"Is King James Onlyism Scriptural?"

[Salty]

This thread will close no sooner than 8 am Eastern/ 5 am Pacific time.

 

[xlsdraw]

I'm just a truck driver, a fisherman, a carpenter, and a born again child of the King. But one thing I know beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that the KJV is annointed by God to serve the following purpose:

Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

Therefore, I personally, do not need any other translation. I have a lifetime of experience with it, and detailed knowledge of the exceptionally brutal lifetime that it carried my grandfather through. I trust it.

And I am committed to sticking with the KJV, with the same dedication that I have towards my wife. Till death do us part.

 

[church mouse guy]

The KJV rests upon scholarship and not blind faith. People who do not have the time and money to study all of the textual criticisms rest upon 400 years of use all over the world.

 

[robycop3]

If I can understand the KJV, anyone can.

Not so.

 

[robycop3]

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?

None of these is exclusively "the Bible". The very makers of the AV 1611 called it the "authorized VERSION". The makers of any Bible version are wrong to call it "THE Bible", same as calling a Ford or Chevy "THE car". Call it "A car" or "A Bible".

 

[robycop3]

Through all this thread, no one has posted one verse of Scripture supporting the KJVO myth.

Why ?

Because THERE ISN'T ANY !

The KJVO myth is man-made; its origins have been posted more than once on this site. The fact is, NO man-made doctrine of faith/worship is true. Jesus raked some Pharisees for their man-made command of ceremonial handwashing before eating. And God has severe penalties for those who add to or subtract from His word !

Let us consider Romans 14 in our Bible versions discussions. If one wishes to use only the KJV (or any other one version) as one's only Bible version, fine, but let that one not criticize anyone else's choice of Bible version (s). For, no matter what, any "one-version-only" doctrine is false !

 

[Logos1560]

The KJV rests upon scholarship and not blind faith. People who do not have the time and money to study all of the textual criticisms rest upon 400 years of use all over the world.

Are you admitting that modern, human KJV-only reasoning rests upon traditions and opinions of men which KJV-only advocates try to make sound scriptural by use of terms such as "inspiration," "preservation," and "faith" without presenting any sound Bible doctrine concerning them?

Where do the Scriptures teach blind trust in the biased, imperfect scholarship of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England critics in 1611?

Believers could study the Scriptures and see that human KJV-only reasoning/teaching is non-scriptural, unscriptural in some aspects, and wrong.

Do the Scriptures teach that faith in human scholarship and human reasoning is sound Biblical faith in what God actually stated?

 

[rlvaughn]

None of these is exclusively "the Bible". The very makers of the AV 1611 called it the "authorized VERSION". The makers of any Bible version are wrong to call it "THE Bible", same as calling a Ford or Chevy "THE car". Call it "A car" or "A Bible".

And yet I've never noticed you complain when people use these other initials. Kind of like when you say no one has one verse of Scripture supporting the KJVO myth, then post that God did not allow the original autographs to survive so people would not make them objects of worship -- without one verse of Scripture supporting the assertion! Physician, take a look at thyself.

 

[robycop3]

And yet I've never noticed you complain when people use these other initials. Kind of like when you say no one has one verse of Scripture supporting the KJVO myth, then post that God did not allow the original autographs to survive so people would not make them objects of worship -- without one verse of Scripture supporting the assertion! Physician, take a look at thyself.

Seen any originals lately? And the users of certain names or initials for their Bible versions are just-as-wrong as KJVOs are for referring to the KJV as "KJB".

 

[rlvaughn]

Seen any originals lately?

No. Neither have I made any bogus claims about why I have not seen them.

And the users of certain names or initials for their Bible versions are just-as-wrong as KJVOs are for referring to the KJV as "KJB".

Now I will be expecting you to squawk anytime anyone makes reference to those initials.

 

[Yeshua1]

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

Per the KVO own words, "change even 1 word, and its no longer a real Bible"

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Hopefully, we all could agree here on that!

 

[Yeshua1]

If I can understand the KJV, anyone can.

Why not go all way back to the Vulgate then?

 

[robycop3]

No. Neither have I made any bogus claims about why I have not seen them. Now I will be expecting you to squawk anytime anyone makes reference to those initials.

Why ? There are no widespread "onlyist" groups for them, as there is for the KJV.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

KJVO claims far more for the transaltion then even the 1611 translators did!

 

[robycop3]

I see no defense of Mr. Kinney's stuff by any KJVO here.

 

[Jerome]

I have never posted that any translation is with errors/mistakes

You most certainly have.
Many times.

 

[Yeshua1]

You most certainly have.
Many times.

That was a mis hit by my, should have read no translation is without any errors/mistakes in them!

 

[Jerome]

That was a mis hit by my

Mis hit by my?

This is the same poster who trying to make something of legitimate variations in spelling at the time:

correct names...the Kjv...Wasn't he called Eisses the Prophey?

Ironic, isn't it?

 

[Yeshua1]

Mis hit by my?

This is the same poster who trying to make something of legitimate variations in spelling at the time:
us have issues!
Ironic, isn't it?

All of us have issues!