KJVonly v only KJV

[robycop3]

I think that deep down inside they DO care where the KJV came from...they just don't wanna DISCUSS it because they KNOW a truthful discussion of the matter will shoot down their KJVO myth.

There are several SEVERE PROBLEMS with the KJVO myth that they try to avoid. Why? It's a PHYCHOLOGICAL matter. While most of'em are fine Christian people, they've been caught up in the myth so long that they're reluctant to let it go. They're COMFORTABLE with it, despite its obvious falsehood. It's similar to any other bad habit...Rather than face up to the TRUTH and doing something about it, they try to maintain the status quo.

Once again, the "ONLY" valid excuse one has for being KJVO is PERSONAL PREFERENCE. None of the other excuses hold any water. There's simply NO SCRIPTURAL JUSTIFICATION for their myth.

Just face it, KJVOs...Aside from personal preference, YOU ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE for spreading your false doctrine. Why do you spread and perpetuate a PROVEN LIE? You know full well your myth eas started by a CULT OFFICIAL and spread by authors who LIED at every turn, repeating the original errors while making up some of their own...and the more recent authors have continued in the same mold, adding more garbage to the pile.

Have any of you KJVOs actually thought back to how you became infected with your myth? Have you ever tried to find its dishonest roots? Have you ever considered the possibility that your sources, along with the entire myth, could be DEAD-WRONG???

In conclusion...You KJVOs simply DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY YOUR MYTH! You're only deceiving YOURSELVES! You're trying to fly a lead balloon.

 

[manchester]

God has never... EVER... told anyone that the KJV is his only perfect Word in English. If a spirit told you that, then you need to learn discernment.

 

[DavidFWhite3]

Am I correct in gathering from these posts, that there are actually some of you out there who believe that the only reliable translation of the Bible for the English speaking world is the King James Version? If that is so, then I must say with all due respect, that those of you who actually believe this might as well be arguing over how many angels you can stand on the head of a pin.

Dave

 

[GrannyGumbo]

 

[Pastor KevinR]

Originally posted by DavidFWhite3:
how many angels you can stand on the head of a pin.

Dave

Somewhere between one and a zillion!

The Word of God can still be found in the very same place as the AV translators found them; the Originals, and the former translations diligently compared and revised. If the Originals were good enough for the KJV translators, they're good enough for me!

 

[av1611jim]

The trouble with your statement Pastor KevinR is that there is at least an 1800 year history as to WHAT is the ORIGINAL text!

So WHICH is it for you? Mine is the Bysantine(sp) (Syrian) text of Antioch. I would assume by your comments that your's is the ALEXANDRIAN text of the heretic Origen? And he WAS an heretic. But if not then my apologies. MANY on this board would however, hold to the exact text of W/H which is of Origen origins. (Like that play on words...Origen-origin?)

In HIs service;
Jim

 

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by av1611jim:

I would assume by your comments that your's is the ALEXANDRIAN text of the heretic Origen?
MANY on this board would however, hold to the exact text of W/H which is of Origen origins.
In HIs service;
Jim

My view of Bible translation has nothing to do with Westcott/Hort. It is interesting that you
trust so fully a text edited by Erasmus who
was influenced by Origen.

Peter Ruckman even acknowledged that the hero of Erasmus was Origen (KING JAMES ONLYISM, p. 10).
Irena Backus observed that Theodore Beza often referred to Erasmus as being "too much under the influence of Origen" (REFORMED ROOTS OF THE ENGLISH N. T., p. 39). John Gleason noted that "Erasmus thought one page of Origen worth ten of Augustine" (JOHN COLET, pp. 262-263).
Rummel claimed that Erasmus in his Annotations cited "Origen most often to confirm a reading different from the standard text" (ERASMUS' ANNOTATIONS, p. 67).

Do you consider the Roman Catholic views of Erasmus to be doctrinally sound?

 

[DavidFWhite3]

Originally posted by Pastor KevinR:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DavidFWhite3:
how many angels you can stand on the head of a pin.

Dave

Somewhere between one and a zillion!

The Word of God can still be found in the very same place as the AV translators found them; the Originals, and the former translations diligently compared and revised. If the Originals were good enough for the KJV translators, they're good enough for me! </font>[/QUOTE]The originals would be good enough for us all, but there are no originals, only copies of copies of copies of originals. Pray tell me where I, you, or anyone on the entire planet can get hold of an original manuscript and we'll get the very best Hebrew and Greek scholars in the world to translate for us. But when we do, should we require them to translate into a dialect of the English language nobody uses today? Or might it be wise to translate into a dialect we can all understand, such as eighth grade reading level newspaper English. (This is not meant to be an insult to anyone. I read somewhere that a good newspaper editor will see to it that news stories are written at this level so all who read can understand.)

Fact regarding the history of english translations do seem to be intentionally ignored by KJO types. I can see why. Facts destroy the KJO doctrine. The texts used by the KJ translators in 1611 were good, and the KJ is a very good translation. But some very good translations into english have come along since that rely upon much better, older, and therefore, more reliable manuscripts. If there ever was a matter of men putting their traditions ahead of an honest search for accuracy, it is exemplified by the KJO crowd.

So I have fallen into an absolutely meaningless and rediculous debate, and even contributed a little. Now I think I'll go spend an hour with my RSV, NASV, NEV, TEV, and NIV and thank God for the scholars who made these magnificent translations available.

Dave

 

[robycop3]

Dave...The KJV "peacefully co-existed" with several other English versions for a long time, despite the British monarchy's attempts to wipe out all but the KJV. Once those men were dead or out of power, the brute-force KJVOism went with them.

Only in fairly-recent times has the current KJVO myth been spawned by a cult official and nurtured by several dishonest authors. Now, it's a cash cow for a whole genre of corny writewrs who present the same ole garbage in a new dumpster.

 

[Bible Student]

DavidFWhite3
Said:
"But some very good translations into english have come along since that rely upon much better, older, and therefore, more reliable manuscripts."

I have stated before that just becuse something is "older" it is not "more reliable" or "better". That is an opinion not fact.

Richard

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Bible Student:
DavidFWhite3
Said:
"But some very good translations into english have come along since that rely upon much better, older, and therefore, more reliable manuscripts."

I have stated before that just becuse something is "older" it is not "more reliable" or "better". That is an opinion not fact.

Richard

This is logical; There are other factors involved when a person says that they are "more reliable". You notice they did NOT say: "more reliable because they are older."

 

[Bible Student]

LRL71
Said:
"Only the original manuscripts-- of which there are none surviving-- can boast being both inspired and inerrant. Therefore, since we have copies of manuscripts with errors in them, we do not have a Bible today that is 'perfect'."

Then what do you have to offer me? If you can not produce the whole truth about God, I question if you can product any truth about God. I do not want the best you can give me, I want the whole truth. If you can not, I have better things to do with my life. The Mormons also tell me they have the Book of Mormons, but you say it is a lie. They can not produce the orginials to prove it, and you say you cannot produce the orginals to prove your Bible and I see no difference in the argument. The final conclusion is we have no reliable Word of God today because the copies have errors.

Richard

 

[Ziggy]

avjim: "So WHICH is it for you? Mine is the Bysantine(sp) (Syrian) text of Antioch. I would assume by your comments that your's is the ALEXANDRIAN text of the heretic Origen?"

Aside from the fact that Origen did *not* create the Alexandrian text (as is proven by Alexandrian papyri we have that pre-date Origen), your other point of contention is also in error:

First, the origin of the Byzantine text cannot be localized to Antioch (except in the literature of KJVO defenders), and if it could, then it would be secondary and not primary, since the autographs did not originate from there, nor was Antioch their destination.

Second, the greater problem is that the KJV's own underlying text is *not* the Byzantine text, but -- as admitted even by many KJVO defenders -- instead is a conglomerate of Byzantine, Alexandrian, and even Latin Vulgate readings, the combination of which is not found in *any* existing manuscript, ancient version or ecclesiastical writer (this is clearly acknowledged and demonstrated by Scrivener in the appendix to his reconstructed edition of the Greek text supposedly underlying the KJV).

Thus, the question, "So WHICH is it for you?" ends up being a matter of KJVO and nothing more, *despite* whatever evidence may exist to the contrary.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Gregory Perry Sr.:
Phillip...since your questions didn't come in the form of another belligerent attack like I have seen so many other times I will at least attempt to offer you my honest personal opinion.I really don't think it will necessarily satisfy your questions but it will at least give you the basis for why I personally choose to believe what I do...so here goes....

God Bless You,
Greg

Thank you for the answer Greg. It is nice to have someone give you their answers than start a cat-fight over disagreement.

I must say that I would have to disagree with the person that says that the KJV is full of errors and therefore you need to use the NASB. Although I have no problems using an NASB, that certainly would NOT be my reasoning. I think the KJV is a very accurate translation and I believe that many, many people have been brought to the Lord through the King James. I have NEVER said the King James is not a good and legitimate translation.

Where I will disagree with you is my belief that my NASB is also the Word-Of-God; but I am not going to go at your throat based on your love for the KJV.

We may have to agree to disagree (which is more than I can say for many on either side of this debate.)

Thank you for an honest answer. It is well appreciated.

 

[Ziggy]

bs: "The Mormons also tell me they have the Book of Mormons, but you say it is a lie. They can not produce the orginials to prove it, and you say you cannot produce the orginals to prove your Bible and I see no difference in the argument. The final conclusion is we have no reliable Word of God today because the copies have errors.

I fear that thou dost err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.

To turn the argument around, on what basis can the KJV (or any one translation) be claimed to represent those same "lost autographs"? And in such a case, one *still* has "no reliable Word of God" because KJV conformity with the autographs cannot be established in any manner.

The contrast with the Book of Mormon is a different matter: the BOM certainly has no "autograph" available, because of the claim that the golden plates were taken by Moroni into heaven once Joseph Smith made the "perfect" translation therefrom (never mind that various printed editions of the BOM differ among themselves).

The real issue is that there is *no* chain of manuscript transmission for the BOM -- only various printed editions. For the NT there are 5000+ manuscripts, many ancient versions (preserved in their own manuscripts), and a slew of patristic quotations from which most of the NT could be reconstructed even if we had *no* MSS or ancient versions.

The sheer multiplicity of sources for the NT text, spread without collusion over a wide geographical area, and sharing a common text that is 90% or more identical, guarantees "autograph originality" for the vast bulk of its text. The BOM has no comparable chain of evidence.

Of course, if a truly ancient manuscript of the BOM were discovered in archaic Hebrew among the Aztec ruins....Naaah...

 

[Bible Student]

Ziggy you missed my point all together. I am looking at this from a non christian point of view. If you only have 90% of the truth you do not have truth. Anyway, how do any of us know that the 90% is correct if we do not have the orginials to check them to? You see this can go in a wide circle and not prove anything one way or another.

Richard

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Phillip,Thanks for your reply and the spirit it was given in.I believe what I feel certain God showed me but I'm NOT about beating other brothers and sisters over the head with it.I would submit to you and everybody else that has been firing these "zingers" back and forth(myself included)that our time would be better spent for our Lord by trying to live by the Apostle Paul's words as given under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in 2 Timothy verses 19 thru 26 with particular emphasis on vs.23 and 24.I'll not quote it because it is always better if we each take the time to open the Word of God for ourselves.It is ALWAYS a worthwhile exercise!Check it out!The fruits of the Spirit are more to be desired than strife or argueing anyday.By the way...lol....I heartily suggest you read those verses in your KJV...they flow much more nicely......in my opinion.

Greg

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
Phillip;
My Bible is perfect. It has a perfect author. Fairly simple if you just leave it there. Then you don't get all the headaches of trying to figure out what God is saying.
For example. Some folks claim this is not in the "oldest and best" MSS.
Ac 16:31
"And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."
Now why would they say that it should not be there? Who knows for sure? Well I do. It is there for a reason, and that reason should be obvious to a christian. Jim

Acts 16:31
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. KJV (1769 Oxford VERSION)

Acts 16:31
They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved---you and your household."
(NIV)

Acts 16:31
And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
(RSV)

What's the problem?

 

[rsr]

The problem, if it is one, is that the modern versions have "Lord Jesus" instead of "Lord Jesus Christ." The latter reading is found in the majority of the manuscripts, but not in the earliest.

Obviously, the MV readings negate the entire gospel.

 

[Phillip]

Hmmmm! Isn't "Lord" and "Christ" somewhat synomymous?