The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[Dino246]

The bible should be ever changing to keep up with the ever changing language of the day. Oh boy...

Is that what I said? No. Is that what I implied? No. Is that what your stubborn KJV-only mind wants to believe I said? Obviously. Get some integrity.

 

[Dino246]

A good documentay on Westcott and Hort is Tares Among The Wheat by Chris Pinto.

No, it’s not a good commentary. Rather, it’s a heavily biased argument carefully crafted to obscure the whole truth while highlighting whatever negative aspects can be found. It’s a perfect example of double standards among KJV-only proponents.

So I guess im not an onlyist but do consider the KJV as a pure translation.

You’re free to believe whatever you like, but believing something that is demonstrably false is just foolish.

 

[Hakawaka]

Do the KJV-only folks know that it was translated by infant baptizing calvinists?

Those pesky heretics!

 

[DeanM]

No, it’s not a good commentary. Rather, it’s a heavily biased argument carefully crafted to obscure the whole truth while highlighting whatever negative aspects can be found. It’s a perfect example of double standards among KJV-only proponents.


You’re free to believe whatever you like, but believing something that is demonstrably false is just foolish.

Nonsense. Pinto is constantly quoting and showing his resources. Did you even watch it? I dont know why you think modern translations are better. What did they add or subtract that your good with? The source material for the KJV hasnt changed but a lot of these new "translations" certainly have.

 

[DeanM]

Do the KJV-only folks know that it was translated by infant baptizing calvinists?

Those pesky heretics!

All 47 of them? They must have been looking hard to find that many. 😁

 

[Dino246]

Nonsense. Pinto is constantly quoting and showing his resources. Did you even watch it? I dont know why you think modern translations are better. What did they add or subtract that your good with? The source material for the KJV hasnt changed but a lot of these new "translations" certainly have.

Quoting and showing resources is irrelevant when one carefully curates those resources, omitting information that contradicts the premise.

I have said nothing about modern translations being better; don’t make baseless assumptions.

Your last comment is silly. The source material for modern translations takes into account the latest discoveries… which change over time as further information comes to light.

 

[DeanM]

Quoting and showing resources is irrelevant when one carefully curates those resources, omitting information that contradicts the premise.

I have said nothing about modern translations being better; don’t make baseless assumptions.

Your last comment is silly. The source material for modern translations takes into account the latest discoveries… which change over time as further information comes to light.

Yes. The latest at the time, Hort found in an ancient monestery inhabited by monks who were burning Sinaticus scrolls for fuel. I guess those were some stupid monks? Good thing Hort came along to rescue the scrolls.

 

[Dino246]

Yes. The latest at the time, Hort found in an ancient monestery inhabited by monks who were burning Sinaticus scrolls for fuel. I guess those were some stupid monks? Good thing Hort came along to rescue the scrolls.

Repeating a twisted version of the story is not going to convince me.

 

[MarriageCovenant]

Jude 3:4 says to earnestly 'contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.'

When the apostles passed on the teachings of Jesus and their own teachings as led by the Spirit, and when their teachings were written down in gospels and epistles, they did not write them in Late Modern English. They wrote in Greek.

There are some people who teach basically that the King James Bible is word-for-word inspired. That would require basically the canon of scripture to be open until 1611, turning translators into something like inspired scripture writers.

I've seen a variety of arguments for KJV onlyism. One is to point to flaws of other manuscript compilations that some other translation was translated from. But that doesn't prove the KJV is an inerrant inspired translation.

Another argument is that the Bible you have 'in your hand' needs to be inspired. But I could hold an NIV or NASB in my hand, too. That doesn't make it inspired.

Another argument is that there has to be a 'final authority.' It doesn't make any sense to use that to argue that the KJV is an inspired inerrant translation.

Some KJV-onlyist argue that it was the only translation 'authorized' by a king. But Henry VIII had the Great Bible translated, and that doesn't make it an inerrant translation.

Yet another argument is to take a verse about how pure or preserved the word of God is, quoting a verse about it. But those verses existed in the actual original languages scripture was written in, and they show up in the other translations as well. So how is that an argument for KJV onlyism?

The fatal flaw of KJV-onlyism is that it is an ignorant back-woods idea made up by preachers or others some time after the KJV was translated, and not part of 'the faith once delivered to the saints. The apostles did teach it. The Bible doesn't teach it. People got saved through believing the word of God before King James was born.

I know Hebrew, Greek, and old languages myself. Non of the translations are as good as the original languages but the earliest translations most likely have the fewest errors. Sadly newer translations are somewhat biased due to societal norms.

 

[Dino246]

The gospel is simple, it's Jesus Christ and him crucified.

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

1 Corinthians 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

If you honestly think that's all there is to the gospel, you haven't been understanding your Bible.

 

[Dino246]

Non of the translations are as good as the original languages but the earliest translations most likely have the fewest errors.

To which "earliest translations" are you referring? The Septuagint? Coptic? Latin?

[QUOTE="MarriageCovenant, post: 5482889, member: 340904" Sadly newer translations are somewhat biased due to societal norms.[/QUOTE]
This was the case with the KJV too, only the king set the "norms" the translators were to follow.

 

[DeanM]

Some people find the KJV hard to read due to the archaic English. Thats why some people dont care for it.

 

[DeanM]

I know Hebrew, Greek, and old languages myself. Non of the translations are as good as the original languages but the earliest translations most likely have the fewest errors. Sadly newer translations are somewhat biased due to societal norms.

Agreed. Amazon sells whats known as the gay bible. One can find a "translation" to tell anyone what they want to hear.

 

[DeanM]

If you honestly think that's all there is to the gospel, you haven't been understanding your Bible.

What is your bible?

 

[Dino246]

What is your bible?

I use several translations.

 

[Zandar]

The KJ really came from the Great Bible translation. Thats why the Geneva is so similar.

 

[DavidLamb]

All 47 of them? They must have been looking hard to find that many. 😁

Not really. The Church of England is Calvinist in its doctrine according to the 39 Articles, and it certainly practices infant baptism.

 

[DeanM]

I use several translations.

As do I. The KJV being one I look to often.