Forum

The Problem With KJ...
 
Notifications
Clear all

The Problem With KJV Onlyism  

Page 2 / 2
  RSS

TroyDrury
(@troydrury)
New Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 3
14/07/2020 9:26 pm  

@gp4jesus it does no good to have a discussion where you tell someone they’re wrong, but don’t point out a single specific thing that you disagree with.  Please tell me exactly what was incorrect about my post. 


ReplyQuote
Robert
(@running_admin)
Member Admin
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 10
15/07/2020 10:33 am  

@gp4jesus Thanks for the reply. My book is going back through another edit so the launch is delayed. I'm hoping to publish it next year. 


ReplyQuote
Robin
(@robin)
Active Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 5
15/07/2020 5:31 pm  

Whilst I am no KJV onlyist - I personally prefer the KJV for many reasons. However, I have experienced the backlash from a KJV onlyist pastor which concerns me greatly, for such a position really turns people into pharisees. I think that his reaction to my probing questions revealed underneath nothing of the Christian character with which the New Birth graces the believer.

I much prefer the KJV as I find it easy to read, despite opinions to the contrary. I would happily explain to anyone why I prefer it quoting detailed analysis of its grammar, with internal evidence as to it veracity to truth. I was taught to read from it by my mother from age five, which probably explains why I feel comfortable with the text - and as I am English.

The final thought, to my mind, is that the most dangerous thing in Christianity is to take the Bible seriously! For I find a proper study of the Bible is the only way to get to grips with truth. This is of course, allowing the Holy Spirit's guidance. We can only properly understand God with the material he has vouchsafed to us, and not through the distorted lens of denominational dogma or the rabid frothings of KJV onlyists.

SOURCES OF THEOLOGY - God himself, in the last analysis, must be the only source of knowledge with regard to his own being and relations. Theology is therefore a summary and explanation of the content of God's self-revelations. These are, first, the revelation of God in nature; secondly and supremely, the revelation of God in the Scriptures.   A H Strong

To which I would add this addenda:

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 1 John 2: 27

Finally, our business is developing a deep relationship with God - and we cannot do this unassisted. Those who want to dispense with doctrine and Scripture impress no one, except perhaps those of a like mind who are too lazy or too arrogant to submit to the Word. Even in this it is God who takes the initiative.

We may also note the conduct of those early believers - fresh from perhaps seeing Jesus in the flesh, and certainly witnessed Pentecost:

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.   Acts 2:42


ReplyQuote
Colin Saxton
(@colin-saxton)
New Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 4
15/07/2020 6:33 pm  

...lack of grace is the answer. I too use a KJV but I am amazed beyond belief why it cannot just be "faithfully" updated by a faithful group...say the TBS for example. This group have translated the original texts into other languages faithfully but refuse to translate into modern English...why? You can read the gospel in other versions as long as you come with the Holy Spirit while reading the text and yes there are verses removed from newer versions and no good reason is given...if you do your research you can see this plainly...just search Google for "verses removed from modern translations of Bible"


ReplyQuote
Colin Saxton
(@colin-saxton)
New Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 4
15/07/2020 6:37 pm  

@robin see chambers my utmost for his highest July 14...extremely brilliant insight and wisdom regarding walking with Christ. Blessings brother


ReplyQuote
Robin
(@robin)
Active Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 5
15/07/2020 9:27 pm  

@colin-saxton

I can partly sympathise with your view that the old KJV may need clarification. However, this partly comes from a belief that versions such as the NIV are better in this respect. However, the premise of the NIV was dynamic equivalence as the mode of translation ( replacing old words for new - therefore not a literal translation) - and very often this version was based on the two corrupt texts that formed the basis of the RV  of 1881. Computer analysis of the KJV shows a superior phrase structure to the NIV, together with often shorter sentences. Complaints about difficult words such as Salvation, Righteousness, Atonement and Regeneration were difficult when the Bible was first made known, so nothing new there.  I have noticed that difficulties experience with the language with the Bible or more often moral difficulties than intellectual ones. Oswald Chambers has noted this in one of his many books.

The translators of the King James wanted to stay as faithful to the original manuscripts, being well over 5000 in number, as opposed to the two that formed the foundation of the NIV and many others. You will find that the KJV translators used italicized words to show where that had tried to smooth the original languages. Often, it is interesting if you skip the italicised words how direct the language becomes. Unfortunately this noble effort did obscure certain phrases for example;

  Genesis 25:30 And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom.

The word pottage was added to make sense, but obscure the import of the word red = which links Esau with Adam - and their unregenerate characters.

Sometimes the old English makes distinctions where modern English would obscure them. In addition, the translators of the King James Version of the Bible attempted to maintain the distinction found in Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek between singular and plural second-person pronouns and verb forms, so they used thou, thee, thy, and thine for singular, and yeyou, your, and yours for plural.

In the King James Version from 1611 there are eight different forms of personal pronouns for second person: the singular forms thou, thee, thy, thine and the corresponding plural forms ye, you, your and yours. Because of linguistic changes in the English language the number of the second person pronouns has declined during the centuries. Accordingly, in the New King James Version from 1990 these eight earlier pronouns are represented by only three pronouns: you, your, yours. Therefore, the hypothesis of this study was that the disappearance of so many different pronoun forms might have caused some ambiguity. To examine this, The Gospel of Luke of both Bible versions was studied and all the second person pronouns were first classified according to their case and number (nominative/accusative/dative/genitive, singular/plural) and thereafter counted. The verses of the Gospel of Luke, where both one or several persons are addressed, were read and carefully studied. Furthermore, when necessary, interesting or relevant, comparisons were also made to two other translations: the Gustav V´s Bible from 1917 and the Swedish Bible Version from 2000. The results of this study show that there are differences in the numbers of the examined pronouns. These discrepancies depend on several different factors which have been discussed. In addition, the investigation gives evidence of the fact that the references of pronouns are not always completely clear: several verses, which might be perceived erroneously, were found in the modern English Bible translation.

I think this only partly explains my caution in changing the original text. Much of it originated with William Tyndale, who was born in the next county to me in South West England.

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:3508/FULLTEXT01.pdf


ReplyQuote
gp4Jesus
(@gp4jesus)
Active Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 6
16/07/2020 12:17 am  
Posted by: @troydrury

There are only two possibilities related to the newer manuscripts that rely heavily on Vaticanus and Sanaiticus.”

Your argument does not take into account 3 things 

1. the manuscripts that are OLDER than Vaticanus & Sinaiticus don’t depend upon the above Codices 

2. Manuscripts that are newer than Vaticanus & Sinaiticus are still older than the few much later manuscripts Erasmus used to assemble his first TR.

3. The newest translations lean lightly if at all on the above Codices. They lean much more heavily on the NA & UBS Koine Greek texts

“Either: 1) God is a liar and didn’t preserve his word to all generations; ; or 2) God has given us an uninterrupted line of scripture passed down to us in the Textus Receptus.”

God preserved His Word in Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek. Anything else is just a translation. My 1-3 negates your 1a & 2 and much of what you wrote that follows  

“I don’t see how there is any other possibility,”  

you don’t see because you have not “looked” at enough 

“...since the newly discovered codexes were lost for 1,500+ years.”

The “newly discovered” codices: Sinaiticus* was discovered mid 1800s*. In 1515 Erasmus knew of and consulted the “lost” Vaticanus for his first TR. And let’s also remember the all the papyri discovered years AFTER*.

the fact that so much has surfaced in the last 100+ plus years means nothing? I can’t help but wonder people’s reaction to “what if___?” What if we found THE original NT writings*? What if they* proved your beliefs to the contrary? I’d love to see the faces of Gail Riplinger, Sam Gipp, & DA Waite if/when that happened. Gail head would explode, DA Waite would say the same 10 words non stop for a week. Sam Gip would scream “NO” until he passed out. When he came to he’d scream again, etc, etc, etc. Peter Ruckman would self-exhume. and all those who bought Gail’s first book would burn them. It’s would serve her right if they all met at her house. 

“...God did not allow Christians to possess his true words for most of church history. 

We had the Latin Vulgate for 1100 years. Less perfect still. Then along came the Reformation etc, etc - something closer; close enough for the time being.

Finally this fear mongering would be true if and only if you could prove, which you can’t,  God’s involvement from 1604-1611. 

“Since we know God is not a liar...“  

You’re right - God isn’t a liar. But man is and men made mistakes as such while they copied manuscripts in the 1000+ years prior. Some of those “mistakes” took the form of added words and men “helping God” as recently as 1598.  

Theodore Beza changed Rev 16:5 in his 4th TR, later translated to the KJ intact...

“...Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be...”

“...Lord, thou art iust [just] Which art, and Which wast: and Holy...” 

Revelation‬ ‭16:5‬ ‭Geneva

Prior to 1598 the “shall be” or similar did not exist anywhere in the world. Rev 22:18-19 talks about “adding, changing, or deleting” is a big no-no. That ONLY applies to the Hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine Greek.
I’ve seen SO MANY people on other sites IGNORANTLY quote this verse because “this Modern English translation CHANGED.... “it’s different than my 17th Century English translation (the KJ)...” “... they’re changing God’s word.”

I can see the tears now. Yet Beza changed the Koine Greek, and “that ok.” That ok because it fits the narrative, the dogma, the false religion of KJV Only-ism! The KJVO disciple never questions stuff like this. He/she never concedes to his opponent in a debate -that’s akin to heresy (KJVO heresy)  Doing so banishes them to KJO Hell. 

“...we can confidently rely on the scriptures that were passed down to us.”

Are you sure about that? As above in the Geneva we see “I think not” and more below.

“We can also confidently discard any newly discovered document claiming to be scripture. “

1 Samuel‬ ‭13:20-21 reads differently only in the KJ because about 100 years ago translators learned the correct meaning of a word found on an ancient Hebrew receipt. The KJ translators guessed incorrectly at the meaning of this*, one of the 500 words they could not translate  

KJV “But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his mattock. Yet they had a file* for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads.”
‭‭‬

NKJ “But all the Israelites would go down to the Philistines to sharpen each man’s plowshare, his mattock, his ax, and his sickle; and the charge for a sharpening was a pim* for the plowshares, the mattocks, the forks, and the axes, and to set the points of the goads.”
‭‭

Troy,

The KJ is unquestionably a beautiful translation - a point I agree w/completely. Even I have passages memorized from the KJ.

I hafta reinforce a couple of facts I may have missed:

1. “no such thing as a perfect translation of one language to another.” Therefore no English translation, INCLUDING THE KJ TRANSLATION, is perfect. 
2. “God’s Word is perfect in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. Anything else is a translation.” 

These are as irrefutable and indisputable 2 + 2 = 4

No point going further. I do hope you take the time to ponder the possibility, however slim, some of what people told you or maybe read in a publication are lies

I wish you well on your “Walk”

 

This post was modified 5 months ago by gp4Jesus

ReplyQuote
gp4Jesus
(@gp4jesus)
Active Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 6
18/07/2020 8:06 pm  
Posted by: @robin

Robin: I must know. Which pleases God more Jesus in your heart or the translation in your hand?

You like the KJ TRANSLATION. That’s nice. It seems you (and others) believe God would bless only a single attempt to TRANSLATE His Word into 17th Century English.

The mere suggestion of the same puts God in a box. Further, you and those like you tell the Creator of the Universe what He can, and can’t do. 

Lastly you need to brush up on your NT translation history beginning ~1500 - 1769 and modern translation FACTS. Read on...

“I can partly sympathise with your view that the old KJV may need clarification. However, this partly comes from a belief that versions such as the NIV are better in this respect. However, the premise of the NIV was dynamic equivalence as the mode of translation ( replacing old words for new - therefore not a literal translation)...”

the KJ TRANSLATION, while more formal than the NIV & NLT, portions are as dynamic equivalent as the above. 

“...- and very often this version was based on the two corrupt texts that formed the basis of the RV  of 1881.”

the “aleph & B source codices” excuse is ancient. Welcome to the 21st century, Robin. The modern translations rely on earlier MSS, & UBS/NA Koine Greek texts

“Computer analysis of the KJV shows a superior phrase structure to the NIV, together with often shorter sentences.”

That “computer analysis” ignored the archaic words & phrases grossly tipping the results in the KJ’s favor... ...another of problems w/the KJ the Only-ist would die before admitting.

“The translators of the King James wanted to stay as faithful to the original manuscripts, being well over 5000 in number...”

The KJ translators did not have these ‘5K MSS’ during the translation process. They had present all Reformation translations including Luther’s & the Catholic English, too. They relied upon the Latin Vulgate to help them w/what many called ‘Bible Greek*’ as they knew Classic Greek & Latin better. All their notes in Latin too. They leaned heavily on the Bishop Bible and, of the TRs, Beza’s 4th TR.

*long story short, scholars learned in the late 1800s that what the Reformers and later, the KJ translators thought was “bible greek” was in fact the common language of the streets back in Jesus’ day. 

Theodore Beza changed* Rev 16:5 in his 4th TR, later translated to the KJ intact...

“...Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be...”

*

Revelation‬ ‭16:5‬ ‭Geneva  “...Lord, thou art iust [just] Which art, and Which wast: and Holy...” 

Prior to 1598 the “shall be” or similar did not exist anywhere in the world. Rev 22:18-19 talks about “adding, changing, or deleting” is a big no-no. That ONLY applies to the Hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine Greek.
I’ve seen SO MANY people on other sites IGNORANTLY quote this verse because “this Modern English translation CHANGED.... “it’s different than my 17th Century English translation (the KJ)...” “...they’re changing God’s word.”

I can see the tears now. Yet Beza changed the Koine Greek, and “that ok.” That ok because it fits the narrative, the dogma, the false religion of KJV Only-ism! The KJVO disciple never questions stuff like this. He/she never concedes to his opponent in a debate -that’s akin to heresy (KJVO heresy)  Doing so banishes them to KJO Hell. 

“You will find that the KJV translators used italicized words to show where that had tried to smooth the original languages.” 

Adding to God’s Word?! But that ok. After all, that one those rules that don’t apply to the KJ TRANSLATION. Just teasing, I’m bigger than that. 

Often, it is interesting if you skip the italicised words how direct the language becomes. Unfortunately this noble effort did obscure certain phrases for example;

  “Genesis 25:30 And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom.

The word pottage was added to make sense, but obscure the import of the word red = which links Esau with Adam - and their unregenerate characters.“ 

“and Esau said to Jacob, “Please let me have a swallow of that red stuff there, for I am famished.” Therefore his name was called Edom.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭25:30‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“Sometimes the old English makes distinctions where modern English would obscure them. In addition, the translators of the King James Version of the Bible attempted to maintain the distinction found in Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek between singular and plural second-person pronouns and verb forms, so they used thou, thee, thy, and thine for singular, and yeyou, your, and yours for plural.“  

You’re reaching. While this may help someone challenged* w/reading, it doesn’t begin to offset all the other words and phrases that’s “way above their* pay grade of comprehension.”
*my 22 year old nearly illiterate son

“In the King James Version from 1611 there are eight different forms of personal pronouns for second person: the singular forms thou, thee, thy, thine and the corresponding plural forms ye, you, your and yours.”

So what?! 

“Because of linguistic changes in the English language the number of the second person pronouns has declined during the centuries.”

Finally!! A KJVO admits the English has changed. The English language has changed more in the last 100 years than the 300 previous and it will change more in next 50 than the previous 100. Face facts KJ TRANSLATION only-it’s: your TRANSLATION tradition will eventually fade Into history because it will be harder to read & understand than the Wycliffe translation today. 

“Accordingly, in the New King James Version from 1990 these eight earlier pronouns are represented by only three pronouns: you, your, yours. Therefore, the hypothesis of this study was that the disappearance of so many different pronoun forms might* have caused some ambiguity.”

Again: SO WHAT?! You’re reaching, Robin...

*might huh? Well you’re entitled to your opinion

“To examine this, The Gospel of Luke of both Bible versions was studied and all the second person pronouns were first classified according to their case and number (nominative/accusative/dative/genitive, singular/plural) and thereafter counted. The verses of the Gospel of Luke, where both one or several persons are addressed, were read and carefully studied. Furthermore, when necessary, interesting or relevant, comparisons were also made to two other translations: the Gustav V´s Bible from 1917 and the Swedish Bible Version from 2000. The results of this study show that there are differences in the numbers of the examined pronouns. These discrepancies depend on several different factors which have been discussed. In addition, the investigation gives evidence of the fact that the references of pronouns are not always completely clear: several verses, which might be perceived erroneously, were found in the modern English Bible translation.“

“You grasp at straws.” You dream up problems that don’t exist suckering those you’ve bullied into submission - a favored KJVO leader tactic  

“I think this only partly explains my caution in changing* the original* text*.“

the modern translations CORRECT and clarify God’s message. You are no better than the Catholics. You keep His message just out the “sheep’s” reach. The sheep hafta come to you to explain the archaic language.

Too many KJVOs don’t REALLY know their translation. They berate us modern translation (MT) readers quoting, for example, 2 Tm 2:15 ‘study to shew...’ 400 years ago study meant “work hard.” Or call the MTs “bloodless.” Some blood statistics 

NET    1129  334 = 1463

NIV     1125  333 = 1458

NASB  1021 333 = 1454

CSB    1092 326 = 1418

NLT     1078 323 = 1401

KJ       1014  320 = 1334

but hey; believe what you want. It’s still a free country in non-KJVO churches 

 

Like the Catholics*, you tell them what you want them to know. Not to “shepherd” them but to control them. And as you’ve seen in posts above, the sheep hafta decried between their friends or the truth. I’ve seen it. It’s more rampant than you know. 
* I grew up Catholic. They’re not allowed to question or challenge like just like in the earlier post

“Much of it originated with William Tyndale, who was born in the next county to me in South West England.“

the KJ NT over 80 % a carbon copy of Tyndale’s work. Too many give the KJ TRANSLATORS the credit so deserving to Tyndale.

Robin, A reminder: Which pleases God more Jesus in your heart or the translation in your hand?

The KJ is unquestionably a beautiful translation - a point I agree w/completely. Even I have passages memorized from the KJ.

I hafta reinforce a couple of facts I may have missed:

1. “no such thing as a perfect translation of one language to another.” Therefore no English translation, INCLUDING THE KJ TRANSLATION, is perfect. 
2. “God’s Word is perfect in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. Anything else is a translation.” 
3. All translations are the work of fallible man. Most of the source texts for KJ are the work of fallible men.

These FACTS are as irrefutable and indisputable as 2 + 2 = 4

No point going further. I do hope you take the time to ponder the possibility, however slim, some of what people told you or maybe read in a publication are lies

I wish you well on your “Walk”

 

This post was modified 5 months ago by gp4Jesus

ReplyQuote
Jeffersonwmabry
(@jeffersonwmabry)
New Member
Joined: 2 weeks ago
Posts: 2
14/11/2020 1:50 am  

My dear friends  I believe that king james onlyism is incorrect. It is a good translation it may be the best translation in English , perhaps.  I like to use a parallel bible with the king James  and another version side by side. All the translations have errors  in them . 

Acts 12:4 incorrectly translates Passover into Easter. Kjv


ReplyQuote
gp4Jesus
(@gp4jesus)
Active Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 6
14/11/2020 12:49 pm  

@jeffersonwmabry

you can add Acts 5:30 & 10:39 doctrinally incorrect. 

Compare those verses in NASB NIV ESV CSB NLT NET NKJ* MEV* & WEB*, you’ll find them doctrinally correct.

*TR based - essentially modern English updates w/corrections. 

Same holds true for 1 Samuel‬ ‭13:20-21 in the translations above. It reads differently only in the KJ because about 100 years ago translators learned the correct meaning of a word found on an ancient Hebrew receipt. The KJ translators guessed incorrectly at the meaning of this*, one of the 500 words they could not translate  

KJV “But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his mattock. Yet they had a file* for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads.”
‭‭‬

NKJ “But all the Israelites would go down to the Philistines to sharpen each man’s plowshare, his mattock, his ax, and his sickle; and the charge for a sharpening was a pim* for the plowshares, the mattocks, the forks, and the axes, and to set the points of the goads.”

Good translation? Beautiful literature? Yeah I’ll go along w/that. I have passages memorized from the KJ, too. Perfect? Only if you’re a KJVO cultist. 


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 2
Share: