Why is the KJV the main subject in this section?

Question: "Why is the KJV the main subject in this section?"

Answer: Because of KJVO folks who want to shove a single version down the throats of everyone else, despite the fact that the KJVO myth has been disproven many times over!

Those who prefer the KJV for their own personal use are not the offensive ones. They have made their own decision for themselves. But when someone crosses the line into the KJVO camp, they want to make the decision for everyone else. Sounds much like the old Communist government in Russia to me!

 

Keith, I think that you have missed the title of this post. It is asking why the KJV is the main subject in the versions/translations section, and NOT regarding the KJVO debate

The answer to the main question is very clear. The main reason why the KJV is the centre (or center for you yanks!)of this section, is the plain old fact, that of the English versions it is by far the most superior! What is called "the leader of the pack" This is both for the manuscripts that it uses, and for the brilliant scholarship of those involved in its work. I have no doubt that none of the "scholars" of any of the versions after the KJV, can be honestly compared to those for the KJV. Add to this the fact, that the two most oustanding Textual scholars produced by the Church, Drs Scriverner and Burgon, again who are head and shoulders above the likes of Aland, Metzger, Barker, or Wallace, were users if this God preserved version!

 

Keith, I think that you have missed the title of this post. It is asking why the KJV is the main subject in the versions/translations section, and NOT regarding the KJVO debate

The answer to the main question is very clear. The main reason why the KJV is the centre (or center for you yanks!)of this section, is the plain old fact, that of the English versions it is by far the most superior! What is called "the leader of the pack" This is both for the manuscripts that it uses, and for the brilliant scholarship of those involved in its work. I have no doubt that none of the "scholars" of any of the versions after the KJV, can be honestly compared to those for the KJV. Add to this the fact, that the two most oustanding Textual scholars produced by the Church, Drs Scriverner and Burgon, again who are head and shoulders above the likes of Aland, Metzger, Barker, or Wallace, were users if this God preserved version! </font>[/QUOTE]Hello, icthus...

Such posts as yours are one of the reasons I find the KJVO myth so offensive. Those in the KJVO camp seek to discredit any version beside the KJV, calling the other versions such things as "inferior" and even worse. Do you not think that God frowns on those who seek to discredit His Word? You are so quick to label God's Word as unacceptable that you lose sight of the fact that most versions convey God's Word. And if the so-called "modern versions" are based on "inferior" scripts, why do KJVOs refuse to accept versions like the Modern King James Version that are based on the same textus receptus that the KJV is based on? Sounds like even more KJVO double-speak to me...

 

Keith

First of all, I am NOT a KJVO person. This is my main version, together with the NKJV and a number of Greek texts, like Souter, Scrivener, W&H, Alford, Tischendorf, TR, Lachmann, etc.

I do not think that God "frowns" when I call these so-called reliable versions, like the NIV, ESV, RSV, NASB, etc "inferior", as this is the plain truth of the matter. I have spent over 17 years in the study of the New Testament text, and have no doubt in saying that the majority of these "modern versions" are not truthful translations of the original text as God intended it. The Greek texts produced by W&H, Nestle-Aland, and the UBS were done by men that did not hold to the highest authority of the Holy Bible as God's ultimate Word to mankind. Many, like Aland even doubt that the Bible is inerrant. The Committee of the Revised Version saw it fit to include Dr Vance Smith as a translator, even though he was a Unitarian! Dr Ellicott, the Chairman of the RV saw no objection is rendering 2 Timothy 3:16, as "Every Scripture inspired by God..." As most of the modern versions are based on Greek texts produced by those who themselves questioned the infallibility and inerrancy of the Holy Bible, there is no doubt in my mind that these modern versions, like the Greek text they use, are very much inferior to the KJV, where the scholars were the best of their day, and had the highest regard to the Bible being the Word of God!

 

The Way Some Interpret Scripture


The ignorance displayed is stunning. What can you learn about people by selectively taking passages from their writings and putting a strange spin on them? Not much, but let's try it: according to one religion, a true adherent must speak in tongues and take up serpents (1). Unruly or rebellious children must be put to death (2), as must Jews (3) and anyone who does simple chores on the Sabbath (4). Further, followers of this faith must hate their families and abandon them (5), and you must follow all orders from the government, since rulers are placed over you by this religion's god (6). Slavery is permitted (7). If you have enemies, you are ordered to love them, kill them, accommodate them, and send them to hell to burn for all eternity (8). This religion's god sent a savior -- to cause humanity strife and grief (9). Followers should not pray in public, such as in school (10), and abortion is OK since a fetus is not a living human until it takes its first breath (11). After death, you may not retain your spirit -- sorry (12).

Did you guess the religion? You probably did -- it's Mitch in Kentucky's religion: Christianity, and all of these things are from the Bible. (Remember, I said this is what someone who
selectively takes passages and puts a "strange spin on them" could conclude. Clear?) The
references:

1. Mark 16:16-18
2. Deuteronomy 21:20-21
3. Luke 19:27
4. Exodus 35:2
5. Luke 14:26, Matthew 10:35-36 and Matthew 19:29
6. Romans 13:1-7, 2 Peter 2:10, Matthew 22:17-21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25
7. Eph 6:5, Col 3:22
8. Matthew 5:44, Luke 19:27, Matthew 5:39-45, Mark 9:43-48, Mark 11:13-14, 20
9. Luke 12:51-53, Matthew 10:34
10. Matthew 6:5-6
11. Geneses 2:7
12. Eccles 8:8

Taken from http://www.thisistrue.com/antichrist.html

 

So, whats your point here?

 

Just to remind ourselves of something which seems on occassion to get lost in the shuffle:

When we speak of the "myth" of KJVOism, It is not the KJV that has any connection with "myth" but certain unprovable claims of certain KJVO advocates concerning the KJV which are mythological. Such as:

That the direct inspiration of God was granted to the KJV translators resulting in a Bible (AV1611-1769??) whose verbal plenary inspiration is of the same nature as the autographs (or even better) which was given through the prophets and apostles.

That certain "mistakes" in the AV are actually "advanced revelation".

That God "slammed" the door of Scripture shut in AD1611 (rather than AD96).

HankD

 

No. I have as objectively as I can looked at the works of those on various sides of these issues. I have evaluated their evidence, proof, reasoning, and conclusions as compared to the whole scope of the debate. Your problem seems to be that you allow evidence, proofs, and reason to be confined by your preconceived biases.

You are not objective. </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for trying to read my mind for me! </font>[/QUOTE]Not necessary.

Your behavior demonstrates what I contend.

 

I am not sure what you complaint is with some of the first answers.

The reason the KJV enters most of the threads on this forum is that there are people who view the issue of Bible texts and translations through a KJVO lens. Beyond that, KJVOnlyism is a modern false doctrine with no biblical basis that is having a detrimental effect on the body of Christ.

Several of us are very conservative and use the KJV. I am one. But having affinity and respect for the KJV is different from being KJVO...

As far as your last statement is concerned, that is your prerogative. This topic is contentious sometimes. However, if you visit other boards where it is discussed, you will see that we are actually very civil and have fairly strict rules. One of the first things that happened to me on a board run by KJVO's was that I was accused of not being saved because I wasn't KJVO.

Most people here wouldn't charge each other that way even if our rules didn't allow it. This is a rough and tumble topic.... if you don't want to participate then the best thing you can do is "don't".

God bless you anyway.

 

Are you saying we are not to oppose false doctrines? Are you saying this is not a NT principle?

The problem ensues when people make statements like this one and the one you made in your opening post. You state opinion as fact then get offended when someone refutes you with reason and fact.

Textual criticism is not "the devil's device". It was employed in one form or another to give us every Bible since the originals... including the TR and KJV. When there are variants within the mss record for a writing, you must use some method to discern which reading is correct. Erasmus did when he made the TR. The KJV translators did to a lesser extent when they chose alternate readings for the KJV.

We could not have a Bible without some form of textual criticism therefore it is ridiculous to call it the devil's tool.

[qb] By all means. I am open to the truth on this issue. I am willing to become KJVO if someone gives a reasonable, scriptural proof for it.

If you can prove KJVOnlyism then please do... but I am not taking your word for it. Show me scriptural and factual proof that it is true. "Prove all things".

Really? You think you know me and my character based on how I debate this issue here? Must be a gift... OTOH, I think you probably don't know as much as you think.

There have been people who have persuaded for the fundamental view of scriptures and against KJVOnlyism based partly on the conversations in this forum.

The edifying is when the teachable are taught.... but there is still a biblical mandate to oppose false teachers.

Can you give an instance where another version failed you?

Nor am I saying anything about yours.

BTW, I primarily use the KJV.

False doctrine is always cancerous and creates division. But division from false doctrine is ultimately necessary.

Yes they have. They have done so indirectly here and very directly elsewhere.

No. My salvation is not dependent on who is right in this debate.

Because it is not "edifying" for people who claim to be fundamentalists to run around questioning the salvation of those who hold the fundamental view on Bible translations.

I consider fundamentalism important. That makes it imperative that we seek to correct and reconcile those who attempt to define fundamentalism by a teaching that isn't biblically fundamental.

I appreciate your concern and opinion. However, many of us on both sides of this issue disagree.

Contrary to what many believe, I have noted about as many people that have changed their mind after engaging debate here than any of the other forums... and especially the more heated forums like Calvinism vs Arminianism or Creation/Evolution.

I have personally witnessed and experienced the harm and division caused by KJVOnlyism in fundamentalist churches. This forum serves as a sword sharpening drill and source of information.

Thankfully I will not be judged by your opinion of my "guilt" but by what the Bible says.

The greatest threat ever faced by the fundamentalist movement in its 100+ year history is KJVOnlyism. Modernism, New Evangelicalism, Pentacostalism, etc. were all issues where fundamentalists could rally around the Word of God.

KJVOnlyism makes the Bible the point of division. Attempts by our side to turn the debate back to "What does the Bible say on this?" are usually evaded or rejected by KJVO's... or worse, they twist scripture out of context to force KJVOnlyism onto the text.

This is important even if you don't like the nature of the debate or even disagree that it should take place.

 

Frank, the KJV is most often the subject of discussion because it's the version around which certain people have built an insidious, man-made, totally-FALSE doctrine. While it's not the KJV's fault that such a myth has been built around it, the fact is that it DOES exist, and as Christians we have a D-U-T-Y to fight it.

First...The heart of the doctrine says that the KJV is the ONLY VALID ENGLISH BIBLE TRANSLATION, and that all others are bogus. This is totally false. All the peripheries built around this central theme are equally false. One of them is that the KJV is perfect. This has been repeatedly proven false, as you've seen if you've read elsewhere in this forum.

Second...We know the origins of the KJVO myth...It was inadvertantly begun by a 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official, Dr. Ben Wilkinson, with his 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. This error-filled book was used by several later dishonest authors to build the KJVO myth, which was in full swing before 1970. THIS THING IS NOT OF GOD!!!!

There is one fact that renders the KJVO myth false from the gitgo, and that its proselytes try to ignore...A TOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT. One-versionism of any sort not even suggested or hinted at in ANY valid rendition of the Scriptures in any language, far as I know...let alone, any pointing toward a specific version in a specific language.

Yes, this is a versions topic, but in English, the subject of the KJVO myth is the main and overriding theme of any versions discussion. Those of us who KNOW it's false, and have PROVEN it's false would be remiss in out Christian duty if we simply ignored it. We seek to alert ALL English-speaking Christians to the falsehood of this myth and to warn against it.

KJVO is NOT simply a harmless whim. More than one person has had their faith destroyed by someeone telling them, "Youse don't got no REEL Bibul thar, Sunny! That thar NIV's(or any other version not the KJV) WRONG!" Given the potential for further harm to others by the KJVO myth, we seek to discredit it at every turn, and, God Willing, we'll KEEP RIGHT ON HITTING ON IT till it goes down for good. If that's offensive to you, Sir, so be it...but I, for one, will NOT compromise my beliefs to accommodate someone. If you believe the KJVO myth, this is a place for you to try to defend it, but be warned, we deal with FACT here, as opposed to the KJVOs' guesswork and opinion.

That being said, I wish you well if you choose to move on.

In Christ,

Cranston

 

Hmmm...if it looks like a duck...if it walks like a duck...if it quacks like a duck...it must be a duck!

Icthus, with the inflammatory comments you make against such "so-clled reliable versions" as the NIV, ESV, etc., what would you consider yourself?

You say you use the W&H text, but then you label it as unreliable. Doesn't that mean that you use an unreliable text yourself?

Also, I see you completely avoided the question about the Modern King James Version. Since it is based on the same texts as the KJV, why is it not acceptable? If the textual issue is what determines a "reliable version" and a "so-called reliable version," then why is it that the MKJV is not accorded the same praise and honor (honour to you) as the KJV? Also, some of the renderings in the NKJV are based on "inferior" texts, too.

The label "KJVOnlyist" doesn't mean that the KJVO adherant uses nothing but the KJV. Some use nothing but the KJV, while others use other versions and texts for "compasison," all the while believing that every other version or text is "inferior" to the KJV. You have described yourself in just this way - saying you believe all the other versions and texts are "inferior." Therefore, I once again say: ...if it looks like a duck...if it walks like a duck...if it quacks like a duck...it must be a duck...

 

Frank
Imagine discussions like the one you started breaking out everywhere on this board any time somebody quotes a another translation than the KJV.

Talking about weddingplans, quote the Song of Songs from the NIV. Discussion derailed into a KJB vs. NIV debate.
Debate the role of the RCC in the End Times, quote NASB. Presto the whole thing turns into KJB vs. NASB.
Use the RSV to point out flaws in the Jehovah's Witnesses NWT. And yes version debate instead.

This is the place where the KJVO debate is contained so that it doesn't disrupt other discussions on this board.

 

Frank Betz: To summerize your post: Cranston doesn't believe the Bible when it comes to knowing what the Word of God is.

To summarize YOUR posts, Sir, you believe a false doctrine, started by a cult official, spread by dishonesty, having ABSOLUTELY NO SCRIPTURAL FOUNDATION, and no legitimate place in the Baptist faith.

If we're so wrong, let's see some TANGIBLE EVIDENCE and not just LIP SERVICE.

 

Are you suggesting that the textual criticism practiced by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, or the KJV translators was "the devil's device?"

Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza did not follow any one Greek manuscript 100% when they edited their Greek texts. They used a form of textual criticism in making their decisions about which manuscript they thought had the more correct rendering. Erasmus is translated as writing: "Here is another labor, to examine and correct the different MSS...and a great many of them, so as to detect which one has a better reading, or by collating a number of them to make a guess at the true and authentic version" (ERASMUS AND THE N. T. , p. 69).

The KJV translators did not follow any one manuscript or even any one printed text 100%.
The KJV translators did not follow any one of the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision 100%. They made textual decisions and translating decisions. Are you implying that their textual decisions were the "devil's device?"

 

It's called discernment friend,</font>[/QUOTE] I don't think so.

It is edifying to the body of believers to oppose error. A Christian with strong "discernment" would certainly know that.

But more to the point, your initial post was divisive. It was you that called honorable, scholarly efforts to determine the original text of the Bible "the devil's device". Maybe I am missing something but I fail to see the loving edification in that phrase.

Show me.

If the truth offends then so be it. If confronting error with as conciliatory of a spirit as I can offends those in error then so be it.

I have extended the offer to reconcile on this issue to you. You ignored it. When I state my beliefs on this issue, they are backed by facts and are consistent with what the Bible says. When I oppose KJVOnlyism, I do so based on scripture, the facts, and the inconsistencies in KJVO arguments.

If you want me to believe KJVOnlyism then prove it. If you want me to stop actively opposing it then show me that it is not inconsistent with fact, reason, and especially the example of scripture. Show me that it isn't the extra-biblical doctrine of KJVOnlyism that is the source of division.

"anti-doctrine"? What are you talking about? Many times I have asked KJVO's to prove to me why they hold this "conviction" and why I should share it. I again ask you.

This "conviction" leads them to condemn other believers for holding a different conviction. It leads them to call others "liberal" for holding the historic fundamental position on biblical texts and translations. It has led some to openly question my salvation and the salvation of others.

The KJV is the Word of God. It is not the "words" of God. Those can only be found in the originals that He directly inspired through specially qualified men- namely the Apostles and OT prophets.

And, it is certainly not the only Bible given by God to the English speaking people by any evidence I have ever seen. If you say it is, show me your proof.

You accuse me of not edifying so here's a challenge. If you hold an opinion that is divisive and cannot substantiate it scripturally or by a facts evaluated scripturally then how is your expression of that "conviction" edifying?

If I believe something is factually or scripturally supported then I will assert it as truth until disproven. But I always try not to lord my opinions over others. KJVO's have an opinion/conviction. That's fine. But when they want to assert it as "truth" for all real believers then they need to back it up with something.

Don't warn me. Edify me. If I am wrong and you are right, show me how.

You're making a mole hill from an antpile and expect me to think it's a mountain.</font>[/QUOTE] The doctrine of the Bible has always been important. It is even more important now that it threatens to divide fundamentalism.

You have assumed your conclusion. However, I don't think using the original texts to show the correct understanding of any passage is wrong regardless of which translation it supports.

This is proper and I challenge you to show me where it is biblically/factually unsound practice. God chose Greek and Hebrew rather than English. We have to accept that.

It is error to hold an make an unbiblical stand on a belief about the KJV that is not true.

I and others here have demonstrated what we believe factually and scripturally. KJVO's do neither. The division is the responsibility of those who stray from the biblical foundation.

Nope. You don't have to think like me. I accept many here who disagree with me. I reject those who assert a belief that they cannot support.

I am not the authority neither am I trying to make myself the authority. In fact, how many times have I tried to point you back to scripture and historical facts? It is the KJVO that want their "conviction" or opinion to be accepted without question.

Perhaps you should consider the beam in your own eye.

Nothing in anything you have said has come anywhere close to validating these charges. You have not proven me wrong nor have you demonstrated me sinful in confronting error.

I am not above correction. You simply have not made a case that warrants these conclusions.