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.
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.
-
13
-
7
-
4
-
3
- Show all
