"Is King James Onlyism Scriptural?"

[Yeshua1]

You do not practice what you preach since you failed to prove what you asserted about there being only one KJV. You challenge others to prove what they stated while you do not prove what you stated. Perhaps you were blindly repeating what you heard or read from a KJV-only source so that you have not checked the facts for yourself.

Perhaps your eyes are closed to seeing how they are different. Another thread has been started in answer to your unproven claim, and it will provide details. It pointed out the fact that whole words not found in the 1611 edition were added in later editions. There are so many actual differences that they all cannot be listed in one post. You could see the evidence yourself by comparing the original 1611 edition of the KJV with a present post-1900 edition.

Here is one example that would show that the 1611 edition of the KJV was not given by inspiration of God.

At 2 Kings 24:19, the 1611 edition of the KJV has the name of the wrong king, left uncorrected by the KJV translators from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible. The 1611 edition and sixteen more editions of the KJV printed in London have "Jehoiachin" at 2 Kings 24:19 which was later corrected to "Jehoiakim" in most editions of the KJV.

When was the correct names for Elijah and Elisha put back into the Kjv? Wasn't he called Eisses the Prophey?

 

[Logos1560]

At 2 Kings 19:2, the 1611 edition of the KJV has "Esai" kept from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible.

London KJV editions printed in 1616, 1630, 1631, 1633, and 1634 have "Esay"

The 1560 Geneva Bible has "Isaiah", which is what was put in the 1629 Cambridge edition of the KJV.
That is what is found in most present KJV editions at 2 Kings 19:2.

 

[Rippon2]

What was wrong with Grammar there?

I already told you in the post of mine you just quoted. By the way, it's not necessary to capitalize the 'g' in grammar.

the Nkjv is the Kjv translation updated for todays user, but shame that those in KJVO see it as being a false/fake Bible!

Reworded : The NKJV is the KJV for today's reader. But it is a shame that those in the KJVO camp view it as being a false Bible.

 

[church mouse guy]

Kjv was not inspired!

Scripture itself was inspired and language was created by God, first in the Garden of Eden and then at the Tower of Babel, so God knew that Scripture had to be translated into modern English before the universe was created. So over 400 years ago, we got a translation that was popular with English-speaking people and it is still in use. You can use whatever you like but I don't see that you can say that your translation is free from error. However, we are close to 100% in English translations since we have had such translations all the way back to Anglo-Saxon, as you know.

 

[Yeshua1]

At 2 Kings 19:2, the 1611 edition of the KJV has "Esai" kept from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible.

London KJV editions printed in 1616, 1630, 1631, 1633, and 1634 have "Esay"

The 1560 Geneva Bible has "Isaiah", which is what was put in the 1629 Cambridge edition of the KJV.
That is what is found in most present KJV editions at 2 Kings 19:2.

So the 1611 Kjv had it wrong?

 

[Yeshua1]

I already told you in the post of mine you just quoted. By the way, it's not necessary to capitalize the 'g' in grammar.

Reworded : The NKJV is the KJV for today's reader. But it is a shame that those in the KJVO camp view it as being a false Bible.

Thanks, would you agree with that statement then?

 

[Yeshua1]

Scripture itself was inspired and language was created by God, first in the Garden of Eden and then at the Tower of Babel, so God knew that Scripture had to be translated into modern English before the universe was created. So over 400 years ago, we got a translation that was popular with English-speaking people and it is still in use. You can use whatever you like but I don't see that you can say that your translation is free from error. However, we are close to 100% in English translations since we have had such translations all the way back to Anglo-Saxon, as you know.

I have never posted that any translation is with errors/mistakes, and not against Kjv itself, but views of KJVO!

 

[37818]

So the 1611 Kjv had it wrong?

So spelling is a matter of salvation?

 

[George Antonios]

The poster not only noted changes in spelling, but also changes in words. You ignored that fact.
You seem to try to minimize the actual differences in KJV editions instead of dealing with the facts.

Over 170 whole words not found in the 1611 edition of the KJV were later added in many KJV editions.

For the last time, my position, posted more than once, was the answer.
You're in a battlefield where I'm not.
I told, and retell you, that I believe translated copies can be inspired because the scriptures teach that.
I also told you that I confess that the scriptures don't specify the King James Bible but that I believe the KJB to be such an inspired copy based on PERSONAL FAITH.
(That doesn't mean I don't have my reasons and counter-arguments, but I cede that ultimately it's FAITH).
Others have answered you that most KJVOs would also tell you that the 1611 is their final authority
(not that I believe it differs from so-called "other" newer KJVs)

Everyone else here seems to have understood my position.

 

[Logos1560]

I believe translated copies can be inspired because the scriptures teach that.

You believe and claim something that you did not actually demonstrate that the Scriptures teach. Your own personal KJV-only bias or assumptions likely led you to read something into verses that they do not actually state.

 

[Logos1560]

the 1611 is their final authority
(not that I believe it differs from so-called "other" newer KJVs)

The 1611 edition of the KJV does differ from most post-1900 editions of the KJV in 2,000 places regardless of whether you choose not to believe the truth.

 

[Yeshua1]

So spelling is a matter of salvation?

No, but it is a strike against claimed perfection, as the Holy Spirit should have known better and inspired them to use right name!

 

[church mouse guy]

I have never posted that any translation is with errors/mistakes, and not against Kjv itself, but views of KJVO!

OK, thanks. How do you say that the KJV was not inspired? Why would a translation be inspired since Scripture itself is?

 

[Yeshua1]

OK, thanks. How do you say that the KJV was not inspired? Why would a translation be inspired since Scripture itself is?

There is no derived inspiration, hence, only the Originals themselves were inspired!

 

[Conan]

Yet again, another failure or refusal to identify the nature of those differences and the methodology employed in listing them.

Changes in the King James version

* Mat 3:12 Add he before will burn up. Rejected by Scrivener.
Mat 6:3 Add hand after right. Approved by Scrivener.
* Mat 9:34 Omit the before devils.
* Mat 12:23 Add not before this the son.
* Mat 13:6 Read had no root instead of had not root.
Mat 16:16 Add the before Christ.
Mat 16:19 Add and before whatsoever thou shalt loose.
Mat 26:75 Read word instead of words.
Mat 27:22 Read Pilate saith instead of Pilate said.
* Mat 27:52 Add the before saints.
Mark 2:4 Add the before press.
Mark 5:6 Read he ran instead of he came.
* Mark 6:7 Read he called instead of he calleth.
* Mark 6:53 Read Gennesaret instead of Genesareth. 1611 followed another source. 1769: S B E. 1611: Er Vul.
Mark 10:18 Read [there is] none good but one instead of there is no man good, but one.
Mark 11:8 Read branches off the trees instead of branches of the trees.
Luke 1:3 Add all before things.
Luke 1:74 Read hand instead of hands.
Luke 3:21 Omit and before it came to pass.
* Luke 8:8 Add had before said.
* Luke 11:16 Read others instead of other.
Luke 17:34 Add and before the other shall be left.
* Luke 18:9 Read others instead of other.
Luke 19:9 Read a son of Abraham instead of the son of Abraham.
Luke 20:12 Read sent a third instead of sent the third.
Luke 23:19 Read cast into prison instead of cast in prison.
John 5:18 Transpose not only because he to because he not only.
John 7:16 Add and said after Jesus answered them.
John 8:30 Read these words instead of those words.
John 11:3 Read his sisters instead of his sister.
* John 11:34 Read They said unto him instead of They say unto him.
John 12:22 Read tell Jesus instead of told Jesus.
John 15:20 Read than his lord instead of than the Lord.
* John 16:25 Add but before the time. 1611 followed another source. 1769: S B E. 1611: Er Vul.
John 21:17 Read He saith unto him instead of he said unto him

Changes in the King James version

 

[robycop3]

One should keep the cookies on the bottom shelf but not everything is Pablum, as you know. God gave you teeth and He gave you a mind. In a vast universe, there still aren't enough words to describe everything exactly and succinctly. As has been pointed out by others, the other translations have some big words in them, too. I think that the average person can understand the KJV..

You miss the point. The KJV was made to be easily understoof by 17th C. British. And it has its share of goofs & booboos.
This isn't the 17th C. & times have changed, & so has the English language. The KJV is no longer easily understood. Also, many more Scriptural manuscripts have been discovered since then.

God has provided His word in OUR language. Why not use it ?

 

[rlvaughn]

Again, what's a "KJB" ?

Is this supposed to be some grand "gotcha" moment?

What's a CSB?
What's a CEB?
What's a LEB?
What's a NASB?
What's an OJB?
What's a WEB?

 

[37818]

No, but it is a strike against claimed perfection, as the Holy Spirit should have known better and inspired them to use right name!

No, but it is a strike against claimed perfection, as the Holy Spirit should have known better and inspired them to use right name!

No translations are inerrant. The current editions of the KJV are not the same first edition. I do not ascribe to KJV onlyism. And KJV onlyism is not Biblical.

 

[church mouse guy]

You miss the point. The KJV was made to be easily understoof by 17th C. British. And it has its share of goofs & booboos.
This isn't the 17th C. & times have changed, & so has the English language. The KJV is no longer easily understood. Also, many more Scriptural manuscripts have been discovered since then.

God has provided His word in OUR language. Why not use it ?

If I can understand the KJV, anyone can.

 

[Logos1560]

A faith that does not rest on scriptural truth or objective evidence would be fideism, which is essentially the leap-in-the-dark faith of the neo-orthodox. According to Karl Barth, a person with faith can accept a contradiction, rest in it, and even base their life on the contradiction. A blind faith such as this would be an irrational act of subjective arbitrariness. Herman Hanko noted: "Faith is not the acceptance of something which no one can prove, a kind of blind acceptance of the unprovable" (Battle for the Bible, p. 15). Charles Spurgeon wrote: "Faith is not a blind thing; for faith begins with knowledge. It is not a speculative thing; for faith believes facts of which it is sure" (All of Grace, pp. 46-47). Pastor Norvell Robertson stated: "Faith, properly so called, always rests upon evidence; hence to believe without evidence is not rational; and in respect to our relations to God, it is extremely dangerous" (Handbook of Theology, p. 62). Pastor Conjurske observed: "Any faith which sets facts at defiance is no faith at all, but only superstition. The Bible squarely bases faith upon facts, and faith cannot exist without them" (Olde Paths, Sept., 1997, pp. 212-213). J. Gersham Machen declared: "It is a dangerous thing to encourage faith in what is not true" (What is Faith, p. 179). Puritan Thomas Watson pointed out: "A man can no more believe without knowledge than the eye can see without light" (Body of Divinity, p. 57). Theodore Beza wrote: "It is beyond the ability of anyone to believe that which he is ignorant of" (Christian Faith, p. iv). KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes noted: "Faith hath ever a ground--a reason for it, and is ready to render it" (Selected Writings, p. 114). John Wycliffe maintained that “every point of faith is included in Scripture” (Levy, John Wyclif, p. 355).

If anyone can claim that something is true just because he assumes or believes it to be true or has blind faith in it, then he can believe without any sound justification anything he wants to believe. If faith can be claimed as the basis for accepting blindly opinions or claims that may be contradictory to scriptural truth, how could God hold anyone accountable for mistaking His commands for their contradictions? A command and its contradiction cannot be both true. Therefore, it is important that believers break down the false opposition which has been set up between truth and faith. Glenn Conjurske pointed out: "We all no doubt have our own doctrinal predilections, but to allow our doctrines to dictate what we regard as facts is as dangerous as it is fraudulent, for it deprives us of one of the most effectual checks against false doctrine" (Olde Paths, June, 1996, p. 135). Michael Sproul wrote: “Faith is a strong argument, but a believer is only to have faith in what God says, not [in] a recent man-made interpretation that turns both history and word definitions inside out” (God’s Word Preserved, p. 91).

It can be concluded that sound biblical faith would come by hearing, receiving, believing, doing, or following the truth of God's Word (Rom. 10:17, Mark 4:20, Luke 11:28, Luke 8:21). Would the hearing in Romans 10:17 be one that receives or accepts the word of God and obeys it, or could it be a superficial hearing that may refuse to obey it (James 1:22-23, James 2:14, James 2:17, Matt. 13:13, Rom. 2:13)? It should be clear that the hearing in Romans 10:17 does not mean being a hearer only. Can a hearing of faith (Gal. 3:2) be connected to obeying the truth (Gal. 3:1)? Could biblical faith be linked to an acknowledging of the truth (2 Tim. 2:25)? Can biblical faith involve rejecting the truth or would rejecting the truth indicate a dead faith? To say that a person has sound faith in something is to say that he acknowledges or accepts the truth concerning that something. According to the overall teachings of Scripture, biblical faith clearly would not come from a denial of the truth in the Scriptures or by following false claims or fallacies. It can be concluded from the Scriptures that sound true faith would not come from believing or following opinions, speculations, or traditions of men (Mark 7:7-9, Col. 2:8) or from following their misinterpretations or twistings of Scripture (2 Tim. 2:15, 2 Pet. 3:16). Would dead faith in error, falsehoods, fallacies, false claims, opinions of men, or non-scriptural teachings be the same thing as biblical faith?

Assuming by use of the fallacy of begging the question that the KJV is inspired cannot be justified by claiming it is a matter of faith. Someone could assume or believe by faith that the words of a false prophet were the words of God, but it would not be sound biblical faith.