KJV-Onlyism. Why should I believe it?

[SwordoftheLord]

All Bible translations frequently translate a singular masculine absolute noun as a plural. In this same book of Deuteronomy, in just the first 10 chapters, the NKJV, NIV and NASB do this very thing. Deut. 8:15 “nachash” & “aqrab” (singular nouns) are translated by all as “serpents & scorpions”, in Deut. 1:19, 20 “har” is mountains in the NKJV, Deut 1:1, 2:37 “bahar” and “har” as hills or mountains in NKJV, KJB, and NIV. Deut. 1:23, 35 and in many other places “ish” as “men”; Dt. 3:3 “sarid” as survivors in NIV, NKJV; Deut. 5:15 “ebed” slaves in NIV, Deut. 7:9 “dowr” generations in NIV & NKJV; Deut. 8:8 “rimmown” as pomegranates in NASB, NIV and NKJV; Deut. 9:ll, 18, 25 “layil” as “nights” in NASB, NIV and NKJV; and Deut. 10:19 “gare” as strangers or aliens in NIV, NKJV, and NASB.
So the person who tries to attack the KJB for rendering a singular noun as a plural, just doesn’t know what he is talking about. Because of the “horns” plural, the KJB has made the singular noun as plural in the context. There are many words like this in English which can be either singular or plural like: deer, sheep, moose, elk, fish and trout etc.
The historic rabbinic commentary (Ibn Ezra, Radaq, Rashi, Saadi Gaon et. al.) views on Deuteronomy 33:17, and the re'em question in general support the King James reading in Deuteronomy. As an example Radaq (Kimchi) is considered, historically, as the single most important Hebrew linguist and grammatical expert. Go to the link (it is still active as of Feb. 2010) and scroll down to Discussion #115 where he talks about the Lion and the Unicorn.
http://britam.org/proof3.html
Rabbi David Kimchi (Safer HaShorashim, RAEM): His horns are like the horns of unicorns (Deuteronomy 33:17). "It is intended to mean that his horns are like the horns of (several) unicorns for the Raem has only one horn."
The Unicorn was a one horned animal of some kind. I don’t think we know for sure what it was, but it was not a wild ox as the NKJV, NASB, NIV have it. It could not be tamed (Job 39: 9, 10) and Psalm 92:10 is speaking of a one horned animal, while the "wild ox" of the NKJV, NIV, NASB has two horns; not just one.
One definite possibility is the Indian rhinoceros, of which there are still about 2000 alive today. They used to cover large areas, but are now limited to India and Nepal. They weigh about 4,500 pounds, can run at over 20 miles an hour; they have one large horn on the snout and their scientific name is Rhinoceros UNICORNIS.
In the original 1611 edition of the KJB, the editors placed “or Rhinoceros” in the margin of Isaiah 34:7 where it reads: “And the unicorns shall come down with them.” It is still in the modern editions of the KJB. So the KJB editors were not ignorant of the possibility of the unicorn being a rhinoceros. I do not know, nor does any one else but God, what the unicorn was or is.
Jerome in the 4th century translated the Hebrew word Reem as Rhinocerotis five times and Unicornis four times. Jerome studied Hebrew under the Jews before he began his translation of the OT, thus it is from the Jews directly that Jerome derived his definitions.
The Unicorn was a one horned animal of great strength; it could not be tamed, and it is always used in a good and positive sense in Scripture. The KJB is not in error by translating this word as unicorn, but the modern versions are just taking a wild guess with their “wild oxen” and the other scriptures show their wild guess to be wrong.

Unicorns - Another King James Bible Believer (info taken from this site)

 

[Skala]

I am not a huge fan of Gail, but come on please... Use someone other than James White and his bogus website. He has been caught misquoting, and using half quotes numerous times (and this is by non KJVO people)... I just used Gail, because she is no differant that James by putting in half truths and flat out lying sometimes in his work. No offense Brother, but James White is the last person I would use from a non KJVO stance.

Also Gail is the last person I would use from a KJVO stance, pulling out one part of one of her books wont work in a debate, because she isnt perfect, but she has some great info in one of her books "In Awe of Thy Word"...

Ok, I have some questions and observations:

1) Why do you not deal directly with the subject matter, (ie, Gail's algebra) but instead choose to attack James White. That's ad hominem, or distracting the discussion away from the issue and making it more personal.

That being said, do you agree with Gail's algebra? Also, do you agree that "s" is an evil letter?

2) Can you provide evidence for your assertions that James White publishes lies and half truths? This is a pretty bold accusation. If you cannot back it up, it isn't wise to publicly defame a fellow professing Christian.

 

[Skala]

Regarding unicorn:

I never said the KJV was in error. That's a strawman of my argument. In fact I affirmed that unicorn was fine at the time of translation because everyone knew that it was from the Latin unicornus.

It's the KJVO's that say other translations are in error for NOT using the word "unicorn".

Thanks for responding thus far. I am really curious what your response will be to the whole Erasmus issue, and how apparently his theology didn't compromise his translation, but other Christians' theology does (such as wescott and hort?) This might not be your particular stance, but much, if not the majority of KJVO material I used to study, in attempting to attack other translations, such as the NIV, always made it a point to point out the errors in the theology of the translators.

 

[SwordoftheLord]

Also heres a good online book written that you might like.. 7 short chapters, but worth a look through:

Purified Seven Times

 

[Skala]

Also heres a good online book written that you might like.. 7 short chapters, but worth a look through:

Purified Seven Times

In just a quick glance at your link some red flags already went up brother. For example:

'What the publishers do not tell you is that the new versions are missing parts of verses and even complete verses, while corrupting the word of God."

Doesn't this assume and presuppose (with no evidence or reason given) that what is in the TR was intended to be there by the Holy Spirit?

Why is this presupposed even though older manuscripts do not have certain included words or phrases? They never bother to entertain the thought that the TR might have extra words and phrases that the apostles never wrote.

They simply say that since some mss have less words than the TR, that automatically means the TR is correct and they are wrong.

They start out every single argument and article with this presupposition, and just expect their reader to take their word for it.

 

[SwordoftheLord]

Regarding unicorn:

I never said the KJV was in error. That's a strawman of my argument. In fact I affirmed that unicorn was fine at the time of translation because everyone knew that it was from the Latin unicornus.

It's the KJVO's that say other translations are in error for NOT using the word "unicorn".

Thanks for responding thus far. I am really curious what your response will be to the whole Erasmus issue, and how apparently his theology didn't compromise his translation, but other Christians' theology does (such as wescott and hort?) This might not be your particular stance, but much, if not the majority of KJVO material I used to study, in attempting to attack other translations, such as the NIV, always made it a point to point out the errors in the theology of the translators.

I never said you disagreed with the actual translation. I was just using your post about Unicorns to show that some believe it is still a inaccurate translation, but when you look into it, the KJV is still a better translation with "unicorn" then some modern versions whcih use "oxen" or "ox"... That wasnt directed at you, but just based upon you mentioning it... sorry if you took it that way Brother. Since I believe the "unicorn" was used to describe a one horned animal, when a modern translation uses the word "oxen" which is two horned, then it is incorrectly translating it.. I believe some modern versions translate it "rhino" which IMO could be a proper translation in proper context.


As for erasmus, I will post a reply on him in a few mins

 

[SwordoftheLord]

In just a quick glance at your link some red flags already went up brother. For example:

'What the publishers do not tell you is that the new versions are missing parts of verses and even complete verses, while corrupting the word of God."

Doesn't this assume and presuppose (with no evidence or reason given) that what is in the TR was intended to be there by the Holy Spirit?

Why is this presupposed even though older manuscripts do not have certain included words or phrases? They never bother to entertain the thought that the TR might have extra words and phrases that the apostles never wrote.

They simply say that since some mss have less words than the TR, that automatically means the TR is correct and they are wrong.

They start out every single argument and article with this presupposition, and just expect their reader to take their word for it.

This Goes back to which side of the Manuscripts you agree with... Those from Antioch vs those from Alexandria... According to the Bible, I will stick with Antioch Of course I could go further into this, But I would go with the Bible which around 95% of the manuscripts agree with (which is the KJV).

Instead of being like James White and using the "Oldest Manuscript" arguemnt, which would entail I believe around 3% of those that date that far back and agree with the manuscripts used for Modern Versions. 3% may be a rounded number, it could possibly be a little higher or lower..

However once we get into this issue, then we can talk about the manuscripts Sinaticus and Vanaticus (sp?), now I personally dont get into the trash-can story.. But most modern versions are translated from the Greek Texts containing basically these two main texts.
The two men most responsible for modern alterations in the New Testament text were B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, whose Greek New Testament text has largely replaced the traditional Textus Receptus in modern seminaries, especially as revised and updated by the Germans Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland. All of these men were evolutionists. Furthermore, Westcott and Hort, although they were Anglican officials and nominally orthodox in theology, both denied Biblical inerrancy and promoted spiritism and racism. Nestle and Aland, like Kittel, were Gemman theological liberals.
Westcott and Hort were also the most influential members of the English revision committee that produced the English Revised Version of the Bible, published in 1881. The corresponding American revision committee which developed the American Standard Version of 1901 was headed by another liberal evolutionist, Philip Schaff. Most new versions since that time have adopted the same presuppositions as did those 19th century revisers. Schaff was twice tried for heresy by his denomination and taught at the very liberal Union Seminary. As chairman of the revision committee, Schaff not only was greatly influenced by Westcott and Hort, but also by the Unitarians Ezra Abbot and Joseph Thayer, of Harvard, as well as other liberals whom he placed on the committee.
Furthermore, the changes adopted by the Westcott-Hort (or Nestle-Aland) Greek texts were predominantly based on two old Greek manuscripts, the so-called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts, which were rediscovered and rescued from long (and well-deserved) obscurity in the 19th century. Since these are both supposedly older than the more than 5000 manuscripts that support the Textus Receptus, they were accepted as "better." This was in spite of the fact that they frequently disagreed with each other as well as with the Textus Receptus, and also contained many serious and obvious omissions. The Vatican manuscript, for example, leaves out most of Genesis as well as all of Revelation, in addition to the pastoral epistles of Paul, 33 psalms, and over a third of Hebrews.
The fact that these two manuscripts are older obviously does not prove they are better. More likely it indicates that they were set aside and not used because of their numerous gross errors. Thus they would naturally last longer than the good manuscripts which were being used regularly and thus wore out sooner.

 

[SwordoftheLord]

By Erasmus are you meaning that he was a Catholic?

Of course that has been brought up, but looking at the Roman Catholic Forbidden books list, it included his Greek Text...

Desiderius Erasmus was born in 1466 and died in 1536 at the age of seventy. This was no mean feat during the days when the plagues, coupled with primeval medical practices, worked together to limit the average age of a man's life to approximately 35-40 years.Both of his parents fell victim to that same plague while Erasmus was just a lad. He and his brother were then placed in the care of an uncle who promptly sent them off to a monastery just to be rid of them. Thus Erasmus's destiny was sealed long before he could ever have a say in the matter.Young Erasmus became well known for his charm, urbanity and wit, and was in possession of an obviously above average intellect. He was later to choose to be an Augustinian on the sole attribute that they were known to have the finest of libraries.His behavior was somewhat bizarre by Augustinian standards. He refused to keep vigils, never hesitated to eat meat on Fridays, and though ordained, chose never to function as a priest. The Roman Church had captured his body, but quite apparently his mind and heart were still unfettered.He is known to history as one of the most prolific writers of all times.Erasmus was a constant and verbal opponent of the many excesses of his church. He berated the papacy, the priesthood and the over indulgences of the monks. He stated that the monks would not touch money, but that they were not so scrupulous concerning wine and women. He constantly attacked clerical concubinage and the cruelty with which the Roman Catholic Church dealt with so called "heretics." He is even credited with saving a man from the Inquisition.

• 
  One of his many writings consisted of a tract entitled "Against the Barbarians" which was directed against the overt wickedness of the Roman Catholic Church.
  
  He was a constant critic of Pope Julius and the papal monarchy. He often compared the crusade leading Pope Julius to Julius Caesar. He is quoted as saying, "How truly is Julius playing the part of Julius." He also stated, "This monarchy of the Roman pontiff is the pest of Christendom." He advised the church to "get rid of the Roman See." When a scathing satire, in which Pope Julius was portrayed as going to Hell, written in anonymity was circulated, it was fairly common knowledge that its author was Erasmus.
  
  He was offered a bishopric in hopes that it would silence his criticism. He rejected the bribe flat.
  
  Erasmus published five editions of the New Testament in Greek. They were brought out successively in 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535. His first two editions did not contain I John 5:7 although the reading had been found in many non-Greek texts dating back as early as 150 A.D. Erasmus desired to include the verse but knew the conflict that would rage if he did so without at least one Greek manuscript for authority. Following the publication of his second edition, which like his first consisted of both the Greek New Testament and his own Latin translation, he said that he would include I John 5:7 in his next edition if just one Greek manuscript could be found which contained it. Opponents of the reading today erringly charge that the two manuscripts found had been specially produced just to oblige Erasmus's request, but this charge has never been validated and was not held at the time of Erasmus's work.
  
  The Roman Catholic Church criticized his works for his refusal to use Jerome's Latin translation, a translation that he said was inaccurate. He opposed Jerome's translation in two vital areas.
  
  He detected that the Greek text had been corrupted as early as the fourth century. He knew that Jerome's translation had been based solely on the Alexandrian manuscript, Vaticanus, written itself early in the fourth century.
  
  He also differed with Jerome on the translation of certain passages which were vital to the claimed authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
  
  Jerome rendered Matthew 4:17 thus: "Do penance, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand."
  
  Erasmus differed with: "Be penitent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
  
  Erasmus was also a staunch defender of both Mark 16:9-21 and John 8:1-12. Zeal which our modern day scholars cannot seem to find.
  
  Possibly Erasmus's greatest gift to mankind was his attitude toward the common man. In the rigidly "classed" society in which he lived, he was an indefatigable advocate of putting the Scripture in the hands of the common man. While Jerome's Latin had been translated at the bidding of the Roman hierarchy, Erasmus translated his Latin with the express purpose of putting it into the hands of the common people of his day. A practice that the Roman Catholic Church knew could be dangerous to its plan to control the masses.
  
  Erasmus is quoted as saying, "Do you think that the Scriptures are fit only for the perfumed?" "I venture to think that anyone who reads my translation at home will profit thereby." He boldly stated that he longed to see the Bible in the hands of "the farmer, the tailor, the traveler and the Turk." Later, to the astonishment of his upper classed colleagues, he added "the masons, the prostitutes and the pimps" to that declaration.
  
  Knowing his desire to see the Bible in the hands of God's common people, it seems not so surprising that God was to use his Greek text for the basis of the English Bible that was translated with the common man in mind, the King James Bible.
  
  It has been said that "Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched." There is probably far more truth to this statement than can be casually discerned. For the reformers were armed with Erasmus's Bible, his writings and his attitude of resistance to Roman Catholic intimidation. Of Luther he said, "I favor Luther as much as I can, even if my cause is everywhere linked with his." He wrote several letters on Luther's behalf, and wholeheartedly agreed with him that salvation was entirely by grace, not works.
  
  He refused pressure by his Roman Catholic superiors to denounce Luther as a heretic. If Erasmus had turned the power of his pen on Luther, it would undoubtedly have caused far more damage than the powerless threats of the pope and his imps were able to do. As it is, only his disagreement with Luther's doctrine of predestination ever prompted him to criticize the Reformer with pen and ink.
  
  Erasmus's greatest point of dissension with the Roman Church was over its doctrine of salvation through works and the tenets of the church.
  
  He taught that salvation was a personal matter between the individual and God and was by faith alone. Of the Roman system of salvation he complained, "Aristotle is so in vogue that there is scarcely time in the churches to interpret the gospel." And what was "the gospel" to which Erasmus referred? We will let him speak for himself.
  
  "Our hope is in the mercy of God and the merits of Christ." Of Jesus Christ he stated, "He ... nailed our sins to the cross, sealed our redemption with his blood. " He boldly stated that no rites of the Church were necessary for an individual's salvation. "The way to enter paradise," he said, "is the way of the penitent thief, say simply, Thy will be done. The world to me is crucified and I to the world."
  
  Concerning the most biblical sect of his time, the Anabaptists, he reserved a great deal of respect. He mentioned them as early as 1523 even though he himself was often called the "only Anabaptist of the 16th century." He stated that the Anabaptists that he was familiar with called themselves "Baptists." (Ironically, Erasmus was also the FIRST person to use the term "fundamental.")
  
  So we see that when Erasmus died on July 11, 1536, he had led a life that could hardly be construed to be an example of what could be considered a "good Catholic."
  
  But perhaps the greatest compliment, though veiled, that Erasmus's independent nature ever received came in 1559, twenty-three years after his death. That is when Pope Paul IV put Erasmus's writings on the "Index" of books, forbidden to be read by Roman Catholics."
  
  Erasmus didn't add his philosophy into the KJV whether it be good or bad. The biggest anti-Catholic book written is not written by Martin Luther or Dr. Ruckman, rather God, the King James Bible.
  

 

[SwordoftheLord]

Ok, I have some questions and observations:

1) Why do you not deal directly with the subject matter, (ie, Gail's algebra) but instead choose to attack James White. That's ad hominem, or distracting the discussion away from the issue and making it more personal.

That being said, do you agree with Gail's algebra? Also, do you agree that "s" is an evil letter?

2) Can you provide evidence for your assertions that James White publishes lies and half truths? This is a pretty bold accusation. If you cannot back it up, it isn't wise to publicly defame a fellow professing Christian.

Its not ad hominem, when you used James Whites info to attack my topic.. If you would have used something you wrote, and then i attacked James white, that would be distracting, so its not ad hominem since I could be saying that since James cant be trusted on other issues, why address this one..

As for the "riplinger algebra" as many call it, I dont agree with it, and honestly think it has nothing to do with the KJV vs non KJV point myself..

As for James White. A little research goes along way. Just by going through his book or his website, heres one of them....

White alters a quote by Edwin Palmer to give his reader the impression that my Palmer citation is a "gross misuse of the words." Both Palmer and my quotation of him say "few clear and decisive texts" (p. 305, New Age Bible Versions and p. 143, The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation). White places my quote next to his trumped up quote in a chart headed "What Dr. Palmer Actually Said." White adds the word "and" ("few and clear and decisive texts") to give the impression that I have grossly miscited the man. White's power to persuade lies not in his data, but in his altering of facts, like this, and his use of fierce invectives like "poison," "gross misuse," "alleged," "inexcusable," "misrepresenting," and "error." These words all appear on the one page in which White miscites Palmer.

 

[SwordoftheLord]

Heres something for ya OP:


Dr.Frank Logsdon
Dr. Frank Logsdon was the Co-founder of the New American Standard Bible (NASB). He since has renounced any connection to it.

"I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord . . . We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface . . . I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong, terribly wrong . . . The deletions are absolutely frightening . . . there are so many . . . Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?
Upon investigation, I wrote my dear friend, Mr. Lockman, (editor's note: Mr. Lockman was the benefactor through which the NASB was published) explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV (editor's note: this is the same as the NASB).
You can say that the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct . . ."
Dr. Frank Logsdon

 

[WinBySurrender]

I want a KJV-Onlyist to explain to me why I should be one myself. The purpose of this thread is for me to learn what you have to say, not to attack you over your beliefs. Personally, I like the KJV, but I don't see it as it being the only true Bible.

And its not. So you shouldn't believe KJV-Onlyist propaganda. There is no biblical basis for it, regardless of what the others on this thread have tried to pass off as truth.

 

[His_disciple3]

You can't be serious when you recommend Gail Riplinger as a scholarly source of objective information. This is mandatory reading for anyone who's concerned about the truth: </title> </head> <body link="#003399"> <html> <head> <meta name="description" content="Christian Apologetics, Theology, Information on Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. A reformed ministry dedicated to sharing the Gospel of God'

Here's an example from Gail's book "New Age Bible Versions":

A snippet from the link above:

The arguments put forward in this book at times border on the ludicrous. The chart found on page 26 should fascinate anyone seeking logical thinking. On page 232 we are warned against the letter "s." Riplinger writes, "Watch out for the letter 's': sin, Satan, Sodom, Saul (had to be changed to Paul). The added 's' here is the hiss of the serpent." Such argumentation would lead us to abandon such terms as salvation, Savior, and sanctification as well!

Indeed, on page 174 our author recommends the KJV's use of the term "sober" over other translations, possibly missing the "hiss" of that "s" on "sober." I, as a Reformed theologian, was certainly amazed to discover that, according to Mrs. Riplinger, the "Five Points" of Calvinism form a Satanic pentagram (p. 231)! And everyone should surely take heed to Mrs. Riplinger's use of "acrostic algebra" on page 149. (chart below)

Here, in a passage reminiscent of the identifications of Henry Kissinger as the antiChrist two decades ago, Mrs. Riplinger demonstrates how the abbreviations for the New American Standard Version and the New International Version add up to the word "sin" when the Authorized Version is taken away. Not only is such argumentation utterly without merit, but it is interesting to note that throughout the rest of the book Mrs. Riplinger abbreviates the New American Standard Bible as NASB, but solely for the purpose of this trip into "acrostic algebra," she changes to the NASV, an abbreviation used nowhere else in the book. Indeed, over and over and over again the arguments that are put forward could easily be turned around and used against the KJV and Mrs. Riplinger's position. The use of such argumentation should warn the reader that all is not well in New Age Bible Versions.
SIDEBAR:

Gail Riplinger's Acrostic Algebra!

Step 1 : (NASV - NIV) - AV = X
Step 2: (NASV - NIV) - AV = X
Step 3: (ASI + NV) - AV = X
Step 4: ASI + NV - AV = X
Step 5: SIN = X

====

Look at the above "algebre". You can't be serious. Talk about looking for a witch in every corner. Not only did she inconsistently change "NASB" to "NASV" just for the sake of this argument, but she invented her own rules, her own formulas, and her own conclusion, then somehow thinks its an authoritative, compelling, objective argument against an English translation of another language. One could "subtract" and "add" whatever letters they wanted to, with any word, to come up with whatever word they wanted to.

I can't help but notice the user suggesting Gail Riplinger has as his user name "SwordoftheLord". Watch out for the "S" sir! Gail says it's an evil letter. ...

this this from chick's publisher, sounds to me like someone that knows what they are talking about!

About Gail RiplingerG. A. Riplinger has a B.A., M.A., and M.F.A. degrees and has done additional postgraduate study at Harvard and Cornell Universities. As a university professor, she taught 17 different courses, authored six college textbooks, and was selected for the Honor Society's teaching award and membership in a national Education Honorary.
As one of 50 educators worldwide included in an international "Who's Who", she was invited by the President's Citizen's Ambassador Program to be a representative to Russia,

 

[His_disciple3]

I think that one arguement, is that the promises of God to preserve His Word, however the dead sea scrolls which most of the modern day translations are taken from was in such bad condition, that huge chucks of scriptures were missing and the scholars used other manuscripts. to piece the dead sea scrolls together. 1st If God promised to preserve His word and the dead sea scrolls were it, then history went over 1000 of years without the Word of God, 2nd the dead seas scrolls were not preserved they were in fact horrible condition, at the most saying they were the Word of God that only 75 % of the Word of God was preserved. this is not the promise of God, here is a picture showing the condition of the dead sea scrolls, . the book of Ester was not even part of the dead sea scrolls. this is how the modern day translation onlyisms, believes that God kept His promise: the picture is from new world encyclopedia; .
Deadseascrolls.JPG&#8206; (500 × 375 pixels, file size: 81 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg

 

[strelok0017]

In my opinion KJV and ESV are the most faithful texts. Maybe NASB also but I don't know since I never read that one. KJV and ESV are translations unlike other "translations" that mix in paraphrase and translation.

 

[CalledOutOne]

In my opinion KJV and ESV are the most faithful texts. Maybe NASB also but I don't know since I never read that one. KJV and ESV are translations unlike other "translations" that mix in paraphrase and translation.

There are better translations than both. Haha. The Lockman Foundation did a great job with the NASB.

Found a great debate. James White is an amazing apologist -- only by the Sovereign God (Prov. 9:10; James 1:5).

King James Only Debate (This actually changed my mind on this subject) - YouTube

 

[WinBySurrender]

In my opinion KJV and ESV are the most faithful texts. Maybe NASB also but I don't know since I never read that one. KJV and ESV are translations unlike other "translations" that mix in paraphrase and translation.

Actually, you're depriving yourself if you don't read the NASB, as it is considered by scholars to be the most literal translation in print. The Holman Christian Standard is another literal translation that is excellent, better than the KJV, though some people may be jarred by Jesus saying "Don't" instead of "do not." It is very readable.

 

[CalledOutOne]

Actually, you're depriving yourself if you don't read the NASB, as it is considered by scholars to be the most literal translation in print. The Holman Christian Standard is another literal translation that is excellent, better than the KJV, though some people may be jarred by Jesus saying "Don't" instead of "do not." It is very readable.

I like the Holman as well. I just got a new one, leather bound. It still has that new book and leather smell.

It's a pretty good translation altogether. I still prefer the NASB.

 

[Skala]

I like the Holman as well. I just got a new one, leather bound. It still has that new book and leather smell.

It's a pretty good translation altogether. I still prefer the NASB.

Esv...Esv..ESV...ESV!!!!!

 

[Azadok2day]

Could you provide me with arguments for and against? I'm doing some research on it. I've been watching a little bit of James White (Alpha and Omega Ministries), but it's not adequate enough.

I will let God himself provide you with the best argument going and will prove God follows through with His judgement .

Revelation 22:19
King James Version (KJV)
19[bless and do not curse]And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Every newer bible has changed the word of God see the link below . I am unable to post the link because I do not have 50 posts . It is easy enough to find if you just google changes to the KJV bible .

Matthew 1:11
King James Version (KJV)
11[bless and do not curse]And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
Matthew 1:11

1 Chronicles 3:16
King James Version (KJV)
16[bless and do not curse]And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son.

Jeremiah 36:23
King James Version (KJV)
23[bless and do not curse]And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he (Jehoiakim, the King )cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.

You see Josias begat Jehoiakim who begat Jecconiah . Jehoiakim took the words of the prophet Jerimiah and cut and burned them. This is why hs name is removed in Mathew 1:11 as the father of Jeconniah . He changed the word of God and had his name removed from the book of life. And by the way it is no coincidence that Jehoiakim was erased in verse eleven , this judgement was shown in this verse because in the bible 11 means judgement and disorder.

So we learn wo things here that changing Gods word gets you erased from the book of life and the Bible is the book of life . It is also no mistake that, the KJV bible was written in 1611 and last year it celebrated 400 years as Gods gift to man. Oh and by the way 40 in the bible is PROBATION and ten is Gods Perfection. 10 times 40= 400 .last year we seen the earth roll to and for with judgement after ten forty year periods of probation for man. The tribulation is upon us and judgement has began , are you reading the proper book for salvation.

So we

 

[Skala]

It's interesting to note that the previous poster's argument for the KJV is that the Bible says do not add or remove words.

Yet here is just one (of many) examples where the KJV adds words to the Bible:

Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

The words in italics (as most KJV readers know) are added by the translators to make the Greek transition into English easier. So yet again we have a double standard: The KJV is allowed to change the text, but no one else is.

Further, KJVOnlyism argues that the Bible must not change, ever. And there is much emphasis on the 1611 KJV. However, what most KJV readers have in their hand is not the 1611 ed. but a later ed, as the 1611 originally had many errors.

Here are some more changes between the 1611 and the 1769 editions of the KJV. You can see that the changes in some instances affect the meaning of the context quite significantly!

Deuteronomy 26:1 &#8212; &#8220;which the Lord giueth&#8221; vs. &#8220;which the LORD thy God giveth&#8221;
Joshua 13:29 &#8212; &#8220;tribe of Manasseh, by&#8221; vs. &#8220;tribe of the children of Manasseh by&#8221;
Ruth 3:15 &#8212; &#8220;he went into the citie&#8221; vs. &#8220;she went into the city&#8221;
Psalm 69:32 &#8212; &#8220;seeke good&#8221; vs. &#8220;seek God&#8221;
Jeremiah 49:1 &#8212; &#8220;inherit God&#8221; vs. &#8220;inherit Gad&#8221;
Matthew 16:16 &#8212; &#8220;Thou art Christ&#8221; vs. &#8220;Thou art the Christ&#8221;
Mark 10:18 &#8212; &#8220;There is no man good&#8221; vs. &#8220;there is none good&#8221; (note that now &#8220;there is&#8221; is marked as being added by the translators for clarity)
1 Corinthians 4:9 &#8212; &#8220;approued to death&#8221; vs. &#8220;appointed to death&#8221;

These variations between the 1611 & the 1769 eds can be verified on e-sword which is bible you can download for free.

The irony is that many KJVO's make statements like this:

&#8220;...the King James Bible printed in 1611 reads the same as the King James Bible printed in 1997.&#8221; (William Bradley, Purified Seven Times, p. 115)

Clearly you can see, that is not true.