One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Faith, Religion, Spirituality
Questions for advocates of "KJV Onlyism:"
Apr 16, 2021 13:11:24   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
Would you contend that God waited until a king named "James" sat on the throne of England before perfectly preserving His Word in English, and would you think well of an "Epistle Dedicatory" that praises this king as "most dread Sovereign... Your Majesty's Royal Person..." - IF the historical FACT was revealed to you that King James was a practicing homosexual all of his life?
[documentation - Antonia Fraser -- "King James VI of Scotland, I of England" Knopf Publ./1975/pgs. 36-37, 123 || Caroline Bingham -- "The Making of a King" Doubleday Publ./1969/pgs. 128-129, 197-198 || Otto J. Scott -- "James I" Mason-Charter Publ./1976/pgs. 108, 111, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353, 382 || David H. Wilson -- "King James VI & I" Oxford Publ./1956/pgs. 36, 99-101, 336-337, 383-386, 395 || plus several encyclopedias]

Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard Thomson, who worked on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was "led by God in translating" even though he was an alcoholic that "drank his fill daily" throughout the work? [Gustavus S. Paine -- "The Men Behind the KJV" Baker Book House/1979/pgs. 40, 69]

Which KJV is inspired? WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" - in 1611, or on any date of the KJV major/minor revisions; 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?

What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend, since there was no KJV of the Bible in existence before 1611?
Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV?
Why do KJV Only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?

If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV advocates say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language, for God chose Koine GREEK, not ENGLISH, to reveal his New Covenant/New Testament!
If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat that same process again in each modern language on earth?
If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this same supervision to the printers to prevent all the printing errors?
Why did the KJV translators have to use notes in the margins to show alternate translations? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, why did it need alternates?
If the KJV translators were Holy Spirit inspired just like the Apostles, why did they not know it?
Why have all the marginal notes and alternate readings now been removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to King James I, and the lengthy introduction from "The Translators to the Reader?"
When the KJV English and the TR Greek differ, why do you believe the Greek was wrong and the KJV English is correct?

In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early (1600s) English dictionary to be able to understand the Bible?
Why do KJV Only advocates feel that all modern translations are wrong for copyrighting the work of each translation when they copyright the materials on their websites, tracts and books used to promote the KJV?
Do they not realize that after 100 years all books pass into public domain and that all copyrighted Bibles today will soon be in the public domain just like the KJV now is?
If "God's truth should not be copyrighted" then why do they copyright their defenses of God's "ultimate truth," aka, the KJV Bible?
Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn't? Is this not the ultimate example of "translation worship,"
when you reject the original (in favor of the translation)?

Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none dated before the 10th century A.D.?
If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that to produce these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into Greek and the Greek into English - a translation of a translation of a translation?
Why do KJV Only advocates believe the English of the KJV is clearer and more precise than the original Greek language manuscripts? Why should Bible students discard their Greek dictionaries for a dictionary of "archaic English?"
Do not the words in original Greek create word pictures that English words cannot easily convey? (Jas 2:19 "tremble"; Greek: PHRISSO, indicates to be rough, to bristle, a powerful word picture of the demons in such terror that their skin is rough with goose pimples.)

Why did the translators make mistakes in the chapter summaries in the 1611 version? Wouldn't God have inspired this as well? Why would God inspire the English accurately, but then allow misleading chapter headings? (Every chapter of the Song of Songs is wrong; misinterpreted as descriptive of the church. SoS is God's "marriage selection manual."

Why would the translators use book headings like "The Gospel According to Saint Luke" since the Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke?" Does this not show the influence upon the 17th century translators of contemporary theology and the false doctrine of "sainthood" as a reward from the church to a select few, rather than the Biblical truth that it is a status shared by all members of the body of Christ?

Do KJV Only advocates realize they align themselves beside the Mormon church as both groups believe they received an "inspired translation?" (Mormon's believe Joseph Smith's English translation of the Book of Mormon from the Nephi Plates was done under inspiration.) Do KJV only advocates realize the most powerful and irrefutable evidence that neither were translated under inspiration, is the thousands of errors found in each of their very first editions (KJV - 1611 edition; Book of Mormon - 1831 edition)?

Do KJV Only advocates realize it is irrelevant for them to point out that all modern translations have the same kinds of mistakes of which the KJV is accused, because we maintain that all translations have errors and none were translated under the inspired supervision of God?

Why would the Holy Spirit misguide the translators to use mythical creatures like "unicorn" for wild ox, "satyr" for "wild goat", or "cockatrice" for common viper, when today we know the real name of these creatures?

If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI) ; "hades and hell" (Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14).

Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions where none exist?

Why did the KJV translators have no consistent rule for differentiating between definite and indefinite articles (Dan 3:25 we have one "like the Son of God" instead of "like a son of God", even though in 28 Nebuchadnezzar states God sent "His angel" to deliver the men.)? The definite article was also added to the centurion's confession in Mt 27:54.

How can you accept the Textus Receptus as perfect and error free when Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate, but in absolutely no Greek manuscript? Why does Rev 22:19 say "book of life" in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"?
How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators used the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"?

Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If not, why do some "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611?

Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA Bible translation with them to North America?

Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest/poorest translation" is still "the word of God"?
Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"?
Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct" the English?
Do you believe that the English text of the KJV "corrects" the Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated?
Is ANY translation "inspired"? Is the KJV an "inspired translation"?
Is the KJV "scripture" ? Is IT "given by inspiration of God"? [2 Tim. 3:16]

In what language did Jesus Christ, [not KJV Onlyism, Peter Ruckman and others] teach
that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18?

Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?
Did God lose the words of the originals when the "autographs" were destroyed?
Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of KJV N.T.] Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" from which to translate?

Was "the original Greek" then lost after 1611?

Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without "the word of God"?
Which copy or translations of "the word of God," used by the Reformers before 1611, was absolutely infallible and inerrant? [their main Bibles are well-known and copies still exist].
If the 1611 KJV is "God's infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people," did the "English-speaking people" have "the word of God" from 1525-1604?

Was Tyndale's [1525], or Coverdale's [1535], or Matthew's [1537], or the Great [1539], or the Geneva [1560] . . . English Bible absolutely infallible?

If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely inerrant, could a lost sinner still be "born again" by the "incorruptible word of God"? [1 Peter 1:23]

If the KJV can "correct" the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally "breathed out by God" need correction or improvement?

Since most "KJV-Onlyites" believe the KJV is the inerrant and inspired "scripture" [2 Peter 1:20 - 1:21 says "prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"], would you not be forced to reason thus - "For the King James Version came not in 1611 by the will of man: but holy men of God translated it as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"?

Which reading is the verbally plenary (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "whom ye" [Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV's] at Jeremiah 34:16?
Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "sin" [Cambridge KJV's] or "sins" [Oxford KJV's] at 2 Chronicles 33:19?

Who publishes the "inerrant KJV"?
Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words - would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or in 1850?

Is it not possible that the rendition "gay clothing," in the KJV at James 2:3, could give the wrong impression to the modern-English KJV reader?
Did dead people "wake up" in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV?
Was "Baptist" John's last name according to Matthew 14: 8 and Luke 7:20 in the KJV?

Is 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 in the KJV understood by the modern-English KJV reader? - "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged."

As it is clearly understood from the New International Version [NIV] - "We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange - I speak as to my children - open wide your hearts also."

Do the singular "oath's," occurring in every KJV at Matthew 14: 9 and Mark 6:26, "correct" every Textus Receptus Greek text, which has the plural ("oaths") by the post-1611 publishers, misplacing the apostrophe?

Did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4: 8? [Remember - you may not go to the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]
Is the Holy Spirit an "it" according to John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; and 1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV? [Again - you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]

Does Luke 23:56 support a "Friday" crucifixion in the KJV? [No "day" here in Greek]
Did Jesus command for a girl to be given "meat" to eat according to Luke 8:55 in the KJV? [or, "of them that sit at meat with thee." at Luke 14:10]
Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "Bible-corrector" for saying that Romans 8:24 should say "saved in hope," instead of the KJV's "saved by hope"? [Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol 27, 1881, page 485 - see more Spurgeon KJV comments in What is "KJV-Onlyism?", in the article, "Quotes on Bible Translations."]

Was J. Frank Norris a "Bible-corrector" for saying that the correct rendering of John 3:5 should be "born of water and the Spirit," and for saying that "repent and turn" in Acts 26:20 should be "repent, even turn"? [Norris-Wallace Debate, 1934, pgs. 108, 116] Also, is Norman Pickering an "Alexandrian Apostate" for stating, "The nature of language does not permit a 'perfect' translation - the semantic area of words differs between languages so that there is seldom complete overlap. A 'perfect' translation of John 3:16 from Greek into English is impossible, for we have no perfect equivalent for "agapao" [translated "loved" in John. 3:16]?"

The King James Version of the Bible, first published in 1611 under the authority of England's King James, was in that day a good translation, and is yet today a useful translation for those well skilled in the Shakespearean English of the 16th - 17th century.
However, no translation is due the reverence which many have toward the King James Version.

Henry Morris KJV Study Bible
Halley's Bible Handbook
The Ryrie NAS Study Bible New Testament

Reply
Apr 16, 2021 14:30:43   #
Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon
 
I don't believe that any "translation" can be more accurate that the original Hebrew and Aramaic.

Reply
Apr 16, 2021 16:15:12   #
manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA
 
O have no idea about the various translations of the original documents that underpin multiple versions of the Bible. I am used to the KJV, and have no other. I would say that the gospel is not harmed in any event, and the main sequences of events are still ok. So I do not intend to change.

Reply
 
 
Apr 16, 2021 16:53:17   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
Interesting, and of course, provocative, Michael...

By definition, no "translation" can hope to be as accurate as the original autographs, whatever their language.

Because the Coptic Church of Egypt is the earliest Christian church in the world, going back to around 42 AD, and the Dura-Europos Chaldean church dated ca 250 A.D., in eastern Syria, near the Euphrates River, is the oldest surviving church building in the world, these cultures surely had early translations of the New Testament gospels and epistles in their respective languages, but they were not the original autographs.

The ruins of the Dura-Europos church in Syria, is concrete evidence of the presence of organized Christian communities in the Aramaic-speaking area, far from Jerusalem and the Mediterranean coast, and there are traditions of the preaching of Christianity in the region as early as the time of the Apostles.

The Christians, during their first 370 years of existence, until 405 A.D., used a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament (Septuagint), and an original koine (vulgar/common) Greek New Testament.

It is historical fact (although nothing is ever undisputable) that the New Testament, the B'rit Hadashah (Hebrew), the Injil (Arabic), was, in the original autographs, written in the koine (vulgar) Greek of the common man, with only a smattering of Aramaic sentences (Jesus on the cross, et al) interspersed.

The view of the Assyrian Church of the East that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic was well disseminated by George Lamsa, but is not supported by the majority of scholars, either of the Peshitta or the Greek New Testament.

The Greek Septuagint Old Testament was the standard text of Apostle Paul and the entire first century church.

It is also a historical, indisputable fact that the Old Testament of the Christians, until Jerome (Eusebius Hieronymus) completed his Latin translation of the Bible in 405 A.D., was not the Tanakh (Hebrew ACRONYM for The Law, The Prophets, The Writings), although originally written in Hebrew (with a smattering of Aramaic in Daniel and Ezra), but was the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint, completed ca 250 B.C..

This was a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy:
Isaiah 6:9,10:
"And He replied: “Go and tell this people, ‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’
"Make the hearts of this people calloused; deafen their ears and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”

It was verified as fulfillment by Paul Preaching at Rome in Acts 28:25-26:

"They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: “The Holy Spirit was right when He spoke to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet:
‘Go to this people and say, “You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”

Jesus and the Apostles: studied, memorized, used, quoted, and read most often from the Bible of their day, the Septuagint... when Jesus quotes the Old Testament in Matthew, He uses the Hebrew text only 10% of the time, but the Greek LXX translation - 90% of the time!"

Have you an aversion to the Greek?


Michael Rich wrote:
I don't believe that any "translation" can be more accurate that the original Hebrew and Aramaic.

Reply
Apr 16, 2021 23:40:33   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
Manning, I can not think of anyway in which the characteristics of the "King James Onlyist"
would apply to you.

Refuting the claims of King James Onlyist does not mean God can not use the KJV just as He does other versions, what it does mean is that we should worship God, and obey His words, but not worship a physical book made of paper, glue and binding.

Among my own most treasured Study Bibles is the Henry Morris King James Version Apologetic Study Bible.

“King James Onlyism” refers to practitioners of a "cultish" ideology that demands that all Christians (or at least all English-speaking Christians) must use the King James Version of the Bible exclusively because all other English versions are products of the devil.

In the book of Numbers, God spoke through Balaam's ass, so certainly He can speak through the KJV, but not through the KJV to the exclusion of other versions.

Their position is that the 1611 King James Version constitutes divinely inspired "advanced revelation" from God, surpassing the original Greek and Hebrew and is the final, preserved word of God, rather than the copy - the culmination of the 6 English Bibles which preceded it: the Tyndale, the Coverdale, the Bishops Bible, the Matthews Bible, the Geneva Bible and the Great Bible

King James Onlyists generally accuse all other Bible translations of being so deficient or even systematically perverted to render their use problematic, dangerous, or even sinful.

There are various expressions and degrees of King James Onlyism that would state and defend their beliefs in very different ways and to different extremes, but the common factor that makes them “King James Onlyist” is their belief that the King James Bible is the only English Bible that was directly "inspired" by God, and is superior to all other Bibles, which are only perverted copies, and therefore not suitable for use by Christians today.

To clarify what "King James Onlyism" is, it is necessary to also state what it is not:

King James Onlyism is not a mere personal preference for the King James Bible.
Anyone who personally prefers the KJV but is fine with other Christians using other Bible translations of their own choice, is not a King James Onlyist.

King James Onlyism is also not merely the formal use of the KJV in public worship. If a traditional church exclusively uses the KJV in their corporate worship services but allows their members to read other translations privately and does not condemn other churches that use other versions, they are not King James Onlyists.

Any church may choose to preach and teach publicly from the KJV for a number of reasons without insisting that the KJV is the only true Bible for Christians today. So, while all King James Onlyists will use only the King James Version in public worship, not all churches that use only the King James Version in public worship are necessarily King James Onlyists.

King James Onlyism is also not merely the assertion that the KJV is the best translation. I know many people who think that the NASB is the best translation available today, but we do not call them NASB Onlyists. I know others who think the ESV is now the best translation on the market, but they are not called ESV Onlyists.

I likewise know a number of people who think the KJV is still the best translation we have, but they are not King James Onlyists. The reason is simple: while such people believe that their Bible of choice is the “best” translation, none of them insist that every Christian must use only that translation. They still regard other translations of the Bible as equally the word of God.

They would never imply that it would be a sin or a dangerous error to use other Bible translations. They may well urge you from time to time to switch to their translation and tell you why they think their favorite Bible version is the most accurate, but they would not break Christian fellowship over the issue nor forbid preaching from other translations.

They may believe in their heart that it would be advantageous to other Christians if they would switch to their own preferred translation, but they would never demand that, as a matter of morality, all "real" Christians must switch to their translation. Anyone who fits the description of being tolerant and accepting of others preferences regarding the KJV is NOT a member of a King James Onlyist sect.

Manning, as I stated above, the most commonly held fanatically beliefs and teachings of KJV Onyists on the KJV, against which I was speaking, have, as far as I can ascertain, absolutely nothing to do with you.

The indwelling Holy Spirit can teach from any Bible version. He is God.



manning5 wrote:
O have no idea about the various translations of the original documents that underpin multiple versions of the Bible. I am used to the KJV, and have no other. I would say that the gospel is not harmed in any event, and the main sequences of events are still ok. So I do not intend to change.

Reply
Apr 17, 2021 11:21:24   #
Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon
 
Zemirah wrote:
Interesting, and of course, provocative, Michael...

By definition, no "translation" can hope to be as accurate as the original autographs, whatever their language.

Because the Coptic Church of Egypt is the earliest Christian church in the world, going back to around 42 AD, and the Dura-Europos Chaldean church dated ca 250 A.D., in eastern Syria, near the Euphrates River, is the oldest surviving church building in the world, these cultures surely had early translations of the New Testament gospels and epistles in their respective languages, but they were not the original autographs.

The ruins of the Dura-Europos church in Syria, is concrete evidence of the presence of organized Christian communities in the Aramaic-speaking area, far from Jerusalem and the Mediterranean coast, and there are traditions of the preaching of Christianity in the region as early as the time of the Apostles.

The Christians, during their first 370 years of existence, until 405 A.D., used a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament (Septuagint), and an original koine (vulgar/common) Greek New Testament.

It is historical fact (although nothing is ever undisputable) that the New Testament, the B'rit Hadashah (Hebrew), the Injil (Arabic), was, in the original autographs, written in the koine (vulgar) Greek of the common man, with only a smattering of Aramaic sentences (Jesus on the cross, et al) interspersed.

The view of the Assyrian Church of the East that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic was well disseminated by George Lamsa, but is not supported by the majority of scholars, either of the Peshitta or the Greek New Testament.

The Greek Septuagint Old Testament was the standard text of Apostle Paul and the entire first century church.

It is also a historical, indisputable fact that the Old Testament of the Christians, until Jerome (Eusebius Hieronymus) completed his Latin translation of the Bible in 405 A.D., was not the Tanakh (Hebrew ACRONYM for The Law, The Prophets, The Writings), although originally written in Hebrew (with a smattering of Aramaic in Daniel and Ezra), but was the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint, completed ca 250 B.C..

This was a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy:
Isaiah 6:9,10:
"And He replied: “Go and tell this people, ‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’
"Make the hearts of this people calloused; deafen their ears and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”

It was verified as fulfillment by Paul Preaching at Rome in Acts 28:25-26:

"They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: “The Holy Spirit was right when He spoke to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet:
‘Go to this people and say, “You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”

Jesus and the Apostles: studied, memorized, used, quoted, and read most often from the Bible of their day, the Septuagint... when Jesus quotes the Old Testament in Matthew, He uses the Hebrew text only 10% of the time, but the Greek LXX translation - 90% of the time!"

Have you an aversion to the Greek?
Interesting, and of course, provocative, Michael..... (show quote)


As I understand. The only original Septuagint was burned up in a fire at the Alexandria library.

There are many differences between the re-translation Greek texts and the Hebrew.

The KJV went further from the Hebrew.

There are key prophecies that the whole meaning of certain words were changed.

The old saying "it loses a lot in translation" rings loud and clear.

Reply
Apr 17, 2021 20:01:57   #
Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX
 
Zemirah wrote:
Manning, I can not think of anyway in which the characteristics of the "King James Onlyist"
would apply to you.

Refuting the claims of King James Onlyist does not mean God can not use the KJV just as He does other versions, what it does mean is that we should worship God, and obey His words, but not worship a physical book made of paper, glue and binding.

Among my own most treasured Study Bibles is the Henry Morris King James Version Apologetic Study Bible.

“King James Onlyism” refers to practitioners of a "cultish" ideology that demands that all Christians (or at least all English-speaking Christians) must use the King James Version of the Bible exclusively because all other English versions are products of the devil.

In the book of Numbers, God spoke through Balaam's ass, so certainly He can speak through the KJV, but not through the KJV to the exclusion of other versions.

Their position is that the 1611 King James Version constitutes divinely inspired "advanced revelation" from God, surpassing the original Greek and Hebrew and is the final, preserved word of God, rather than the copy - the culmination of the 6 English Bibles which preceded it: the Tyndale, the Coverdale, the Bishops Bible, the Matthews Bible, the Geneva Bible and the Great Bible

King James Onlyists generally accuse all other Bible translations of being so deficient or even systematically perverted to render their use problematic, dangerous, or even sinful.

There are various expressions and degrees of King James Onlyism that would state and defend their beliefs in very different ways and to different extremes, but the common factor that makes them “King James Onlyist” is their belief that the King James Bible is the only English Bible that was directly "inspired" by God, and is superior to all other Bibles, which are only perverted copies, and therefore not suitable for use by Christians today.

To clarify what "King James Onlyism" is, it is necessary to also state what it is not:

King James Onlyism is not a mere personal preference for the King James Bible.
Anyone who personally prefers the KJV but is fine with other Christians using other Bible translations of their own choice, is not a King James Onlyist.

King James Onlyism is also not merely the formal use of the KJV in public worship. If a traditional church exclusively uses the KJV in their corporate worship services but allows their members to read other translations privately and does not condemn other churches that use other versions, they are not King James Onlyists.

Any church may choose to preach and teach publicly from the KJV for a number of reasons without insisting that the KJV is the only true Bible for Christians today. So, while all King James Onlyists will use only the King James Version in public worship, not all churches that use only the King James Version in public worship are necessarily King James Onlyists.

King James Onlyism is also not merely the assertion that the KJV is the best translation. I know many people who think that the NASB is the best translation available today, but we do not call them NASB Onlyists. I know others who think the ESV is now the best translation on the market, but they are not called ESV Onlyists.

I likewise know a number of people who think the KJV is still the best translation we have, but they are not King James Onlyists. The reason is simple: while such people believe that their Bible of choice is the “best” translation, none of them insist that every Christian must use only that translation. They still regard other translations of the Bible as equally the word of God.

They would never imply that it would be a sin or a dangerous error to use other Bible translations. They may well urge you from time to time to switch to their translation and tell you why they think their favorite Bible version is the most accurate, but they would not break Christian fellowship over the issue nor forbid preaching from other translations.

They may believe in their heart that it would be advantageous to other Christians if they would switch to their own preferred translation, but they would never demand that, as a matter of morality, all "real" Christians must switch to their translation. Anyone who fits the description of being tolerant and accepting of others preferences regarding the KJV is NOT a member of a King James Onlyist sect.

Manning, as I stated above, the most commonly held fanatically beliefs and teachings of KJV Onyists on the KJV, against which I was speaking, have, as far as I can ascertain, absolutely nothing to do with you.

The indwelling Holy Spirit can teach from any Bible version. He is God.
Manning, I can not think of anyway in which the ch... (show quote)


You always amaze me. Do you believe the Dead Sea scrolls will shed some more light? I'm not scholarly enough to even know that. But I've been waiting a long time for them to be printed in English. I had to purchase a new Bible and I went with the NKJV while waiting. I think we will all be surprised in the not too distant future if what I keep hearing is true.

I'm pretty sure Constantine and the Council of Nicaea had the same similar problems as the KJV translators but they deleted entire scrolls from the Bible like Enoch, Jasher, and others. The ruler said get it done and they did but under that kind of pressure, mere men will do what has to be done, because of fear. That's not very good housekeeping or being faithful to scripture. A lot of jots and tiddles have been trashed in the meantime. I'm hoping the Essenes kept the faith and the word the best they could. They seem to have separated themselves from the Pharisees and Sadducees because they were becoming too corrupt and compromised.

I'm kind of hoping AI and quantum computers can help reassemble the fragments faster. But I'm quickly losing hope in that. Not a jigsaw puzzle I'd like to try and reassemble. But I can't do calculations as fast as one AI quantum computer can, and I even flunked Algebra II after barely passing Algebra I. Math isn't my strong suit. I daydream too much when bored. I learn easier visually.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge. I appreciate it very much!

Reply
 
 
Apr 17, 2021 23:08:09   #
manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA
 
Zemirah wrote:
Manning, I can not think of anyway in which the characteristics of the "King James Onlyist"
would apply to you.

Refuting the claims of King James Onlyist does not mean God can not use the KJV just as He does other versions, what it does mean is that we should worship God, and obey His words, but not worship a physical book made of paper, glue and binding.

Among my own most treasured Study Bibles is the Henry Morris King James Version Apologetic Study Bible.

“King James Onlyism” refers to practitioners of a "cultish" ideology that demands that all Christians (or at least all English-speaking Christians) must use the King James Version of the Bible exclusively because all other English versions are products of the devil.

In the book of Numbers, God spoke through Balaam's ass, so certainly He can speak through the KJV, but not through the KJV to the exclusion of other versions.

Their position is that the 1611 King James Version constitutes divinely inspired "advanced revelation" from God, surpassing the original Greek and Hebrew and is the final, preserved word of God, rather than the copy - the culmination of the 6 English Bibles which preceded it: the Tyndale, the Coverdale, the Bishops Bible, the Matthews Bible, the Geneva Bible and the Great Bible

King James Onlyists generally accuse all other Bible translations of being so deficient or even systematically perverted to render their use problematic, dangerous, or even sinful.

There are various expressions and degrees of King James Onlyism that would state and defend their beliefs in very different ways and to different extremes, but the common factor that makes them “King James Onlyist” is their belief that the King James Bible is the only English Bible that was directly "inspired" by God, and is superior to all other Bibles, which are only perverted copies, and therefore not suitable for use by Christians today.

To clarify what "King James Onlyism" is, it is necessary to also state what it is not:

King James Onlyism is not a mere personal preference for the King James Bible.
Anyone who personally prefers the KJV but is fine with other Christians using other Bible translations of their own choice, is not a King James Onlyist.

King James Onlyism is also not merely the formal use of the KJV in public worship. If a traditional church exclusively uses the KJV in their corporate worship services but allows their members to read other translations privately and does not condemn other churches that use other versions, they are not King James Onlyists.

Any church may choose to preach and teach publicly from the KJV for a number of reasons without insisting that the KJV is the only true Bible for Christians today. So, while all King James Onlyists will use only the King James Version in public worship, not all churches that use only the King James Version in public worship are necessarily King James Onlyists.

King James Onlyism is also not merely the assertion that the KJV is the best translation. I know many people who think that the NASB is the best translation available today, but we do not call them NASB Onlyists. I know others who think the ESV is now the best translation on the market, but they are not called ESV Onlyists.

I likewise know a number of people who think the KJV is still the best translation we have, but they are not King James Onlyists. The reason is simple: while such people believe that their Bible of choice is the “best” translation, none of them insist that every Christian must use only that translation. They still regard other translations of the Bible as equally the word of God.

They would never imply that it would be a sin or a dangerous error to use other Bible translations. They may well urge you from time to time to switch to their translation and tell you why they think their favorite Bible version is the most accurate, but they would not break Christian fellowship over the issue nor forbid preaching from other translations.

They may believe in their heart that it would be advantageous to other Christians if they would switch to their own preferred translation, but they would never demand that, as a matter of morality, all "real" Christians must switch to their translation. Anyone who fits the description of being tolerant and accepting of others preferences regarding the KJV is NOT a member of a King James Onlyist sect.

Manning, as I stated above, the most commonly held fanatically beliefs and teachings of KJV Onyists on the KJV, against which I was speaking, have, as far as I can ascertain, absolutely nothing to do with you.

The indwelling Holy Spirit can teach from any Bible version. He is God.
Manning, I can not think of anyway in which the ch... (show quote)


Thank you, Zemirah, you set my mind as ease on this subject. After thinking about why I use the KJV, it is what I was brought up with in the Episcopal Church, and later on, by the Freemason's version of the KJV. which is identical as best I have observed until I set it aside, and finally by the authentic KJV I purchased for its very large print. It has never occurred to me to consider the KJV to be the only Bible worth using...it is simply the only one I know.

Reply
Apr 18, 2021 11:41:31   #
Rose42
 
Great questions Zemirah.

I like to read from a few different translations. One being the KJV. Though for study that is not my preference.

Reply
Apr 19, 2021 00:19:23   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
That is a lot of generalizations, Mike, without a single bible address - Book, chapter, verse, nor do you list any dates, historical figures, or place names with the exception of Alexandria.

The founding of the Great Library of Alexandria took place in 295 B.C. under Ptolemy I.
The great Library of Alexandria was burned by Muslims during the Islamic invasion by Caliph Omar in 642 A.D.

That is a span of 937 years the library stood, during which the Alexandrian Septuagint was available for copying by scribes... who could then make new copies of hand written scrolls as they wore out, from their own synagogue copies, as needed.

"The personal tastes of Philadelphus [Ptolemy II], although not purely literary, included a hunger for the society of scholars and the accumulation of books.

He founded a second library at the Serapeion to receive the overflow of that which Soter [Ptolemy I] had established near the Museum and the Palace. (An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, H. B. Swete, p.16, 1914 A.D.)

Ptolemy II wanted a copy of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) in his father’s library and commissioned 72 Jewish scribes/scholars from Jerusalem to translate the first five books (Torah) into Greek:

The Greek translation of the first five books of Moses (Torah) was finished in 280 B.C. and "The Septuagint" was placed into the Library of Alexandria. Copies immediately began to be distributed to Greek speaking Jews in Judea and throughout their known world, giving birth to synagogues.

The Torah was the original commissioned work, however, the entire Tanakh (O.T.) continued to be translated and the work was completed as early as 250 B.C. It is known for certain that all 39 books of the Old Testament (Tanakh) were fully translated and a copy lay on each “Table of the Scrolls” in every synagogue, wherever located.

The Greek Septuagint became seed to a scattered Jewish people who no longer retained a knowledge of Hebrew, sprouting synagogues wherever it went.

We now know, from the ancient dead sea scrolls and remnants of scrolls found at Qumran
that the Hebrew Bible from which the Septuagint was copied almost 300 years before Christ, is no longer extant (in existence), other than in remnants.

The Masoretic Hebrew Text now used, which added vowels to the text, was completed by the Masorete scribes between the 6th and 9th centuries A.D., however any differences between the ancient and modern texts are minimal, and nothing has ever been found that would change one doctrine.


Michael Rich wrote:
As I understand. The only original Septuagint was burned up in a fire at the Alexandria library.

There are many differences between the re-translation Greek texts and the Hebrew.

The KJV went further from the Hebrew.

There are key prophecies that the whole meaning of certain words were changed.

The old saying "it loses a lot in translation" rings loud and clear.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Faith, Religion, Spirituality
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2021 IDF International Technologies, Inc.