1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured King James Only

Discussion in 'Christian Debate Forum' started by Enoch111, Aug 9, 2019.

  1. Enoch111

    Enoch111 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,390
    Likes Received:
    5,284
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    I am posting this excellent article by David Cloud, since it expresses my own position perfectly.

    July 31, 2019 (first published January 20, 1996)
    David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061
    866-295-4143, [email protected]

    There is a lot of debate and confusion surrounding the man-made term "King James Only." It has been popularized in recent years by men who claim they are concerned about a dangerous and cultic view of the King James Bible. Rarely do they carefully define the term, though, and as a result a wide variety of Bible-believing men are given a nebulously-defined label.


    The term “King James Only” was invented by those who oppose the defense of the King James Bible and its underlying original language texts. It was intended to be a term of approbation, and it is usually defined in terms of extremism.

    I have been labeled “King James Only” because of my writings on the subject of Bible texts and versions. To set the record straight, let me explain what I believe. And I know that this is also what a large number of other King James Bible defenders believe.

    I WILL ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY” IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:
    [1] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has given infallible Scripture in the original Greek and Hebrew writings and that He has preserved that in the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text and that we have a beautiful translation of it in the English language in the Authorized Version, call me “King James Only.”

    [2] If “King James Only” defines one who believes modern textual criticism is heresy, call me “King James Only.” Prior to the Internet era, I spent hundreds of dollars to obtain the writings of the men who have been at the forefront of developing the theories underlying modern textual criticism, and I have read them. They are not dependable. They refuse to approach the Bible text from a position of faith in divine preservation. That is a fundamental error. Most of them are out-and-out heretics, and I refuse to lean upon their scholarship. I am convinced they do not have the spiritual discernment necessary to know where the preserved Word of God is located today.

    [3] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has preserved the Scripture in its common use among apostolic churches through the fulfillment of the Great Commission and that He guided the Reformation editors and translators in their choice of the Received Text and that we don’t have to start all over today in an to attempt to find the preserved text of Scripture, call me “King James Only.” The theories of modern textual criticism all revolve around the idea that the pure text of Scripture was not preserved in the Reformation text but that the Reformation editors, because of their alleged ignorance and or lack of resources and bad luck, chose an inferior text. In fact, modern textual criticism is predicated upon the theory that the supposed best text of the New Testament (the Egyptian or Alexandrian) was rejected in the earliest centuries and replaced with a corrupt recension that was created through the conflation of various manuscript readings (the Byzantine or Traditional text) and that this supposed corrupt text became the dominant text throughout most of church history (for 1,500 years) until the alleged best text was rediscovered in the 19th century. You are free to accept such views if it suits you. I, for one, believe it is absolute nonsense.

    [4] Similarly, if “King James Only” defines one who rejects the theory that the “preserved” Word of God was hidden away in the Pope’s library and in a weird Greek Orthodox monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai (a monastery which has a room full of the skulls of dead monks) for hundreds of years, call me “King James Only.”

    [5] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that it is necessary to have one biblical standard in a language as important as English and who believes that the multiplicity of competing versions has created confusion and has weakened the authority of the Word of God, call me “King James Only.”

    ON THE OTHER HAND, I WILL NOT ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY” IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:
    [1] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the KJV was given byinspiration, I am not “King James Only.” The authority of the King James Bible is the product of preservation, not inspiration. The term “inspiration” refers to the giving of the Scripture through holy men of old (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). At the same time, I agree with the Pulpit Commentary when it says, “We must guard against such narrow, mechanical views of inspiration as would confine it to the Hebrew and Greek words in which it was written, so that one who reads a good translation would not have ‘the words of the Lord.’” To say that the King James Bible is the inspired Word of God in the English language because it is an accurate translation of the preserved Hebrew and Greek is not the same as saying that it was given by inspiration.

    [2] If “King James Only” defines one who believes the English KJV is superior to the Hebrew and Greek texts upon which it was based, I am not “King James Only.” In fact, I believe such an idea is pure nonsense and heresy, as it would mean the pure and preserved Word of God did not exist before 1611.

    [3] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible is advanced revelation over the Hebrew and Greek texts that God gave through inspiration to holy men of old, I am not “King James Only.”

    [4] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that we do not need to study Greek and Hebrew today or that it is not important to use lexicons and dictionaries, I am not “King James Only.” God’s people should learn Greek and Hebrew, if possible, and use (with caution and wisdom) study tools. When the Bible says that “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” we know that the words they spake were Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words. But foundational to the study of the biblical languages is a proper understanding of the textual issue. We must study the right Greek and Hebrew, and we must also be careful of original language study tools, because many of them were influenced by the unsound theories of modern textual criticism.

    [5] If “King James Only” defines one who believes the preserved Word of God is available only perfectly in English, I am not “King James Only.” The Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and Greek Received New Testament translated correctly into any language is the preserved Word of God in that language, whether it is German, Spanish, French, Korean, or Nepali.

    [6] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that translations in other languages should be based on English rather than (when possible) Greek and Hebrew, I am not “King James Only.”

    [7] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that a person can only be saved through the King James Bible, I am not “King James Only.” It is the gospel of Jesus Christ that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), and even a Bible that is textually corrupt contains the gospel.

    [8] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible’s antiquated language is holy and unchangeable or who believes the KJV could never again be updated, I am not “King James Only.” I doubt the KJV will ever be replaced in this apostate age, but to say that it is wrong to update the language again after the fashion of the several updates it has undergone since 1611 is not reasonable. Having dealt extensively with people who speak English as a second or third language, I am very sympathetic to the very real antiquation problem in the King James Bible. At the same time, I am not going to trade an excellent Bible with a few problems due to old language for a Bible filled with error due to a corrupt text and/or a corrupt translation methodology (e.g., dynamic equivalency).

    [9] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that he has the authority to call those who disagree with him silly asses, morons, and jacklegs, and to treat them as if they were fools because they refuse to follow his (or her) peculiar views, or if it defines one who threatens to sue those who challenge him (or her), I am not “King James Only.”
    Copyright 2013, Way of Life Literature
     
    Nancy, charity, Helen and 5 others like this.
  2. Philip James

    Philip James Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,671
    Likes Received:
    1,161
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    Hi Enoch,
    I like your post...

    Now if another couple hundred years passed and English changes into multiple but similar languages (like the romance languages from Latin) ..

    I would lay money there would be those who would insist only the ancient 'dead language' KJV should be used, and others would argue who had the authority to approve bible translations in the 'new' languages...

    Peace be with you!
     
    amadeus likes this.
  3. jaybird

    jaybird Active Member

    Messages:
    410
    Likes Received:
    150
    i would never put the name of a homosexual tyrant on my bible but maybe thats just me.
     
    Willie T likes this.
  4. Enoch111

    Enoch111 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,390
    Likes Received:
    5,284
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    What is printed on the cover of all bibles this: "Holy Bible". And what you have said is just nonsensical. But that's just you.
     
    Nancy, amadeus, Helen and 1 other person like this.
  5. jaybird

    jaybird Active Member

    Messages:
    410
    Likes Received:
    150
    nonsense is telling yourself there is no "king james" on the cover of that kjv when it says in big letters "KING JAMES" or did you not think he was a homosexual, have you not read about king james and his "favorites" you know what favorites are right? and he liked his favorites very young.

    what if it was the "Satan the dark prince" version of the bible, would you still be defending that?
     
  6. Taken

    Taken Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,448
    Likes Received:
    2,264
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Do you reject the KJV?

    Glory to God,
    Taken
     
  7. Enoch111

    Enoch111 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,390
    Likes Received:
    5,284
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    He prefers ad hominem attacks on someone who could not refute them, rather than the actual merits of this translation.
     
    Nancy, Taken and Stan B like this.
  8. Jay Ross

    Jay Ross Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,069
    Likes Received:
    400
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    The merits of the KJV and any other translation version is that they are not infallible. They all contain errors embedded within them. The issue becomes whether we accept them as they are, or accept them for being the best available source for coming to know God at this time. The errors will be fix over time when they become so obvious that it is embarrassing not to fix them. The majority of the errors have come through man's theological understandings not God's.

    Shalom
     
    Ezra likes this.
  9. Taken

    Taken Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,448
    Likes Received:
    2,264
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    King James DID NOT WRITE the Bible.
    King James Commissioned that THAT Bible be written.

    How is it that you are so well acquainted with a Dead mans habits and favorites?

    Glory to God,
    Taken
     
    Nancy, amadeus and Helen like this.
  10. jaybird

    jaybird Active Member

    Messages:
    410
    Likes Received:
    150
    i never said he wrote it, and yes he commissioned it to be written because he did not like the marginal notes explaining the difference between anointed kings such as King David, and kings such as himself who liked to tell everyone he was anointed by the Almighty.

    because people like james have ruled the nations for a long time and they have always been very cruel to the masses and show great favor to the few. i know about them because i want to know why they are like this, why does the world work like this?
     
    bbyrd009 likes this.
  11. Taken

    Taken Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,448
    Likes Received:
    2,264
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    WHY? Personal history of James reveals HOW he was raised, without LOVE. Knowing or being LOVED by his parents or parent figures.
    Raised with only having guardianships of men. Raised with only having been acquainted with his same gender. Raised with the responsibility of a Royal Kingdom.
    Personally I find he was, from a toddler, raised in an odd and completely unnatural way and sheltered to even know how bizarre his life was.

    You mention he was CRUEL...and a TYRANT...
    How so?

    Glory to God,
    Taken
     
    Nancy likes this.
  12. jaybird

    jaybird Active Member

    Messages:
    410
    Likes Received:
    150
    Yes he was raised with little love or compassion, which is very common among nobility.

    He was Aggressive to witch hunts, common in those days but James took it further than most.

    He would never shut up about the “divine right of rule” belief that taught kings and nobility were of a higher level of humanity

    he was always trying to usurp power from the nobles. This isnt always bad, such as Julius Cesar but in the case of James he was just greedy and wanted more power. England in those days had a pretty good governing system, power was balanced between king, nobles, commoners. King was over nobles but if he did a bad job they could force him out, nobles were over commoners, if they were bad nobles the commoners could petition their grievances to king and nobles risked fines, jail and loss of land. It was quite a bit more complex but this was pretty much the foundation.his son continued this quest for more power and it got him beheaded.
     
  13. Taken

    Taken Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,448
    Likes Received:
    2,264
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Agree a common occurance, and more so IMO, when Neither parent is in the picture from toddler forward.

    Maybe it was his natural personality, or he was taught...I couldn't say.

    Well? According to scripture is that TRUE or FALSE? I say TRUE. IMO God has a big say in WHO is positioned in authority OVER others....

    Nobels were typically of a "royal" blood-line, and had "titles" attached to their names...
    Then there were the WEALTHY....who were esteemed, Because they were Wealthy, thus had a lot of stoke...(Ie Barron's), but didn't necessarily hold titles of Nobility. (Blood-line)

    Ya sure, there was always a political game, between the Nobels and the Barron's....regardless of who was king or queen at the time. Not especially news.

    Beheading....also nothing new. There was always someone who felt on the outs, because another was crowned king/queen...
    Spies, backstabbers....
    A constant "who can one trust", of sorts, IMO.


    Glory to God,
    Taken
     
  14. Enoch111

    Enoch111 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,390
    Likes Received:
    5,284
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    It is pointless to be discussing the virtues and flaws of King James I. His detractors may have accused him of everything under the sun, while his supporters praised him to high heaven. IT MAKES NOT A WHIT OF DIFFERENCE.

    What is historically and spiritually true is that it was under this English king that the Authorized Version of the Bible was translated, and it is this very Bible which became the PREDOMINANT English translation worldwide for over 400 years. And that is because of its intrinsic value. Up until the 20th century every Bible study tool and commentary was based upon this Bible, and no conservative Christian scholar every questioned its faithfulness and reliability.

    By focusing on James, people deliberately take away from the excellency of this translation. But even the foes of the KJV publicly admitted that it was an outstanding translation. I could quote chapter and verse.
     
    Nancy, amadeus, charity and 1 other person like this.
  15. Ezra

    Ezra Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,076
    Likes Received:
    671
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    king james on authorized it translated..he did not write it out was inspired by the Holy spirit . it is not the authorized or ordained of God although i do use it i have heard all the arguments the best version to use is one your comfortable.. some translations replace virgin with young woman leave the Blood out
     
    Nancy likes this.
  16. jaybird

    jaybird Active Member

    Messages:
    410
    Likes Received:
    150
    so if you had a bible and it was called "the dark aztec canaanite child sacrifice version" you would be telling everyone the name is not important because its a good translation?
     
    bbyrd009 likes this.
  17. Ezra

    Ezra Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,076
    Likes Received:
    671
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    your beating a dead horse
     
    Nancy, Helen and Stan B like this.
  18. jaybird

    jaybird Active Member

    Messages:
    410
    Likes Received:
    150
    but why so common among this class? i know of abusive fathers/mothers , molesters and such that have destroyed homes but these are out of the ordinary


    im not so sure, there are scriptures that say different. the power possibly but those chosen for power i dont think so. if this were true it would mean anyone could murder any leader at any time and simply claim the Lord chose them.




    not saying these things were new but that they were pretty different in england compared to the rest of europe. england was the first to have a middle calss with the possibility to elevate oneself out of serf class.
    beheading is nothing new but i was showing how james and his son pushed thigs to the point where his son was executed. most kings are greedy but they at least know to give back to the people every once in a while. james always refused this mostly on the grounds that he was anointed by the Almighty Himself putting himself on the same level as Moses David and Solomon. very arrogant.
     
  19. jaybird

    jaybird Active Member

    Messages:
    410
    Likes Received:
    150
    not really an answer but i guess this is your way of avoiding the question. i dont blame you.
     
  20. Grailhunter

    Grailhunter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,836
    Likes Received:
    956
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Anytime the topic of the King James Bible comes up the issue with King James being homosexual can take over the topic. Which is a shame because in its time it was a very wonderful bible on several levels. As a funny history repeats itself, back then the lovers of the Geneva Bible considered the King James Bible blasphemous, and a corruption of the scriptures. Now the lovers of King James Bible think that all other translations are blasphemous, and a corruption of the scriptures. History is a funny thing. I bet I own about 20 of them, I am a collector. I love the literary style of the KJV, of course I grew up with it. You read this to a teenager and they are liable to just shake their head at you like you were speaking Chinese. (They do text languages. lol ) I can think of a lot of uses for the KJV, but not for study and not for instructing young people. They will node their head at you like they are getting it, but on their way out one will ask another, Did you get any of that? And the other will shake their head no. The study issues, the inaccurate translations and all the additions to the scriptures are well documented. Not hard to look up and some are historical and some are hysterical. It has its place in history and that is monumental.
     
    bbyrd009, Nancy and Willie T like this.
Loading...