KJVO?

[StanJ]

I am amazed at how apparently rational Christians can fall for this latest false teaching of King James Version Only.
Not only do they fall for it, but they are irrational and fanatical in their views to the point of claiming the KJV is the ONLY inspired word of God.

What do you think?

 

[lforrest]

The numerous errors in the KJV preclude it from being the only source for knowing God's word. God's word is infallible,

Some people can't accept that they don't have a perfectly accurate rendition of God's word. They gain some sense of superiority because they think they hold the infallible Truth in their hands.

 

[Mr.Bride]

My take... God is all-powerful and sovereign. This means that if a person is seeking Him sincerely, and with a pure heart they'll find Him in whichever version of the Bible they are reading at the time. He may direct/lead them to another version later but the point I'm trying to make is when His Word becomes alive to you, that's it. The Holy Spirit will lead you into all Truth. I think a lot of issues are kinda trivial/petty, but we all have different measures of faith sooo...

 

[Madad21]

The numerous errors in the KJV preclude it from being the only source for knowing God's word. God's word is infallible,

Some people can't accept that they don't have a perfectly accurate rendition of God's word. They gain some sense of superiority because they think they hold the infallible Truth in their hands.

I agree, there is even the addition of text because the Church at the time decided that there was a lack of proof concerning the Trinity in the Bible, no doubt a knee jerk reaction in sight of the recent Arian trouble of the era

1 John 5:7-8 (KJV) and (NKJV)
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

1 John 5:7-8 (NASB)
7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

1 John 5:7-8 (NIV)
7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

1 John 5:7-8 (RSV)
7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.

 

[shturt678]

Thank you folks for caring!

Only a head's up, that is, first and foremost an "Inspired Book" is an inerrant and infallible Text without "1" discrepancy.

Old Jack

btw liked the airing of the K.J.V.'s interpolation.

 

[StanJ]

Thank you folks for caring!

Only a head's up, that is, first and foremost an "Inspired Book" is an inerrant and infallible Text without "1" discrepancy.

Old Jack

btw liked the airing of the K.J.V.'s interpolation.

WHAT is an "Inspired Book" Jack? The KJV or the autographs?

My take... God is all-powerful and sovereign. This means that if a person is seeking Him sincerely, and with a pure heart they'll find Him in whichever version of the Bible they are reading at the time. He may direct/lead them to another version later but the point I'm trying to make is when His Word becomes alive to you, that's it. The Holy Spirit will lead you into all Truth. I think a lot of issues are kinda trivial/petty, but we all have different measures of faith sooo...

Very true.

 

[shturt678]

WHAT is an "Inspired Book" Jack? The KJV or the autographs?

Very true.

Thank you again, ie, you sound very unconfused....the inerrant, infallible, and perfectly inspired Autographs...no sarcasm in the least!

However miraculously our translations are very accurate....thank you Lord Jesus.

Old Jack

 

[StanJ]

Thank you again, ie, you sound very unconfused....the inerrant, infallible, and perfectly inspired Autographs...no sarcasm in the least!

However miraculously our translations are very accurate....thank you Lord Jesus.

Old Jack

Thanks....just wanted to make sure we are on the same page.

 

[shturt678]

Thanks....just wanted to make sure we are on the same page.

You're a pretty sharp young man, that is, good job! Easy to see how you can glorify our Lord at the Cross my brother. My mother became a naturalized citizen when she was 21, coming from Quebec, marrying my dad. She couildn't speak a word of English, but learned quickly from what I heard. She was 50% Iroquois indain.....she was also sharp, but moreso "tough." Dad was well over quarter Cherokee thus I'm a little injun, but don't scalp others, only hug in Jesus' name so you'll be o.k. plus can't shoot an arrow straight.

Old smoking the peace pipe Jack

 

[DanielGarneau]

Hello,

I once went to a local Church in Ontario where the pastor repeatedly preached about the King James Bible being the only valid translation of the Bible. To me this makes no sense at all and never has. Every Bible translation has its strenghts and weaknesses. If the King James Bible was the first Bible I ever read, then, certainly I would want to stick to it. But for anyone coming from a non-English speaking background, it is not very appealing because English is no longer written or spoken in the King James kind of language.

I read a comment once about the Louis Segond being equivalent in French to the King James Bible in English. This comment may be true from the perspective that the Louis Segond translation is the one most used by French language protestants or evangelicals. But as far as the way in which passages are translated, it is closer to the NIV than it is to the King James.

Moreover, it is interesting to observe that the New Testaments authors quoted often from the Greek translation of the Old Testament rather than from the Hebrew original. I am not sure what to make of it, but it seems that we should perhaps relax a little about what translation is or is not the best. For example, I personnally don't like how the Good News Translation translates John 3:36. But in some passages, it provides an interesting view of the Word of God. That was the translation a Philipinian friend who never owned a Bible ended up buying because it was easier for her to understand than was the NIV, which I would have preferred for her, because I find the latter more precise and clearer on issues of salvation such as found in John 3:36.

God bless you all...

 

[StanJ]

You're a pretty sharp young man, that is, good job! Easy to see how you can glorify our Lord at the Cross my brother. My mother became a naturalized citizen when she was 21, coming from Quebec, marrying my dad. She couildn't speak a word of English, but learned quickly from what I heard. She was 50% Iroquois indain.....she was also sharp, but moreso "tough." Dad was well over quarter Cherokee thus I'm a little injun, but don't scalp others, only hug in Jesus' name so you'll be o.k. plus can't shoot an arrow straight.

Old smoking the peace pipe Jack

Cool...I was born in Montreal and lived right next to the Mohawk reserve out there called Kahnawake. My brother-in-law is Blackfoot. I'm second generation Canadian from Scottish decent. No native in me at all!

 

[StanJ]

Merci Daniel....Dieu vous bénisse!

 

[Nomad]

And I checked those silly Op/Ed links of StanJ's and their so-called “authors.” The first contains but ONE footnote - and it merely references James R. White’s anti-KJV book! The second is a simple book review of James R. White’s anti-KJV book!

You obviously haven't read the The King James Only Controversy. Dr. White's book is anti-King James Only, not anti-King James.

"It is very important to understand the motivation behind this book. This book is not being written to push one particular translation of the Bible over another. There is no desire to get everyone to read the NASB, or the NIV, or the NKJV, or the RSV, or any other modern translation. On the other hand, I am not in any way seeking to stop those who use the KJV from reading that venerable translation. This book is not against the King James version. I know many fine Christian people who use the KJV and for whom the translation works just fine. However, I do oppose those who would force others to use the KJV or risk God's wrath for allegedly questioning His Word. I oppose KJV onlyism, not the King James Version itself."

Dr. James R. White - The King James Only Controversy, Introduction - p. VI

The Syrian text from Antioch is the Majority text (representing over 99% of all known manscripts) from which our King James 1611 comes...

This is not accurate. The text behind the KJV is the Textus Receptus, produced by Desiderius Erasmus and edited by Robert Estiene (Stephanus), and Theodore Beza. While the TR is closely related to the Majority Text, it is not identical.

 

[StanJ]

FYI, I've moved Moved DanielGarneau's post and Stan's response to the KJVO topic, as I want to avoid those discussions in here.

Happy posting.

Not surprisingly I guess, not very many takers over there.

 

[shturt678]

Cool...I was born in Montreal and lived right next to the Mohawk reserve out there called Kahnawake. My brother-in-law is Blackfoot. I'm second generation Canadian from Scottish decent. No native in me at all!

I see you still have your scalp...you're doing something right, ie, maybe it's praising our Lord beyond the whole "1" hour on Sunday.

Old Jack

Hello,

I once went to a local Church in Ontario where the pastor repeatedly preached about the King James Bible being the only valid translation of the Bible. To me this makes no sense at all and never has. Every Bible translation has its strenghts and weaknesses. If the King James Bible was the first Bible I ever read, then, certainly I would want to stick to it. But for anyone coming from a non-English speaking background, it is not very appealing because English is no longer written or spoken in the King James kind of language.

I read a comment once about the Louis Segond being equivalent in French to the King James Bible in English. This comment may be true from the perspective that the Louis Segond translation is the one most used by French language protestants or evangelicals. But as far as the way in which passages are translated, it is closer to the NIV than it is to the King James.

Moreover, it is interesting to observe that the New Testaments authors quoted often from the Greek translation of the Old Testament rather than from the Hebrew original. I am not sure what to make of it, but it seems that we should perhaps relax a little about what translation is or is not the best. For example, I personnally don't like how the Good News Translation translates John 3:36. But in some passages, it provides an interesting view of the Word of God. That was the translation a Philipinian friend who never owned a Bible ended up buying because it was easier for her to understand than was the NIV, which I would have preferred for her, because I find the latter more precise and clearer on issues of salvation such as found in John 3:36.

God bless you all...

Not that I'm anybody, encouraging words sir only wanting to make one comment.

As long as we understand alllll Biblical translations are extremely interpetive along with you folk's posts, we're in good shape,

BTW as brother Stan brought out in so many words that the LXX was much more accurate for quoting (loosely speaking) the O.T. than the O.T. Hebrew, was where the latter I brought out. Agape that team word.

Old Jack

 

[sojourner4Christ]

You obviously haven't read the The King James Only Controversy. Dr. White's book is anti-King James Only, not anti-King James.

"You obviously" can have no idea what I read or do not read.

"Dr." White's book has numerous legally actionable lies. His objective is thus made manifest: he is clearly anti-KJV -- any protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

This is not accurate. The text behind the KJV is the Textus Receptus, produced by Desiderius Erasmus and edited by Robert Estiene (Stephanus), and Theodore Beza. While the TR is closely related to the Majority Text, it is not identical.

Wrong. Firstly, Erasmus didn't "produce" any text; simply, he was the first to put it into PRINTED form. Secondly, there is no physical "Majority Text," as you presume; rather, the Majority Text is a text-type.

Not surprisingly I guess, not very many takers over there.

That's because there's nothing there.

 

[Nomad]

"Dr." White's book has numerous legally actionable lies.

Examples please.

Wrong. Firstly, Erasmus didn't "produce" any text; simply, he was the first to put it into PRINTED form.

Wrong. Erasmus produced an edited text that utilized a mere 6 manuscripts. That's all he had at his disposal. After that, he proceeded to edit that text 4 more times until he had a total of 5 editions of his TR. Stephanus and Beza edited this text and that text became the basis for the KJV. This isn't open to debate. It's a fact of history.

Secondly, there is no physical "Majority Text," as you presume; rather, the Majority Text is a text-type.

Wrong again, The MT is not a text type. The MT is a method within textual criticism that uses the “majority rules” to determine which variant is most likely to be original. In other words, the MT is supposed to represent the majority readings among the Byzantine text type. There are two published Greek texts which purport to represent the Majority readings -- Hodges and Farstad in 1982 and Pierpont and Robinson in 1991.

And as I said before, the MT is not the same as the TR which is based on very few manuscripts. As Daniel Wallace states:

"But the TR is hardly identical with the majority text, for the TR has numerous places where it is supported by few or no Greek manuscripts."

https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical

 

[sojourner4Christ]

A previous poster, and then you, have tossed out references to a "Dr." James R. White. However, documentation has been supplied that exposes the diploma mill source of his dubious credentials. None have been able to refute that documentation. Thus, continuing to quote White, requiring one to profer his many lies, shifting to Erasmus, ad nauseum, are non sequiturs at best...

Given your style, perhaps you'd have more success with the newer "KJVO" opinion thread.

The purpose of my involvement in this thread has been accomplished. Thanks to all who have posted.

 

[StanJ]

The purpose of my involvement in this thread has been accomplished.

Yes that much is quite clear.

 

[Nomad]

A previous poster, and then you, have tossed out references to a "Dr." James R. White

I "tossed out" one reference that refuted the false charge that Dr. White was anti-KJV. None of the other information provided came from Dr. White's works. They are facts that can be verified by anyone who cares to do so.

However, documentation has been supplied that exposes the diploma mill source of his dubious credentials. None have been able to refute that documentation.

Wrong.

http://vintage.aomin.org/Novak1.html

"Dr." White's book has numerous legally actionable lies.

Once again, you made the charge, now provide examples.