#2: Why so much against KJB-only?

1st we see by the examples that Jesus is just an "expression" of God.

2nd example gives the impression that Jesus is somehow a different person than God

The 3rd, 4th, ... I don't believe commentaries ought to beasr the title "Bible" on them.

Also I see Ed is practicng his mother's religion.

 

I understand that a lot of what goes on in this forum is based on feelings, pride, etc. This often results in bad feelings and vitriolic comments.

This, in and of itself, should be good evidence that satan has been successful in diverting our attention away from the real goal.

The KJB does not provide absolute proof that God preserved His word perfectly in that version. When examining the history fo the Bible, however, that is really the only logical conclusion one can arrive at.

The MV, no doubt contain God's Word. The KJB IS God's Word, from cover to cover. It is important for me to know that, without any doubt.

What good is a book that is almost 100% reliable? Why would God want us to have anything less than perfection?

There are many today who say, "All versions are God's Word!" Ia gree, the message of the Gospel is carried forward in all of them. What is not carried forward is the applications, the true realities of the basic doctrines of our faith are weakened and perverted resulting in making us less effective in our worship, our witnessing and ability to share our faith properly.

For those who are interested in a great study as to (1) How and why the word has been tampered with (2) Where was the true gospel prior to 1611 (3) A look into the lives of the KJ translators (4) A look into the lives and practices of Westcott and Hort and many others who are responsible for the corruption of the manuscripts, I strongly recommend a great book "Crowned With Glory" by Dr Thomas Holland.

The book provides excellent text evidence that God has indeed preserved His word perfectly, through the translators of the KJB and the three subsequent revisions, in our language, today.

Dr Holland has succeeded in keeping the level of debate on a scholarly level.

No personal attacks. Just the facts.

God Bless as you seek to learn the truth on this matter.

AV Alex

 

I agree. I have backed away from this forum because of these things.

FTR, I am extremely distrustful of basing any belief strictly on "feelings". This is one of the primary reasons I reject KJVOnlyism- it makes an appeal to emotion without accounting for even a fraction of the relevant facts.

As for pride, I would change my position in an instant if someone provided real biblical/historical proof that KJVOnlyism was true. I really would! But, I have heard none and every non-emotional attempt has been founded on double standards, faulty logic (often circular reasoning), and a mishandling of the evidence.

That's true. However, I have never known an advocate of MV's to say that a person could not be saved or sanctified through the KJV. I would agree with the KJV translators in saying that even the "meanest" translation is (not just contains) the Word of God and would oppose anyone who said that the KJV was not the Word of God.

Further, I know of no MV advocate here that says a Christian shouldn't trust the KJV. KJVO's are fond of accusing us of causing people to mistrust the Bible but it is they who condemn translations of God's Word into English, not us. I would hope that people would trust the Bible and use our wealth of good versions to get the true "sense" of scripture... like the KJV translators suggested.

That is an incorrect statement... it provides no proof whatsoever that God preserved His Word perfectly in that version. In fact, by comparing various parallel passages, it becomes very apparent that different "versions" of a biblical "word"/saying are completely valid.

No. In fact, it is one of many illogical positions one can arrive at. Logic does not employ double standards. Logic does not establish a pre-conclusion then set out to prove it... accepting or rejecting evidence and interpretations of evidence solely on circular logic. Logic cannot ignore historical facts because they happen to be inconvenient.

I have not preconcluded anything. To the best of my ability, I have accounted for the facts and stand completely willing to change my mind based on evidence that I am unaware of or proof that my interpretations are unsound.

I apologize for sounding argumentative. However, my first and primary objections to KJVOnlyism have the same source as my objections to evolution. They both fail the tests of logical consistency.

You can KNOW the second statement without the false premise given in the first one. If only one document in a given language at a given time can be God's Word then how do you explain the "fact" that prior to the printing press all known Bibles contained variants? In fact, the substanative variations within the Byzantine family are more significant than the differences between the NASB and KJV, not to mention the NKJV.

What good is an almost 100% reliable sermon... or pastor... or Greek mss... or body... or church... or {you fill in the blank}. God chose providentially to preserve His perfect Word through the imperfect works of fallible men. This is logically derived from the fact that no two hand written copies of the Greek NT are identical. Further, He allowed that fallible translators would yield His Word into the common language. The words of the KJV translators are not perfect... nor did they claim they were but instead cited alternate readings in the margins. They together however do represent God's perfect (in the sense of "lacking nothing essential to its kind") Word in English.

Why did God allow the copyists to make errors?

What was perfect in 1605 or any time before 1611? Did God want Christians then to have something less than perfection? The KJV is demonstrably unique in all of history with regard to its wording. By your rule of "logic", all others must be less than perfect.

Why doesn't God perfectly sanctify every believer at the moment of salvation? If we are to be reflective of Christ... if we are to be among the brethren of Christ who was the "firstborn of many"... if God has chosen us to show the world Christ through our behavior... shouldn't we be "perfect"?... Or is it that the character of "the perfect original" shines through our human failings as we are progressively sanctified and as the Holy Spirit uses us to demonstrate Christ's character?

The correct answers are directly, logically analogous to the issue of Bible versions.

Really? I disagree completely. Either something is God's Word or it is not. For instance, any conscious attempt to change the Bible in a version renders that book something less than God's Word (TNIV, NWT, etc.).

You initially claimed logic as a foundation but now make this completely subjective (and false) assumption. The soundest theologians and many of the holiest Christians you will find in our day use MV's. OTOH, the KJV translators in spite of having great knowledge held some terrible errors of theology and were not so holy.

True. But this study was just as valid when the Church of England and the King were seeking to replace the Geneva Bible with the AV.

True. It obviously wasn't strictly in the words of the KJV.

Maybe. What is more important is their skill and scholarly integrity with respect to translating the texts. The "translators" were fallible men who agreed with the 39 Articles of Religion that affirms among other false/skewed doctrines, baptismal regeneration.

... and perhaps Erasmus as well, who in spite of a concerted effort by protestants to win him over to sola gracia, resisted. Dying, as far as we know, unconverted.

But if it is the doctrinal soundness that is of primary importance, I suggest someone take a long look at the NASB. Its translators signed a statement of faith that is fundamental in nature.

 

Alex Mullins:The KJB does not provide absolute proof that God preserved His word perfectly in that version. When examining the history fo the Bible, however, that is really the only logical conclusion one can arrive at.

Sorry, Sir, JUST THE OPPOSITE is true. No two English BVs are alike, but we believe God has preserved His word. This SHOULD lead one to believe God has preserved His word in the manners that HE CHOSE, and that He is NOT bound to just one version in any language.

Bad feelings arise because that's the result of our faith's having been infiltrated by a FALSE DOCTRINE. Sometimes the cure seems worse than the disease, but we must go forward with it nonetheless.

A newer book I recommend is "the Unbound Scriptures" by Rick Norris.
http://www.kjvonly.org/new_book.htm

 

Roby, excellent book! I enjoyed it so much, I read it twice and plan to read it again! It would be nice to have Bro Will K, and Precepts read this book....it might cause them to have this to say:_____________________________.

 

Why would we have "blank" to say about a book written in the effort to defame the AV 1611 KJB by saying it has mistakes in it from the author who promotes corrupt and contradicting versions?

Seems if the author'as motive was right and his heart is true, he wouldn't be selling his book, he'd be giving it away. If yall really feel his book is the answer, then I suggest you fund the printing of his book and help him give them out.

 

Like Gail Riplinger?

 

Here's a link of KJV-supporters selling their research. Why do they not give it away.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/bookshop/kjv_defense.html

Is this a double standard?

 

Roby,

Is the KJB so hard to read? Elizabethan English?
One would think it was German reading your post. The KJB is on a 5th grade reading level. Many of the mvs are on higher reading levels because they had to get their copyright($). The majority of words in the KJB are one syllable anglo-saxon. The KJV has been read by English speaking people since it was first translated. It was the main version used by Baptists until lately, as many churches have gone liberal. And all of a sudden it is hard to read? I think that is a very poor argument. I have been able to understand it and I am only eighteen. Surely sir, your vocabulary and understanding is broader than mine. My little brother who is eleven understands it ok, surely he does not have a broader vocabulary and understanding then you. Funny, how an eleven year old can read and understand a Bible that grown men cant.

I am not saying God had not preserved His Word. There was the Greek and Hebrew texts from which the KJV came from. I believe there were a couple of English versions and they were completed in the KJB.

One should read the Bible in English in the KJV because the mvs are inferior in my mind. They may not be in your mind, but they are in my mind. Both us may assert that our translaters were better than the others, but neither of us will change the other.

 

Not really. The test that gives this result was designed to measure contemporary English. The KJV is not in contemporary English and denying this fact simply makes someone look foolish if not dishonest.

Not really... again. They used words that they thought best translated the original word. If the word is difficult or long, it may simply mean that it is more accurate.

But English has changed during that time.

Except that Baptist resisted using it for decades after 1611 favoring the Geneva Bible. They considered the KJV as the Bible of the King and Church that persecuted them.

These are unrelated occurrences. Using an MV does not make one liberal nor lead someone into liberalism. Liberals don't really accept any version of the Bible as authoritative so this debate seems pretty stupid to them.

I have read it practically my whole life, heard it preached, and possess a good education and grasp of the English language. All that said, the KJV IS difficult to read in many places.

Some parts are easier than others. Of the difficult parts, some are just difficult to translate but others are unnecessarily difficult in the KJV.

Or perhaps you are overestimating his comprehension. Perhaps much of what he "understands" is because he has heard someone else comment on it.

You aren't suggesting that your mind should be the authority for all English speaking Christians, Are you?

You can change my mind. I already believe that the KJV is one of a few superior versions available to us. I am even willing to go the next step further and adopt KJVOnlyism if someone will prove it biblically or historically without employing double standards or other faulty methods.

 

Precepts, I left the blank there because I believe that if you and Will K read the book with an open mind it might leave you defenseless. The book is well written, well researched, and I am sincere that I wish you-all would read it without preconcieved bias. Considering, BTW, the research, depth of the book, it's a bargain. I think that it will be, THE book to challenge many of the myths out there, and I did buy an extra copy for a Pastor friend of mine who is encountering some of the divisiveness this movement has caused right in his church.

 

Is the KJB so hard to read? Elizabethan English?

Not for me; I've read older English since I was a child. And I'm of only average intelligence. But I don't represent all the readers of English worldwide, either.
One would think it was German reading your post. The KJB is on a 5th grade reading level.

That test was biased from the gitgo. You know that also, but you won't admit it. And try a little REALITY. Hand a KJV to an ordinary 5th grader, ask him/her to read one chapter of one book, then ask if he/she understood what was read.


Many of the mvs are on higher reading levels because they had to get their copyright($).

This shows us you've gotten your KJVO info from some cowboy who has written a book for $profit$ from the gullible. The copyrights thing is a completely-senseless argument. The AV/KJV has ALWAYS been SOLD from the first day of its publication, and in fact, King James not only authorized that Bible version, he authorized placing his TAX STAMP in every copy, so the Crown made money on each copy made. NNE prints books for free, or they don't stay in business very long. SOMEONE SOMEWHERE PAID FOR EVERY COPY OF THE AV EVER MADE.


The majority of words in the KJB are one syllable anglo-saxon. The KJV has been read by English speaking people since it was first translated.

Right. It was written in the best English of its day. Thing is, that day's long past.


It was the main version used by Baptists until lately, as many churches have gone liberal.

That has nothing to do with the Bible they use. Remember all the cults that use the KJV?

And all of a sudden it is hard to read? I think that is a very poor argument.

Here's a very familiar verse of Scripture as it appeared to the English of C.995 AD: ?God lufode middan-eard swa, dat he seade his an-cennedan sunu, dat nan ne forweorde de on hine gely ac habbe dat ece lif."

Same verse, 400 years later: "for god loued so the world; that he gaf his oon bigetun sone, that eche man that bileueth in him perisch not: but haue euerlastynge liif,"

AV 1611: "For God so loued the world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life."

NKJV: For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Which is the easiest to read with comprehension?


I have been able to understand it and I am only eighteen. Surely sir, your vocabulary and understanding is broader than mine.

Maybe my vocab, etc is greater than yours, & maybe it isn't. I'm an average man of average intelligence with no more than a HS and vo-tech education. But my EXPERIENCE is far greater. I have most likely done MUCH more research into the KJVO myth than you have. I don't reject it because of any personal dislikes; I reject it because it has a SINGULAR LACK OF EVIDENCE that would justify it. The TRUTH matters to me much more than "being right" in some debate. I've read virtually every published book or article by almost every KJVO-advocate author, and a great many books & articles by those who hold an opposing view. I see the arguments you use in favor of KJVO are quite elementary and indicate you've read just a few sources for them and have NOT checked out their VERACITY. An example is the "5th grade comprehension" test you mention above. Had you researched the VERACITY of this test, you'd've seen the whole thing was skewed to obtain the results the authors wished and it was NO true litmus test for the readability of the KJV by modern English users!

My little brother who is eleven understands it ok, surely he does not have a broader vocabulary and understanding then you. Funny, how an eleven year old can read and understand a Bible that grown men cant.

Isn't it nice to have a smart younger bro? But then, hand him a NKJV and ask him if he can understand it better.

I am not saying God had not preserved His Word.

Good-because the basic foundation stone of Christianity is the preservation of God's word by God Himself. We learn of Jesus ONLY through God's word.
"So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."(Romans 10:17, NKJV)


There was the Greek and Hebrew texts from which the KJV came from. I believe there were a couple of English versions and they were completed in the KJB.

There were more than a couple.
http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q2_bible_english.html

One should read the Bible in English in the KJV because the mvs are inferior in my mind. They may not be in your mind, but they are in my mind.

You have a right to that view, of course, but what FACTS is it based upon? Have you read very many MVs cover-to-cover? Have you studied the veracity of the various KJVO claims? Here's an example of a very stupid KJVO claim: "The NIV denies the Deity of Jesus by calling Joseph His FATHER at Luke 2:43." Why is this so stupid? The KJV does the VERY SAME THING just five verses later! Luke 2:48. KJV- "And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, **thy father** and I have sought thee sorrowing." That's where my experience comes in. I've checked the claims of both sides for myself, and I can safely conclude that KJVOnlyism is a myth.


Both us may assert that our translaters were better than the others, but neither of us will change the other.

Are you REALLY saying you PREFER the KJV? Do you believe the KJV is the ONLY valid English translation there is, or simply that IYO it's the BEST?

Actually, my MAIN objective is to attempt to prevent the neophyte Christian or a lost person seeking Christ to not fall into the KJVO trap. I cannot read the minds of those who read these posts, but I CAN type the TRUTH as I've discovered it. I know the origins of the modern KJVO myth-do YOU? Think it came from GOD? If so, please post some EVIDENCE.

 

Seen Riplinger giving away any of her books lately? How about Dr. Ruckman? How about Dr. Holland? Seen any research proving Norris wrong? Seen anyone printing the KJV for free? Sure, the Gideons give away copies, but they themselves pay for them.

 

cdg
"I did not and do not say that to read the Bible one must have a KJV."
I've seen a couple of KJVO's on here that actually do, Homebound comes to mind.
But really, in this case I was only pointing out the flaw in this one particular argument you made.

 

Roby,

I doubt we will see any of the people you mentioned giving away books. There is no doubt about that. I admit I am not an expert on the "versions issue". I have not read every book out there. I do not care to study the new versions. The fact is if I needed to study them and learn alot about them, then it would seem as though something was wrong with the KJV. To be honest I do think my little brother is smarter than me. I would not dare hand him a NKJV. About the claim in Luke 2... There is a difference, one verse(43) is Luke speaking by inspiration of God, and the other verse(49) is Mary speaking.
I believe the KJV is the only English translation Christians should use. Now, I can understand the JKV-only trap thing, if you are saying a lost person or young Christian may get caught up in a version and not learn what's in the version or if they will just become a professional debater instead of growing in grace. But if you are saying a person using only the KJV is a trap, then I must disagree. Now, around where I live, Conservative baptist churches have always used the KJV, so it started before 1976 or whenever that date was, if that is when you are going to say it started. But ,most churchesaround here dont hate everybody that disagrees with them. They just strongly disagree with them as you do with them. But about that experience you were talking about, I do not hope to read and learn so much as to come to a place that I will accept mvs. That is just me though. By the way I am enjoying the conversation.

ScottJ,

Good to read from you. I have not seen the test that rated the KJV. Now, if the word is difficult in an mv it is ok, but if one is difficult in the KJV it is not okay?
Hey, I could use your argument for difficult words for the KJV. I could say "If a word is hard in the KJV its because its more accurate."
English has changed some, yes. But the KJV is still readable. Like I said even my younger bother can understand it to some degree. We(me and my brother) have heard alot of teaching and preaching from the KJV. But with any Bible is it not the Holy Spirit that teaches us. Is it not Him that opens our eyes? So isnt saying a mv is easier to read also saying it is not inspired. Because if it was inspired it would take the Holy Ghost to give man good sound comprhension, but the cry for the mvs is they are so easy to read, just as if they were like any other book. I still think the KJV is so hard to read is a bad argument. I am not suggesting that my mind should be the authority for everyone, or everyone would be shortchanged. I am saying in my mind, instead of saying in everyones mind. I am not making a blanket statement, like the KJV-only belief started this particuar year. I am saying that I believe this, and that's it. You dont have to agree, I am just giving you my view on the subject, as you are giving your view. As I have said before, both sides have arguments, and in the end we both have faith that our view is correct. As for you using only the KJV,I would like to see that day, but if not then I will still be okay.

 

No. That isn't what I said: "...it may simply mean that it is more accurate." That's what I said. I don't have much concern about the KJV words that few know the meaning of- those will be looked up by everyone, unless of course they no longer appear in commonly available dictionaries. What concerns me more is KJV words like "let, prevent, conversation, communicate, etc." that people think they know the definition of, but don't.

English has changed a good bit and while most of the KJV is still readable some of it is quite unreadable.

Don't you think it is a little inconsistent to condemn MV's for not containing a few phrases when compared to the KJV then saying it doesn't matter that many people cannot understand significant portions of the KJV?

Yes. But not because the text is in a different vernacular than the one we speak. It is the spiritual truthes that the Holy Spirit reveals... not the grammar and diction. Otherwise, it would make alot more sense if the Holy Spirit endowed us with the ability to understand Greek and Hebrew at the moment of salvation since these are the biblical languages of direct inspiration.

No. Why would it be?

Would it be accurate to say that because the KJV is easier to read than the original Greek it is therefore not inspired?

Like I said, the Spirit gives us the ability to understand the truth of scripture. The unregenerate man can't understand these things no matter how easy the reading is. Relate this to the fact that people come to your church, hear a very plain and clear presentation of the gospel... but walk away lost. They don't understand because the Spirit has not enlightened them.

You have a good spirit. Better than most of us here. Continue to seek the truth, dear young brother, and don't be hardened to it if it doesn't meet your expectations.

God's grace to you.

 

CDG:I doubt we will see any of the people you mentioned giving away books. There is no doubt about that.

That's part of why I say the whole "copyrights" issue raised by the KJVOs is codwallop.

I admit I am not an expert on the "versions issue". I have not read every book out there.

I've read every book or article I can find on the subject because I want to know the TRUTH. And after mucho reading and mucho PRAYER, I can safely conclude that the KJVO doctrine is false and nothing more than a man-made myth.

If YOU took the time to do as I've done, I believe you'd reach the same conclusion that I have. Not that I'm saying you'd abandon the KJV, as it's as valid a BV as any other, but you'd dump the idea that the KJV is the ONLY valid English BV out there.


I do not care to study the new versions. The fact is if I needed to study them and learn alot about them, then it would seem as though something was wrong with the KJV.

It's not about finding fault, unless that's one's objective. it's about expanding one's knowledge of God, about using everything He's made available for you to use, and about considering that He may want your fellow believer to use a different Bible version(s) than He wants YOU to use. It is GOD who created diversity; it's MAN who fights against it, many a man wanting to make everyone into HIS image.

To be honest I do think my little brother is smarter than me. I would not dare hand him a NKJV.

Why not?

About the claim in Luke 2... There is a difference, one verse(43) is Luke speaking by inspiration of God, and the other verse(49) is Mary speaking.

So Luke knew more than Mary, who BORE Jesus, and was directly visited by an angel? And in human terms, were M&J NOT Jesus' earthly parents? They were married when he was born. They raised Him from human childhood. Joseph supported them by working as a carpenter. Jesus was also a carpenter, apparently having learned the trade from Joseph. Remember, IT WAS THE KJVOs WHO STARTED THAT STUPID ARGUMENT! All WE did was to dismiss it as hogwash.


I believe the KJV is the only English translation Christians should use.

WHY??????????
BY WHOSE AUTHORITY do you make such a statement????

I'll assume you're referring to only ENGLISH-USING Christians, as the KJV won't do a JAPANESE any good.


Now, I can understand the JKV-only trap thing, if you are saying a lost person or young Christian may get caught up in a version and not learn what's in the version or if they will just become a professional debater instead of growing in grace. But if you are saying a person using only the KJV is a trap, then I must disagree.

The prob isn't with just USING the KJV; it's telling someone else he/she MUST use only the KJV.That is a lie. The KJV is NOT the only valid English BV out there.


Now, around where I live, Conservative baptist churches have always used the KJV, so it started before 1976 or whenever that date was, if that is when you are going to say it started.

And for generations, their ancestors traveled on horseback or in wagons. Should they have stayed with that?


But ,most churchesaround here dont hate everybody that disagrees with them. They just strongly disagree with them as you do with them.

But can we prove the KJVOs wrong? yerp! We in fact HAVE, many times. Can the KJVOs prove us wrong? Newp! Shoot, they can't even tell us by whose authority they hawk their myth.


But about that experience you were talking about, I do not hope to read and learn so much as to come to a place that I will accept mvs.

Why? Are you afraid of the TRUTH? Are you as a person who's been told by a doctor he has a certain illness, & keeps going to other doctors seeking one who'll give him good news? Is it that old habits die hard? Just as you gave up sinful earthly things to come to Jesus to start with, isn't it time to abandon a false doctrine started by men and see what all God has available for you now?

That is just me though. By the way I am enjoying the conversation.

Well, I'm just me, too. Glad you ARE enjoying the dialogue. I would hope that your eyes become open to the falsehood of the KJVO myth, and while you may continue to use only the KJV, you'll see that God is NOT limited to just the one version.