KJV-Onlyism Commentary

You can find a lot of good information here:
KJV ONLYISM

 

Jason,

I hope you eat his lunch!!

Will used to post here alot but hasn't much since last spring. Unlike many KJVO he was willing to discuss specifics and posted lots of material. You might browse his posts in the 2003 and 2004 Archives or look under his profile (he posts as Will J. Kinney) to see how he answered some of our arguments. Good luck.

C Meadows

 

Jason, I used to go to a KJV-only board and I stopped going because some of the people were just nasty to those who did not hold to KJV-onlyism. I posted the verse about kindness to eachother and the nastiness to me got a little better. I saw some valid points and I read the KJV more now because of the time I spent on that board. Several people on the board were so un-Christlike that it just frustrated me and saddened me really. You are not alone when it comes to being attacked for not being KJV-ONLY. The worst thing is that the KJV in my opinion is a really good version and should be included whenever you study somrthing in the Bible. Well, just thought I would share that. Take care!!

In Christ,
Brian

 

Perhaps we need to define just what inerrancy means to each of us?

If by inerrant we are saying that the exact words chosen by a given translator or without flaw...

Then I would disagree with any statment saying that any translation is 'inerrant'...

However, if by inerrant we are saying that a given translation faithfully transmits the intent of God's Breath through the Original Authors...

I can handle that...

I read more than one translation... With the original NIV being my primary 'reading' Bible and the KJV being my Primary Study and Search Bible...

There are translator errors or rather editorializng in the KJV because the Translators had to get the Kings Approval for it...

That is one reason it is called the King James Version. The original Greek is Jacobus... How you get James out of that I don't know?

But, James we have from it and forever it will be James.

By having and comparing other translations I can pick up clues about places where different groups of translators *may* have innocently 'slanted' their translation and go to the Greek to discren, if possible, the root of the matter...

 

Personally, I think we should use many translations. However, in any good study we need to look up the Hebrew or Greek words and see where else those words were used to get a good idea of how the word should be interpreted. We have to also realize that only the original language is purely inspired scripture. The translations may be biased based on the translator or sponsor of the translation.

I use the KJV just because it is more structured of a translation making word studies easier.

 

Kinney is slippery and long winded. However, he is more willing to dig and to even accept valid arguments than most KJV-only people I have encountered (for example, he is the only KJV-only person I've encountered to agree that Passover can refer to the entire week of unleavened bread (Luke 22:1) and says the other KJV-only people are therefore wrong, but then turns around and says "Eeaster" in Acts 12:4 is still correct anyways because the Holy Spirit gave words new meaning). You will have much difficulty pinning Kinney to consistency. Dealing with his double standards and circular arguments will be the biggest challenge.

I suggest before starting the debate, you reach an agreement as to what constitutes an "error" in the first place. Is it a wording disagreement between the KJV and the TR? Is it an interpretation of a particular passage? Is it a textual variant that was chosen for the KJV when the reading from another manuscript is more likely genuine? Once you have established this, stick to this. Do not let him change definitions midstream, go off on rabbit trails about other versions, etc. If you make a good point and he avoids it, hammer it again and again and again until he deals with it.

I do not envy you your task. Kinney is easily proven wrong, but he will refuse to accept it, and will masterfully obfuscate until you're ready to poke yourself in the eye with an ice pick.

 

The first half of Will's opening statements, although worthy of discussion, misses the mark. The debate is supposed to be about inerrancy of the KJV - not about other versions, Jason's website, etc. The second half of his post is more on topic, although Will tries to give KJV-onlyism a free ride on "preservation" - instead of limiting his comments to showing how preservation is fulfilled exclusively and perfectly in the KJV.

 

Will: //The Bible cannot be clearer concerning it's preservation:
...
Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a
furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep
them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from
this generation for ever."
... //

With plenty of good verses to use showing
God's ability to preserve His words for all
generations, Will poorly uses the deception
of Psalms 12:7.
By skipping verse 5, where the nouns are that
the "them" in verse 7 refers to, the deception
is complete. In fact, If one were to use the
REAL KJV1611 edition instead of the phony KJV1769
edition, he would have found:

Pfalms XII.7 (KIV/King Iames Version/1611):
Thou shalt keepe them, (O LORD,) thou
shal preserue +them, from this generation
for eurer.

Sidenote: + Heb. him. euery one of them

Even the REAL KJV1611 allows that what the
pronouns in verse 7 refer to is the people in
verse 5 NOT THE WORDS in verse 6.

 

This happened to me last year
about thsi time:
-----------------------------------
On a Bulletin board that says:

This is an independent, fundamental Baptist
discussion board that
accepts the King James Bible (AV 1611) as
the perfect word of God
and the final authority in all matters
of faith and practice.

I posted this:

Romanes X:9 (KJV1611):

That if thou shalt confesse with
thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and shalt
beleeue in thing heart, that God hath
raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saued.

It was edited out with this note:

"Note: Quotations from all other Bibles deleted
by the administrator."

The quote of the same verse from KJV1873 was
allowed to remain.

Tee hee, a KJB1611 site that
doesn't accept quotes from
the KJV1611. Tee hee.

-----------------------------------
And here is what was posted from the
administrator of that site
on a neutral site where the above appeared:
-----------------------------------

Dear Mr. Edwards,

Laugh now while you have the chance.
You came to our discussion board knowing
our stand on the King James Bible and
yet you decided to stir up a little trouble.
You quoted Romans 10:9 from many different
bible versions trying to prove that
they all stated the same thing.
In the middle you used King James Bibles
from 1611, 1769, and 1873 trying to
make it look like they were all different.
The deletion was to get rid of your redundancy
as well as your quotes from modern versions.
So laugh all you want to because
I am banning you from our board.

/name surpressed/

-----------------------------------
Tee hee, a KJB1611 site that
bans KJV1611 quoters ???

 

Will: " ... the King James Bilbe exalts
the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ ...
all modern versions debase ... "

Hee Hee!
I define "Modern Version" to be any Bible Version
produced since the Modern English ALphabet
was established (about 1600-1650AD), i.e. Since 1650.

The King James Version was first translated in 1611
making it NOT a Modern Version.
The King James Bible (KJB) for the majority is
the KJV1769 retranslated (some say re-spelled) in
1769AD. My my definition of "Modern Version"
the KJB is a Modern Version.
This reduces Will's argument to siliness.

I know of two versions produced in the 1990s
that claim to be corrections of the KJV.
Neither is accepted by the KJVOs. Both read very much
like the KJV1769.

We note Will does not follow the following Baptist
Board conventions, which we try to maintain.
He has had his chance to find out about them, but does
not choose to follow them. Personally I don't respect
rebels who can't follow simple conventions:

1. That is "Modern Version" (MV) with capital letters
to show honor to these forms of the Holy Bible, God's
Sacred Written Word. "The small letters "mv" are a
reproach to these Bibles of God.

2. Please show complete version references when using
scriptures. I have three different King James Versions
in my collection and two versions that generally read
like King James Versions. I like to look up scripture
(I've also got a couple of dozen other versions handy
in paper form) I need to be a good Berean and check out
the scripture daily to see if what is claimed is correct.
PLease help us good Bereans by citing the source.
I note most KJV/AV electronic sources are the KJV1769

The three KJVs:
KJV1611
KJV1769
KJV1873
The two translated from the KJV:
TMB = Third Millennium Bible
21KJV = 21st Century King James Version

We note that Will does follow the following recent convention
which gives honor to God. For using this we commend
Brother Will.
Many MVs capitalize pronouns referring to God and
to the three members of the Blessed Trinity. This shows
honor and respect for God.

 

Will Kinney: "Hi Jason, I appreciate the
opportunity to defend the King James Bible
as being the complete, preserved, inerrant,
and inspired words of God."

Unfortunately, Jason seems to think that
you were going to argue:
the King James Bible is the only
complete, preserved, inerrant,
and inspired words of God

Amen, Brother Will to the first statement.
I dis the second statement.

The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
is the complete, preserved, inerrant,
and inspired words of God.
The HCSB has the advantage of being written in
the early 21st Century English language which
i comprehend. Here are some King James classics
and the centuries from which they hail:

KJV1611 - written in 17th Century (1601-1700) English
KJV1769 - written in 18th Century (1701-1800) English
KJV1873 - written in 19th Century (1801-1900) English

If God has preserved His Holy Written Words for each
generation, how come there is no KJV for MY GENERATION?
Well, there isn't one accepted by KJVOs.
BTW, Brother Will, which of the three commonly available
KJVs is your KJB?
This is a trick question.
Failure to answer the question will reflect
upon your viability as a debater.
The "weak sister" saying: "they are all the same"
or "they all sound the same when read aloud" you can say,
and might even believe,
but the saying of them will be counted
the same the same as NO ANSWER.
BTW, i've found electronic KJVs to all be the KJV1769.

 

I saw that over there on his site, and did want to comment on it. He makes the connection of "East" being the direction the Sun rises, and now of course, it refers to the "Son". I looked it up today (in Random House, unabridged), and sure enough, it did say that "Easter" was "akin" to "east", but didn't show the exact connection. Still, this does not justify putting Christ into this whole "rise in the east" business. Christ may be associated with "the sun" in places in the Bible; but that is always in terms of the light; NEVER its "rising", (and the direction of "east"). That was always the main element of the pagan "Eostre", which Will seems to gloss over. Some elements of the Gospel do parallel pagan things (which are a corruption ofGod's plan anyway), but never to that extent. This just justifies the Church's (RCC, that is) copying of a pagan ceremony to appeal to the pagans, and it is surprising to see a KJVO take this stance. We can see such an "Easter sunrise from the east" service in Exekiel 8, and God did not approve of it. Do you really think God would simply paste Christ onto it, and make it OK all of a sudden?

 

There's also the MKJV (Jay P. Green, Sovereign Grace Publishers); both a 1962 and 1990 edition, plus a 1985 "literal translation" (also used for his interlinear). I liked the 1962 version, because it is almost just the old KJV with th words updated. (While theKJ21 puts back the old words that are familiar, such as "thee", thou", etc.). The 1990 version updates more words.
He is actually considered a KJVO (at least by critics of KJVO'ism), but I have never heard how the other KJVO's receive it. They are always busy on the more wellknown modern versions.

 

Green's translations are MORE literal and faithful to the TR than the KJV is, Green eliminated several of the dynamic equivalences found in the KJV. KJVO's that have been made aware of this still reject it (simply because it differs from the KJV) but see it as "the lesser of many evils" because it is TR based and so literal.

 

Jason,


Where is the link to this debate on your website? I have yet to see it?

By the way, if one goes to Will's website, one can easily paste and cut the link, to which brings them directly to the debate thread - so don't use this, and accuse him of failing to do what your requirement were. You are adding to the requirements you already specified as you go along.
Will has done all you requested of him, and in my opinion you are making yourself look as though you are avoiding this debate, and only trying to paint an untrue picture of Will, to which I find very unchristian like behaviour.

My opinion, is that Will should not waste his time with the likes of those who would go to this ridiculous extreme. Whatever happened to personal emails? You could have kindly expressed these things to him personally, instead of airing all this to the public, to which in the end makes you look bad, not Will - as this is what it seems you were/are trying to do (typical of the mv proponents). And, if you had been MORE CLEAR in your requirements, rather than contradictory, and adding as you go along, none of this would have taken place and could have been avoided.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

This is a valid remark, but only in part. We all no full well that there are nasty folks on both sides of this ilse. I have seen some nasty KJV Only folks and I have seen just as many on the other position as well. It is unfair to imply that KJV Only folks are the only one's you encounter who can be quite rash.

Will is not perfect and nobody can be 100% right about everything. But I must say that he is the first and only guy I have come accross so far who simply states the facts, giving a wide range of readings from numerious translations. This gives the reader some info to discern by, unlike those who debate with nothing but passion and pride.

Will is fair. He gives alot of info backing his position. I do not know Jason, but I am eagar to listen to him as well and wish to hear him without any preconcieved attitude towards him. If he can present some good reasoning for folks to accept that the KJV is in error, then I am all ears. Personally I have embraced the KJB as perfect. But I am always willing to listen to those who believe it is not, because maybe I am in error and I want to be on God's side. I pray that I do not follow error.

God Bless!