The Problem with KJV ONLY Advocates

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by jonathan.borland, Dec 22, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    An obvious problem with KJV-only advocates is that they argue backwards from a translation (the King James Version) and dig up whatever ancient support (Greek, Latin, etc.) they can that might possibly support the English words of that translation instead of starting with the primary sources themselves and allowing those to determine which English words should be used to communicate the words of God most properly. So we find them praising most manuscripts when the KJV follows them, but castigating them when it doesn't; praising the ancient Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts when the KJV follows them, damning them (sometimes as Satanic) when it doesn't; loving the Latin Vulgate when the KJV follows it, dismissing it when it doesn't, etc. And so it goes for any difference one finds between the KJV and any modern version. There is no reasoning with them, because the KJV can't be wrong. But why?

    And here is the main problem with KJV ONLY advocates: "If the KJV is wrong," they ponder, "then God hasn't preserved his Word perfectly and thus he's a liar and thence the whole world must be damned to hell; THEREFORE the KJV must be right." (I'm exaggerating a bit, but basically this is their primary presumption and the flaw that drives their whole system.) And again, "Remember," they logically argue to themselves, "all translations have differences, and thus either all translations are wrong in some places or one of them is right in every place." Basically this is the same apologetic starting point for the primacy of Christianity over all the others that differ from Christianity. Then they continue: "Of course, all of the translations can't be imperfect, since that would make God a liar." From this they "deduce" that the KJV must be the only perfect one.

    So when one comes upon the rare case where the KJV follows no Greek manuscripts, such as in the famous span of the Textus Receptus constructed by Erasmus from the Latin (since his single Greek manuscript of Revelation was defective near the end [even though today we have hundreds of Greek manuscripts of Revelation available to us]) we find their explanations less than satisfactory (to put it kindly).

    For example, in Revelation 22:18 we find that the KJV says "For I testify . . ." even though no Greek manuscripts have the word "for." So they say that it's okay to add conjunctions like that if it makes better sense in translation (but God forbid if any modern translators ever ADD words to the word of God where the KJV doesn't -- may the plagues of Revelation fall upon them and damn them!). Or they say that maybe some Latin manuscripts actually preserved the original "for" and that all Greek manuscripts with the original reading eventually perished (i.e. God failed to preserve his word in the Greek manuscript tradition, a conclusion not peculiar at all to them considering their presumption summarized above).

    KJV advocates' false presumption determines their many strange arguments to defend their false presumption. Remember, their presumption is that the KJV can't be wrong, or God has failed. Put in these terms, one discovers why many of them take the defense of the KJV to a spiritual level, assuming, as some of them must, eternal rewards due to the eternal nature of the debate (remember: God's eternal attribute of truthfulness is at stake here!), and consequently eternal punishment for those who, they presume, attack God's truthfulness.

    This is the problem with KJV ONLY in a nutshell.

    Brother Jordan Kurecki, do I have that about right?
     
  2. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    The KJVOs make up excuses to attempt to compensate for their LACK OF REAL EVIDENCE supporting their myth. They sometimes remind me of drunks & dopers making up excuses for chemical abuse.

    The MAN-MADE ORIGIN of KJVO has been posted for all to see. KJVO doesn't have one quark of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, a fact which, alone, makes KJVO false. I just can't understand why a CHRISTIAN would believe such a false, man-made doctrine, especially when one claims to be sola scriptura.

    While the KJV is an excellent translation, it's still a work of men, and therefore it contains some goofs & booboos.

    Unfortunately, the baptist faith, especially fundies, are associated with KJVO, while most other christian denoms treat KJVO with disdain. That also heaps aspersions on the KJV itself, as those who aren't acquainted with the "KJVO wars", but don't believe the KJVO myth, associate the KJV with a group of extremists. Satan has achieved a measure of success with his KJVO myth.

    Again, I just can't understand why a reasonably-intelligent person, who claims to be a devout Christian, can believe an obviously-false doctrine such as KJVO, whose diehard advocates must constantly be searching for new excuses to justify their myth to themselves, let alone others!

    The whole KJVO thingie is phony as a Chevy Mustang.
     
  3. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
    You forgot about ancient translations of the bible in addition to the latin.
    many readings that have little Greek MSS support do have support in the ancients translations.
    Nobody ever said God's word has to be preserved in the Greek MSS..

    Jonathan I think what you do is represent the issue of modern translations straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
    Yes there are a few instances in the KJV with readings that seemed to not be supported by our extant Greek MSS, But for every 1 time the KJV does this, the Modern translations do this about 20 times... You basically admitted that it is a very rare case that the KJV does this, but even from looking at the bibles from a naturalistic point of view, the KJV is superior to the modern translations with there handfuls upon handfuls of minority supported readings.

    If you are going to criticize the KJV for doing this, why do you not hyper criticize the modern translations for taking it to the EXTREME?
     
    #3 Jordan Kurecki, Dec 22, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 22, 2013
  4. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,984
    Likes Received:
    373
    Or you can choose my view - the KJV makes up in style what it misses in translation. :smilewinkgrin: (":smilewinkgrin:" means "just kidding"... kinda)

    This is what I’ve gained so far with the KJVO/superiority debate on BB: KJVO are a small minority, particularly when you exclude those sects that are generally considered cultic (Oneness Pentecostals, Mormons, etc.). Those adhering to KJV superiority form a larger group, but are still relatively small. They are incapable of proving their position (KJVO or KJV superiority) just as the opposition is incapable of proving their own view. KJVO/superiority sees the older manuscripts as corrupt, and the newer based on even older and more accurate (albeit nonexistent) versions while their opponents view the older existing transcripts as more accurate. KJVO/superiority holds that people took away from the original text while their opponents believe it more plausible that additions were made for doctrinal clarity (and marginal notes incorporated in some texts). Of course, there are some who believe that God provided special revelation to the authors of the KJV, but this is another matter involving erroneous doctrine concerning the nature of revelation.
     
  5. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    .... Well, if the KJV [i.e., with Scofield's notes] was good enough for the Apostle Paul ....!! :tonofbricks:
     
  6. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
    When the 2 main older manuscripts disagree with each other in over 3,000 places in the Gospel alone, Yes we do not view them as being accurate.
     
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2

    KJV-only advocates do argue backwards, and they even argue using fallacies and using divers measures [double standards].
     
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Where do the Scriptures assert or suggest that different words in a different language instead of the actual ones given to the prophets and apostles by inspiration were the words to be preserved?

    There are verses that would demonstrate or at least indicate that preservation would have to concern the Scriptures in the original languages. 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 and directly relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original language Scriptures. 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.
     
  9. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,984
    Likes Received:
    373
    Yes....I know the arguments.

    KJVO folk have absolutely no firmer ground to stand on than their opponents. I view the opponents to KJVO as having a firmer foundation - but it is still subjective. I, personally and out of reasoning out the positions, reject the KJVO position - but to be honest it is partially due to the KJVO view held by some that God inspired by special revelation a version of the bible in the seventeenth century (and I know that this is not the most accepted argument - but it is one that I firmly reject). For me, it appears more logical that additions to the text were added to clarify doctrine than texts removed to support a given view. I do not believe that Christians of the past would take away from the Word, but they would perhaps add clarification and interpretation to the translation and perhaps this is unavoidable (for example, read the NIV). But that's just me. I do not mind people using the KJV one bit - I actually tend to memorize in the KJV because I appreciate the writing (I also gravitate to the NASB because that was the "standard" of the local church when I was saved - while I believe it to be more accurate than the KJV, I have to admit that it is more awkward).

    I just don't know why it is being argued again as there is nothing to gain....then again, we are consistently arguing Cal/Non-Cal....so - have at it.
     
    #9 JonC, Dec 22, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 22, 2013
  10. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    The four "Gospels" disagree with each other in many places, but have been accepted as Scripture from the gitgo. People know they were written by different men.

    Same for the MSS. you question...different worx by different men; thus, they differ from each other.
     
  11. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
    There's a complete difference between different Gospels who are written by different authors from different perspectives being different, and what we are dealing with in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

    Honestly your logic on this statement is ridiculous and I can't even begin to explain how that comparison is not valid with this.
     
  12. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
    Nowhere do any of those scriptures indicate that God will only preserve his word in the Greek MSS exclusively.

    Just because God warns people from taking away from the scriptures does not mean he intended to preserve them in the Greek MSS exclusively..

    You are making a very big jump and you cannot support what you are saying with scripture. You are putting your own presuppositions into those verses.

    And as for the translation work of having to add and subtract from God's word: If what you're saying is correct, than anyone who does any translation work is going to have the plagues added to them and their part taken out of the book of life. Are you willing to admit that all people who have done translation work have had their name taken out of the book of life? This shows that you're application of that verse does not apply to what we are talking about.

    Clearly God gives a warning to those who willingly change or distort his word. This is not what honest translators do, though I do not doubt that some have done this. The NWT is a good example.
     
  13. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
    Yes I find it hard to believe that Christians would take away from the text, but I also do not see any true bible believing Christian adding either, both have warnings on the scriptures... However, the unsaved and lost would definately change the scriptures and add or take away from them. Don't be so naive to think that this did not occur and the bible was not mutilated in the past by heathen.

    2Co_2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
     
  14. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,984
    Likes Received:
    373
    I don’t think it naïve to believe that Christians (true Bible believing Christians) could inadvertently or intentionally add to Scripture as I believe that a case could be made that this is precisely what was unavoidably done in the KJV (and other translations) in the interpretation process of translation. In regards to intentional changes I don’t even find it naïve, for example, to believe that the explanation of the angel stirring the waters at the Pool of Bethesda could have been added for clarification by true Bible believing Christians to explain the cultural beliefs - or have made its way into the text from marginal notes (I’m not making a case here either way). It is an entirely different case when it comes to taking away from Scripture.

    I do think, however, that it is extremely naïve to take a position that English translations other than the KJV and manuscripts other than the TR were deliberately mutilated in the past by heathen. There are just as many reasons for questioning the KJV and the TR in regard to intentional human manipulation. I am not rejecting the KJV (or the TR), but am saying that your argument against modern translations as a general assertion can also and just as easily be applied to the KJV.

    BTW, 2 Cor 2:17 is probably a bit out of context for the discussion. If you think it applies, just remember it is just as applicable as a defense of the views of modern translation folk (it's meaningless as a supporting argument).
     
    #14 JonC, Dec 23, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 23, 2013
  15. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
    Why do you think it's naive to think that Heathns would do that?

    Have you ever heard of the Queen James Bible? this is a perfect example of exactly that happening.

    I never said all the changes were from Heathens. Im just saying that even if Christians never took away from God's word, that does not stop heathen from doing so and it would not surprise me. Does it really surprise you that a manuscript found found in the Vatican library would be corrupted considering it was found in the library of a religious system that would definately not hesitate to change the words of God based on the traditions of man? I think we would agree that most who are following Roman Catholicism are probably note saved. Can we really expect God to preserve the New Testament with Paganized Psuedo Christians like the RCC? That's like expecting God to use the Moabites to preserve the Pentateuch.
     
    #15 Jordan Kurecki, Dec 23, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 23, 2013
  16. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,134
    Likes Received:
    52
    since the Kjv team did not even have some of those manuscripts avaialble until afterwards, so how do you know those weren't actually reflecting closer tot he originals than what was in the TR?
     
  17. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,984
    Likes Received:
    373
    I don't. I neither wrote or intended convey it unreasonable to believe that non-Christians would alter Scripture.

    I misunderstood you to imply that the KJV was superior to more modern translations because the more modern ones were based on texts mutilated in the past by heathen. I see how you could view my assumption as an insult and I do apologize.
     
  18. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
    It's ok! :thumbs:
     
  19. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    60
    Because the TR/KJV is supported overwhelmingly by Ancient Translations and Early Church Fathers' quotations.
     
  20. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Actually you and KJV-only advocates are making the very big jump in trying to claim that preservation was supposedly transferred to different words in different languages instead of preservation properly and correctly concerning the exact, specific words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. Word preservation suggests preservation of the exact, specific original language words given by God.

    Are you possibly suggesting that the scriptural doctrine of preservation only concerning meaning and thoughts instead of words so that non-literal dynamic equivalent renderings and adding words would in effect be advocated by your claims concerning preservation?

    My point is actually well-supported by the verses I cited (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) since those who make translations cannot literally, strictly, or faithfully follow those commands since they have to add, omit, and change words in translating. You would have to deny that preservation concerns "words" in order to claim that those verses do not relate to my point.

    It is KJV-only advocaes who try to put their own KJV-only assumptions and claims into verses that do not teach them.

    No KJV-only advocates have presented any consistent, sound, scriptural case for a KJV-only theory.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...