KJV-Onlyism Commentary

Michelle: Where was God when the translators for the KJV wrote in the preface that a variety of translations is GOOD? Do you not believe what the inspired translators had to say?

A few more questions.
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 (note the 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.
These are not statements of what you believe, they are questions asking you to clarify what you believe. Specific questions that I'd appreciate answers to.

Gina

 

--------------------------------------------------
As do I. KJV-onlyism is man's opinion. It is extra-Biblical. It is false.
--------------------------------------------------

You are right. the KJVO label is man's opinion of the truth, and it is false and unbiblical. You have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Clint and Gina, welcome to the wonderful world of michellism. We have been dealing with this for quite a while in the Bible Versions forum. Debating with her is like trying to climb a mountain of jello.

Ask her if the Geneva Bible was the word of God, and why the Geneva has "Passover" in Acts 12:4 and why the KJV translators changed it to "Easter". It is quite amusing.

 

God is Sovereign and uses men to fulfill His will. He was involved in the believers that translated the faithful versions we have today. Not just the KJV, which I view as a faithful version and would not quote from it if I did not, but also the ESV, the NASB, the NKJV, etc.

However, the Scriptures testify themselves that the actual prophecy that composed the Scriptures came from God to the men of old:

2 Peter 1
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

and was extended to the Apostles:

2 Peter 3:15
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

God preserved His word. He did not re-inspire it. You seem to be insinuating that I do not believe in the authority of Scripture. This is not the case. To the contrary, I view them as totally authoratative when interpreted correctly with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

You also seem to be insinuating that I do not think God had a hand in the translation of the KJV. To the contrary, he did. Christ exists here physically on earth now through the body of believers that make up the church, whether they were the KJV scholars of 1611 or the HCSB translators of 2004.

Colossians 1
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

The gift of prophecy is now past. The use of our intellect is not (Acts 17:11; Romans 12:2; 1Thessalonians 5:21; 2Timothy 2:15). Since the close of the Apostolic age we have no new revelation. All that we needed to know was inspired in the times of the Bible. However, the need for a Bible in our own language was necessary just as it was during the time of the gift of tongues.

God is still there and His Spirit persuades us, but it does not dictate to us.

 

Just remember that may be true but you still see in a mirror dimly. When we realize that it is called humility. How do you know you are not deceived? Everyone of us can be deceived in some way and not even know it.

 

--------------------------------------------------
You also seem to be insinuating that I do not think God had a hand in the translation of the KJV. To the contrary, he did. Christ exists here physically on earth now through the body of believers that make up the church, whether they were the KJV scholars of 1611 or the HCSB translators of 2004.

Colossians 1
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

The gift of prophecy is now past. The use of our intellect is not (Acts 17:11; Romans 12:2; 1Thessalonians 5:21; 2Timothy 2:15). Since the close of the Apostolic age we have no new revelation. All that we needed to know was inspired in the times of the Bible. However, the need for a Bible in our own language was necessary just as it was during the time of the gift of tongues.

God is still there and His Spirit persuades us, but it does not dictate to us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And this is the folly, and the danger that comes from slapping a label onto the truth to avoid the real issue, to which one must always hide behind a foriegn language to justify the alterations that have been done to God's word of truth. You believe that God guided the translations of these modern versions? If so, please explain to me then, why God has taken away and altered, what He has preserved for generations of English speaking believers, even unto this very day? God does not cause confusion, nor does He cause us to doubt his word. He does not put us into a situation where we must determine on our own what is his word and what is not. He has made it evident. Many unfortunately do not want to see the counterfit, and I clearly do not understand why. How can anyone who loves the Lord, his words, and others, justify and condone such alterations. I cannot, nor ever will understand this.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

michelle said "please explain to me then, why God has taken away and altered, what He has preserved for generations of English speaking believers, even unto this very day? God does not cause confusion, nor does He cause us to doubt his word. He does not put us into a situation where we must determine on our own what is his word and what is not."

You have just described your own view for the time period that spans 1611.

 

Hello Natters -

I watch the Versions forum quite a bit but very rarely contribute. I, for one, have no real problem with the variances in translations as they do not adversely affect the Message being relayed to us from the original word. There is little need for me to "quarrel over words" (2Timothy 2:14).

My concern is that a Scriptural argument be made for the origin, inspiration and preservation of the scriptures and, Lord willing, that it be received in the spirit of love in which it is presented.

My concern now is that the argument is being redirected. IF Michelle holds that the Scriptures are authoritative as presented in the KJV, then my opinion, even if misconceived, is irrelevant. The Scriptures I have posted are not being addressed. Instead, I get the argument that since I do not hold the Scriptures authoritative (a false assumption), then my arguments are nullified.

I see no Scriptural refutation to the origin of Scripture DHK and I have presented in 2Peter 1&3 and 2Timothy 3:16. Whether I hold the verses to be authoritative or not is irrelevant to Michelle's interpretation of them. The same can be said of most of the Scripture I have quoted. I see no verses coming back to me, not even irrelevant verses, only opinion and conjecture or an attempt to sidestep or redirect. It leads me to believe that her argument is not with me, but with the words of the Scriptures themselves.

It also concerns me that in one breath Michelle will speak of the Providence of God in translation(s) but in the next condemns the modern versions. If God was present in the first millenium and a half after the closing of the Canon, why would he not be present a mere four centuries later? There is a very present conflict of logic in these statements.

I have no desire to be disrespectful of Michelle. To the contrary, I am seeking to use the Scriptures as one of the tools for which they were intended. To whit:

2 Timothy 3
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

What labels have I used?

For the same reason that men who are saved and justified before God sin even though the Spirit is within them. We are not perfect. Only God is perfect.

Then why did Paul tell Timothy to study and show himself approved? Why did the Bereans search the Scriptures daily to confirm what Paul had told them?

But when the KJV translators added what we see as italicized words or used Jerome's Vulgate, were they not altering the documents before them? It is not I who is doubting nor confusing. I fully support the KJV. I don't really care if the word is "Easter" or "Passover." It does not change the content of the story of Peter's captivity.

I look forward to your response. To build upon your carpentry analogy on page 8, I must go build a chair. It will not be a perfect chair by any means, but you will be able to sit upon it with full confidence.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Then why did Paul tell Timothy to study and show himself approved? Why did the Bereans search the Scriptures daily to confirm what Paul had told them?

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


We are told to study THE SCRIPTURES to show ourselves APPROVED UNTO GOD. The Bereans searched the SCRIPTURES to keep from being deceived by the words of men, because they KNEW THE SCRIPTURES WERE GOD'S WORD OF TRUTH. God's word cannot, nor does it lie. It is the truth, and there is NO ERROR in them. God's word is perfect, just as HE IS PERFECT. If God's word is not the perfect revelation of Jesus Christ, then our belief is not a perfect belief or understanding of Jesus Christ. If you alter the words of the message, you are altering the message itself.

You falsely claim that I have not used scripture to back myself up. I have done this many times, maybe not here with you, but elsewhere. You give me these scriptures to try and show me that what I believe is in error. These scriptures you give I believe them, and know them to be the very inspired word of God, to which many tell me that I cannot, nor do have. That it is only a translation of the words of God. That only God is perfect, and men are fallible, and therefore we can't have God's word perfectly in our own language. This is simply untrue, and unfounded, and contrary to the evidence that the Lord has provided for us. You must believe this, in order to condone things, you know very well you and others should not EVER BE CONDONING. This is compromising with error and it is unbiblical.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Yours is the false claim. I gave you plenty of Scripture. I gave you a sound exposition of 2Peter 1:21, which you were unable to answer. God spoke to holy men of God, not to holy men of King James which were actually sinful men. The words of the Apostles and prophets were inspired (just as the text says), not the words of the KJV translators, nor the words of the copyists, nor the words of any other persons. Only the words of the Apostles and prophets were inspired. Stick with the text. Do you believe what the Bible says? Do you believe what 2Peter 1:21 teaches? If you do, then it is impossible for the KJV to be inspired, or God-breathed, or without any error (printer's, spelling, or otherwise). God is a perfect God, and the only perfect Bible was the inspired words that God breathed into the Apostles and prophets as they spoke His very words. That is the teaching of that verse. Either you believe it or you don't. Apparently you don't want to believe the Bible.

More evidence:
2 Peter 3:1-2 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

Can you deal with the truth of these verses? In verse two Peter says be mindful of the words which were spoken. Then he mentions two groups of people.
#1. Be mindful of the words spoken of the prophets.
#2. Be mindful of the words spoken of us the Apostles of the Lord.

What Peter is saying to these Christians who had a Jewish background, is that the words of the Apostles had just as much authority as the words of Moses and the other prophets of the Old Testament. Peter considered the writings of the New Testament inspired--in the language that they were written in. He was writing to the Christians of the first century, not to the Chrisianss of the 17th Century. He was writing in Greek. The writings of the Apostles (all of them) were in Greek. It is the words of the Apostles that Peter was referring to. They were written down in Greek. They were the words that were inspired and put on the same level as the words of the prophets which had been preserved in the Hebrew language.

The Word of God has been preserved for us today. But only the originals are inspired. The Bible teaches that very plainly. God breathed into the Apostles' and the prophets' the very words that He wanted to preserve. That was the "perfect Bible, without any error at all. We have copies of that Bible, which through time have gained some copyists and printers errors, none of which affect any doctrine, and so we can say confidently that we have the Word of God today, preserved in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Why are you so afraid of study, as the Bible commands you to do?
DHK

 

Natters,

Jason believes that he can write out an inerrrant English version of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. If he can and does, will this mean that the Hebrew and Greek is no longer the word of God?

This is how you put it in a previous post....

"It's very simple: if any single document is exclusively "the word of God", then by definition "the word of God" did not exist until that document was published. KJV-onlyism inherently implies this"

If Jason is successful, will we then have Jason-interpretation-onlyism?

God Bless!

 

steaver said "Jason believes that he can write out an inerrrant English version of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. If he can and does, will this mean that the Hebrew and Greek is no longer the word of God?"

I personally don't think he can in the first place, but to answer your question, No. For it would not be exclusively God's word. Get it? KJV-only? Only means alone, exclusive. If only the KJV is the word of God, then the word of God, by definition, did not exist prior to 1611. The KJV does not 100% match anything prior to it. If the KJV is perfectly inerrant and exclusively so, then God's promise of preservation of his word was a lie for 1600 years.

 

Ok, now I understand what you are saying. And i would have to agree with you.

Your definition of KJV-ONLY is one who holds the position that it alone, apart from the Greek and Hebrew which it was translated from, becomes the sole standing Word of God. Is this a fair summary of your position?

Just for the record, I am NOT a KJV-ONLY proponent then. I believe the KJB is the only English version translated that is inerrant from the original Greek and Hebrew cpoies whence it came. Therefore the Greek And Hebrew manuscripts from whence the KJB came would still be the Word of God.

The KJB translators did not use corrupted manuscripts such as Sinaiticus, Vaticanus or Westcott and Hort's manuscripts. This is why the KJB stands apart from the others.

God Bless!

 

What is your final authority for determining that the
Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Westcott/Hort manuscripts
are "corrupted manuscripts"?

Recall that most of the KJVO#3, KJVO#4, and KJVO#5 construe
the KJV as the final authority. Yet you are, it seems
a KJVO#2.

Check the following post be checked to find the meaning
of KJVO#x:
Definitions of KJV Only

 

http://ims.truepath.com/biblepreservation.html

 

"True" does not apply to the chart
there. There is a difference between history
and fiction, this chart is largely fiction.

One example of unTRUE on that chart is a display
of this double standard:

---603 - The footnotes are not scripture in the KJV
but are scripture in the nKJV.

For a complete list of KJVO double standards see:
Ed's Catalogue of KJVO Doubles

"1611" in the name is not applicable,
the name bearer uses a KJV1769.

Praise Iesus

[ September 01, 2004, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: Ed Edwards ]

 

Is there a "final authority" in this debate? Your scholars against mine? Your opinion against mine? Personally, I have discerned the evidences through prayer and chose a conservative position.

Well, I don't know what # I am. My FAITH is that God has given us His inspired Word translated into an English Bible which is as perfect as perfect can be when He had the King ( again, I believe this by faith ) commission the work on the KJB. I do believe the KJB is the final authority for all doctrine pertaining to the English speaking Christian life. Can we learn even more from the Greek and Hebrew language from whence it came? Absolutely! This doesn't mean the English is in error.

I guess you need a #6 which states those who believe by faith in God that the KJB is the inspired Word of God in English, perfect and without error, for the common English speaking folk who do not have the time to spend hours upon hours searching and learning Greek and Hebrew. I guess God was cleaver enough to figure out He could spread His Gospel a little quicker by putting it into English.

God Bless!

 

Amen!!! Brother Steaver. God bless your heart.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

The problem here is that you're starting down the path of circular reasoning: The KJV is without error. So, if someone who comprehends the Greek and Hebrew of the ource texts identifies a translational error, then it must not really be an error, because the KJV is without error.

The KJV does, in fact, contain some (IMO) minor translational errors, and several instances where the translation is poor. This despite my opinion that the KJV is overall a very good translation. It is by no means a perfect translation.

The biggest issue with the KJV in regards to contemporary English today is that there are numerous places where the words no longer have the same meaning that they did in 1611. For example, "to let" today means "to allow", but in 1611 it meant "to prevent". "To suffer" today means "endure pain" while then it meant "to allow". "Advertise" means "announce pulicly", while then it means "to give counsel". The idea that to say "allow the little children" instead of "suffer the little children" would mock God is ridiculous, since the Greek reads "allow the little children".

 

steaver said "Ok, now I understand what you are saying. And i would have to agree with you."

Ah, good! Most KJVO people don't tell me they agree with me about that, but try and come up with very creative solutions as to why their faith in onlyism supercedes all human logic, and thus my points are not worth responding to.

steaver said "Your definition of KJV-ONLY is one who holds the position that it alone, apart from the Greek and Hebrew which it was translated from, becomes the sole standing Word of God. Is this a fair summary of your position?"

Sort of. I understand that "KJV-only" usually only applies to English translations - i.e. the KJV is the only English translation that is the preserved word of God - differences are errors. The problem that I try to point out is that KJV-onlyism logically must be applied to the Greek and Hebrew as well, even if the KJV-onlyist doesn't understand that at first, because the KJV does not agree with any Greek or Hebrew manuscript 100% - thus for the KJV-only position to be consistent, those differences (like differences between English translations) must also be errors. Thus what is the KJV "preserving" if it differs?

steaver said "I believe the KJB is the only English version translated that is inerrant from the original Greek and Hebrew cpoies whence it came. Therefore the Greek And Hebrew manuscripts from whence the KJB came would still be the Word of God."

But the KJV does NOT perfectly follow the Greek and Hebrew copies from whence it came. Close, but not perfectly. That's the point.

steaver said "The KJB translators did not use corrupted manuscripts such as Sinaiticus, Vaticanus or Westcott and Hort's manuscripts. This is why the KJB stands apart from the others."

Neither did dozens of other English versions, some of them in existence before the KJV existed. Not using Aleph and B, etc. does not mean the KJV is translated perfectly, or even that what it is translated from is 100% textually accurate (no two TRs or Majority manuscripts agree with each other 100% either).

steaver said "My FAITH is that God has given us His inspired Word translated into an English Bible which is as perfect as perfect can be "

Why? What prompted you to have this faith? By what authority?

steaver said "I do believe the KJB is the final authority for all doctrine pertaining to the English speaking Christian life."

By what authority do you make that claim. That claim itself is a doctrine pertaining to the English speaking Christian life, thus must have originated from something that is authoritative. Do you not see? You claim the KJV is the "final authority", but you need a second, extra-Biblical authority to make that claim in the first place. Your position is inherently self-contradicting, requiring two authorities to make a claim that there is only one authority.