Proof that the KJV onlyism isn't Biblical

Bear.Fr00t · Jul 28, 2011

People are being saved with NIV, ESV, etc. If God hated these translations, there would be no power behind the words contained therein. Hmmm, seems like God is not KJV only

Slaol121 · Jul 29, 2011

A big clue could be the publishing date of 1611.

Brenda Morgan · Jul 30, 2011

Bear.Fr00t said:
People are being saved with NIV, ESV, etc. If God hated these translations, there would be no power behind the words contained therein. Hmmm, seems like God is not KJV only

The KJV is an English language translation. What about all those in the non-English speaking world? Are they lost because they don't read English?

ebia · Jul 31, 2011

Brenda Morgan said:
The KJV is an English language translation. What about all those in the non-English speaking world? Are they lost because they don't read English?

Even Jesus, Paul and the apostles are lost because the insisted on using those satanic Hebrew originals and the LXX Greek translation, not the 1611 King James in English. If Muslims can learn Arabic then Christians should be learning Sixteenth Century English. Even those born in the first century.

nhoj · Aug 2, 2011

There can't be any doubt however that the KJV is the coolest translation of the Bible.

.

CryptoLutheran · Aug 2, 2011

nhoj said:
There can't be any doubt however that the KJV is the coolest translation of the Bible.

It's all about Wycliffe.

"For God louede so the world, that he yaf his `oon bigetun sone, that ech man that bileueth in him perische not, but haue euerlastynge lijf." - John 3:16

It's impossible for me to read the Wycliffe Bible and not do so with a Cockney accent doing the reading inside my head. ... I also like to pretend every passage ends with "'ello govenah".

-CryptoLutheran

ptomwebster · Aug 2, 2011

Bear.Fr00t said:
People are being saved with NIV, ESV, etc. If God hated these translations, there would be no power behind the words contained therein. Hmmm, seems like God is not KJV only

The NIV, ESV, Vulgate, etc are not mentioned in Scripture either. Maybe we should all go back to reading the Scriptures from the original languages.

pgp_protector · Aug 2, 2011

Bear.Fr00t said:
People are being saved with NIV, ESV, etc. If God hated these translations, there would be no power behind the words contained therein. Hmmm, seems like God is not KJV only

even simpler.

Not every one speaks / reads English

good brother · Aug 2, 2011

So, should we have the OCVOTKJV? That would be better translated to, "So, should we have the Official Chinese Version Of The King James Version?" I mean obviously to save the Chinese people we will have to find the Chinese words for "thou" and "thy" and "thine". That's really what I like about KJV onlyers, they have no problem about supporting a mission trip that will put Chinese versions of the Bible into Chinese hands but there is no way they would support speaking today's english for salvation. I mean, the Bible doesn't even have it's own official language! It was written in three different languages yet some say that only the KJV saves! Now don't get me wrong. I love the KJV. I learned many memory verses in that translation. I still have several copies on my shelf. Depending on what church I am preaching at, I use KJV or something else. I think it's a beautiful translation, but I don't think it's the only true translation for the rest of time. God has a way of preserving His word no matter what language we are all speaking. That's because God rocks! God made all this in six days, He can surely protect the content and context of His love letter to us!

In Christ, GB

Slaol121 · Aug 2, 2011

I grew up in a town with several churches that split over this very issue. People actually believe that the KJV is THE original version of the bible - and that all the new versions have been translated from the KJV into easier-to-understand English.

While I personally have no qualms with people who want to use the KJV and no other, it bugs me when pure ignorance is propigated to the extent that it ends up causing fractures in the church.

While there are versions out there that take liberties with the translation for the sake of political correctness, there are also many versions out there that are [in my opinion] much more accurately translated than the KJV.

nhoj · Aug 2, 2011

Slaol121 said:
I grew up in a town with several churches that split over this very issue. People actually believe that the KJV is THE original version of the bible - and that all the new versions have been translated from the KJV into easier-to-understand English.

...

I worked with a guy who was KJV only. His only reason for being so was that the KJV was written at a time when modern popular beliefs, were unlikely to influence the translators.

So for him the KJV had less man-made interpretations.

I use an NKJV but only because I really like the feel of the paper it's made out of.

nhoj · Aug 2, 2011

CryptoLutheran said:
It's all about Wycliffe.

"For God louede so the world, that he yaf his `oon bigetun sone, that ech man that bileueth in him perische not, but haue euerlastynge lijf." - John 3:16

It's impossible for me to read the Wycliffe Bible and not do so with a Cockney accent doing the reading inside my head. ... I also like to pretend every passage ends with "'ello govenah".

-CryptoLutheran

I've never done Wycliffe. I'll have to see if I can get a copy.

For me, the KJV must be read with a Scots accent. Especially the bits about Hell.

2thePoint · Aug 2, 2011

nhoj said:
So for him the KJV had less man-made interpretations.

I wonder how he came to that conclusion? Seems to me that people haven't changed a whole lot, and while the society of the time might not share the same "errors" as ours, it had plenty of its own. One reason it was commissioned was to play up "the divine right of kings" by skewing every word that could possibly be taken as "authority over" and making sure the peasants would know that God made the king over them. We just can't escape those "man-made interpretations".

ptomwebster · Aug 2, 2011

If people spent the time reading Scripture as they do arguing about KVJ vs ___ we would all be better off. How do you know the version you are reading is true to the original languages or not? You need to be able to check the original languages.

nhoj · Aug 2, 2011

2thePoint said:
I wonder how he came to that conclusion? Seems to me that people haven't changed a whole lot, and while the society of the time might not share the same "errors" as ours, it had plenty of its own. One reason it was commissioned was to play up "the divine right of kings" by skewing every word that could possibly be taken as "authority over" and making sure the peasants would know that God made the king over them. We just can't escape those "man-made interpretations".

I'm not sure. I did ask him which modern beliefs influenced more recent translations but he didn't give me an example. Which gave me the impression that his KJV only stance was inherited from someone he respected without questioning the original reason so peer group pressure could explain it. He was very anti-charismatic but I'm not aware of anything in recent translations that caters to the charismatic movement.

steve_bakr · Aug 3, 2011

nhoj said:
I worked with a guy who was KJV only. His only reason for being so was that the KJV was written at a time when modern popular beliefs, were unlikely to influence the translators.

So for him the KJV had less man-made interpretations.

I use an NKJV but only because I really like the feel of the paper it's made out of.

My wife and I used to collect different Bible translations. We've got quite a few, but new ones are still coming out. We have attended a Calvary Chapel, which uses NKJV. For a long time I used the Catholic's St Joseph's Version because I liked the fluency of the language, its Introductions, and it had big print.

eulea · Aug 3, 2011

The translators of the KJV, the preface, knew this wasn't the final translation into a "vulgar" language. This was the first published one translated from the Hebrew and Greek rather than Hebrew to Greek to Latin of the OT and Greek to Latin of the NT.

They also didn't think it was the only one which was valid and useful:

"Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

If people would read the preface of the 1611 version they would see that they believed that, even there translation should be altered when it was found needed.

I would put the URL here but I have not posted enough to earn that right. Do a Google search and read the entire preface, both King James' and the translators'. It is quite long and quite interestingly does not use thee and thou.

Slaol121 · Aug 3, 2011

eulea said:
I would put the URL here...

Here you go

http://www.featherlessbiped.com/6696/KJV1611/kjv6.jpg
http://jrenseyblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/kingjamesbible1612-1613-1.jpg

CryptoLutheran · Aug 3, 2011

eulea said:
The translators of the KJV, the preface, knew this wasn't the final translation into a "vulgar" language. This was the first published one translated from the Hebrew and Greek rather than Hebrew to Greek to Latin of the OT and Greek to Latin of the NT.

They also didn't think it was the only one which was valid and useful:

"Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

If people would read the preface of the 1611 version they would see that they believed that, even there translation should be altered when it was found needed.

I would put the URL here but I have not posted enough to earn that right. Do a Google search and read the entire preface, both King James' and the translators'. It is quite long and quite interestingly does not use thee and thou.

Actually, the KJV wasn't the first to use Hebrew and Greek source texts. Tyndale's New Testament and Pentateuch were derived from the MT and Erasmus' Greek with a strong influence from Luther's German translation (much of Tyndale's New Testament was incorporated into the KJV). The Geneva Bible used the MT and TR as its source texts, so did the Bishop's Bible which the KJV was largely supplanting as the authorized text of the Church of England. The Coverdale used the MT, Erasmus' Greek text, the Vulgate and others.

Ultimately what the KJV was intended for, as you note, was generally to improve upon earlier English translations; their task was to produce an authorized translation for the Church of England, approved of by the king, and which could provide some of the best scholarship at the time to the table. Though as you note, they by no means imagined that their work would be the last time someone would undertake such a task. And in fact it's obvious that it wasn't. The KJV went through several updates, changes, and variations until the 18th century when the text was standardized--which is the version of the KJV most of us is familiar with.

-CryptoLutheran

rev.hewett · Aug 3, 2011

nhoj said:
I've never done Wycliffe. I'll have to see if I can get a copy.

For me, the KJV must be read with a Scots accent. Especially the bits about Hell.

Oh yeah ... well I find much more use out of the Cambridge Paragraph Bible of the Authorized English Version.

In all seriousness, to this post, an even simpler idea that it's not the only translation is ... well because it's referred to as a "translation."

Proof that the KJV onlyism isn't Biblical

Fruit Inspector

Newbie

Newbie

Senior Contributor

A work in progress

Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman

Senior Member

Noted strange person

good brother

Guest

Newbie

A work in progress

A work in progress

Looking Up

Senior Member

A work in progress

Christian

Newbie

Newbie

Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency