, many of them don't believe that.
You wouldn't know it if you only listened to Logos here:
But many KJVO's restrict their view to English speakers ONLY.

Therefore, that criticism doesn't apply to many of them

how not?

if only the KJV is properly inspired, nothing else matters

 

[HeirofSalvation]

how not?

if only the KJV is properly inspired, nothing else matters

Because many KJVO's don't believe it's inspired.
You wouldn't know that if you're a sychophant of Logos, (because he is either ignorant of, or isn't honest about, what many of them actually believe) Many of them simply would assert something like:
"For the English speaking people, there is no other translation they should use than the KJV, and furthermore, modern English translations are created from an unreliable set of source manuscripts tainted by a liberal view Biblical preservation and foisted upon us without justicication."

Therefore, For English speakers: We should use no other version than the King James because the others are either seriously tainted or flawed.
You wouldn't know that if you only hear from Logos....because he pretends as though all of them believe precisely the same thing.
Therefore, it is only a certain Form of KJV-onlyism that he should object to, (and many KJVOs would agree with him on that) or he is being dishonest about what many KJVO's actually believe....Or he's actually remarkably ignorant of the topic (which is sorta' hard to imagine).

He paints all of them with a broad brush, puts them all into the same category, and pretends as though they are all Ruckmanites.

He has spent the last few decades of his existence using dishonest weights and measures against a rather small, and somewhat harmless and insignifigant sub-group of Evangelicals.
It's pathetic.

It is the same as if I were to debate all Calvinists and not distinguishing say: Supra-lapsarians or Infra-lapsarians [an important distinction] ) and paint them all with the same brush as though they were all Hyper-Calvinists who were against missions.

That is his M.O.
He has never distinguished between them, or at least, avoids doing so at all costs. That is either incredibly uninformed for a guy who wrote a book on the topic, or it is dishonest.

 

[Logos1560]

...You automatically conclude that they "borrowed" from the Rheims with no evidence they even consulted it at all.

There is firsthand evidence that the KJV translators consulted the 1582 Rheims from one [John Bois] of the KJV translators themselves. John Bois left notes from his work on the KJV where he acknowledged use of the 1582 Rheims.

It is also known that most of the KJV translators had copies of the William Fulke's book that printed an edition of the 1582 Rheims NT side by side with the NT of an edition of the BIshops' Bible. James Carleton's 1902 book entitled The Part of the Rheims in the Making of the English Bible also documents the KJV's borrowing many renderings from the 1582 Rheims. I have also personally checked the evidence for myself. I conclude based on consideration of verifiable facts and sound evidence.

You make an incorrect accusation against me with no evidence for it.

 

[Logos1560]

And they will soon see the double-standards and unjust weights and measures you use when criticizing them.

You prove no use of double standards and unjust weights and measures on my part. You are merely objecting to the very same measures and weights being applied to KJV-only claims and accusations that KJV-only advocates themselves use in their writings. I have read around 200 books by KJV-only authors so I know firsthand what they claim and assert. I also worked with a couple KJV-only pastors and know firsthand what they teach.

You are in effect showing and affirming that KJV-only advocates are guilty of the use of double standards.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Hmm. What was the first truth that was necessary to you to no longer being KJO? And what were the steps from there to you no longer being a KJO?

I began studying Hebrew, then Greek.
I have an imperfect but passable knowledge of both languages.
I realized that the KJV might have made much "better" translations of many words (not "incorrect" per se) And that's important.
But, "better" and more clear translations of any given statement. Some English translations did a better job....at certain points.

That meant that the KJV wasn't "perfect".
It had flaws.

It still does.

Guess what, EVERY translation had (and still has flaws).
As a rule, though, I still think the King James stands without peer as one of the most precise, perfect and beautiful translations ever made.

 

[Logos1560]

..because he pretends as though all of them believe precisely the same thing.
.

Your accusation is false, and it bears false witness. I do not pretend that all KJV-only advocates believe and make all the exact same claims.

The very reason that I quote and cite the statements of several different KJV-only advocates is so that I can permit them to speak for themselves and to prove that I do not at all misrepresent them.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

There is firsthand evidence that the KJV translators consulted the 1582 Rheims from one [John Bois] of the KJV translators themselves. John Bois left notes from his work on the KJV where he acknowledged use of the 1582 Rheims

.
Yay.....so, you've now proven the thoroughness of the KJV translators, (and also their open-mindedness) in accepting the research of catholic counter-parts in getting their translations correct.

By all means, keep talking.

It is also known that most of the KJV translators had copies of the William Fulke's book that printed an edition of the 1582 Rheims NT side by side with the NT of an edition of the BIshops' Bible. James Carleton's 1902 book entitled The Part of the Rheims in the Making of the English Bible also documents the KJV's borrowing many renderings from the 1582 Rheims. I have also personally checked the evidence for myself. I conclude based on consideration of verifiable facts and sound evidence.

So, then, the KJV translators were sufficiently open-minded as to accept, appreciate and consult the scholarship of Roman Catholics, non-Anglicans, and others in order to get their translation correct. That sounds to me like some scholars who are open-minded to every possible source.

Score 1 for the KJV!
You, however, also tend to argue that the KJV was a one-sided Anglican-only, anti-Catholic-only translation which intentionally erred on behalf of one side vs. another.

Thank you for immediately and obviously walking into my trap.
You've now proven it isn't.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I do not pretend that all KJV-only advocates believe and make all the exact same claims.

Oh, absolutely you do.
You always have.
I do not back off from this claim.
You do EXACTLY that, almost as your sole source of argumentation.

YOU ARE DEFINED by exactly that.

If you didn't, you would not quote William P. Grady and Peter Ruckman in the same light.
They disagree.

I know it, you presumably know it,

 

[Logos1560]

.
So, then, the KJV translators were sufficiently open-minded as to accept, appreciate and consult the scholarship of Roman Catholics, non-Anglicans, and others in order to get their translation correct. That sounds to me like some scholars who are open-minded to every possible source.

The KJV translators were not open-minded to every possible source. Which Separatists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, etc. did the KJV translators consult concerning their translation decisions?

All the makers of the KJV were members of the Church of England, and they were required to accept its doctrines. Many of the KJV translators were directly involved in persecuting believers who disagreed with Church of England doctrines. They clearly did not consult the believers that they were persecuting in order to get their translation correct.

Their translating was biased towards Church of England doctrinal views and toward the divine-right-of-kings view of King James I. Church of England doctrinal views are closer to those of Roman Catholicism than it is to the doctrinal views of Baptists. The Church of England kept or accepted the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration from the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Logos1560]

Oh, absolutely you do.
You always have.
I do not back off from this claim.

You can stand behind your false claim, but it remains not true. You fail to prove your accusation to be true.

 

[Logos1560]

.
But the demands you are placing on them are not fair.

You fail to demonstrate your assertion to be true.

Challenging them to prove what they claim to be true and scriptural to be actually true and scriptural is fair.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

The KJV translators were not open-minded to every possible source. Which Separatists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, etc. did the KJV translators consult concerning their translation decisions?

All the makers of the KJV were members of the Church of England, and they were required to accept its doctrines. Many of the KJV translators were directly involved in persecuting believers who disagreed with Church of England doctrines. They clearly did not consult the believers that they were persecuting in order to get their translation correct.

Their translating was biased towards Church of England doctrinal views and toward the divine-right-of-kings view of King James I. Church of England doctrinal views are closer to those of Roman Catholicism than it is to the doctrinal views of Baptists.

I'm going to let you simply talk for yourself here:

Anyone who looks at this objectively:
Do you see in Logos a man without an angry axe to grind against the KJV?

Or, do you see a man who is truly deeply interested in English translations of Scripture, textual criticism, and insisting on providing to every English speaker a most utililitarian and accurate translation of Scripture in their target language.

Here, we see the obvious rage, bias, and loathing of the most respected translations of Scripture in the English language ever provided. And we must ask ourselves: Why does he hate this so much?

From whence comes this loathing?

On the one hand......he has said (in this thread) that he's used the KJV and studied it for 50 years...
On the other hand.....he has now said (in this thread) that it's an incurably biased translation which intentionally errs to promote one Theology over another.

He's also inexplicably given us evidence of the open-mindedness of the translators (because he thought it would serve his purposes).

I have a question for you....
Why he H******.....do you use and study for 50 years a translation you despise so much?

I wouldn't.
I know that some translations suck.
I, therefore, neither use them, nor study them...
But, you continually point out flaws in the KJV (real or imagined) and then claim to "study" it...
Why?
If it sucks, don't use it.

I'm going to expose you line by line.....quote by quote.
Keep talking.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You can stand behind your false claim, but it remains not true. You fail to prove your accusation to be true.

I'm not going to try to prove it.
I'm going to let you talk.
You'll prove it.

 

[Logos1560]

Anyone who looks at this objectively:
Do you see in Logos a man without an angry axe to grind against the KJV?

You demonstrate that you are not being objective.
You seem to be angry at me and have an axe to grind at my stand for the truth and stand against false teaching. Perhaps you are also angry that your seeming efforts to try to silence me or to try to get me to stop posting the truth concerning KJV-onlyism have failed.

I have no ax to grind against the KJV. I love the KJV and have read it over 50 years. I advocate presenting the truth concerning the KJV. My view of Bible translations is actually the same basic view as that advocated by the KJV translators themselves in the preface to the 1611.

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.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I'm not at all objective....
I seek to expose you.
I've made that very clear.
There is nothing "objective" about my intent here.
Thank you for recognizing the obvious point.

You seem to be angry at me

I'm not angry at you, I don't know you.

and have an axe to grind

I have an obvious axe to grind...and I'm obviously grinding it.
I admit it.
You do as well, and you refuse to admit it.
I will expose you as a man with an axe to grind as well.

at my stand for the truth and stand against false teaching.

No, it's not your "stand for truth"...it's that you have an "axe to grind".
I will expose that...that's my axe.
Everyone will be exposed to your axe as well.

Perhaps you are also angry that your seeming efforts to try to silence me

I don't want you silenced...
I just said (twice) "Keep talking"...
I think you'll hang yourself from your own rope....
I've made that clear, the readers can see that.
The readers also see you getting desperate.

I have no ax to grind against the KJV.

And yet, you have spent thousands of hours pointing out what you think to be its bias, it's flaws, it's borrowing from heretical sects, and therefore general untrustworthy-ness.

I love the KJV and have read it over 50 years.

Then you are an idiot.
Because you have studied for 50 years a translation you have such little respect for, consider to be biased on an epic scale, and get so much wrong. You have spent decades telling us how flawed and it is, how, Theologically biased it is, and how much it gets wrong.

You CANNOT have it both ways.

Can I suggest to you stop studying the KJV and that you study the ESV?
It's a pretty DARN good translation which I have few qualms with.

I advocate presenting the truth concerning the KJV.

Which you consider to be a flawed intentionally Theologically biased and overly-Catholic influenced translation..........
But, you simultaneously claim that you have spent 50 years studying it....

O.K.

I'm dumb...
But, I'm not stupid.

Study the ESV then, and stop studying the KJV.
No one is sufficiently interested in either your life or mine that they care which one you study.


I don't want you silenced...
I want you to continue making illogical statements and expose the poverty of everything you have to say.

Don't be silent.....please, keep talking.
Here's a shovel....dig baby, dig.

 

[37818]

@HeirofSalvation,
I am not a KJVO, but I have long been a KJV advocate. I like in general what both you and @Logos1560 have to say. So I am not going to try to understand both your disagreements. This is merely an FYI.

What I am interested in hearing from you is your thoughts on what you think are some good ways to help KJVOists change their views.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I am not a KJVO, but I have long been a KJV advocate. I like in general what both you and @Logos1560 have to say. So I am not going to try to understand both your disagreements. This is merely an FYI.

Unfortunately, you won't get a sort of "peaceably agreed" suggestion agreed upon by myself and Logos.
I do think (provided that it's somewhat archaic verbiage isn't a distraction) that the KJV is the best translation overall.

I think it's best to train children to use it.
In that way the language is hardly foreign to them.

I also don't advocate a Church using numerous translations regularly because memorization becomes more difficult.
Scripture memorization is paramount for the little ones, so, I prefer that the congregation be united (generally on which translation they used).

In, say, 50 years, if the ESV for instance, became so regular that it was almost the "default"....then, I would encourage churches to use it.
It's a REALLY good translation.
I doubt it will ever get that status though.
As it stands, everyone still tends to only know KJV.

What I am interested in hearing from you is you thoughts on what you think are some good ways to help KJVOists change their views.

Target them individually.
IMO, Logos presents them as being monolithic in thinking.
They aren't.
They are no more or less "swayable" (that's probably not a word) in their thinking as any other group.

The argument is both a Theological one, and a textual-criticism one.
As long as you don't insist that they use something else, you can easily reach them...
I can give you more info later.