Where did King James only originate?

In Galatians 2:11 in the ESV, it gives a definite statement that is contradicted by John 5:24.

So, they are there.

I think that He did.

Maybe we can begin exchanging insults.

Gal 5:15, But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

I have given valid evidence for my statements; however, you do not accept it.

I believe that the opposing tradition is called the Westcott and Hort manuscripts.

Here's one to ponder:

W. B. Riley stated in his book "The Menace of Modernism" (New York: Christian Alliance, 1917), the Modernist believes the Bible's "inspiration exists only in its ability to inspire . . . its interpretation is a matter of mental conscience." Dr. Riley goes on to say there were a group of men, whom he describes as the "old conception," who believed the Authorized Version or King James Bible (hereafter AV) was inerrant. He states on page 11, "On this point we are inclined to think that, even unto comparatively recent years, such a theory has been entertained." He then ascribes this belief to ignorance, and says, "I think it would be accepted without fear of successful controversy that such fogies in Biblical knowledge are few, and their funerals are nigh at hand." Dr. Riley then erroneously states the AV inerrancy position by saying on page 13, "To claim, therefore, inerrancy for the KJV . . . is to claim inerrancy for men who never professed it for themselves . . ."

So then, it seems clear to me that Dr. Riley believed there were still a few of the "old conception" men in his day that still believed in an inerrant AV, that they were mostly old men, and were soon to pass away. If these men were old men when Riley wrote his book, they must have dated to at least the latter part of the 19th century. Over one hundred years ago, a group of "old conception" men existed who still believed in the inerrancy of the AV. This appears to indicate the "King James Only" position is not of recent origin.

Thus we can see, in Riley's day, a group of men still existed who believed, "(1) the Bible was finished in heaven and handed down, (2) the King James Version was absolutely inerrant, and (3) its literal acceptance was alone correct." (Page nine of Riley's book as quoted by Dr. George W. Dollar in his book "History of Fundamentalism in America," Page 114) We can easily see that W. B. Riley (1861 - 1947), understood this group of men to believe exactly as the "King James Only" crowd does today, and believed it long before any of the contemporary antagonists were born! The challenge of one scoffer to "Name one person who believed in the inspiration or inerrancy of the King James Version prior to 1950 and I'll send you $1000", has just been answered (please send the money to me at the address in the front of this book!). This is the second time I have posted this information, with easily verifiable citations of books, author, and page. The first time Hymers ignored it. If Hymers ignores it again I will assume he is simply a liar and a four flusher who has no intention of keeping his word. If Hymers does send the money to the address below, I will give all of it to missions. -- arranged by Herb Evans, Flaming Torch – Jan/Feb/March 2004, p. 1

https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/in...3&toc.id=d1e193&brand=ia-books;query=#docView

Have you ever tried to understand why this section is not in the modern translations, or are you content with making up your own explanations?

You think that it is made up because you don't like the implication of the fact that it isn't.

But since it is your claim that this is made up, I believe that the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is made up.

Otherwise there is a doubt factor that exists that what I am saying may in fact be true.

And therefore, while my logic may not be airtight, it is in fact valid.

No it doesn't.

Look at 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 in your vaunted KJV. One statement is contradicted by the other.

You can think what you like, but here in reality, your thoughts don't hold water.

I'm beginning to think that you don't understand the concept of evidence. Your opinions and speculations have absolutely no evidentiary value.

That is not a "tradition". W&H did some work on manuscripts. The texts have been examined exhaustively since their deaths.

Once again, you post opinions and consider them to be facts.

Get back to reality, dude.

If the Westcott and Hort text removed "thou shalt not bear false witness" from Romans 13:9, it may very well be that certain translators gravitated towards that text because they were in all reality liars.

Well according to the article below: John Bunyan had KJB

Pilgrim’s Progress is all Bible, all the time,” Hamlin writes. But the question is, which Bible? Bunyan, like many Protestants in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, had access to more than one translation. Hamlin says there are some instances where the KJB and the Geneva Bible, the translation most popular with Puritans and other dissenters, diverge, and it seems Bunyan had Geneva in mind. But the Bible he clearly knew best was the KJB, and “the vast majority of identifiable biblical quotations and allusions in Grace Abounding and Pilgrim’s Progress are either decisively KJB....”

The Perfection of English and the Making of the KJB | September 20, 2011 | Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly | PBS

My contention is that the kjv is inspired and inerrant as concerning doctrine.

What doctrinal value does the age of Ahaziah have to our understanding?

Enough with the "If" statements. Go and do your homework and stop posting this uneducated hogwash.

At any rate, @Dino246,

It is your prerogative to read modern translations and to reject the kjv as inerrant and inspired.

I believe that in doing so you reveal yourself as being one of whom Paul prophesied about in 2 Timothy 4:3.

For I believe that the translators of certain versions qualify as teachers, of whom those with itching ears heap to themselves in order that they may tell them what their itching ears want to hear.

So, if you are not convicted by such logic, then by all means reject it and follow what is in your heart.

You have your own will.

Just realize that you are going to stand before Jesus Christ one day...

And that therefore, if what I am saying is true, and the kjv has the unadulterated message of the whole counsel of God, in rejecting it you will not be able to excuse yourself as concerning the malnutrition that you received because you chose not to make it your primary version.

For example, you will be held accountable for what the kjv says in such verses as Luke 9:55-56 and Romans 13:9; even if you are not reading what the kjv says in those verses in your personal reading.

Before 1930:

William Lyon Phelps published his "Human Nature in the Bible" copyrighted 1921- (Paper Trail) which is before 1930.

But the crowning achievement of those spacious times was the Authorised Translation of the Bible, which appeared in 1611. Three centuries of English literature followed; but although they have been crowded with poets and novelists and essayists, and although the teaching of the English language and literature now gives employment to many earnest men and women, the art of English composition reached its climax in the pages of the Bible....

Germans or the Italians or the Spanish; our English translation is even better than the original Hebrew and Greek. There is only one way to explain this; I have no theory to account for the so-called "inspiration of the Bible," but I am confident that the Authorised Version was inspired.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/hnb/intro.htm

Whichever of the three KJV that is used it is the Bible specifically translated for the Church of England...where the Queen is the Head of the Church.... just like the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church.

It's a particular denomination"s translation.

Personally, I am not so enamored with it. No more than I am with the Coverdale Bible or Geneva Bible or Bishop's or New English whichever.
Then there's the New American Standard.

Lots of Bibles to choose from according to your denomination.

The only few running around that are non-denominational is the NIV and NASB and there are a couple more...but I'll have to say that I'm not much of a fan of the updated NIVs. I prefer the older ones...much more accurate and consistent IMHO. The new ones don't have the consistency and make too many concessions.

All that is to say that original language is best. But first you have to get acquainted with the alphabet...then the vocabulary...then the grammar.
Then there's the idioms of speech and expressions...it's a lot of study and not exactly the easiest because Hebrew and Aramaic are written backwards.
*Sigh*

But standing on only one translation as Godly and Permissible to read is just like the Pharisees who stoned Stephan...

I found the opposite. Every preacher I heard spent an inordinate amount of time explaining the oddities of 17th century English. I struggled with the KJV myself. "Bowels of mercies"? I also found it hard to comprehend why God would speak still in thees and thous. So I decided to find a Bible that made more sense, in terminology that I could understand. After some others, I settled on the NASB. It's clumsier than some others, but less like a paraphrase than the NIV. My preferred version now is the Amplified. I mostly refer to Bible Hub. It has the lot, so I can compare translations very easily.

When I was a very young Christian, I was bailed up by a nut job who regaled me with the terrible things that modern translations had done to the KJV. I reasoned that if the KJV did that to people, I'd best leave it alone. KJV fanatics still bug me.

"For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified." Stick to that and you can't go wrong.

That's weird. How can a translation be better than the original?

I like the ISR '98 occasionally too...made by Christian Jews in South Africa...the later editions are not as "good" in my opinion...
But an off continent translation is sometimes helpful.

The use of language is so subjective that two people can read the same passage and come away with a plethora of ideas.

Mostly because of the style of writing that the scriptures were once written in.

Books were once extremely expensive. Paper wasn't cheap whatsoever. Everything was hand transcribed.

And if you were paying $90,000 for a book... you wanted value for your money...all the writing was concentrated as much as possible to conserve paper and ink. (Every word was precious and expensive)

A very far cry from today where words are cheap...and people look at the expense of time to have enough of them.

Great question. The statement is consistent with much of the KJV-only rhetoric: dramatic but ridiculous.

I am not a KJ onlyist but KJ onlyism originates with the appearance of the RV and RSV with their weakness in certain areas.

Weakness in areas?
Hadn't heard that one before.

But the RV was done right after the Oxford Cambridge "KJV" translation that is so popular today. Most of your immigrants after the War came carrying that one.

How can a language as flawed and week as the english be better than the more indepth and more complete language of the greek?

Explain this one please.