The Error of KJV-Onlyism
- Thread starter presidente
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
See this is the danger of painting this kind of view. Who get's to decide what an error is? I've already given an example of something that could have been translated better in the KJV, and to be honest it has a HUGE effect on how people read that passage and even molds their view of eschatology. I've also see a couple other examples in this thread of things some people would consider "in error". Am I saying God's word is "in error", absolutely not, but I am saying that their are things in the KJV that could be more precise, or better translated. Anyway, who get's to decided this? You, me, is it laid out in His word to figure it out? This belief you hold cannot be supported the way you present it, in His word. I see that as a HUGE problem for this system of belief.
I'm sure you have no concern with the problems I have, but holding something so high that cannot be supported by His word is a HUGE red flag in my opinion, and is so clearly you adding to the word of God that it's hard for me to think you can't see that. To be fair I'll ask you where in scripture it is prophesied that there will be some kind of "perfect version" of His word coming. There's nothing even close that I know of, but I'm 100% willing to be shown.
I'm sure you have no concern with the problems I have, but holding something so high that cannot be supported by His word is a HUGE red flag in my opinion, and is so clearly you adding to the word of God that it's hard for me to think you can't see that. To be fair I'll ask you where in scripture it is prophesied that there will be some kind of "perfect version" of His word coming. There's nothing even close that I know of, but I'm 100% willing to be shown.
No, saying that one Bible version can modify words from an another translation doesn't exhibit a reification fallacy. This assertion pertains to the observable differences in language between various translations and doesn't involve treating abstract concepts as if they were concrete entities.
The reification fallacy, also known as the fallacy of misplaced concreteness or hypostatization, occurs when an abstract concept is treated as if it were a concrete or tangible thing. In other words, it involves attributing concrete characteristics to something that is abstract.
For example, if someone says, "Justice is blind," they are using the concept of justice in an abstract sense to convey an idea about impartiality. However, if someone were to interpret this statement literally and argue that justice must be an actual blind entity, they would be committing the reification fallacy.
This is not the case when a person says that Modern bibles change words by comparison to the King James Bible.
Some KJB believers hold to the view the King James Bible represents the previous Waldensian Bible that goes all the way back to the original writings and that Modern Versions represent a corrupted line of texts. Somebody or multiple people (whether intentionally or unintentionally) along the way in history made changes to the true line of texts by creating their own version of texts that deviates from the true Bible or it’s line of texts.
Side Note:
Another example: It wouldn't necessarily be a reification fallacy to say that your new written contract (like for your apartment or house HOA) changes words from the old one. The reification fallacy typically involves treating abstract concepts as if they were concrete entities. This is a straightforward and literal statement about a document's content, and it doesn't involve attributing concrete characteristics to an abstract concept..
Please research this more.
The reification fallacy, also known as the fallacy of misplaced concreteness or hypostatization, occurs when an abstract concept is treated as if it were a concrete or tangible thing. In other words, it involves attributing concrete characteristics to something that is abstract.
For example, if someone says, "Justice is blind," they are using the concept of justice in an abstract sense to convey an idea about impartiality. However, if someone were to interpret this statement literally and argue that justice must be an actual blind entity, they would be committing the reification fallacy.
This is not the case when a person says that Modern bibles change words by comparison to the King James Bible.
Some KJB believers hold to the view the King James Bible represents the previous Waldensian Bible that goes all the way back to the original writings and that Modern Versions represent a corrupted line of texts. Somebody or multiple people (whether intentionally or unintentionally) along the way in history made changes to the true line of texts by creating their own version of texts that deviates from the true Bible or it’s line of texts.
Side Note:
Another example: It wouldn't necessarily be a reification fallacy to say that your new written contract (like for your apartment or house HOA) changes words from the old one. The reification fallacy typically involves treating abstract concepts as if they were concrete entities. This is a straightforward and literal statement about a document's content, and it doesn't involve attributing concrete characteristics to an abstract concept..
Please research this more.
Let me give you an example. You would have to agree that there is truth (as small as one might think, nonetheless truth) to gather from the following verse, truth to how many the Lord sent out. They both cannot be true. Either one is true and the other false, or neither is true.
KJV
Luke 10:1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
ESV
Luke 10:1 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go.
KJV
Luke 10:1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
ESV
Luke 10:1 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
If you go back to my post here, you will see 25 changes in Modern Bibles by way of comparison to the King James Bible.
These changes are for the worse and not for the better. These are glaring problems that change doctrine and is big thing to swallow (i.e., which would be likeswallowing a camel). We are not talking about what may look like a minor supposed errors in the KJV (straining at gnats), or a word being archaic in the King James Bible. There could be a reason God wants us to slow down and meditate on His Word more by looking up the archaic wording. It does not mean the KJB is inferior.
These changes are for the worse and not for the better. These are glaring problems that change doctrine and is big thing to swallow (i.e., which would be likeswallowing a camel). We are not talking about what may look like a minor supposed errors in the KJV (straining at gnats), or a word being archaic in the King James Bible. There could be a reason God wants us to slow down and meditate on His Word more by looking up the archaic wording. It does not mean the KJB is inferior.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
The interpretation is a bit of a stretch... so the 'logic dictates' is a bit much. And it says nothing at all about the KJV being inspired. That's a ridiculous assertion in the first place, that the translation your church tradition uses, one translation out of several, in one language out of thousands, is inspired, and using verses written in Hebrew and Greek.... not specifically about your favorite translation... are about that translation.
You should say Isaiah, not Revelation. The passage from Revelation mentioned the heavens being rolled up like a scroll. But other translations have the same verse....from the original languages. Taking scripture about the word of God as being specifically about the KJV is ridiculous, when the KJV is just translating Hebrew or Greek, not specifically about the KJV translation.
Your uncertainty and feelings about it are not a logical argument in favor of your favorite translation of these various manuscripts being inspired. That's a ridiculous conclusion to draw. The only 'merit' to the conclusion is it makes you and people with your concerns feel better. Your epistomological agnst is not a logical argument for the inspiration and exclusivity of the KJV translation.
What was the KJV translated from? Did the translators use textual criticism, or merely rely on the textual criticism of others. Either way, textual criticism is involved.
The KJV translators relied on a work that resulted from textual criticism.
You should say Isaiah, not Revelation. The passage from Revelation mentioned the heavens being rolled up like a scroll. But other translations have the same verse....from the original languages. Taking scripture about the word of God as being specifically about the KJV is ridiculous, when the KJV is just translating Hebrew or Greek, not specifically about the KJV translation.
Your uncertainty and feelings about it are not a logical argument in favor of your favorite translation of these various manuscripts being inspired. That's a ridiculous conclusion to draw. The only 'merit' to the conclusion is it makes you and people with your concerns feel better. Your epistomological agnst is not a logical argument for the inspiration and exclusivity of the KJV translation.
What was the KJV translated from? Did the translators use textual criticism, or merely rely on the textual criticism of others. Either way, textual criticism is involved.
The KJV translators relied on a work that resulted from textual criticism.
So are you saying there was none available to the KJV onlyists? If textual criticism is evil, and compiling from various manuscript lines is wrong, wouldn't you have to accuse the KJV translators of relying on and engaging in wrong, evil practices?
You are also implying that several scrolls cannot be a 'book'. It is believed the codex, book bound on one end, was invented centuries later, so when you read 'book' you should think of a scroll like Isaiah and his hearers probably did, and this might be an example of a poor translation in the KJV translation of Isaiah. There isn't anything here about a foreign king commissioning the book be released in the language of the Gentiles in the verse in question, or the idea of a completed canon.
Are you arguing against what the KJV translators did, in making a choice of Greek text?
Your swimming in the sea of KJV-onlyist confusion, acting like these issues are some sort of evidence for KJV onlyism when its translators had to choose the texts to use for the translation. There is no reason to jump from your worried overanalysis of the issue of manuscript choice to the idea that the KJV is the inspired book, except for the man-made theory of preachers who came along some time after the KJV was translated. Why aren't their writings and theories a part of the actual Bible.
You are also implying that several scrolls cannot be a 'book'. It is believed the codex, book bound on one end, was invented centuries later, so when you read 'book' you should think of a scroll like Isaiah and his hearers probably did, and this might be an example of a poor translation in the KJV translation of Isaiah. There isn't anything here about a foreign king commissioning the book be released in the language of the Gentiles in the verse in question, or the idea of a completed canon.
Are you arguing against what the KJV translators did, in making a choice of Greek text?
Your swimming in the sea of KJV-onlyist confusion, acting like these issues are some sort of evidence for KJV onlyism when its translators had to choose the texts to use for the translation. There is no reason to jump from your worried overanalysis of the issue of manuscript choice to the idea that the KJV is the inspired book, except for the man-made theory of preachers who came along some time after the KJV was translated. Why aren't their writings and theories a part of the actual Bible.
you have an erroneous understanding of the Bible
we are actually discussing people's beliefs here and not the actual Bible
you do not make the rules and you do not say what is and what is not a Bible
that, is the realm of people who fancy themselves to be at some higher cognitive understanding
that is also erroneous especially if your syntax is lacking while you state modern English is nothing but slang
I would laugh at how silly these beliefs are, but sadly, too many buy into this type of reasoning because it helps them think of how
very special they must be to have something as valuable as the original and actual inspired writings
we are actually discussing people's beliefs here and not the actual Bible
you do not make the rules and you do not say what is and what is not a Bible
that, is the realm of people who fancy themselves to be at some higher cognitive understanding
that is also erroneous especially if your syntax is lacking while you state modern English is nothing but slang
I would laugh at how silly these beliefs are, but sadly, too many buy into this type of reasoning because it helps them think of how
very special they must be to have something as valuable as the original and actual inspired writings
I am astonished that you nit pick this particular item. I think the word bewitched is still used in Galatians though? well yes it is....3:1
You can look that up and find all translations (or almost all) use that word
NIV uses the word sorcery for Acts 8:9 as do other translations and some use 'practicing magic'
since it about seems most do not actually study scripture and do not hear the truth and nothing but the truth from the pulpit, it is easy for some to make the claims they do about the KJ
I grew up with the KJ, am very familiar with it and think this obsession with the KJ is very unhealthy with ridiculous claims being made as to its merits as great or greater than original manuscripts
You can look that up and find all translations (or almost all) use that word
NIV uses the word sorcery for Acts 8:9 as do other translations and some use 'practicing magic'
since it about seems most do not actually study scripture and do not hear the truth and nothing but the truth from the pulpit, it is easy for some to make the claims they do about the KJ
I grew up with the KJ, am very familiar with it and think this obsession with the KJ is very unhealthy with ridiculous claims being made as to its merits as great or greater than original manuscripts
Has anyone here actually tried to read a copy of an original 1611 KJ Bible? I have an older friend that used to travel the country as an evangelist and he met many preachers. One he found truly inspiring preached from an original 1611 version and he asked if I knew where he could get one. I ordered him a copy and he was amazed. He could not even pronounce many of the spellings. If indeed the argument is that the ”original” KJB is the “True” Bible, why don’t the folks who espouse that the KJB is the only ‘Inspired” version, use a 1611 version?
-
1
- Show all
So you don't think there is a "Book of the Lord" in existence today according to Isaiah 34:16?
The KJB was the Bible that Christians used for hundreds of years and you are saying they were deceived until the Textual Critics like you came along. That is what is silly about your Modernistic unbelieving approach to the Bible. The Germans started the Rationalistic approach to the Bible in the 1700s. It did not hit here in America yet until the 1800s. So your unbiblical approach to the Bible is recent in history.
The KJB was the Bible that Christians used for hundreds of years and you are saying they were deceived until the Textual Critics like you came along. That is what is silly about your Modernistic unbelieving approach to the Bible. The Germans started the Rationalistic approach to the Bible in the 1700s. It did not hit here in America yet until the 1800s. So your unbiblical approach to the Bible is recent in history.
-
1
-
1
- Show all