KJV-Onlyism Commentary

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by steaver:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Which King James Version do you use? The true 1611 as your name says, or the 1869 version, or one of the others in between? When did the KJV finally get every single word right?

If I had a nickle for everytime I heard this!</font>[/QUOTE]If i had a penny for
everytime I heard someone avoid the question
i'd be richer than you (haveing been around longer )

Originally posted by steaver:

Let's make this easy. Give me a word from one KJV which was changed in another KJV, which was not merely an original printing error, which altered the meaning of the text.

Give me a word from one KJV which was changed some MV, which altered the meaning of the text. Note I don't even
have the KJVO cop-out phrase "which was not merely an original printing error,"

You see, it is axiomatic among MV users that
any worthwhile translation of the Bible is
inerrant, the preserved written word of
God for the time of the translation.

So far i've not seen a Bible translation that
is predictive of what the English Language
will be like for more than 50 years.
The English Language chagnes, the written
word of God does not change. The Living Word
of God does not change.

Praise Iesus!

 

[Ed Edwards]

Jason Gaastrich, August 17, 2004 07:06 PM CDT:
"I have met a guy named Will Kinney who has some web pages
on the internet and wants to debate me over the issue of KJV-Onlyism.
He believes only the KJV is inerrant."

And I "anon with joy receiveth it" (Matt 13:20, KJV1769)

Jason Gaastrich, August 18, 2004 12:31 PM
"Resolution: The KJV is inerrant. I'll take the negative."

And behold, it changeth
I don't like the change

I believe the KJV is inerrant but is NOT
the only inerrant Bible. In fact, I'm beginning to like
my new HCSB = Holman Christian Standard Bible (Holman, 2003).

 

[natters]

steaver said "Why do you believe that Will must prove the KJB inerrant as opposed to Jason proving that it isn't?"

I don't believe "as opposed". I believe in this debate, they should both attempt to prove their position - however, normally, the person affirming the positive is the one required to prove their position.

steaver said "Why won't Jason tell us which manuscripts are inerrant and why? Can you tell me which one's are and why?"

I assume Jason is not telling you because 1. his position does not require any single existing manuscript to be inerrant, and 2. it is outside the scope of what the debate is trying to resolve.

I cannot tell you which ones are inerrant, but I can tell you why - because it is not my position that God's promise of preservation mean a word-perfect manuscript, but rather preservation take place via the range of manuscripts. The problem for your position is that out of the 5,000+ manuscripts, no two agree with each other 100%. And the KJV does not agree with any of them 100%. If there was a perfect manuscript, which you seem to be after, its difference from the KJV would prove the KJV is imperfect.

 

[natters]

steaver said "Can you provide a quote where inerrancy of the KJB is disproven?"

One that I haven't see it used in the debate yet, but I'm hoping it will appear soon, will be when Kinney speaks about "Easter" in Acts 12:4. Kinney's position is that the common KJV-only argument is wrong (that "Passover occurred before the days of unleavened bread, and so the Passover had already taken place"). His solution to "Easter" is that the Holy Ghost changed the meaning. Kinney would have us believe that Herod observed the Christian holiday of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that the Holy Spirit changed the meaning scripture when the Greek was translated into English. By my definition of "error", and I think should be the definition in use in the debate, a difference from what was originally written is an "error".

Jason is basically focusing only on what the English says, which I think will be difficult to pin Kinney down with, because imaginative "explanations" can always be found for any "contradiction". However, if the focus shifted from that to comparison of the KJV to what appears in the original languages, Kinney would have a MUCH harder time in this debate. The debate so far has been about "factual errors", but should be about "translational errors". The KJV has many examples of dynamic equivalency, gender inclusiveness, and variance from the texts it was translated from. It changes the words and meanings on occasion. Differences from the Hebrew and Greek texts are translational errors, and that's where I think Jason needs to focus his efforts.

 

[michelle]

I am curious to know. Where are most peoples thoughts regarding Where is God during a translation, or concerning his word of truth, and through the course of history? No one on the mv side seems to ever acknowledge God and his providence concerning this issue. Why is it that God is always left out of this issue on the mv side? What, God doesn't care about accuracy of his word of truth in a translation, nor the preservation of it in that prospective language afterward? Does one honestly believe God would allow the faithful to believe errors (you all need to define error as what it means, rather than what your opinion of an error is) in his word of truth - the scriptures and then allow them to remain? And if so, where is your scriptural support for such belief.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[natters]

michelle said "No one on the mv side seems to ever acknowledge God and his providence concerning this issue."

To the contrary, I have always affirmed it. I have even gone further, emphasizing the role of the Holy Spirit when people read their Bibles. With the Holy Spirit, one can be led to the truth no matter which Bible one reads. Without the Holy Spirit, one will arrive at untruth even if reading a "perfect Bible".

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Briguy:
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. ... You are not alone when it comes to being attacked for not being KJV-ONLY. ...

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 ???

</font>[/QUOTE]Uh, "Follow peace with all men" ?

Can't say I blame that board, friend.

Also, "The way of peace they have not known"?

See any similarities? Don't choose to remain blind to your own antics, friend, self-deception is the worst of all deceptions.

 

[Thankful]

With the Holy Spirit, one can be led to the truth no matter which Bible one reads. Without the Holy Spirit, one will arrive at untruth even if reading a "perfect Bible".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amen, Natters!!!

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Artbook1611 -

Please cite sources when quoting material that is not your own. Your previous post posted August 29, 2004 01:34 PM Eastern is a direct quote from this website: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp

By not linking to your source, you are in violation of your user agreement, to whit:

You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by BaptistBoard.com.

See also this link: http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/20/186.html?

Clint Kritzer
Moderator

 

[New In Christ]

I'm thinking Will and Jason should have agreed on what constitutes an "error" before proceeding. Also, I don't recall seeing any agreement on how any supposed "errors" would be proven to be "non-errors".

It seems to me a lot of effort was wasted with bickering over whether appropriate postings were made to various other mailing lists or websites. I'm surprised the "terms" of the debate did not address some of these more salient ideas.

Hence, I'm not sure a profitable debate will follow, though watching the feathers fly will be entertaining.

Long Live the Geneva!

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
michelle said "No one on the mv side seems to ever acknowledge God and his providence concerning this issue."

To the contrary, I have always affirmed it. I have even gone further, emphasizing the role of the Holy Spirit when people read their Bibles. With the Holy Spirit, one can be led to the truth no matter which Bible one reads. Without the Holy Spirit, one will arrive at untruth even if reading a "perfect Bible".
--------------------------------------------------

Yes, Natters. I agree with your response here. However you failed to answer my other questions, and the main question, of Where is God in all of this?

Here is my post again:

I am curious to know. Where are most peoples thoughts regarding Where is God during a translation, or concerning his word of truth, and through the course of history? No one on the mv side seems to ever acknowledge God and his providence concerning this issue. Why is it that God is always left out of this issue on the mv side? What, God doesn't care about accuracy of his word of truth in a translation, nor the preservation of it in that prospective language afterward? Does one honestly believe God would allow the faithful to believe errors (you all need to define error as what it means, rather than what your opinion of an error is) in his word of truth - the scriptures and then allow them to remain? And if so, where is your scriptural support for such belief.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
Where are most peoples thoughts regarding Where is God during a translation, or concerning his word of truth, and through the course of history? No one on the mv side seems to ever acknowledge God and his providence concerning this issue.

This is really a scriptural nonissue. Neither Scripture nor God promises to preserve sctipture in one sole translation. Hence, making it a requirement for all Christians is an addition to doctrine. Doctrine that is not scripturally supportable is false.

 

[Gina B]

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 (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

 

[natters]

michelle said "I agree with your response here. However you failed to answer my other questions, and the main question, of Where is God in all of this?"

Well, since your questions were about those who believe God is "left out" of the issue, and I don't believe that, I didn't see how/why I should answer those questions since they didn't apply to me.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are asking me to answer.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
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 (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
--------------------------------------------------


Another one, who avoided answering my questions. I have already told you Gina, that the questions you ask of me today, have been answered on the Bible Version Debate boards. If you really desire to know, then go look there. I am not talking about these other things here. I have asked a question of Where is God in all this? to which you have not answered, and return to me with all these other questions to me, to which I already responded to.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Gina B]

Where is God in WHAT? You never asked me that, you simply replied to my previous post to you by telling me to go find your answers in another part of the forum.
You seem fond of asking questions and making statements, but refusing to answer them yourself. What's up with that?
Unless you've gone completely mad, I'm NOT going to search through thousands of posts and read them all to figure out where you MAY have discussed something in the past that I'm asking you now.
Unless you're posting for kicks and giggles over the reactions, or don't know the answers, you should have no problem with the questions.
Why keep trying to wriggle out of writing a couple of sentences and make your position look bad when you can take a couple minutes and have it over with?
Gina

 

[Ed Edwards]

Amen, Sister Gina L -- Preach it!

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by michelle:
I am curious to know. Where are most peoples thoughts regarding Where is God during a translation, or concerning his word of truth, and through the course of history? No one on the mv side seems to ever acknowledge God and his providence concerning this issue. Why is it that God is always left out of this issue on the mv side? What, God doesn't care about accuracy of his word of truth in a translation, nor the preservation of it in that prospective language afterward? Does one honestly believe God would allow the faithful to believe errors (you all need to define error as what it means, rather than what your opinion of an error is) in his word of truth - the scriptures and then allow them to remain? And if so, where is your scriptural support for such belief.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

You may correct me if I am wrong, Michelle, but it seems apparent to me that those who take a similar position to yours come across as those who are afraid of serious study, and downright lazy to study. The Bible commands us to study to show ourselves approved unto God...rightly dividing the Word of truth. I can't rightly divide the Word of truth, if I don't know what the Word of truth really says. What did Paul and the Apostles really say--in their language? Are you afraid, or just too lazy to find out? You have sentimental attachment to a 17th century book that was translated by sinful men who made apparent mistakes that you won't own up to.

God in his providence has preserved His Word in the manuscripts that has been handed down to us. That is why when we go to foreign nations, a Bible is translated from Greek and Hebrew into that nation's native language. It is not translated from the KJV, nor is the KJV taught to the people of that nation. You have a problem there don't you. Over 1.5 billion people speak Mandarin. Are you going to teach them Shakespearean English before they can learn the Bible in Mandarin? Three times as many people in this world speak Mandarin than English. Perhaps they should say that their Bible is the only Bible that is inspired and all the world should learn Mandarin--just by sheer force of numbers. It would make sense wouldn't it?
Why should they be forced to learn our language?

God in his providence has preserved the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts so that a multitude of translations could be made in every language including English, no one of which (including the KJV) are inspired. To be inspired there would have to no mistake at all--no spelling error, no printer's error, no kind of error whatsoever. There could be no difference between the editions of the KJV to be inspired. To be inspired means God-breathed. If it is God-breathed it is absolutely perfect, flawless in every way. The KJV doesn't cut it. It does have errors of many different kinds. Even the staunchest KJVO has to admit this.
DHK

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
God in his providence has preserved the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts so that a multitude of translations could be made in every language including English, no one of which (including the KJV) are inspired. To be inspired there would have to no mistake at all--no spelling error, no printer's error, no kind of error whatsoever. There could be no difference between the editions of the KJV to be inspired. To be inspired means God-breathed. If it is God-breathed it is absolutely perfect, flawless in every way. The KJV doesn't cut it. It does have errors of many different kinds. Even the staunchest KJVO has to admit this.
--------------------------------------------------


Please provide scriptural support for these things you believe, including where God has commanded me to learn a foriegn language in order to search the Hebrew and Greek scriptures daily. And where God considers a spelling, printing, typeface, etc. difference as error. Could you also please answer my question: Where is God in all of this?


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Marcia]

Michelle, DHK did not say God commanded you to learn a foreign language. Read what he said again. He said that if KJVOs think people who do not speak English need to learn 17th century English to read God's word, wouldn't it make more sense if we learned Mandarin Chinese since more people in the world speak Chinese than English?

In other words, why do the KJVOs believe that God wants or requires non-English speaking people to learn 17th century English in order to have "God's word" (which KJVOs define as the KJV only)?

You always sound like you think English is superior to all other languages. It isn't. It is a remarkable language, however, and you know why? Because of its adaptibility and flexibility, which is why we no longer speak 17th century English.

The KJV, as many have pointed out, went through a lot of editions because it did contain copyist and translators' errors.