Is KJV Only A Heresy?

EASTON's Bible dictionary defines heresy as: "Paul ranks “heresies” with crimes and seditions (Gal. 5:20). This word also denotes divisions or schisms in the church (1 Cor. 11:19). In Titus 3:10 a “heretical person” is one who follows his own self-willed “questions,” and who is to be avoided. Heresies thus came to signify self-chosen doctrines not emanating from God (2 Pet. 2:1)."

By that definition radical KJVO - that the KJV is the only written word of God - is definitely heresy.

 

In some forms it is. I am convinced that for many people, it is not intentional. They simply believe what others have erroneously taught them. For others, they know the truth and have chosen to continue a KJVOnly teaching anyway.

It is not a heresy to prefer the KJV or to think that the KJV is the best translation. It is not a heresy to prefer the Majority text or the TR. It is not a heresy to prefer a MV or the eclectic text. Those delineations need to be clearly marked.

 

Yes to all three poll questions.
I find it so ironic that those in the extreme fundamental camp bristle at the use of the word heresy when used concerning a stance they hold very strongly. They would amen at the calling of women preachers heretics and think nothing of ripping popular bible teachers, even the good ones, but don't point that finger over here, not in this direction we aren't the heretics. The reason I call it heresy is because it is unbiblical, it can't be defended biblically. I don't know where the teaching originated, but it is rotten to the core. And I might add a great tool of Satan to create division among churches that generally have so much in common.

 

While those in the MVs camp delete post's that accuse them of heresy.

Just to set the record straight for all you mv supporters who like to bash the KJ folks.

This KJ supporter does not believe the KJ is the only bible, just the one God has given us in the English language for today.

No Jesus didn't use the KJ (that is such a childish question from thse who are suppose to be learned adults)

Your accusations are too riduculous and numerous to comment on.

[ July 16, 2002, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: Ernie Brazee ]

 

Ernie,

Did you read these posts? We have very clearly defined what we are talking about and it involves two things: 1) False teaching and 2) schismatics.

YOu have yet to give one verse of support for your position that the KJV is the only word of God. You and your compadres have been very quick to throw aroudn accusations of heresy, satanic influence, and being unsaved ... all without producing one shred of biblical evidence. In another thread, I listed about 6 clearly defined problems. Why don't you take a stab at them?

 

Seems that the Pharisees did the very same thing ...

 

I think the third question in the poll is very interesting: "Does KJV Only position teach Extra Biblical Revelation?"

For those that voted "No" and are KJV-only, could you please explain to the rest of us where in the Bible KJV-only "revelations" came from, if they are not extra-Biblical.

Also a follow-up question for KJV-only supporters: do you think that teaching *against* KJV-onlyism is "heresy"?

 

I don't think KJVO is heretical or even necessarily bad, although I disagree with it and believe it to be somewhat shortsighted.

The KJV is a very good translation and as someone pointed out in another thread (Clint K, I think), there are times when the language of the KJV conveys the appropriate weight of a given situation better than other translations.

But it's not the only good or valid translation.

More than anything, I think the KJVO folks are guilty of causing unnecessary division, which hurts us all, and I think that they miss out on some great insights by some people who hold to other translations, by which they do themselves a great disservice.

KJVO's would be much better off addressing specific problems they have with specific translations than by issuing a blanket condemnation of all other translations and those of us who use them.

[ July 16, 2002, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: Smoke_Eater ]

 

Why does Dr.Ruckman's name come up every time the KJVonly issue comes up? He is not the only KJV deffender of this age. I love Dr. Ruckman,but there were men of GOD before DR. Ruckman who stood for the KJV and there will be men after him who will stand for the KJV1611. Just go to biblebelievers.com and see what I am talking about. DR.Ruckman just tells it like it is,as does bro. Coley,Mitch Cannup, and many others.
Kevin

 

It doesn't.

 

Brian,
You know where I stand because of an earlier thread. I realize I do not speak for the rest of the KJV-Only crowd but here are my thoughts:

I never implied that my views on the KJV was a "revelation" from God. My views stem from an understanding of the doctrine of preservation, an understanding of textual criticism, and by simple faith in what I believe to be the truth.

I am fully aware that your understanding of preservation and textual criticism may not be the same as mine but I can't see how you can argue with my faith. That's what I believe based on what I have learned.

 

Thanks for your answer, Pastor Bob. There are some that do claim "revelation" (both for the source of their faith, and/or for the inerrant work of the KJV translators), and I look forward to their answers.

 

"This KJ supporter does not believe the KJ is the only bible, just the one God has given us in the English language for today."

Problem and with that statement, What did the people have as God's Word before 1611? And since the answer has to be different then KJV, why did God change His mind concerning the bible the English speaking world would use in 1611?

 

I wonder how many more times we will have to endure this straw man of a question? Where was the bible (presumably the questioner means "where was the bible in English" as it is English versions we are discussing) prior to 1611? It is obvious it was in the earlier versions.

The first known bible in English was the Lindisfarne Gospels dating to about 700 A.D. These were in Latin with an Anglo-Saxon interlinear translation added about 950 A.D.

In about 1000 A.D., Aelfric translated a condensed version of the first seven books of the Old Testament.

In about 1300 the Ormulum appeared, translated by Orm, an Augustinian monk. This work was originally the Gospels, but later Genesis and Exodus were translated into English.

About the same time, Richard Rolle translated the Psalms into Early Middle English, of which 170 manuscripts still survive.

John Wycliffe (1330-1384) was the first known translator of the entire Bible into English. His first translation was published in about 1400, and a later edition, revised by John Purvey, appeared at a somewhat later time.

Tyndale, born in 1494, translated the Bible out of the Greek and Hebrew and published a New Testament in 1525, based on the first printed Greek New Testament, published by Erasmus in 1516.

Myles Coverdale published a work called "The First Complete Bible to be Printed in the English Tongue" in about 1535. This was mostly based on Tyndale's work, with Martin Luther's German translation used for comparison.

In 1537 a Bible was published with a title page suggesting that the translator was Thomas Matthew. The publisher is now known to have been John Rogers, who was an associate of Tyndale, and much of the work had probably been done by Tyndale prior to his death, and the balance was done by John Rogers working from Tyndale's notes.

Later editions in 1540 and 1541 contained a preface by Archbishop Cranmer and became know as the Cranmer Bible.

Coverdale revised the Matthew Bible into what became known as the Great Bible, due to its large size (9 by 15 inches). This Bible was used in most Anglican churches from about 1538 until it went out of print in 1569. Ironically, this Great Bible was widely received, while at the same time John Rogers (Thomas Matthews) was imprisoned and later martyred (in 1555). It was through this Matthew's - Cranmer - Great Bible that the most influence was exerted on future English versions.

During the reign of Catholic Queen Mary (1553-1558) no Bible was printed in England, but a group of English expatriates in Geneva, Switzerland, produced an English version called The Geneva Bible in 1560, with a second edition published in 1562. The New Testament was edited by William Whittingham, who was married to John Calvin's sister. Calvin wrote an introduction to this work. The Geneva Bible was the Bible used by Shakespeare, John Bunyan, Oliver Cromwell, and which was carried to America by the Puritans. Called "The People's Bible", it was pre-eminent among English Bibles for seventy-five years. From 1560 until 1644, 140 editions were published. The first Bible printed in Scotland, and used to start the Scottish Revivals under John Knox, was the Geneva Bible. The verse divisions of Roberre Estienne (also called Robert Stevens and Stefanus), originally employed in his Greek New Testament of 1551, were used in the Geneva Bible.
The popularity of the Geneva Bible motivated the ecclesiastical authorities of the Church of England, after the crowning of Queen Elizabeth, to publish a Bible which could enjoy the authority of the Church of England. Archbishop Parker appointed a committee to work on the new version. This committee was to use the Great Bible as their starting point, and were to compare it to the Greek and Hebrew.

Their finished product was called The Bishop's Bible, and contained very few changes from the earlier work, relying heavily on the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible, which were, of course, the Tyndale Bible published under other names. Nineteen editions were printed from 1568 until 1606.

You want to know were the word of God in English was prior to 1611? Well, now you know! So, please, stop asking the same silly question over and over and over again!

 

< You want to know were the word of God in English was prior to 1611? Well, now you know! >

That shifts the question to: Were ALL of these English Bibles the Word of God? were SOME of them the Word of God? was ONE of them the Word of God? or were NONE of them THE Word of God?

 

It is not a strawman. Do you truly not understand the reason the question is asked? I'm skeptical that you really miss the point.