Featured Four reasonable questions concerning KJVO

KJVO hinges on the misconception that the KJV translation process was inspired and produced an inerrant translation. There is no proof for that. Without that being true, KJV onlyism is illogical lunacy.

 

Even the translators suggested that other translations be completed and theirs was not inspired in the same way as the original autographs

most people who are KJVO only speak only English and have no idea how translation works

of all of the hills to die on

KJVO is not even a small blip on the radar

not to mention that it comes mostly from Tyndale version

 

where does your opinion come from?

 

KJVO people as a whole are not very well educated. The KJVO pastors use the lack of education and the complexity of the KJV as a tool to keep the congregation under their control.

 

The majority of cults use the KJV because it is free and the archaic language makes it easier to twist scripture. I once fell into that trap. Funny enough, the Book of Mormon attempts to use Elizabethan English and does not properly render the ye's, thee's, thine and thou's in many places.

 

My statement is clearly based on the fact that the Scriptures do not state nor teach the recommendation for the KJV made by that poster JD731, demonstrating that my statement is true.

The KJV is directly mostly from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible and from the Geneva Bible.

Since the Bishops' Bible and the Geneva Bible are revisions of the Great Bible and the Matthew's Bible, they are indirectly based on Tyndale's.

The makers of the KJV also borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament.

 

These guys love the number 7 to claim divine perfection. They say it had to go through a 7 step “refining process” from each translation starting with Tyndale’s Bible and the English Bibles that came after up until 1604. Then it took 7 years to translate and publish the KJV in 1611. Then another 7 steps to get from the 1611 Edition up to the 1769 Blayney revision, from the Oxford Edition to the Cambridge Edition. Look up “Bible Protector”, he lays it all out.

There’s no logic behind it and I could find some pattern of 7 to make the same argument for any other translation.

 

So you give primacy to a document founded upon other earlier versions by calling it “the inspired version”

 

Where did you get that incorrect idea? I have not called the KJV "the inspired version."

 

Good for you. Progress is being made in this era of deceiving and being deceived.

 

Amen! The scriptures have much to say about themselves, as would be expected and if the eternal destiny of each individual soul hangs on what they say and whether one believes them or not, and nothing else, It seems to me that it would be very wise to make understanding them a top priority in ones life. On these forums, and particularly among a few individuals who posts here on this subject, the scriptures are rarely quoted, but the argument is deferred to the scholarly opinions of themselves and other men like themselves. If agreement on the subjects of the Bible between the posters were achieved through scholarship and education, like life and death, heaven and hell, salvation and damnation, faith and works, belief and unbelief, Christ and Satan, etc. etc, their arguments would be sound and worthy but they agree about very little among themselves concerning what the Bibles they carry actually teach.The one thing they sure agree with one another about is that we do not have a source manuscript that is inspired of God nor a translation that is faithful to the truth in every place.

One thing is sure; there is no possibility of obeying God"s command for all Christians to speak the same things and to have unity in doctrine with hundreds of translations and acceptable paraphrases in the same language floating around among us taken from a variety of source language manuscripts that no one would stake their life on as being accurate.

I am a KJV only believer because I believe the word of God has a voice that is worthy of quoting.

Thank you for the wisdom of your comments.

 

Which rendering is more accurate?

Acts 5:30
The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. (KJV)

The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. (NKJV)

 

The unreasonably small 10,000 character limit to posts on this forum would not allow me to post the original version of my post. Worse than that, once I attempt to do so, no matter how far a edited it down it refused to allow me to post it even after taking it well below the supposed 10k character limit. I can't tell if this was a glitch or what so I'm now posting this totally arbitrary post in attempt to get rid of what it is it thinks I'm trying to post so that I can then retry to post the shorter version of the post I actually want to make. Lovely website hosting guys! Way to go!

 

NOPE!

It still will not permit me to post what I've spent the last two hours writing!!!!

1738 words
Characters (no spaces) 8158
Characters (with spaces) 9860

Pathetic!!!

 

The unreasonably small 10,000 character limit to posts on this forum has forced me to snip most of your questions in order to save on the size of the post. I assume you know what you asked.

I've now also split the post into two posts. What a terrific way to save bandwidth!!!

Well, because a pastor isn't a lay person, he's a professional. A pastor using a NIV would be like a professional astronomer using an Celestron Telescope that he bought at Walmart. He could do it and if he's doing so while showing his grandson the rings of Saturn then fine, but it is not the proper tool for professional work. Likewise, for casual reading or sort of surface level daily devotionals and the like, translations, like the NIV will get the job done but if you're doing serious work, you need a higher quality tool.

Such judgments are going to be subjective to one degree or another but there are people who would reasonably be considered experts in the areas of biblical language studies and translation who's criticisms should not be ignored.

Further, there are some of these modern translations that are right out in the open about what the intent of the publication is. It isn't as if it's a secret the The Message Bible is a paraphrase and not an actual translation. The producers of it are totally open about that and make no bones about it.

You can say whatever you want about anything but saying it doesn't make it so. You have to use discernment and make wise and informed decisions about such things.

Such translations are fine to use for some purposes and not others. I'm not sure why that would be a difficult thing to understand.

No, it most certainly is not a basic tenant of the faith! Whoever told you such a thing is either a fool or a conman. RUN!

Translating from one language to another is not an exact science and some will do a better job than others. There are countless decisions that have to be made right through from beginning to end and not everyone will agree on each of those decisions. Many of these decisions must be made at the very beginning before a single syllable is translated, not the least of which is what source material(s) are you going to translate from and are you going to go for a word for word translation or an idea to idea translation or some sort of mixture of those two, etc. Different people will have different answers to such questions for different reasons depending on, not only their doctrine, but also their intended audience and the purpose of the translation.

The idea of a "perfect translation" is simply a fantasy that is impossible to even define never mind actually achieve.

No, it does not have a big impact on our lives at all! That's the beautiful thing about God's word. Such issues have about as much impact as would a spit-ball shot at a battleship.

The bible is a very think book. The shear volume of material within the scripture serves as an insulation against individual errors or omissions.

As evidence, try to think of even one single doctrine that is commonly talked about or preached, that has anything to do with the way you live your life or the way you respond to or interact with God that is nullified or even significantly altered because of any issues that surround Matthew 17:21.

I can tell you that if you're attempting to apply Matthew 17:21 directly to your life, you've already made significant doctrine errors to begin with and that this verse is the least of your concerns. You need to stay very very far away from anyone claiming to be casting out demons. They are lying to you (and perhaps to themselves as well).

EXCELLENT QUESTION!!!!

No, KJVO only person will answer you honestly. The best they'll present will be transparently arbitrary, as I can see that you have already noticed.

Well, not quite! The King James Bible they like is itself an updated version of the King James bible. You've already asked, "Why not the Geneva Bible, etc?" but you could just as easily ask, "Which King James Bible?"!

"The first edition of the King James Version was printed in 1611 by Robert Barker in London. It appears that two issues were published that year, the printing being done possibly in two different shops to meet the expected large demand. The first two printings were large folio Bibles for use in churches, but smaller editions were soon produced for personal use, starting in 1612. With the proliferation of printings, early printer errors crept into the editions. For instance, the word 'not' was left out of the seventh commandment, in what eventually came to be called the "Wicked Bible," which said "Thou shalt commit adultery." As well, if some printed sheets were left over from one printing, they were incorporated into another. Almost no two existing "original 1611" King James Bibles are exactly the same. Eventually there were various calls for the need to correct and revise the King James Version because of printer's errors over the years and the changes in spelling and word usage. Corrected editions were published by the Cambridge University Press, the first being in 1629, followed by another in 1638. Several of the revisers were part of the original group of translators of the KJV. Carelessly printed copies continued to appear, some even printed on the European continent in Holland. Thus in 1762, the most significant corrections were completed in an edition overseen by Dr. Thomas Paris of Trinity College in Cambridge. The work of Dr. Paris was refined by Benjamin Blayney in 1769; this edition then became the standard King James Bible in use up to today. There were almost 1000 editions printed from 1611 to 1769, all with minor corrections." - souce​

 

Continued from previous post....

It isn't necessary to create a totally new version of the bible in order to created a bible that can be sold at a substantial profit. There's got to be close to a million different study bibles and countless other reference books that are used throughout Christendom that include virtually all, if not the entire text of the KJV. The publishers have to pay their copyright fees, of course, but that is peanuts when compared to the revenue these publications bring in.

Another excellent question!

It turns out that the older and more intact a manuscript is, the more reason you have for questioning it's value. Manuscripts were extraordinarily hard to produce and unbelievably expensive and thus rarely produced, relatively speaking. If you had a complete copy of the bible, you used it! You used it and everyone around you used it too. Old manuscripts, such as those used by the NIV, that are so fully intact means that they didn't get used much and there's going to be a good reason for it. Reasons like they were flawed in significant ways and acquired a poor reputation amongst those who might otherwise want to use them.

The exclusive use the the KJV is not what is considered extreme. It is their belief that it is THE ONLY word of God that exists anywhere on planet Earth that is extreme.

Are you reading the bible in Italian (or French or German or whatever)? Well then you aren't reading the real word of God, they'd say. It isn't merely extreme, it's flat out lunatic insanity.

You ask good questions!

You'll be interested in reading the following. It is, without a doubt, the best debate on this topic that you will ever find. The following link will take you to another theology forum but not because I'm trying to promote the website but simply because that's were the debate took place and that's were you have to go to read it unless you want to pay for a copy of it, if such a for sale copy even exist. Read it through and you'll know more about the King James Bible than any pastor within five hundred miles of your location (unless they too have read the debate).

Is the King James Bible the Only Inspired Scripture on Earth Today? Battle Royale XIV

P.S. Incidentally, my preference is the New King James bible. It is an actual new translation from the same source material as the King James but is written in modern English with proper sentence structure and paragraphing.

 

Neither.

 

Remember, the KJVO myth is purely MAN-MADE, without one quark is Scriptural support. For any doctrine of faith/worship to be true, it MUST have Scriptural support. Therefore, the KJVO myth is false.

 

It depends on your view of God's word. Do you believe God left nothing to chance and every part of it, including the words, when and where they are used and how often, adds to his revelation of himself? After all, God said he spoke in similitudes, parables, figures, shadows, and the like and because of that one must have a divine teacher if one is ever to know what he calls in the KJV in 1 Cor 2, the deep things of God. Two men with very high IQ's can read the same simple verse in the scriptures, like Romans 5:6 where we are told "when we were yet without strength in due time Christ died for the ungodly" and totally disagree with one another about who the ungodly are and who exactly did Christ die for. It is heaven and hell difference. How would the Greek or 7 new translations help us in this scenario?

I believe a divine mind produced a divine revelation in words.How could he do less?

Mark 4: 9 And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?

The answer to the question Jesus asked them in v 13 to whom he had given ability to see and perceive is they must have a divine teacher. We are told the same thing about the Spirit in 1 Cor 2.

You can test me on this. Ask 10 different Greek scholars what the parable means and you are likely to get 10 different answers.

Here is what he said to a bunch of religious nut cases.

Jn 4:24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not:

Light is dependant on belief in the word.Otherwise the best one can do is a Greek scholarship.

 

Your challenge does not prove that a KJV-only view should be blindly believed.

Ask 10 different KJV-only advocates what the parable means, and you are likely also to get 10 different answers as long as any of them were not the teacher/pastor of any of the others.

God did not choose to make believers into "infallible" popes who could not misunderstand, misinterpret, or mistranslate the Scripture. You seem to question the wisdom of God in giving differing spiritual gifts and abilities to individual believers.

Advocating a human, non-scriptural demand for the use of one English Bible translation does not lead to all believers agreeing 100% in their understanding of Scripture.

The Scriptures do not teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and interpretation/translation decisions of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England critics in 1611.