The Problem with KJV ONLY Advocates

[robycop3]

Yes I find it hard to believe that Christians would take away from the text, but I also do not see any true bible believing Christian adding either, both have warnings on the scriptures... However, the unsaved and lost would definately change the scriptures and add or take away from them. Don't be so naive to think that this did not occur and the bible was not mutilated in the past by heathen.

2Co_2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

Thanx for presenting an example of word-changing in the KJV in 2 Co. 2:17. The Greek here rendered 'corrupt' actually means 'peddle or hawk in a sleazy or dishonest manner; hucksterize'. "Corrupt" means to change something so it's less-pure, to pollute, or to alter from its original form. In Paul's time, there were hucksters, same as today, who misused God's word. Remember the man who wanted to buy the power to perform miracles? I believe that's what Paul had in mind when he wrote "kapeleuo".

 

[robycop3]

Thank you Jordan for providing this link. I've read the article and listened to Will Kinney speak his argument. I'll soon be starting a new topic about some of the things that Mr. Kinney asserts at this link.

I hope you start with his assertion that there's Scriptural support for the KJVO myth. I read that particular article repeatedly before I called Mr. Kinney to account over it. he provides absolutely NO Scriptural support for KJVO because THERE ISN'T ANY! But yet he sundances around in his article, hoping to confuse someone into actually believing him.

The verses he cites are found in EVERY valid Bible version, so if those verses establish the authenticity of the KJV, they do so for every other version that contains them as well.

And the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" has already been discussed ad nauseam here. No need to bring that up again, until some KJVO again tries to use it to justify his false doctrine.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

False accusations are evidently the typical KJV-only response to those who believe the Scriptures but disagree with non-scriptural KJV-only opinions of men. KJV-only advocates avoid the KJV-only burden of proof as they attempt to smear and attack personally any believer that dares to disagree with their KJV-only theory.

My view of Bible translation is the same basic view as that held by the early English translators including the makers of the KJV. Is it being suggested that the makers of the KJV were "bible agnostics"?

If my scripturally based arguments were only directed to the view of Peter Ruckman as was claimed and if the KJV-only posters responding to them also suggest that they reject Ruckman's extreme KJV-only views, why were those posters attacking and distorting my arguments when they would be expected to agree with them?

Nothing I stated suggested that I supposedly believe in a "constantly changing and evolving bible." You disobey the Scriptures as you bear false witness against my belief in the Scriptures and acceptance of what the Scriptures actually state and teach.

I accept, love, and read the KJV for what it is, a good overall translation of the Scriptures in the same sense or in the same way that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible are and in the same sense or in the same way that later English Bibles such as the NKJV are. The KJV also can be properly said to be the word of God in English in the same sense that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible are and in the same sense that later English Bibles such as the NKJV are.

Can you answer these questions for me Logos?

1.does your FINAL AUTHORITY exist on earth today in pure, inerrant, tangible form in any language?
2. If yes, what and where is it? And if no, why not?

 

[Logos1560]

The Scriptures are the specific written words of God given by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles. According to the Scriptures, God revealed His Word to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 2:10-13, Rom. 16:25-26, Heb. 1:1-2, Acts 1:2, Eph. 2:20, Acts 3:21, John 16:13, John 17:8, 14, John 3:34, 2 Sam. 23:2, Luke 24:25, 27, 44) and not by means of human wisdom or scholarship including that of the KJV translators. The words that proceeded directly out of the mouth of God are those original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Matt. 4:4). God’s Word is “the Scriptures of the prophets” (Rom. 16:26, Matt. 26:56). God gave His words or spoke by the mouth of the prophets (Luke 1:70). All Scripture was given by inspiration of God to those prophets and apostles (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, Jude 1:3). While 2 Timothy 3:16 may not directly mention the prophets and apostles, the parallel verse concerning inspiration (2 Pet. 1:21) clearly connected the miracle of inspiration to them when considered with other related verses. Comparing scripture with scripture, the holy men of God moved or borne along by the Holy Spirit in the miracle of inspiration were clearly the prophets and apostles (2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 16:26, Luke 1:70, Matt. 26:56). The words that the psalmist wrote in Psalm 95 the Holy Spirit spoke or said (compare Ps. 95:7 with Hebrews 3:7). What Moses said to Pharaoh as the LORD told him (Exod. 9:13), the Scripture said (Exod. 9:16, Rom. 9:17). God's Word indicates that there can be no new inspired works without living apostles or prophets (2 Peter 1:21, Eph. 3:3-5, Heb. 1:1-2, Luke 1:70, 24:27, 44-45, Acts 1:16, 3:21, 26:27, Matt. 2:5, Rom. 1:2, Rom. 16:25-26, Jer. 29:19, 2 Chron. 36:12, Dan. 9:10, Amos 3:7).

God never promised to preserve His Word or His words in any language other than the original languages used in the giving of those exact same words to the prophets and apostles (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 to the prophets and apostles. 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.

 

[Yeshua1]

Thank you for showing that there really is little difference between something Inspired and the preservation of something inspired.

I really don't get the point your trying to make.

there is a BIG difference between inspiration and preservation though!

That being the originals ALONE were divinely inspited by the holy spirit, so that all the books of the canon were perfect in all that ascribed to, in every detail of doctron/history/dating/facts etc, and as such, were inerrant, without ANY mistakes or errors 'God breathed"..

God preserve for us those manuscripts though in and thru the preserving of the gist of the entire texts, as while we have the originals preserved intaxct to a very great degree to us, so can be seen as us having an infallible word of the Lord...

God has peserved his text to us in various Hebrew/greek texts...

You have decided that the TR reflects the originals closest, I would hold to either the CT/MT are closer to them, but any of them should be seen as God preserving His word to us today!

Inerrnacy rtequires a perfect text, NO mistakes, but preservation requires infallible texts, which means thay they can be permitted to have minor errors/mistakes/corruptions unto them, and still be considered as word of God!

 

[Inspector Javert]

Do you acknowledge that the KJV has errors that are the fault of printers or do you acknowledge that there are also translators' errors in the KJV?

It is theoretically possible that there are translational errors in the KJV: But, I've never seen one. I've seen anti-KJVO's trump up gazillions of supposed errors (or places wherein their myopic view causes them to think there's an error) and I have yet to find any that have any real teeth. But, it is theoretically possible. They weren't perfect men....just 20 times more knowledgeable usually than their modern-day detractors are.

The same original language texts on which the KJV is based have already been re-translated and updated in the NKJV

Since it is an issue of the language texts, I don't have a major problem with NKJV (don't care much for it) but I don't loathe it like say, most determined anti-KJVO's loathe the KJV.

the Modern KJV by Jay Green, the KJ2000, and Green's Literal Translation. Do you accept them?

I know next to nothing about them. I don't think very many people use them. I believe Young's Literal Translation uses the same texts....I refer to it a lot.

The English text of the KJV has been somewhat modernized in the 1833 Webster's Bible, the 1994 21st Century KJV, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible. Do you accept them?

If one substitutes "throughly" for "thoroughly" or "gaddest thou not" for "do you not know" etc.....I don't have a problem with it. It does not change the meaning one whit.

Are you suggesting that you agree with my point that in at least some places another English translation has better

"Better" is invariably a subjective word, so I wouldn't care to use it.

clearer

Sure:
"We do you to wit" is not as clear as "we would have you know".

or more accurate renderings than the KJV when compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages?

It is Theoretically possible that in one place or another, one translation could be more "accurate" than the KJV. I just know that most of those alleged places cited by anti-KJVO's I find wanting.

There are some places where one of the pre-1611 English Bibles, especially the Geneva Bible, is clearer, better, or more accurate than the 1611 KJV.

KJVO's generally accept the validity of pre-KJV Bibles. For instance, I would argue that "Assembly" for ekklesia is decidedly more accurate and "better" than "Church" in KJV and also it is Theologically signifigant.
The insistence on preserving the Liturgical word "Church" in the KJV was not a good idea IMO. I'd prefer "assembly"....

But those aren't the real issues are they? If somebody wanted to argue for an updated Geneva or even NKJV in lieu of KJV, that is one discussion.

But my admitting that much is simply taking the bait used then to switch into arguing for post-modern Dynamic Equivalency-type garbage from inferior manuscripts. That is a whole different discussion altogether.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

But my admitting that much is simply taking the bait used then to switch into arguing for post-modern Dynamic Equivalency-type garbage from inferior manuscripts. That is a whole different discussion altogether.

Amen Brother.

 

[robycop3]

NO goofs in the KJV? We've pointed out several, which KJVOs vainly argue aren't goofs, but in reality ARE goofs or poor renderings:

'Easter' in Acts 12:4
'The love of money is THE root of ALL evil' in 1 Tim. 6:10
'Thou shalt not KILL' in Ex. 20:13

And this is a short list.

All these have been discussed ad nauseam, so I'm not trying to start a new discussion on them, but no matter WHAT KJVOs say, those ARE goofs!

After all, the KJV, as are all other Bible translations, is a work of man.

That aside, the simple FACT remains of the KJVO myth's man-made, cultic, dishonest origin, posted elsewhere in this forum. despite this, as well as its proven falsehood, some people still continue to believe this doctrine.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

NO goofs in the KJV? We've pointed out several, which KJVOs vainly argue aren't goofs, but in reality ARE goofs or poor renderings:

'Easter' in Acts 12:4
'The love of money is THE root of ALL evil' in 1 Tim. 6:10
'Thou shalt not KILL' in Ex. 20:13

And this is a short list.

All these have been discussed ad nauseam, so I'm not trying to start a new discussion on them, but no matter WHAT KJVOs say, those ARE goofs!

After all, the KJV, as are all other Bible translations, is a work of man.

That aside, the simple FACT remains of the KJVO myth's man-made, cultic, dishonest origin, posted elsewhere in this forum. despite this, as well as its proven falsehood, some people still continue to believe this doctrine.

We've already discussed those and there are perfectly good explanations for why those read the way they do. They are not goofs, you just think they are.

King James onlyism is based on God's promise to preserve his word.

Modern Translation philosophy is based upon unbelief and lack of faith. I would say that is much more man made, it's all about the opinions of one man verses another and totally leaves God out of the equation.

I think it is ironic that people can trust that their New Testament Canon is the New Testament Canon by faith, (which was established by the common faith and acceptance of the Church) yet they think it's cultish to accept that the King James Bible is the bible for english speaking people (Which also was accepted for hundreds of years by the church.)

Maybe the New Testament Canon was manmade too right?

Ironic that you can admit the New Testament Canon was guided by God, but not a bible translation.

Like I said, it's all based on a lack of belief and trust in God, You believe that God wants us to have to wonder in the dark and hop from one ever changing translation to the next ever changing translation. What confusion! God is not the author of confusion! What division all these translations have caused among Christians!

 

[Revmitchell]

King James onlyism is based on God's promise to preserve his word.

OK, have you ever actually read a 1611 KJV? I have and it is like reading a foreign language

Modern Translation philosophy is based upon unbelief and lack of faith.

Do not ascribe all modern translations as coming from dynamic equivalents. They do not.

 

[Inspector Javert]

NO goofs in the KJV? We've pointed out several, which KJVOs
'Easter' in Acts 12:4

Not a "goof" in the KJV...and I can reasonably disprove you and "Logos" all day on it...

I can dominate that argument all day.

Rick is wrong on that, and so are you...

Start a new thread, and we can try again...
"Easter" is antiquated..........yes.......
"wrong".......no.

Not "wrong".........antiquated.

 

[Inspector Javert]

NO goofs in the KJV? We've pointed out several, which KJVOs vainly argue aren't goofs, but in reality ARE goofs or poor renderings:

'Easter' in Acts 12:4

Is perfectly correct:........you fail to understand that the word "Easter" did not mean 400-years ago what it means now....
You don't understand that distinction. It's beyond your ken.

'The love of money is THE root of ALL evil' in 1 Tim. 6:10
'Thou shalt not KILL' in Ex. 20:13

You obviously read neither Greek nor Hebrew....you know nothing about what Ex. 20:13 says in the "original"......nothing...
I read Hebrew, Roby, and you don't...the verb "kill"............is a quintessential verb used to teach many verb forms..........you don't know what you are talking about. Students of Hebrew are perpetually carping why they have to memorize:
"I kill"
"We kill"
"We will kill"
"They killed"
"He will kill"....

You know nothing about this...nothing....

"KILL"...is actually a commonly used verb in Hebrew to explain verbal forms....students complain about repeating it all day.

The Brilliant "Robycop" obviously knows NOTHING about Hebrew verb forms...that much, I am assured of..
Let's reserve translational issues to people who can read original languages, shall we Mr. Roby?

And this is a short list.

From two different languages, that I know you personally cannot read....

You know not one word of either of them....and it's obvious to anyone who does.

All these have been discussed ad nauseam, so I'm not trying to start a new discussion on them, but no matter WHAT KJVOs say, those ARE goofs!

Yeah, of course....'cause' you read it...and the KJV translators didn't know as much as you do.....your arrogance is astounding.

After all, the KJV, as are all other Bible translations, is a work of man.

Yes.....
It's the work of men who actually understood Greek and Hebrew...I know enough about BOTH languages to confidently claim that you know absolutely NOTHING...........NOTHING about either one.... Nothing.

That aside, the simple FACT remains of the KJVO myth's man-made, cultic, dishonest origin, posted elsewhere in this forum. despite this, as well as its proven falsehood, some people still continue to believe this doctrine.

:sleeping_2:

 

[Yeshua1]

We've already discussed those and there are perfectly good explanations for why those read the way they do. They are not goofs, you just think they are.

King James onlyism is based on God's promise to preserve his word.

Modern Translation philosophy is based upon unbelief and lack of faith. I would say that is much more man made, it's all about the opinions of one man verses another and totally leaves God out of the equation.

I think it is ironic that people can trust that their New Testament Canon is the New Testament Canon by faith, (which was established by the common faith and acceptance of the Church) yet they think it's cultish to accept that the King James Bible is the bible for english speaking people (Which also was accepted for hundreds of years by the church.)

Maybe the New Testament Canon was manmade too right?

Ironic that you can admit the New Testament Canon was guided by God, but not a bible translation.

Like I said, it's all based on a lack of belief and trust in God, You believe that God wants us to have to wonder in the dark and hop from one ever changing translation to the next ever changing translation. What confusion! God is not the author of confusion! What division all these translations have caused among Christians!

The originals were Inspired and Inerrant, ALL copies and texts made off them, even TR, are flawed to some degree, but are still infallible in what they teach and say! ANY hebrew text, and greek text in use today, even TR, gas SOME corruption/errors/mistakes in them...

We don't need them to be dully perfect, as KJVO does!

And do you really think that all of the scholars in both the MT/CT camp are either incompemtent, or else are following bogus theories et all?

And that those translators who made versions like nasb andNKJV were DE in their views on how to translate scriptures?

 

[Dr. Bob]

To give a man-made document the status of "perfect" or "God-breathed" (inspired means breathed by God) is to attribute to fallible humans the character of the Divine.

Scary thing to do. The Bible calls that idolatry and we know what God thinks of idolaters.

 

[Yeshua1]

To give a man-made document the status of "perfect" or "God-breathed" (inspired means breathed by God) is to attribute to fallible humans the character of the Divine.

Scary thing to do. The Bible calls that idolatry and we know what God thinks of idolaters.

Do you see some in the KJVO camp doing tht very thing then?

Doesn't the Christian have an even higher authoritythan the Bible in our lives, called the Holy Spirit?

 

[Revmitchell]

Do you see some in the KJVO camp doing tht very thing then?

Doesn't the Christian have an even higher authoritythan the Bible in our lives, called the Holy Spirit?

Higher? Where do you get such and idea?

 

[Skandelon]

I can't remember where I saw this mentioned, but I came across this and thought it may be helpful to the discussion:

Shakespeare's complex sentence structures and use of now obsolete words lead many students to think they are reading Old or Middle English. In fact, Shakespeare's works are written in Early Modern English. Once you see a text of Old or Middle English you'll really appreciate how easy Shakespeare is to understand (well, relatively speaking). Take, for example, this passage from the most famous of all Old English works, Beowulf:

Hwät! we Gâr-Dena in geâr-dagum
þeód-cyninga þrym gefrunon,
hû þâ äðelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scêfing sceaðena þreátum.

(Translation)
Lo! the Spear-Danes' glory through splendid achievements
The folk-kings' former fame we have heard of,
How princes displayed then their prowess-in-battle.
Oft Scyld the Scefing from scathers in numbers...

 

[Dr. Bob]

Sigh. How sad to see the mentality of some here come out in public in their posts.

The KJVonly sect claims that the Anglican Version (whichever revision they claim as perfect) is "inspired" and "infallible" and "without error". This, as per the op of this thread, is the "problem" with those enamored in this Adventist teaching. (The KJVonly position was developed and held by Seventh Day Adventists, but eventually that group repudiated this teaching. Sadly, this was picked up by some Baptists in the early 50's, then rabidly developed by Ruckman and then Hyles who added even more perversion to the teaching (Ruckman that the KJV corrects the Greek; Hyles that one must use the KJV or not even be truly saved).

 

[Inspector Javert]

Sigh. How sad to see the mentality of some here come out in public in their posts.

Barrack Hussein Obama cries like a girl when he has no real argument too.

The KJVonly sect claims that the Anglican Version (whichever revision they claim as perfect) is "inspired" and "infallible" and "without error".

No they don't...
Only one's in your mind do.
Please find basically any sane human on B.B. who claims as much within the last 3 years....

You tilt at windmills, and it's as wrong from you as it is from anyone.

This, as per the op of this thread, is the "problem" with those enamored in this Adventist teaching. (The KJVonly position was developed and held by Seventh Day Adventists, but eventually that group repudiated this teaching.

Un-educated people fall for the fallacy of Origin or the "Genetic Fallacy"....
You appear to fall for that.
But, since, I don't claim my self to be "Dr.-anything" (be it Bob, Dick, or harry)...I haven't fallen for a simple genetic fallacy.
You appear to have done so.
How sad for you.............

But, if you have any concept of scholarship in your bones....you would know already that the "O.P."....has Nothing whatsoever to do with Adventism whatever...etc........The O.P. was by Jonathan Borland.....Trust me Dr.....
His purpose with his O.P. was WAY BEYOND stupid assertions about Hyles, Ruckman, Adventism, or any such truck...

People like Jonathan Borland assert questions WAY greater than this trash-talk that you "Dr." and someone else squelch about.......
He is WAY past what either you and I know a fig about....the difference is, I know that much, and you don't.

Sadly, this was picked up by some Baptists in the early 50's, then rabidly developed by Ruckman and then Hyles who added even more perversion to the teaching

Watch how "Dr." Bob will equivocate between the likes of Ruckman and Hyles and subsequently accuse Hyles of believing as Ruckman does....
Here goes----->

(Ruckman that the KJV corrects the Greek; Hyles that one must use the KJV or not even be truly saved)

Doubt Hyles ever said any such thing.....

IF HE DID....I STAND CORRECTED...
as inexplicably it was under the preaching of an NASV-Wielding S.B.C. Pastor that I was both saved and Baptized.

 

[agedman]

Javert,

Frankly, I don't think you could read with understanding the modern Hebrew - much less what we have of the ancients.

(You obviously read neither Greek nor Hebrew....you know nothing about what Ex. 20:13 says in the "original"......nothing...
I read Hebrew, Roby, and you don't...the verb "kill"............is a quintessential verb used to teach many verb forms..........you don't know what you are talking about.)
​

You obviously have very little if any education and it shows.

(Un-educated people fall for the fallacy of Origin or the "Genetic Fallacy"....
You appear to fall for that.)
​

You are a buffoon when it comes to knowing the history behind the KJV only view.

(But, if you have any concept of scholarship in your bones....you would know already that the "O.P."....has Nothing whatsoever to do with Adventism whatever...etc........The O.P. was by Jonathan Borland.....Trust me Dr.....)
​

>>>>>>>>

Now I posted those three rediculous statements not to hurt but to show you how denigration adds nothing to an argument, but serves to alienate and push fact filled discussions into silence.

I have no "skin" in this thread, and I am only making this public comment to encourage you to use more fact and less opinion in your posts.

Far better that you prove you point as a gentleman rather than trying to smear thinking you are not getting splattered, too.