Where did King James only originate?

[ResidentAlien]

I am of the kjv-superior position and I came to that conclusion on my own; I did not get my understanding from any singular originator of the concept that may have been the first to speak of it.

I think that the burden of proof is on you to substantiate that Wilkinson was the first to be a proponent of the doctrine.

I'm not saying that. I originally thought Wilkinson may have been the originator but now I'm not set set on proving that. I think he brought to modern readers ideas that had festered for awhile.

So, entirely on your own, you concluded that all other versions of the Bible were corrupted and the KJV alone is God's own Bible? No outside influence whatsoever.

 

[Nehemiah6]

If the KJV only movement started with Westcott and Hort, it seems to me it was a paranoid overreaction to new manuscripts and the critical method. Never mind how ridiculous the idea of one version and one version only is, in their minds it was better than the alternative.

Calling it a "paranoid reaction" shows that you really do not understand the importance of truth. It may appear to be ridiculous to the ignorant, but to those who have investigated this matter carefully and thoroughly, it is the only response to corrupted bibles.

There was absolutely no valid reason to depart from the KJB, and there still is none. If you have a hundred good apples and one rotten apple, which would you prefer to eat?

 

[ResidentAlien]

Calling it a "paranoid reaction" shows that you really do not understand the importance of truth. It may appear to be ridiculous to the ignorant, but to those who have investigated this matter carefully and thoroughly, it is the only response to corrupted bibles.

There was absolutely no valid reason to depart from the KJB, and there still is none. If you have a hundred good apples and one rotten apple, which would you prefer to eat?

I just call 'em like I see 'em.

 

[Dino246]

There was absolutely no valid reason to depart from the KJB, and there still is none.

By that logic, there was no reason for the KJV to be produced in the first place, as there were already good translations of the Bible available in English in 1604.

Would you like to present a sound and valid argument, or do you want to keep posting fallacies and unsubstantiated assertions of corruption?

 

[justbyfaith]

I'm not saying that. I originally thought Wilkinson may have been the originator but now I'm not set set on proving that. I think he brought to modern readers ideas that had festered for awhile.

So, entirely on your own, you concluded that all other versions of the Bible were corrupted and the KJV alone is God's own Bible? No outside influence whatsoever.

My testimony is that I started with the kjv and someone suggested that I try a more easy-to-read version.

When I did, my walk with Christ began to go downhill.

When I returned to the kjv, things started looking up again in my Christian walk.

So, I concluded that the kjv is better than the modern translation that I had switched to.

 

[ResidentAlien]

My testimony is that I started with the kjv and someone suggested that I try a more easy-to-read version.

When I did, my walk with Christ began to go downhill.

When I returned to the kjv, things started looking up again in my Christian walk.

So, I concluded that the kjv is better than the modern translation that I had switched to.

Okay, there's a big difference between what your saying and what the KJV only movement preaches. I'm all for a person using whatever version helps them best. KJV onlyism preaches the KJV is the only one; everyone has to use it or they're lost. It's basically become a test of salvation.

 

[justbyfaith]

Okay, there's a big difference between what your saying and what the KJV only movement preaches. I'm all for a person using whatever version helps them best. KJV onlyism preaches the KJV is the only one; everyone has to use it or they're lost. It's basically become a test of salvation.

I am kjv-superior in my understanding.

I do believe that if anyone reads a modern translation and never consults the kjv, thst they will become spiritually anemic.

Any time there is a contention between the kjv and any other translation, I believe that the kjv trumps that modern translation (such as in the case of Galatians 2:11, with the kjv vs. the ESV).

 

[Blik]

I think that any time anyone reads a translation of scripture as not being a translation but as original scripture, then they are distorting scripture.

No language can be changed into another language and keep the original meaning with absolute accuracy. The KJV only people claim that translation does the impossible. That would mean they would not want us to look at the original words, only at the translation of the original.

God is truth, and the KJV only people are not reflecting truth.

 

[justbyfaith]

I think that any time anyone reads a translation of scripture as not being a translation but as original scripture, then they are distorting scripture.

No language can be changed into another language and keep the original meaning with absolute accuracy. The KJV only people claim that translation does the impossible. That would mean they would not want us to look at the original words, only at the translation of the original.

God is truth, and the KJV only people are not reflecting truth.

So, do we have the unadulterated message of the gospel in any translation?

Because the original manuscripts have been lost to us.

So, is everyone for ever lost? Since the unadulterated message of the gospel (the whole counsel of God) cannot be found anywhere?

 

[ResidentAlien]

I am kjv-superior in my understanding.

I do believe that if anyone reads a modern translation and never consults the kjv, thst they will become spiritually anemic.

Any time there is a contention between the kjv and any other translation, I believe that the kjv trumps that modern translation (such as in the case of Galatians 2:11, with the kjv vs. the ESV).

Okay, now you lost me. I can buy that it may be superior for you, but when you start saying it's the superior version—I don't buy it. You're essentially saying the KJV will give everyone a superior spiritual experience; they won't become spiritually "anemic." Another way to say it would be: "I'm spiritually better than you because I read the KJV." That's hogwash.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Any time there is a contention between the kjv and any other translation, I believe that the kjv trumps that modern translation (such as in the case of Galatians 2:11, with the kjv vs. the ESV).

I agree sometimes the KJV might be better; but not every time. You're treating the KJV as some sort of magic talisman that can settle disputes between all conflicting views.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Okay, now you lost me. I can buy that it may be superior for you, but when you start saying it's the superior version—I don't buy it. You're essentially saying the KJV will give everyone a superior spiritual experience; they won't become spiritually "anemic." Another way to say it would be: "I'm spiritually better than you because I read the KJV." That's hogwash.

just shows his Pride/

 

[Dino246]

I do believe that if anyone reads a modern translation and never consults the kjv, thst they will become spiritually anemic.

You have stated this previously. What you have not done is provide any objective evidence to support your belief.

Please do so. No opinions, no speculations, just evidence.

Any time there is a contention between the kjv and any other translation, I believe that the kjv trumps that modern translation (such as in the case of Galatians 2:11, with the kjv vs. the ESV).

On what basis do you believe that the KJV "trumps" the modern translation? Or is it just an a priori belief with no actual rationale behind it?

 

[justbyfaith]

just shows his Pride/

What have I done now? is there not a cause?

(1 Samuel 17:28-29).

 

[Dino246]

So, is everyone for ever lost? Since the unadulterated message of the gospel (the whole counsel of God) cannot be found anywhere?

That's not what she said, and not what people who aren't KJV-onlyists believe.

The unadulterated message of the gospel is readily available in any modern translation. It's even discernible in the paraphrases.

 

[justbyfaith]

Okay, now you lost me. I can buy that it may be superior for you, but when you start saying it's the superior version—I don't buy it. You're essentially saying the KJV will give everyone a superior spiritual experience; they won't become spiritually "anemic." Another way to say it would be: "I'm spiritually better than you because I read the KJV." That's hogwash.

Except that is not the way that I have said it.

While that may be the conclusion that one would make, it is not the producing thought.

I do not believe in the kjv because it makes me spiritually superior to those who don't; but because I do not want to be spiritually inferior to what I would be if I did not adhere to the kjv.

 

[justbyfaith]

I agree sometimes the KJV might be better; but not every time. You're treating the KJV as some sort of magic talisman that can settle disputes between all conflicting views.

The kjv is inspired and inerrant as concerning doctrine; and therefore is the settling factor for me in any argument over holy scripture.

 

[ResidentAlien]

On what basis do you believe that the KJV "trumps" the modern translation? Or is it just an a priori belief with no actual rationale behind it?

If you want my honest opinion the thing that drives KJV onlyism is fear. Not peace in the Spirit of Truth but fear of being led astray. This is becoming more and more clear to me.

 

[justbyfaith]

You have stated this previously. What you have not done is provide any objective evidence to support your belief.

Please do so. No opinions, no speculations, just evidence.


On what basis do you believe that the KJV "trumps" the modern translation? Or is it just an a priori belief with no actual rationale behind it?

For example, if you read Luke 9:55-56 or Romans 13:9 in any other version, you will be missing some information.

There are also other passages where words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, even entire passages are removed from what is considered to be holy scripture.

The words that have been removed represent spiritual nutrition that the one who reads a modern translation will not receive when he or she reads a modern translation; nutrition that he or she will receive if he or she reads the kjv.

 

[justbyfaith]

That's not what she said, and not what people who aren't KJV-onlyists believe.

The unadulterated message of the gospel is readily available in any modern translation. It's even discernible in the paraphrases.

However, my point is that, while the gospel message may be present in modern versions, the unadulterated gospel message (the whole counsel of God) isn't.

So, those who read modern translations will find themselves spiritually anemic in the reading of those modern versions to the exclusion of the kjv.