KJVOnly or KJV?

Well said my friend!!!

 

Well lets see, since sometime before 1952 I have read the KJV. I have several of the MV's, but I still prefer the old antique KJV.

Its hard to teach an old dog, new tricks.

 

I was not really familiar with KJV-Onlyism until I started to read here at the BB. I too, like several others have expressed, was raised upon the KJV. Naturally, I would be inclined to favor the KJV but I wanted to check out the claims of both sides. I have not found the KJV-O position to be supported by the Scriptures themselves, history, or logic; but this is not the fault of the KJV text. I still like the KJV; I still use the KJV (despite having discovered many flaws in the translation). I would not bristle at being labeled KJV-Preferred, although I do not find the TR or Majority Text positions to be completely convincing. I have only been studying this issue for a couple of years and I probably need a few more.

 

I guess this is "off-topic" but I cannot resist calling further attention to this remarkable statement from one who identifies himself as a Southern Baptist pastor!

Wow!

 

Let me preface my response to the above with a few remarks.

First, let me offer a much belated "Welcome to the baptist Board!" to Ed Franklin. (Sorry, I had to delete my usual Smilie, to print!)

And I happen to appreciate that Ed Franklin apparently uses his 'real' name as a BB poster, as opposed to making something up, or hiding behind some concocted 'handle' which practice I am generally not the least bit impressed with, although one has the right to do so, should they choose.

That said, I would not know either preachinjesus or Ed Franklin from Adam, should I meet them either of them on the street.

However, I do happen to recognize some 'individuals', including such as Selective Quoting, Twistedmeanings, partial sentence, Improper Emphasis and OutofContext, when I happen to encounter those individuals. And amazingly, I seem to have run into some of them today.

preachnjesus might well have chosen his or her words a bit better, but even so, this implication here made by Ed Franklin is not warranted by the complete actual quote of the paragraph involved, nor is this the tenor of the entire post, from which the above 10 emphasized (and 13 total) words were effectively "hacked out" with a woodsman's axe, and a dull one, at that, while purporting to be have been removed with the precision of a trained surgeon's scalpel.

I quote the entire actual three sentence paragraph in question, as well as the one immediately following it.

preachinjesus has identified the Scriptures as God's revelation. I agree!

He has likewise noted that he holds the (underlying) text in higher esteem than any translation made from that text, Again, I agree!

He has said that he critiques other versions. I have yet to encounter any individual on the BB, in this forum, who does not do this, at least in some places, to some degree, certainly including myself. [I have no idea of what the preferred version of Ed Franklin is, even if I might suspect it. I would however, guess that you (and I know that I) would not generally give the same simultaneous degree of acceptance, overall, for say, the WYC, D-R, KJV, MSG, NIV, and NWT, to name but six 'Bible versions.' That is the definition and meaning of "critique." (FTR, at some point or points, I know I have cited 5 out of the 6 I just listed as an example of a good rendering of a given text, with the exception of the NWT.)]

He notes that (English) versions are, in fact, translations. Duh!!

And he says "The Bible (by which I'm sure you really do recognize that he means a 'printed copy' of an English Bible) regardless of its version, is just a book, and not divine. Again, I agree. God never gave the Scriptures to us, as "a book." The Scriptures did not suddenly "miraculously appear" from heaven on Cumorah Hill, outside Rochester, NY, complete on golden plates.

Apart from the tablets of stone, God gave all of them to us on manuscript pages, scrolls, and possibly, although unlikely, codices. While some of the human 'authors' of Scripture, including such as Jeremiah and Paul, at times did have amanuenses, Ezra did not have a printing press, Isaiah did not have a tape recorder, and Peter did not have a dictating machine.

There is nothing intrinsically 'divine' about the paper and ink that make up my Bible(s). There is certainly nothing 'divine' about the chips that make up my bride's cell phone. But the words, programmed into her phone, in that they are faithful renditions of God's Scriptures are every bit as 'divine' as the words printed in my Bible, when they too, are faithful renderings of the Scriptures.

My response is that of the Moderator of a Southern Baptist Church.

Incidentally, I do note that preachinjesus is not partial to the KJV. Although I do not know, considering he is a Southern Baptist pastor, perhaps he prefers the NKJV or HCSB, considering they are the two most 'Baptist' versions, most widely available! :thumbs:

I admit, I still never cease to be amazed at the number of Baptists (along with a few Presbyterians) who continue to 'champion' the KJV (over any and all others, no less), where every translator was chosen by the Anglican church, which deliberately excluded any Baptists, and administratively excluded the Scottish Presbyterians from having any input into the translation. In addition, the KJV translators, who were nominally 'Protestant' adopted several readings from the D-R, while rejecting those found in the Geneva.

Do not these seeming contradictions strike anyone but me, as just a little bit strange??

Ed

 

I'll never be anti-KJV, Baptist4life. But I'm strongly against the KJVO position. I believe the KJVO position takes one particular Bible translation and elevates it to a position of worship, while denying the preservation work God has done with other English Bible translations. I firmly believe the KJVO position to be a myth that casts doubt on God's ability to preserve His word as He sees fit and in as many translation as He deems necessary. I firmly believe the modern translations are just as much the word of God as any of the various KJVs. I say KJVs because there are more than one of them. There was the original 1611 KJV, the Cambridge KJV, the Oxford KJV and others as well. Despite the arguments of KJVO supporters to the contrary, all the various KJVs are different.

I certainly have no problem with anyone preferring one of the KJVs over other translations (KJVP). Where I have the problem is when certain people pick their favorite Bible translation and declare it to be the only word of God in English while denying the validity of any other translation (KJVO).

As a matter of fact, one of the KJVs is among the three Bible translations I use most frequently. The other two are the NKJV and the NASB. I carry a KJV to church because the print in that Bible is a little larger than in some of my other Bibles, so it's easier to read along during church services - the old eyes just aren't what they used to be. I was raised around the KJVs and I don't have a lot of problem with many of the words, even though I occasionally have to look up a word. But I find it much easier to explain the Gospel or discuss the Bible with those who aren't familiar with the KJVs when I use another translation. The language of the KJVs is over 400 years old, and much of it is antiquated.

The KJVs have been used by God in a great and marvelous way. I'll never deny that fact. But I'll deny until my dying day that one of the KJVs is the only true word of God in English.

Long live the KJVs! Down with the KJVO position!

 

Hello Keith M

I was reading your response and saw this:

You said.........

This reminded me of an old dear Christian friend I used to have back in Oklahoma, that was also getting up in years.

He had the most peculiar habit.
In the summer, he would attend his Southern Baptist Church, but in the winter, he would attend a local Methodist Church.

One day I asked him why he did this, he responded, “The Methodist Church has a better heating system”.
--------------------------------------------------
It is clear, that he didn’t see much difference between the Baptist and the Methodist.
(Just as some people, consider all Bibles to be just about the same.)

The reason I am KJVO, is because “the words” in a Bible, do make a difference to me.

 

I disagree in some respects while I agree in others.

Yes, much of the language found in the KJVs is archaic. An example is the word prevent (1 Thess 4:15). When the original KJV was translated the word meant to go before or to precede. But that's not what its common use is today - it now means to keep something from happening.

As for places where the translators missed it, I firmly believe Acts 12:4 is such a place.

I don't know that I would say we critique the Bible, no matter what the translation. We recognize that mankind's efforts caused errors, such as it being said in 2 Kings 8:26 that Ahaziah was 22 when he became king while in 2 Chron 22:2 we're told he was 42. He couldn't possibly have been two different ages at the same time, although some KJVO believers have bentoover backward in an effort to legitimize the different ages reported. This error isn't found only in the KJVs - it's a textual error that appears in other translations as well.

I firmly believe the Bible IS divine. If not for divine intervention I don't think we would have all the different translations we have with each of them presenting the same message. I firmly believe it's the message God promised to preserve, not a particular set of words from a language that wouldn't exist until hundreds of years after the last inspired writings.

I definitely agree the KJVO poition is the result of very poor history, logic and theology. I firmly believe the KJVO position casts doubt on God's ability to preserve His word in more than one Bible translation. I also firmly believe the KJVO position casts doubt on God's wisdom in graciously providing more than one English Bible translation in order to keep His message to us just as vital and meaningful today as it was to the original readers of Scripture.

 

Yes, and to establish a 'final authority' in an English translation is to throw way the strongest proof that Christians have been Divinely given for the veracity of the Scriptures: that God preserved His words in the early centuries in various locations around the world (only to found much later). What does that prove? It shows skeptics (Muslims, Atheists, liberals, etc.) that His text could not have been manipulated by overzealous orthodox groups nor fringe heretics; no one could get all the copies in one place, all at the same time (unlike the Qu'ran situation). Any 'editing' over time could be detected. Those deposits of early manuscripts were the 'control' documents of His words; this is our key defense in the accuracy of the Scriptures. Without a connection to the preserved MSS, any single translation is just an unsupported 'orphan' (like the Book of Mormon).

 

Hi, stilllearning...

I consider the legitimate English Bible translations to be "just about the same" in that they all accurately convey God's message to us. All the legitimate Bible translations I've read teach Jesus' holy nature, His virgin birth, His sinless life, His cruel death on the cross, His burial, His glorious and triumphant resurrection, His current position on high, His atoning blood and His coming return. Full Bible tranmslations - never mind those that are NT only - teach the creation story, the story of Israel's exile in Egypt, the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. They all teach of Israel's wandering in the wilderness and of the eventual split into two kingdoms. They all have the Commandments, the Psalms, the Proverbs and the Song of Solomon. They all have the prophetical books.

Have you read a legitimate Bible translation that teaches something else? Does the NKJV teach "another gospel?" Or the NASB? How about the NIV? The ESV?

When I say "legitimate" I don't mean the Cotton Patch Version or Bible versions that were deliberately mistranslated so that cult groups like the Mormons, the Seventh Day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witnesses can have a Bible that agrees with their errant teachings. When I say "legitimate" I'm talking about mainstream Bible translations like those mentioned above.

I also firmly believe God's main concern in preservation is the message. I believe that if the particular words meant more to God than the message that the Bible would never have been translated out of its original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. I believe if God meant to preserve the particular words we'd all have to learn the Hebrew, Aramaic and Classical Greek languages in order to read Scripture.

Stilllearning, if the KJVO position is true then surely you can tell us which KJV is the only true word of God in English. Was it the originl 1611 KJV? Or is it one from the Cambridge family? Or the Oxford family? Since there are differences, then one of these must surely be the only true word of God in English.

Stilllearning, dont take my post as an attack against you personally. I'm just trying to help you continue to learn as your screen name suggests.

 

Nope Acts 12:4 not a mistake, in fact it is most accurate.

 

oh my where to start...

howdy

Because you want to make the Bible a god? Really? Seriously?

I didn't tell a lie. Also, please quote me in context.

This is the insanity of the baptist fundamentalism that takes the Scriptures and moves them from being authoritative to being equal with the Person and activities of God.

The Bible is not divine. I say that happily because there is but one divinity that is Godhead of the Trinity which has three individual Persons of one unified body. The Bible (the accepted Canon of 66 books) is a product of divine inspiration in the working of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those unique human individuals who penned the words that comprise its contents.

The Bible cannot save anyone nor can the Bible change a life. God is who saves through grace by faith and it is by the affirmation of the Holy Spirit in our lives through various influencers, including but not limited to, which draws believers into deeper sanctification. Suggesting that the Bible leads us into deeper sanctification neglects to realize that Christian growth is an activity actioned by faith and propagrated by the movement of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

To suggest that the Bible can do these things and is on equal footing with God is to blaspheme God Himself and contrary to Scripture.

This is a needless attack and rather mean spirited. I have said elsewhere about what I believe about inerrancy, infallibility, inspiration, and authority of the Bible. To suggest my ministry is an abboration because I don't elevate the Bible to the level of God is just plain wrong.

My Bible, or at least the translation(s) I prefer to use, are not divine...God is Divine and the only Divinity. The Bible, or Scriptures as I prefer, are divinely inspired and a product of the unique process of God influencing the authors of the various books. Particularly with the process of translation in question we can see that the text of the Scriptures is authoritative and God's direct revelation to mankind. I said that in my post. Please show my quotes in context.

Do you really believe the Bible is a divinity? Are you prepared to deal with the implications of elevating the Scriptures to the level of God who says He is the only divinity in the Scriptures? What is that "have no other gods before Me" thing again?

Where have I said the Bible can't be trusted? Show me. Where on this board have I suggested this? Your inflammatory ad hominem notwithstanding, I would submit the problem we are facing is the perpetual spiritual infancy of most Christians who are more apt to cast slings and arrows than engage those who need the Gospel with lives consecreated to Christ.

 

Well two things:
1. Show me my error from Scripture rather than just insulting me and the profession to which I have been called by God.
2. Quote me in context.

This is the insanity of a false view of bibliology. You are quick to question the ministry and personal character of a poster you don't know because you haven't either read the entire post or are just using someone else's critique and you elevate the Scriptures to usurp the oneness of God who inspired them.

We need to repent of our divinizing of the Scriptures for it moves them from their proper place as the authoritative, inspired, direct revelation from God and makes them a divine being in conflict with the words within the Scriptures themselves.

This whole thing would be humorous if it weren't so tragic and error-laden.

editted to add: Think about the craziness of this whole proposition. Look at the copy of the Scriptures you have near you. Are we really ready to say that when the printing presses at Thomas Nelson (or some other publishing house) made the copy they were "creating a divine person"?

What happens to the divine Scriptures when I have them on my computer and they are deleted due to reformatting? Have I deleted God?

When I take my pens and highlighters and circle, highlight, make notes, and write insights on the pages of the Scriptures am sullying the content of the divinity on that page?

In study Bibles when there is an error on the pages below the printed Scriptures, does than create an errant divinity?

What about the various textual variants in the original languages? Are they divine too?

 

hey EdSutton,

as an aside, some do this because we like our alter-egos...also, and partly for my reason, I've had bad run-ins with people who have tried to use my beliefs to get me fired from minsitries and churches and thrown out of schools. Granted these people live thousands of miles away from me but they think they have the license to injure my person.

I'm the one with the navel...lol...I suspect many of us will enjoy meeting on the glorious streets of that far country in the hereafter.

Thanks for the support. I did choose my words carefully and have qualified them appropriately. What scares me the most is how people are willing to attack after slicing and dicing a post. I do appreciate your voice here and appreciate your supportful post.

And denying this is craziness to me.

Ironically the accepted Canon of 66 books wasn't formalized until about AD 350. For the early Christians, particularly those under harsh persecution, the Old Testament was their assortment of the Scriptures. Really begins to throw a monkey-wrench the ideal of a totality of "biblical Christianity."

I like that.

I do use the HCSB (or Hard Core Southern Baptist) translation along with a healthy respect for the ESV and NET. Of course I check my translations against my personal work in the original languages before any attempt to speak at length from the Scriptures.

Yep. Sorta crazy to me too. What kills me is that the textual evidence we are continually uncovering is validating our modern version above and beyond that of the foiled Textus Receptus produced by Erasmus. In reality, regardless of your native language, our modern versions are more akin to the originals than the English version of 1611.

Isn't that funny though. Americans, and English speakers, are the only people who are having this argument about the KJVO position. Africans don't get it. My friends in China don't understand. Seems when we, a tiny fraction of Christianity globally, are harping on such a minor issue we probably should guess we've missed the main thing.

 

Thanks for quoting me in context. :thumbs:

I could add many other areas but let us celebrate our agreement first and foremost!

Just by correcting a gender statement, making the adelphoi, at the beginning of a letter more gender neutral or even saying something like "while the English translation is _______ the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic literally means" is a critique of the translation which is fine.

Respectfully, I don't think you do. I affirm that you believe the Bible is the product of divine inspiration but that it is not on the level of the Godhead. The theological implications for saying the Bible is divinity are just too wild and crazy. But I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Yep. This is well put.

I think the strongest argumet against the KJVO position is that outside of England, Canada, and the USA no other Christian gets into this conversation with a level of sincerity. (There ain't no "thus sayeth" in Swahili)

Thanks for the post!

 

Fabulous point...

 

What about New Zealand,Australia and South Africa? And I have already pointed out that some South Koreans and Filipino believers are KJVO adherents.

So the strongest argument is not that outside three nations KJVO doesn't exist.The strongest argument is that the Word ofr God is against KJVO thinking.

 

Aside from the fact that Keith M did not say there was a mistake (There is a huge difference between those two ideas!), then I guess you are contending the rendering of the Greek is inaccurate in which of these versions?? [Let me here note that I do not have access to any TR1598, but do assume the 'reverse engineered' KJV 'text' of Scrivener (TR1894) did not miss this one, either. I also would note that the 'computer formatting' does not always permit the completely accurate transmission and/or appearance of some Greek characters, such as accents, and the "iota subscript", even though they are not actually different. - Ed]

The rendering as "Easter" was "missed" in fact, not by the KJV translators, who merely carried forth the rendering already found in the Bishop's Bible (unfortunately here, following their actual mandate exactly), but rather was initially not missed here, by Martin Luther (1521) in his rendering of this as "Ostern", but was deliberately translated by him, in this manner, probably because of his continuing conflict with the Roman church, and this rendering was picked up by Tyndale (1525), who also had most of the same issues with the Catholics, as "ester". (I can't get the "s" to print accurately, from Tyndale.) This is unquestionably the case, as a check of the two versions show.

There is no real question as to what the Greek says, here, and there is no real question that, in every other instance where "πάσχα" occurs, it is invariably rendered as 'Passover', which is the meaning of the word.

Even such as Calvin and Beza recognized this, and the Geneva's proper rendering as Passover demonstrates their influence, here. I fully agree with them, in this respect, and at this instance.

Any and all "Theology" driven renderings, which are not supported by the language, are still poor translations at the very best, be they done by the Jehovah Witnesseses in the NWT; the Roman Catholics in the VUL and D-R; the "heretics" in the WYC, LUT and TYN; the Anglicans in the BIS and KJV; or the Baptists in the NKJV and HCSB.

A poor or incorrect translation is one thing and can be excused due to our own human frailties. I do consider the KJV rendering of Ac. 12:4, in this category, FTR.

A deliberate mistranslation is a whole different ball of wax! While I am not willing to directly accuse Luther and Tyndale of that, here, I do believe that they did "ski extremely close to the precipice" at this point in Ac. 12:4.

And as to deliberate mis-translations, I believe that -

Any and all such instances, regardless of who happens to do them, are "shameful", "dishonest", "handling the Word of God deceitfully" and "make merchandise" and "distort" "the Word of Truth"!

This is not even my own opinion; this is "Bible"!

Ed

 

Don't get frustrated my friend. All people, you and me included, see what we want to see. We see it as an affront to the KJV itself; they see it as simply an obvious conclusion based upon the presence of the MVs.

This is, in my opinion, an attack on the KJV. To refer to it as the "Anglican Version" is belittling it without question. This is a derogatory comment, plain and simple. To say that it is "out-of-date" is just an opinion.

No one is denying that the MVs come under attack. That is not the point. The point in the OP is that people attack the KJV under the guise of attacking KJVOnlyism. I, for one, agree with the OP.

 

Hold on a sec.

It is entirely possible to speak out against KJVO, and not attack the KJV...in fact, I think most folks on here that use MV's, also use and love the KJV.

I would never think of attacking the word of God. I do, however, speak out against what I consider to be an unbiblical and illogical position...one that says the KJV is the only inspired version.

If I attacked the KJV, I wouldn't use it. I do use it...often.