Alleged Double Standard of KJVO's

Sounds like your problem is with the KJB,not Bible agnosticism's smoke screen called "KJBO." Which,of course,is what I've been maintaining all along.

 

Many KJVOs operate by an undeniable, irrefutable, plain-as-day double standard which is NOT alleged, but true. They point out faults they perceive exist in other versions while totally ignoring the fact that those same "faults" exist in the KJV. Some examples:

*Modern translations refer to Joseph as being Christ?s ?father? (Lk 2:33) and Mary and Joseph as being Christ?s ?parents? (Lk 2:43)."

So does the KJV. See Lk 2:48,27,41


*The NASB refers to Christ as being ?offspring? (Lk 1:35).

So does the KJV. See Rev 22:16


*The KJV exalts Christ more than the modern versions.

John 1:18 - NIV, NASB call Christ God, but the KJV doesn?t
Titus 2:13; 2 Pe 1:1 - NIV, NASB call Christ God but the KJV speaks of Christ and God as being two different people
Rom 1:3 - KJV says that Christ was ?made? (created?)
Lk 1:35 - KJV calls Christ a ?thing?. Every other valid version I've ever read calls Him "Holy One" or Holy Child", not a holy "thing".

I could go on & on, but these examples are enough to show the duplicity of three common Onlyist points, and the fact that many Onlyists clearly operate from a very obvious double standard.

 

The double standards in KJV-onlyism are numerous. Here's just a few instances of where most KJV-only supporters apply double standards:

- they condemn readings in other versions as "deleting" and "denying" certain doctrines, because of words present in a particular verse in the KJV that are not in the other version, but are completely inconsistent when verses are mentioned that go the other direction (e.g. Psa 145:13 (NIV), Acts 4:25, Phil 1:14, Jude 1:25, etc.)

- they say other versions weaken the deity of Christ for the wording they use in certain versions, but are completely inconsistent and come up with explanations why it's OK when verses are mentioned that go the other direction (John 1:18, Rom 9:5, Titus 2:13, 2 Pet 1:1)

- they attack the persons involved in production of other Bibles (Westcott and Hort, NIV committee memebers, etc) as if that therefore discredits their work, when they are unwilling to recognize/admit/discuss the KJV translators, Erasmus, etc., who in most instances were much more "shocking" in their beliefs and actions.

- the oft-repeated "things different are not the same" is flung at other versions, when the KJV itself has gone through changes or differs between publishers. "things different" are swept away as "printing errors" (which is another double standard, where an error isn't an error if that error is in the KJV)

- when asked "where was the perfectly preserved Bible in 1605?", the only real answer I've gotten is that it was in the "range of manuscripts and translations" - yet for some reason we are labeled as "mv-whateverists", "non-Bible-believers", "Bible correctors", "Bible rejectors", etc., for believing that is *still* true, and that if that's what "preservation" meant in 1605, it can still be true today. It is acceptable for them to believe in preservation in a "range of manuscripts and translations", but not acceptable for us.

- when a practice is used by a non-KJV-only person (using the Greek for support of an argument, using dynamic equivalence, etc.), that person is opposed for such practices (using "scholarship", changing words, etc.). But when a KJV-only person does it, it's fine (using Greek in an argument is "defending the word", using dynamic equivalence is showing "breadth of scholarship" (as Riplinger described the KJV translators when they used dynamic equivalence), etc.)

- condemning "modern" versions as "bad" for readings in certain passages, while accepting ancient translations as "good" when they often have the exact same readings. E.g. modern versions are condemned for saying "Isaiah the prophet" instead of "the prophets" in Mark 1:2, but the "Old Latin", the Peshitta, etc, are all accepted by KJV-only supporters *even though in many, many places they read the same way as modern versions*. KJV-only authors Fuller, Waite, Ruckman, Riplinger, Moorman, Hills, Bradley and others all voice their acceptance of the Peshitta as the word of God, yet many of its readings match "modern versions" (see http://www.tegarttech.com/kjv/peshitta.htm for a few examples of both quotes from those authors, and then verse comparisons).

- they will point out verses where modern versions do something "bad", while not mentioning (or changing the "rules") when the KJV does the same thing. E.g. where modern versions "omit" the name of Jesus, saying "Christ" instead of "Christ Jesus" (Col 1:28, 1 Pet 5:10,
1 Pet 5:14, etc.) as if this discredits the modern version, but don't mention reciprocal verses where the KJV does the same thing (Acts 24:24, Romans 8:34, Gal 5:24, etc.)

- they condemn other versions for having "Catholic" connections (Vaticanus being stored in the Vatican library, Sinaiticus being found in a monastery, Catholic men such as Carlo Martini involved with non-Catholics in the textual criticism behind such work as the UBS Greek NT, the apocrypha being contained in the LXX and Vaticanus, etc.) when "Catholic" connections also about in their own line (Erasmus was a priest and a monk, the Byzantine churches that preserved the "Byzantine" manuscripts were not exactly IFB churches, the KJV translators occasionally consulting the Vulgate and Douay-Rheims translation (and one KJV translator had a brother who was a Douay-Rheims translator), the first English translations (on the "good" line of English Bibles) were translations from the Vulgate, the inclusion of the apocrypha in the KJV, the KJV's inclusion of the list of Catholic feasts/holy-days/liturgical readings, etc.)

I'm sure there are many more examples of double standards, but these should be enough for now.

Deuteronomy 25:13-16 "Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small. [14] Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small. [15] But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. [16] For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God."

Proverbs 11:1 "A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight."

Proverbs 20:10 "Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD."

Proverbs 20:23 "Divers weights are an abomination unto the LORD; and a false balance is not good."

[ January 11, 2004, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

And the famous "inspired" exclamations of Paul,

"God forbid" and "would to God" not found in any Greek text Traditional or Alexandrian.

HankD

 

So A-A, what's the difference when you malign the MV's and when the the MV supporters do the same RE: the King James Popish (with Apocrypha) Anglo-Catholic Bible tainted by the RC Vulgate and produced by murderers and persecuters of Baptists?

So you see, I can say (should I wish to return railing for railing) all of the above about your Roman Apocryphal King James Bible but I won't stoop to such techniques.

Why not stop with the accusations of "Bible agnosticism" and I'll stop with the "popish" Apocryphal Bible".

HankD

 

BrianT,

I love a man who documents so well. If only I had such patience.

Pete

 

A target was a small round shielt, a derivative of "targe", a large round shield. many warriors painted their targets with concentric circles, and old targets were often used by archers to improve their aim and to test the penetrating power of their latest arrow head designs. From this came the modern definition of target, a mark or goal to shoot at, aim for, strive for, or reach for. But in 1611, target still meant shield.

However, I know this ONLY because of my love of reading the old tales of chivalry written in 15th C. or older English. Not everyone shares this "hobby", so the only definition of "target" that they know is the current one. Thus, we see the need for the KJV-only reader to familiarize him/herself with the now-archaic English of 400 years ago, or to also read other versions.

 

Well why not!? You keep bringing it up in hopes of making someone believe it;you know,repeting a LIE will not make it become the truth....

FACT:The mss.behind the bible of the month club's "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting authorities)come from did in FACT contain the Apocryphal books in both testaments as Holy Scripture....

The Apocryphal books were placed in between the testaments in the A.V.1611 for reference,just like study notes,and was NEVER in ANY the mss. of the protestant reformation;the ones the KJB(and it's predecessors)came from.."Roman Apocryphal King James Bible "???? That dog just wont hunt!!!


You know all this!!

 

Then why do you boast of "older" manuscripts, somebody's been digging, but it's "where and what" you're digging in that counts? Of course common sense tells us more than some would dare to admit. This ad-homynim isn't going to subjegate root meanings unless your motive is to change the English language.

 

While being staunchly ESVTO, I have never really seen the apocrapha in the 1611 as being such a big deal. I don't know why MVers always make such a big deal about it.

But on to more important things, I was hoping Anti-Alexandrian could comment on the alleged double standards that BrianT has presented, explaining why indeed each one is not a double standard, etc. Any other KJVO are welcome as well.

 

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:


Then why do you boast of "older" manuscripts, somebody's been digging, but it's "where and what" you're digging in that counts?

Whatever are you trying to get at? Where, in the post you're referring to, did I even hint at "older mss"?


Of course common sense tells us more than some would dare to admit. This ad-homynim isn't going to subjegate root meanings unless your motive is to change the English language.

WHAT ad-hominem???????

I merely explained the use of "target" in the KJV. And HOW MANY do you suppose know the root meaning of "target"? But I suppose that, in the never-ending search for any defense whatsoever for the KJVO myth, its advocates will call any commentary ad-hominem, that differs from the principles of the KJVO myth at all. Sir, if you're trying to defend the KJVO myth, you're gonna hafta do a LOT better than you've done so far.

 

Although I strongly disagree with QuickeningSpirit I think there may be a shred of truth in his post. robycop3 seems to be saying that he understands what "target" really means because of his interest in old English heraldry, but, he seems to be saying, almost everybody else is not as well read as he is and therefore ignorant.

I come from a home church of over 2000. We are not KJVO but our pastor uses the KJV in the pulpit and the Sunday School teachers all use it in the classrooms. I am not aware of anyone in that church who does not know "target" means "shield." Pastor explains it from the pulpit when necessary and the Sunday School teachers do the same thing.

It seems more than just a little arrogant to me to say, "well, I understand but most other people don't."

 

Just "beating" you with your own stick.

You research and seem to think it unnecessary for anyone else to research because you want them to take confidence in your research, that's ad-homynim.

KJVO is not a "myth" as you call it, (ad-homynim again) it's real! Would you like it better if we called it ByzantineOnly?

"Older manuscripts" is what all mv's boast as better, but the only problem is they contradict each other so much,They're Alexandrian. They are not Canon, even the KJ translators knew this, that is why they disregard them and stuck with the Byzantine, but you knew this didn't you?

Good day, not Godspeed

 

Double post

 

The whole target thing is new to me. But then again, I don't read the KJV much. I'm sure if I went to a church that used the KJV the pastor would have no problem explaining that target meant shield. If I was home alone though, I might get confused. Might as well skip that confusion and read from God's perfect word in English, the ESV Thinline.

Anyway, back to the double standards. I would really really apreciate if that instead of back and forth useless rhetoric that we usually throw at each other someone from the KJVO side would take each of BrianT's points one by one and give a brief summary of why the allegation is untrue or unfair.

 

OK, so in that one respect and as has been said before we are all in the same boat.

There have always been a proliferation of translations even the "meanest" of which are the Word of God (according to the KJB translators).

A few of the English at the time of the 1611AV:
(Wyclif, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishop's Bible, Geneva, and others).

True there were not 200 but more than 1 bursts the "perfect" bubble (including the several revisions, corrections to the original 1611AV).

IMO ridicule, contempt, mockery, insult and innuendo have little chance of winning anyone over.

HankD

 

So which of the above was this statement?

 

Anyone . . . anyone . . .