Is the KJV the only Bible Christians should use?

[utilyan]

Is the word of God is idea based and not word based?

The word of our God shall stand for ever. Isaiah 40:8

Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:4

Not all rectangles are squares.


Word of God is not limited to writings.

Your talking about a time were a good 90% of people don’t even know how to read.


You don’t have to know how to read to say the WORD “DUMB”. Words don’t exist because of ink and paper.

You literally quoted a verse that explains out of his mouth. Please take a hint!

 

[SGO]

Aren't we discussing translations that are printed words on paper?
Take some mints.

The word of our God shall stand for ever.
Isaiah 40:8

 

[rlvaughn]

Not all rectangles are squares.

But all rectangles and squares are quadrilaterals and parallelograms.

Aren't we discussing translations that are printed words on paper?

Yes, that seems to be the topic of and reason for the opening post.

 

[Michael Hollner]

I have already read your list of references (p. 184 and p. 442 in Michael Hollner's book The King James Only Debate, 2021 edition) which you cite as claimed proof for your human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning. The references that you cite do not at all suggest that the word of God is bound or limited to the imperfect textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611. It is human, non-scriptural reasoning that claims absolute perfection and exclusive only claims for only one English Bible translation in 1611 since that reasoning is not actually stated nor taught in the Scriptures. You read your own KJV-only opinions into verses that do not actually teach what you assume or claim.
Perhaps you jump to wrong conclusions based on your own private, unproven assumptions that involve use of the fallacy of begging the question.

Promises of preservation of the actual specific words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles are not promises concerning only the different words in the 1611 KJV.

Does Michael Hollner in effect condemn what the Scriptures teach concerning preservation as he asserted: "God's promise to preserve His Word has no practical relevance if it does not extend to translations" (p. 184)? Does Michael Hollner dictate to God what He has to do since he cannot soundly back up his KJV-only opinions from the Scriptures?

So let me get this straight. You responded with ZERO Scriptures in the KJV that claims it has flaws, or that it is not perfect. Then you quote my book which has dozens of claims for perfection and preservation, but you don’t believe them, because it’s ‘human reasoning’ on my part? If you want to call “Let God be true, but every man a lair” human reasoning, then have at it (Romans 3:4) KJV.

Then you claim your belief in the man-made OO doctrine of divine inspiration applying to ‘only the originals’ (Originals Onlyism) with ZERO verses of Scripture that claims that either, and I am using human reasoning?

Clearly, one of us has Scriptural backing for their position here, and the other has human reasoning with ZERO Biblical evidence.

Most Bible critics are hung up on the ‘original manuscripts’ ONLY as being inspired, thus nullifying all the promises of God regarding divine preservation, even in a translation. How convenient a position to have, as to avoid the promises of God regarding a perfect Bible for the year 2021.

When a Bible critic reads “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (II Tim 3:16) KJV, they read it as “All Scripture in the original languages was given by inspiration of God.” In their own scientific minds, they change the word “IS” as in the present tense, in the year 2021, to “WAS,” as in the years 40 A.D-95 A.D. They then change “All Scripture is,” to “All Scripture in the original languages was,” thus parroting B.B. Warfield (1851-1921) with a modern copy and paste job from the typical scholars' script. Learn more about B.B. Warfield in my book at www.kjvdebate.com. This ‘originals only’ (OO), is a man-made doctrine called OOism or “Originals Onlyism”!

We have already gone back and forth months ago and it is fruitless, only in time will it be revealed who is right and who is in error. Unless the Lord tarries a bit, I hope you anticipate that day as much as I do.

You will be in my prayers as I hope I will be in yours. Perhaps reveal yourself to me by email, since I have come forward with my real name, book, and who I am. Perhaps we can have a civil discussion if that is possible on your end. I would be more than willing to chat with you one on one. I presume you are a brother in Christ unless you state otherwise.

Blessings…..

 

[Yeshua1]

So let me get this straight. You responded with ZERO Scriptures in the KJV that claims it has flaws, or that it is not perfect. Then you quote my book which has dozens of claims for perfection and preservation, but you don’t believe them, because it’s ‘human reasoning’ on my part? If you want to call “Let God be true, but every man a lair” human reasoning, then have at it (Romans 3:4) KJV.

Then you claim your belief in the man-made OO doctrine of divine inspiration applying to ‘only the originals’ (Originals Onlyism) with ZERO verses of Scripture that claims that either, and I am using human reasoning?

Clearly, one of us has Scriptural backing for their position here, and the other has human reasoning with ZERO Biblical evidence.

Most Bible critics are hung up on the ‘original manuscripts’ ONLY as being inspired, thus nullifying all the promises of God regarding divine preservation, even in a translation. How convenient a position to have, as to avoid the promises of God regarding a perfect Bible for the year 2021.

When a Bible critic reads “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (II Tim 3:16) KJV, they read it as “All Scripture in the original languages was given by inspiration of God.” In their own scientific minds, they change the word “IS” as in the present tense, in the year 2021, to “WAS,” as in the years 40 A.D-95 A.D. They then change “All Scripture is,” to “All Scripture in the original languages was,” thus parroting B.B. Warfield (1851-1921) with a modern copy and paste job from the typical scholars' script. Learn more about B.B. Warfield in my book at www.kjvdebate.com. This ‘originals only’ (OO), is a man-made doctrine called OOism or “Originals Onlyism”!

We have already gone back and forth months ago and it is fruitless, only in time will it be revealed who is right and who is in error. Unless the Lord tarries a bit, I hope you anticipate that day as much as I do.

You will be in my prayers as I hope I will be in yours. Perhaps reveal yourself to me by email, since I have come forward with my real name, book, and who I am. Perhaps we can have a civil discussion if that is possible on your end. I would be more than willing to chat with you one on one. I presume you are a brother in Christ unless you state otherwise.

Blessings…..

We KNOW that the Holy Spirit Himself came upon and in and inspired the OT Prophets and NT Apostles to write the very word of God, NO such promised to any translation though!

 

[SGO]

We KNOW that the Holy Spirit Himself came upon and in and inspired the OT Prophets and NT Apostles to write the very word of God, NO such promised to any translation though!

All scripture is given by inspiration of God... 2 Timothy 3:16 there is your promise...

Oh, that's right, you have claimed no translation is inspired so whatever version you use you cannot say it is "scripture" for then you would have to admit it is inspired.
But you will not admit to having no inspired translation yet you are born again.

Did someone quote the originals to you when you were saved?

The word of our God shall stand for ever.
Isaiah 40:8

 

[Logos1560]

When a Bible critic reads “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (II Tim 3:16) KJV, they read it as “All Scripture in the original languages was given by inspiration of God.” In their own scientific minds, they change the word “IS” as in the present tense, in the year 2021, to “WAS,” as in the years 40 A.D-95 A.D. They then change “All Scripture is,” to “All Scripture in the original languages was,” thus parroting B.B. Warfield (1851-1921) …..

Instead of dealing with what I stated, you improperly try to put words in my mouth and in my mind that I did not state. You avoid the fact that the Church of England makers of the KJV were Bible critics. Are your statements what you claim or suggest that they believed?

I am not parroting B. B. Warfield as you falsely allege. You do not demonstrate that my scripturally-based view has anything to do with B. B. Warfield. Are you claiming to be a mind-reader?

My Bible-believing mind accepts all that the Scriptures state about themselves. Perhaps you are the one reading something into 2 Timothy 3:16 that it does not state.

While the sixteenth verse in 2 Timothy in the KJV stated “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” it does not actually say or assert that it would be later translated by inspiration. There is no mention of the process of translating in the verse. Do some perhaps try to assume by the fallacy of begging the question that somehow the process of translating is found in this verse? Do some try to use a weak argument from silence and try to find something in the verse that is not directly stated? 2 Timothy 3:16 does not state that the process of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration to the prophets and apostles would continue after the end of the giving of the New Testament.

Quen Suan Yew wrote: “Argument from silence is very dangerous and can lead to all kinds of wrong doctrine” (Kwok, VPP, p. 53). Would the Holy Spirit of truth guide believers to advocate personal opinions based on unproven assumptions involving the use of fallacies? Would trying to suggest that 2 Timothy 3:16 teaches something it does not state be evidence of sound spiritual discernment?

 

[Logos1560]

Oh, that's right, you have claimed no translation is inspired so whatever version you use you cannot say it is "scripture" for then you would have to admit it is inspired.

You fail to prove your opinions to be true nor scriptural. Are you following the opinion of Peter Ruckman?

Peter Ruckman asserted that “given by inspiration of God” “is the definition of ‘scripture’ in the ‘scripture’” (King James Onlyism, p. 29), but he did not prove his claim to be true. Perhaps it has never occurred to some KJV-only advocates that their definition, understanding, and interpretation of inspiration may not be sound or perfect.

What is their clear, precise, sound definition and understanding of inspiration that can be applied consistently, soundly, and justly in the same sense (univocally) including both before and after 1611? Have some KJV-only advocates in effect or in practice privately interpreted “all Scripture” to mean only the KJV?

The term Scripture would refer to words of God that are written, but the process of writing would not be its definition. According its usage and meaning in the Scriptures, the noun Scripture does not include all words that ever have been written. Words can be written without them being Scripture. Words can even be written in or added to a copy of the Scriptures without them being Scripture. Marginal notes or commentary can be added to a copy of the Scriptures without the added words being Scripture. According to truths suggested in several verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19, would words added by men in a copy of the Scriptures become Scripture? Would any errors written by imperfect men in a copy of the Scriptures become Scripture according to a correct definition of it? Would any actual errors introduced by printers in a printed edition of Scripture become Scripture according to its correct definition? The term Scripture refers to actual words given by inspiration of God, but this process of the giving by inspiration is not actually stated to be its definition as some KJV-only advocates try to assume and claim. Since the process of writing clearly is not the definition for the term Scripture, could it also be asserted that the process of giving by inspiration is not its definition?


Should a Greek adjective at 2 Timothy 3:16 be considered the definition for the Greek noun translated “Scripture”? While an adjective can describe a certain noun, that adjective would not usually be the total definition of that noun. The Scriptures are described by several adjectives that may indicate its attributes or qualities so that no one of them is its definition. While all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, being “profitable” is not the definition for the term Scripture. Something can be “profitable” and perhaps even profitable for doctrine/teaching without it being Scripture. This adjective “profitable” is used of Scripture in the same verse (2 Tim. 3:16) to which KJV-only advocates appeal for their claimed definition so why is it not included as part of the definition that they claim is given in this verse? While the words of Scripture are pure (Ps. 19:8, Prov. 30:5, Ps. 12:6, Ps. 119:140), being “pure” is not the definition of the term Scripture. Is it interesting that the adjective pure is not claimed by KJV-only advocates to be the definition of Scripture? Something can be pure without it being Scripture. Something can go thru a purification process without it being Scripture. The word of the LORD is tried (Ps. 18:30), but that does not mean that being “tried” would be the correct definition for the term Scripture. Something can be tried without it being Scripture. Being “perfect” is not the definition of scripture even though the word of God is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25). The words of Scripture are true (Ps. 19:9, John 17:17, John 119:160), but the adjective “true” is not actually the definition of the term “Scripture.” Something can be true without it being Scripture. Being “wonderful” is not the definition of Scripture even though its testimonies are wonderful (Ps. 119:129). The words or commandments of the LORD are sure (Ps. 111:7, Ps. 92:5, Ps. 19:7, 2 Pet. 1:19), but the adjective “sure” is not their definition. Something can be sure without it being Scripture. The adjective “right” is not claimed to be the definition of Scripture even though the words of Scripture are right (Ps. 19:8, Ps. 33:4, Ps. 119:75). Something can be right without it being Scripture. The Scriptures are described by the adjective “holy” (2 Tim. 3:15), but that does not mean that this adjective is its definition. The prophets and the apostles were also described by the adjective holy (Rev. 22:6, Eph. 3:5, Rev. 18:30) so would that in effect make them the Scriptures if holy was claimed to be its definition? Likewise, while all Scripture is God-inspired or God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16), being “God-inspired” or “God-breathed” has not been soundly demonstrated to be the actual definition of the term Scripture. Can God breathe into something without it being Scripture? God breathed into man or Adam (Gen. 2:7, Job 33:4) so would Adam be Scripture according to the claimed KJV-only definition of it? Perhaps KJV-only advocates failed to prove that they are giving the definition of Scripture in Scripture. Are KJV-only advocates consistent in suggesting which type statements in Scripture are to be claimed to be definitions? For example, would KJV-only advocates take the statement “God is love” (1 John 4:16) and treat it the same way as though it were a definition of God? Would they take the statement “God is light” (1 John 1:5) and treat it as though it were a definition of God? Would they take the statement “I am holy” (Lev. 11:44, 1 Pet. 1:16) made by God and treat it as though it were a definition of God? Does this clearly demonstrate that KJV-only advocates are being inconsistent in how they claim to arrive at their definition?

 

[Logos1560]

When it is speculated, assumed, or claimed that the term Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 must refer to copies and especially even to translations, a consistent, just, and logical application of this speculative reasoning would in effect be asserting that it must include all that belong in the same sense (univocally) to those two classifications: copies and translations. Would including all copies of the preserved original-language Scriptures in effect make inspiration include any errors introduced by imperfect men in their copying of Scripture? Are all Bible translations Scripture in the same sense (univocally)? If Bible translations cannot exist without the indispensable process of inspiration, then it would be necessary for all Bible translations to be made by it. If Bible translations are given by inspiration, the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision would also have to be inspired. If all Bible translations are Scripture given by inspiration of God, then none of them are not Scripture. Steve Combs observed: “If 2 Timothy 3:16 applies to a copy or translation, then every time a translation is made, it is inspired, and every time a copy was made it was inspired” (Practical Theology, p. 35). Including all printed translations of Scripture would in effect make inspiration include any errors made by translators or printers and include the conflicting and even contradictory renderings in varying Bible translations in different languages. Thus, consistency and just measures in applying the word “all” to Bible translations would be a serious problem for exclusive KJV-only reasoning attempting to apply it selectively or particularly concerning only one English translation.

If the term Scripture in a univocal sense at 2 Timothy 3:16 is assumed to include Bible translations, KJV-only advocates have not demonstrated from the Scriptures that it should apply only to the KJV and not also to the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible and to post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV. Can a universal term be limited to only one particular thing made from it? Could some KJV-only advocates attempt to read into or to draw from 2 Timothy 3:16 a specific conclusion about translating that has not clearly and legitimately been shown to be actually stated or taught by the verse? Do KJV-only advocates attempt to go beyond what 2 Timothy 3:16 states to try to make it say something additional to which it does not directly and clearly refer? Could KJV-only advocate strain, stretch, or even possibly twist a verse to try to make it speak their own KJV-only sense or to fit their KJV-only scheme?

The sixteenth verse of 2 Timothy did not actually directly assert that God gave all Bible translations or one English Bible translation by the process or method of inspiration. Do KJV-only advocates use the term inspiration with one meaning (univocally) when they attempt to apply it to Bible translations? Do they use the term Bible translation with one meaning (univocally) if they attempt selectively to try to call one translation Scripture while denying the same for other English Bible translations? Do they attempt to read their own subjective, modern KJV-only opinions that were not in the mind of Paul into this verse? Did earlier subjective KJV-only opinions shape the later new KJV-only interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16? Is the modern KJV-only interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 possibly an example of eisegesis? Is this KJV-only interpretive result already found in the unproven KJV-only premise or premises with which the KJV-only reader began? Is every man teaching that 2 Timothy 3:16 is a reference to the KJV advocating a non-scriptural opinion of men? Could KJV-only advocates confuse what the text actually states and means with their way of reading it or into it? Are some KJV-only advocates setting up their own reason and private interpretation as the final canon of truth? Are some KJV-only advocates seeking to manufacture support in the Scriptures for certain non-scriptural, human dogma or tradition which they may have merely presumed or assumed by use of fallacies such as begging the question and have accepted without proper, consistent, sound scriptural support? KJV-only advocates do not prove that their KJV-only doctrine is found and taught in preserved Greek New Testament manuscripts or printed Greek NT editions. KJV-only advocates do not demonstrate that they soundly believe the Book when they merely read their own subjective KJV-only opinions into verses that do not directly state what they allege or assert.

 

[Logos1560]

Some KJV-only advocates attempt to stress the point of the KJV’s added English verb “is” or “is given” being in the present tense at 2 Timothy 3:16.

Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary identified given as the “past participle of give.”
A particle can function either as a verb or as an adjective or modifier. A past particle can express previous action in time past. For example, the past particle “written” in the clause “it is written” (Matt. 2:5, Matt. 4:4, Luke 4:4) can and does refer to what was written in the past [previous action] even though it is used with a present tense be verb. Likewise, the past particle “given” can refer to what was given in the past even when used with a present tense be verb. If the past particle written would convey a past verbal process, would the past particle given also convey a past verbal process? Even a present particle could refer to previous action in time past.

KJV-only advocates fail to show that the use of the present tense verb “is” at 2 Timothy 3:16 proves what they try to allege or assume. It does not follow that because God directly gave the original-language Scriptures by inspiration to the prophets and apostles that a much later Bible translation has to be given by inspiration.

Along with perhaps misunderstanding, misinterpreting, or misapplying what the added English verb in the present tense means in a proper understanding of the entire verse, many KJV-only advocates may skip over the fact that when Paul wrote 2 Timothy 3:16, the New Testament was not yet completed and additional Scripture was still being given to the New Testament apostles and prophets. KJV-only author William Grady admitted that “some New Testament autographs had yet to be penned at the time of Paul’s death” (Given by Inspiration, p. 68). Steve Combs also acknowledged concerning 2 Timothy 3:16 that “at that time inspiration was still occurring, hence the use of the present tense” (A Practical Theology, p. 35).

 

[Logos1560]

Clearly, one of us has Scriptural backing for their position here, and the other has human reasoning with ZERO Biblical evidence.

None of the scripture references to which you appeal state nor teach your modern, human, non-scriptural KJV-only assertions so clearly you do not have scriptural backing for your KJV-only assertions that are not true nor scriptural.

The Scriptures do support my consistent scripturally-based position.

 

[SGO]

None of the scripture references to which you appeal state nor teach your modern, human, non-scriptural KJV-only assertions so clearly you do not have scriptural backing for your KJV-only assertions that are not true nor scriptural.

The Scriptures do support my consistent scripturally-based position.

Why not just give that good old scripture that says only the originals are inspired.
Then you can pat yourself on the back.

And I am human as are you.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This will be closed no sooner than 1230 am EDT- (Fri) / 930 pm PDT (Thur)

 

[JonC]

The interesting thing is nobody rages against the KJV, but KJVO people rage against all other English translations as if God gave the translators of the KJV a second revelation of Scripture (which is not exactly the same as any other copy of Scripture in any other language).

 

[SGO]

Do you read your bible as if it was really the word of God, every word?

Is our God so weak that He is not able to keep His promise?:

The word of our God shall stand for ever.
Isaiah 40:8

... the word of the Lord endureth for ever.
1 Peter 1:25

 

[JonC]

Ok.....Given the topic and title of the OP I have to ask....what about the Greek and Hebrew?

I do not mean TR vs issues. Let's take for granted the TR is the better manuscript.

There are places where the KJV differs significantly from the TR.

Why not rely on the avaliable manuscript and treat translations as if they were translations of a text that were in different languages (like Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic....not Latin....)?

Why pretend that God inspired a Bible for English speaking people of a specific time in the development of the English language?

Is it too much for teachers, preachers, and students of the Word to at least take a few Hebrew and Greek college courses, even if not at a graduate level??? Or even learn the fundamentals of the languages through online courses?

What matters more, the translations or the text being translated?

 

[rlvaughn]

The interesting thing is nobody rages against the KJV...

We might quibble about whether it is "raging," but here are some examples of negative language against the KJV from right here on the the BB:

The KJV has many goofs, booboos, & poor renderings...There are 2000 missing words in KJV's NT...KJV 1611 Reads like speaking in tongues...the KJV was translated by Roman Catholic Anglicans...The underlying text of the King James version was translated from a manuscript originally assembled by a Roman Catholic Apologist...Why would you use a heretical government sponsored version of the scriptures...King James was a rampant sodomite, especially with his Catholic advisor George Villiers...as long as KJV are printed, they dedicated it to his moly holy King James

 

[SGO]

Well Greek and Hebrew for the common folk too and give them a little class.

’Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus,
Just to take Him at His word;
Just to rest upon His promise;
Just to know, Thus saith the Lord... in Greek and Hebrew.

 

[JonC]

We might quibble about whether it is "raging," but here are some examples of negative language against the KJV from right here on the the BB:

I agree with many that the KJV may not be the best translation (I do like the NKJV, but I love the language and style of the KJV).

But you are right that many go too far in their criticism. I think this is often reactionary, though. It seems the more forceful KJVO get the more people who reject a second revelation of Scriprure (which KJVO is logically dependent, even if unadmitted) push back - to the point they disparage a very good translation.

IMHO any argument against a translation is wrong. No translation is perfect. This is true with any text. Something is always lost (words, meanings, styles, expressions unique to the source language).

When we study a translation we have to look to the source language and remember we are studying a translation of a text.

It seems this is often forgotten. Often people get caught up in tradition (and the KJV sounds very old to us, even though it really is not very old at all). Nowadays tools and access to at least digital copies of the source text are easily available so there is no reason beyond laziness to study more indepth than was possible centuries ago.

But you are absolutely right that some have gone too far. We'll said and point taken.

 

[Stratton7]

We KNOW that the Holy Spirit Himself came upon and in and inspired the OT Prophets and NT Apostles to write the very word of God, NO such promised to any translation though!

2 Timothy 3:15–16
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Timothy was a child and wasn’t looking at the originals. Yet Paul considered the holy scriptures Timothy had learned from (the copies) wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. It’s clear that not only the originals are inspired.