How do I defend against rabid KJV-onlyists?

[Chris_LaRock]

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

Show them that every ‘proof text’ used by KJV-only apologists are rendered exactly the same in the DRB.

 

[Beachcomber]

“The King James Only Controversy,” by James R White. This is a very helpful book in understanding where KJO people are coming from.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

The KJV contains thousands of translational errors. We have better manuscripts of the NT that have been discovered since 1611 that give us a better representation of the text than the manuscripts used in the making of the KJV. Why don’t these people know this?

 

[Dan_Parker]

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

Pretty much the same way I witness to Catholics who claim that only Catholic bibles are correctly translated. I quote their bibles to them. Someone later in this thread says it is more about interpretation than translation. I have made that point to Catholics recently when I was challenged on John 1:1, see my link on McKenzie in my signature for that post.

As for KJV-only advocates, it really depends on why they trust the KJV. Many are greatly surprised that I have a copy of the 1611 edition that was also mentioned later in this thread. It contains the Apocrypha and many are stunned to find out about this. So when they say they use the KJV I do ask which edition which confuses them. I tell them I use the original, not a later copy that was changed. I ask them who changed it and who had the right to change it. Also, the translators preface is very good. In it are discussions about why certain readings or renderings were used which shows the process was not cut and dry. They also clearly don’t claim inspiration.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Pretty much the same way I witness to Catholics who claim that only Catholic bibles are correctly translated. I quote their bibles to them. Someone later in this thread says it is more about interpretation than translation. I have made that point to Catholics recently when I was challenged on John 1:1, see my link on McKenzie in my signature for that post.

As for KJV-only advocates, it really depends on why they trust the KJV. Many are greatly surprised that I have a copy of the 1611 edition that was also mentioned later in this thread. It contains the Apocrypha and many are stunned to find out about this. So when they say they use the KJV I do ask which edition which confuses them. I tell them I use the original, not a later copy that was changed. I ask them who changed it and who had the right to change it. Also, the translators preface is very good. In it are discussions about why certain readings or renderings were used which shows the process was not cut and dry. They also clearly don’t claim inspiration.

I also have a replica of the 1611. The translators clearly stated that it wasn’t their goal to create a new translation, but simply to make an already existing translation better. The KJV was a revision of the Bishop’s Bible.