The "cult" Of "king James Onlyism"?

[RichardT]

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/kingjamesonlyism.htm

BY DAVID W. CLOUD

 

[christian73]

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/kingjamesonlyism.htm
To reject the King James Bible for the modern versions is one's privilege this side of eternity; to claim or imply, on the other hand, that the King James Bible is no longer defensible and is only guarded today by sentimental, tradition-bound obscurantists is to darken the truth.

fyi, I don't think anybody here is rejecting the KJV. I'm saying it's not the only translation. If you prefer the KJV, that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But to say that it's the ONLY version is incorrect.

 

[RichardT]

fyi, I don't think anybody here is rejecting the KJV. I'm saying it's not the only translation. If you prefer the KJV, that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But to say that it's the ONLY version is incorrect.

There are differences between the KJV and the modern versions which I have already pointed out in the other thread.

Which one is more reliable to you?

 

[christian73]

There are differences between the KJV and the modern versions which I have already pointed out in the other thread.

Which one is more reliable to you?

Personally, I read the NIV and the NLT. Answer this question. How do you know the KJV doesn't have any mistakes. Man made that translation too you know.

 

[Abbadon]

One? I have to choose one?

I can't go through multiple translations, and concordences, encyclopedias, and such?

 

[RichardT]

Personally, I read the NIV and the NLT. Answer this question. How do you know the KJV doesn't have any mistakes. Man made that translation too you know.

Because God promised to preserve his word.

http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/preserve.asp

[SIZE=+1]Scripture Preservation[/SIZE]​

Are the Scriptures just the "ideas" of God, or are they the very WORDS of God? You decide!
God promises to preserve His words. The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psalms 12:6-7) You shall not add or take away, says God. Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
(Deuteronomy 4:1-2) God cares about every one of His words. Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:5-6) God's words will never pass away. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. (Jesus Christ, Son of God) (Mark 13:31) God will curse those who change His Word. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 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. (Revelation 22:18-19) This doesn't sound like God inspired only the "concepts" in Scripture. He clearly directed every word and will not tolerate man's meddling with it. He calls them "His Words."
If your Bible is a King James Bible, it preserves God's words because it was translated using "formal equivalence." All other Bibles were translated using "dynamic equivalence," in which the translator is free to change words as long as he conveys the "idea."
Read the above Scriptures again. Which kind of Bible do you think God wants you to have?

 

[Abbadon]

Then why is the King James more accurate then other translations? If God promised to preserve the Bible, then those translations would be as equally valid.

And please, don't site chick.com. His opinions on a variety of subjects are just downright bigotted.

 

[christian73]

Because God promised to preserve his word.

http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/preserve.asp

[SIZE=+1]Scripture Preservation[/SIZE]​

Are the Scriptures just the "ideas" of God, or are they the very WORDS of God? You decide!
God promises to preserve His words. The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psalms 12:6-7) You shall not add or take away, says God. Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
(Deuteronomy 4:1-2) God cares about every one of His words. Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:5-6) God's words will never pass away. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. (Jesus Christ, Son of God) (Mark 13:31) God will curse those who change His Word. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 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. (Revelation 22:18-19) This doesn't sound like God inspired only the "concepts" in Scripture. He clearly directed every word and will not tolerate man's meddling with it. He calls them "His Words."
If your Bible is a King James Bible, it preserves God's words because it was translated using "formal equivalence." All other Bibles were translated using "dynamic equivalence," in which the translator is free to change words as long as he conveys the "idea."
Read the above Scriptures again. Which kind of Bible do you think God wants you to have?

It was still preserved by man, though, just like the modern translations. That quote is someone's opinion and misinterpretation of scripture.

 

[Easystreet]

The KJV prior to the NKJV for the most part finds it tradition in a few manuscripts of the majority text. The Greek manuscripts used for the KJV only represented a small fraction of this tradition.

However, the NKJV uses all know manuscripts while remaining true to the Majority text.

I believe the NIV is the only translation actually translated from the Manorial text.

Many of the translations are eclectic (consider all the evidence)

Gordon

 

[christian73]

The KJV prior to the NKJV for the most part finds it tradition in a few manuscripts of the majority text. The Greek manuscripts used for the KJV only represented a small fraction of this tradition.

However, the NKJV uses all know manuscripts while remaining true to the Majority text.

I believe the NIV is the only translation actually translated from the Manorial text.

Many of the translations are eclectic (consider all the evidence)

Gordon

That doesn't make the KJV any more accurate than the modern translations.

 

[Matthan]

Remember that God knows everything. He CAUSED the KJV to become translated, just as He GUIDED the scribes that did the translation. To deny either of those two FACTS is to deny God's omniscience. After all, He knows how important they would be to His followers, and He knew it even before Christ was begotton of man.

Oh, and there certainly IS a serious difference between the various translations. I like to compare one particular verse from the KJV with all the rest because it is so telling. It is Rev. 1:5, and reads, "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,"

So, what do we find in the others? Here is a short sampling:

ASV - "and loosed us from our sins by his blood;"

LBV - "and who set us free from our sins by pouring out his lifeblood for us."

RSV - "and has freed us from our sins by his blood"

SEV - "He bled, setting us free from our sins."

YBV - "and did bathe us from our sins in his blood,"

WNT - "To Him who loves us and has freed us from our sins with His own blood,"

Personally, I want to be washed of my sins by the blood of Jesus. Everyone else can do as they please, and believe what they please, and be washed in the Blood of Jesus, or not, as they please.

Matthan

 

[PETE_]

No reasonable person imagines that the translators were infallible or that their work was perfect

That is not to say that it cannot be updated or that things could not be translated differently

 

[christian73]

Remember that God knows everything. He CAUSED the KJV to become translated, just as He GUIDED the scribes that did the translation. To deny either of those two FACTS is to deny God's omniscience. After all, He knows how important they would be to His followers, and He knew it even before Christ was begotton of man.

Oh, and there certainly IS a serious difference between the various translations. I like to compare one particular verse from the KJV with all the rest because it is so telling. It is Rev. 1:5, and reads, "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,"

So, what do we find in the others? Here is a short sampling:

ASV - "and loosed us from our sins by his blood;"

LBV - "and who set us free from our sins by pouring out his lifeblood for us."

RSV - "and has freed us from our sins by his blood"

SEV - "He bled, setting us free from our sins."

YBV - "and did bathe us from our sins in his blood,"

WNT - "To Him who loves us and has freed us from our sins with His own blood,"

Personally, I want to be washed of my sins by the blood of Jesus. Everyone else can do as they please, and believe what they please, and be washed in the Blood of Jesus, or not, as they please.

Matthan

Funny how you didn't quote the NIV or the NLT.

The NLT says, "freed us from our sins by shedding his blood for us. Rev 1:5 (NLT)"


Besides, if you're washed of your sins, then you're freed of them.

 

[Abbadon]

Remember that God knows everything. He CAUSED the KJV to become translated, just as He GUIDED the scribes that did the translation. To deny either of those two FACTS is to deny God's omniscience.

Denying that He forced King James to desire a political tool is not denying God's omniscience. Just because He knows everything, and has the power to affect everything, does not mean that He has to use the power to affect everything. If one says that God can't not affect everything, then they're denying God's omnipotence.

In regards to the different verse: they're sending the same message -- just in different terms. What matters more, the message, or the language it is spread in?

And your arguement for the KJV still works just as well for any other translation.

What makes a person a Christian, faith in Christ, or faith that one human conducted translation is better than another human conducted translation? Or perhaps, we're saved by specific words, like some sort of magic spell?

No -- It is the message, not the lettering, that matters.

 

[Matthan]

Funny how you didn't quote the NIV or the NLT.

The NLT says, "freed us from our sins by shedding his blood for us. Rev 1:5 (NLT)"


Besides, if you're washed of your sins, then you're freed of them.

NIV? NLT? I don't happen to have either of them. (looonnnngggg sighhhhh) Oh well.

 

[DeaconDean]

I choose to use the King James Version because it is the version I'm most comfortable with. I was raised up reading the KJV. In high school, we were taught William Shaksphere. He quoted the KJV in his plays. We were required to read and understand as well as write reports on Shaksphere. So why is it so hard to understand? It isn't to me least wise. Some say it should be done away with because its language is archaic, old fashioned, no longer spoken. True, it is all that, but does that make it un-usefull? When I was in seminary, I took a class called Contemporary Christian Preaching. In this class they taught us to use as many versions of the Bible as possible when we prepared our sermons. I usually use the KJV, NIV, NKJV, RSV, ASV. The fact that one version may say something in a little clearer passage than others might. Now if you wish to use other versions, then in my opinion, I say God Bless you. I love my KJV. It may not be the version for you, but it is for me. I wouldn't force anyone to use this version only. Is the KJV the only version which God can speak through? All this comes down to is this, the KJV has been reliable to the church for what, 400 years or more. Now the language is out of date, but it does not make it useful anymore. If you prefer to use the NIV, for example, as I said before, God Bless you, its not the version I like or would use, but if your most comfortable with it, if it is the version to which you turn to to, the version to which you faithfully read, then that is the version for you. But to limit people to only one version is wrong.

I'm not a KJV only type, but I will say this, it is the version I prefer.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Sword-In-Hand]

Because God promised to preserve his word.

http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/preserve.asp

[SIZE=+1]Scripture Preservation[/SIZE]​

Are the Scriptures just the "ideas" of God, or are they the very WORDS of God? You decide!
God promises to preserve His words. The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psalms 12:6-7) You shall not add or take away, says God. Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
(Deuteronomy 4:1-2) God cares about every one of His words. Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:5-6) God's words will never pass away. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. (Jesus Christ, Son of God) (Mark 13:31) God will curse those who change His Word. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 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. (Revelation 22:18-19) This doesn't sound like God inspired only the "concepts" in Scripture. He clearly directed every word and will not tolerate man's meddling with it. He calls them "His Words."
If your Bible is a King James Bible, it preserves God's words because it was translated using "formal equivalence." All other Bibles were translated using "dynamic equivalence," in which the translator is free to change words as long as he conveys the "idea."
Read the above Scriptures again. Which kind of Bible do you think God wants you to have?

Deleted cause I'm in a weird mood because of my friend and I shouldn't be posting. =D

 

[arunma]

The charge is often made that modern translations are faulty because they teach different doctrines than the King James. Of course this argument is fallacious, because it begins with the presupposition that the KJV is the only accurate version. But the argument can be easily turned against the KJV.

(Note: the rest of this post, and the title, are facetious.)


See this Scripture from the ESV, which teaches the Deity of Christ:

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. (Titus 2:11-13)​

Now read the KJV rendition:

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. (Titus 2:11-13)​

As you can see, the KJV denies the Deity of Christ. Therefore the KJV is a heretical and demonic translation of the Bible, and Satan whispered in the ears of its translators. I summarily conclude that the English Standard Version is the only true version of the Bible, and that any other version is heretical.

Anyway, there's my caricature of Jack Chick.

 

[Andyman_1970]

The charge is often made that modern translations are faulty because they teach different doctrines than the King James.

Good point you bring up, the influence that doctrine and theology have on translating the Text. If we want as accurate translation of the Text as possible, with the intent of getting as close to the orginals as possible, letting doctrine and theology influence the translation impede that process.

 

[Andyman_1970]

As far as the KJV goes....................

While I don't use it because it fundamentally mistranslated the proper Name of God in the OT, I don't hold those who prefer it to be "cultists". I do however think that to hold it as exclusively God's Word (that other translations are not His Word) is unBiblical and verges on Biblolorty in some cases.