How do I defend against rabid KJV-onlyists?

[TheWhoFreak]

Hey all at the CAF,

What are some good points to bring up to KJV-only people, especially the ones who think all other translations including the NKJV are of Satan?

Thanks in advance

 

[SSTeacher]

Hey all at the CAF,

What are some good points to bring up to KJV-only people, especially the ones who think all other translations including the NKJV are of Satan?

Thanks in advance

Perhaps a good opening gambit is to ask if those people who read versions of the Bible other than the Authorised Version can be considered to be guilty of bibliolatry.

Helpfully,
Mick

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

How do we know that the KJV is trustworthy at all? Let them explain its origins and give reasons for why they think it is inspired at all. And why is God’s chosen Bible in English, and not German? French? Spanish? Italian? Latin? Isn’t the English bias displayed by the KJV view inherently rascist (ethnist?)?

Beauty of the language, by the way, is not a good reason. By that token, the writings Shakespeare, Dante, and any number of poets ought to be taken as Scripture.

 

[Luke65]

Hey Who Freak! I would first ask them why they adhere to a man-made tradition. Then I would point out some of the errors in the KJV that have since been corrected (you’ll have to do a little research to make sure you have the evidence). Then I would recommend that they use a good and respected Protestant translation like the NASB to compare the KJV with (and you might point out that it has tons of cross references that KJV doesn’t have as an extra selling point). You have to deal with KJV-onlyists very delicately, and so I wouldn’t bring up the “bibliolatry” word! Good luck!

 

[adowcday]

You’re likely to have as much luck convincing KJV-only evangelicals to consider other translations as valid and useful as you are Douay-Rheims-only Catholics.

How about: “…and where does it say in the bible that you should only use the KJV translation? And what should Germans, French, Japanese, etc. Christians use as their translation? Shouldn’t you read the bible only in the original languages (Hebrew, Greek) to get the real word of God?”

 

[SSTeacher]

Perhaps a good opening gambit is to ask if those people who read versions of the Bible other than the Authorised Version can be considered to be guilty of bibliolatry.

Helpfully,
Mick

You have to deal with KJV-onlyists very delicately, and so I wouldn’t bring up the “bibliolatry” word! Good luck!

TheWhoFreak,

After thinking back to the attitudes usually displayed by the KJVO adherents I encountered during my sojourn in the Evangelical world I’ve decided that Luke65 is thinking more clearly than I am. Bringing up the notion of bibliolatry would probably not be productive.

But I wish you well as you venture into the lion’s den.

Admiringly,
Mick

 

[AwGusTeen]

Hey all at the CAF,

What are some good points to bring up to KJV-only people, especially the ones who think all other translations including the NKJV are of Satan?

Thanks in advance

Why not start by asking them what version of the KJV Authorized Ed. they read. If it’s not the 1611 KJV 1st ED. with ALL 80 BOOKS, then it’s not the correct version. After all, if the KJV 1611 1st Ed.was the perfect translation (and most KJVO’s believe that the translators themselves were inspired) then there is no need for another version. Most KJVO’s read a much later translation without the apocrypha and many don’t even know what version they read.

Next, ask them who actually authorized the KJV – was it God or King James? It’s been my experience that, most of the time, these folks can’t participate in a logical discussion.

Good Luck:thumbsup:

 

[TheWhoFreak]

Thanks! Can anyone point out any specific errors in the 1611 KJV A.V. to me? That would help out a lot.

 

[Crumpy]

My old computer is not serving me well. I can’t pull up that verse from Peter about defending our faith with (something) and reverence.

The KJV was another attempt to put the scripture into the vernacular, which is to say, English. So, the polemic here is that this was an English version, as opposed to the official Latin version of the Roman Catholic Church. That’s really the ‘dig’ about the KJV. And, there’s nothing you can say to outflank that. Whatever you say on that point will fall on deaf ears.

The KJV is a translation that served many people well, and don’t forget, the now-popular Revised Standard Version - 2nd Catholic Edition is BASED on the KJV. It has the sound and “feel” of many of the well-known translations in the KJV.

I’d say “move on” – this is a no-win battle you’re fighting.

I like the KJV for one reason, that I like to use Strong’s Concordance which is based on the KJV. That has helped me a lot, to understand the translation that I’m using, whether it is the NAB, NIV, KJV, or RSV-2CE.

 

[Omyo12]

Thanks! Can anyone point out any specific errors in the 1611 KJV A.V. to me? That would help out a lot.

STOP!!!

The errors in the KJV argument may be less productive than the “biblidolatry” one!!

They not only believe the KJV translators were inspired but that the source text: Textus Receptus, was preserved by God Himself… They’ll argue that recent scholarship is corrupt and guided by Satan…

– New International PerVersion

– Why I Read the Authorized King James

– New King James Version Condemns Itself as a Fraud

Their arguments can get pretty extreme:

The KJV originated in the dying words of William Tyndale in 1536, when he was burned at the stake by Catholics for translating and printing the Bible in the English language. Prior to expiring in the flames, he cried out, “Lord, open the eyes of the king of England.” By the grace of God, King James I of England called for a new version in English in 1604.
LetGodBeTrue.com

Friend, every time you purchase the NIV you are giving to people who produce pro-homosexuality, pornographic material — AND THE SATANIC BIBLE! “Can two walk together, except they be AGREED?” Amos 3:3
- Terry Watkins

Let’s not confuse our kids by teaching/preaching from the NKJV, NIV, NASV, LB, the Message, Phillips, GN, etc.
- Jesus-is-Lord.com

I believe that the emergence of these many different “Bible” versions is Satan’s most successful attempt to attack God’s word.
- Jesus-is-Lord.com

 

[Cachonga]

Try this site. There are several good arguments against KJV, including a Power Point presentation.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Hey all at the CAF,

What are some good points to bring up to KJV-only people, especially the ones who think all other translations including the NKJV are of Satan?

Thanks in advance

Ask them how the King James Version came into being and how the books were put together. How can they be certain that their version is the correct one.

 

[phoage]

Patrick Madrid, the noted Catholic apologist and writer, uses the KJV for citations in his book, “Where Is That In the Bible?” In the intro, he explains that he does this because many of the people he talks with are familiar with it and it supports his arguments as well and any other version.

I am just beginning to study apologetics but it seems to me that if I can prove my point after allowing my opponent the choise of the field, it will make my point better than it would arguing translations. I am not a Greek or Aramaic scholar. Where I have compared the citations side by side, the major difference I have noted is the\at the KJV is written in 400 year old English, the language of Shakespeare. If you take that into account, and can read Shakespeare, I see no problem. Sadly, today, many cannot read Shakespeare (or sometimes modern English),

Just my 2 cents.

Patrick

 

[tobinatorstark]

Best way to defend the KJV-onlyist is the Bible. God gave us the Bible. We believe in God. The Douay-Rheims is the best Bible to defend the KJV only position. Also the Catholic Church is enough to debunk the nonsense of KJV-onlyism.

 

[Cachonga]

tobinatorstark:

The Douay-Rheims is the best Bible to defend the KJV only position.

I disagree, not because I believe in KJV Only (I don’t!), but the because the Douay-Rheims is a translation of a translation (Hewbrew/Greek to Latin, Latin to English). We all know that things can get lost in translation, so it stands to reason that more things can get lost through multiple translations.

 

[JRKH]

I have little to add to this conversation but to say that, I suspect you will have little luck in convincing these “Rabid” people that other translations are not “Works of Satan”

I’m curious as to why you feel the need to debate them on this. Aren’t there other theological issues that are more important than which translation is used?

Actually I suspect that the issue here is not one of “Translation” but rather one of “Interpretation”. These people adhere to the KJV - Fine. Let’s look at just one verse, Matthew 16 :18 and see the different translations.

The Holy Bible, New International Version®
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

The King James Version (Authorized)
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The New King James Version
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

The New Revised Standard Version
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

The Douay-Rheims Bible
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Is there a single one that translates this as, “Simon, Your faith is Rock and upon this Rock will build my church”?
The answer of course is no they do not. In fact there is not one that actually translates this verse correctly in the literal sense for the verse should read, “you are rock and upon this rock I will build my Church”. Each and every one declares Simon to be “Peter”, (that is Rock (Kepha)) and upon this Rock (Peter) Jesus will build His Church.
Of course your KJV only friends will declare and defend the postion that Jesus was talking, not about the person of Peter as leader of the Church but that Jusus was talking about Peter’s faith. So the issue is not about translation, but about interpretation and this debate will go on regardless of the Bible used.

As others have said here, you can use the KJV just as easily as any other to teach and defend the faith. ( minus the deuterocanonicals of course) My suggestion is that you try to do this. That way it is “their own - God Breathed and Inspired Word” that will convict them. " Foisted them their own Pitard", as it were.

Hope some of this helps.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I disagree, not because I believe in KJV Only (I don’t!), but the because the Douay-Rheims is a translation of a translation (Hewbrew/Greek to Latin, Latin to English). We all know that things can get lost in translation, so it stands to reason that more things can get lost through multiple translations.

Others may correct me here, but I don’t think this is strictly true anymore.
I believe that the Douay-Rheims has been reviews and revised to ensure a correct, direct translation from the original manuscripts.

That said, I still suspect the best way to discuss with these people is to simply ignore their “evil translation” argument and use verses directly from the KJV. The problem isn’t with translations, it is with interpretation.

Peace
James

 

[Cachonga]

JRKH:

Others may correct me here, but I don’t think this is strictly true anymore.
I believe that the Douay-Rheims has been reviews and revised to ensure a correct, direct translation from the original manuscripts.

That said, I still suspect the best way to discuss with these people is to simply ignore their “evil translation” argument and use verses directly from the KJV. The problem isn’t with translations, it is with interpretation.

I will also accept any correction to an updated Douay-Rheims version (I am not aware of it, but welcome any update on this info). I will say that the original Douay-Rheims version was a translation of a translation.

In regard to “discussing” scriptures with KJVO people, I think they have a mindset that not only will not allow for any other version, but will also disallow any other interpretation (in this, I agree with JRKH). If you want to get an idea of what they believe just visit Jack Chick’s website (I won’t give a link, but it’s easy to google if you’re really interested).

 

[Omyo12]

Patrick Madrid, the noted Catholic apologist and writer, uses the KJV for citations in his book, “Where Is That In the Bible?” In the intro, he explains that he does this because many of the people he talks with are familiar with it and it supports his arguments as well and any other version.

Patrick

Huh???

I own this book and according to the copyright info:

Scripture texts in this work are taken from the Catholic edition of the Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible © 1965,1966 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

I just read the “Introduction” and “How To Use This Book” and it says nothing about using the KJV for apologetic reasons.

Which edition do you have?

I also own his other great book: “Why is That in Tradition?” and he again uses the RSV-CE along with the New American Bible.

 

[phoage]

Huh???

I own this book and according to the copyright info:

I just read the “Introduction” and “How To Use This Book” and it says nothing about using the KJV for apologetic reasons.

Which edition do you have?

I also own his other great book: “Why is That in Tradition?” and he again uses the RSV-CE along with the New American Bible.

OOPS

I got the book from the library and infact had to get it through Inter-Library Loan (ILL) as my local library did not have it.

I do this on most books to see if they are a Read Once or I need to buy them as I have limited funds and I read a lot.

Having said that, I cannot go back and check the edition as the book has been returned and I am not sure which library it was loaned from.

I have been reading a bunch of apologetics recently and I may have mis-remembered where I read this. If so I apologize.

Patrick