Is KJVonly a Cult?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tlange:
"How can a translation be superior to its source??" Needless to say, they won't answer me!!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like that question. I wonder what kind of responses I will get when I ask some people this same question.

I guess while I'm here I'll say that I believe that the KJV is one of the best translated bibles, but I will not ever become a KJVO cultist. I know that this issue will never be solved til we all get to heaven, so we better remember to serve God and not get caught up in any debates about this.

 

Let's set the stage for the KJVO argument: Around 60-70 AD God's revelation to mankind is completed. What came to be known as the New Testament was written in Greek, and what came to be known as the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Almost 1600 years later the King of England accepted the proposal that a new English translation be made. It became the ninth in the sequence of printed English Bibles and is a revision of the Bishops’ Bible. The KJV was heavily criticized in its early days; but in time, with official pressure, it won the field and became “the Bible” for English-reading people, and whalla . . . we have the only true and trustworthy rendering of God's revelation to mankind (according to some)!

Then, over 300 years later in 1978 the International Bible Society cooperative project of 110 scholars representing thirty-four religious groups published the NIV, aiming at accuracy, clarity, and dignity. It attempts to steer a middle course between literalness and paraphrase while attaining a contemporary style for the English reader. They used papyri which now total ninety-three items and are older than the great codices used for the 1611 KJV. Wider knowledge of the nature of the biblical and related languages has been gained, making for more accurate definitions. New scholarly grammars, dictionaries, and anthologies of texts grew out of these developments.

So which is more accurate, a Bible translated from 25 manuscripts hundreds of years newer than another translation's 5357 older manuscripts?

To claim that the KJV (1611 or any revision) is the only true Word of God is preposterous. The complete Bible has been translated into 293 languages and dialects, the New Testament into 618 additional ones, and individual books into 918 more languages. Are these "the devil's work also?"

God bless,
John

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gina:
Anyone who follows specific teachings is called a cult. Baptists are defined as a cult in books on cults written by non-Baptists. Any religion other than the one you believe in can be classified as a cult, according to it's definition. So now I'm hearing cult within a cult? How peculiar!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Gina, I think you are using the word cult here in it's generic religious-studies form. When evangelicals use the word "cult" we have something more specific in mind. Dr. Bob quoted Josh McDowell, it's in his material that you will notice the distinction between "cults" and "non-christian" religions(Hindus, for example).

So these cults could be more precisely called "Christian-cults," i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc. Meaning that they had their beginning within the general sphere of recognized Christianity, but have embraced heresies so damaging to the essense of the Christian faith, that they cannot be counted as holding to the Christian religion in it's basic meaning, even if they retain some of the forms and language.

This basic view of cults would tend to, in the mind of many, discount Roman Catholicism as a cult, because they are Trinitarian, have a high view of scripture and such things. The problem for the RCC is not that they don't affirm the Christian religion, it's all that they add to it. The question in thier case is how tightly to draw the definitional line.

Thus in your example of Baptists, we prefer the term denomination to denote acceptable disputes within the Christian framework.

Now we come to KJV-Onlyism, a concept definable enough in it's manifestation to earn the distinction of being dubbed an "ism," not just a view. As James White has attempted to demonstrate, the King James Only concept comes in many flavors, all the way from "I like the KJV best" to what is shorthandedly sometimes referred to as Ruckmanism(another grouping that is observable enough in it's display to earn the badge of an "ism.")

I find White's distinctions useful for the purposes of breaking down the issue in some of it's technical parts, but not as permanent classifications. For my way of thinking, KJV-Onlyism, in it's cultic state, is this...

ONLY the KJV is the Word of God, all other translations are NOT!

This one phrase (in my mind) separates the true KJV-Onlies from the KJV-preferred. Now some persons may hold this position in ignorance to it's ramifications, and I don't bear ill will toward them, but lovingly try to persuade them away from it.

There are, however, those who are so dogmatically harsh in this view, and so destructive of the theological componants of what we call bibliology, that they must be vigorously opposed.

The question yet remains, "are they a cult?" It's a hard question to the honest observer, as it is in the case of Roman Catholics, even harder, because they(IFB KJV-Onlies) affirm so many basic doctrines of the Christian faith. It is fair to say some of the behavior is cultic, but are they in a cult?

I cannot answer dogmatically yet, but two issues press the case.

(1) The advocacy of erroneous views regarding the theology of the Holy Scriptures, i.e. advanced revelation... also implying(if not saying) that the KJV is "insired in the same sense that the originals were. (The doctrine of inspiration is a very specific thing.)

(2) Unbiblical separation from brothers & sisters in Christ over the issue, and/or not counting one as a true brother who does not hold to the KJV-Only issue because... (a) one can only be saved from the KJV, or (b) one should be viewed as an apostate who is not KJV-Only.

cordially,

CNM

 

This is so sad to me. God did not intend for his children to cling to an interpretation of his word, he wants us to cling to him. I believe in my heart that when we put a version of the bible so high we miss the point of the scripture being available to us in the first place. Whatever version helps you personally to understand God's word and grow in Him then thats what you use. I feel its a shame that we as christians would exclude any other believer and follower of Jesus just due to what translation he or she uses, when it gets to that point and it has gotton to that point then it is considered worship of a version instead of God. Folks, God wants us to be in unity, this doesn't mean we must agree on all issues with each other but it does mean we are to love and welcome without condition.

Dar

 

I feel its very sad that any church would exclude a christian from worship with them due to the translation of scripture the person uses. This is definately called worship of a version instead of worship of God himself. If one has a conviction on a particular translation then fine use it, but don't condemn others for using what they use, thats just plain wrong.

Dar

 

Who killed Goliath?

David the son of Jesse?
or
Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim?

2 Samuel 21:19 KJV
And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

2 Samuel 21:19 NIV
In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.

SOMEBODY HELP ME PLEASE!?!?!
cause I was always taught that David killed Goliath. He cut the giants head off, he did!

 

I posted this on another thread:

As Baptist believers, we reqiured to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, Father, Son & Holy Ghost.
The base scripture for this belief is 1 John 5:7. I included verse 8 to make the point.


Lets look at the doctrine of the trinity as provided by the NIV:
1John 5:7
For there are three that testify:
8
the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.


The Father, Son & Holy Ghost are not there.


The KJV Bible has it in there.

KJV Bible doctrine on the trinity
1 John 5:
7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.


The NIV splits verse 8 into two verses: In verse 7, it says:

For there are three that testify (bear witness)

In verse 8, it says:

the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

The true verse 7 has been removed. In the KJB, verse 7 says:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

This is no insignificant verse. This is the clearest statement of the doctrine of the Trinity in the entire Bible. Is this verse unimportant? Would God want it removed?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cubbies_daddy:
Who killed Goliath?

David the son of Jesse?
or
Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim?

2 Samuel 21:19 KJV
And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

2 Samuel 21:19 NIV
In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.

SOMEBODY HELP ME PLEASE!?!?!
cause I was always taught that David killed Goliath. He cut the giants head off, he did!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The actual Hebrew text reads like the NIV! If you will note that "the brother of" is in italics in the KJV which means the authors took the liberty to insert it. There are three possible explanations: 1) a scribal error where "the brother of" was omitted. This seems most likely as 1 Chronicles 20:5 is the parallel counterpart and the Hebrew says "Lahmi the brother of Goliath," 2) Elhanan is another name for David (not likely in view of 1 Chron 20:5), and 3) there were two giants named Goliath.

Some may hasten to claim error on the NIV, but not inserting something that isn't there in the ancient Hebrew manuscript is a weak argument.

Hope this clears up your delemma

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wellsjs:


The actual Hebrew text reads like the NIV! If you will note that "the brother of" is in italics in the KJV which means the authors took the liberty to insert it. There are three possible explanations: 1) a scribal error where "the brother of" was omitted. This seems most likely as 1 Chronicles 20:5 is the parallel counterpart and the Hebrew says "Lahmi the brother of Goliath," 2) Elhanan is another name for David (not likely in view of 1 Chron 20:5), and 3) there were two giants named Goliath.

Some may hasten to claim error on the NIV, but not inserting something that isn't there in the ancient Hebrew manuscript is a weak argument.

Hope this clears up your delemma <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the quick responce. I don't have a good Hebrew manuscript. As a matter of fact, I don't have any Hebrew manuscript.

Thanks,
Mike

 

Dear Mike Hall,

The reason for this omission is quite simple. The clause "testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit" appears in late manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, not in the earlier ones. And in the Greek manuscripts it does not appear before the sixteenth century. Ring up one in the error column for the KJV

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cubbies_daddy:
I posted this on another thread:

Lets look at the doctrine of the trinity as provided by the NIV:
1John 5:7
For there are three that testify:
8
the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

The Father, Son & Holy Ghost are not there.

The KJV Bible has it in there.

KJV Bible doctrine on the trinity
1 John 5:
7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

This is no insignificant verse. This is the clearest statement of the doctrine of the Trinity in the entire Bible. Is this verse unimportant? Would God want it removed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These are very reasonable questions.

If you'll notice, the footnote in the NIV says that the omitted part only appeared in late manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, and were not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century.

In other words, it appears that God didn't put it there to begin with. Jerome apparently took it upon himself to add it to the Latin Vulgate. Little did he know how much trouble that would cause many centuries later . . .

Such is true with many so-called "omissions" from the KJV. We must realize that the KJV is not an exalted standard by which all other translations are to be compared. The KJV may have several centuries of seniority, but that doesn't make it flawless.

[ June 26, 2001: Message edited by: Terry Burnett ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Burnett:
If you'll notice, the footnote in the NIV says that the omitted part only appeared in late manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, and were not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am sorry, Terry, but you are incorrect. The comma is contained in MSS 61, 629, 918, and 2318, the oldest of which dates to about 1325 (14th century). The comma is also contained in the margin of MSS 88, 221, 429, and 636, the oldest of which dates to about 950 AD (10th century).

As to your assertion, "Jerome apparently took it upon himself to add it to the Latin Vulgate." - that too is incorrect. The comma is quoted by Cyprian in in 250 AD in his "De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate." It is also quoted by Priscillian in his "Liber Apologeticus" in 380 AD.

As I am sure you know Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus, and the work was completed in 383. So, it would seem the comma predated Jerome, and probably came from one of the Old Latin texts, which date to about 150 AD (2nd Century).

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
I am sorry, Terry, but you are incorrect. The comma is contained in MSS 61, 629, 918, and 2318, the oldest of which dates to about 1325 (14th century). The comma is also contained in the margin of MSS 88, 221, 429, and 636, the oldest of which dates to about 950 AD (10th century).

As to your assertion, "Jerome apparently took it upon himself to add it to the Latin Vulgate." - that too is incorrect.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thomas,

Okay. You obviously know much more about those manuscripts than I do. But, you do understand that I was quoting from the NIV footnote, which means you are correcting the NIV scholars also. They're not infallible, of course, but surely they would have a legitimate reason for making such a statement, no?

As for my assertion about Jerome, I should have known better. Thanks for politely putting me in my place.

In Christ,

Terry Burnett

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
As my Quaker friends might say: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahem, to get back to the original topic of this thread, I would just like to add my two cents worth.

I myself do NOT consider KJV-onlyism a cult. I think Independent Baptist Fundamentalism is.

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: Terry Burnett ]

 

Ok, so why not take it a step further? Isn't the Koran a version? Hey, it's somebody's version. Why not accept other versions of G-d?
I will repeat what I brought up on another message board. One Lord. One Way. One Truth. What does the word gospel mean? Should there be more than one truth? Are there many different versions of truth? The word gospel means truth.
And before you say it, I do not bow down to the KJV.
How about this angle? Is anything that changes the truth a cult? If you accept the NIV and the RSV, and whatever ese, where does it end? Is it up to each individual to decide what they believe? Does that make it right? Muslims believe in their god. Mormons believe in theirs. Chinese believe in theirs. They each have their own versions of Truth. It DOESN'T make it right.
Pick one G-d. Pick one Way. Pick one Gospel. And for your own sake make sure they agree.
Gina

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gina:
Ok, so why not take it a step further? Isn't the Koran a version? Hey, it's somebody's version. Why not accept other versions of G-d?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi, Gina. Pretty good post, but to whom are you replying?

And pardon my ignorance, but what does "G-d" stand for?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I will repeat what I brought up on another message board. One Lord. One Way. One Truth. What does the word gospel mean? Should there be more than one truth? Are there many different versions of truth?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, there are many legitimate translations of truth.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
The word gospel means truth.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the word gospel means "good tidings" or "good news".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
And before you say it, I do not bow down to the KJV.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't going to say it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
How about this angle?
Is anything that changes the truth a cult?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Possibly, depending on what you mean by that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
If you accept the NIV and the RSV, and whatever ese, where does it end?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where does what end?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Is it up to each individual to decide what they believe?
Does that make it right?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is up to each individual to discern what the truth is, but NOT to decide what the truth is. There is a difference.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Muslims believe in their god. Mormons believe in theirs. Chinese believe in theirs. They each have their own versions of Truth. It DOESN'T make it right.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Each of those have their own versions of false religion, not truth.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Pick one G-d. Pick one Way. Pick one Gospel. And for your own sake make sure they agree. Gina<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds good to me, until I find out what "G-d" means.

In Christ,

Terry Burnett

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: Terry Burnett ]

 

1. I am replying to those who use other versions yet would call those who are KJVo a cult.
2. For cryin' out loud! All my life I've spelled it G-d and just this week I've been getting knocked left and right for it! Dr. Bob explained it best under MUSIC, in contemporary music at church, page 4. Your ignorance is forgiven as long as you show me the same kindness.
3. And some translate truth as Buddha. Kabbalah. Whatever.
4. I was taught it meant truth. Can I appeal for both to others who may correct whichever of us is mistaken?
5. You weren't going to say it? Yippee Skippee. You get 2bonus points.
6. What I mean is that translations can change meanings.
7. Your acceptance of watered down truth. My guess is that it may end up leading you into false doctrines, which lead you into hell.
8. There is a difference. Glad we agree.
9. Change one doctrine of Christianity and you no longer have truth. Take out a part, leave out a part, mistranslate a part, ditto.
Last and not least, I better tell you because it sure seems to be stressing you out. Put an o where the dash is. As in KJVO.
Gina

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gina:
1. I am replying to those who use other versions yet would call those who are KJVo a cult.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay. I myself wouldn't go that far, but I do frequently refer to divisive KJVO's as "King James' Witnesses", a elite group which I have described on my website as "an aberrant sect of pharisaic fundamentalists".

From what I've seen, however, you don't seem to fit into that group.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
2. Your ignorance is forgiven as long as you show me the same kindness.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You got it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
3. And some translate truth as Buddha. Kabbalah. Whatever.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not a translation of truth.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
4. I was taught it meant truth. Can I appeal for both to others who may correct whichever of us is mistaken?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be my guest. My definition came from Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
6. What I mean is that translations can change meanings.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, that is entirely possible.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
7. Your acceptance of watered down truth. My guess is that it may end up leading you into false doctrines, which lead you into hell.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please explain why you think other English translations of the Bible are "watered down truth".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
9. Change one doctrine of Christianity and you no longer have truth. Take out a part, leave out a part, mistranslate a part, ditto.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No argument there. Of course, this applies to ALL translations -- including the KJV.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Last and not least, I better tell you because it sure seems to be stressing you out. Put an o where the dash is. As in KJVO.
Gina<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, but I wasn't stressed, just confused. You're the first KJV person I've ever met who feels obliged to change the spelling of the word "God" to a more modern version.

TLB

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: Terry Burnett ]

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: Terry Burnett ]

 

More modern? Hee hee hee.

 

I have had discussions of interpretation with a great many people who have a kjvo approach to Christianity. Alot of these people do not interpret verses the same. I believe that this is because they have trouble reading and understanding the "english" literature of 1611. The scariest part about all of that is they tend to solely rely on Pastors for thier understanding of the word and never grow beyond that. Those people who say there is no other correct translation and study with people who cannot read 16th century text. Seemingly want to control someone's relationship with God or want to be controlled. Which may or may not be true, but if this is true it is a good foundation for a cult. However, if you personally can easily understand the language of kjv and decide to be kjvo for yourself as an indivisual this is not cult-like.