The King James Only Debate

[Dino246]

...
I don't agree to there being reasons for any missing text. There is a reason it was written in the first place and it's not up to us to change it according to what we feel should or shouldn't be included. After all its God's word.
Take a look at this verse that has been removed. Mat23:14 .... Now just give me one reason for removing it. Instead it should have been emphasized.

The issue is not that translators remove words or verses because they don't like them; I agree, that would be wrong. The simple test which translators stand on is, as far as they can tell, was the word or verse in the original writing. If not, then even if it is sound doctrinally, it doesn't belong in Scripture. We need an objective standard beyond our own likes and dislikes.

Another disputed passage is in 1 John 5:7. The verse is not found in early manuscripts, and only appears in certain Latin translations. It is therefore included as a footnote in many newer versions rather than in the main text as in the KJV, even though what it says is consistent with the Bible's teaching on the Trinity.

Many people who are accustomed to the KJV (or have been taught by KJV-only proponents) believe that it is the standard and/or that it was translated from the originals. In fact, the KJV was translated from published Greek editions collated in the 1500's and lacks the benefit of research and discovery in the past 400 years. If you assume that the KJV is perfect, you will naturally reject anything different. If you compare both the KJV and the newer translations to an external standard (the original language manuscripts) you will better understand the reasons for the differences.

 

[GaryA]

suppose a man built wells and water purifiers for the poor, and then a generation later, another man who also owned a company that made rat poison bought the rights to his wells -- would that mean all the water is now poison?

This is not a very good example-for-comparison -- unless you consider that, in your scenario, all of the water wells and purifiers were "tainted" with some kind of poison from the beginning...

Compared to the reality that we live in -- in your scenario -- you can "rest assured" that rat poison will find its way into the water wells and purifiers...

 

[Dude653]

I'm really not a fan of the King James version for the simple fact that nobody speaks English anymore. I recommend a parallel of King James and whatever other version you prefer so you can cross-reference between the two

 

[KJV1611]

The issue is not that translators remove words or verses because they don't like them; I agree, that would be wrong. The simple test which translators stand on is, as far as they can tell, was the word or verse in the original writing. If not, then even if it is sound doctrinally, it doesn't belong in Scripture. We need an objective standard beyond our own likes and dislikes.

Another disputed passage is in 1 John 5:7. The verse is not found in early manuscripts, and only appears in certain Latin translations. It is therefore included as a footnote in many newer versions rather than in the main text as in the KJV, even though what it says is consistent with the Bible's teaching on the Trinity.

Many people who are accustomed to the KJV (or have been taught by KJV-only proponents) believe that it is the standard and/or that it was translated from the originals. In fact, the KJV was translated from published Greek editions collated in the 1500's and lacks the benefit of research and discovery in the past 400 years. If you assume that the KJV is perfect, you will naturally reject anything different. If you compare both the KJV and the newer translations to an external standard (the original language manuscripts) you will better understand the reasons for the differences.

If there was an inerrant bible today, how would one know? What would be the proof?

 

[jenniferand2]

If there was an inerrant bible today, how would one know? What would be the proof?

have you ever played the game in school where you sit in a long line and a sentence is whispered to the first student. Then that student whispers it to the next and the next so on and so on by the time the last student hears it and says it out loud it is generally not even close to what was originally said. So yes I would rather read or hear something as close to the original source as possible

 

[Yiska]

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 first video says asks the question: "Are you going to continue telling fairy tales of scribes flying on their magic carpets, changing all the texts, or are you ready to debate the testimony of the ancient Churches?"

This question is an example of a false dichotomy, in that the speaker only provides two options when there are often many more. This logical fallacy is also known as a, false dilemma, in that it creates a conflict created by the speaker. True, modern scholars have misused logic to try and discredit Jesus' Words: "Whoever is not with me is against me." Indeed, these words would be a logical fallacy if spoken by any human but Christ Jesus. In this case though there are many more options than the question proposes.

The King James version is not without error, and whenever possible it is advisable to gain some understanding of early the Greek and Hebrew texts.

"And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." Deuteronomy 6:5 KJV

 

[KJV1611]

have you ever played the game in school where you sit in a long line and a sentence is whispered to the first student. Then that student whispers it to the next and the next so on and so on by the time the last student hears it and says it out loud it is generally not even close to what was originally said. So yes I would rather read or hear something as close to the original source as possible

What if God was in charge of the message going from person to person... It would be exactly what God intended it to be at the end.

 

[jenniferand2]

What if God was in charge of the message going from person to person... It would be exactly what God intended it to be at the end.

that depends if god starts the sentence but i take this sentence and change a few words to make it sound better or to make it easier to remember then pass it along the it is no longer Gods original words..I would love to see a bible close to the time it was written

 

[John146]

have you ever played the game in school where you sit in a long line and a sentence is whispered to the first student. Then that student whispers it to the next and the next so on and so on by the time the last student hears it and says it out loud it is generally not even close to what was originally said. So yes I would rather read or hear something as close to the original source as possible

When it comes to God's word, I don't want close. I want to know what God has said in order to live my life and have a defense against the world.

 

[jenniferand2]

When it comes to God's word, I don't want close. I want to know what God has said in order to live my life and have a defense against the world.

As do I do you know where Gods original texts are? I sure do not

 

[GaryA]

that depends if god starts the sentence but i take this sentence and change a few words to make it sound better or to make it easier to remember then pass it along the it is no longer Gods original words..I would love to see a bible close to the time it was written

Then you would have to learn a few new languages -- Koine Greek ( which is not the same as 'modern' Greek ) - and, Hebrew, of course - and, don't forget the Chaldee...

 

[John146]

As do I do you know where Gods original texts are? I sure do not

I don't need them. I have His words preserved in the English language in the KJV. I trust every word to be the exact word I need in English, no more no less.

 

[GaryA]

As do I do you know where Gods original texts are? I sure do not

And here lies the dilemma - and the choice -- do you want a bible derived from the Antiochian line ( "accepted by the churches" ) or the Alexandrian line ( "modified by man's superior intellegence" ) ???

 

[Dino246]

The first video says asks the question: "Are you going to continue telling fairy tales of scribes flying on their magic carpets, changing all the texts, or are you ready to debate the testimony of the ancient Churches?"

This question is an example of a false dichotomy, ...

Yay and hallelluJah! Someone who understands logic!

 

[Dino246]

I don't need them. I have His words preserved in the English language in the KJV. I trust every word to be the exact word I need in English, no more no less.

And here lies the dilemma - and the choice -- do you want a bible derived from the Antiochian line ( "accepted by the churches" ) or the Alexandrian line ( "modified by man's superior intellegence" ) ???

Aaaand the unmerry-go-round cranks up for another spin or three. :/

By the way, GaryA, where was Athanasius from?

 

[GaryA]

By the way, GaryA, where was Athanasius from?

A lot of "religious figures" from the past are from - or, are associated with - Alexandria; and, they are on the 'error' side of scripture texts, if they are associated with the Alexandrian line of texts...

 

[GaryA]

Please see this chart:

PROVIDENTIAL PRESERVATION OF THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT