Why KJ-Only actually works as God's inerrant word,

[JonC]

Respectfully,

Because some of us have done the research for ourselves and have decided that, independently of what we're told by those who may or may not have influence...
We made an honest decision to stick with a translation that most others are telling us is "archaic" and not "up-to-date".

We know it's old, and we know that some of its English is from a time long gone.

But when we actually take a hard look at two Bibles side by side;
Like, say, the ESV and the KJV...
and we then carefully compare passages like 1 John 5:6-8 or Philippians 2:6,
we see that something's wrong.

Regardless of which side is right or wrong, we then see that the deeper we dig, the more that one side doesn't seem concerned with God's every word, while the other side counts it as precious and not-to-be-messed-with.
Since most of today's English translations appear to be on a path of "continuous improvement", we are then faced with a hard decision:

Face the mocking and ridicule from people who think that we are refusing to "upgrade" while we stick to what we know to be God's words,
or abandon the foundation that we have and choose something...anything...from the majority of modern translations, while keeping our mouths shut about the changes that we feel, in our spirits, are wrong.


Salty,
Not everyone who is convinced of the matter simply went along with what "pastor so-and-so" said...
We actually have investigated it and come to a firm conclusion based on the evidence;
and find that we, once again, are in the minority.
We are getting used to that.

Speaking for myself alone, I will never tell my brothers and sisters in the Lord that they are not allowed to investigate the matter...
Quite the contrary, I will tell them to dig as deeply as possible into the subject and to satisfy themselves one way or the other.


Good afternoon to you, sir, and I wish you well.

Very good answer.

I do not prefer the KJV (although I would not disparage the translation either). It certainly would not be my recommendation for a new believer. But at the same time I love the KJV and appreciate the liberties it has taken to produce a translation that uplifts and respects Scripture as God's Word.

BUT my reasoning is much the same as yours. I have done the research and have come to my own conclusions. That is, IMHO, all we should require of one another.

 

[Yeshua1]

So are you saying once it is translated the words are no longer God's word?

No, I am saying that ONLY Originals were Inerrant!

 

[Yeshua1]

Where the TR has more in common with God's origiinals than the CT. Where what ever edition of the KJV is closer to that same God given originals. It is God's word which is immutable not the translations per say.

How about those places where the CT and modern versions closer to the original then?

 

[Yeshua1]

This is impossible to prove by the KJV, the original language, or anything else. The English language not only did not exist in Bible times, there are no prophecies of English, England, or America in Scripture.

Therefore, it's an existential leap of faith to say that Ps. 12:7 refers to the KJV. Imagine that, the KJVO side lining up with neo-orthodoxy! The Neo-orthodox believer says that the Bible is not the Word of God, it becomes the Word of God in an existential moment when the reader finds something that means to him God is speaking. On the other hand, the reader holding the belief that Ps. 12:7 refers to the KJV must have an existential moment when he reads the verse, thinking, "Well, yeah, that has to be the KJV," in spite of nothing in the text or anywhere else in Scripture about the KJV, the English language, 1611, Bible translation, etc., etc.

This I will agree with, except for the reference, which has nothing to do with any specific language, much less the English of the KJV.

The first point would have to refer to when the books were originally written down, and the second point would be assuming that the TR was the best copy of the originals!

 

[Yeshua1]

Very good answer.

I do not prefer the KJV (although I would not disparage the translation either). It certainly would not be my recommendation for a new believer. But at the same time I love the KJV and appreciate the liberties it has taken to produce a translation that uplifts and respects Scripture as God's Word.

BUT my reasoning is much the same as yours. I have done the research and have come to my own conclusions. That is, IMHO, all we should require of one another.

The big problem though is that those who do the research and accept KJVO will see us coming to a different view would be all bogus!

 

[JonC]

The big problem though is that those who do the research and accept KJVO will see us coming to a different view would be all bogus!

Perhaps. But maybe many of us would think the same of those who hold a KJVO position.

 

[Yeshua1]

Perhaps. But maybe many of us would think the same of those who hold a KJVO position.

The difference is that we would see them as being wrong, but not saying that the Kjv itself was bad, as they see all modern versions!

 

[Salty]

The vast majority of those of us who are not KJO will say that the KJV is a very good version-
but for some that is not sufficent.

Makes me think, that when I ran for State Assembly - the subject of abortion came up. I told folks I am 100 % pro-life,
but - when asked, I stated that I would vote for a bill which included execptions for rape, insest or the life of the child.

This small group did not like this. They said - either you are pro-life or you are not

I told them that such bill would stop some 97+ % of current abortions.

 

[Yeshua1]

The vast majority of those of us who are not KJO will say that the KJV is a very good version-
but for some that is not sufficent.

Makes me think, that when I ran for State Assembly - the subject of abortion came up. I told folks I am 100 % pro-life,
but - when asked, I stated that I would vote for a bill which included execptions for rape, insest or the life of the child.

This small group did not like this. They said - either you are pro-life or you are not

I told them that such bill would stop some 97+ % of current abortions.

Uep, for the KJVO, its either accept the Kjv period, or else be reading bad bibles!

 

[JonC]

The vast majority of those of us who are not KJO will say that the KJV is a very good version-
but for some that is not sufficent.

Makes me think, that when I ran for State Assembly - the subject of abortion came up. I told folks I am 100 % pro-life,
but - when asked, I stated that I would vote for a bill which included execptions for rape, insest or the life of the child.

This small group did not like this. They said - either you are pro-life or you are not

I told them that such bill would stop some 97+ % of current abortions.

The problem with KJO is that it implies a "second special revelation" which is contrary to Scripture. I know people try to get around that, but I can't see those arguments as valid. Otherwise the argument would be "thus far the KJV is the best that I have seen, but who knows how it may be improved upon in the future".

The logic, IMHO, of KJO is therefore flawed. For KJO to be correct it has come very close to denying Scripture by making the Bible subjective to one's native language and dependent on divine special revelation unique to English speaking people.

 

[Salty]

.
... For KJO to be correct it has come very close to denying Scripture by making the Bible subjective to one's native language and dependent on divine special revelation unique to English speaking people.

But it is - dont you know that the Apostle Paul used the KJV!

 

[Yeshua1]

The problem with KJO is that it implies a "second special revelation" which is contrary to Scripture. I know people try to get around that, but I can't see those arguments as valid. Otherwise the argument would be "thus far the KJV is the best that I have seen, but who knows how it may be improved upon in the future".

The logic, IMHO, of KJO is therefore flawed. For KJO to be correct it has come very close to denying Scripture by making the Bible subjective to one's native language and dependent on divine special revelation unique to English speaking people.

The argument for the Kjv is very much like for the Muslim Koran, as they would say can have word of God ONLY in Arabic!

 

[Logos1560]

Regardless of which side is right or wrong, we then see that the deeper we dig, the more that one side doesn't seem concerned with God's every word,

You show that you are still somewhat uninformed or misinformed. KJV-only reasoning/teaching has failed to show concern with God's every word as KJV-only advocates do not practice justly what they preach. KJV-only advocates may assume by fallacies such as begging the question that the KJV has every word, but their assumption is not true according to the KJV translators themselves.

In some of the marginal notes in the 1611 edition, the KJV translators honestly and accurately noted that sometimes they did not provide any English word for some original-language words of Scripture in their underlying texts. They did not always point out where they omitted providing an English word for an original-language word of Scripture, but they acknowledged that they sometimes did so. In some cases, they provided an English rendering for the original-language word of Scripture in their marginal notes, but they did not put it in their text.

It is the truth that the Church of England makers of the KJV did not provide any English rendering for some original-language words of Scripture and that they added many words in English for which they had no original-language words of Scripture even if you choose to deny or avoid it.

 

[Logos1560]

what we know to be God's words,

Because KJV-only advocates assume to know something is not proof that they truly know it to be true.
KJV-only advocates claim to know many things to be facts which when checked out turn not to be not true.

The subjective, biased opinions of KJV-only advocates are not scriptural truth.

 

[Yeshua1]

You show that you are still somewhat uninformed or misinformed. KJV-only reasoning/teaching has failed to show concern with God's every word as KJV-only advocates do not practice justly what they preach. KJV-only advocates may assume by fallacies such as begging the question that the KJV has every word, but their assumption is not true according to the KJV translators themselves.

In some of the marginal notes in the 1611 edition, the KJV translators honestly and accurately noted that sometimes they did not provide any English word for some original-language words of Scripture in their underlying texts. They did not always point out where they omitted providing an English word for an original-language word of Scripture, but they acknowledged that they sometimes did so. In some cases, they provided an English rendering for the original-language word of Scripture in their marginal notes, but they did not put it in their text.

It is the truth that the Church of England makers of the KJV did not provide any English rendering for some original-language words of Scripture and that they added many words in English for which they had no original-language words of Scripture even if you choose to deny or avoid it.

The Kjv translators themselves put in side margins glosses and variants, so why have if translation already was perfect?

 

[Logos1560]

Regardless of which side is right or wrong, we then see that the deeper we dig, the more that one side doesn't seem concerned with God's every word, while the other side counts it as precious and not-to-be-messed-with.

Perhaps you attempt to create or invent a bogus, straw-man misrepresentation of what Bible-believers who disagree with KJV-only reasoning believe.

KJV-only advocates do not demonstrate that they are concerned with God's every word that He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. KJV-only advocates ignore the verifiable fact that the KJV translators acknowledged in their marginal notes in the 1611 edition that they did not give an English rendering for every original-language word of Scripture in their underlying texts.

Are you in effect suggesting that the KJV translators messed with God's word when they did not put any English rendering in their text for some original-language words of Scriptures?

 

[xlsdraw]

But it is - dont you know that the Apostle Paul used the KJV!

IMO, this comment exemplifies a spirit of mockery that should not be present in an "Administrator" of a "Baptist" board.

I can attest to and have personally witnessed remarkable: stability, dedication, maturity, and fruitfulness, in both individuals and churches, that I have had the privilege to fellowship with over the years, that cling to the KJV, the hymnals, and the Baptist theology and worship that we grew up with.

I have never remotely experienced anything close to a sense of brotherly love and fellowship on this "Baptist" board.

 

[Deacon]

Why KJ-Only actually works as God's inerrant word

It happens to be over all a more reliable translation with its known faults than most of the modern translations, Isaiah 55:11.

There seems to be a inherent problem of definition.
How can any translation be considered inerrant and still have “known faults” (e.g. errors)?

Rob

 

[37818]

Why KJ-Only actually works as God's inerrant word
There seems to be a inherent problem of definition.
How can any translation be considered inerrant and still have “known faults” (e.g. errors)?

Rob

It is a count. Known variants, there number of true corrections to agree with God's immutable word versus introduced error.

 

[Yeshua1]

IMO, this comment exemplifies a spirit of mockery that should not be present in an "Administrator" of a "Baptist" board.

I can attest to and have personally witnessed remarkable: stability, dedication, maturity, and fruitfulness, in both individuals and churches, that I have had the privilege to fellowship with over the years, that cling to the KJV, the hymnals, and the Baptist theology and worship that we grew up with.

I have never remotely experienced anything close to a sense of brotherly love and fellowship on this "Baptist" board.

Its called a joke!