How to answer this KJV Only?

[evangelist6589]

On a site and debating this female. How should I answer her?

Well Paul didn't speak english did he? He had the original Greek and Hebrew... The KJV is the best english version we have - it came from the modern english translations leading up to the it. And they were all translated from various editions of what we call today the Greek Textus Receptus. Yes, changes have been made to the 1611 version since, but only minor mistakes like spelling and grammar. The doctrine remains the same as the original 1611 version. You can compare them side by side and see for yourself.

Modern Bible versions are translated from a completely different source. They are based on corrupt manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, as well as Egyptian papyri discoveries... Is it really a surprise that Egypt is the source of the corruption providing us with the modern perversions like the NIV, ESV, NLT and others???

The Bibles leading up to the KJV were all translated from the Textus Receptus (the correct Greek) and are consistent with the KJV. But the more modern versions are dramatically different. So if you accept the modern bible versions as accurate, you are not only rejecting the KJV, you are also rejecting every english bible that came before it! So according to the modern perversions of God's Holy word, every english translation before the 20th Century has been wrong???

The KJV is the culmination of the english Bibles that led up to it. It is the work of almost 100 years of scholarship that gave us our english bible! That is why the earlier translations eventually went out of print, and the KJV became the standard English bible used by virtually all Christians until recently. People recognized that the KJV was the FINAL DRAFT of the english bible, so it replaced all of the rough drafts that led up to it. The bibles before the KJV were all GOOD bibles, and the KJV couldn't be the beautiful and perfectly translated bible that it is without those wonderful rough drafts.

 

[Rob_BW]

Lol, the final draft, huh?

Languages either change, or die. They can never truly stay static.

 

[evangelist6589]

Lol, the final draft, huh?

Languages either change, or die. They can never truly stay static.

KJVO are content in ignorance. I said I will address her arguments once I get to my computer and she says she is not interested.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Arguing with a KJV-onlyist? Good luck.

Logic and reason will mean nothing to her.

You might have her read From he Translators to the Reader and she'll see that they didn't think they were making the one and only ultimate English translation. She'll also see that they said that even the meanest translation contains the word of God.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

[TCassidy]

The KJV is the best english version we have

A completely subjective opinion not based on any empirical evidence.

it came from the modern english translations leading up to the it.

Yes, it did, as all English translations have. The KJV is a revision of the Bishops' Bible, which was the second "Authorized Version" which was a revision of the "Great Bible" which was the first "Authorized Version."

And they were all translated from various editions of what we call today the Greek Textus Receptus.

Correct.

Yes, changes have been made to the 1611 version since, but only minor mistakes like spelling and grammar.

There are around 300 changes of substance which change the meaning of the text between the 1611 edition and the 1769 edition which is most commonly used today by those who prefer the KJV. However, none of those changes affect any Christian doctrine.

The doctrine remains the same as the original 1611 version.

Correct.

Modern Bible versions are translated from a completely different source.

Correct, for the most part. There are several good English bibles translated from the same or similar texts. The NKJV is based on the TR while the WEB version and the EMTV are based on the Byzantine/Majority textform, of which the TR is a flawed representative.

They are based on corrupt manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, as well as Egyptian papyri discoveries.

The majority of modern English translations are based on the Alexandrian textform which largely agrees with both Aleph and B. However, "corrupt" is not a word I would call the bible in any form.

Is it really a surprise that Egypt is the source of the corruption providing us with the modern perversions like the NIV, ESV, NLT and others?

Meaningless fallacy of guilt by association. Remember, the bible tells us that God called His Son out of Egypt, so, obviously some Good things come out of Egypt.

The Bibles leading up to the KJV were all translated from the Textus Receptus (the correct Greek)

They were, but the opinion that the TR is the "correct Greek" is an unsupported assertion without empirical evidence.

and are consistent with the KJV.

Correct, with the exception of Wycliff's translation of 1382 which was translated from the Latin Vulgate.

But the more modern versions are dramatically different.

Different, but hardly dramatic. In fact the same thing said, above, of the KJV changes not affecting any doctrine, is also true of the modern translations.

So if you accept the modern bible versions as accurate, you are not only rejecting the KJV, you are also rejecting every english bible that came before it!

Nonsense. If that is true then the KJV rejects every English Bible that came before it.

So according to the modern perversions of God's Holy word, every english translation before the 20th Century has been wrong???

God's word is not perverse. It is the inspired, infallible word of God. And God's word is never wrong. What is wrong is our failure to study it, and understand it.

The KJV is the culmination of the english Bibles that led up to it.

Just as the modern versions are the culmination of the English Bibles that led up to them.

It is the work of almost 100 years of scholarship that gave us our english bible!

As are the modern versions.

That is why the earlier translations eventually went out of print, and the KJV became the standard English bible used by virtually all Christians until recently. P

Well, that and the English government outlawed the other versions.

People recognized that the KJV was the FINAL DRAFT of the english bible, so it replaced all of the rough drafts that led up to it.

Nonsense.

The bibles before the KJV were all GOOD bibles, and the KJV couldn't be the beautiful and perfectly translated bible that it is without those wonderful rough drafts.

Correct, but there was nothing "rough" about those early bibles. They were masterful translations well suited for their time. Just as the KJV was well suited for its time. But times change, and so does language. So the more contemporary translation such as the NKJV, WEB, and EMTV are more suited to the early 21st century reader.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Arguing with a KJV-onlyist? Good luck.

Logic and reason will mean nothing to her.

You might have her read From he Translators to the Reader and she'll see that they didn't think they were making the one and only ultimate English translation. She'll also see that they said that even the meanest translation contains the word of God.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

I dunno about that first line. I was staunchly KJVO at one time. It's way down my list now.

--NIV
--NASB
--ESV
--YLT

These are my favs. Not in any particular order.

 

[evangelist6589]

A completely subjective opinion not based on any empirical evidence.

Yes, it did, as all English translations have. The KJV is a revision of the Bishops' Bible, which was the second "Authorized Version" which was a revision of the "Great Bible" which was the first "Authorized Version."

Correct.

There are around 300 changes of substance which change the meaning of the text between the 1611 edition and the 1769 edition which is most commonly used today by those who prefer the KJV. However, none of those changes affect any Christian doctrine.

Correct.

Correct, for the most part. There are several good English bibles translated from the same or similar texts. The NKJV is based on the TR while the WEB version and the EMTV are based on the Byzantine/Majority textform, of which the TR is a flawed representative.

The majority of modern English translations are based on the Alexandrian textform which largely agrees with both Aleph and B. However, "corrupt" is not a word I would call the bible in any form.

Meaningless fallacy of guilt by association. Remember, the bible tells us that God called His Son out of Egypt, so, obviously some Good things come out of Egypt.

They were, but the opinion that the TR is the "correct Greek" is an unsupported assertion without empirical evidence.

Correct, with the exception of Wycliff's translation of 1382 which was translated from the Latin Vulgate.

Different, but hardly dramatic. In fact the same thing said, above, of the KJV changes not affecting any doctrine, is also true of the modern translations.

Nonsense. If that is true then the KJV rejects every English Bible that came before it.

God's word is not perverse. It is the inspired, infallible word of God. And God's word is never wrong. What is wrong is our failure to study it, and understand it.

Just as the modern versions are the culmination of the English Bibles that led up to them.

As are the modern versions.

Well, that and the English government outlawed the other versions.

Nonsense.

Correct, but there was nothing "rough" about those early bibles. They were masterful translations well suited for their time. Just as the KJV was well suited for its time. But times change, and so does language. So the more contemporary translation such as the NKJV, WEB, and EMTV are more suited to the early 21st century reader.

My my.. you know your stuff. Well she backed out.

 

[evangelist6589]

I dunno about that first line. I was staunchly KJVO at one time. It's way down my list now.

--NIV
--NASB
--ESV
--YLT

These are my favs. Not in any particular order.

I like this post.

 

[annsni]

One thing that I have to laugh at is the whole Egypt thing. "Nothing good ever came out of Egypt" - yet God chose to use Egypt to preserve the true Word (Matthew 2:13) so why not the written word as well?

 

[Jkdbuck76]

I dunno about that first line. I was staunchly KJVO at one time. It's way down my list now.

--NIV
--NASB
--ESV
--YLT

These are my favs. Not in any particular order.

Same here. I was KJV-ONLY and that was part of the reason I left a local church. When I stopped being KJV-ONLY, I knew I had to leave....that and becoming a lot more Calvinistic. But I digress.

I'm particular to the NASB. I really like it.

People who are KJV-ONLY are an interesting bunch, or at least can be. The only thing you can do is to ask questions and throw out some logic and reason. Try to get them to engage their brains and do that difficult and scary task called THINKING.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

[SovereignGrace]

Same here. I was KJV-ONLY and that was part of the reason I left a local church. When I stopped being KJV-ONLY, I knew I had to leave....that and becoming a lot more Calvinistic. But I digress.

I'm particular to the NASB. I really like it.

People who are KJV-ONLY are an interesting bunch, or at least can be. The only thing you can do is to ask questions and throw out some logic and reason. Try to get them to engage their brains and do that difficult and scary task called THINKING.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

They don't think. They're brainwashed.

 

[JonC]

I am really not sure how to answer those KJV only folks….but I think that you should probably start with “thou” followed by a quick, sharp (but not too harsh) "shalt".

 

[StefanM]

One thing that I have to laugh at is the whole Egypt thing. "Nothing good ever came out of Egypt" - yet God chose to use Egypt to preserve the true Word (Matthew 2:13) so why not the written word as well?

Nazareth had a similar reputation, or so I hear.

 

[Rippon]

TC, I agree with most of your last post. However, there were two so-called Wycliffe versions.
Both were translated from the Vulgate. The first was ultra literal and the second, which is the one more commonly cited, was more idiomatic.

 

[Baptist Brother]

Modern Bible versions are translated from a completely different source. They are based on corrupt manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, as well as Egyptian papyri discoveries.

How you answer the lady is, "Yes, ma'am, you have a point. Modern translations make use of textual variations ignored or rejected by the Church for most of the Church's history. Further, modern versions take translation liberties that the Church refuse to take before recent times. Recent times being the last few decades in which has seen the Church has turned its back on many ancient Christian traditions and the last few decades in which Christianity has been on the decline in America and Europe for the first time in history. Ma'am, I see I need to rethink my hostility to the KJV. But <sigh>, my pride won't let me."

 

[annsni]

How you answer the lady is, "Yes, ma'am, you have a point. Modern translations make use of textual variations ignored or rejected by the Church for most of the Church's history. Further, modern versions take translation liberties that the Church refuse to take before recent times. Recent times being the last few decades in which has seen the Church has turned its back on many ancient Christian traditions and the last few decades in which Christianity has been on the decline in America and Europe for the first time in history. Ma'am, I see I need to rethink my hostility to the KJV. But <sigh>, my pride won't let me."

Except that would be lying and offensive to God.

 

[Rob_BW]

Hostility to KJVOism does not mean one is hostile to the KJV.

 

[TCassidy]

I need to rethink my hostility to the KJV.

Why are you hostile to the KJV? It is a venerable old translation of a representative of the Byzantine/Majority textform which is most likely to represent the autographs.

 

[InTheLight]

Why are you hostile to the KJV? It is a venerable old translation of a representative of the Byzantine/Majority textform which is most likely to represent the autographs.

He's not. He was speaking hypothetically as if he were the one answering the woman that Evan was talking to. He wants Evan to rethink his hostility to the KJV. I'm pretty sure Baptist Brother is KJVO.

 

[Yeshua1]

On a site and debating this female. How should I answer her?

Well Paul didn't speak english did he? He had the original Greek and Hebrew... The KJV is the best english version we have - it came from the modern english translations leading up to the it. And they were all translated from various editions of what we call today the Greek Textus Receptus. Yes, changes have been made to the 1611 version since, but only minor mistakes like spelling and grammar. The doctrine remains the same as the original 1611 version. You can compare them side by side and see for yourself.

Modern Bible versions are translated from a completely different source. They are based on corrupt manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, as well as Egyptian papyri discoveries... Is it really a surprise that Egypt is the source of the corruption providing us with the modern perversions like the NIV, ESV, NLT and others???

The Bibles leading up to the KJV were all translated from the Textus Receptus (the correct Greek) and are consistent with the KJV. But the more modern versions are dramatically different. So if you accept the modern bible versions as accurate, you are not only rejecting the KJV, you are also rejecting every english bible that came before it! So according to the modern perversions of God's Holy word, every english translation before the 20th Century has been wrong???

The KJV is the culmination of the english Bibles that led up to it. It is the work of almost 100 years of scholarship that gave us our english bible! That is why the earlier translations eventually went out of print, and the KJV became the standard English bible used by virtually all Christians until recently. People recognized that the KJV was the FINAL DRAFT of the english bible, so it replaced all of the rough drafts that led up to it. The bibles before the KJV were all GOOD bibles, and the KJV couldn't be the beautiful and perfectly translated bible that it is without those wonderful rough drafts.

Just ask if they know that the Translators themselves as not being KJVO, as they recognized oher versions as valid, and expecting others to build on and improve their work!
And which KJV,a s used different TR sources, used Vulgate, revisions different, so which is real Kjv?