22 Tough Questions for King James-Only Advocates

[Jim B]

Let me begin with a disclaimer. I am not saying that every Christian who prefers the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is a member of a cult. Hey, my parents prefer the KJV! But some KJV-Onlyites sometimes act rather cultlike in their blind devotion to the King James version of the Bible. I have noticed a rather stuffy superiority and smug arrogance attached to their preference for the translation and, worse still, a certain cultlike exclusiveness to their small and declining fellowship (believe it or not, there are actually "KJV-Only" churches . . . no kidding!) I do believe, though, that there is such a thing as a ‘KJV-Only’ cult-of-sorts. They have made a doctrine, even a religion, out of a personal preference. It is to these devotees that I offer this paper.

Why not benefit from the scholarship of modern translators? I hate to think it, but could it be that some KJV-ers are simply too lazy to take advantage of the challenge of newer translations or could it be that they are just too cheap to purchase one? Who knows? Actually, though, I think the real reason is that the language of the King James provides an insider language that most people--especially outsiders--unfamiliar with Elizabethan English have difficulty understanding. If this is, in fact, the case, demanding an exclusive use if the KJV becomes a pure and undiluted form of spiritual pride. It is a way of saying, I am privy to something you are not.

Let me say, up front and for the record, that I personally believe the KJV is one of the -- if not THE -- great masterpieces of the English language and I don’t know of another literary work that can match its grandeur. An old Italian proverb has observed that translations are like wives; a beautiful one is apt to be unfaithful, and a faithful one is apt to be ugly. This is true with translations. Modern translations may lack the beauty of the KJV, but they are more faithful to the original texts for the simple reason that biblical scholarship over the past four centuries is more exact and knowledgeable.

---------------------------

For those who see the KJV as the only inspired version of the Bible, I have 22 questions I would like for them to answer.

1. Which KJV do you most believe in: the original 1611 version (which is almost impossible for modern people to read) or the 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850 (the one publishers use today) revisions? There are many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars, plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words from 1611 to 1850.

2. How do you KNOW which of these versions is MORE correct than the others?

3. Where was the "word of God" prior to 1611? Where was it before the development of Elizabethan English?

4. Were the KJV translators wrong, or were they liars, when they said ""the very meanest [i.e., poorest] translation" is still "the word of God?"

5. Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the Geneva Bible translation (instead of the KJV) with them to North America?

6. In what language did Jesus Christ teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18?

7. Is only the KJV, to the exclusion of all other translations, infallible? If so, how do you know?

8. Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?

9. Do you believe the English KJV was "given by inspiration of God?" Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek?" [title page of KJV N.T.] Were they misleading for claiming to have used "the original Greek" from which to translate?

10. How did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without the 1611 "word of God"? Then what translations of "the word of God," used by the Reformers, was the absolutely infallible and inerrant ones? (Their main Bibles are well-known and copies still exist.)

11. If the KJV is "God's infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people," as KJV proponents claim, did the "English-speaking people" have "the word of God" from 1525-1604? Was Tyndale's (1525), or Coverdale's (1535), or Matthew's (1537), or the Great (1539), or the Geneva (1560) English Bibles absolutely infallible?

12. Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture — "whom ye" (Cambridge KJV) or, "whom he" (Oxford KJV) at Jeremiah 34:16? Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture — "sin" (Cambridge) or "sins" (Oxford) at 2 Chronicles 33:19? Which one is the infallible "INERRANT KJV"?

13. Does it matter that history shows that King James I, whose name adorns the cover of your Bible and whose name champions the KJV-Only cause, was a practicing adulterer, homosexual and pedophile? (For documentation: Antonia Fraser, "King James VI of Scotland, I of England," Knopf, 1975, pgs.36-37, 123. Caroline Bingham, "The Making of a King," Doubleday, 1969, pgs.128-129, 197-198. Otto J. Scott, "James," Mason-Charter, 1976, pgs.108, 111, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353, 382. David H. Wilson, "King James VI & I," Oxford, 1956, pgs.36, 99-101, 336-337, 383-386, 395. Plus numerous encyclopedias and articles.)

14. Would it matter to you that KJV translator, Richard Thomson, who worked on Genesis through Kings in the Westminster group, was "led by God in translating" even though he was an alcoholic that "drank his fill daily" throughout the work? (Gustavus S. Paine, "The Men Behind the KJV," Baker Book House, 1979, pgs. 40, 69.)

15. Does the singular "oath’s," occurring in every KJV at Matthew 14:9 and Mark 6:26, "correct" every Textus Receptus Greek (from which the KJV was translated into English) which has the plural ("oaths") by the post-1611 publishers, misplacing the apostrophe?

16. Is the Holy Spirit an "it" according to KJV John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; and 1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV? (Sorry, you may not resort to the Greek for any light if you are a true KJV-Onlyite!)

17. Does Luke 23:56 support a "Friday" crucifixion in the KJV? (FYI, There is no "day" here in Greek.)

18. Is KJV-Onlyite Don Edwards correct in agreeing "in favor of canonizing our KJV," thus replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek? (The Flaming Torch, June 1989, page 6). And did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages to English" in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch? [same page as above]

19. Do you believe in or read the KJV Apocrypha which was included as integral to the original 1611 translation? If not, why not?

20. Does it matter that the KJV translators offered more than 8,000 alternate English renderings from Greek and Hebrew manuscripts? For example, Judges 19:2 shows an instance where the meaning of the Hebrew is obscure. Was it "four months" or "a year and four months" as the alternate reading (margin) indicates? Quite a difference! But the structure of the Hebrew makes it difficult for any translator to know for sure which it is. So they show the alternate reading, not knowing themselves for sure which is correct! No one questions the Greek-Hebrew is inspired. But if the translators were also inspired by the Holy Spirit, in their work of translating the inspired Hebrew into English, they would have been guided by divine inspiration to the correct rendering, hence no need for any alternate readings in the margin.

21. Are non-English translations used by Christians in other nations without merit because they are not the KJV?

22. If the KJV is proper form of English then why don’t you speak it? (Although, truthfully, I have heard my share of prayers in KJ English.)

~ Jim Miller ©2002.

 

[GodlyWarrior]

It does not matter which King James Version you read . Its the differences of the New Age Translations and the King James only difference that is important. The NIV, NASB, NKJ, NRSV,NAB, REB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, Living, Phillips, New Jerusalem, and New Century are all lacking in some area or another and are nothing more than false doctrine. I would be glad to show you where if you are willing to listen and not judge until you hear the evidence presented. I can understand if you prefer not to hear it as most people don't because it means leaving behind something someone else has told you. When you study the translations though, it is very clear which language was meant for the English Speaking language.

If I am a member of any cult, it is that of Jesus Christ the Risen King!

Peace in Christ,
GW
Warriors of God

 

[bjh]

The NIV, NASB, NKJ, NRSV,NAB, REB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, Living, Phillips, New Jerusalem, and New Century are all lacking in some area or another and are nothing more than false doctrine.

Good luck proving that one. In my mind, that sounds like a lot to prove.

1) When you say that they are lacking, does that mean they don't have something that is in the originals, or something in the best mss of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, or they don't have what the KJV says?

2) When you say that they are false doctrine, are you taking into account every verse or just the same verses? E. g., Eph 2:1 "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins." (KJV) vs. "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins" (NASB) but Eph 2:5 says that "even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ...."

In other words the doctrine of regeneration is there, but not in 2:1 (at least according to the NASB).

So, again, how are each of these 1) lacking and 2) false doctrine?

Thank you,

== B. J. H. ==

 

[GodlyWarrior]

Lets look at the NIV and the NASB.

Now let me ask you this. If you are using one of these bibles, do you have a Holy Bible?

NIV, NASB Verse King Jame Version
Men 2 Peter 1:21 holy men
angels Matthew 25:31 holy angels
brethren 1 Thess. 5:27 holy brethren
prophets Revelation 22:6 holy prophets
apostles Revelation 18:20 holy apostles
Spirit John 7:39 Holy Ghost
Spirit 1Corinthians 2:13 Holy Spirit
Spirit Matthew 12:31 Holy Spirit
Spirit Acts 6:3 Holy Ghost
Spirit Acts 8:18 Holy Ghost

I would like to ask you another question. How do you think the antichrist will decieve so many during the end time and do you not think it will be through a one world religion? New Age Movement?

These are just a few of the views that exist in our world:

"We are one world. We now need a world religion. We are entering a New Age"from the book Toward a New World Religion

"I would suggest a meeting of the world's religions. My great personal dream is to get a tremendous alliance betweeb all major religions and the UN. A completely new world in the making, a new age."
Robert Muller UN Assistant Secretary General.

[B]"I predict that in our lifetime we will see the rise of essentially a New World Religion." Jean Houston[/B]

"Establish a church based on universal principles" Unity-in-Diversity Council

"The reorganization of the world's religions......is for the new world religion"
Alice Bailey

 

[bjh]

I would like to ask you another question. How do you think the antichrist will decieve so many during the end time and do you not think it will be through a one world religion? New Age Movement?

Why would Satan waste his time creating new versions to deceive many. He's done so well with the KJV. Just ask the LDS or JW's.

Besides, the one world religion is not based on these Bible versions.

Again, my Bible does not deny the existence of any of the following, as you incorrectly state...
holy men (Ex. 22:31)
holy angels (Mk 8:38 Luke 9:26; Rev. 14:10)
holy brethren (Heb. 3:1)
holy prophets (Luke 1:70; Acts 3:21; 2 Peter 3:2)
holy apostles (Eph 3:5)
Holy Spirit (are you really ready for this list? Psalm 51:11; Is 63:10-11; Matt 1:18, 20; 3:11; 12:32; also in Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude)

Please don't try to say that there is a difference between the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost, or I will turn around and say that the writers of the KJV didn't believe in the trinity but rather a 4-part godhead.

If you really thought that the translators of the NASB and NIV wanted to deny any of these, don't you think they would have taken better care to remove every instance? Try again. By the way, you forgot a few versions.
Like I said, your assertion that all those versions are lacking is difficult to prove.

== B. J. H. ==

 

[GodlyWarrior]

you really thought that the translators of the NASB and NIV wanted to deny any of these, don't you think they would have taken better care to remove every instance? Try again. By the way, you forgot a few versions.
Like I said, your assertion that all those versions are lacking is difficult to prove.

== B. J. H. ==

Decieved already I see.

 

[bjh]

Decieved already I see.

Do you really think I am deceived? How so? If, as you have said, the "NIV, NASB, NKJ, NRSV,NAB, REB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, Living, Phillips, New Jerusalem, and New Century" are all lacking, and teaching false doctrine, why would they state something that you say (but have not demonstrated) they deny?

== B. J. H.==

 

[AVBunyan]

Let me begin with a disclaimer. I am not saying that every Christian who prefers the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is a member of a cult. ~ Jim Miller ©2002.

This response is broken up into two parts since I was long-winded - sorry.

Part I

I told myself I was going to stay out of the trenches but if Michael Jordan can come out of retirement three times then I can at least once and Jim's post is worth coming out for!



I appreciate Jim’s post. Jim sought to be very nice and politically correct and sought to be clear in whom he was directing his post towards. I am not offended by his reference to some KJV believers being stuffy, blinded, or cultish. I understand what he was trying to say for he seeking not to lump all in one big basket. In fact, I do agree that some of our attitudes, at times, have not been very gracious or charitable in this area.



I will give Jim satisfaction in two ways. First by responding to his post – I kind of felt sorry that so few responded so I responded. Secondly, I thought I’d give Jim the satisfaction of being just what he claimed some of us King James Bible believers are, stuffy, lazy, blind, and arrogant. So he could say, “See, that’s exactly what I’ve been saying they are like!!!” Again, Jim sought to be very nice - I will not be so nice.



Let me say this up front – when I come across a saint on the street that reads the newer versions I don’t accost him over his version. I don’t jump in with both feet and attack his version – I’ve got more Christian grace than that. When a visitor comes to our “KJV-Only" churches” – (Yes, there are actually "KJV-Only" churches . . . no kidding!!!”) we don’t jump the guy – we respect his person and don’t bring it up unless asked. We are more gracious than some believe and understand that all do not know the issue so why “kill” a saint over that!!!???!!! Now, this is a forum and some have drawn swords so this is different. Mr. Jim said what he said about certain KJV believers and he is right – there are some that may lean that way in their attitudes but I don’t believe they “worship” a book. What Mr. Jim said he said with “perfume” - I will not add “perfume” to my post.



Now that the niceties are out of the way, let’s chat.

See next post for Part II

 

[AVBunyan]

I do believe, though, that there is such a thing as a ‘KJV-Only’ cult-of-sorts. They have made a doctrine, even a religion, out of a personal preference. It is to these devotees that I offer this paper.Jim Miller ©2002.

Please refer to Part I above if you haven't already- thank you

“Let me begin with a disclaimer. I am not saying that every Christian who prefers the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is a member of a cult”

Well, thank you for those kind words. Show me where any King James Bible Believer is a member of this cult using the definition of the word cult. I’ve heard this before and find it amusing. It is amazing that people get upset when others say they believe the book in their hands is “it”. Why do you and others resent some of use saying we believe the book in our hands? Why does it bother you so? Is it because you can't say the same for yours?

“Hey, my parents prefer the KJV!”

Wonderful! – Good for them – you should have followed you parents! What happened to you? I know - you were educated out of believing the Bible God has been using for over 380 years with unparalleled fruit and success. Somebody taught you there are errors in the King James Bible. Who taught you the King James Bible is not the pure word of the living God – the Lord or the devil?

“But some KJV-Onlyites sometimes act rather cultlike in their blind devotion to the King James version of the Bible.”

You mean soul-winners like D.L. Moody, J.F. Norris, Billy Sunday, Sam Jones, C.H. Spurgeon, etc.? You mean like millions of people who believed the book before Peter S. Ruckman and company ever came along? What a terrible thing to be “blindly devoted” to the Bible that God has used for 380 years. What a terrible thing to be so lazy and ignorant as to believe God wrote a book and they still have it in their hands to read a and teach today. Horrors! You say, “blindly” or do you mean innocently ignorant or do you mean just plain “stupid”? Either way we don’t mind being “blinded.” You have had your “eyes opened” like Eve did in the garden. No thank you – we will stick with our “blindness” over your great “enlightenment” from the “enlightened one” of this world.

“I have noticed a rather stuffy superiority and smug arrogance attached to their preference for the translation and, worse still, a certain cultlike exclusiveness to their small and declining fellowship”

Probably so, but I have notice an ignorance of the basic spiritual truths and doctrines of those who seek after the great wisdom of the newer translations. I have noticed that many who follow the newer translations are now following the world more everyday in everything they do.

“(believe it or not, there are actually "KJV-Only" churches . . . no kidding!)”

Yes there are – I am in one – praise God! Years before all the new perverions came out all churches were King James and they did a lot more for God than your churches that don’t believe it today! We have one authority we follow. We have one book we can trust. We don’t sit around saying, “What does your say, mine says this.” “In the Greek mine says this...” “Yea, but mine came from the Syriac, Alexandrian, Aramaic special scrolls, etc.” “Yes, but mine came directly from Nestle’s 400th Addition edited personally by Warfield and A.T. Robertson themselves….oh goodie, goodie, goodie!” We don’t have that type of confusion in our church. We open up our Bibles and believe that what we have in our hands is from God without error and not to be questioned which in turn gives us confidence and comfort plus….it saves us a lot of time. My goodness, I saw on a previous post where some person has a different versions, manuscript or ancient text for just about every book in the Bible, gasp – I feel for the guy!!!

“I do believe, though, that there is such a thing as a ‘KJV-Only’ cult-of-sorts.”

And you are right – they’re still a few, not many anymore, but a few that believe what they have in their hands is perfect. What is so terrible about that? I know, if we say what we have is perfect then it must mean what you have is not. With all your studying and researching you are still wrong. Must be tough to spend all that time spinning wheels and getting absolutely nowhere – no final authority, no complete confidence, no perfect Bible – how sad to go through life questioning God’s word like the serpent did to Eve in Gen. 3. How sad to doubt whether or not what you are reading is really in the originals or not.

“They have made a doctrine, even a religion, out of a personal preference. It is to these devotees that I offer this paper.”

I don’t know anybody like that. The doctrine is found in II Tim. 3:15,16 if there is one. Out of personal preference you say? We believe it is out of God’s preference, thank you kindly and history has born witness to this.

“Why not benefit from the scholarship of modern translators?”

Don’t try to tell me again that the scholarship of today is better then the scholarship of 1611 – surely you jest! Look how sad your scholars are - you would think after 60 or so newer and improved versions they would eventually get it right!!!

“I hate to think it, but could it be that some KJV-ers are simply too lazy to take advantage of the challenge of newer translations or could it be that they are just too cheap to purchase one?”

Come on now – you are grasping at straws here. You are making an assumption that some of us are too lazy? The challenge of the newer translations for us is to try to take versions seriously that basically read the same because they all come from the same source, attack many of the major doctrines of the Bible (deity of Christ, virgin birth, blood atonement, etc.) and just plain read “unmajestically” (how about that for a new word?!?). Give us a break! Can we make an assumption regarding you? Is your church Interdenominational? Do you believe you can loose your salvation? Do you believe all gifts of the Spirit are in operation today? Just wondering. You made an assumption and it didn’t bother me so I made one. You say some of us are lazy – you mean we haven’t researched your newer translations? Yes, I’m sure some are lazy and I can say with complete confidence before God that many are not and that is why you “newer version supporters” keep getting hammered. We know where you are getting your info from and where your newer versions are from. Besides that – we have compared the newer ones thoroughly, side-by-side with God’s book and yours are found wanting. Please, we could say the same for the “average new version reader”. If they would only research a little they would see the devilment in the newer versions – a lost man could see it!

“Actually, though, I think the real reason is that the language of the King James provides an insider language that most people--especially outsiders--unfamiliar with Elizabethan English have difficulty understanding.”

Oh, Mr. Jim, you give me such wonderful ammo. Are you saying the problem is with the old “archaic” English – that it is hard to grasp – and then your crowd turns around and quotes the Greek and Hebrew! Just too much for any sane man to believe!” You mean Greek and Hebrew is easier to understand than English? “An insider language” you say? How about “scholars” Greek and Hebrew “scholars” hiding all the “nuggets” in the original languages? How about “scholars” telling people that if you “really” want to get the bottom of the truth you must learn Greek and Hebrew knowing fully well that they won’t so you are left to be their final authority! Nice try, Jim, I don’t buy this one for a second.

“If this is, in fact, the case, demanding an exclusive use if the KJV becomes a pure and undiluted form of spiritual pride.”

No, that just makes good, common sense to have one final authority. Spiritual pride is saying, “I know Greek and you don’t so I know what God is really saying and you poor, ignorant soul doesn’t

“It is a way of saying, I am privy to something you are not.”

The King James Bible was written in 5th grade English of the day – what is so hard about that? Well, today maybe a 12th grade level because we are stupider today. One more time with feeling…“I know Greek and you don’t so I know what God is really saying and you poor, ignorant soul doesn’t.”

“Let me say, up front and for the record, that I personally believe the KJV is one of the -- if not THE -- great masterpieces of the English language and I don’t know of another literary work that can match its grandeur.”

Well, thank you for that bone you just threw out at us to make us feel better. Shakespeare was good also, but it is not the word of God. So what if you think it is “beautiful” if you don’t believe it – God is not impressed.

“An old Italian proverb has observed that translations are like wives; a beautiful one is apt to be unfaithful, and a faithful one is apt to be ugly. This is true with translations.”

We not impressed with your “old Italian proverbs” – We care about what the Bible says about our Bible:
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Prov 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.


We have the inspired scriptures in our hands – can you say the same about yours?

“Modern translations may lack the beauty of the KJV, but they are more faithful to the original texts for the simple reason that biblical scholarship over the past four centuries is more exact and knowledgeable.”

“More faithful to the original texts” you say? Here we go again, faithful according to whom? Have you seen the originals? How would you know? You are just taking the word of a scholar somewhere. We judge the scholars today by the terrible versions they produced. Again, with feeling…you are going to try and tell me that today’s scholarship is better than 1611’s? Heard all this before – maybe it is you who has not researched the lives of the 1611 translators much.

Now, the question is…will I answer your 22 Tough Questions? Answer – NO. Why not? Two reasons:
1. Some of the questions are tough and would take me a lot time to research even though the material is there to answer your questions. But even if I did do the research then would you believe it? If you haven’t believed Dr. E.F. Hills, David Otis Fuller, J.J. Ray, Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, Donald Clark, Scrivner, etc. then why would you believe me? Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. (John 5:32-47)


2. Some of those questions have been answered before over and over again. If you had done your research a little better then you would already have the answers to many of your questions. So, why should I do the research for you? Mat 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.



So, you are saying I am copping out – don’t care. God calls me to redeem the time for the days are evil and spending time answering your questions is not a good use of God’s time for no profit would come of it – if I thought there would then I’d do the work. The info is out there – you go research it or are you afraid of what you will find? Many of us have studied both sides – have you? I’ve my own set of 33 questions for King James Bible critics and I won’t even waste my time posting them.

Now, I am finished. I do not want to go any further. You have said your piece and I have said mine. You are in your right to respond but I will not respond to your response for it will be to no ones’ edification. I even questioned myself in posting this but some things just demand a response and you pushed my button. I fell bad for not taking on some of the questions but some of those have already been answered somewhere in this forum anyway.

You stick with the world’s favorites (I John 4:5; John 12:43) and we will stick with the one that God has been using for the past 380 years.

Now, I will crawl back into my rocking chair and be a good little boy.

Enjoyed chatting with you.

 

[thekingster]

Reading through these posts I do not get the sense that most KJV-onlies are very humble...and that's unfortunate. There are great debates that people can get into...the fact that tithing is not a NT principle is at the top of my favorites.

Sadly, much of what is proposed by the KJV only crowd decries a knowledge of translational theory - noting the differences between the NASB and, say, the NIV. Each version employs a different style in its translational analysis.

And...Oh Boy...the KJV is not an "inspired" translation. The only "inspired" words of God are the original autographs (yeppers: Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew) - of which there are NONE extant from the First Century. KJV sounds poetic and certainly extols mightily in Elizabethan English - but if you're not privvy to that...well, possibly a more modern translation would serve you better.

Most KJV-onlies employ bibliolatry to the point where they have changed to a new "trinity": Father, Son, and Holy Scriptures. It is sad and unfortunate that the "good" brought about by other translations are lost on the KJV only crowd. Sadly it seems that exclusivism, pride, and ignorance abounds. Even if you really believed that you somehow had God's inspired translation - don't you recall Jesus' words that those who are not against us are for us? What do you think that means?

By the way, let's boil down the essence of salvation for a moment. What does the Bible say is sufficient to receive salvation? Simply to believe that Jesus the Christ died for our sins; that God raised him from the dead; and today part of his atoning work is to usher us from death unto life. Conclusively show me where the NIV teaches an alternative doctrine to salvation? To imply that the NIV is a "new age translation" shows the weakness of the scholarship utilized.

Remember: we who don't venerate the KJV above its place as "a" translation are on the same team if we look to Jesus as the sole authority for salvation.


Kindly,
Steven King
The Kingster†
*Note: I will not reply to flames or ridiculous arguments.

 

[AVBunyan]

1. Reading through these posts I do not get the sense that most KJV-onlies are very humble...and that's unfortunate.
2. Sadly, much of what is proposed by the KJV only crowd decries a knowledge of translational theory - noting the differences between the NASB and, say, the NIV. Each version employs a different style in its translational analysis.
3. And...Oh Boy...the KJV is not an "inspired" translation.
4. The only "inspired" words of God are the original autographs (yeppers: Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew) - of which there are NONE extant from the First Century.
5. KJV sounds poetic and certainly extols mightily in Elizabethan English - but if you're not privvy to that...well, possibly a more modern translation would serve you better.
6. Most KJV-onlies employ bibliolatry to the point where they have changed to a new "trinity": Father, Son, and Holy Scriptures.
7. It is sad and unfortunate that the "good" brought about by other translations are lost on the KJV only crowd.
8. Sadly it seems that exclusivism, pride, and ignorance abounds.
9. Even if you really believed that you somehow had God's inspired translation - don't you recall Jesus' words that those who are not against us are for us? What do you think that means?
10. By the way, let's boil down the essence of salvation for a moment. What does the Bible say is sufficient to receive salvation? Simply to believe that Jesus the Christ died for our sins; that God raised him from the dead; and today part of his atoning work is to usher us from death unto life.
11. Conclusively show me where the NIV teaches an alternative doctrine to salvation? To imply that the NIV is a "new age translation" shows the weakness of the scholarship utilized.
12. Remember: we who don't venerate the KJV above its place as "a" translation are on the same team if we look to Jesus as the sole authority for salvation.

Thank you "thekingster" for your post.
1. I trust that you read my Part I on how myself and others I seek to treat the average saint on the street regarding this issue of authority. Again, I would never "acost" a believer over his version - if the opportunity comes up then I seek to graciously show (at his request) the issue and let him pray about it. On a forum where people attack the Bible I believe then it is different. Or if one hits me up on the street about my Bible then swords may be drawn because it is a real conviction with some of us - to others this issue of authority is nothing to them so they have no passion over it. Some of look at it when you attack our Bibles you are essentially attacking our Saviour - and NO WE DO NT WORSHIP A BOOK - I HAVE NEVER MET A KJB BELIEVER WHO DOES! This gets old and takes away from teh real issue which is one of final authority.

2. All these terms - "translational theory" sound cute but the real issue is the texts of these vew versions and their attacks on the fundemental doctrines which we say we all are supposed to believe - they are very clear when you compare them side by side.

3. Your opinion -just like you say it is my opinion that I believe the KJB is inspired. Are you and others saying the newer versions are inspired? If they are not inspired then they are not scripture according to II Tim. 3:15,16. I believe I have the scriptures and they are inspired according to II Tim. 3:15,16.

4. Show me one verse in ANY VERSION where only the originals are inspired! I just need one. Please read Jer. 36 for double inspiration. Also, Timothy had the scriptures in II Tim. 3:15 and they were inspired and they were not the originals.

5. Heard this before - why go to a "dumbed down modern English" when the King James was written at the height of the English language. in 5th grade Englis at the time I thought the Holy Spirit was the teacher anyway. Many KJB critics make light of the "archaic" words of the 1611AV and then advocate people learning the Greek and Hebrew to get to the "bottom" of it. Which one is harder to learn for the average person, English or Greek and Hebrew? The early saints from 1611 on had no trouble with the 1611 AV - many learned how to read and write with using the 1611 Bible only. Poor argument - history disproves your theory.

6. Absolute nonsense - but you might look at where Paul substitutes the word "scripture" for God in Romans. In the OT the word was God but when Paul uses it it is "the scripture" - Rom. 9:17 - check it out - pretty careless of Paul, huh? And don't tell me I am saying the Bible is God.

7. Good? Again, your opinion - but very little good - if the newer versions verses match the KJV 1611 then it is good - if not then it is not. We are living in the age when Christianity is at it's height of worldliness, fleshliness, ignorance of sound doctrine, little impact on the world, etc. and you say good!!! When there was one Bible there was much more fruit, holiness and enlightened people - today without the newer versions we've gone down hill!!! Problem is you are comparing your Christianity with today and not the past from let's say arourd 1600-1900 or so.

8. Some of this might be true but my number 7 Point above is also true.

9. I see this can also mean that if one is against God's words then he may not know God or it could mean he is just rebllious when it comes to God's authority in his life - it can also mean that we, as Bible believers. are to dfend God's words agaisn those who would seek to take them away!!!
10. Thank you for that clear presentation of the gospel - and I sincerely mean that.

11. I am ina rush but just look at the websites - they are there - just type in NIV on Google and you will find them - if I took the time to show you would you believe me?

We know the message is there in all the new versions but because you can find a diamond in a septic tank does not make the septic tank a jewlery store.

Again, I don't talk this way to the average saint regarding this issue but this is a forum -

I have to run - enjoyed chatting with you.

 

[aggie03]

I'm disappointed. Not one person who supports the idea of "King James Version ONLY" asnwered the list of 22 questions - at least not to my knowledge. The attempts that were made seemed to consist of "you wouldn't listen anyway".

Is there any chance someone who believes this would be willing to go through and answer those questions? I'd really like to see the answers

 

[AVBunyan]

1. I'm disappointed. Not one person who supports the idea of "King James Version ONLY" asnwered the list of 22 questions - at least not to my knowledge."
1. Is there any chance someone who believes this would be willing to go through and answer those questions? I'd really like to see the answers

I understand your dissapointment - I at least explained at the end of my post why I wasn't gong to answer. Question for you - why are you dissapointed?
Because you are sincerely desirely answer to these issues? If that is the case then that is very commendable for you are seeking truth. Most of those who post those type of questions are just trying to play the game, "Let's Stump the KJB Believer" - they are not interested in truth - they are interested in taking awaying someone's faith in God's word because they don't have the same faith in the version they read so they resent some of us who do have faith in what they read.

2. If you are truly interested then reply to this post or to me through private message and I will seek to provide you with the sites, books and references to answer all those questions. Yes, it is a bit of work but by you answering them yourself then the information becomes yours and then nobody can talk you out of your Bible. I could do all research but it would be time consuming and I've answered many of those before on other forums and posts anyway. And, yes some are hard to prove and therefore some of my belief is by faith - but God told me to live by faith anyway. But to prove the newere versions are corrupt takes little effort to prove for a lost man can prove that. It takes very little study to see the corruptness in the newer versions. for someone not to see them is becuase there is a heart issue.

With that - I am out - nice chatting with you - you make a good point - I know you are looking for someone to answer the questions, I don't blame you. Again, I have 33 questions and I doubt JimB and others would answer them so why should I go through all the trouble to answer theirs when I believe they are not looking themselves.

Later and God bless

 

[thekingster]

My sig line indicated I won't argue...and I'll keep my promise.

BLUF: a translation is provided by man - as far as I know...God himself hasn't translated anything for us.

BLUF: Kindly produce any copy of scripture that existed in the first century.

BLUF: The Holy Trinity is not Father, Son, and the Holy Scriptures.

I will not argue with a fundamentalist baptist or any other.

Steven King
The Kingster†

 

[aggie03]

I understand your dissapointment - I at least explained at the end of my post why I wasn't gong to answer. Question for you - why are you dissapointed?
Because you are sincerely desirely answer to these issues? If that is the case then that is very commendable for you are seeking truth. Most of those who post those type of questions are just trying to play the game, "Let's Stump the KJB Believer" - they are not interested in truth - they are interested in taking awaying someone's faith in God's word because they don't have the same faith in the version they read so they resent some of us who do have faith in what they read.

2. If you are truly interested then reply to this post or to me through private message and I will seek to provide you with the sites, books and references to answer all those questions. Yes, it is a bit of work but by you answering them yourself then the information becomes yours and then nobody can talk you out of your Bible. I could do all research but it would be time consuming and I've answered many of those before on other forums and posts anyway. And, yes some are hard to prove and therefore some of my belief is by faith - but God told me to live by faith anyway. But to prove the newere versions are corrupt takes little effort to prove for a lost man can prove that. It takes very little study to see the corruptness in the newer versions. for someone not to see them is becuase there is a heart issue.

With that - I am out - nice chatting with you - you make a good point - I know you are looking for someone to answer the questions, I don't blame you. Again, I have 33 questions and I doubt JimB and others would answer them so why should I go through all the trouble to answer theirs when I believe they are not looking themselves.

Later and God bless

Yes I was really interested in hearing what you have to say in answer to those questions

I would also like to see the list of questions that you have if you don't mind. You can PM them to if you'd like, but I'll get them if you post them here in the thread, too

 

[AVBunyan]

1. BLUF: a translation is provided by man - as far as I know...God himself hasn't translated anything for us
2. BLUF: Kindly produce any copy of scripture that existed in the first century.
3. BLUF: The Holy Trinity is not Father, Son, and the Holy Scriptures.

1. "a translation is provided by man " - then I see you do not hold to the providential view of history
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

2. Show me where I have to
2 Cor 5:7 For we walk by faith, not by sight

3. Don't blame you lack of Bible understanding on the King James Bible - the common practice today is when one doesn't understand passges they assume that the King James Bible and they can stand in judgement on it.
2 Pet 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

BLUF - All the new versions passing being passed off as scripture.

The first thing the Devil did in Gen. 3 was to question God's word.

 

[Huldrych]

Hope you don't mind if I cut into this dance...

Thank you "thekingster" for your post.
1. I trust that you read my Part I on how myself and others I seek to treat the average saint on the street regarding this issue of authority. Again, I would never "acost" a believer over his version - if the opportunity comes up then I seek to graciously show (at his request) the issue and let him pray about it. On a forum where people attack the Bible I believe then it is different. Or if one hits me up on the street about my Bible then swords may be drawn because it is a real conviction with some of us - to others this issue of authority is nothing to them so they have no passion over it. Some of look at it when you attack our Bibles you are essentially attacking our Saviour - and NO WE DO NT WORSHIP A BOOK - I HAVE NEVER MET A KJB BELIEVER WHO DOES! This gets old and takes away from teh real issue which is one of final authority.

I would disagree with you on the "final authority" being in a book, if only because there is still the matter of interpreting that book. Final authority belongs ultimately to God.

2. All these terms - "translational theory" sound cute but the real issue is the texts of these vew versions and their attacks on the fundemental doctrines which we say we all are supposed to believe - they are very clear when you compare them side by side.

Doctrine, again, is a matter of interpretation. Two people can have the exact same Bible and disagree on what the passage means. For example, the gifts of the Spirit in 1. Cor 12-14. There are differences of opinion as to what the gifts actually are (e.g. prophecy and preaching) and whether or not they are for today.

Furthermore, the Bible is very redundant, and because one version doesn't read exactly the same as another does not necessarily mean it denies a certain point of doctrine. You've got to take the whole text into account.

3. Your opinion -just like you say it is my opinion that I believe the KJB is inspired. Are you and others saying the newer versions are inspired? If they are not inspired then they are not scripture according to II Tim. 3:15,16. I believe I have the scriptures and they are inspired according to II Tim. 3:15,16.

I like to extend the matter to more than just Bibles post-dating 1611. I read 16th century Bibles (Luther, Zürcher, de Reina). The differences are not as radical as Alexandrian-based Bibles, but they are there.

4. Show me one verse in ANY VERSION where only the originals are inspired! I just need one. Please read Jer. 36 for double inspiration. Also, Timothy had the scriptures in II Tim. 3:15 and they were inspired and they were not the originals.

Straw man argument. For both sides of the issue.

5. Heard this before - why go to a "dumbed down modern English" when the King James was written at the height of the English language. in 5th grade Englis at the time I thought the Holy Spirit was the teacher anyway. Many KJB critics make light of the "archaic" words of the 1611AV and then advocate people learning the Greek and Hebrew to get to the "bottom" of it. Which one is harder to learn for the average person, English or Greek and Hebrew? The early saints from 1611 on had no trouble with the 1611 AV - many learned how to read and write with using the 1611 Bible only. Poor argument - history disproves your theory.

There are some for whom the antiquated idioms are a genuine stumbling block. For their sakes, a different translation might be better.

7. Good? Again, your opinion - but very little good - if the newer versions verses match the KJV 1611 then it is good - if not then it is not. We are living in the age when Christianity is at it's height of worldliness, fleshliness, ignorance of sound doctrine, little impact on the world, etc. and you say good!!! When there was one Bible there was much more fruit, holiness and enlightened people - today without the newer versions we've gone down hill!!! Problem is you are comparing your Christianity with today and not the past from let's say arourd 1600-1900 or so.

Now here's where we are in some sort of agreement. I tend to believe that Reformation Bibles tend to be made from more solid stuff. This is pure conjecture, I know, but nonetheless, I believe the circumstances surrounding the authorship of Reformation Bibles was a lot more trying--there were immediate penalties for getting involved in such a project (look at Tyndale, and the danger the Swiss and German reformers lived under). That tended to weed out the riffraff, as compared to the relative luxury under which Bibles are translated nowadays (usually liberal ideas flourish under affluence).

9. I see this can also mean that if one is against God's words then he may not know God or it could mean he is just rebllious when it comes to God's authority in his life - it can also mean that we, as Bible believers. are to dfend God's words agaisn those who would seek to take them away!!!

So far, there has not been any substantial evidence proving that the KJV and the KJV alone is the sole repository of God's preserved words. To prove the Onlyist notion of preservation, there needs to be a Bible that lines up with the KJV perfectly in the ages predating 1611. So far, no one has been able to point to it.

10. Thank you for that clear presentation of the gospel - and I sincerely mean that.

It sounds like you understand that the ultimate goal is a Person--the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Good. Let's not lose sight of that. All our doctrine has its flaws. But if you have His Life within you, I tend to think that the umstrittene (fought-over) points of doctrine become less of an issue.

Pfürti,
jth

 

[AVBunyan]

1. Hope you don't mind if I cut into this dance...

2. I would disagree with you on the "final authority" being in a book, if only because there is still the matter of interpreting that book. Final authority belongs ultimately to God.

3. Furthermore, the Bible is very redundant, and because one version doesn't read exactly the same as another does not necessarily mean it denies a certain point of doctrine. You've got to take the whole text into account.

4. I like to extend the matter to more than just Bibles post-dating 1611. I read 16th century Bibles (Luther, Zürcher, de Reina). The differences are not as radical as Alexandrian-based Bibles, but they are there.

5. Straw man argument. For both sides of the issue.

6. So far, there has not been any substantial evidence proving that the KJV and the KJV alone is the sole repository of God's preserved words. To prove the Onlyist notion of preservation, there needs to be a Bible that lines up with the KJV perfectly in the ages predating 1611. So far, no one has been able to point to it.

7. It sounds like you understand that the ultimate goal is a Person--the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Good. Let's not lose sight of that. All our doctrine has its flaws. But if you have His Life within you, I tend to think that the umstrittene (fought-over) points of doctrine become less of an issue.

1. Welcome aboard - I appreciate your thoughts - I'm just trying to stay polite here - it is hard sometimes when people keep picking on my Bible but I'm a big boy - I have counted the cost. I admit I don't do a very good job of defending God's word but I gotta try!

2. You are right - God is the final authority - but how do you do know what God says if YOU DON'T HAVE HIS WORDS? I say His words are found in a 1611 AV - if a newer version has verses in it that match the 1611 then those are the words of God found in the newer versions. But as a whoele that newer version is NOT the word of God for it contains courrpt words not found inthe 1611 AV. I can call my 1611 AV the word of God.

3. Because it agrees on the doctrine in some places does that make it ok to attack it in other places?

4. I never said the word of God was not around prior to 1611 - what I am saying is what I have in my hands right this second is the pure words of God - how it got to this refinement matters not to me.

5. If you referring to translations not being inspired it is important - Timothy had the scriptures in II tim. 2:15 and according to vs. 16 they were inspired and they were not the originals - therefore there is not reason that what I have in my hands right now cannot be inspired also. If they are inspired then they are from God and contain no error (expcet for typos, printing, etc. or someone sneeking in to change Acts 7:45)

6. One more time with feeling - we walk by faith not by sight - this is a pretty good principle and sometimes I admit all we can go by - of course I look at the witness of history and see how God has blessed the 1611 but I really don't any results of the newer versions other than confusion, chaos, spiritual blindness, worldiness, etc. Now I know that this is a general statement and not all people who read the newer versions fall into the above description.

7. Thank you - this is a very important issue but how do you know one even has that right unless you have God's words on it (point #1).

Gotta go!!!! It's been fun. I know in this big hurry I did ot do the subject justice so please forgive me.

 

[Huldrych]

1. Welcome aboard - I appreciate your thoughts - I'm just trying to stay polite here - it is hard sometimes when people keep picking on my Bible but I'm a big boy - I have counted the cost. I admit I don't do a very good job of defending God's word but I gotta try!

It's usually not the KJV that non-Onlyists attack, but the manifold problems in Onlyism. Onlyists often have a hard time distinguishing the two.

If you are so easily riled up over what you perceive as "attacks," then you probably need to ask yourself why. Oftentimes Onlyists are very quick to resort to personal attacks, which to me seems to be a manifestation of fear. God has not given us a spirit again to fear, but of peace, love, and a sound mind.

His work doesn't need your defending. Nor mine. What really gets examined in discussions like these are what we know and why we believe it.

2. You are right - God is the final authority - but how do you do know what God says if YOU DON'T HAVE HIS WORDS? I say His words are found in a 1611 AV - if a newer version has verses in it that match the 1611 then those are the words of God found in the newer versions. But as a whoele that newer version is NOT the word of God for it contains courrpt words not found inthe 1611 AV. I can call my 1611 AV the word of God.

You want to establish standards based on your own opinions. Why should we not accept others' as well?

3. Because it agrees on the doctrine in some places does that make it ok to attack it in other places?

A Bible cannot "attack" another Bible any more than my copy of Bertolt Brecht's Arturo Ui can attack Gerda Dippmann's second edition of A Practical Review of German Grammar. All a translation does is try to present what a certain set of manuscripts says. It is people who evaluate for themselves whether or not the translation does a good job.

4. I never said the word of God was not around prior to 1611

Good--given any thought as to where the Word of God was then?

5. If you referring to translations not being inspired it is important - Timothy had the scriptures in II tim. 2:15 and according to vs. 16 they were inspired and they were not the originals - therefore there is not reason that what I have in my hands right now cannot be inspired also. If they are inspired then they are from God and contain no error (expcet for typos, printing, etc. or someone sneeking in to change Acts 7:45)

And what gives the KJV exclusive rights to this that any other version could not also claim?

6. One more time with feeling - we walk by faith not by sight - this is a pretty good principle and sometimes I admit all we can go by - of course I look at the witness of history and see how God has blessed the 1611 but I really don't any results of the newer versions other than confusion, chaos, spiritual blindness, worldiness, etc. Now I know that this is a general statement and not all people who read the newer versions fall into the above description.

In regards to a view of history, I've noticed how most Onlyists tend to emphasize those few parts most convenient to their stand. Other parts they tend to either overlook or re-interpret to bolster the credibility of their POV.

Truth of the matter is, Christianity was around a lot longer than 1611. Bibles existed long before then, and the gospel proliferated without the help of the KJV. Where was the KJV during the Reformation, or when the first religious communities were established in our country? Did the Waldensians use the KJV?

Regarding confusion, chaos, and the other problems you mentioned, these problems go far deeper than the text used. Get a room full of Onlyists from different churches, and chaos and confusion would reign there as well (musing over your tagline)--they'd be in unity over which Bible to read, but that would be about it.

7. Thank you - this is a very important issue but how do you know one even has that right unless you have God's words on it (point #1).

Faith, brother, faith. How else can you know anything about the Lord?

jth

 

[thekingster]

I promised that I would not flame...and I will stick to my promise.

While it is true that our walk is one of the faith, a faith which the Bible clearly states as by "faith" as in Heb 11, it is prudent to point out, once again, that it is from the earliest Greek whereby we uncover this truth. Not King Jame's quick translation in 1611.

I also agree that the pre-1611 Bibles, such as Vulgate, were being utilized...so is it to God's folly that no "authorized" version existed prior?

My journeys through life have proven (and apparently here again) that Onlyists are very limited in their intrepretive abilities. In concession, I state unashamedly that I will not engage over circular arguments.

Give me Jesus....and Him only...
Steven King
The Kingster†