Is KJV Only A Heresy?

I didn't miss the point. There is no point to miss. The question assumes facts not in evidence. Nobody has said the word of God originated in 1611. Nobody has said the KJV is the only word of God. Nobody has denied the word of God exists in Hebrew, Greek, many vernaculars, and in English prior to 1611. The question is the same old foolishness designed, not to elicit intelligent discourse, but as one of those idiotic questions designed to make the asker seem vindicated in his own eyes. Intellectually, and ethically, it ranks right up there with "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

 

What part of my post did you fail to understand?

 

qb][/QUOTE]What part of my post did you fail to understand?[/QB][/QUOTE]

None. What part of my post did you fail to understand, bud?

 

I am not your "bud." If you cannot be civil, please feel free to leave the BB.

I made it abundantly clear from my post that all the versions cited were the word of God. If you failed to see that, it is your problem.

 

Of course it was, but rabid KJVOs do not believe that.

 

Well, the question isn't directed at you, because you believe two different Bibles can be the "word of God". The question is directed at those KJV-only supporters that believe any change in any word, any additinal words, or any missing words, compared to the KJV, is a corruption and therefore strips the translation of the title of "the word of God".

I'm actually in agreement with you, that all those versions you listed are "the word of God". But real KJV-onlyists would not agree, so the question is asked of them. They talk about perfect word-for-word preservation, but are unable to even explain how it could even be possible in 1605, let alone find this mythical perfectly preserved Bible that is not different from the KJV. This is the paradox that strict KJV-onlyism creates.

I have explained the point of this question several times before.

Brian

[ July 20, 2002, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

Dear DocCas,

I feel your pain!

Remember when I used the phrase "are we going to resurrect this dead horse again?" and was I shot down in a hail of flaming posts?

The objection which made sense was that new posters come to BB and put forth a question, sometimes in an innocent way not knowing that it has already been beaten to death or sometimes in a provocative way to inflame and divide us.
Unfortunately some of our KJVO folk are mischievous in this way and love to see a thread like this one where we turn on each other and are unkind to one another.

So,why not store your excellent response on your hard-drive so that each time the horse is "resurrected" you can give an answer to every man (innocent of otherwise)?
I believe it needs to be aired on each occasion because the obvious truth of it nevers grows old.

Personally : Thank you for the research and your answer!

Though I am one who has asked this question, I suspected that God's Word existed before 1611.



HankD

[ July 20, 2002, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Brian I agree wholeheartedly with what Doc Cas said and that is how I understand KJV Onlyism. All versions leading up to and including the KJV are the Word Of God. Though I haven't read any of those other versions leading up to the Word Of God in English clothing as one of our Elders calls the KJV, I haven't any doubts that those ancestors are also the Word Of God... Brother Glen

 

Most KJV-onlyists would not call you an KJV-onlyist. I do not call you (or DocCas) a KJV-onlyist. The key term is "only". Would you call me "TNIV-only" if I said "All versions leading up to and including the TNIV are the Word Of God"? Of course not.

[ July 20, 2002, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

An alternative?

After thinking about DocCas's response I believe the problem is one of demeaning others and not so much the validity of asking a theologically defining question over and over again.

I believe we can sanitize the anti-KJVO shibboleth "where was the Word of God before 1611?" of its inherent sense of ridicule by asking this alternative question "was the Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale or Geneva Bible the Word of God?". One may even want to add non-English translations such as the Septuagint or the Vulgate or the Old Itala for a deeper probe.

The answer (or lack thereof) will give a better view of what position the "KJVO" person is taking. After all the BB is an information sharing board. Everyone needs to know the participants detailed point of view and how radical they/we are before a meaningful discussion (or its potential) can take place.

Hopefully the courtesy will be a two-way street (or multi-lane highway).

HankD

[ July 20, 2002, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

This sounds a little to PC, Hank. Asking "where was God's word prior to 1611" is demeaning? How about calling any non-KJV translation of God's word a "perversion"? I would say the prior question is reasonable and tame!

 

The only problem with your assertion is that, to the best of my knowledge, no such person exists, at least not on this board! All KJVOs I have spoken to or coresponded with will accept all the 1611, 1613, 1629, etc. down to the 1762 and 1769 editions as the word of God regardless of the word changes from one edition to another.

You continue to ask a question predicated on your false foundational assumption then mock the KJV people for not answering a question which exists only in your own imagination!

 

On this board, I know of 2 Ruckmanites, as well as several others who would not say the Geneva, Tyndale, etc. were the "the word of God". The question is for them.

Yes, that's another issue they fail to deal with, except to say "printer errors" and then quickly change the subject.

Really??? In the term "KJV-only", do you happen to notice the "only" part?

If I said "Only the NIV is the word of God", wouldn't the question "Where then was the word of God before 1978?" be a valid question to ask me?

 

Like I said it would be nice if it was a two-way street, but hey, I'de be willing to go with PC over launching ad-hominem missles (no one here of course) at the hard-core KJVO.

HankD

[ July 20, 2002, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Not true. I've read them on here and know many of them around these parts and around IFB circles in several states.

 

I think the question is a valid question for some. It is not a valid question for Thomas because of his position (which is a reasonable and legitimate position).

Often, we see words counts and verse counts. You see things like the NIV has left out x number of words. Therefore it is not the Word of God. They say little ditties like "Things that are different are not the same." In such manner, they assert that the version with x number of words (whatever is in the current KJV) is the Word of God and anything that does not match that number is not the Word of God. Hence, the NIV, the NASB, etc are not the Word of God.

This is why we ask the question. If anything that is different than the KJV in terms of verses and word counts is not the Word of God, then of necessity, it never existed before 1769. They do not want to accept that (for obvious reasons) so they claim that the Word of God existed in other translations (with different word counts and verse counts) in version prior to 1611. Thus, they undermine their own argument by admitting that things with a different number of words can be the Word of God.

The reality is that they have been taught bad argumentation by people who do not know what they are talking about. Take Thomas for instance. Here is a guy who has studied the issue, and even though he and I disagree, he gives good, solid, logical reasons for why he prefers the KJV and the texttype underlying it. He is the exception of the vocal camp that he is in general agreement with. For most people, it is things like "400 years of blessing," "x number of words that were left out of other versions," "x number of verses that are left out," "doctrine x that has been deleted," etc. These are just bad argumentations.

The point is that if we admit that the Word of God existed in other translations prior to 1611, then we cannot say that the KJV is the only word of God for the English speaking people. We have to admit the Bishop's Bible (which is different than the KJV) is a legitimate choice though probably not the best. Hence, what these people should be arguing is that the KJV is the best translation rather than the only one. (Fortunately, many such as Thomas argue this. Unfortunately, many others do not.)

 

Name one person on this list who rejects any of the above cited editions of the KJV. Just one will do. Thank you.

 

I doubt any of them would speak up, because answering the question of "which edition?" causes the same type of paradox as "where was the word of God before 1611?" They are content to apply a double standard, quoting "things that are different are not the same" but refusing to apply it to their own position.

Instead, let's stay on topic. In the term "KJV-only", do you happen to notice the "only" part?

If I said "Only the NIV is the word of God", wouldn't the question "Where then was the word of God before 1978?" be a valid question to ask me?

Brian

 

Name one person on this list who rejects any of the above cited editions of the KJV. Just one will do. Thank you.</font>[/QUOTE]I may have misunderstood, but I was referring to the Bibles before the KJV and after as others have asked. Frankly, I'm surprised you haven't seen this. GrannyGumbo has denied that editions prior to and after the KJV are God's Word. Take a brief search of her posts. As for others, give me some time. When my scanner gets to working, I'll post some of the "anti any Bible other than KJV" mishmash that I have found. Caring for my mother this past week after her stroke is taking up the bulk of my time and I'm not on here all that much right now.