scriptural case for or against KJV-only

[Logos1560]

In the thread entitled "How important is the KJV"

you have NO SPECIFIC VERSES in either the KJV OR any of your Modern Versions that support your position specifically from scripture EITHER.
Bro.Greg

I would agree that there are no specific verses that support making exclusive only claims for any one translation whether KJV or any modern English translation.

The Word of God is not bound by any language, any one translation, or any other barrier (2 Tim. 2:9). Therefore, it is definitely unscriptural to attempt to bind God's Word and limit it to one translation, especially one of the seventeenth century. The KJV-only view is not contained in God's Word in Hebrew and Greek; therefore, it cannot logically be contained in God's Word translated into English, Spanish, or other languages.

I would disagree with your comments if you are suggesting that there are no scriptural principles or truths that conflict with a KJV-only view. I think that there are verses that disagree with or conflict with typical reasoning used for a KJV-only view.

Are believers commanded to obey 100% the interpretations of the KJV translators or are they to search and study the Scriptures and obey them (John 5:39, Acts 17:11, 2 Tim. 2:15)? God's Word is the only complete and final authority for the believer, for the Church of England translators of the KJV do not act as mediators and expert interpreters between the believer and God (1 Tim. 2:5, John 16:13, 1 John 2:27, Heb. 4:16). Every believer has access to God (Eph. 2:18, Heb. 4:14-16, Heb. 10:19-22). The Lord Jesus Christ did not say that He would give understanding of the Scriptures only to a group of men in 1611 (2 Tim. 2:7, 1 John 5:20). "Thus saith the Church of England translators of the KJV" in words whose meaning has changed since 1611 is not more important than reading and proclaiming God's Word in "words easy to be understood" (1 Cor. 14:8-9). These verses are not in agreement with some of the claims of the KJV-only view.


Should believers make the Word of God of no effect through the warmed-over tradition of Roman Catholics which seems to bind God's Word to a single translation (Mark 7:13, 2 Tim. 2:9)? Believers should not act as those who have no understanding (Ps. 32:9). Believers have the spiritual understanding or “the mind of Christ” to the extent that they can understand or interpret the Scriptures for themselves (1 Cor. 2:14-16, 1 John 2:20, 27). Should believers add the opinions and rules of KJV-only advocates to God's Word (Rev. 22:18, Deut. 12:32)? Should it be implied that the word of God came out from only the KJV translators or that it came only unto those who speak English (1 Cor. 14:36)? God made translators different from each other (1 Cor. 4:7). The knowledge of all uninspired translators is partial, incomplete, and imperfect (1 Cor. 13:12). A translation did not bear the root (Rom. 11:18).


I also think that there are verses that support the position that the Scriptures in the original languages should be considered the greater authority or standard for the trying or evaluating of all translations or the position that no one translation should be made the final authority or greater authority over the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

 

[Winman]

No one has the original scriptures, so that argument is moot.

We basically have two texts, the Received Text and the Critical text. They cannot both be correct, because they are not the same.

For example, the Received Text that contains the last 12 verses of Mark, and the Critical Text which omits the last 12 verses of Mark cannot BOTH be correct. That is impossible.

Either one text is correct, or both texts are in error, but both texts cannot possibly be accurate.

It comes down to faith. I simply believe God wants us to know his word and that he would preserve it. I believe the King James was translated from that preserved text.

Can I prove it? NO, I believe it by faith.

 

[Logos1560]

We basically have two texts, the Received Text and the Critical text. They cannot both be correct, because they are not the same.


Either one text is correct, or both texts are in error, but both texts cannot possibly be accurate.

There are more than two editions of the Greek New Testament text.

There are twenty to thirty varying editions of the Textus Receptus that include a number of minority readings that were not received and used by the church. Textus Receptus editions even include readings found in no Greek manuscripts.

Bill Patterson referred to “seventeen different texts that comprise the ‘family’ of the Textus Receptus” (Unpublished Word, Vol. 9, No. 3, p. 14). According to Arthur Farstad, president of the Majority Text Society and Executive Editor of the NKJV, "there are actually about 30 editions of the Textus Receptus, all varying slightly" (The Pillar, Spring, 1992).

There were over one thousand textual variations in the Greek manuscripts that were used to make the printed editions of the Textus Receptus. Edward Hills observed that Stephanus "placed in the margin of his 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus variant readings taken from 15 manuscripts, which he indicated by Greek numbers" (KJV Defended, p. 117). F. H. A. Scrivener indicated that Stephanus in his preface stated that his sources were sixteen, but that includes the printed Complutensian as one of them (Introduction, II, p. 189). Tregelles confirmed that “the various readings in the margin are from the Complutensian printed edition and from fifteen MSS” (Account, p. 30). Brian Walton observed that Stephanus “reckons sixteen Greek copies, which he collated, and out of them noted 2384 various readings, which he though fit to put in the margin of his edition” (Todd, Memoirs, II, p. 132). Edwin Bissell maintained that “in the edition of 1550, indeed, the first collection of variations in manuscripts was actually published, numbering two thousand one hundred and ninety-four” (Historic Origin, p. 128).

There are also varying editions of the Critical Text.

In addition, there are a couple editions of what has been called the Majority Text or Byzantine Text.

W. Edward Glenny noted: The TR has several Greek readings which did not exist before 1516 when Erasmus put them in the Bible, and it also differs from the Majority Text over 1800 times" (Bible Version Debate, p. 51).

In footnote 1 of their preface to their second edition, Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont wrote that “the overall text of these early printed editions differs from the Byzantine Textform in over 1800 instances, generally due to the inclusion of weakly supported non-Byzantine readings” (The New Testament, p. i). In his article in an appendix of their Greek text, Robinson maintained that “the Byzantine Textform is not the TR” (p. 533).

Not counting all the varying editions of the Textus Receptus and Critical Text, there are still at least three basic New Testament texts available [not just two].

 

[Logos1560]

No one has the original scriptures, so that argument is moot.

While no one has the original manuscripts, the Scriptures in the original languages still exist.

Are you suggesting that God failed to preserve the original language words that He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles?

Therefore, the argument is not moot since the preserved Scriptures in the original languages remains the proper standard and authority for the making and trying of translations.

 

[Logos1560]

scriptural truths vs blind faith

Can I prove it? NO, I believe it by faith.

Biblically sound faith is not blind, leap-in-the-dark faith.

Biblical faith should be based on scriptural truths and principles and not on mere opinions, wishful thinking, or speculations.

“The borrower is servant to the lender” (Prov. 22:7). One way or sense that a translation could properly be considered a servant is in how it borrows, derives, or acquires its own text and its authority from its master or source original language text or texts from which it is made (Prov. 22:7). A translation is a borrower from its original language texts. As a borrower, a translation is servant to the lender or lenders [its original language texts] according to what is stated at Proverbs 22:17. The words of the master original language texts determine which words should be in a translation. The words of a translation are under the authority of the original language words from which they are translated. The original language words that proceeded directly from God set the standard and are the authority for what the words of a translation should say (John 12:49, Matt. 4:4). Therefore, it is sound and scriptural to assert that the original language words have greater authority than the derived translated words that borrow authority from their source or sources.


Principles or truths from other scriptures would affirm this truth that a translation is a servant. "The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord" (Matt. 10:24). In like manner, it can be inferred or deduced that a translation is not above the underlying texts from which it is translated. "The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him" (John 13:16). Likewise, a translation is not greater than the original language source or sources [the master text] from which it was made and translated and that gave it its proper derived authority. The lord or master gives authority to his servants (Mark 13:34). The servants do not give authority to the master nor do they have greater authority than the one who delegates authority to them. The person or servant who is sent is not greater than the one who sent him (John 13:16b). Likewise, a translation is not greater than the underlying texts from which it was made. A translation acts as a servant ambassador or messenger that attempts to present faithfully or accurately the meaning of the original language words of its underlying texts in the words of the receptor language. By its definition and in its role as a borrower, a translation can be properly considered servant to the master original language texts from which it was made and translated.


Translators/interpreters do not give authority to the prophets and apostles who were given the Scriptures by the miracle of direct inspiration. Translators do not give authority to the original language words given by inspiration of God. Translators are men under the authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages (Matt. 8:9, Luke 7:8, Matt. 10:24, Mark 13:34, John 13:16). The words of men’s wisdom and scholarship in translating do not give authority to the actual words in the original languages given directly by the Holy Spirit to the prophets and apostles. The body of Christ or believers do not give authority to the Scriptures by accepting or approving them. A translation does not give or lend authority to the Scriptures in the original languages that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

The original language words from above given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles are above or greater in authority than the translation decisions of men (John 3:31, John 3:34, Isa. 45:9, Matt. 10:24, John 13:16). Which is greater: a translation or the underlying source of the translation? Which is greater: the actual original language words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles or the different words chosen by translators to try to present the meaning in a different language? Can a translation be more pure and have more authority than that from which it was made or translated (Job 4:17, Rom. 11:18)? Are not the words given directly by God greater in authority than the choices of men in translating (Job 33:12, Job 4:17)? Shall a translation say to the ones that fashion it and to the sources from which it was made that it is superior (Isa. 45:9)? How can a supposed "lesser" authority [the preserved Scriptures in the original languages] according to the KJV-only view make a translation of itself into a supposed "greater" authority than itself? How can a branch [any translation] of the KJV-only view’s tree have "greater" authority than the vine, tree, or root [the preserved Scriptures in the original languages] (John 15:1-6, Rom. 11:16-18)? The branch did not bear or produce the root since the root and tree produced the branch (Rom. 11:18). It would seem to be unscriptural to boast for one branch in claiming that it is the final authority and to boast in effect against the root since the root bears the branch (Rom. 11:18).

 

[Greektim]

No one has the original scriptures, so that argument is moot.

We basically have two texts, the Received Text and the Critical text. They cannot both be correct, because they are not the same.

For example, the Received Text that contains the last 12 verses of Mark, and the Critical Text which omits the last 12 verses of Mark cannot BOTH be correct. That is impossible.

Either one text is correct, or both texts are in error, but both texts cannot possibly be accurate.

It comes down to faith. I simply believe God wants us to know his word and that he would preserve it. I believe the King James was translated from that preserved text.

Can I prove it? NO, I believe it by faith.

That is way too simplistic to be valid. And if you are arguing from that line of reason, then why do you pick the KJV over the NKJV which has the same textual source as the KJ?

 

[Winman]

While no one has the original manuscripts, the Scriptures in the original languages still exist.

Are you suggesting that God failed to preserve the original language words that He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles?

Therefore, the argument is not moot since the preserved Scriptures in the original languages remains the proper standard and authority for the making and trying of translations.

Yes, I meant the original manuscripts do not exist. Everything we have is a copy. What difference does it make that they are in Greek?

No one knows what the original manuscripts said, that is the debate. I believe the text used by the KJB translators was correct, you disagree. Fine.

I believe that God DID preserve the scriptures through the KJB.

I won't get drawn into a debate, I believe the KJB by faith. I can't prove it, just like you can't prove the Critical Text is the accurate text. It comes down to faith no matter which text you support.

But don't argue that they are both correct, that is impossible. It is not possible the scriptures should BOTH contain and omit the last 12 verses of Mark.

I only use these verses because everyone knows this difference. There are actually MANY other differences besides. I know you know that.

 

[Winman]

That is way too simplistic to be valid. And if you are arguing from that line of reason, then why do you pick the KJV over the NKJV which has the same textual source as the KJ?

Not keen on simple arguments are you? :tongue3:

That's because simple arguments are difficult to refute. How can you refute that I believe the KJB by faith?

You can't.

Look, the scriptures are either preserved or they are not. If they are preserved, then one text is correct. It is not possible that all texts are correct, because they are not the same. It is not possible that the scriptures should both contain and omit the last 12 verses of Mark. Either those verses are supposed to be there, or they are not. Simple.

Now, either one text is correct and all the others error, or they are all error. There are no other possibilities.

Simple. :thumbs:

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Well Said Brother

No one has the original scriptures, so that argument is moot.

We basically have two texts, the Received Text and the Critical text. They cannot both be correct, because they are not the same.

For example, the Received Text that contains the last 12 verses of Mark, and the Critical Text which omits the last 12 verses of Mark cannot BOTH be correct. That is impossible.

Either one text is correct, or both texts are in error, but both texts cannot possibly be accurate.

It comes down to faith. I simply believe God wants us to know his word and that he would preserve it. I believe the King James was translated from that preserved text.

Can I prove it? NO, I believe it by faith.

Ditto That Winman....thanks for being direct and to the point.:thumbs: Things that are different ARE NOT THE SAME!

Bro.Greg

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Praise God...I can breathe again

Not keen on simple arguments are you? :tongue3:

That's because simple arguments are difficult to refute. How can you refute that I believe the KJB by faith?

You can't.

Look, the scriptures are either preserved or they are not. If they are preserved, then one text is correct. It is not possible that all texts are correct, because they are not the same. It is not possible that the scriptures should both contain and omit the last 12 verses of Mark. Either those verses are supposed to be there, or they are not. Simple.

Now, either one text is correct and all the others error, or they are all error. There are no other possibilities.

Simple. :thumbs:

What a refreshing breath of fresh air brother. My eyes and my brain kinda "glaze" over when I start reading some of these mega-posts that some on here come up with that read like textbooks....and yes....before someone points it out...I know I have gotten long-winded on occasion myself. I'm thankful that we worship a God that has a heart for the fact that most men just need simple truth and His Light. I'm thankful for sound scholarship and truth when it is presented but I'm not impressed when anyone tries to blungeon me with it. I'm just a simple man who believes his Bible and loves an appreciates my God who loved me enough to open my blind eyes and heart to His truth. I am forever grateful. Bless you Brother.

Bro.Greg

 

[Mexdeaf]

It is ironic that people who are so adamant about having one "true" Book are so lax about knowing the "truth" that motivated those beliefs.

It would seem to me that we should all be concerned where truth may be found, and in fact if we have believed a lie, no matter how convenient, pretty and fitting that lie may be, we should flee from it in horror without looking back.

It does not take long, nor much deep investigation, to see that the claims of KJVO are largely false and built upon poor logic, repeated myths and downright slander.

That is why I fled from that erroneous belief several years ago. It's just NOT TRUE. And if it's not true, then it is a lie.

There are no other options- either KJVO is true, or it is not. Anyone who will look at the facts objectively will see what the correct answer is.

 

[Greektim]

Not keen on simple arguments are you? :tongue3:

That's because simple arguments are difficult to refute. How can you refute that I believe the KJB by faith?

You can't.

Look, the scriptures are either preserved or they are not. If they are preserved, then one text is correct. It is not possible that all texts are correct, because they are not the same. It is not possible that the scriptures should both contain and omit the last 12 verses of Mark. Either those verses are supposed to be there, or they are not. Simple.

Now, either one text is correct and all the others error, or they are all error. There are no other possibilities.

Simple. :thumbs:

It is not about refuting faith but making your faith seem illogical and lacking credibility. I would argue that you have nothing objective that points to the KJV over against, say, the NKJV. You have just decided based on subjective reasons (perhaps it is what you grew up with so it is what you believe in).

And to make your faith seem valid, you have to create an overly simplistic "only 2 texts" theory that just doesn't stand up to reality.

I don't mind simple arguments. But I loathe simplistic ones that do not correspond to reality just to prove a pet doctrine.

 

[Winman]

It is not about refuting faith but making your faith seem illogical and lacking credibility. I would argue that you have nothing objective that points to the KJV over against, say, the NKJV. You have just decided based on subjective reasons (perhaps it is what you grew up with so it is what you believe in).

And to make your faith seem valid, you have to create an overly simplistic "only 2 texts" theory that just doesn't stand up to reality.

I don't mind simple arguments. But I loathe simplistic ones that do not correspond to reality just to prove a pet doctrine.

Why do you even care what I believe? How is what I believe hurting you? I don't get you guys that despise folks who are King James only. Don't you have something better to do?

I don't care what you believe, you can use any version you prefer. But if you ask me, I believe in the King James.

Years ago I did a very detailed study on the King James and the MVs. I came to the conclusion that the KJB was the preserved scriptures in English.

But in the end, this was based on faith. There were good arguments both for and against the KJB and the MVs.

So, this is why I say I believe by faith. I believe God desires us to know his word. God is not the author of confusion. One of the versions has to be correct, I believe the KJB is the correct version in English.

Now, if that bothers you, I am sorry, but that's the way it is.

 

[Van]

KJV only and KJV preferred are distractions hindering the gospel of Christ.

The closest thing to the actual inspired words chosen by God are found in copies of the original languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Now the CT has the backing of the modern scholars of today, but it contains variant readings, and the Byzantine text undergirding the WEB differs significantly, and then we have the TR which differs even more.

A useful discussion would be for the KJV advocates to offer corrupt verses in their view over and against the CT and Byzantine text versions, where they agree against the TR.

 

[Logos1560]

Not keen on simple arguments are you?

That's because simple arguments are difficult to refute. How can you refute that I believe the KJB by faith?

Oversimplification that ignores the facts is not a compelling argument.

So-called simple arguments are often forms of fallacies [false arguments].

You seem to be arguing for the KJV using a form of the begging the question fallacy.

Advocating a KJV-only view based on fallacies is wrong. Is that simple enough for you?

Since the Scriptures do not state nor teach a KJV-only view, it is a man-made doctrine. It is unscriptural to assert a doctrine or view of man as supposedly being a view in line with Biblical faith (Mark 7:7-9).

 

[Logos1560]

God is not the author of confusion. One of the versions has to be correct, I believe the KJB is the correct version in English.

The modern, man-made KJV-only causes confusion. In contrast to the non-scriptural and even unscriptural KJV-only view, a consistent and scriptural view of Bible translation would be true both before and after 1611. Your KJV-only view was not true before 1611. The KJV-only theory also creates or causes confusion for believers who speak languages rather than English.

You may assume or speculate that only one of the English versions has to be perfect, but you do not demonstrate that the Scriptures teach that any one translation would be perfectly made by any exclusive group of scholars who could make no errors in translating [in effect a group of "popes"].

A KJV-only theory depends upon unrighteous divers measures or weights, making it contrary to what the Scriptures teach.

 

[Logos1560]

preservation of the Scriptures

Look, the scriptures are either preserved or they are not.

I believe in the preservation of the Scriptures, and I have not recommended the Critical Text. You incorrectly seem to assume or imply that anyone that believes in preservation has to believe a man-made KJV-only theory.

The scriptural teachings or principles concerning preservation of the words that proceeded from God would have to concern the original language words given to the prophets and apostles.

God never promised to preserve His Word in any language other than the original languages used in the original autographs (Matt. 5:17-18). The phrase “the law or the prophets” (Matt. 5:17) was used to denote the entire Old Testament Scriptures. The specific features “jot“ and “tittle“ at Matthew 5:18 and the “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would indicate the particular original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God. Since the Scriptures indicated the positive that preservation would be in the exact specific words that were given by God in the specific original languages in which He gave them, it did not need to state the negative that preservation did not relate directly to different words that are used in translations. When the positive principle for the preservation of the Scriptures in the original languages given to the O. T. prophets was indicated, there was no need to state again the same principle for the preservation of the additional Scriptures given to the N. T. prophets and apostles. If preservation cannot be limited to the original languages, it could also not be scripturally limited to translation into any other languages. Christ’s comment about the writings of Moses (John 5:46-47) would also refer to Moses’ writings in the original language that had been preserved and could still be read and believed. The Scriptures or oracles of God committed to the Jews or Hebrews were in the original language (Rom. 3:1-2). “The scriptures of the prophets” were in the original language (Rom. 16:26). The prophecy that came in old time would have been in the original language (2 Peter 1:21). The Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles were in the original languages (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Rom. 16:26). The actual languages in which God said or revealed His words are the original languages. The actual languages of the specific, precise, pure words given to the prophets and apostles by inspiration of God are the original languages.

 

[Logos1560]

A logical deduction from these verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would affirm that copies would need to be carefully examined, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, and that no words were changed. These verses could be understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies should be corrected.

Just as the source definitely had to be the correct standard, proper authority, and just measure or balance for evaluating the copy so the words in the original language sources would have to be the proper standard and authority for evaluating the different words in a translation made from them (Rom. 11:18, Prov. 16:11, Job 14:4, Deut. 25:13-15, Lev. 19:35-36, Ezek. 45:10, Matt. 7:17, Prov. 11:1, Micah 6:11).

The use of any unrighteous divers weights, divers measures, unjust balances, untrue judgments, or double standards in evaluating or trying copies would be wrong according to the Scriptures (Prov. 16:11, 10:10, 11:1, 20:23, Deut. 25:13-15, Ezek. 45:10, Lev. 19:35-36).

That the preserved and accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages should be the proper standard, measure, and authority for trying or evaluating translations of the Scriptures would be a valid implication or deduction drawn from what several verses of Scripture indicate.

 

[Winman]

I believe in the preservation of the Scriptures, and I have not recommended the Critical Text. You incorrectly seem to assume or imply that anyone that believes in preservation has to believe a man-made KJV-only theory.

The scriptural teachings or principles concerning preservation of the words that proceeded from God would have to concern the original language words given to the prophets and apostles.

God never promised to preserve His Word in any language other than the original languages used in the original autographs (Matt. 5:17-18). The phrase “the law or the prophets” (Matt. 5:17) was used to denote the entire Old Testament Scriptures. The specific features “jot“ and “tittle“ at Matthew 5:18 and the “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would indicate the particular original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God. Since the Scriptures indicated the positive that preservation would be in the exact specific words that were given by God in the specific original languages in which He gave them, it did not need to state the negative that preservation did not relate directly to different words that are used in translations. When the positive principle for the preservation of the Scriptures in the original languages given to the O. T. prophets was indicated, there was no need to state again the same principle for the preservation of the additional Scriptures given to the N. T. prophets and apostles. If preservation cannot be limited to the original languages, it could also not be scripturally limited to translation into any other languages. Christ’s comment about the writings of Moses (John 5:46-47) would also refer to Moses’ writings in the original language that had been preserved and could still be read and believed. The Scriptures or oracles of God committed to the Jews or Hebrews were in the original language (Rom. 3:1-2). “The scriptures of the prophets” were in the original language (Rom. 16:26). The prophecy that came in old time would have been in the original language (2 Peter 1:21). The Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles were in the original languages (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Rom. 16:26). The actual languages in which God said or revealed His words are the original languages. The actual languages of the specific, precise, pure words given to the prophets and apostles by inspiration of God are the original languages.

Yep, you believe the original words are preserved, it's just that nobody knows where they are. :laugh:

Very logical argument.

 

[Winman]

KJV only and KJV preferred are distractions hindering the gospel of Christ.

The closest thing to the actual inspired words chosen by God are found in copies of the original languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Now the CT has the backing of the modern scholars of today, but it contains variant readings, and the Byzantine text undergirding the WEB differs significantly, and then we have the TR which differs even more.

A useful discussion would be for the KJV advocates to offer corrupt verses in their view over and against the CT and Byzantine text versions, where they agree against the TR.

Absolutely bogus argument, the church evangelized for several hundred years without the MVs. If anything, the MVs have caused division and confusion.

This was not even an honest argument.