KJV-Onlyism Commentary

[john6:63]

Now what would you guys say if some politicians wanted an amendment to our Constitution by re-writing the Constitution into the slang speech of today. Oh boy, there would be great debate, on all the talk radio shows and TV shows, this debate could very well split our Country.

All the Conservatives would say DON’T touch it, leave our Constitution alone, b/c they would be suspicious of the LIBERAL’s, who’ll try and slip something in, in a sneaky kinda way. The Conservatives would say, keep it just as it is.

I feel the same way about the KJV. Why change something that was just fine for hundreds of years. Why another version just so people can “understand” it better, only to revise it and revise it and develop a newer version so people can better “understand” it better than the previous version that was supposedly better to “understand”. Make NO sense to me other than greedy, money hungry publishers out to make a buck and in doing so leading others down a slippery slope.

If we would revere our Constitution to that level, and I KNOW not one person here would want the Constitution re-written, then why can’t we revere the Word of God at that same level?

 

[pinoybaptist]

Hey, ya'll, the People o' the United States of America, so we can, y'know, have a more perfect union, ya'll know what I mean, establish justice, make sure we all peaceful inside this country, and able to defend one another, and take care o' one another, ya'll, and enjoy freedom for o'selves and our kids and their kids, ya'll know what I'm sayin'.....

Section, clause 1 -

Them House of Reps shall be made up of members elected every other year, ya'll get it.....

 

[natters]

john6:63 said "If we would revere our Constitution to that level, and I KNOW not one person here would want the Constitution re-written, then why can’t we revere the Word of God at that same level?"

So why did they rewrite the Bible to give us the KJV? They already had the Geneva, Bishop's, Great, and other accepted Bibles. You yourself have accepted a rewritten Bible, and refute your own argument.

 

[steaver]

You yourself have accepted a rewritten Bible, and refute your own argument.

Not exactly. Anyone can write out their own translation. This would not declare it ordained by God. One must begin by asking God for answers. If a translation has God's seal of approval, He will lay it upon your heart. The KEY is humblely asking God for wisdom while studying out the issue. If you study to prove a position right, then you will indeed find (at least in your own mind) that you are right. If you study with an open mind, then God can lead the way. Just my two cents by what I have experienced when I sought it out through prayer.

I always ask, have you asked God which view is correct, or have you only listened to "scholars"? First seek God on the issue and as you mull over each presentation of "facts" continue to ask God for wisdom and discernment.

If you truly included God in your quest for truth, and I say this because I know many who only trust in man's "wisdom" on the issue as if God wouldn't be able to help in the matter, then you have done well and may God bless you. But remember that only one position can be the correct position. God could not support both. This is why i choose conservative in the end. God promissed to preserve His Word and a 300+ year run with the KJB is the clincher for me. If those coming after change anything, then I would have to reject them. And they all have at some points.

God Bless!

 

[natters]

I said "You yourself have accepted a rewritten Bible, and refute your own argument." Steaver said "Not exactly."

Yes, exactly. John6:63's point was that a revision is wrong and would be opposed for the Constitution, and is wrong and should be opposed to the KJV. The KJV itself was a revision of an existing, used translation (The Bishop's Bible). John6:63 is arguing against using a revision. The KJV is a revision.

steaver said "I always ask, have you asked God which view is correct"

Yes, I have. He reminded me that his word existed before the KJV was published, not just after.

 

[steaver]

Yes, I have. He reminded me that his word existed before the KJV was published, not just after.

And this convinced you the KJB was in error??

You say it was a revision. I researched the issue and though the translators used these other bibles as a tool, they did not simply revise them. They based their translating on the Hebrew and Greek and refered to other works as helps.

I sure hope Will makes Jason answer his original questions. Jason has dodged almost all of them. I too want to know how errant manuscripts prove that the originals were inerrant! Can anyone here figure that one out?

God Bless!

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
I think you’re beginning to see that it is silly to deem the KJV inerrant. The Greek and Hebrew autographs were inerrant. Yes. However, there are simply some small errors and problems in the KJV.

--------------------------------------------------

I think it is pretty silly one had to go all the way to a foriegn language of Hebrew and Greek, to find understanding of the scriptures. I don't know Hebrew and Greek, and I understand those scriptures, and the meaning of those words just fine even without the Hebrew and Greek. Would you like to know the reason why? I have the best teacher in the world, and He is the Holy Spirit of truth, who leads us to all truth. Praise the Lord.


I also think that the burden of proof is upon you Jason, as you, as well as many others are falsely claiming that our premise is flawed. Our premise is the truth - to which is the scriptures. Your premise is flawed. As your premise is doubt of the truth. Oh, and by the way, God promised He would preserve His pure word of truth for every generation, and this was for HIS faithful, to which I also am, and do not know those foreign languages. Are you denying God's promise to me, and every other English speaking person who does not have knowledge of these languages to have the pure words of God? Where does God say he would only preserve them in Hebrew and Greek? In fact, the scriptures are preserved by God through HIS faithful - the church. Generations of christian faithful have known, and had available, and believed they had the very words of God, without error, for generations even until this very day. This is a wonderful, faithful and true premise to rely upon.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[natters]

steaver said "And this convinced you the KJB was in error??"

No, it convinced me that the KJVO position was in error. The KJVO position is dependent on perfect preservation of words. Since the word of God existed before the KJV was produced, and since the KJV differs in words from everything prior to it, the KJVO understanding of preservation is faulty. Preservation still happened, just not the way KJVO people believe.

steaver said "You say it was a revision. I researched the issue and though the translators used these other bibles as a tool, they did not simply revise them. They based their translating on the Hebrew and Greek and refered to other works as helps."

It was a revision. The translators had 15 rules in producing the KJV, and the very first rule was "The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit." Some mistakenly assume that the KJV translators simply sat down with a Hebrew OT and a Greek NT and started translating. Not so. Their starting point was the Bishop's Bible, which they all sat in front of them, took out their pens, and started crossing out, adding, and changing words, referencing the Hebrew and Greek in doing so. The KJV is a revision of the Bishop's, based on the Hebrew and Greek available to them, and they also referred to other existing Bibles for additional reference and examination.

steaver said "I sure hope Will makes Jason answer his original questions. Jason has dodged almost all of them."

Many of Will's questions are actually outside the scope of the debate. I hope Will is able to refrain from side-tracking the debate.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
No, it convinced me that the KJVO position was in error. The KJVO position is dependent on perfect preservation of words. Since the word of God existed before the KJV was produced, and since the KJV differs in words from everything prior to it, the KJVO understanding of preservation is faulty. Preservation still happened, just not the way KJVO people believe.
--------------------------------------------------

Does God say that the ground and pillar of truth is in the Greek and Hebrew languages? Or rather, does God say that the church is the ground and pillar of truth (1 Tim.3:15)? And if the church is the ground and pillar of truth, where then has God's pure word of truth been for the last 300 years in our language? Oh, do you say only in the Hebrew and Greek? How then can this be true, if many of the churches/God's faithful were English and English speaking? Are you saying God did not fulfill his promises? Oh, that's right. You don't believe this promise. How then, can you say God has even preserved His word at all? Even in the Hebrew and Greek, when you outright deny this promise (Psalm 12), but then use it to your advantage? God has preserved his word, and continues to preserve his word in our very own language, to which today many have placed the label of King James Version onto it.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Many of Will's questions are actually outside the scope of the debate. I hope Will is able to refrain from side-tracking the debate.
--------------------------------------------------

Will was right on topic. It was Jason who was dodging, and also pulling at straws, and comparing unrelated things to this issue to prove his illogical points. The Koran has nothing to do with this issue at all, and he used this as an example to show Will in error. Hello! The Koran is not the word of God. That is comparing unrelated things, to make the truth seem as though it is not the truth. This is shows Jason must have to stretch way beyond the confounds and facts of this issue. It shows his desperation. Further, the burden of proof is on you all who claim the scriptures are in error. You need to prove error, to which noone has done yet, except in their own vain imaginations, and no one EVER WILL, cause their is no error in our scriptures.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[natters]

michelle said "And if the church is the ground and pillar of truth, where then has God's pure word of truth been for the last 300 years in our language? Oh, do you say only in the Hebrew and Greek?"

No, I don't say only in the Hebrew and Greek. God's word has been available in the range of manuscripts and the range of translations.

michelle said "Are you saying God did not fulfill his promises? Oh, that's right. You don't believe this promise."

False witness. Don't practice your mind reading skills on me, don't tell me what I believe. You obviously have no idea. I find it very frustrating and very disappointing that you have been debating me all this time yet simply have no clue what I believe in the first place. This tells me that you want to strive and debate simply for something to do.

michelle said "God has preserved his word, and continues to preserve his word in our very own language, to which today many have placed the label of King James Version onto it."

I agree. Is that clear enough for you? I simply do not give the KJV exclusive rights to this claim. God preserved his word before the KJV was published, despite word differences and changes from what preceded it. Thus the KJVO position of exclusivity is illogical and unscriptural.

michelle said "Will was right on topic."

Which topic? The topic of the debate is "The King James Version Bible is inerrant." The topic is NOT Jason's website, which Bible Jason prefers or what his "final authority" is, etc.

michelle said "The Koran has nothing to do with this issue at all, and he used this as an example to show Will in error. Hello! The Koran is not the word of God."

Hello! Nobody is saying it is. Jason's point is that influence does not prove inerrancy. Influence of the KJV does not prove the KJV is inerrant just as influence of the Koran does not prove the Koran is inerrant. It is an example that is entirely on topic, as it is discussing the validity of an argument for inerrancy of the KJV.

michelle said "Further, the burden of proof is on you all who claim the scriptures are in error. You need to prove error, to which noone has done yet, except in their own vain imaginations, and no one EVER WILL, cause their is no error in our scriptures."

Well, we have proven "change" from previous versions. You are the one that came up with the vain imagination that those differences were not errors before the KJV was published, but magically became errors later (saying God's word changes, God's truth becomes God's error that is corrected). The problem is not that we cannot prove an error in the KJV, the problem is that you make logic work backwards just to avoid accepting proof.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
No, I don't say only in the Hebrew and Greek. God's word has been available in the range of manuscripts and the range of translations.

--------------------------------------------------

So where has God's word been in our language. Let us forget about the manuscripts and start focusing upon the scriptures in our language that God has blessed us with.

You know what, on second thought forget it. I am done wasting my precious time on those who just don't care one iota about the truth. I came here to share with you all in love, that we have God's word of truth in the scriptures and that we have them perfectly without error, and to warn you all that the mv's are counterfits, for YOUR BENEFIT not mine. I am done taking the abuse and false accusations.

May the Lord bless you and your family always. I will continue to keep you in my prayers.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[natters]

michelle said "So where has God's word been in our language."

I already answered that. God's word has been available in the range of manuscripts and the range of translations. That includes English translations. God's word was in English when we had Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Douay-Rheims, Geneva, Bishop's, Great, Matthews, Cromdale's, etc.

michelle said "You know what, on second thought forget it."

Then why did you click the "Add Reply" button after typing in your response?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
So where has God's word been in our language.

This is a crux of the false doctrine of single-translation-onlyism. Neither God nor Scripture promises us a translation of scripture in our language, preserved or otherwise. There is no scriptural support for this belief. None.

I am done wasting my precious time on those who just don't care one iota about the truth.

Those who disagree with you DO care about the truth. The truth is, plain and simple, single-translation-onlyism is false doctrine that is not scripturally supportable.

I came here to share with you all in love, that we have God's word of truth in the scriptures and that we have them perfectly without error...

I have carefully, patently, lovingly, and with an open mind and heart, read your posts carefully. Not a single post of yours contains scriptural support for your assertion that a single translation is that perfect error-free scripture.

...and to warn you all that the mv's are counterfits...

Again, not only is your scriptural support lacking, but you have yet to support this extrascripturally. Certainly, the Tyndale and Geneva are not counterfeits. Certainly, Dead Sea Scrolls are not counterfeits.

I am done taking the abuse and false accusations.

Yet you dish them out freely.

 

[Gina B]

Moderator mode: Cool down people, this is getting close to being a fight and not a discussion.

Me mode: Michelle!
There are people out here in the real world that care about the truth, but do believe that the KJV is a KJV, with the V standing for version. A version is a translation from another language.
If you believe that the translation of the KJV was miraculous in that it was the only one that could and did translate perfectly into English, you will need to provide your reason for believing that. Also, it would be helpful to know if you believe that this was also done for others throughout the world so that they could also have a perfect Bible. You wouldn't have to know which ones they are, but it doesn't really make sense to believe God chose the English speaking people alone to receive a perfect version of the Bible, unless you also believe that everyone should learn English in order to be right with God and have a perfect Bible. You'd also have to show some evidence of whichever one it is you believe in order to convince us that yours is the accurate position.
Gina

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Me mode: Michelle!
There are people out here in the real world that care about the truth, but do believe that the KJV is a KJV, with the V standing for version. A version is a translation from another language.
If you believe that the translation of the KJV was miraculous in that it was the only one that could and did translate perfectly into English, you will need to provide your reason for believing that. Also, it would be helpful to know if you believe that this was also done for others throughout the world so that they could also have a perfect Bible. You wouldn't have to know which ones they are, but it doesn't really make sense to believe God chose the English speaking people alone to receive a perfect version of the Bible, unless you also believe that everyone should learn English in order to be right with God and have a perfect Bible. You'd also have to show some evidence of whichever one it is you believe in order to convince us that yours is the accurate position.
Gina
--------------------------------------------------

I would really appreciate it, if many of you would STOP putting words into my mouth. I said this:

"You know what, on second thought forget it. I am done wasting my precious time on those who just don't care one iota about the truth. I came here to share with you all in love, that we have God's word of truth in the scriptures and that we have them perfectly without error, and to warn you all that the mv's are counterfits, for YOUR BENEFIT not mine. I am done taking the abuse and false accusations."


The truth are the scriptures, the word of God, the word of truth. This is what I was referring to, that people here, care not one iota for. I have made a statement of fact. You can either agree, or disagree, but that of course would be your own opinion, not based upon fact.


The rest of your above quote, has nothing to do with what I said here, and has also put words into my mouth, and makes it seem as though I have said them or believe them, or have not answered them, to which I most definately have. Just go on over to the BV debate threads. There you will find the answers.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Gina B]

Originally posted by Plain ol' Ralph
Junior Member
Member # 9205
posted August 28, 2004 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Gina L:
In keeping with the spirit of a good Christian debate and the rules of the BB, please refrain from making direct personal attacks on another person, such as calling them names. (debate the issue, not the person)
Gina
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I apologize if I missed what you're implying, but could you please clarify your accusation?

I find this debate completely and eloquently unto edification to all concerned. It is often the underhanded attempt to turn a simple discussion into a lessthan desired conversation by suggesting something contrary to said and interpreted rules governing these debates, though I should agree to the objection that anyone who holds to the King James as "resembling" a cult.

Those of us who KNOW the King James is inerrent and infallible, but even the more INSPIRED even as the Originals in text and comprehension,coupled with our faith in
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ that He is perfectly able and determined to preserve His Holy Bible, and that is without and even beyond confusion and deterring from the absolute Truth.

I have found after many years to concur with Brother Will J. Kinney, as I
have always found my brother to be quite the genteel in all manner and conversation above and beyond those who vehemently oppose him in any of these debates.

So, please, edify, don't make suspect. (Presumptuous sins is what the Word of God calls it)

Thank You, In Christ

Thanks for your concern. Before I answer, may I ask why you presume I was speaking to Mr. Kinney exclusively?
Gina

[ August 28, 2004, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

[Gina B]

Maybe it doesn't have anything to do with what you said here, but as you appear to be KJVO I had hoped you would answer those questions.
I'm really not that interested in the versions forum so I don't go there often, and certainly do not wish to go and do a search for all your posts to figure out if you have answered those questions. I'm asking you here, so if you wish not to respond to them simply say so and I'll not bother you.

Gina

 

[Jim Ward]

Jason,

You are being soundly defeated. Why not give up before you are 100% humiliated. Your mythical belief has no place in Christianity. "snip"
Jim

[ August 28, 2004, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

[steaver]

Wow! Will has really stumped Jason already. I thought for sure after the way Jason required specific rules that he was going to show me some proof that the KJB had errors. He hasn't thus far.

Will showed us why "hate" is correct and he totally rejects the obvious. I don't understand why Jason refuses to consider other translation team's findings as support for an "alledged error". Jason wants me to believe that all of these "scholars" got this wrong! Yet he tells us we can trust scholars do get what he supports right!

It troubles me that one who loves the Word of God and studies it deeply would hold the position that this world does not abide forever! Will is correct, as is the KJB, that this world does indeed abide forever and the scriptures declare that God will redo it, so to speak, just as He did in Noah's day with water, but this time it will be with fire. A little bible study would reveal this to even a babe in Christ.

Jason is contemplating writing an error free bible! One man is going to do what he asserts hundreds apparantly could not do over 400 years! I'm afraid I am losing confidence that Jason is going to bring me to reject the perfectness of the KJB. It isn't going well for him thus far. He has shown me that he has chosen to block out scholarly work against his view, yet accept scholarly work which supports it. He keeps refusing to answer questions which are key to this controversy. One which is "What manuscripts are inerrant and why?" Jason doesn't prove which manuscripts are inerrant, he just says some are because he says they are!

It doesn't look good for the home team!

God Bless!