10 Questions for King James Onlyists

[Ave Maria]

I am an adamant opponent of "King James Onlyism", the belief that the King James Version is the only accurate and inspired translation of the word of God. If you are an advocate or believer in King James Onlyism, please read on!

First of all, I have 10 questions for you if you are an advocate or believer in King James Onlyism. Please answer these questions as honestly and correctly as you can.

1. Is/was the Latin Vulgate the word of God? Why or why not?
2. Is/was the Septuagint (LXX) the word of God? why or why not?
3. Is/was the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, Matthew's, Tyndale's, etc. the word of God? Why or why not?
4. Which edition (year) of the KJV is uncorrupted? Why do they differ, even occasionally in words? (And if your response has to do with printing problems, why would God inspire a perfect translation only to have it corrupted by the printers? The common people would still be lacking an uncorrupt word of God.)
5. Who publishes the uncorrupted KJV? Cambride, Oxford, Kirkbride, Scofield, AMG, Zondervan, one of the Bible Societies, or one of the many other publishers? Why do they differ slightly, even occasionally in words?
6. In the context of Matt 5:18, define "jot", "tittle", and "law".
7. Define "circular argument" and give an example.
8. When you encounter an archaic term or phrase in the KJV, or come across a "contradiction", why do you rely on fallible tools (dictionaries, etc) to interpret the infallible?
9. Suppose you lived in the 10th century. How would you define "preservation" as it related to God's word, so as to not contradict the KJV-only position?
10. The KJV came out in 1611. Where was the "final authority" in 1610 and prior? Explain.

Questions taken from here:
http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/kjvoques.html

I highly recommend that you review these sites:

http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/index.html
http://www.kjvonly.org/
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=665
http://www.equip.org/free/DK115.htm

 

[grateful heart]

im not a kj onlyist but i prefer it to others

 

[albertmc]

Being a traditional Anglican, I admire the KJV for its majestic language and historical value. It is also an admirable translation given their limited manuscript resources and is generally reliable. It is also one of the best Bibles to for reading from the pulpit and one of the purposes of the translators was to bring the Word of God to the people in a form that would make for good oration. In this it was a tremendous success.

That said, there are issues. Besides the limited manuscripts, the language is often archaic and even when words are familiar, they have a different meaning now than they did in 1611. I still use it but check it against the RSV and NASB.

 

[dalej42]

I'm far from a KJV onlyist, but I love the beauty of the language. The Psalms are amazingly moving in the language of the King James Version.

 

[Ave Maria]

I agree. I love the language of the KJV. I by no means hate the KJV. As a matter of fact, I love the KJV. However, I just disagree with those who practically idolise the KJV.

 

[Tonks]

Question 11: what happens if you don't speak English?

 

[lmnop9876]

there are basically 3 strands of KJV-onlyism, ranging from most extreme to more moderate:
1. the KJV is the only perfect English translation, and is not just a translation, it's inspired by God. all other translations contain errors of some kind, the KJV is completely error-free.
2. the Greek and Hebrew version of the Scriptures has been preserved by God, and is found in the Textus Receptus and Masoretic texts respectively. the best translations are the Reformation translations based on the Textus Receptus, in English particularly the KJV, while other Textus Receptus translations in other languages are also the complete and inspired Word of God.
3. all translations contain errors, but the KJV is the best of all the English translations, and is the one we can trust the most and which has best preserved the true meaning of Scripture, and therefore is the one we should use.

i have never heard of a KJV-onlyist who said that translations of the Bible in other languages weren't God's Word.

 

[Ave Maria]

Question 11: what happens if you don't speak English?

Good one!

 

[Ave Maria]

there are basically 3 strands of KJV-onlyism, ranging from most extreme to more moderate:
1. the KJV is the only perfect English translation, and is not just a translation, it's inspired by God. all other translations contain errors of some kind, the KJV is completely error-free.
2. the Greek and Hebrew version of the Scriptures has been preserved by God, and is found in the Textus Receptus and Masoretic texts respectively. the best translations are the Reformation translations based on the Textus Receptus, in English particularly the KJV, while other Textus Receptus translations in other languages are also the complete and inspired Word of God.
3. all translations contain errors, but the KJV is the best of all the English translations, and is the one we can trust the most and which has best preserved the true meaning of Scripture, and therefore is the one we should use.

i have never heard of a KJV-onlyist who said that translations of the Bible in other languages weren't God's Word.

Yes and you also have the ones who literally worship the Bible. Believe it or not, I saw someone in the Baptist/Anabaptist forum the other day say that the Bible is God! Now that my friends, is idolatry!

 

[Ave Maria]

You know, I have actually seen some King James Onlyists go so far as to say that even the Textus Receptus has errors in it but the KJV doesn't.

 

[GraceInHim]

I use KJV only, I used a more simpler Bible before it.. I never Idol it or kiss it.. look up and to him only, that is what the word says.. the word is inspired and by God who is Jesus Christ..

 

[Ave Maria]

I use KJV only, I used a more simpler Bible before it.. I never Idol it or kiss it.. look up and to him only, that is what the word says.. the word is inspired and by God who is Jesus Christ..

You only accept the KJV as a valid and correct Bible translation? If so, please answer those questions that I posted in my OP.

 

[GraceInHim]

You only accept the KJV as a valid and correct Bible translation? If so, please answer those questions that I posted in my OP.

there are how many bibles? and I do not need to answer because your problem seems to stem from someone on cf.. so maybe a Baptist can answer your questions.. just saying why I read KJV.. have Catholic, Aramaic and Greek ones also.. peace be with you

 

[GraceInHim]

You know, I have actually seen some King James Onlyists go so far as to say that even the Textus Receptus has errors in it but the KJV doesn't.

You know how many Bibles I can reference which say different words then others? Some focus more on langauge for who reads them.. amplified, reference Bibles and on and on.. does that mean they are all bad? Absolutley not.. did ya ever read a childrens Bible? Yes, they also need something more simpler.. does it make it wrong? NO.. your argument is moot.. oh and i have the NIV also.. what I do not like is some Bibles say something in the references that are completely wrong, therefore I study the other languages which the Apostles wrote in.. and it is the word of God, do you agree?

 

[VioletAngel]

I use NKJV and NASB the most. I do use NIV for general reading, and also the RSV. The NKJV is probably my favorite. Is it the only one? No, not in my honest opinion. I just rely on it more heavily than the others. I do use Interlinnear Bibles and that really helps to understand the words that are used in the original Greek. I also have a Greek dictionary to help me out. There are errors in the KJV, but they are not serious errors - according to what I have read so far.

 

[lmnop9876]

i like the NKJV, and i read it lots, but sometimes i look at the KJV to see if a pronoun is plural or something like that.

 

[Tonks]

there are basically 3 strands of KJV-onlyism, ranging from most extreme to more moderate:
1. the KJV is the only perfect English translation, and is not just a translation, it's inspired by God. all other translations contain errors of some kind, the KJV is completely error-free.

This is the most laughable thing that I've ever heard in my entire life. For those that have problems with Catholics and Mary this is no different.

 

[BigNorsk]

This is the most laughable thing that I've ever heard in my entire life. For those that have problems with Catholics and Mary this is no different.

The exaltation of Mary by the RCC and the KJV by the KJO people is basically the same.

Marv

 

[Diane_Windsor]

However, I just disagree with those who practically idolise the KJV.

KJV-Onlyist don't "practically idolize" the version just because they believe it to be inspired You believe that the Bible is inspired don't you? You don't idolize it just because you believe that it is inspired do you? Do you like it when people accuse Roman Catholics of idolizing Mary?

I'm far from a KJV onlyist, but I love the beauty of the language. The Psalms are amazingly moving in the language of the King James Version.

Yes and you also have the ones who literally worship the Bible. Believe it or not, I saw someone in the Baptist/Anabaptist forum the other day say that the Bible is God! Now that my friends, is idolatry!

I saw that post too, and I believe that she later corrected herself because she forgot to put a word in. Everybody has done that.

ETA: nope, she hasn't corrected it, and it wasn't a typo. Come to your own conclusions.

Diane

 

[Rebirth In Flames]

I prefer to read and study the one most scholars choose, the NASB. KJV is pre Dead Sea Scrolls, and therefore is not translated using the oldest manuscripts as are the newer translations. I’d read other versions but I really don’t see the point.. NASB is the most literal and accurate, and it’s in English.. if people still complain that it’s “too hard to read”, I think they need to go back to fifth grade and re-take their basic English class.