The King James Only Debate

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

calvinsx76

Senior Member
Jun 19, 2016
107
0
16
#1
Hello all

As a supporter of the King James Version (Authorized Version) I wanted to put into perspective the primary issues in this debate. For those who suggest the argument is a superficial one, based on the style it is written in compared to the style used in the NIV, New American Standard edition, or other - you have it totally wrong.

Don't get me wrong, the old English is beautiful, but this debate is centered on the family of manuscripts which has come down through the apostolic churches as the foundation for its scholarship - Versions such as the NIV and others are based on manuscripts of unknown authorship and origin that cannot be linked to any churches. The primary manuscripts that form their so called "Critical Text" are known as Sinanticus and Vacticanus. Now modern scholars like Bart Erhman, James White & Daniel Wallace reject church texts in favor of these manuscripts which calls into questions scripture passages which they state were not part of the original writings of the apostles such as the last 12 verses of Mark, The women in Adultery in Johns Gospel as well as others.

The awesome short videos provide witness testimony from the second century on the received texts of the apostolic churches against the gnostics who claim to be in possession of the true manuscripts. Let the debate begin.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqjsB-lvDBWXDB-DYVLt-Zg
 
L

LaurenTM

Guest
#2
right

because 490 threads already running are not enough
 

Agricola

Senior Member
Dec 10, 2012
2,638
88
48
#5
Hello all

As a supporter of the King James Version (Authorized Version) I wanted to put into perspective the primary issues in this debate .......

BLAH BLAH BLAH

Let the debate begin.
Begin again for the 122131234562123 time?

Just reading the latest round it now seems there is a split in the King James Only Cult as to why the King James should only be read.

King James Bible is great, but its just one Bible in a long line and only one in hundreds of languages.

King James Onlyism is a cult, the behaviour and language of its members is proof enough that it is a cult and something I will never join or subscribe to.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#6
Hello all

As a supporter of the King James Version (Authorized Version) I wanted to put into perspective the primary issues in this debate. For those who suggest the argument is a superficial one, based on the style it is written in compared to the style used in the NIV, New American Standard edition, or other - you have it totally wrong.

Don't get me wrong, the old English is beautiful, but this debate is centered on the family of manuscripts which has come down through the apostolic churches as the foundation for its scholarship - Versions such as the NIV and others are based on manuscripts of unknown authorship and origin that cannot be linked to any churches. The primary manuscripts that form their so called "Critical Text" are known as Sinanticus and Vacticanus. Now modern scholars like Bart Erhman, James White & Daniel Wallace reject church texts in favor of these manuscripts which calls into questions scripture passages which they state were not part of the original writings of the apostles such as the last 12 verses of Mark, The women in Adultery in Johns Gospel as well as others.

The awesome short videos provide witness testimony from the second century on the received texts of the apostolic churches against the gnostics who claim to be in possession of the true manuscripts. Let the debate begin.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqjsB-lvDBWXDB-DYVLt-Zg
The writings of Tertullian are almost as old as the original writings of the New Testament. I'm sure the video is quoting from copies of copies of copies of his writings. There are all kinds of opportunites for errors and purposeful changes. I love the KJV and defend it regularly but I don't think the videos prove anything. :)
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#7
Begin again for the 122131234562123 time?

Just reading the latest round it now seems there is a split in the King James Only Cult as to why the King James should only be read.

King James Bible is great, but its just one Bible in a long line and only one in hundreds of languages.

King James Onlyism is a cult, the behaviour and language of its members is proof enough that it is a cult and something I will never join or subscribe to.
Original Manuscriptism is a cult, based on nothing but blind faith in people who know absolutely nothing about the word of God. Cult members read Greek and Hebrew dictionaries written by bible skeptics, non-believing "scholars" and Freemasons. And cult members actually believe this method makes them Greek and Hebrew experts.

The language and rudeness and unkindness of it's members are proof enough that it's a cult... Something I will never join or subscribe to.
 
Feb 9, 2010
2,486
39
0
#8
I use the KJV,but I will not debate,or say the others are wrong,for I do not have adequate information about them,but having read through the KJV I have no problem with it,and it is the same theme throughout it,so since I understand it well enough,I never checked any other version out.

I would say a version is in grave error if it does not claim one God,that Jesus is God manifest in flesh,Jesus is Lord and Savior,we are sinners that need forgiveness,being led by the Spirit,against homosexuality,among others,for if it is corrupt it would become friendly to the false religions.

That is a good sign that it is corrupt,if it becomes friendly to other religions,trying to imply that all paths lead to spiritual salvation.

Which I do not believe the other versions do that for there is too many people that believe in the essentials that claim those other versions,but of course here a change,and there a change,and one thing can lead to another and eventually change a version to be friendly to all religions,which a unified religious system is coming,with a false interpretation of Christianity,Islam,and Judaism,for their belief in a personal God exclusive to all others,so they do not fit the pattern of the unified religious system.

If there is a song as tradition in a society,and some people say,let us slowly change it to a different song that we desire,by a slow and steady process,through time,change one note,hardly noticeable,and let it play for a while,then change one note,and let it play a while,and so forth,and even if it takes 200 years eventually it is a whole new song,and people think it was the truth all along.

So I do not know if they are doing little changes purposely going for a different outlook concerning the Bible,or not,or they are on the level.

The biggest thing to look out for,and would be the first they would want to change if it is deception,is to reduce Jesus to less than He is,and is not Lord and Savior,which from what I seen by people posting from those versions,is they hold unto that truth.

I do not know,for I like the KJV,but I will not knock the other versions if I do not know enough about them.
 
J

jaybird88

Guest
#9
i read that the protestant bibles, including the KJV rely more on the masoretic text as opposed to the Catholics whose vulgate relied more on the LXX. anyone know more about this?
 

calvinsx76

Senior Member
Jun 19, 2016
107
0
16
#11
Begin again for the 122131234562123 time?

Just reading the latest round it now seems there is a split in the King James Only Cult as to why the King James should only be read.

King James Bible is great, but its just one Bible in a long line and only one in hundreds of languages.

King James Onlyism is a cult, the behaviour and language of its members is proof enough that it is a cult and something I will never join or subscribe to.
The purpose of this thread is the discuss the scholarship behind the King James Version, the principles on which they were guidedand the manuscript family of editions in translating it. The NIV and other translations use another family of manuscripts as well as different criteria in their scholarship.
 

calvinsx76

Senior Member
Jun 19, 2016
107
0
16
#12
i read that the protestant bibles, including the KJV rely more on the masoretic text as opposed to the Catholics whose vulgate relied more on the LXX. anyone know more about this?
Well the 47 scholars who worked on the King James use the Masoretic texts (which are the texts that were received by the jews in working on the Old Testament. As far as the Vulgate is concerned, they were aware of that edition, but they also had a number of greek manuscripts from constaniople, they had the greek text of stephanus, Erasmus Edition, the text of Theodore Beza, amoung others...But they relied only on texts received from the churches. They didn't use texts of unknown origin. This is far different than the scholarship that the NIV is built upon.
 

calvinsx76

Senior Member
Jun 19, 2016
107
0
16
#13
The writings of Tertullian are almost as old as the original writings of the New Testament. I'm sure the video is quoting from copies of copies of copies of his writings. There are all kinds of opportunites for errors and purposeful changes. I love the KJV and defend it regularly but I don't think the videos prove anything. :)
The purpose of the videos is to introduce viewers to the criterion established by the ancient churches in defending the texts of the apostolic churches against those that the gnostics. The scholars of the king james used these principles in reference to the manuscript that were used in building this edition. Erasmus, Stephanus and Theodore Beza used this same criteria. They were familiar with the fathers, and well aware of corrupt texts that plagued the ancient churches throughout the centuries.

In regards to the writings of Tertullian, many copies of his works were found, not to mention found in other languages. It's not like we have only one copy of tertuallian. Secondly we read in context, whether a word or two or three was changed, it doesn't take away from his central argument that all the apostolic churches had official records that could trace back to the apostles. He's establishing a legal chain of custody, and he shows that the apostolic churches transmitted what they received from the apostles. Whereas the gnostics could not, and though the gnostics texts disagreed with each other, the united testimony of the apostolic churches were able to testify to the same texts by the same authors.

Irenaus makes the same argument. So if there are all these errors in the copies of Tertullian, somehow the argument isn't lost in Ireneus writing. Are you able to tell me the name of the scribe who made each error in each copied edition?

I agree there can be errors, but then you take several different copies and compare them to each other, and where they agree, that the correct one. It's not rocket science...and since there are multiple copies, there isn't any issue.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
3,992
927
113
#14
I use the KJV,but I will not debate,or say the others are wrong,for I do not have adequate information about them,but having read through the KJV I have no problem with it,and it is the same theme throughout it,so since I understand it well enough,I never checked any other version out.

I would say a version is in grave error if it does not claim one God,that Jesus is God manifest in flesh,..

So I do not know if they are doing little changes purposely going for a different outlook concerning the Bible,or not,or they are on the level.

The biggest thing to look out for,and would be the first they would want to change if it is deception,is to reduce Jesus to less than He is,and is not Lord and Savior,which from what I seen by people posting from those versions,is they hold unto that truth.

I do not know,for I like the KJV,but I will not knock the other versions if I do not know enough about them.
Following these thoughts I have emboldened will knock down almost all new versions. So that we really don't have the power to do it but God can! His words are true, quick and powerful!

God bless
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
3,992
927
113
#15
Agricola;2865966 [B said:
King James Onlyism is a cult[/B], the behaviour and language of its members is proof enough that it is a cult and something I will never join or subscribe to.
KJV Onlyism is a cult. Why?

Thanks
 

Demi777

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2014
6,877
1,949
113
Germany
#16
I wonder what would happen if the KJV-Only and the Jesus Only cults met... KJV Clan and Jesus only panthers??
 
J

jaybird88

Guest
#17
Well the 47 scholars who worked on the King James use the Masoretic texts (which are the texts that were received by the jews in working on the Old Testament. As far as the Vulgate is concerned, they were aware of that edition, but they also had a number of greek manuscripts from constaniople, they had the greek text of stephanus, Erasmus Edition, the text of Theodore Beza, amoung others...But they relied only on texts received from the churches. They didn't use texts of unknown origin. This is far different than the scholarship that the NIV is built upon.
what sources the NIV use?
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#19
Hello all

As a supporter of the King James Version (Authorized Version) I wanted to put into perspective the primary issues in this debate. For those who suggest the argument is a superficial one, based on the style it is written in compared to the style used in the NIV, New American Standard edition, or other - you have it totally wrong.

Don't get me wrong, the old English is beautiful, but this debate is centered on the family of manuscripts which has come down through the apostolic churches as the foundation for its scholarship - Versions such as the NIV and others are based on manuscripts of unknown authorship and origin that cannot be linked to any churches. The primary manuscripts that form their so called "Critical Text" are known as Sinanticus and Vacticanus. Now modern scholars like Bart Erhman, James White & Daniel Wallace reject church texts in favor of these manuscripts which calls into questions scripture passages which they state were not part of the original writings of the apostles such as the last 12 verses of Mark, The women in Adultery in Johns Gospel as well as others.

The awesome short videos provide witness testimony from the second century on the received texts of the apostolic churches against the gnostics who claim to be in possession of the true manuscripts. Let the debate begin.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqjsB-lvDBWXDB-DYVLt-Zg
So, what do you actually want to discuss?

KJV only or majority vs minority text? These are very different issues.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#20
Original Manuscriptism is a cult, based on nothing but blind faith in people who know absolutely nothing about the word of God. Cult members read Greek and Hebrew dictionaries written by bible skeptics, non-believing "scholars" and Freemasons. And cult members actually believe this method makes them Greek and Hebrew experts.

The language and rudeness and unkindness of it's members are proof enough that it's a cult... Something I will never join or subscribe to.
Never say never. We should be open to new information, not closed in our opinions.