KJV-Onlyism Commentary

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Jason Gastrich, Aug 17, 2004.

  1. Jason Gastrich

    Jason Gastrich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please add your commentary about the KJV-Onlyism debate and any other comments or arguments about KJV-Onlyism in this thread.

    Sincerely,
    Jason
    __________________________
    Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
    http://www.jcsm.org
    Over 60,000 web pages! 500+ Israel pictures, Bible lessons, weekly devotions, lots of MP3 files, free email accounts, and much more.
     
  2. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    You can find a lot of good information here:
    KJV ONLYISM
     
  3. Jason Gastrich

    Jason Gastrich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jason,

    I hope you eat his lunch!!

    Will used to post here alot but hasn't much since last spring. Unlike many KJVO he was willing to discuss specifics and posted lots of material. You might browse his posts in the 2003 and 2004 Archives or look under his profile (he posts as Will J. Kinney) to see how he answered some of our arguments. Good luck.

    C Meadows [​IMG]
     
  5. Jason Gastrich

    Jason Gastrich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Charles,

    Thanks for your encouragement!

    Haha. I thought the express was: "I hope you give him his lunch." Either way, lunch will be served.

    It's good to know that he already has an account here. I'm assuming he won't reject the venue.

    I'm looking forward to this debate. Recently, I met some zealous KJV-onlyists on an ezboard where he frequents. I was banned for my beliefs. Nonetheless, I saw the need to hear their arguments and address them without the fear of being banned and without having to deal with the personal attacks and calls for repentance (e.g. you're going to Hell if you don't believe the KJV is the only inerrant Bible). You should see some of the emails I've received from Charles Shong from kjv-asia.com. Unbelievably offensive.

    God bless,
    Jason
     
  6. Briguy

    Briguy
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/briguy.gif>

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    1,837
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jason, I used to go to a KJV-only board and I stopped going because some of the people were just nasty to those who did not hold to KJV-onlyism. I posted the verse about kindness to eachother and the nastiness to me got a little better. I saw some valid points and I read the KJV more now because of the time I spent on that board. Several people on the board were so un-Christlike that it just frustrated me and saddened me really. You are not alone when it comes to being attacked for not being KJV-ONLY. The worst thing is that the KJV in my opinion is a really good version and should be included whenever you study somrthing in the Bible. Well, just thought I would share that. Take care!!

    In Christ,
    Brian
     
  7. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps we need to define just what inerrancy means to each of us?

    If by inerrant we are saying that the exact words chosen by a given translator or without flaw...

    Then I would disagree with any statment saying that any translation is 'inerrant'...

    However, if by inerrant we are saying that a given translation faithfully transmits the intent of God's Breath through the Original Authors...

    I can handle that...

    I read more than one translation... With the original NIV being my primary 'reading' Bible and the KJV being my Primary Study and Search Bible...

    There are translator errors or rather editorializng in the KJV because the Translators had to get the Kings Approval for it...

    That is one reason it is called the King James Version. The original Greek is Jacobus... How you get James out of that I don't know?

    But, James we have from it and forever it will be James. [​IMG]

    By having and comparing other translations I can pick up clues about places where different groups of translators *may* have innocently 'slanted' their translation and go to the Greek to discren, if possible, the root of the matter...
     
  8. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    Personally, I think we should use many translations. However, in any good study we need to look up the Hebrew or Greek words and see where else those words were used to get a good idea of how the word should be interpreted. We have to also realize that only the original language is purely inspired scripture. The translations may be biased based on the translator or sponsor of the translation.

    I use the KJV just because it is more structured of a translation making word studies easier.
     
  9. Jason Gastrich

    Jason Gastrich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    0
  10. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kinney is slippery and long winded. However, he is more willing to dig and to even accept valid arguments than most KJV-only people I have encountered (for example, he is the only KJV-only person I've encountered to agree that Passover can refer to the entire week of unleavened bread (Luke 22:1) and says the other KJV-only people are therefore wrong, but then turns around and says "Eeaster" in Acts 12:4 is still correct anyways because the Holy Spirit gave words new meaning). You will have much difficulty pinning Kinney to consistency. Dealing with his double standards and circular arguments will be the biggest challenge.

    I suggest before starting the debate, you reach an agreement as to what constitutes an "error" in the first place. Is it a wording disagreement between the KJV and the TR? Is it an interpretation of a particular passage? Is it a textual variant that was chosen for the KJV when the reading from another manuscript is more likely genuine? Once you have established this, stick to this. Do not let him change definitions midstream, go off on rabbit trails about other versions, etc. If you make a good point and he avoids it, hammer it again and again and again until he deals with it.

    I do not envy you your task. Kinney is easily proven wrong, but he will refuse to accept it, and will masterfully obfuscate until you're ready to poke yourself in the eye with an ice pick.
     
  11. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    The first half of Will's opening statements, although worthy of discussion, misses the mark. The debate is supposed to be about inerrancy of the KJV - not about other versions, Jason's website, etc. The second half of his post is more on topic, although Will tries to give KJV-onlyism a free ride on "preservation" - instead of limiting his comments to showing how preservation is fulfilled exclusively and perfectly in the KJV.
     
  12. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will: //The Bible cannot be clearer concerning it's preservation:
    ...
    Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words:
    as silver tried in a
    furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep
    them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from
    this generation for ever."
    ... //

    With plenty of good verses to use showing
    God's ability to preserve His words for all
    generations, Will poorly uses the deception
    of Psalms 12:7.
    By skipping verse 5, where the nouns are that
    the "them" in verse 7 refers to, the deception
    is complete. In fact, If one were to use the
    REAL KJV1611 edition instead of the phony KJV1769
    edition, he would have found:

    Pfalms XII.7 (KIV/King Iames Version/1611):
    Thou shalt keepe them, (O LORD,) thou
    shal preserue +them, from this generation
    for eurer.

    Sidenote: + Heb. him. euery one of them

    Even the REAL KJV1611 allows that what the
    pronouns in verse 7 refer to is the people in
    verse 5 NOT THE WORDS in verse 6.
     
  13. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    This happened to me last year
    about thsi time:
    -----------------------------------
    On a Bulletin board that says:

    This is an independent, fundamental Baptist
    discussion board that
    accepts the King James Bible (AV 1611) as
    the perfect word of God
    and the final authority in all matters
    of faith and practice.

    I posted this:

    Romanes X:9 (KJV1611):

    That if thou shalt confesse with
    thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and shalt
    beleeue in thing heart, that God hath
    raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saued.


    It was edited out with this note:

    "Note: Quotations from all other Bibles deleted
    by the administrator."

    The quote of the same verse from KJV1873 was
    allowed to remain.

    Tee hee, a KJB1611 site that
    doesn't accept quotes from
    the KJV1611. Tee hee.

    -----------------------------------
    And here is what was posted from the
    administrator of that site
    on a neutral site where the above appeared:
    -----------------------------------

    Dear Mr. Edwards,

    Laugh now while you have the chance.
    You came to our discussion board knowing
    our stand on the King James Bible and
    yet you decided to stir up a little trouble.
    You quoted Romans 10:9 from many different
    bible versions trying to prove that
    they all stated the same thing.
    In the middle you used King James Bibles
    from 1611, 1769, and 1873 trying to
    make it look like they were all different.
    The deletion was to get rid of your redundancy
    as well as your quotes from modern versions.
    So laugh all you want to because
    I am banning you from our board.

    /name surpressed/

    -----------------------------------
    Tee hee, a KJB1611 site that
    bans KJV1611 quoters ???

    [​IMG]
     
  14. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will: " ... the King James Bilbe exalts
    the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ ...
    all modern versions debase ... "

    [​IMG] Hee Hee!
    I define "Modern Version" to be any Bible Version
    produced since the Modern English ALphabet
    was established (about 1600-1650AD), i.e. Since 1650.

    The King James Version was first translated in 1611
    making it NOT a Modern Version.
    The King James Bible (KJB) for the majority is
    the KJV1769 retranslated (some say re-spelled) in
    1769AD. My my definition of "Modern Version"
    the KJB is a Modern Version.
    This reduces Will's argument to siliness.

    I know of two versions produced in the 1990s
    that claim to be corrections of the KJV.
    Neither is accepted by the KJVOs. Both read very much
    like the KJV1769.

    We note Will does not follow the following Baptist
    Board conventions, which we try to maintain.
    He has had his chance to find out about them, but does
    not choose to follow them. Personally I don't respect
    rebels who can't follow simple conventions:

    1. That is "Modern Version" (MV) with capital letters
    to show honor to these forms of the Holy Bible, God's
    Sacred Written Word. "The small letters "mv" are a
    reproach to these Bibles of God.

    2. Please show complete version references when using
    scriptures. I have three different King James Versions
    in my collection and two versions that generally read
    like King James Versions. I like to look up scripture
    (I've also got a couple of dozen other versions handy
    in paper form) I need to be a good Berean and check out
    the scripture daily to see if what is claimed is correct.
    PLease help us good Bereans by citing the source.
    I note most KJV/AV electronic sources are the KJV1769

    The three KJVs:
    KJV1611
    KJV1769
    KJV1873
    The two translated from the KJV:
    TMB = Third Millennium Bible
    21KJV = 21st Century King James Version

    We note that Will does follow the following recent convention
    which gives honor to God. For using this we commend
    Brother Will.
    Many MVs capitalize pronouns referring to God and
    to the three members of the Blessed Trinity. This shows
    honor and respect for God.

    [​IMG]
     
  15. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will Kinney: "Hi Jason, I appreciate the
    opportunity to defend the King James Bible
    as being the complete, preserved, inerrant,
    and inspired words of God."

    Unfortunately, Jason seems to think that
    you were going to argue:
    the King James Bible is the only
    complete, preserved, inerrant,
    and inspired words of God


    Amen, Brother Will to the first statement.
    I dis the second statement.

    The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
    is the complete, preserved, inerrant,
    and inspired words of God.
    The HCSB has the advantage of being written in
    the early 21st Century English language which
    i comprehend. Here are some King James classics
    and the centuries from which they hail:

    KJV1611 - written in 17th Century (1601-1700) English
    KJV1769 - written in 18th Century (1701-1800) English
    KJV1873 - written in 19th Century (1801-1900) English

    If God has preserved His Holy Written Words for each
    generation, how come there is no KJV for MY GENERATION?
    Well, there isn't one accepted by KJVOs.
    BTW, Brother Will, which of the three commonly available
    KJVs is your KJB?
    This is a trick question.
    Failure to answer the question will reflect
    upon your viability as a debater.
    The "weak sister" saying: "they are all the same"
    or "they all sound the same when read aloud" you can say,
    and might even believe,
    but the saying of them will be counted
    the same the same as NO ANSWER.
    BTW, i've found electronic KJVs to all be the KJV1769.

    [​IMG]
     
  16. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    I saw that over there on his site, and did want to comment on it. He makes the connection of "East" being the direction the Sun rises, and now of course, it refers to the "Son". I looked it up today (in Random House, unabridged), and sure enough, it did say that "Easter" was "akin" to "east", but didn't show the exact connection. Still, this does not justify putting Christ into this whole "rise in the east" business. Christ may be associated with "the sun" in places in the Bible; but that is always in terms of the light; NEVER its "rising", (and the direction of "east"). That was always the main element of the pagan "Eostre", which Will seems to gloss over. Some elements of the Gospel do parallel pagan things (which are a corruption ofGod's plan anyway), but never to that extent. This just justifies the Church's (RCC, that is) copying of a pagan ceremony to appeal to the pagans, and it is surprising to see a KJVO take this stance. We can see such an "Easter sunrise from the east" service in Exekiel 8, and God did not approve of it. Do you really think God would simply paste Christ onto it, and make it OK all of a sudden?
     
  17. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    There's also the MKJV (Jay P. Green, Sovereign Grace Publishers); both a 1962 and 1990 edition, plus a 1985 "literal translation" (also used for his interlinear). I liked the 1962 version, because it is almost just the old KJV with th words updated. (While theKJ21 puts back the old words that are familiar, such as "thee", thou", etc.). The 1990 version updates more words.
    He is actually considered a KJVO (at least by critics of KJVO'ism), but I have never heard how the other KJVO's receive it. They are always busy on the more wellknown modern versions.
     
  18. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Green's translations are MORE literal and faithful to the TR than the KJV is, Green eliminated several of the dynamic equivalences found in the KJV. KJVO's that have been made aware of this still reject it (simply because it differs from the KJV) but see it as "the lesser of many evils" because it is TR based and so literal.
     
  19. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jason,


    Where is the link to this debate on your website? I have yet to see it?

    By the way, if one goes to Will's website, one can easily paste and cut the link, to which brings them directly to the debate thread - so don't use this, and accuse him of failing to do what your requirement were. You are adding to the requirements you already specified as you go along.
    Will has done all you requested of him, and in my opinion you are making yourself look as though you are avoiding this debate, and only trying to paint an untrue picture of Will, to which I find very unchristian like behaviour.

    My opinion, is that Will should not waste his time with the likes of those who would go to this ridiculous extreme. Whatever happened to personal emails? You could have kindly expressed these things to him personally, instead of airing all this to the public, to which in the end makes you look bad, not Will - as this is what it seems you were/are trying to do (typical of the mv proponents). And, if you had been MORE CLEAR in your requirements, rather than contradictory, and adding as you go along, none of this would have taken place and could have been avoided.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  20. steaver

    steaver
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    9,005
    Likes Received:
    82
    This is a valid remark, but only in part. We all no full well that there are nasty folks on both sides of this ilse. I have seen some nasty KJV Only folks and I have seen just as many on the other position as well. It is unfair to imply that KJV Only folks are the only one's you encounter who can be quite rash.

    Will is not perfect and nobody can be 100% right about everything. But I must say that he is the first and only guy I have come accross so far who simply states the facts, giving a wide range of readings from numerious translations. This gives the reader some info to discern by, unlike those who debate with nothing but passion and pride.

    Will is fair. He gives alot of info backing his position. I do not know Jason, but I am eagar to listen to him as well and wish to hear him without any preconcieved attitude towards him. If he can present some good reasoning for folks to accept that the KJV is in error, then I am all ears. Personally I have embraced the KJB as perfect. But I am always willing to listen to those who believe it is not, because maybe I am in error and I want to be on God's side. I pray that I do not follow error.

    God Bless! [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...