The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[GWH]

KJV ONLY People:

I have a lot of good friends that are KJV ONLY people, and most of them are very fine Christians.
They have a high view of scripture, they are very devout, and they're filled with both courage and zeal.
Many of them know the Bible very well, and are excellent at teaching core doctrine and core principles.
I respect them and love them very much.

However, I find the entire KJV ONLY position (and thus debate on the matter) to be irrational, and a disruption to our time.

Why?


2 Categories of Claims.
The KJV ONLY position has 2 types of claims, and carefully distinguishing these 2 types of claims will quickly sort the entire issue:

1. Rational Claims:
They make some claims that are rational, and thus at least plausible, and should therefore be open for debate and discussion.
(Example: They feel certain manuscripts and texts are more reliable than others. Perfectly rational to discuss this.)
2. Irrational Claims:
They make some claims that are not rational, and which are therefore simply not possible.
So these claims have to be discarded by default.
If we discard the irrational claims (which we must), then all that remains is a very modest, and very different position altogether.
(Example: Most of them believe God's word is somehow "perfectly" preserved in the English language even better than in the original languages. This is simply irrational, and there's no logical way to defend this. They also use certain verses to support their views, and almost every verse they use for this is pulled completely out of historical context.)


Conclusion:
A.) I love the KJV ONLY brethren, and most of them are fine and devout Christians who deeply love God, and deeply love his word. I find no fault in this. They are fine Christians, and fine friends.
B.) I usually don't debate people on the KJV ONLY position, because they've let this strange issue become far too conflated with their core beliefs of the gospel... I always fear, deeply fear, debate with them will injure their faith.


God Bless.
Have a great week everyone.
.

I agree and affirm love for GW, but not Bibliolatry, because folks who believe the dictation theory do not realize it has several caveats, such as that it refers to the original manuscripts (which we do not have) correctly interpreted. And the key to correct interpretation is NOT viewing the Bible as a modern science or history textbook, but rather as concerned with communicating God’s will to humanity regarding His requirement for salvation: THAT is what is inerrant!

The salvationist view of inspiration seems more logical than the dictationist view according to the following train of thought: Suppose God Himself wrote the inerrant KJV message to humanity: “Thou shalt not lie, steal, murder or fornicate.” Suppose the first manuscript copier accidentally left out the comma between lie and steal. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? No, but it is still a mistake and no longer perfectly inerrant. Now suppose an evil copier intentionally changed the word fornicate to fumigate. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? Not all of it; only the changed word. How could we know which word or words were correct and not changed? We would need to compare the commandment with other statements purported to be inspired by God in order to see what is the overall or consistent message, so that we can acquire sufficient evidence to have reasonable belief that the word fumigate should be discounted. Perhaps Bible scholars would discover that the changed word was in a later problematic manuscript (as is the case for drinking poison in MK 16).

Finally, suppose that no one changed God’s original commandment. How could we know absolutely or infallibly that it was inerrant? We could not; we walk by faith. We would still need to compare it with the totality of truth in order to discover whether there were any inconsistencies. Thus, a completely inerrant Bible is not needed, as long as there is sufficient consistency in God’s messages to humanity via the creation (TOJ #4), the scriptures (TOJ #3), the incarnate word (TOJ #186) and logic (TOJ #182) for souls to discern God’s requirement for salvation.

Inspiration is like a river: God determines its banks so that the overall revelation each generation along its banks has includes truth sufficient regarding salvation (kerygma), but God allows the river of revelation to have eddies or discrepancies or minor errors that do not prevent God’s purpose from being accomplished (IS 55:10f, 1PT 1:10-12, HB 11:2-12:2).

 

[Dino246]

The KJV is the original translation and readable (I don't have any issues with it). I don't understand the criticism. The later translations run the risk of man-made translations that are not correct, while the KJV is trustable.

Bahahaha! The sheer ignorance of your comment amazes me. Since you admit that you don’t understand the criticism, I suggest you do some homework on the subject. You might start by reading Dr. James White’s book “The King James Only Controversy”.

By the way, there is very little “original” about the KJV.

 

[John146]

You might start by reading Dr. James White’s book “The King James Only Controversy”.

Dr. James White...Bahahaha! Shall I direct him to Ruckman?

 

[Dino246]

Dr. James White...Bahahaha! Shall I direct him to Ruckman?

That you compare the two tells me you haven’t read White’s work. Ruckman is a raving nut, while White is a calm and competent scholar.

 

[LeeLoving]

Bahahaha! The sheer ignorance of your comment amazes me. Since you admit that you don’t understand the criticism, I suggest you do some homework on the subject. You might start by reading Dr. James White’s book “The King James Only Controversy”.

By the way, there is very little “original” about the KJV.

I still flatly don't understand. If I'm not incorrect there was an attempt to translate the original manuscripts (if I'm not incorrect) into a form of archaic English which comprised the original KJV Bible and then there was an attempt maybe in 1611 (I don't remember exactly) to a modern English Bible... if this was the original translation and is trustable, why would you go further? You run the gambit of taking people's opinions into your reading since they differ with the original translation...

 

[John146]

That you compare the two tells me you haven’t read White’s work. Ruckman is a raving nut, while White is a calm and competent scholar.

Demeanor has zero to do with truth. James White does not believe that God has preserved his words anywhere in any book. He exalts his own education. I have watched many of his videos. His arrogance is evident.

 

[Jimbone]

I still flatly don't understand. If I'm not incorrect there was an attempt to translate the original manuscripts (if I'm not incorrect) into a form of archaic English which comprised the original KJV Bible and then there was an attempt maybe in 1611 (I don't remember exactly) to a modern English Bible... if this was the original translation and is trustable, why would you go further? You run the gambit of taking people's opinions into your reading since they differ with the original translation...

Did you know the KJV translators would find the KJV Only position irrational and counter productive. When you dig deep and understand the truth behind some of the issues the radical KJV Onlyist raise, it becomes more and more clear the more you learn that you start to see more clearly that this insane and evil Satanic force attacking Jesus deity through modern translations is nothing more that a hype train used to scare people and win them to the cult...I mean "cause". It's like Islam and can only survive in ignorance and hard headedness.

 

[Jimbone]

Demeanor has zero to do with truth. James White does not believe that God has preserved his words anywhere in any book. He exalts his own education. I have watched many of his videos. His arrogance is evident.

But you're completely blind to your own.

 

[John146]

Did you know the KJV translators would find the KJV Only position irrational and counter productive. When you dig deep and understand the truth behind some of the issues the radical KJV Onlyist raise, it becomes more and more clear the more you learn that you start to see more clearly that this insane and evil Satanic force attacking Jesus deity through modern translations is nothing more that a hype train used to scare people and win them to the cult...I mean "cause". It's like Islam and can only survive in ignorance and hard headedness.

Believing God has inspired his words and preserved them in the KJV is a cult? Do you believe God has preserved his words? If so, where are they? Can you read and study them? Can you live by them?

 

[LeeLoving]

Did you know the KJV translators would find the KJV Only position irrational and counter productive. When you dig deep and understand the truth behind some of the issues the radical KJV Onlyist raise, it becomes more and more clear the more you learn that you start to see more clearly that this insane and evil Satanic force attacking Jesus deity through modern translations is nothing more that a hype train used to scare people and win them to the cult...I mean "cause". It's like Islam and can only survive in ignorance and hard headedness.

Well, you're throwing out an egg for an egg shell that someone inspected... why run the gambit?

 

[Dino246]

I still flatly don't understand. If I'm not incorrect there was an attempt to translate the original manuscripts (if I'm not incorrect) into a form of archaic English which comprised the original KJV Bible and then there was an attempt maybe in 1611 (I don't remember exactly) to a modern English Bible... if this was the original translation and is trustable, why would you go further? You run the gambit of taking people's opinions into your reading since they differ with the original translation...

The 1611 is the “original KJV”, but the KJV is NOT the original English Bible version. It was “current English” 400 years ago, but the English language has changed so much that the KJV is somewhat incomprehensible today. That is why one does well to use a modern translation such as the NIV.

 

[Dino246]

Demeanor has zero to do with truth. James White does not believe that God has preserved his words anywhere in any book. He exalts his own education. I have watched many of his videos. His arrogance is evident.

His education and experience are in fact vastly superior to that of many of his critics. If you haven’t read his book, you have no business criticizing his arguments. Instead, you’re finding reasons to dismiss him out of hand and not bother reading.

 

[Dino246]

Believing God has inspired his words and preserved them in the KJV is a cult?

Misrepresenting the issue is not dealing honestly with it.

 

[LeeLoving]

The 1611 is the “original KJV”, but the KJV is NOT the original English Bible version. It was “current English” 400 years ago, but the English language has changed so much that the KJV is somewhat incomprehensible today. That is why one does well to use a modern translation such as the NIV.

Not to be a stick in the mud, but I read the KJV and it is HIGHLY readable, I have no doubt that it is the Holy Bible. I used to prefer the NIV and the ESV if I'm not mistaken and it was shown to me that the KJV is the true Bible. I can get repititious, but I'm being honest, I can't take another "translation" seriously and it is a negative in my opinion that those things are being taken seriously by people when it is clearly the KJV when you take things into consideration, though it's not that difficult. It's readable and was the first to be put together, the language when actually given the time of day is edifying, the other translations upon my reading do not hold the same water as the KJV. Just what I have to say about it. Don't mean to be rude.

 

[Dino246]

Not to be a stick in the mud, but I read the KJV and it is HIGHLY readable, I have no doubt that it is the Holy Bible. I used to prefer the NIV and the ESV if I'm not mistaken and it was shown to me that the KJV is the true Bible. I can get repititious, but I'm being honest, I can't take another "translation" seriously and it is a negative in my opinion that those things are being taken seriously by people when it is clearly the KJV when you take things into consideration, though it's not that difficult. It's readable and was the first to be put together, the language when actually given the time of day is edifying, the other translations upon my reading do not hold the same water as the KJV. Just what I have to say about it. Don't mean to be rude.

I don’t think you’re being rude, but your own personal comfort with the KJV is completely irrelevant as to how others experience it.

While your reasons for preferring the KJV is essentially your business, I have to wonder what the reasons are. I strongly suspect that you have been duped by bad arguments and misrepresentation of facts.

Why would anyone “give the time of day” to a translation that is somewhat foreign instead of reading one in familiar language? Is not the very unfamiliarity of the KJV for many people the very opposite of “edifying”?

 

[Jimbone]

Believing God has inspired his words and preserved them in the KJV is a cult? Do you believe God has preserved his words? If so, where are they? Can you read and study them? Can you live by them?

No, I believe lifting a version of the Bible up to the point of idolatry to the point of looking down your nose at others and dividing the body over it, can get to a cult like level. I think the level you look at it, teach it, and have accepted it absolutely reaches the level cult like mentality, where you only accept your own narrow and false view of the subject and reject any and everything that contradicts it to the point you have to reject reality to accept your view.

Yes I believe God has preserved His word and the gates of hell cannot prevail against it, just to point out here you don't believe this, you believe the gates of hell have prevailed over ALL of God's word save 1 version. I believe His word is SO MUCH BIGGER that, and that KJV onlyism is built on false fears, misrepresented misinformation, and absolutely checks a lot of boxes on the "is it a cult" warning list.

 

[John146]

The 1611 is the “original KJV”, but the KJV is NOT the original English Bible version. It was “current English” 400 years ago, but the English language has changed so much that the KJV is somewhat incomprehensible today. That is why one does well to use a modern translation such as the NIV.

As the English language continues to decline, aka change, God's word needs to change with it. Backwards thinking...

 

[John146]

No, I believe lifting a version of the Bible up to the point of idolatry to the point of looking down your nose at others and dividing the body over it, can get to a cult like level. I think the level you look at it, teach it, and have accepted it absolutely reaches the level cult like mentality, where you only accept your own narrow and false view of the subject and reject any and everything that contradicts it to the point you have to reject reality to accept your view.

Yes I believe God has preserved His word and the gates of hell cannot prevail against it, just to point out here you don't believe this, you believe the gates of hell have prevailed over ALL of God's word save 1 version. I believe His word is SO MUCH BIGGER that, and that KJV onlyism is built on false fears, misrepresented misinformation, and absolutely checks a lot of boxes on the "is it a cult" warning list.

And yet, God has exalted his word above his own name. If that's a cult, count me in.

Where has God preserved his words? Can you read, study, and live by it? God's word can be trusted 100%. Where are his pure and perfect words? Are you claiming that God has preserved his words somewhere throughout all the translations?

 

[Aaron56]

Well, you're throwing out an egg for an egg shell that someone inspected... why run the gambit?

*run the gamut ?

 

[LeeLoving]

I don’t think you’re being rude, but your own personal comfort with the KJV is completely irrelevant as to how others experience it.

While your reasons for preferring the KJV is essentially your business, I have to wonder what the reasons are. I strongly suspect that you have been duped by bad arguments and misrepresentation of facts.

Why would anyone “give the time of day” to a translation that is somewhat foreign instead of reading one in familiar language? Is not the very unfamiliarity of the KJV for many people the very opposite of “edifying”?

I just don't see any problem with the language and believe it's the Holy Bible.


2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Why would anyone want to run the risk of using a newer corrupt translation that misses the language of the KJV (or the Holy Bible, in my opinion), when it is already in readable language? It is all readable I think though some words might take appelaiate words to understand those words which are not understandable since a new word might not make immediate sense to someone, though I might be wrong.