[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Author Topic: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism  (Read 34416 times)

harald

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • Gender: Male
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2004, 02:16:10 PM »
I will give some thoughts on the KJV and related things.

It is not true that the KJV is the only Bible translation that is based on the right text(s). There are past as well as modern day versions based on quite the same texts, i.e. the Ben Chayyim Masoretic text and the Antiochian Greek text, later known as the Textus Receptus. I will list a few versions whose New Testament is based on basically the same text as the KJV's NT. Also I shall add that the KJV is not purely a new translation of the Greek, but a revision-translation. Some of my own favourites I will underline.

Here are some readily available and a few harder to get TR based NT's irrespective of quality, I give years if known, and translator or reviser if known, and specific TR ed. if known. I will mark English ones in red or blue colour.

Luther Bible 1545 ed. (based on some later TR of Erasmus)
Erasmus Latin NT 1522 (based on his 1522 TR)
Tyndale NT  1525 (based on Erasmus TR)
Coverdale Bible 1535
Matthew's Bible  1541 (John Rogers)
Beza's Latin NT 1556
Geneva NT 1557 (William Whittingham & Co)
Bishop's Bible 1568de Reina 1569 (Cassiodoro de Reina)
Reina Valera 1602 (Cypriano de Valera)
Olivetan Revision 1588 (Beza)
Diodati 1607 (Giovanni Diodati)
KJV 1611/1769
Dutch Statenvertaling  1637
Martin Bible 1744 (revision of Olivetan)
Biblia 1776 (Finnish)
Carl XII Bibel 1703 (Swedish)
Alexander Campbell's Living Oracles NT (1820's)
NT 1878 (Swedish)
Russian Synodal Bible 1876
Norwegian Bible 1866
Danish Bible 1886
Toivo Koilo NT (Finnish, 1970's, have not been able to get hold of)
Novum Finnish-Greek Interlinear NT (1980's, out of print, very rare)
Studiebibeln Swedish-Greek Interlinear NT (1980's)
Reformationsbibeln (Swedish NT, spring 2003, based on Estienne 1550 Royal Edition TR)
Green's Interlinear 1976 (Jay P Green Sr., w. Scrivener 1894 TR)
YLT (Robert Young, based on Estienne 1550 I believe, 1860's)
Ricker Berry's Interlinear 1897 (w. Estienne 1550 TR)
Delitzsch Hebrew NT (Franz Delitzsch, 1880's)
Gabe-Salkinson-Ginsburg 2001 Hebrew NT (updated w. Scrivener 1894 by Eric Gabe)
Bengel 1974 NT
Frossard Bible (French, 1872, revision of Ostervald Bible)
Version D'Ostervald 1996 revisee (French revision of the old Ostervald Bible)
MKJV  (Green Sr., 1990, Scrivener 1894)
LITV (Green Sr., 1985, Scrivener 1894)
NKJV 1982
Lawrie NT (David Lawrie, 1998, Scrivener 1894)
VW-Bible 2003 (Paul Becker)
Exegeses Bible (Herb Jahn, 1999)
Hungarian Karoly
Romanian 2003 TBS UK version
Romanian Cornilescu
Icelandic Bible
Smith & Van Dyke Arabic
Kralicka Czech Bible
Afrikaans Ou Vertaling
Svensk 1854 NT w. Psalms (Swedish)



I counted 16 English versions based on the TR type Greek text, 14 if interlinears are not counted in. 10 out of 16 are "modern versions" in the sense that they have come after the KJV, chronologically. But inasmuch as they are TR based versions it is dishonest to say "all modern versions are based on the wrong text". Most are based on the wrong text, but not all. Not all English and not all non-English.

I have 4 TR editions, Erasmus 1522, Estienne 1550, Elzevier 1624, and Scrivener 1894, and my favourite of these is the last, Scrivener's.

I do not believe the KJV is the qualitatively best TR based English version. Nor is it the best TR based version of all, all languages counted in. I believe it is a richness to have access to several literal TR based versions in many languages. Sometimes if a version does not succeed in giving the true sense of the original author another one gives it. While I count MT and W-H text based versions to be generally inferior because of the inferior textual basis I know some such versions are even more literal and faithful to the original than many TR based versions. Such are profitable when their base text agrees with the TR in its reading in a given passage and when it accurately renders the Greek.


Harald

iGreg

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #16 on: January 03, 2004, 02:44:12 PM »
Harald, I am aware that there were English translations prior to the KJV. Speaking for myself, the KJV is not 100% perfect. However, it is, in my opinion, the best English translation readily available in readable English today & superior to the newer translations commonly availiable (such as the NIV, the NKJV,  etc.). The KJV is extremely close to the original languages.

I believe the Pilgrims bible was actually the Geneva Bible, a superb English Bible as well. I am sure the translators of the KJV looked at and studied the earlier English translations. So in a sense the KJV is a translation meant for the common man in a readable form. Even so, it is very very close to the original languages. So the alleged goal of modern day Bible translators to have a Bible in a readable modern English was already achieved by the KJV translators. Remember the old saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Rather than go through the middle-men of the earlier English translations, I would prefer to go directly to the original languages on the rare ocassions that the KJV might not be quite as good as it can be with a word or phrase. One classic example is the word "angel" in KJV. The more exact English translation would be "messenger".  Fine, so long as the reader knows this, I see no reason not to keep using the more poetic "angel." Angel means messenger. There are a few places where this understanding is significant, such as when it is referring to the angelic beings as opposed to messengers who are NOT the angelic beings.

brandplucked

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #17 on: January 03, 2004, 03:42:52 PM »


Proverbs 26:10 Say what!

King James Holy Bible 1611: "The great God that formed all things, both rewardeth the fool, and rewardeth transgressors." This is the reading of Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century Version, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Geneva Bible 1599: "The Excellent that formed all things both rewardeth the foole, and rewardeth the transgressours."

Young's "literal" translation: "Great is the Former of all, And He is rewarding a fool, And is rewarding transgressors."

NKJV 1982: "The Great God who formed all things gives the fool his hire and the transgressor his wages."

Spanish Reina Valera 1909: "El grande cra todas las cosas, y da paga al insensato, y la da a los transgressores." (The Great creates all things, and gives a recompense to the fool and gives it to the transgressors.)

The translations above generally teach the same idea, (except the NKJV gives it a different slant), but from here on, it is anybody's guess.

Spanish Reina Valera 1960: "Como arquero que a todos hiere, es el que toma a sueldo insensatos y vagabundos." (As an archer who wounds all, is he who hires fools and vagabonds.) Notice how different the two Spanish versions are.

Darby's Translation 1890: "A master roughly worketh everyone; he both hireth a fool and hireth passers-by."

Jewish Publication Society translation 1917: "A master performeth all things; but he that stoppeth a fool is as one that stoppeth a flood."

Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta: "The body of a fool is greatly afflicted, and a drunkard thinks that he can cross a sea."

Greek Septuagint Version (date disputed): "All the flesh of fools endures much hardship, for their fury is brought to nought."

Catholic Douay Version 1950: "Judgment determineth causes; and he that putteth a fool to silence, appeaseth anger."

Catholic Jerusalem Bible 1968: "An archer wounding all who pass: such is the man who employs a fool."

RSV 1952, ESV 2003: "Like an archer who wounds everybody is he who hires a passing fool or drunkard."

NASB 1972, 95: "Like an archer who wounds everyone, So is he who hires a fool or who hires those who pass by." (The NASB complete concordance shows they have translated this word as "great" 84 times, and only once as "archer")

NIV 1984: "Like an archer who wounds at random is he who hires a fool or any passerby."

The Good News Translation 1992: "An employer who hires any fool that comes along is only hurting everybody concerned."

The Living Bible 1981: "The master may get better work from an untrained apprentice than from a skilled rebel."

The New Living Bible 1998: "An employer who hires a fool or a bystander is like an archer who shoots recklessly."

God's Word Translation 1995: "Like many people who destroy everything, so is one who hires fools or drifters."

The Message 2002: "Hire a fool or a drunk and you shoot yourself in the foot."

As noted scholar James White likes to say, reading a variety of translations gives us a better understanding of the Scriptures.  ::)

brandplucked

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #18 on: January 04, 2004, 07:18:57 AM »
Harald writes: "I have 4 TR editions, Erasmus 1522, Estienne 1550, Elzevier 1624, and Scrivener 1894, and my favourite of these is the last, Scrivener's.
I do not believe the KJV is the qualitatively best TR based English version. Nor is it the best TR based version of all, all languages counted in. I believe it is a richness to have access to several literal TR based versions in many languages. Sometimes if a version does not succeed in giving the true sense of the original author another one gives it. While I count MT and W-H text based versions to be generally inferior because of the inferior textual basis I know some such versions are even more literal and faithful to the original than many TR based versions. Such are profitable when their base text agrees with the TR in its reading in a given passage and when it accurately renders the Greek.
Harald

Harald, you have no inerrant, inspired, complete, pure words of God that you supposedly believe in.  It is that simple.  You are in the general ballpark, but don't have a clue yet as to where home base is.

I don't give a fig what your "favorite TR"is.  There is no THE Textus Receptus, and which variants you pick and choose among all the differences in them and how you decide personally to translate them is your final authority, - not any printed Bible out there.

So why don't you just write your own bible version and be done with it?  I'm sure it will sell like hotcakes and be warmly received by your adoring public.  

You sound very pious as a staunch defender of the faith, but in reality you still are trying to steal our Holy Bible from us and are no better than guys like James White, Doug Kutilek and Gary Hudson.

Maybe you should go soak your head in some Epson Salts.  It will reduce some of the swelling.

Have a good day,

Will Kinney - a King James Bible believer who would not change a single word in the true Holy Bible providentially given to the world by God Himself.  Gee, I sure hope you will not feel offended by my harsh language.

brandplucked

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #19 on: January 04, 2004, 07:28:34 AM »
Greg says:

The KJV is extremely close to the original languages.
I believe the Pilgrims bible was actually the Geneva Bible, a superb English Bible as well."

Two points Greg.  Do you have a copy of the "original languages" by which you sit in judgment on the KJB?  Try giving us an honest answer.  If you do, then what are they called and where can we get a copy too.

Secondly, is the Geneva Bible "superb" in Job 13:16?

The KJB says: "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him."

The Geneva reads: "Though he slay me yet will I trust in him, and I will REPROOVE my ways in his sight."

So, which is it?  Was Job at this time maintaining his ways and continuing to think he was righteous, or was he reproving and blaming himself at this time?

This is just one of many examples I could provide.  God has bypassed the Geneva bible and put it on the shelf of history.  It was pretty good and a whole lot better than the modern versions, but not "superb" and not God's infallible words.

Will K

iGreg

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #20 on: January 04, 2004, 01:50:49 PM »
"Superb" is a subjective word I am using to express my opiniion. It certainly does not mean perfect. Likewise the KJV is superb and the best English translation commonly available today. However, if anyone is claiming the KJV is 100% perfect, then they are off-base. I am not a Biblical scholar, but I know the original languages of the Bible were Hebrew, Greek, & I believe Aramaic.

As far as "sitting in judgment," that is a loaded phrase meant to intimidate. I sit in judgment of nothing, I am expressing an opinion on which is the most reliable English Bible today, & I say it is the King James Bible. It is God's infallible word in every part that agrees with the original God-breathed texts, which appears to be in almost all parts of it. The KJV is the best starting point (or home-base if you like) in learning God's word.

inspector

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #21 on: January 05, 2004, 03:02:19 AM »

Regarding this statement by Inspector who said: "There is no essential doctrine at stake. We all believe the same thing.
The Bible, Old and New Testaments, are inerrant, infallible, God breathed, complete and final.

I have a question for you then, Inspector.  What are you referring to here?  You say the Old and New Testaments ARE inerrant, infallible etc.  Exactly to what are you referring when you say this?  Did you know there are several different Hebrew texts and that the nasb, rsv, niv, esv, etc. all frequently depart from all Hebrew texts?  I can prove this to you if you like.  Did you also know there are at least 30 different Greek texts out there?  So, when you talk about an inspired, complete, infallible Bible, exactly what do you have in mind? Something you can hold in your hands, read, and believe every word, or some kind of mystical, non-existent fabrication that nobody has ever seen and doesn't have?

A little clarity of your position would be appreciated.  Maybe you haven't yet thought through the ramifications of your present understanding.  Thanks.

Will Kinney

All I can say is that I know the original autographs are not with us. I believe God has providentially preserved His Word. I believe the same doctrines of grace as others here on the forum and have never used the KJV.

harald

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • Gender: Male
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #22 on: January 06, 2004, 01:59:57 PM »
 Mr. Kinney. You said

"Harald, you have no inerrant, inspired, complete, pure words of God that you supposedly believe in. It is that simple. You are in the general ballpark, but don't have a clue yet as to where home base is."


It appears to me you say the above, or something of similar import, to each and every person who does not embrace your King James Bible Only heresy. So, if I would say to you, "Mr. Kinney, if I do not have what you say, what should I do?"  I guess you would answer me something like, "Harald believe the pure words of God, the King James Bible. Period.".  Then I would answer you. The King James Bible version is profitable insofar as it accurately translates the original language words it is claimedly derived from, the Ben Chayyim Rabbinic Bible of 1524-5 and the  traditional Antiochian text. Where it misrepresents the divinely inspired and providentially preserved words of God in those texts it is not profitable, but rather unprofitable. In such instances I am not in the least bound to the words of the Anglican version. The authority of the KJV breaks down in each and every instance where its translators crucially mistranslated the original they had in possession. I would be a most foolish person to side with the KJV as over against the Hebrew and the Greek when the KJV lawlessly deviates from these. My position is exactly the same as that of the old Particular Baptists who signed the 1689 confession. They neither imputed ultimate authority to a version, but to the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek Received Text.

And no verse or passage whatsoever in the KJV or any version imaginable commands me to adopt your English versions as my one ultimate authority. Man, I am a Swedish thinking and Swedish speaking person who lives in Finland, and who also speaks Finnish. Do you have the guts to demand I ought to become a KJBO "believer", which heresy, KJBO, is a heresy peculiar to the English speaking countries, especially USA. Thank God for that, there are more than enough of sects and heresies in Finland without KJBO making its satanic inroads. And if this heresy of letter knowledge religionists does make it to my country I will expose it for the devilry it is with all my might.

I don't give a fig what your "favorite TR"is. There is no THE Textus Receptus, and which variants you pick and choose among all the differences in them and how you decide personally to translate them is your final authority, - not any printed Bible out there.

R: Don't you think I am aware there is no THE Textus Receptus. But there are many editions of the New Testament in Greek which have been called "Textus Receptus". Only a nitpicking knave would deny this fact. And the differences between the editions of the TR type of GNT are very minor. I have no need for "picking and choosing". Usually I only look into Estienne's 1550 and Scrivener's 1894, and so far when some crucial differences have come up I have sided with Scrivener. And I will say it again, it is my "favourite" of all TR editions I have access to, only 4 editions as I said. Which means it is the one I favour, and which readings I favour if I find other TR's have "variant readings" so-called. If you have a problem with this then I cannot help it. And my very final authority is not the KJV, but the old Masoretic text and the aforementioned TR edition. But the KJV is just as much my final authority in those places where it accurately, faithfully, exactly, and precisely renders the inspired and preserved words and wording of the Greek text. The same goes for the Geneva or Tyndale or YLT etc. When the KJV renders accurately I take no issue with it. When it errs I hate it in that instance with a perfect hatred, and impute something less than wisdom and prudence to its  unregenerate high-churchian pedobaptist Anglican translators.

But you Mr. Kinney, appear to have adopted for your very final authority a version revised & translated by uninspired men, fallible men, manifestly and evidently unregenerate men, pedobaptist heretics, high-churchian Anglican semi-papists and what more they were I will not go into now. You blindly trust all renditions of such wicked men, as over against the traditional original tongue texts of the Bible, and make those renditions your final authority, making those renditions, which make up the KJB, your final authority. Your trust is in the judgment and alleged wisdom of those unregenerate KJV translators. What then makes your position any more honourable than mine or that of someone else who does not wish to adopt or countenance your KJBO heresy?

So why don't you just write your own bible version and be done with it? I'm sure it will sell like hotcakes and be warmly received by your adoring public.

R: I have no adoring public, and do not want any such, because it does me none good whatsoever to have some men-reverencers around. And if so be I came up with a new version it would not sell like "hotcakes", because it would be free. I have no need of money, and even if I had I would not charge anything for God's truth and word translated. And if I came up with a version it would not be warmly received, because I am not of those who are in the business of pleasing men, like the KJV translators were. They were men-pleasers who sought to please that wicked King James and wicked Bishop Bancroft. Had they been God-pleasers they would have never translated for Bancroft or James or any other self-exalting patron. Nor would they have submitted to the wicked translation rules, which for example forbade them to render EKKLESIA as "congregation". Tyndale was his own man and was free to render it accurately as "congregation". His conscience was bound to something higher than some wicked king or some wicked high-churchian "Bishop" and his arbitrary rules. Neither could they render "baptiz"  as "immerse" but were bound to anglicize it as "baptize". And then come some KJB Only knaves claiming this translation project was of God. What utter stupidity!


You sound very pious as a staunch defender of the faith, but in reality you still are trying to steal our Holy Bible from us and are no better than guys like James White, Doug Kutilek and Gary Hudson.



R: No, I am no better than messieurs White, Kutilek, and Hudson, and have never claimed to be. I am familiar with their names and have read some of their writings, but that is all, and I often disagree with them. I do not think they try to steal the Bible from any man. I am neither trying to do that. I just hope to influence someone for the better who the Lord may will to influence for the better. And that by attempting at being truthful as to this thing called KJB Onlyism. And I will not impute absolute perfection to the KJV just for the sake of pleasing men, when the KJV does contain some renderings which ought to be corrected to match the text it derives from. The words of the KJB are not inviolable where they do not optimally translate the underlying words of the Hebrew and Greek. You are of those who settle for the mediocre and stop there. I trust to be of those who by divine grace press toward full knowledge in all things pertaining to what God has revealed in the Scriptures. In spiritual things mediocrity is sin when perfection is attainable. To each his own. And in case you begin to carp I shall say I do not refer to some Wesleyan perfectionism figment.

As to your language it was no more harsher than that of the average KJBO religionist. By the way. It appears to me that some of you King James Onlyites equal all those who are KJBO with being "believers". Some of you also talk about "King James Bible believers". Should one interpret that as that adherence to only the KJB translation is what evidences you as "believers" or as that you believe in the KJB versions as opposed to believing in the Christ? Whichever way King James Onlyism is a heresy, and most KJVO adherents fellowship around a Bible version and its exaltation and promotion and defense, and not around Christ and His doctrine, 2John 9-11. Theirs is no better than the damnable ecumenism of such who are called "liberals" and "modernists" by such who boastingly call themselves "Bible believers" and "fundamentalists".
In the world of King James Onlyism it is no rare thing to see "Arminians" so-called and "Calvinists" so-called or "Reformed" call each others "brothers" and "believers", at the same time evilly and hypocritically despising non KJBO people. Just showing to the seeing person that both parties are brothers in KJBOnlyism and not in Christ, partakers in the same evil deeds.

I have come to think that one of the reasons why KJB Onlyites are so dogmatic in their KJB Onlyism is because they believe in gospel or Bible regeneration, as well as Bible salvation, just like the Pharisees, as opposed to salvation by the grace of Christ alone. I do not say all KJBO's are gospel or Bible regenerationists, but many betray they are from their own words.
The Bible, the written revelation of God, was never given for the purpose of being a means of regeneration. Nor was it given for the purpose of securing entrance into God's eternal presence, as the Pharisees apparently believed, and were sternly rebuked by Christ. And some KJBO's are manifestly caught in the same delusion as them. And some KJBO's evidently have all their assurance of their claimed salvation bound up in this KJB Onlyism thing. As if something shaking their confidence in the KJB and its claimed to-the-word -perfection would be a threat to their religious identity and assurance of a claimed salvation. As to such people I say they are yet unconverted people, who know nothing about the nature of the "faith of God's elect", and their assurance is false and not of God the Holy Spirit. Such people do not understand the WHY of the giving of the Scriptures and the WHY and WHAT and the intricacies of true faith which is of the operation of God. And the world of KJB Onlyism is filled with such presumptuous boasters.


Harald

Anne

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
  • Grow With God
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #23 on: January 06, 2004, 03:39:50 PM »
Quote
I don't give a fig what your "favorite TR"is. There is no THE Textus Receptus,
Will Kenny

Will,

What kind of language is this to be using in a Christian forum? If you don't have any respect for your own witness, try and respect others here by not using this offensive language. This isn't a bar.


John

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 535
  • Gender: Male
  • A man with God is always in the majority-John Knox
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #24 on: January 10, 2004, 02:32:03 PM »
Harald,

Much of what you wrote rings true. Some people find peace and assurance in the thought that God has given one True translation and all others are uninspired works of men. They build their life and their websites devoted to protecting this safe harbor in a sea of confusion. To be wrong on KJBOism is to be cast out into a raging sea -- their world-view crashes down and with it their belief that they are God's special protectors of the faith. What are they then? Simply confused, ignorant men who believed a lie -- now they will, like everyone else, have to work to understand God's word -- searching God's word, comparing, struggling, learning ... perhaps too much for some who lazily say, "the KJB is the inerrant, perfected, God-ordained, inspired, specially-protected Word of God".

The way to become entrapped in such erroneous thinking is to NOT bother to do careful scriptural study. Let's say the KJB is perfect, only possessing copying errors but nothing more. Then we'd have some explaining to do with this:

Mar 16:2  And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun.

If God inspired the translators to write this, then God has erred. The word translated "week" is the word Sabbath, not week. "Day" has been added and is not in the translator's Greek text. This word mistranslated "week" is the same word used in the previous verse and correctly translated as Sabbath, "Mar 16:1  And when the sabbath was past ..." , that is, the old Sabbath was past and it was the first of the Sabbath(s) of the new Sabbath that they came to the sepulcher.

Mar 16:2  And very early in the morning on the first of the Sabbaths, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun.

We find the same construct erroneously translated in the KJB in Mat 28:1.

"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week ... "

Again we have the "last" or "end" of the "Sabbaths", not sabbath (singular), as it began to dawn toward the first of the "Sabbaths", not week.  The KJB translators erred in translating the Greek Sabbath by using "week", and by making a plural word singular. It should be:

"In the end of Sabbaths [plural], at the dawning on toward the first of the Sabbaths"


What's the point of all this? How is it some can make a statement that the King James Bible is "inerrant, inspired, complete", and the "pure words of God", and they would not "change a single word in the true Holy Bible providentially given to the world by God Himself"?  If you do not change a word then, in this case, you ignorantly follow error and will not come to truth concerning the new Sabbath that began on Sunday with Christ's resurrection. To keep your safety blanket in a world where there is no completely faithful translation provides you only a false sense of security -- as anyone with eyes to see can acknowledge.

The KJB is a good translation based on good Greek texts. The next step is error -- it is not a perfect, God-breathed translation given by inspired men who did not err. They did err and on many occasions (I've shown only a few). It is infantile, silly, and futile to cling to a false hope in perfection that does not exist.

It is ignorant to think otherwise and prideful to hold on to a lie, even if you've built your entire identity into that thing. Repenting of the KJB-only error does not require you to agree or accept the errors of modern versions; the two are not mutually exclusive. You only can no longer say that the modern versions are wrong because they do not follow the KJB, as is often done.

Did the translators follow the Greek text accurately, if not then they are in error (as the example above). This is true for the KJB as it is for the NIV ... when the translators err then we must be willing to accept this and learn from it.

john
Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!

harald

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • Gender: Male
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #25 on: January 10, 2004, 04:00:41 PM »
John. Thank you for your post. I copypasted it to my files as there were many worthwhile things in it. It was kind of encouraging to read your judicious comments. Also, the examples of error in KJV you gave were new to me. In the light of all this it is hard to grasp how some have hardened their consciences so as to go so abysmally deep in KJB Onlyism error.


Harald

iGreg

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #26 on: January 11, 2004, 01:54:43 AM »
John. Thank you for your post. I copypasted it to my files as there were many worthwhile things in it. It was kind of encouraging to read your judicious comments. Also, the examples of error in KJV you gave were new to me. In the light of all this it is hard to grasp how some have hardened their consciences so as to go so abysmally deep in KJB Onlyism error.


Harald

Even though there are some errors (though not many) in the King James, I have no problem in saying that the King James Bible is the only English translation I use & recommend. Therefore, it is fair to say I am for the "KJB Only" as far as English translations go.

If someone uses the King James Bible alone, even without the texts of the original languages, they are getting a superb English translation of God's word. The few translation errors that are significant can be easily pointed out by others. The Sabbath-Week error and the Angels vs Messenger issue pointed out above are good examples of this.

harald

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • Gender: Male
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #27 on: January 11, 2004, 06:44:20 AM »
As for myself I have no problem with a position which may be referred to as KJV-preferred. What I do oppose is the modern heresy of KJV Onlyism, which resorts to lies and falsehoods and falsifying of facts as pertains to the KJV and its translators and related matters. I think e.g. Mr. Kinney's position is most unwise, to say all and any who do not exclusively use the KJV have no Bible or no absolute authority but are their own authority. Kinney has also said in some instance that the Geneva Bible was not God's inerrant words but then he says KJV is so. I wonder by what standard of judgment. KJB Onlyism is a misguided zeal for God's word. The cause of the truth is not benefited from obvious lies and exaggerations.

Comparatively speaking the KJV is among the most profitable of English versions. One of its greatest benefits is that it has all the essential readings, i.e. is based on the superior text(s). But a drawback of it is that while it has the readings intact it does not always accurately render the exact inspired and preserved wording of those readings as found in the Received Text underlying its NT part. An example among others would be John 6:20, where KJV has it that Christ says "It is I..." The Greek has "eg eimi" - "I AM" , which is the formula Christ used to maintain His being Almighty Jehovah God. KJV gets "eg eimi" right in several other instances.


While KJB Only liars are heretics not all things about them are bad. Most of them rightly maintain that the TR is superior to Alexandrian editions of the Greek Testament. Most if not all rightly maintain that dynamic equivalence is not the right method in Bible translating. And they are right that modern versions in general are weak versions. But they err when they impute absolute translational perfection to KJB. And discard the original language texts on which it is based. And discard previous English versions, and what other stupid things I will not now go into.


Harald

Dave Taylor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
  • I'm a llama!
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #28 on: April 14, 2004, 10:39:50 AM »
From my studies of textual criticism, I don't find any major or troubling variation between the two text bases.

Sure there are differences, but in the teaching, presentation, and fuindamental theme of scripture; they present the same story.

What I would like to see; and I can't see why some Bible Publisher doesn't take this route; is to publish an English Bible that contains both the Critical Minority Text, and the TR/MSS Majority Text both.  Not in footnotes.  Not in parenthesis, but just full out in the text. 

When the two differ, then use the fuller textual variation that is available; then use footnotes to describe how the lesser textbase varies.

I have an 8-parallel NT which has two TR versions (KJV & NKJV) and six critical text version; and it does a fair job in showing the variations in the parallel format....much better than any single English Bible Version I have read.

This to me, anyway, would give us, as an English Speaking people, the fullest, complete heritage of what has been accepted and passed down through the ages as 'the Bible'....and it would squelch the critics who cry, "blah blah blah version is leaving out parts of the Bible".

BTW, as far as KJV Onlyism is concerned; I have yet to meet a KJV Onlyer who claims the 1611 version is the only true and accurate version of the English Bible who actually quotes from and has ever even seen an original 1611 version.  It has become an emotional attatchment that is not grounded on careful study; but rather unfounded emotional and tradition-based loyalty.

(BTW, I typically use the KJV most of the time, and it is my English translation of first choice.....until someone decides to publish a combined CR/TR/MSS English Bible)




jd@

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #29 on: April 14, 2004, 10:54:51 AM »
My study bible (the Reformation Study Bible, originally marketed as the New Geneva Study Bible) puts both the critical text and the majority text in the margins - I find that quite helpful. 

Quote
When the two differ, then use the fuller textual variation that is available;

Did you have a particular reason for picking the longer variant, Dave?

 


[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]