A
King James Bible Only Proponents-Why do you claim the KJV is the only inspired, inerrant Bible?
- Status
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
Because it is the one the apostle Paul used of course.
(seriously I don’t think King Jimmy Only would exist here but I might be wrong)
(seriously I don’t think King Jimmy Only would exist here but I might be wrong)
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Hello AP,
I haven’t talked with you in a long time. Hope things are going well for you.
I remember running into a few people, here on CAF in the past, who would only use the KJV. There may not be any King James-only proponents here now. Either that or they don’t want to talk about it.
Anyway, have a great holiday!
Anna
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
Seriously now…
I think the answer you -would- get…
…first assumes a “literalist” understanding of the Bible (example the universe was created 7000 years or so in several 24 hour days).
But of course several different versions of the Bible are a contradiction to a “literalist” understanding of the Bible (all can’t be literally true).
So therefore one has to be the preserved literal Word of God while the remaining ones are not the Word of God (perversions of the Word etc)
Now why the KJV and no other version of the Bible is the literal, preserved Word of God I an not sure. Usually at this point proponents will point to alleged shortcomings and heresies in the newer versions.
Don’t ask me how they handle translations in other languages. I have never seen this one addressed.
Actually the KJV only sort of makes sense if you first assume a literalist understanding of the Bible and then ignore every other language on the planet.
BTW I am around here much less. It gets to be the same-old-same-old at some point in time…
I think the answer you -would- get…
…first assumes a “literalist” understanding of the Bible (example the universe was created 7000 years or so in several 24 hour days).
But of course several different versions of the Bible are a contradiction to a “literalist” understanding of the Bible (all can’t be literally true).
So therefore one has to be the preserved literal Word of God while the remaining ones are not the Word of God (perversions of the Word etc)
Now why the KJV and no other version of the Bible is the literal, preserved Word of God I an not sure. Usually at this point proponents will point to alleged shortcomings and heresies in the newer versions.
Don’t ask me how they handle translations in other languages. I have never seen this one addressed.
Actually the KJV only sort of makes sense if you first assume a literalist understanding of the Bible and then ignore every other language on the planet.
BTW I am around here much less. It gets to be the same-old-same-old at some point in time…
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
AP,
Interesting comment.
It does sometimes get to be the same-old-same-old.
I would really like to know how the King Jame-only proponents come to this belief. Are they listening to a religious leader? Have they arrived at their conclusion through study of the transmission of Scripture? Are they claiming some kind of Divine Revelation? If they hold to a Bible only view of Christianity; where in the Bible do they find that one English translation of the Bible in 1611 will be the only infallible, inerrant, Word of God?
Anna
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
Well, here is a link to Wikipedia. From there you can play follow-the-link to a number of web sites.
But to be honest I wouldn’t bother. I really doubt you will find any answer (much less a satisfactory answer) to your questions.
Now I just wasted two hours of my life trying to find an answer to my stupid “other languages” question. Now one web site allowed for the possibility of other languages if the textual source is the same as the KJV (I wonder whether this is actually being done or whether the Bibles say Wycliffe is producing for unreached people groups around the globe use the same methodology that produces the English “perversions” of the word.
But this was just one source. The remaining sources ignore the issue or strongly imply that the rest of the world should get with the program and use the preserved Word of God.
I leave you with this gem I found
But to be honest I wouldn’t bother. I really doubt you will find any answer (much less a satisfactory answer) to your questions.
Now I just wasted two hours of my life trying to find an answer to my stupid “other languages” question. Now one web site allowed for the possibility of other languages if the textual source is the same as the KJV (I wonder whether this is actually being done or whether the Bibles say Wycliffe is producing for unreached people groups around the globe use the same methodology that produces the English “perversions” of the word.
But this was just one source. The remaining sources ignore the issue or strongly imply that the rest of the world should get with the program and use the preserved Word of God.
I leave you with this gem I found
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Tyndale and Luther copied their work from Erasmus. Here’s a link for Erasmus and his work.
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTextus_Receptus&ei=SgDkTaffK4bz0gGh_4ifBw&usg=AFQjCNFKLfxALT4y-kTC2sbrTAZ0lWnqaA
There’s a 10% error rate in the KJV which has continued for 400 years in the exact same spots.
Hebrews Chapter 4 read this verse… Now if Jesus had succeded in giving them rest, God would not have spoken about another day of rest to come? Wrong
The correct translation isn’t Jesus its Joshua, now wouldn’t that make more sense? Check it with other bibles. maybe its me?
God Bless, Gary
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTextus_Receptus&ei=SgDkTaffK4bz0gGh_4ifBw&usg=AFQjCNFKLfxALT4y-kTC2sbrTAZ0lWnqaA
There’s a 10% error rate in the KJV which has continued for 400 years in the exact same spots.
Hebrews Chapter 4 read this verse… Now if Jesus had succeded in giving them rest, God would not have spoken about another day of rest to come? Wrong
The correct translation isn’t Jesus its Joshua, now wouldn’t that make more sense? Check it with other bibles. maybe its me?
God Bless, Gary
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
AP,
I had already read the Wikipedia article, and the issues of Textus Receptus.
You sound like me though, spending so much time on a particular piece of an issue. The whole issue of the transmission of Scripture is really an overwhelming subject. I’ve read a number of books and have done online research. As I said early in the thread, I feel that I am at the mercy of Biblical scholars to a great extent, since I’m not fluent in Ancient Hebrew or Greek (or Aramaic). Seems like everyday, new manuscripts are being discovered. So, scholars keep comparing each new find with manuscripts already known. The Dead Sea Scrolls are probably one of the greatest finds in recent history.
Don’t feel too bad about the two hours. The Wikipedia article said that the 19th century historian and Greek and Latin scholar, Frederick von Nolan, spent 28 years attempting to trace the Textus Receptus to apostolic origins. So, it could be worse.
As I said before, I’d love to know how the King James-only proponents arrived at their conclusion that the KJV is the only infallible, inerrant Word of God. I think in many cases, they are hearing this from their ministers, who often convince their congregations other translations are of the Devil. That halts any desire to seriously consider the history of the transmission of Scripture and closes the door to any possibility that they may be wrong.
I appreciate your comments and the time you spent on the issue.
Peace,
Anna
D
dsmantz
Guest
Reminds me of that old joke:
A minster at a church who had used the KJV for years decided it was time to move on to a fresher translation. When he brought it up to the congregation, they went into an uproar. Finally, when he was able to speak, he asked “Why is there such an issue?” and at that moment a woman in the back jumped up and shouted “If the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for us!”
A minster at a church who had used the KJV for years decided it was time to move on to a fresher translation. When he brought it up to the congregation, they went into an uproar. Finally, when he was able to speak, he asked “Why is there such an issue?” and at that moment a woman in the back jumped up and shouted “If the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for us!”
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Hi, Gary,
That’s the same article, about Textus Receptus, AmateurPianist posted–that I already read. Looks like we’re all on the same page tonight.
Hebrews Chapter 4 is an interesting variant. It was corrected in the New King James Version, but most King James-only proponents only accept the 1611 version.
Hebrews Chapter 4
King James Version:
8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
New King James Version:
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day.
The confusion of*** Jesus*** and ***Joshua ***also occurs in Acts 7:45.
Acts 7:45
King James Version:
45Which also our fathers that came after brought in with*** Jesus*** into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;
This error is also corrected in the NKJV.
New King James Version:
45 which our fathers, having received it in turn, also brought with Joshua into the land possessed by the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers until the days of David,
You are right, there are quite a few errors in the KJV.
I wrote about the “lucifer” issue in post #18 & 19.
Thanks, Gary,
Anna
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
dsmantz,
Well, that may be a joke, but sadly it speaks to a type of religious ferver that pulls people into these extreme stances, such as King James-only beliefs-even though it makes no sense–as the joke so adequately expresses.
Peace,
Anna
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I think its inspired work. But I believe it needs to be gone through and corrected where its in conflict with the Vulgate.
I’m not even sure what copy Luther and Tyndale copied I’m under the impression it was the Greek, which Erasmus openly admitted he made many mistakes on. He was in a rush to get it to the printing press. Now after that he wrote in Latin which the CC considered inspired work. But Cambridge banned it? So I’m under the assumption the Greek translation was used and would explain the Jesus/Joshua error.
The last issue is Shakespeare english in this period. While I have become use to reading his style, I really don’t believe this makes anything more divine. In fact for younger children teens just starting on the journey of Faith and in-depth reading its an obstacle.
God Bless, Gary
I’m not even sure what copy Luther and Tyndale copied I’m under the impression it was the Greek, which Erasmus openly admitted he made many mistakes on. He was in a rush to get it to the printing press. Now after that he wrote in Latin which the CC considered inspired work. But Cambridge banned it? So I’m under the assumption the Greek translation was used and would explain the Jesus/Joshua error.
The last issue is Shakespeare english in this period. While I have become use to reading his style, I really don’t believe this makes anything more divine. In fact for younger children teens just starting on the journey of Faith and in-depth reading its an obstacle.
God Bless, Gary
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Gary,
No doubt, the KJV was an amazing accomplishment in the English translation of Scripture. Men lost their lives for working on English translations, and there is quite an interesting history leading up to the KJV. Yet, it does contain errors.
One of the things that puzzles me the most is that the KJV is an Anglican Bible and competed with the Protestant Church’s Geneva Bible. Yet, King James-only proponents are mostly Protestants.
I’m am curious about your comment that the KJV should be corrected where it’s in conflict with the Vulgate. I think we discussed this before, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the RSV and the NRSV—not a translation of the Latin Vulgate. What are your thoughts on this?
Peace,
Anna
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I believe in a total unity of everyone whos a Christian and to be able to work from the same work. I don’t see how we can have a difference. And with all these admitted mistakes by those who translated.Gary,
No doubt, the KJV was an amazing accomplishment in the English translation of Scripture. Men lost their lives for working on English translations, and there is quite an interesting history leading up to the KJV. Yet, it does contain errors.
One of the things that puzzles me the most is that the KJV is an Anglican Bible and competed with the Protestant Church’s Geneva Bible. Yet, King James-only proponents are mostly Protestants.
I’m am curious about your comment that the KJV should be corrected where it’s in conflict with the Vulgate. I think we discussed this before, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the RSV and the NRSV—not a translation of the Latin Vulgate. What are your thoughts on this?
Peace,
Anna
So to me it comes down to, look, whats the best material we have stashed away in Vatican to work from, and put something together for all Chistians. Get on the same page together for a start. If we knew exactly why the latin version of Erasmus can’t be used would be immediate help I believe. Maybe someone who knows more than me on that could elaborate.
I guess thats just me always trying to see the best in mankind.
God Bless, Gary
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Gary,I believe in a total unity of everyone whos a Christian and to be able to work from the same work. I don’t see how we can have a difference. And with all these admitted mistakes by those who translated.
So to me it comes down to, look, whats the best material we have stashed away in Vatican to work from, and put something together for all Chistians. Get on the same page together for a start. If we knew exactly why the latin version of Erasmus can’t be used would be immediate help I believe. Maybe someone who knows more than me on that could elaborate.
I guess thats just me always trying to see the best in mankind.
God Bless, Gary
That is one of the things I like about you–always trying to see the best in mankind. As for what is stashed away in the Vatican–that is one Library I would love visit. Of course I would need knowledge of the ancient languages to make good use of it–but one can dream.
I’d also love to visit the libraries of some of the ancient monasteries. And–I wonder what manuscripts will be discovered in the next 10-20 years. Maybe something as exciting as the Dead Sea Scrolls will emerge.Peace to you, Gary,
Anna
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
I’ve often wondered about this—or how any translations of the Bible ever came to be thought of as particularly inspired.
I recently went to a lecture by the Dean of Grace Cathedral that was part of a celebration of the 400th anniversary of the KJV. (She has a Ph.D. in history and is working on a book about the Panacea Society, an English religious group that holds such KJV-only views.) I asked her how the Panacea Society came to the conclusion that the KJV was inspired and the lecturer said that the leader of the Society believed that this fact had been specially revealed to her by the Holy Spirit.
It’s really difficult to counter a thought process like that if the person really believes it.
Some people think that the Septuagint is specially inspired because of the miraculous story found in the Letter of Aristeas.
I think people find comfort in the fact that their translation is inspired because then one doesn’t have to worry about things like ancient languages, text criticism and principles of translation–which are all very, very complicated and messy enterprises.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Dave Noonan,
How interesting. I would love to have heard that lecture.
You are right that it’s difficult to counter, when a person claims a revelation from the Holy Spirit. Then, there are pastors claiming all other translations are of the Devil, so the congregations wouldn’t dare pick up another translation.
Also—right about the comfort issue. The study of the transmission of Scripture is definitely complicated. Yet, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls did reveal a remarkable accuracy in our modern translations.
Thanks for you comments,
Anna
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
Her book will be out soon I think.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Thanks, Dave.
Anna
A
agrange
Guest
While there is no doubt the English usage is archaic in the KJV and many are willing to point out the flaws, still it communicates to me exactly the majesty of the stories contained therein. Looking back at Christmas at the church I attended that day, they read the Gospel and gone was “Glory to God in the highest and on Earth peace, good will toward men”. Some bastardized politically correct version was used. Disgusting. There are so many versions available now for people to use. Some are so watered down, confusing and touchy feely,(lest anyone be even slightly offended), yuck. For me the KJV, warts and all stands as the benchmark against which others are compared and quite willing to compare themselves. I do not claim it to be the one and only inspired translation, but it certainly is the only timelessly magnificent English translation I can think of. Absolutely one of the most important books of modern Western Civilization
How many souls were won to Christ because of the KJV? Countless.
200 300, etc years from now people won’t be talking about how great the The Good News, RSV, NRSV, Jerusalem, Living etc, etc ,etc Bibles are or were. Will they still even be in print? The KJV will be.
BTW: The excuse that young people can’t understand or relate to the KJV is like saying they are too stupid to understand that other classic of English Literature known as Shakespeare.
If a Church or group wants to use only the KJV, I say good for them. I applaud their traditionalism. They do not have to explain themselves to anyone or help anyone “understand” their thinking. For who, for what? Conversely, they need not condemn those who do no agree with them, that’s just as wrong headed.
Nuff said.
How many souls were won to Christ because of the KJV? Countless.
200 300, etc years from now people won’t be talking about how great the The Good News, RSV, NRSV, Jerusalem, Living etc, etc ,etc Bibles are or were. Will they still even be in print? The KJV will be.
BTW: The excuse that young people can’t understand or relate to the KJV is like saying they are too stupid to understand that other classic of English Literature known as Shakespeare.
If a Church or group wants to use only the KJV, I say good for them. I applaud their traditionalism. They do not have to explain themselves to anyone or help anyone “understand” their thinking. For who, for what? Conversely, they need not condemn those who do no agree with them, that’s just as wrong headed.
Nuff said.
- Status