KJV Onlyism?

[Leevo]

How do you all feel about the subject? I like the sentiment that the movement has, but I just don't feel it can hold up to academic scrutiny when compared with the modern versions...

What are your thoughts on the subject?

 

[98cwitr]

This topic has been beaten pretty well...but I'll post just the same as I always do

Genesis 22:1 vs James 1:13. #checkMateKJVO

 

[DawnStar]

Here we go again. If it is not Calvinist vs. Arminian, it is the KJV versus the modern versions. This forum apparently has little else to offer.

 

[twin1954]

How do you all feel about the subject? I like the sentiment that the movement has, but I just don't feel it can hold up to academic scrutiny when compared with the modern versions...

What are your thoughts on the subject?

Of course KJVonlyism is a product of ignorance and willful blindness. I prefer the KJV certainly and find it to be the best translation in many places. I love the language in it and consider it to be as good a translation as any. I also use other translations, and even some paraphrases occasionally, in my study as well as the Greek. I haven't gotten into the Hebrew yet. I use them in order to get a different perspective on passages. Sometimes I even find a nugget of gold in the others.

There are, though, some translations and paraphrases that I find abominable.

 

[Goodbook]

No brainer.
So, no argument. I dont get confused by KJV.
As for academics, well I did a library degree. i can tell you its the first popular translation in the english language and is a well respected and trusted Bible, has never been out of print. Is in the public domain, and been read by born again christians the world over. You can find a copy in most every library. If I were to give a bible to anybody who read in english and was actually serious about their faith it would be a KJV there is no substitute for the real thing.

Large print versions are especially useful.
Also..new versions come and go, but KJV seems to be standard. Of course its not the only bible around but If youve got that version I tell you its a good thing. So many I christians I know testify to how it was the one bible that grew them spiritually and spoke to them, as it did me. It has my respect. So I can totally understand why people wouldnt want to use any other.

 

[Merlin]

it is a good bible but it was written several hundred years ago.
some words do not have the same meaning today and so that bible needs translation.

 

[LostMarbels]

This topic has been beaten pretty well...but I'll post just the same as I always do

Genesis 22:1 vs James 1:13. #checkMateKJVO

The problem I have with this is there is no context, or word study provided in this post. As it sits your post is telling me there is a contradiction in the bible, rather than a misunderstanding of the term you provided.

The break down.......

Jas 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation (G3986): for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
Jas 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

First the context: this paragraph is about man being tempted to lust, and the sin that, that temptation brings forth. Verse 13 does not say God does not tempt you; the verse states God does not tempt man to sin.

Thayer Definition:

In a bad sense, to test one maliciously, craftily to put to the proof his feelings or judgments
2c) to try or test one’s faith, virtue, character, by enticement to sin
2c1) to solicit to sin, to tempt
2c1a) of the temptations of the devil




Gen 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
Gen 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

The defiintion of 'tempted' in this instance:

נסה
nâsâh
BDB Definition:
1) to test, try, prove, tempt, assay, put to the proof or test

So God was proving to, or testing something about Abraham. What? His faith as seen in verse. Gen 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

You see Abraham already knew God was not going to require him to kill his own son, and God proved that faith in him. That is not anyways near the same temptation of sin.

 

[DeaconDean]

The problem I have with this is there is no context, or word study provided in this post.

I have been a member here since 2005. And in those 11 years, I have seen and been a part of, more KJV Only debates than I care to speak of.

The problem is, you need to do a search here in the Baptist area to see the number of debates about this subject and then, you may get an idea of what the member was speaking about.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[LostMarbels]

I have been a member here since 2005. And in those 11 years, I have seen and been a part of, more KJV Only debates than I care to speak of.

The problem is, you need to do a search here in the Baptist area to see the number of debates about this subject and then, you may get an idea of what the member was speaking about.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I understand the debate, and I wasn't even going to comment until I saw an individual equate a test of faith, to God tempting people with sin. As I originally stated that has nothing at all to do with the KJV but instead is misunderstanding of said scripture; and that is what concerns me. I adhere to sola scriptura, and such misinterpretations make my skin crawl. And to use it to prove a point that God's word has contradictions is even worse.

I'm sorry but I have to ask..... What does you being on CF for 11 years have to do with anything?

 

[DeaconDean]

I'm sorry but I have to ask..... What does you being on CF for 11 years have to do with anything?

The voice of experience.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[LostMarbels]

Ohh wow... I guess by that standard we are equals then. I originally joined on Sep 11, 2004. My son got on my original account, and had posted a rant I would rather not have on my profile; so I made this account.

 

[High Fidelity]

The King James was the best for a long time. No longer. The fact it's still around isn't a testament to its accuracy or we might as well start arguing Islam and the Koran has a truer message because it far pre-dates the KJV... Age does not equal accuracy.

Seems to be a cultural thing in most cases.

It's my favourite to read but when it comes to study it's necessary to have the most accurate translation available short of the original texts(which is what KJV-O seem to fail to understand; The Original Texts are the standard to compare translations to, not the KJV -- and ironically most KJV-O use the 1769) to get as close as possible to the original message and the original Word of God in its purest form.

 

[LostMarbels]

The King James was the best for a long time. No longer. The fact it's still around isn't a testament to its accuracy or we might as well start arguing Islam and the Koran has a truer message because it far pre-dates the KJV... Age does not equal accuracy.

Seems to be a cultural thing in most cases.

It's my favourite to read but when it comes to study it's necessary to have the most accurate translation available short of the original texts(which is what KJV-O seem to fail to understand; The Original Texts are the standard to compare translations to, not the KJV -- and ironically most KJV-O use the 1769) to get as close as possible to the original message and the original Word of God in its purest form.

I do not agree with this.

You would first have to change my fundamental beliefs that:

1. The word of God is from the beginning, and was with God at creation.

2. Jesus is the word of God made flesh that dwelt amongst man.

3. The word of God is an immutable fact, and is unchanging.

You see... to me the word of God is more than a Bible. It is part of my God, and it is our Christ in the flesh. I confess that Jesus is the one and only true God, and he is the word of God manifest in the flesh. So since Jesus is the only way, there can only be one word of God. Only one version has remained unchanged.

There are so many parallels to my belief. We see in James that there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning in God. So with the word of God being part of God and Jesus being the physical manifestation of the word; Gods word is also without variableness, neither shadow of turning.

So those who have changed, altered, or have strayed from the origins are not from God. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. 1 change, changes it all.

 

[High Fidelity]

Only one version has remained unchanged.

And yet it is still a version.

It is not the original any more than the NASB or ESV. It's a translation(largely taken, in fact, from another translation).

 

[MWood]

I have always wondered how someone can tell which version is the most accurate. How can some tell which MSS are most accurate. Does the age of a MSS make it more accurate? I think not. It is just a copy of a copy. It is all about our faith in the hope of the Promises for salvation unto eternal life.

 

[98cwitr]

The problem I have with this is there is no context, or word study provided in this post. As it sits your post is telling me there is a contradiction in the bible, rather than a misunderstanding of the term you provided.

The break down.......

Jas 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation (G3986): for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
Jas 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

First the context: this paragraph is about man being tempted to lust, and the sin that, that temptation brings forth. Verse 13 does not say God does not tempt you; the verse states God does not tempt man to sin.

Thayer Definition:

In a bad sense, to test one maliciously, craftily to put to the proof his feelings or judgments
2c) to try or test one’s faith, virtue, character, by enticement to sin
2c1) to solicit to sin, to tempt
2c1a) of the temptations of the devil




Gen 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
Gen 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

The defiintion of 'tempted' in this instance:

נסה
nâsâh
BDB Definition:
1) to test, try, prove, tempt, assay, put to the proof or test

So God was proving to, or testing something about Abraham. What? His faith as seen in verse. Gen 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

You see Abraham already knew God was not going to require him to kill his own son, and God proved that faith in him. That is not anyways near the same temptation of sin.

You realize your lengthy explanation only solidifies my point. When further translation is required so that a contradiction doesn't occur, the translation is rendered errant.

 

[DeaconDean]

You know guys, its funny that the absolute best statement made about the scriptures was made in 1878.

When Fundamentalism came into its own, it said:

"The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts."

1st point of the 14 point creed of the Niagara Conference.

The original autographs, both Old and New Testaments are gone, lost to time.

So at best, the very best that can be said is that we have copies of copies.

Even the oldest papyrus, only dates to as early as AD 170.

I wish this whole KJV-Only stuff would just die!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[LostMarbels]

You realize your lengthy explanation only solidifies my point. When further translation is required so that a contradiction doesn't occur, the translation is rendered errant.

This makes no sense.... your misquoted scripture solidifies what point?

This is the point. Many do not want to study, they want to read. The bible is meant to be researched, scrutinised, and pondered on through the holy spirit. It takes effort to understand the word of God. Have you ever fell to your knees and asked God to reveal his truth in this contradiction? Asked Jesus what the scripture truly means?

 

[LostMarbels]

The first full bible with both OT and NT was the Peshito or Syriac. The date is uncertain, but agreed to be late first century, 160 AD to early 2nd century 240 AD. An guess what? This, the very first complete bible contains the verse:


36
And as they went on their way, they came to a certain place where there was water And the abstainer said: Behold, water ! What prevents me from being baptized
37
And Philip said: If you believe with all your heart, it may be so And he answered, and said: I believe that Jesus the Messiah is the Son of God
38
And he ordered the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, and Philip baptized the abstainer


Codex Sinaiticus, written around 330 AD Said to contain the earliest complete copy of the Christian New Testament was commissioned from Eusebius by Roman Emperor Constantine. An yet the verse is missing. Why? Lets take a look. When Constantine became emperor of the Western Roman Empire in 312, he attributed his victory to the Christian God. During Constantine's reign, approximately half of those who identified themselves as Christian did not subscribe to the mainstream version of the faith.Constantine feared that disunity would displease God and lead to trouble for the Empire, so he took military and judicial measures to eliminate some sects of Christianity. To resolve other disputes, Constantine began the practice of calling ecumenical councils to determine binding interpretations of Church doctrine. In 380, mainstream Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.Christianity became more associated with the Empire, resulting in persecution for Christians living outside of the empire, as their rulers feared Christians would revolt in favor of the Emperor. Then St. Jerome, who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382. compiled the first official RCC bible in 400 AD, the Latin Vulgate. Which of course, does not contain the verse. In 385, this new legal authority of the Church resulted in the first use of capital punishment being pronounced as a sentence upon a Christian 'heretic", and the birth of the military might we now know as the RCC.

I think some people need to read up on the creation of the English version of the bible, and see how many were put to death, or jailed and hated by the Catholic Church. No king would dare go against the Pope, so the only way to become "authorized" by the Pope, put the Apocrypha in your bible, and adhere to RCC cannon. Also, the Catholic church was THE authority, no one came before the Holy Catholic Church. Not even God. Here are 2 examples.

John Wycliffe. To Wycliffe, the Church is all of those who accepted Christ as savior. Including the Christians on earth who are living; those who are in heaven, and those in death. He also preached that no man, priest or not was saved just for being a Catholic. There was one holy and universal church outside of it there is no salvation. Its head is Christ. He used to base this assertion off of Ephesians.

Eph 5:23,-24 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Wycliffe believed and publicly preached that " No pope may say that he is the head of the church, for he cannot say that he is elect or even a member of the Church". Also the "church" was not of the world but of God. This really angered the Catholic church, and the came against Wycliffe.

And guess what was in his bible? Da ta dahhh!!!!!!!! The verse:

35 And Philip opened his mouth, and began at this scripture, and preached to him Jesus. 36 And while they went by the way, they came to a water [they came to some water]. And the gelding said, Lo! water; who forbiddeth me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest of all thine heart, it is leaveful. And he answered, and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And they went down both into the water, Philip and the gelding, and Philip baptized him [and he baptized him]

On 4 May 1415, (after his death) the Council of Constance declared Wycliffe a heretic and under the ban of the Church. It was decreed that his books (the bible) be burned and his remains be exhumed. The exhumation was carried out in 1428 when, at the command of Pope Martin V, Wycliffe's remains were dug up, burned, and the ashes were thrown into the River Swift.

Then, there was William Tyndale.Tyndale's translation was the first English Bible to draw directly from Hebrew and Greek texts, ( The codex's, and not from the Latin Vulgate ) also the first English Bible to take advantage of the printing press, and first of the new English Bibles of the Reformation. It was taken to be a direct challenge to the hegemony of both the Roman Catholic Church and English Laws to maintain church rulings. The catholic Church maintained that the word of God was only to be interpreted and preached by "men of the cloth" and was to stay in Latin so common men could not read it.Tyndale was arrested and imprisoned in the castle of Vilvoorden for over 500 days in horrible conditions. He was tried for heresy and treason in a ridiculously unfair trial, and convicted. Tyndale was then strangled and burnt at the stake in the prison yard, Oct. 6, 1536. His last words were, "Lord, open the king of England's eyes."

Just take a wild guess what was in his bible.............. Just take a stab at it.

The more you read about it you will find out people were forced to accept Catholic rule, and the Apocrypha; or be tortured, jailed, and possibly murdered. I mean they would just torture you to you admitted anything anyways....... no one stood a chance against the Catholic Church at this point in time. They literally told the masses what to believe, how to believe, and how to worship. Or else you ended up in an inquisition, and either were tortured until you confessed you were a heretic, or died from the torture. Please take into account that sola scriptura is an act of heresy against the church.

Jesus said that no house can stand divided, so that leads to a very interesting question. How could to know (accepted) leader of Christianity come against anyone that recognized the authority of God as supreme over the earthly church, as a heretic? Simple, it was not from God. My lord and savior Jesus Christ did not kill people for preaching the gospel. There in-lies a very real attack against the bible, and the wording used. Satan is the author of confusion, and father of lies. The Cacophony of versions to follow all have different shades of meaning, wording, and even missing verses. THAT IS NO ACCIDENT OR "NEW' TRANSLATION. It is an attack to make confusion of the word of God.

All of the new translations from the RSV in 1952; to the NKJV in 1982 ( only 30 years ago ), and beyond, all lean heavily on the dead sea scrolls and newly discovered Manuscripts. Yet, some believe they are more accurate than the 1611 kjv that came from the original manuscripts from 1500BC to 100AD. Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Steve Petersen]

There are no original manuscripts from 1500 BC. The oldest OT manuscripts/fragments are from about the second century BC.