KJV Alone?

Regardless of these personal vendettas against Westcott or Hort I don't see how their influence in collating manuscripts predating the KJV texts is anything but a positive.

PrincetonGuy said:

Radicalized Christian fundamentalists in the KJO camp routinely use the dishonest and malicious tactic of character assassination to “find” fault with translations of the Bible that are far more accurate than the KJV; but after nearly 70 years of research they have not found even one instance in which the character or theology of Westcott or Hort influenced the quality of their work.

Click to expand...

Since lies, deception, and manipulation reveal character, you can rest assured that the character of W&H had a major bearing on what they did. As to their theology, that is something you should research before coming up with that supportive statement. We could provide hundreds of instances of their dishonesty, but that would not convince you anyhow.

Cody2 said:

We know that there are many sons of God in scripture, such as Adam(Luke 3:38), the angels(Job 1:6) and Christians(Philippians 2:15). With that in mind, the ESV changes John 3:16 into a lie by removing the word "begotten".

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." KJV

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." ESV

Click to expand...

This absolutely false and malicious attack is typical of the “attacks” against biblical truths that radicalized Christian fundamentalists in the KJO camp pretend to find in the “modern versions.” The truth is that the ESV translates the Greek word μονογενής (monogenēs) in a manner consistent with its use in ancient Greek literature while using the contemporary English form of expression. The relationship between Jesus and His Father is correctly taught in several places in the ESV, but radicalized Christian fundamentalists in the KJO camp would have you to believe a lie rather than the truth. Indeed, their doctrine of KJOism is a lie that is taught only by radicalized Christian fundamentalists.

Job8 said:

Since lies, deception, and manipulation reveal character, you can rest assured that the character of W&H had a major bearing on what they did. As to their theology, that is something you should research before coming up with that supportive statement. We could provide hundreds of instances of their dishonesty, but that would not convince you anyhow.

Click to expand...

This is nothing but filth from the toilet of KJOism! Westcott and Hort interpreted some parts of the Bible differently than most Baptist fundamentalists, but no one can cite even one instance where that theology in any way influenced their work in textual criticism. We who believe the truth, however, could post hundreds of examples of where the ESV is a substantially more accurate translation than the KJV. Indeed, many such examples have already been posted in threads at Christian Forums; but rather than even attempt to refute the facts, the members of the KJO camp skirt the facts and go off on tirades condemning accurate translations of the Bible and the men whom God raised up to make the translations for us.

go with the KJV it is the best.

saintandrew4life said:

go with the KJV it is the best.

Click to expand...

It is a dated version at the best, misleading at the worst. There are better out there.

Anyone who studies Intermediate Greek Grammar will find that the textbooks regularly use the KJV as examples on how NOT to translate. And not because it uses dated English. The KJV translators, by the standards of Koine Greek scholarship today, just did not understand Greek that well. Not exactly their fault of course as they did not have the benefit of centuries of linguistic research into the language or the discovery of the Greek papyri.

I would say stick with KJV. It has never put me wrong or made me question the words in my walk. If I do need to compare a translation, I go online and look up biblehub. But it is the KJV that comes out tops.

I have noticed other versions omit words and even whole verses. This should not be.

I will say however, make sure its not a commented, noted version. Scofield Bible, which is based on KJV, actually tries to twist scripture according to a strange doctrine in their notes.

landon13 said:

Hi everyone,

I have heard many different reports about the King James Version alone belief. Do these have grounding? If so, is the KJV really the best translation of the Bible into English?

I am currently using the ESV, having come from using the NIV; but I have been getting more and more interested in the KJV.

So, I would be interested in hearing your arguments about if I should switch right this second to the King James or if it is all blown out of proportion or just whatever insight y'all might be able to provide.

Thanks so much!

Click to expand...

I used to be a full fledged KJVO (king james onlyist), but God rescued me from such nonsense.

Be careful with the KJVO arguments. They sound good on the surface, as you will see from a few posts earlier in this thread, but they are logically incoherent.

They claim other translations "Add to" or "subtract" from the word of God. What they really mean is they are simply different than the KJV itself. So they prop up the KJV as the standard by which to measure all other Bible translations by. Thus it is a circular argument.

Translation A doesn't match the KJV > therefor Translation A has added/subtracted the word of God > therefore you should use the KJV

They never talk about how the KJV itself is guilty of adding to or subtracting from the word of God, or even changing the original meaning of the underlying Greek/hebrew texts to match the time period the KJV was translated in. Observe:

In the KJV there are italicized words. These are italicized to signify that these words have been ADDED to the text to help the reader, because the literal translation across language barriers makes no sense.

So the KJVO advocates accuse the other translations of being "satanic" by adding or changing words to adapt to our language/culture, yet it, too, is guilty of the same thing.

Another popular argument KJVOnlyism makes is that new translations "water down" the bible by replacing words like "Jesus" with pronouns like "him". They say this is a plot by the devil to take Jesus out of the Bible.

When in reality it doesn't matter whether you say "Jesus" or "him", because a pronoun always refers to and is simply a replacement or substitute of a word that came before it. Speaking of Jesus, saying "I love Jesus" or "I love him" (When you already know I'm talking about Jesus) is exactly the same thing.

But to KJVOs, this is a conspiracy by devil worshippers.

I'll leave you with an example of the KJV being guilty of adapting to its own age and culture:

In the KJV 2 Kings 11:12 we read "God save the King!"

This phrase is a British idiom commonly used in that time period.

The real rendering of this verse is simply "long live the king!"

As you can see, the point of the verse is simply that the people were wishing blessing and life upon the king. It doesn't really matter how you render this verse. The point is, the KJV rendered it a certain way because that phrase made sense in the time and place the KJV was translated.

Yet KJVO advocates have the nerve to say that the KJV is the only true, pure, untouched, unwavering translation.

I recommend James White's book "The King James Only Controversy"
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0764206052...tiveASIN=0764206052&adid=14GG90SJZCQ39SQATAFP

Job8 said:

Since lies, deception, and manipulation reveal character, you can rest assured that the character of W&H had a major bearing on what they did. As to their theology, that is something you should research before coming up with that supportive statement. We could provide hundreds of instances of their dishonesty, but that would not convince you anyhow.

Click to expand...

Awesome! So we should wait for a sinless person to come along and give us a Bible translation.

I'll be waiting a while..

Rom 3:23 - for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Job8 said:

Since lies, deception, and manipulation reveal character, you can rest assured that the character of W&H had a major bearing on what they did. As to their theology, that is something you should research before coming up with that supportive statement. We could provide hundreds of instances of their dishonesty, but that would not convince you anyhow.

Click to expand...

Please provide evidence of some of these 'lies, deceptions and manipulations' that you accuse Westcott and Hort of doing. As well you might support your statement that they were dishonest.

Hosea 11:12, NIV : And Judah is unruly against God
Hosea 11:12, KJV : But Judah yet ruleth with God

These are two entirely different statements.

Hmm..seems some ppl really angry against kJV for some strange reason. But they not disputing with scripture and showing just how much its different. So just more arguing.

The good thing about KJV is the words italics are italicised for a reason...as there is no direct english translation equivalent word, so there is an extra word to make it grammatical sense. Other versions dont have this so you have NO IDEA what words have been added.

Another interesting thing about the KJV is tyndale, who contributed much to the translation. Read a bit more about his life and youll see how the translation was most dangerous at the time, but he was a man of God not just an academic.

It is up to you what version you read of course but the one that most ppl of faith refer to is KJV. So I dont see any reason to knock it.

Kjv only ppl can get irrational thats true. Its not the only translation and you cant force ppl who'd rather read something else. They can learn hebrew and greek and read scripture for themselves.

But for those ordinary christians who just read the KJV there isnt really any argument. Its a good translation.

What don't people understand about the new versions blatantly changing and really messing up core doctrine?
I know that the NIV calls Jesus, Satan in a not so round-about way.

The NIV in Hosea 11:12 says "And Judah is unruly against God", while the KJV says "but Judah yet ruled with God."

The NIV, ESV, NAS, etc say in Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;"
"who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,"
"who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,"

while the King James says : "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God".

These are just a few examples from off the top of my head, but don't you guys see the seriousness of this?

What a crock!

Goodbook: I agree with your comment about Tyndale. I truly believe he was inspired by the Holy Spirit. If you have not seen the documentary about him "The Most Dangerous Man in Tudor England" I highly recommend it.

The questions to be answered is : Did God preserve his word as he said that he did?
If so, which version did he use to preserve his word?

I believe what God has said and I have therefore studied the bible.
Here is what I found (briefly):

The Devil has been trying to put doubt on God's word from the beginning when he asked Eve:
Ge:3:1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Where did the words come from?
Most of today's bibles are translated from the Hebrew and Greek. Unfortunately, there are two very different bodies of text used in translation. we have the Textus Receptus, Textus Vaticanus and Textus Siniticus. The KJB was translated from the Textus Receptus and most modern bibles are translated from the other two.

Who did the translation and where were they (spiritually)?
King James brought together a group of bible believing scholars to translate the bible in to English.
Almost all other modern translations were made by philosophers (many pagan or agnostic) in Alexandria Egypt that incorporated their own philosophy into the translations.

What sort of translation was used?
The KJB is a word for word translation.
Most of the modern versions are translated thought for thought.

There is much, much more in regard to these questions and I have been very, very brief here but search it out and I believe that you too will come to the conclusion that we have the inerrant word of God preserved to this day, in English with the KJB.

mikenold said:

The questions to be answered is : Did God preserve his word as he said that he did?
If so, which version did he use to preserve his word?

I believe what God has said and I have therefore studied the bible.
Here is what I found (briefly):

The Devil has been trying to put doubt on God's word from the beginning when he asked Eve:
Ge:3:1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Where did the words come from?
Most of today's bibles are translated from the Hebrew and Greek. Unfortunately, there are two very different bodies of text used in translation. we have the Textus Receptus, Textus Vaticanus and Textus Siniticus. The KJB was translated from the Textus Receptus and most modern bibles are translated from the other two.

Who did the translation and where were they (spiritually)?
King James brought together a group of bible believing scholars to translate the bible in to English.
Almost all other modern translations were made by philosophers (many pagan or agnostic) in Alexandria Egypt that incorporated their own philosophy into the translations.

What sort of translation was used?
The KJB is a word for word translation.
Most of the modern versions are translated thought for thought.

There is much, much more in regard to these questions and I have been very, very brief here but search it out and I believe that you too will come to the conclusion that we have the inerrant word of God preserved to this day, in English with the KJB.

Click to expand...

This too is rubbish. There is no biblical support for such an idea.

kiwimac said:

This too is rubbish. There is no biblical support for such an idea.

Click to expand...

Here are a few verses for biblical support:

Psalms:12:6: The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psalms:12:7: Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

M'r:13:31: Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Psalms5: For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.

Isa:40:8: The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

There are many more but these should suffice as biblical support. I believe that God's word is truth.

mikenold said:

Here are a few verses for biblical support:

Psalms:12:6: The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psalms:12:7: Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

M'r:13:31: Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Psalms5: For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.

Isa:40:8: The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

There are many more but these should suffice as biblical support. I believe that God's word is truth.

Click to expand...

I believe the word of the Lord has been preserved. It is preserved in the manuscripts. Unfortunately it has been preserved alongside variants. However, only about 2 percent of the text is in doubt even then, and many of those not translatable. Yes, there are some instances where it matters, and then folks can debate which underlying text they prefer.

God preserving His word does not mean any English translation is perfect. And the KJV is demonstrably not perfect.

For it to be perfect we would need to demonstrate the following:

a. they chose the right reading from the manuscripts EVERY time.
b. They translated it perfectly from the Greek EVERY time.

Please demonstrate the above, then we will consider the theory put forth that the KJV is perfect.