Scriptural case for or against KJV-only view

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Oct 4, 2012.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    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). 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 the prophets and apostles (2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 16:26). 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).

    Since the entire Old Testament was designated by God with names such as "Moses and the prophets," "the law and the prophets," “all the prophets and the law,“ and “the scriptures of the prophets,“ this could be understood to indicate that all the O. T. writers were prophets (Luke 16:29, 16:31, 24:27; Matt. 5:17, 7:12, 11:13, 22:40, 26:56; Luke 16:16; John 6:45, Acts 24:14, 26:22, 28:23; Rom. 1:2, 3:21, 16:26). The writer of Hebrews could be understood to describe the entire Old Testament as what God spoke by the prophets (Heb. 1:1). William Whitaker affirmed “that the whole scripture of the old Testament was written and promulgated by prophets” (Disputation on Holy Scripture, p. 50). At Luke 16:29, the writer (Moses) is put for his writings. Moses was a prophet (Deut. 34:16). Since the Psalms is sometimes included in the designation "the prophets," it shows that their writers could have been considered prophets. In addition, individual writers of the Psalms were referred to as prophets (Matt. 13:35, Acts 2:30). The oracles of God [the Old Testament Scriptures] given to the prophets were committed unto the Jews (Rom. 3:2) in the Jews‘ language. The writers who received the revelation concerning Christ that would be recorded in the New Testament also seem to be regarded as being prophets or apostles or both (Eph. 3:3-5, 2:20). The N. T. prophets given to the church may refer especially to those prophets that were given revelation that would be written as part of the New Testament (1 Cor. 12:28, Eph. 4:11, Eph. 3:3-5, Eph. 2:20). Along with the Old Testament, New Testament writings are also called Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16, 1 Tim. 5:18). The apostle Peter asserted that the commandment of the apostles are connected with the words revealed and spoken by the prophets (2 Pet. 3:1-2). The apostle Paul noted that his writing or epistle was “the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by means of the Holy Spirit and later written referred to those words that were written in the original languages (1 Cor. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:2, John 17:8, Heb. 1:1-2). Jesus stated: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47). The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses wrote them.

    If some will not accept the authority of the Word of God given to Moses and the prophets and then to the apostles, how will they be persuaded by the translating work of Church of England scholars in 1611 that is in effect separated or cut off from the proper authority of the original language Scriptures according to a consistent application of KJV-only claims or reasoning?
     
  2. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,041
    Likes Received:
    48
    Do the KJVO persons maintain that the Lord preserve his word perfectly in the KJV, and that it is JUST as inspired from Him as a revelation that the autographs were?
     
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Some who hold a KJV-only view claim a second inspiration or advanced revelation for the KJV.

    Others who hold a KJV-only view do imply that through some type of inconsistent view of preservation that God somehow preserved His Word perfectly in the KJV but not in other English translations of the same underlying original language texts such as the Geneva Bible or the NKJV.
    In my opinion, they would seem to be implying partiality or respect of persons on the part of God towards only one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611.
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    scriptural truths relating to preservation

    According to my understanding of what the Scriptures teach concerning preservation, "word" preservation would properly and directly only apply to the original language texts or the exact, specific words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. It could only be applied to translations in some secondary, derived, or applied sense since translations after the completion of the New Testament do not preserve the same exact words that God gave to the prophets and apostles.

    Those verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly relate to the doctrine of preservation.

    Rolland McCune observed: “Preservation is also implied in the warnings against corrupting the text of Scripture by either adding to or removing its words” (Systematic Theology, I, p. 52). McCune asserted: “The various warnings about adding to and subtracting from revelatory texts presuppose that the original documents were guaranteed to comprise God’s complete revelation and that subsequent copies were not” (p. 94). KJV defender Thomas Strouse claimed: “The severe warnings in Scripture about tampering with the written word demand the view that the Lord did not want any of His inspired words changed. John’s colophon predicted a terrible destiny for anyone tampering with the text” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep Them, p. 241). Thomas Strouse also wrote: “Joshua and Israel had the responsibility to guard the very Words of the Torah, to not allow any deviations (cf. Dt. 4:2; 12:32)“ (p. 110). In this same book, Kent Brandenburg wrote: “Further instruction in the Old Testament to Israel regards carefulness with the stewardship of His Word. Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 both admonish the nation to neither add to nor take away from God’s Word” (pp. 105-106). Concerning Revelation 22:18-19 in his commentary on that book, John Walvoord wrote: “Though frequently in the Bible there are other warnings against tampering with the Word of God, this is among the most solemn (Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 1:3)“ (p. 338). Concerning these same verses in Revelation in his commentary, Lehman Strauss noted that “there are similar warnings in other parts of the Bible,“ and then he cited them. Strauss wrote: “In the days of Moses, Solomon, Paul, and John, such warnings from God were quite apropos inasmuch as all books were hand-copied by scribes“ (p. 362). In his commentary on Revelation, Theodore Epp wrote: “In the last Book of the Bible there is a warning against tampering with the Word of God” (p. 444). Concerning which specific words did God directly state these warnings and instructions?

    These commands must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language. Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. Again it should be obvious that these commands had to be directed concerning the Scriptures in the original languages since it is well-known that in translating words have to be added or omitted for the translation in the other language to make sense. These verses could also be understood to suggest that God gave to men an important role or responsibility in preservation. These commands or instructions would indicate the need and responsibility for the making of exact, accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages. These commands also demonstrate that the source being copied was the standard and authority for evaluating the copy made from it. These commands also reveal that the copies were not given by a miracle of inspiration. For a king or whoever copied them to be able to “keep all the words,“ they would have needed to make an accurate, exact, and complete copy of them (Deut. 17:18-19).

    In addition, a logical deduction from these verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would affirm that copies would need to be carefully examined, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, and that no words were changed. These verses could be understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies should be corrected.

    Just as the source definitely had to be the correct standard, proper authority, and just measure or balance for evaluating the copy so the words in the original language sources would have to be the proper standard and authority for evaluating the different words in a translation made from them (Rom. 11:18, Prov. 16:11, Job 14:4, Deut. 25:13-15, Lev. 19:35-36, Ezek. 45:10, Matt. 7:17, Prov. 11:1, Micah 6:11).

    The use of any unrighteous divers weights, divers measures, unjust balances, untrue judgments, or double standards in evaluating or trying copies would be wrong according to the Scriptures (Prov. 16:11, 10:10, 11:1, 20:23, Deut. 25:13-15, Ezek. 45:10, Lev. 19:35-36).

    That the preserved and accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages should be the proper standard, measure, and authority for trying or evaluating all translations of the Scriptures would be a valid implication or deduction drawn from what several verses of Scripture indicate.
     
  5. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,041
    Likes Received:
    48
    My understanding is that the ORIGINAL ONLY were inspired/inerrant manuscripts directly from god thru the writers...

    The current greek and hebrew texts represent essentially those original, as the difference is mainly due to known scribal copying errors, glosses additions, and numbers in OT texts that were miswritten down!
     
  6. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I believe God chose to place His word to man in Hebrew, Aramaic, and koine greek for several reasons. First, those were the main languages of His peculiar people, the Israelis. Second, He caused those languages to become dead(Modern Hebrew is not the Hebrew of David or Isaiah) so His word would be unchanging. Third, those languages can generally be readily translated into many other tongues.

    But there's simply NO Scriptural support for KJVO. While some KJVOs cite Psalm 12:6-7, let them answer this question: WHERE DO THOSE VERSES MENTION THE KJV OR ANY OTHER TRANSLATION???????????????

    And, without Scriptural support, no doctrine of worship can be true.
     
  7. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    I think we all start out believing the original autographs are the very words of God.

    So the first question, did God preserve those original autographs without corruption, or did they get copied and did these copies contain both unintentional changes and intentional changes to make the message more clear. Some KJVO folks say this does not matter, because God superintended the KJV translation such that any errors that had crept in were expunged by God superintending the translation.

    However, the majority of people believe that the reason various copies of the same passage read differently is because of corruption of one or both copies. And then they say if God did not "superintend" the transmission of His words such that error was prevented, why would God then superintend one translation effort, but not others? Therefore the premise of the KJVO position, i.e. it is the best and closest copy of God's very words, is not based on scripture or logic, but like Mormonism, Calvinism, and Arminianism is simply a man-made invention that can be shown to be invalid if God's words are taken at face value, and not redefined to mean whatever the man-made doctrine requires.
     
  8. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Of course. If God created it, it was perfect in its original form. How could it not be?

    God also originally perfectly created the heavens and Earth (and everything in them). But some angels fell. Humans sinned. The Earth is now scared.

    And God ordained marriage. Are marriages today still perfect? And God ordained government. Is government perfect? God ordained the 'church' (small c). Is your church perfect?
     
  9. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Christ is perfect and everyone who is "in Christ" has been made perfect.

    So even my beloved NASB95 is not perfect, neither is the NKJV, nor the NET or HCSB or ESV. To prefer the KJV over these imperfect translations is an exercise of dubious distinction.
     
  10. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I believe GOD preserved His word in the forms and wording HE chose for us to have. And I believe the main reason He chose not to preserve any autographa, far as we know now, is that He didn't want them to become idols such as Moses' brass snake became.
     
  11. Gregory Perry Sr.

    Gregory Perry Sr.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow....

    Help me...I'm comin home to meet ya Elizabeth...I think it's tha BIG ONE..lol

    Roby...I think you finally said something that you and I agree on! Sort of...LOL

    Bro.Greg:type:
     
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Does preservation = inspiration?

    R. B. Ouellette asserted: “What is the practical difference between a ‘divinely inspired Word of God’ and a “divinely preserved Word of God’? None. If God both inspired and preserved His Word, then we can have the confidence that the preserved Word is equal to the inspired Word for all practical purposes today--they are one in the same” (More Sure Word, p. 156). Concerning “preservation and inspiration,“ D. A. Waite wrote: “There is no problem with asserting these things on an equal footing” (Critical Answer to Michael, p. 29). Wendell Runion asserted: “The truth of the matter is, inspiration and preservation are like Siamese twins who are conjoined at birth, with one heart between them” (Northwest News, Summer, 2009, p. 7).

    Do many of the holders of a KJV-only view adequately distinguish between preservation and inspiration? Do they adequately distinguish between preservation of the Scriptures in the original languages and the translation of them into other languages? Do they separate or distinguish between preservation and inspiration in the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible? If they [or the KJV translators] could in effect distinguish between them before 1611 in the pre-1611 English Bibles, why can the same thing not be done after 1611 or 1769? If some holders of a KJV-only view make the word “preserved” mean the same thing as “inspired,” they practically or in effect would seem to hold the same view as Peter Ruckman.


    Consider these statements by one KJV defender that were all made in the same book. D. A. Waite wrote: “To have any kind of genuine Bible preservation, you must have the verbal plenary preservation of God’s Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words, not through ‘translations’” (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 98). Waite claimed: “Bible ‘preservation’ that is not ‘perfect’ is not ‘preservation’” (p. 117). Waite also stated: “I believe that in the King James Bible we have God’s Words preserved in English” (p. 110). He also wrote: “I do not use the phrase ’perfectly preserved Word of God when I am talking about the King James Bible” (p. 113).
    Are these statements about preservation consistent and clear? Were the words relating to preservation used in the exact same sense in all of these statements? Do these statements adequately distinguish between the preservation of the Scriptures in the original languages and “God’s Words preserved in English?”
     
  13. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is that Sanford and Son? I think I saw that episode. Funny one too!
     
  14. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,114
    Likes Received:
    220
    If the Apostle PAUL used the KJV, then its good enough for me!:saint:


    Seriously, for you who are KJO, can you tell us why the Pilgrims did NOT use the KJV?
     
    #14 Salty, Oct 16, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 16, 2012
  15. Gregory Perry Sr.

    Gregory Perry Sr.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep!


    Yep...one and the same...he used that line frequently! Particularly when he saw dear ole Aunt Esther!:smilewinkgrin:

    Bro.Greg
     
  16. mont974x4

    mont974x4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    1
    That was almost every episode. LOL
     
  17. Batt4Christ

    Batt4Christ
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just like so many other arguments - when one begins with a supposition, then little can be stated to bring about a change of views.

    I defy ANYONE to make a believable and valid argument for KJV from the text of the Bible alone. It cannot be done. God promised to preserve His Word - and I believe he has done that. Translation has always been a factor - even in the First Century - there were believers that didn't read or speak the Biblical Greek - for that matter, pretty much no Gentiles could read Hebrew.

    So the Hebrew scriptures were translated to Greek. And further - teachers and preachers had to "interpret" for the people.

    When I stand and preach, reading passages from the KJV, I often have to "interpret" or "translate" even from the antiquated English - as so many words of 350-400 years ago have little to no relationship to the same word or phrase of today.

    One example that I was asked recently by a seasoned church member (a retired pastor for that matter) who asked me what a "sackbut" is - (Daniel 3:5,7 & 15). He really didn't know - and others quickly got interested as well.

    For those who don't know - the "sackbut" is an instrument that dates from the Renaissance period (late 14th Century-17th Century, give or take). It was a wildly popular instrument of the late 1500's and early 1600's. Hmmm.... wonder why the KJV translators chose instrument names that were contemporary, instead of the more historically accurate instrument names as used in the NASB, ESV, HCSB, and even the NKJV - "horn"?

    And even "horn" is a bit vague by our understanding, as at the time of Daniel, "horns" or "trumpets" were not much like what we think of today (or that even existed in the First Century).

    Another little bit (at no extra charge): What languages was the Bible ORIGINALLY penned in? Let me give the simple answer - the language of the people at the time. If you lived in ancient Israel as a Hebrew, you knew Hebrew as used in the Torah.

    If you lived in most of the Roman Empire during the First Century, your primary language was not Roman/Latin - it was Koine Greek - the "common people's language". Indeed, understanding some of the twists of language common in that time helps us to grasp the twists and ironies that are much harder to grasp in English (regardless of translation).

    Without "divine revelation", we cannot even take an unmovable stand on the Greek Texts - There are significant argues both for and against the major collections.

    At what point to we allow God to speak and to keep His promise? I make no qualms - I believe there are modern translations in which the translation faithfulness, honesty, scholarship, and quality are second to none, even when compared to the KJV.
     
  18. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    I only watched a couple reruns with folks when in seminary. Guess that explains why I thought I had seen "that" episode. Haha, this board is so stinkin entertaining I'm not sure what we'll do whenever it's gone.
     
  19. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Back to the OP...

    Please find all the scriptural support for the KJV below:








    ...
     
  20. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I've said umpteen times that there's simomy NO Scriptural support for the KJVO myth. However, there's PLENTY of support for the fact that the current edition of KJVO is derived from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book, that book being Our Authorized Bible Vindicated(1930) by Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson (1872-1968) a 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official, personal friend of Ellen Gould White, the founder of that cult.

    Proof? Virtually every contemporary KJVO work uses material from that goof-filled book. What Dr. W did was compile all the KJVO ideas, points, & sub-doctrines he could, and placed them in his book WITHOUT BOTHERING TO CHECK THEIR VERACITY. There are simply no works dedicated to KJVO before Dr. W's book came out.

    And again.there's not one quark of SCRIPTURE, even in the KJV itself, which supports KJVO by the smallest hint of the slightest implication.
     

Share This Page

Loading...