Featured Seriously, why the KJV?

You improperly attack my honesty and misrepresent what I state. I have not claimed what you incorrectly allege. You invent a strawman that is not my position, and you improperly try to put words in my mouth that I do not say. You incorrectly claim I am supposedly arguing something that it is not what I have asserted. I have not advocated nor recommended the Critical Text and English translations based on it. You do not discuss and answer what I actually state.

The KJV itself is translated from multiple varying or differing original-language texts, and it is a revision of multiple varying English Bibles that had some textual differences, and the English translations that I recommend such as the 1537 Matthew's Bible, the 1560 Geneva Bible, the KJV, and the NKJV are all translated from those same multiple sources on which the KJV is based.

Are you attacking the sources on which the KJV is based?

KJV-only author David O-Steen asserted: "The age-old tactic is that when you cannot defeat the message you attack the messenger" (Study Notes on the KJB, p. 121). You seem to be trying to attack me instead of answering the points and statements that I present.

 

I am not attacking you at all. I am defending attacks against me as a KJV only believer. It is none of my business what you believe unless you petition for membership in my local congregation. At that time it will matter. You wanted my reasoning for my personal belief in the KJV as the word of God and I have given it. I have quoted no one else and I do not speak for anyone else. I am telling you what I believe and why I believe it. God will judge you and your work.

 

I do not at all reject the sure truth that there is a real Satan. Your accusation bears false witness.

As the father of lies, the devil would approve the use of fallacies [false arguments] that are evident in KJV-only claims. By use of the fallacies such as begging the question and special pleading, KJV-only advocates merely assume KJV-only premises to be true without proving them to be actually true. Satan would also likely approve of the false claims and false accusations evident in KJV-only writings.

KJV-only advocates also use the fallacy of false dilemma when they suggest that believers have to accept and believe non-scriptural KJV-only opinions of men or else they are guilty of unbelief. KJV-only advocates often seem to become accusers of many brethren [the believers who disagree with human, non-scriptural KJV-only teaching].

 

There are two men on here who write as if they know the Greek language but who does not believe the text I used to prove they don't believe it. So, you are wrong and are a false accuser because they do not believe that Acts 2:38 gives two conditions for receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost that had just been sent down from God out of heaven. It is not just the KJV they do not believe, it is also the Greek. The others who have commented here are not denying the KJV alone gives these two conditions, but they do not believe the NASB, which I quoted, and which gives the same two conditions as the KJV. So don't say I am accusing them of not believing the KJV but understand I am accusing them of not believing the words no matter where they are found.

Knowing the Greek language does little for the cause of sound doctrine. One could hire two men, one a Presbyterian and another an independent Baptist, to translate a brand new translation and when they were finished the Presbyterian would still be a Calvinist and believe their system and the Baptist would remain a Baptist and a non Calvinist.

If the scriptures makes a statement that is plain and unambiguous, as our example from Acts 2:38 is, and someone says they do not believe it, it is proper to label that person an unbeliever, at least in that statement.

 

That is your opinion. You have not demonstrated that non-scriptural KJV-only teaching does much for the case of sound Bible doctrine. There have been many false teachers who taught from the KJV.

The Scriptures state nor teach any KJV-only command or any requirement for use of only the KJV. KJV-only teaching is not Bible doctrine in the Scriptures that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

The word of God is not bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England priests/critics in 1611.

 

Well, how many translators can you list who were changed from one view to another because they knew the Greek language well enough to translate it? I would be interested in knowing that.

. And God gave you the charge in the scriptures to spend your life correcting them, where?

You are of course wrong again. All translations that I know about makes the claim in their texts that they are the word of God. The words of the KJV translators do not appear in the texts. When you quote the source manuscripts you are not pointing to any manuscript that Greek speakers agree is the word of God. There is no word of God out there that can fit the descriptions you are forcing upon them and us.

 

The words of the KJV translators [their translation decisions] do appear in the text of the 1611 KJV. The same actual words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles do not appear in the 1611 KJV. A few times the KJV translators translated conjectures (found in no known Greek NT manuscripts) introduced by Erasmus and Beza into their edited Greek NT editions or translated errors introduced by printers into those printed editions.

Furthermore, the KJV translators themselves clearly acknowledged that they added many words for which they had no original-language words of Scriptures. In the 1611 edition, they inconsistently put some of those added words in a different type. Later editions of the KJV would indicate the added words by putting them in italics.

 

Phil Stringer asserted: “God does superintend the work of certain translators” (Unbroken Bible, p. 82). Mickey Carter wrote: "Best authorities in our viewpoint are the King James Version translators" (Things That Are Different Are Not the Same, p. 154). Donald Clarke noted: "The 'best authorities' become the final authority; the Bible must submit its message and authority to their critical scrutiny" (Bible Version Manual, p. 56). Bob Steward stated: "Final authorities are not to be questioned" (Biography of Erasmus, p. 4).

Are the opinions, textual criticism decisions, and interpretations of the KJV translators not to be questioned? Since the KJV translators picked and chose from textually-varying sources, are they placed in a position of standing above their textual authorities? Does the high praise for the Church of England translators of the KJV which practically makes them into a committee or hierarchy of infallible cardinals or popes prove this claim that the KJV translators should be our final authority? KJV-only reasoning or a KJV-only view seems at times to grant to the KJV translators an absolute, perfect, infallible knowledge which in reality is attainable only by divine revelation. KJV-only advocates have in effect cloaked the KJV translators with such robes of superiority and infallibility that even a pope could only envy. Fred Butler, a former KJV-only advocate, asserted: “In a warped way, KJVO propaganda elevate the [KJV] translators to near, divine-like status” (Royal Deceptions, p. 117). Glenn Conjurske contended: “The main tenet of this [KJV-only] system, which exalts a human and imperfect translation to the place of perfection, giving it an authority equal (or superior) to the original, is a tenet of Romanism, which no Protestant ever believed before the advent of the present generation” (Bible Version, p. 62). Has the sufficiency of God's Word in effect been replaced with a "unique priesthood" of the KJV translators? Does a blind trust in the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of the KJV translators suggest trust in fallible, imperfect men? If God's Word was "wholly revealed" to the KJV translators or “wholly understood” and perfectly interpreted/translated” by them, they in effect become the ultimate standard for truth, beyond which there is no other. When an attempt is made to claim that the product of the KJV translators is the final authority, it would in effect make these men who produced it the real final authority.

 

Can we nail this down to the very real but unspoken problem. This just might be original text worship going on here. KJV only believers are a threat to a god, maybe? How else can this fervent heat that is generated by this topic be explained?

 

Arguing about the KJV is a distraction at best.

the last time I check, there were 5,671 more important issues than KJVO

we have people who cannot articulate the Gospel, the Trinity, do not know the books of the Bible in order, have no idea that Jesus is God incarnate, yet some incessantly dwell on it

good grief, please get a life and teach someone constructive for a change ie the Life of Christ, Abraham, Paul etc. or the Doctrine of God or the Church

the issues of JKVO represent less than 1-2% difference and no real major doctrines are in danger of several other translations

1. There really is a God

2. There really is a hell

3. There really is a Savior

4. People are dying and literally going to hell

5. Have you seriously done anything, anything at all to promulgate the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a lost and dying world? Seriously.

how’s that for a 5- Point Calvinist?

there are several good Translations: KJV, NASB, NKJV, even NIV if you read it

the best version is the one that you will read and obey. Yeah, I’m preaching to myself on that one. Seriously, thank you for reminding me

now I’m done

 

And just to be clear

if you need help finding good books on these subjects, please feel free to DM me

I can send you a list, or I will probably send you a few

I have done so for 5-6 people on this site

I promise that I will not embarrass you, nor make fun of you

in fact, it has been an honor to assist those in the past struggling with issues

thanks again

 

I suggested no such thing. You have not demonstrated that I advocate correcting or changing any of the words God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

On the other hand, it is in agreement with scriptural truth to maintain that any errors introduced by men (whether copiers, translators, editors, or printers) should be corrected, that any omissions by men should be restored, and that any additions by men can be removed.

Later editors/printers have made over 2,000 changes to the 1611 edition of the KJV with some of them being correction of errors. KJV-only advocates typically accept correcting errors in pre-1611 word of God translated into English and even in the 1611 edition of the KJV.

The Church of England makers of the KJV acted as Bible-correctors according to a consistent application of the assertion that underlies your question. Does a modern KJV-only theory in effect give the Church of England makers of the KJV charge over the Scriptures?

One reading followed in the KJV at Revelation 17:8 (and yet is, instead of, and shall come) is said by KJV defender Edward F. Hills to be an “uncorrected printer’s error in Erasmus” (p. 83). Edward F. Hills wrote: “Here the reading kaiper estin (and yet is) seems to be a misprint for kai paresti (and is at hand), which is the reading of Code 1r, the manuscript Erasmus used in Revelation” (KJV Defended, p. 202). Jan Krans referred to this reading at Revelation 17:8 as “one of the Erasamian blunders” (Beyond what is Written, p. 54, footnote 6).

 

Perhaps you merely show that you imagine or allege something that is not true.

Why would you seem to discredit, undermine, or condemn the actual words that proceeded from the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles?
Are you suggesting that believers should not believe the words that proceeded from the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles?

 

There are four (4) families of manuscripts I am told. Tell me which one, if either, you are talking about and we can talk some more.

 

There are too many years and too many opportunities for bad men to corrupt the texts for you to know for sure which of the texts are right. You spend your time on nothing else but research and you have already taken sides and therefore you quote those sources with which you agree. Others quote other sources that are different. The only person who can give us truth is God but the man who concludes this must do so by faith.

1Co 11:17 Now in this that I declare [unto you] I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

The context in V 18 is the local church assembly. The local church must follow these rules for peace and unity. Our assembly have come together and where the scriptures are concerned we believe the KJV is the word of God in the English language, which we all speak. Other assemblies might like and use the NIV. What business is that of mine? If these 100 or so modern versions is heretical in principle then the spiritual among them will probably leave or the Holy Spirit will be grieved and they will believe the words the pastor tells them are the words of God, which, when he is being honest, are none of them. They are in some Greek language that none of them can read, including the pastor most usually. He will prove that by not believing most of the words in them like is demonstrated on forums like this over and over again.

All I can say for you, logos1560, is that you have teamed up with the wrong source and you have the wrong authority.

 

Some KJV defenders reject the claim that there are four families of manuscripts.

KJV-only author D. A. Waite asserted: “There is no proof whatsoever that Greek manuscripts are genealogically related and in ‘families.’ I agree with Dean John William Burgon who stated that all the Greek manuscripts are like ’orphaned children.’ You don’t know which manuscript goes with which family so how can you classify them as belonging to one another” (Critical Answer to Michael, p. 118). D. A. Waite claimed that “there is no such thing as ’Text type’” (Ibid.). Waite suggested that his readers should buy Burgon’s book and “see the proof that all of the surviving manuscripts are like orphan children with no provable connection with one another and certainly not grouped as ‘Text-types’” (p. 98). Waite asserted: “Each manuscript is a lone and independent document” (p. 50). Waite acknowledged that “nobody on this earth has examined all the manuscripts that we have” (p. 121). John William Burgon as edited by Edward Miller noted that “of multitudes of them [MSS copies] that survive, hardly any have been copied from any of the rest” and that “they are discovered to differ among themselves in countless unimportant particulars” (Traditional Text, p. 46). Peter Johnston wrote: “Yet as Burgon pointed out in the last century each surviving Byzantine manuscript is a genuine individual” (Green, Unholy Hands, Vol. II, p. 10). Wilbur Pickering noted that “the main lesson to be drawn from the variation among ‘Byzantine’ MSS is the one noted by Lake and Burgon—they are orphans, independent witnesses; at least in their generation” (Identity of NT Text IV, p. 42). Waite asserted: “There are no such things as ‘families’ of Greek manuscripts” (Fundamental Deception, p. 56). Waite declared: “I do not believe there are any ‘text-types’ of Greek manuscripts, only individual manuscripts” (Bob Jones University’s Errors, p. 11). Waite claimed: “Each manuscript is like an orphaned child with no ability to say where it came from” (p. 41). Waite asserted: “Manuscripts of the Greek language are simply manuscripts. None are related to each other” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 53). Waite declared: “”Every manuscript is independent of all others,” and Every manuscript stands alone” (Critical Answer to James Price’s, pp. 64, 72). Waite again claimed: “There are no such things as ‘textual traditions,’ or ‘families,’ or ‘text-types’” (p. 97). Likewise, Michael Bates asserted: “There are no families; there are only manuscripts” (Inspiration, Preservation, p. 218). Charles Keesee acknowledged: “We do not have parent-child manuscript relations. They are all independent witnesses” (Subtle Apostasy, p. 250).

My references to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages refer to the same multiple original-language texts on which the KJV is based. Thus, it would refer to the Byzantine family of manuscripts (although it should be noted that Erasmus added a few readings from the Latin Vulgate and a few conjectures were introduced by Erasmus and Beza that are found in no known Greek NT manuscripts). The Latin Vulgate is usually put with the Western Family of manuscripts so that the KJV was influenced by it in at least a few places.

 

Defending translations are not the way to defend the truth. Defending words is the way to defend the truth.

One must believe the words.It has already been proven that you don't.

Ps 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

 

Your opinion is wrong.

I am teamed up with the same multiple sources that the makers of the KJV inconsistently followed so are you claiming that the KJV is based on the wrong sources?

I am teamed up with Bible believers who accept what the Scriptures teach instead of following blindly the opinions and traditions of men [KJV-only advocates].

 

Do all Greek speakers and translators and paraphrasers agree with your assertions? If your answer is yes, I will need to re-evaluate my position.