KJV Only?

[DeaconDean]

33. Providential Preservation and Inerrancy

Defenders of the TR often invoke the doctrine of providential preservation to claim that God preserved his word specially in the TR or the Byzantine family. Providential preservation is a doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1.8). The obvious problem with applying providential preservation word-for-word to the TR is that, while wide variances occurred in the Greek NT manuscripts in general and in the Alexandrian family in particular, the Byzantine manuscripts themselves also exhibited variants, and there are even a number of minor variations in the TR line. So one would need to answer which of the multiple TR’s between 1516 and 1894 was providentially preserved. Some KJV-only advocates believe that Scrivener’s 1894 edition, that has all the sources for the King James, is the one.

Since textual variation impacts the doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility, the denominations of the church that give priority to the Bible as the ultimate source of truth and revelation also address those issues. In the late nineteenth century B. B. Warfield proposed the doctrine of the inerrancy of the autograph, and this solution has been widely adopted. Inerrancy, however, did not extend to the copies​

​

Dennis Kenaga, Skeptical Tends in New Testament Textual Criticism: Inside the Alexandrian Priority and Why Bible Change is Coming, Section33: Providential Preservation and Innerrancy, p. 40

Need I remind people what what was said in The Belgic Confession of 1561:

Therefore we must not consider human writings—no matter how holy their authors may have been—
equal to the divine writings; nor may we put custom, nor the majority,
nor age, nor the passage of times or persons, nor councils, decrees, or official decisions above the truth of God, for truth is above everything else.

For all human beings are liars by nature and more vain than vanity itself.

Therefore we reject with all our hearts everything that does not agree
with this infallible rule, as we are taught to do by the apostles when they say, “Test the spirits to see if they are from God,” and also,
“Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you
and does not bring this teaching.”

And in the Article: "The Greece New Testament: Alexandrian versus Byzentine text families, I also quote in support:

This Bible is undoubtedly the Word of God. The Reformed position over many centuries accepts that small errors were introduced with the copying of the Bible, but that it by no means affects the essence or the authority of the (Belgic confession arts 3 – 7) .

Source

B.B. Warfield, in his article "Inspiration" indeed shows that "inspiration" and inerrancy belonged to the "original autographs".

But here again, this debate has been ongoing for how many thousands of years?

Sheer arrogance alone will not allow anybody to admit that in our bibles, there is not some form of error. That is human nature. Although no error that I know of effects any doctrine on which Christianity stands or falls. There are errors, whether it was a scribe who shortened, or a scribe who lengthened, or a scribe who corrected, or one who edited from their exemplar, or from haplology.

I repeat what I said earlier. The KJV has served the Christian community for over 400 years, and provided the Lord tarries, it will serve the Christian community for another 400 years well. But in light that when the TR was composed, there were perhaps only 40-50 MSS available, and now that we have over 5660, a daunting task faces textual critics. But should they stop because "God has preserved His word in the KJV"?

To quote Paul: "God forbid".

But there are those who wish the church and Christianity to stand static as it has for the last 200 years. There is no need for research and textual criticism as we have the original autographs in the KJV.

Yea, right.

God Bless

Till all are one.

​

 

[charles at doctrineprimer]

..and then of course; What about the Hispanic family along the street that uses the Reina-Valera version in Spanish?

Funny thing about that; I have heard die hard KJV users say that any translation that was not translated by using the KJV as its source, it is not the Word of God.

 

[Hupomone10]

There's power in the blood!
Colossians 1:14

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Satan hates the Atoning Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, so we shouldn't be surprised to find the blood missing in modern translations:
NIV....... redemption, the forgiveness of sins
NASB... redemption, the forgiveness of sins
NRSV... redemption, the forgiveness of sins
REB..... our release is secured and our sins are forgiven
NWT.... we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of sins
NAB...... redemption, the forgiveness of our sins
It's not about Erasmus,he simply presented the error of translation in the Vulgate.

It's about if what you read is the inspired Word of God and does it support the Devine nature of Christ.

Forgive me for coming late to the discussion and if this has already been answered, but in the NASB we find:

Romans 3:25
whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;

Romans 5:9
Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

Ephesians 1:7
In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace.

If Satan caused it to be taken out of one verse, but left it in three other verses, it would seem that Satan is divided against himself.
"If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished!"
Mark 3:26

Perhaps Satan thought we wouldn't read those other verses (?)

Blessings,
H.

 

[charles at doctrineprimer]

When reading any translation, one must do a proper and careful study of the Word of God in order to understand the passages he or she is reading. Doctrine comes from the original languages and never from a translation. So, if one wants to study the Word of God, it is a good idea to pull in many resources to help aid one's understanding and correct any misconceptions and possible errors caused by the translation itself.

 

[DeaconDean]

Romans 3:25
whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;

Romans 5:9
Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

Ephesians 1:7
In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace.

If Satan caused it to be taken out of one verse, but left it in three other verses, it would seem that Satan is divided against himself.
"If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished!"
Mark 3:26

Perhaps Satan thought we wouldn't read those other verses (?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdKfaXYnMNs

Sometimes when I’m weary Satan wars with my soul
To get my mind off of the cross
Then I start fighting battles Christ has already won
And a war Satan’s already lost.

(Chorus)

Oh if I hold fast to the foot of the cross
I’ll be caught in its life - cleansing flood
If I’d stay on my knees when Satan wants me
Then he’d have to walk through the blood.

Oh can you picture Calvary and one spotless lamb
That suffered and died for my sin
His blood ran so deep that it covered my soul
And Satan you can not enter in

(Repeat Chorus)

And it’s there in the blood I find mercy and grace
And and all of the power that I need

(Repeat Chorus)

Tag: If I’d stay on my knees when Satan wants me
Then he’d have to walk through the blood The blood!

The Freemans, "He'd Have To Walk Through The Blood"

Thank God for the Blood!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Jack Koons]

The following quote was posted by DeaconDean.

"Therefore we must not consider human writings—no matter how holy their authors may have been—
equal to the divine writings; nor may we put custom, nor the majority,
nor age, nor the passage of times or persons, nor councils, decrees, or official decisions above the truth of God, for truth is above everything else.

For all human beings are liars by nature and more vain than vanity itself.

Therefore we reject with all our hearts everything that does not agree
with this infallible rule, as we are taught to do by the apostles when they say, “Test the spirits to see if they are from God,” and also,
“Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you
and does not bring this teaching.”


I hope that DeaconDean is not insinuating that either he or the writers of the Belgic Confession of 1561 believe[d] the Bible to be considered "human writings". Need I elaborate more?

Jack

 

[Jack Koons]

When reading any translation, one must do a proper and careful study of the Word of God in order to understand the passages he or she is reading. Doctrine comes from the original languages and never from a translation. So, if one wants to study the Word of God, it is a good idea to pull in many resources to help aid one's understanding and correct any misconceptions and possible errors caused by the translation itself.

So it is now impossible for the Holy Spirit to convey proper doctrine to anyone, unless they have studied, and received their understanding from the original languages.

May I simply say, the God I serve has revealed Bible doctrine to layman all around this world, who have never studied the original languages.

Folks, we really need to think before we write.

I happened to think, for example, that JR (Cubanito), has some pretty good understanding of Bible doctrine. He has testified several times that he is a layman, with no formal training in the original languages of the Bible.

Think about it.

Jack

 

[kiwimac]

KJV-Onlyism limits God, exalts a mere translation to the status of God by insisting it is inerrant and perfect and is a heresy of the worst kind.

 

[Jack Koons]

KJV-Onlyism limits God, exalts a mere translation to the status of God by insisting it is inerrant and perfect and is a heresy of the worst kind.

So now you're telling me that I'm a heretic of the worst kind. How kind of you.

Jack

 

[PrincetonGuy]

So it is now impossible for the Holy Spirit to convey proper doctrine to anyone, unless they have studied, and received their understanding from the original languages.

May I simply say, the God I serve has revealed Bible doctrine to layman all around this world, who have never studied the original languages.

Folks, we really need to think before we write.

I happened to think, for example, that JR (Cubanito), has some pretty good understanding of Bible doctrine. He has testified several times that he is a layman, with no formal training in the original languages of the Bible.

Think about it.

Jack

Upon my believing in Jesus and being baptized in the Holy Spirit, I had an almost insatiable love for the word of God in the Bible. The only translation of the Bible that I owned was a KJV and I read it through, cover to cover, three times—underlining many passages and writing many notes anywhere on the pages where I could find room to write. I then read through the New Testament twelve more times. Having done that, and having heard the Bible preached and taught from the KJV for a few years, I acquired a copy of the New Testament in the RSV and began reading it. Totally to my surprise, some of the verses were not familiar to me. Therefore, I compared them to verses in the KJV and realized for the first time that I had not correctly understood those verses when I read them in the KJV.

I had already earned a masters degree from an excellent university with a minor and additional courses in English literature, so I was not a poor reader—the problem had to be with the English in the KJV. I finished reading the New Testament in the RSV and had a much better understanding of the Bible. A friend gave me a NASB and I read it also, and compared it with the KJV and the RSV and saw that the three translations frequently differed in meaning. I wanted to know which meaning, if any of them, was correct—leading me to get an academic education in the Bible in the original languages. That education was essential in order to enable me to read the Holy Scriptures (rather than mere translations of them), and to enable me to read academic studies of the biblical texts in the original languages.

More years have passed, and the Holy Spirit is still teaching me from the Bible and from those who studied the Bible before me. Indeed, a Baptist preacher named Charles Haddon Spurgeon once wrote,

In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others.​

 

[Jack Koons]

Upon my believing in Jesus and being baptized in the Holy Spirit, I had an almost insatiable love for the word of God in the Bible. The only translation of the Bible that I owned was a KJV and I read it through, cover to cover, three times—underlining many passages and writing many notes anywhere on the pages where I could find room to write. I then read through the New Testament twelve more times. Having done that, and having heard the Bible preached and taught from the KJV for a few years, I acquired a copy of the New Testament in the RSV and began reading it. Totally to my surprise, some of the verses were not familiar to me. Therefore, I compared them to verses in the KJV and realized for the first time that I had not correctly understood those verses when I read them in the KJV.

I had already earned a masters degree from an excellent university with a minor and additional courses in English literature, so I was not a poor reader—the problem had to be with the English in the KJV. I finished reading the New Testament in the RSV and had a much better understanding of the Bible. A friend gave me a NASB and I read it also, and compared it with the KJV and the RSV and saw that the three translations frequently differed in meaning. I wanted to know which meaning, if any of them, was correct—leading me to get an academic education in the Bible in the original languages. That education was essential in order to enable me to read the Holy Scriptures (rather than mere translations of them), and to enable me to read academic studies of the biblical texts in the original languages.

More years have passed, and the Holy Spirit is still teaching me from the Bible and from those who studied the Bible before me. Indeed, a Baptist preacher named Charles Haddon Spurgeon once wrote,

In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others.​

PrincetonGuy,

I argue not with the Prince of Preachers. The value of the studies of those who have gone before us is of great value. My point had NOTHING to do with them whatsoever. It was merely a simple, yet direct declaration that He who made the diverse languages at the Tower of Babel, is not limited to convey His truth in ONLY the original languages as stated by another. Furthermore, we have the internal witness of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

This means that without the aid of the Holy Spirit, even the Greek speaking people in the Church of Corinth, could not discern what the Apostle Paul wrote in his epistle. My kind sir, I completely support the learning of the original languages. But with that being said, my point was that the Holy Spirit is NOT LIMITED to give discernment on ONLY the original languages. I'm quite sure, that even with your fine education; your knowledge of English, Greek, and Hebrew, does not surpass that of the Holy Spirit.

Jack

 

[PrincetonGuy]

PrincetonGuy,

I argue not with the Prince of Preachers. The value of the studies of those who have gone before us is of great value. My point had NOTHING to do with them whatsoever. It was merely a simple, yet direct declaration that He who made the diverse languages at the Tower of Babel, is not limited to convey His truth in ONLY the original languages as stated by another. Furthermore, we have the internal witness of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

This means that without the aid of the Holy Spirit, even the Greek speaking people in the Church of Corinth, could not discern what the Apostle Paul wrote in his epistle. My kind sir, I completely support the learning of the original languages. But with that being said, my point was that the Holy Spirit is NOT LIMITED to give discernment on ONLY the original languages. I'm quite sure, that even with your fine education; your knowledge of English, Greek, and Hebrew, does not surpass that of the Holy Spirit.

Jack

We all agree that the Holy Spirit “is NOT LIMITED to give discernment on ONLY the original languages.” Indeed, most of what the Holy Spirit has taught me through the Scriptures was not dependent upon my knowledge of the biblical languages—or even upon the use of much more accurate translations of the Bible than the KJV. However, studying the Bible based upon the biblical languages substantially aids the student in his familiarity with the voice of the Holy Spirit, greatly helping him to discern what is true and what is not. Additionally, studying the Bible based upon the biblical languages substantially aids the student in recognizing poor or inadequate translations of the Scriptures—not to mention greatly aiding the student in discerning the genuineness of textual variants in both the Old and the New Testaments.

Spurgeon wrote of the commentary on the Bible by Adam Clarke, “Despite some few oddities, this is one of the most learned of English expositions.” This is quite a compliment considering that Adam Clarke was a Methodist who staunchly held to Arminian interpretations of the Scriptures and who unequivocally rejected all Five Points of Calvinism—a compliment that was largely due to Adam Clarke’s familiarity with the biblical and other ancient languages that are so very useful in studying the Scriptures.

 

[James Is Back]

Where did you learn the Biblical languages at PG?

 

[Jack Koons]

We all agree that the Holy Spirit “is NOT LIMITED to give discernment on ONLY the original languages.” Indeed, most of what the Holy Spirit has taught me through the Scriptures was not dependent upon my knowledge of the biblical languages—or even upon the use of much more accurate translations of the Bible than the KJV. However, studying the Bible based upon the biblical languages substantially aids the student in his familiarity with the voice of the Holy Spirit, greatly helping him to discern what is true and what is not. Additionally, studying the Bible based upon the biblical languages substantially aids the student in recognizing poor or inadequate translations of the Scriptures—not to mention greatly aiding the student in discerning the genuineness of textual variants in both the Old and the New Testaments.

Spurgeon wrote of the commentary on the Bible by Adam Clarke, “Despite some few oddities, this is one of the most learned of English expositions.” This is quite a compliment considering that Adam Clarke was a Methodist who staunchly held to Arminian interpretations of the Scriptures and who unequivocally rejected all Five Points of Calvinism—a compliment that was largely due to Adam Clarke’s familiarity with the biblical and other ancient languages that are so very useful in studying the Scriptures.

I would agree with much of what you have stated above. The one point where we will simply agree to disagree, is the following:

... or even upon the use of much more accurate translations of the Bible than the KJV. ...

It is clear that there are those who are learned in the original languages of the Bible, who have differing, and even opposing views of which Bible is, [or are] superior, as well as which MSS are superior.

I thank you for your professional mannerism during this dialog. (Something some have not yet learned to appreciate.)

Jack

 

[charles at doctrineprimer]

So it is now impossible for the Holy Spirit to convey proper doctrine to anyone, unless they have studied, and received their understanding from the original languages.

May I simply say, the God I serve has revealed Bible doctrine to layman all around this world, who have never studied the original languages.

Folks, we really need to think before we write.

I happened to think, for example, that JR (Cubanito), has some pretty good understanding of Bible doctrine. He has testified several times that he is a layman, with no formal training in the original languages of the Bible.

Think about it.

Jack

The KJV is the only Bible I use and the only one I quote from and the Holy Spirit reveals much doctrine to me from it. Just as Jesus Christ used the LXX during His day, we too can use the KJV in our day to come to know God.

Because we have such a wonderful translation available to us, no man, who can speak English, will be held without excuse in the Day of Judgement because he did not come to a saving knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

With that said, the Holy Spirit uses what we know personally to reveal to us doctrine (i.e. knowledge of God). The more we know the more the Holy Spirit can use to help understand the truths within the Word of God. We must understand that the KJV is a translation and therefore, for clarity and proper meaning, we need to consult the original language. Although Websters Dictionary is an excellent tool to use for the study of the Word of God to help clarify difficult English words, it cannot be a good reference for difficult Greek, Hebrew, or Chaldean words.

The original languages should always be consulted for a much closer study of the Word of God. It is like slipping on a pair of glasses in order to see better. We can get doctrine from the KJV, but we can get a much deeper understanding and solid footing of that doctrine from the language that that doctrine came from. We have the original languages available to us today and there is no excuse in not consulting them. Even though we are no longer taught Greek in our schools anymore, we have a slew of Greek study tools at our disposal. The same holds true for the Hebrew and Chaldean.

Do you not consult Strong's concordance of the Bible?

 

[Matt Faith]

I like the King James Bible, I probably read that version the most. But I also own and read the New King James, the NASB, the ESV and the NET. I think its good to have other translations to, so you can compare verses etc.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I like the King James Bible, I probably read that version the most. But I also own and read the New King James, the NASB, the ESV and the NET. I think its good to have other translations to, so you can compare verses etc.

It can be helpful to compare verses. I appreciate the King James a lot also.

 

[now faith]

What I do not understand,is the variants and deletions from the Textus Recptus and the Critical Text.

I should say the lack of concern that so many verses have been omitted or changed.

The context is important in most of the changes,it is easy to pull down comparable side by side verses.

Here are just a few from Wickopedia:

MT: And the disciples were astonished at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, “Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God!
CT: And the disciples were astonished at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!
Mark 11:26

MT: But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses.
CT: Verse omitted
Mark 14:19

MT: And they began to be sorrowful, and to say to Him one by one, “Is it I?” And another said, “Is it I?”
CT: And they began to be sorrowful, and to say to Him one by one, “Is it I?”
Mark 15:28

MT: So the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And He was numbered with the transgressors.
CT: Verse omitted
Mark 16:9-20

Omitted in the critical text.

These changes continue through out.
Why not study every deletion or change in the New Testament,then decide if you are pleased with what you learn?

 

[ImADaughterOfGod]

Yes, I am KJV Only

 

[Avid]

... These changes continue through out.
Why not study every deletion or change in the New Testament,then decide if you are pleased with what you learn?

Had a friend compare her Bible with the KJV when she said her's was just fine. We went over the following list, and about 2/3 or 3/4 through, she put her NASV down, picked up the KJV, and never looked back. I know this because we later married, and that was well over 30 years ago.

200 Omissions
from Modern Versions
of the Bible
that are in the KJV
​

http://www.achristianspirit.com/200VERSES.HTML

You would find that a comparison using the Geneva & KJV would not yield any omissions that are listed. I'd be using the Geneva, but the English has not been kept up-to-date as it was with the KJV.
.