Is the King James only Position Heresy?

[dcontroversal]

Yeah I hear ya.

It is not the thees and thous though. those never did bother me

We mess around sometimes and say, thee and though, and people ay we have masterd king jimmy language..lol

I wish we would have a more complete interpretation. the greek is so poetic. But the bible would probably be twice as large if they did that.

There are more grammatically correct versions....but you will go to hell if you use them over the King Jimmy.....I once had to write a letter to explain why I used the Hebrew to justify my use of (curved piece) when describing Adam's rib because I offended some King Jimmy only-ites........ridiculous.........

 

[ember]

Here's a question for those who hold that the King James Only position is a heresy: Can you prove from scripture that believing that a translation of the Bible is 100% without error including in regards to the specific words, italics, grammar and punctuation is an unbiblical teaching and therefore heresy? Remember I'm looking for scriptural proof that this view point is heresy. (By Heresy I mean contrary to the teachings of the Bible). [Also in case it is not apparent I hold to the King James only position]

depends...what position was he in?

 

[Andrew1]

depends...what position was he in?

Please Elaborate

 

[Josefnospam]

use what ever translation you want. I use the KJV because the concordances are keyed to it, it is the inspired word of God written by men who were led by the spirit to pen the words, it has been the most trusted source of God's words until fairly recently and if when assembled together all have one bible, it cuts down on confusion and helps all present to get a better understanding of what is being spoken of at the time.

 

[MarcR]

use what ever translation you want. I use the KJV because the concordances are keyed to it, it is the inspired word of God written by men who were led by the spirit to pen the words, it has been the most trusted source of God's words until fairly recently and if when assembled together all have one bible, it cuts down on confusion and helps all present to get a better understanding of what is being spoken of at the time.

I don't think anyone argues against using the KJV. I believe the thread is about the claim some make about unique inspiration. I believe that that claim is mistaken; though I believe that the people who hold to it do so in good faith.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

use what ever translation you want. I use the KJV because the concordances are keyed to it, it is the inspired word of God written by men who were led by the spirit to pen the words, it has been the most trusted source of God's words until fairly recently and if when assembled together all have one bible, it cuts down on confusion and helps all present to get a better understanding of what is being spoken of at the time.

here is the problem.

The KJV is not inspired. it is a translation, thats it, With it comes its flaws. the largest flaw is that it is in the english language (which is a flaw in and of itself) and is also written with some bias, so has some interpretation issues,

Yet they ALL have the same flaws..

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I don't think anyone argues against using the KJV. I believe the thread is about the claim some make about unique inspiration. I believe that that claim is mistaken; though I believe that the people who hold to it do so in good faith.

Nothing wrong with holding to it, or any other bible.

It is a mistake to call it inspired and the only one correct. thats where it gets bad..

 

[FreeNChrist]

The KJV kept me from reading the Bible for myself for the first 30 years of my life. I don't much appreciate Shakespearian plays either. Give it to me in as plain and clear a manner as possible.

 

[Andrew1]

I find it fascinating that so far no one has met my challenge. I'm sure there are those who have viewed this post that came in believing that it is heresy, however for those who don't feel the KJVO position is egregious enough to be called "Heresy": Can you show from scripture that it is even contrary to any teaching of scripture?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I find it fascinating that so far no one has met my challenge. I'm sure there are those who have viewed this post that came in believing that it is heresy, however for those who don't feel the KJVO position is egregious enough to be called "Heresy": Can you show from scripture that it is even contrary to any teaching of scripture?

this is sort of faulty if not leading question.

You will not find in scripture that teh NASB, the ESV or the NLT are faulty bibles.. so scripture does not support KJV onlyism, or deny it,

so if your only question is to use scripture to support or deny it, It does not do either..

 

[GodIsSalvation]

I find it fascinating that so far no one has met my challenge. I'm sure there are those who have viewed this post that came in believing that it is heresy, however for those who don't feel the KJVO position is egregious enough to be called "Heresy": Can you show from scripture that it is even contrary to any teaching of scripture?

Well KJV couldn't be a heresy since it is literally scripture and a valid translation of scripture. To be a KJV-only is not heresy, but it is somewhat pointless because the KJV was crafted in the 1600s AD using other translations and other translations after the 1600s have used the KJV.

 

[Andrew1]

this is sort of faulty if not leading question.

You will not find in scripture that teh NASB, the ESV or the NLT are faulty bibles.. so scripture does not support KJV onlyism, or deny it,

so if your only question is to use scripture to support or deny it, It does not do either..

I agree that the absence of any mention whatsoever in scripture that believing in a 100% infallible (according to the dictionary definition of the word "infallible") hold in your hands Bible is erroneous does not in and of itself prove that it is therefore true (My Post of course was originally for those that actually hold that this position is a heresy -These people have thus far failed my test). Nevertheless I think the absence of any scripture to deal with us "mistaken" King James onlyists is glaring. Please help me from scripture to see the error of my ways.

 

[Andrew1]

this is sort of faulty if not leading question.

You will not find in scripture that teh NASB, the ESV or the NLT are faulty bibles.. so scripture does not support KJV onlyism, or deny it,

so if your only question is to use scripture to support or deny it, It does not do either..

Also in my post I'm not trying to prove that any Bible is true or erroneous, All I'm asking is can it be proven from scripture that the KJV only position is an error? Not, is the King James Bible in error?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Also in my post I'm not trying to prove that any Bible is true or erroneous, All I'm asking is can it be proven from scripture that the KJV only position is an error? Not, is the King James Bible in error?

and again,

No it can not prove it is in error. and it can not prove it is not in error So the question is invalid.

 

[Andrew1]

and again,

No it can not prove it is in error. and it can not prove it is not in error So the question is invalid.

That the scriptures cannot prove that the KJV only position is not in error is from my perspective quite debatable. But that's not what my question was about. And the question is only invalid if my intention in asking the question is to prove that the King James Bible is infallible. My question is in response to the overwhelming hostility there is towards the King James only position (That being said I don't feel that anyone here has so far responded in a considerably hostile way). It cannot be proven from scripture that the KJV only position is an error, however there are numerous passages that indicate that God's pure words would be preserved.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Here's a question for those who hold that the King James Only position is a heresy: Can you prove from scripture that believing that a translation of the Bible is 100% without error including in regards to the specific words, italics, grammar and punctuation is an unbiblical teaching and therefore heresy? Remember I'm looking for scriptural proof that this view point is heresy. (By Heresy I mean contrary to the teachings of the Bible). [Also in case it is not apparent I hold to the King James only position]

My only question is, why post a thread demanding "proof" of error you claim does not exist? Is there anything that is going to change your mind?

James White wrote a very poopular book that lists the errancy of the KJV in great detail, and you obviously reject that. What is anyone going to say in even a very lengthy post that will do anything but cause an equally lengthy, and likely acrimonious, argument?

People who start threads like this are simply amazing in their desire for controversy and conflict.

 

[Angela53510]

I do not like KJV at all. It contains archaic language, it was translated primarily from the later manuscripts with copyist mistakes and errors. (Yes, I know this is the OP's question. See James White's book, "The KJV Only Controversy" if you want page after page of mistakes in the KJV!)

I also do not like Shakespeare. I think the Bible needs to be read in one's heart language. My heart language is modern English, followed by French then Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew.

Most languages except English still retain the use of second person singular pronouns. In French, it is "tu." In German it is "du." In Spanish it is "tu, vos or usted." In Greek, depending upon case, it is "su - nominative, sou - genitive, soi - dative, and se - accusative." I personally have never studied early modern English. I do not know how to conjugate the verbs associated with thee and thou, so it makes the text very unclear to me.

The case is very important in Greek. In English, we usually have the nominative at the beginning of the sentence. Greek does not, which is why you get all the grammatically convoluted sentences in KJV. ESV can tend to follow the Greek word order too, which I personally like, because it corresponds to what I have read in the Greek. And of course, ESV uses modern English, and follows the older manuscripts which are not full of mistakes, like the Vulgate and Erasmus' versions of the Bible, which the KJV translators used.

So no, KJV is not inspired, it is a translation. Even the Greek and Hebrew texts are not the original autographs. I do like my UBS version, because it has every single variation in every manuscript.

However, any Bible that points someone to Jesus is inspired - because the Holy Spirit is using the words to open people's hearts and come to Jesus. The Word of God does not return void. My husband was saved reading a KJV Bible. I was saved reading a Catholic Bible.

The issue is not WHICH BIBLE? But do you know Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, and are you following him? And that information is in any translation which at least attempts to preserve the Hebrew and the Greek. God can use Balaam's donkey and he can use the KJV and the other versions to bring people to him.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

That the scriptures cannot prove that the KJV only position is not in error is from my perspective quite debatable. But that's not what my question was about. And the question is only invalid if my intention in asking the question is to prove that the King James Bible is infallible. My question is in response to the overwhelming hostility there is towards the King James only position (That being said I don't feel that anyone here has so far responded in a considerably hostile way). It cannot be proven from scripture that the KJV only position is an error, however there are numerous passages that indicate that God's pure words would be preserved.

It has been preserved. (it never promised it would be preserved perfectly)

As I already showed you the english language itself is a flawed language, so ANY english text will have flaws.

It is just as much preserved in the NASB, NKJV, KJV and many other english bibles.

Your attempt to bring scripture in the back way does not support your case. And I will warn you, this is not a pace to get into that, It will not be handled well.

 

[Andrew1]

Well I rest my case, the King James Only position cannot be proven to be a heresy from scripture. I will now move on.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Well I rest my case, the King James Only position cannot be proven to be a heresy from scripture. I will now move on.

Move on It can't be proven not to be heresy from scripture either. So your point is mute.

And again I ask,Who called it heresy??