The Error of KJV-Onlyism

Ecclesiates 10:12-14,

"Words from the mouth of the wise are gracious,
but fools are consumed by their own lips.
At the beginning their words are folly;
at the end they are wicked madness—
and fools multiply words."

Great idea, but until you do "give THAT ONE," I will stay with:

God's One Pure/Preserved/Profitable/Understandable Word (AV) for me.

Amen, and AMEN!

sad part.

There is no "pure/preserved word of God in the english language..

If the One Pure/Preserved/Profitable/Understandable Word is the Authorized Version -- authorized by whom??? -- don't you want your posts to be profitable and understandable? If so, forsooth, why doest thou not write thine posts in 17th Century Englyshe?

Bible verses are not doctrines. Period.

I didn't say it had a copyright.

Will someone answer these questions: does using the KJV make you feel holy? Do you think that because it is written in 17th Century English that it is more "religious" than other translations? Why don't KJV people write their posts in 17th Century English if it's so perfect?

My contention is that people deviate from reading the Bible in their the normal language because they think that the stilted, odd-sounding language must be the way that God communicates. It sounds pseudo-religious, as though God is glorified by the dead language of the early 17th Century, but that is entirely subjective.

Never forget that Jesus came as a normal man of His time. He came from a rural area - Galilee - and spoke Aramaic, a rural Jewish dialect. there was nothing "regal" about His appearance. Isaiah 53:2b says...

"He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him."

So why do you think that Jesus was a "normal" man of His time who spoke in the normal language of His time? That clearly contrasts with the pseudo-holiness implied by the strange-sounding (to us today) King James translation.

The King James Version was copyrighted when first published. In fact, to this day, the KJV is still under copyright protection in the United Kingdom.

Rights in The Authorized Version of the King James Bible in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown and administered by the Crown's patentee, Cambridge University Press.

And regarding your earlier post criticizing the NIV permission...

The reproduction by any means of the text of the King James Version is permitted to a maximum of five hundred (500) verses for liturgical and non-commercial educational use, provided that the verses quoted neither amount to a complete book of the Bible nor represent 25 per cent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted, subject to the following acknowledgement being included:

Scripture quotations from The Authorized (King James) Version. Rights in the Authorized Version in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown. Reproduced by permission of the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press

So clearly you are the one who is uneducated!



So, who is the one who is uneducated???

The King James Version was copyrighted when first published. In fact, to this day, the KJV is still under copyright protection in the United Kingdom.

Rights in The Authorized Version of the King James Bible in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown and administered by the Crown's patentee, Cambridge University Press.

And regarding your earlier post criticizing the NIV permission...

The reproduction by any means of the text of the King James Version is permitted to a maximum of five hundred (500) verses for liturgical and non-commercial educational use, provided that the verses quoted neither amount to a complete book of the Bible nor represent 25 per cent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted, subject to the following acknowledgement being included:

Scripture quotations from The Authorized (King James) Version. Rights in the Authorized Version in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown. Reproduced by permission of the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press

So clearly, Bible Highlighter, you are the one who is uneducated!

GotQuestions Funny thing is that copyrights did not begin until around 1790.

The history of American copyright law traces back to the Statute of Anne in 1710, which established the principles of authors' ownership of copyright and a fixed term of protection that could be renewed for an additional 14 years if the author was alive at the end of the initial term.

Sources:
https://intellectualpropertyrightsoffice.org/copyright_history/
https://www.arl.org/copyright-timeline/

Also, while my point about that the KJB exalts Jesus Christ more than Modern Bibles by the number of times His name appears did not stand up to scrutiny (which I appreciate), one cannot explain away the tons of occurrences of the number 7 associated with Jesus and the Godhead (Trinity).

I am not disputing this (but others might). However there is no need to go too far afield to support the KJB. The merits of this translation are based on other factors.

I don’t think it is humanly possible to dispute. There is no other book on the planet that has anything close to doing anything remotely like this. They are mathematical miracles. Anyone who has studied statistical probabilities would know that such things are not random or a stroke of luck.

Yes, there are many other things that defend the KJV, but this one is a big one. It shows that the book is holy or divine in origin.

Should I believe you or what I read online? Given your lack of proof, I believe GotQuestions.org and wikipedia. Here is an expanded excerpt from their articles...

Many KJV Only advocates argue that the modern English translations are corrupt due to their being copyrighted, with the King James Version being “pure” because it is not copyrighted. Copyrights, to the KJV Only crowd, “prove” these are man’s words, not God’s. Others dislike the idea of a Bible translation having a copyright as a matter of principle. The purpose of a copyright is to protect one’s property and prevent the making of unwarranted copies. “But the Bible should be available for unlimited use. It is the Word of God, after all!”—so goes the argument. God would not restrict the distribution of His Word.

While it could be that Bible publishers should be more lenient when enforcing their copyrights, having a Bible translation copyrighted is not wrong in and of itself. It is expensive to develop a new translation of the Bible. The translators, scholars, grammarians, proofreaders, etc., all need to be paid. If other companies or individuals took a translation and published it as their own, the original publisher would lose money, and further Bible translation efforts would be hindered. Bible publishers have to make a profit, or they will go out of business.

In regards to the claims of the KJV Only Movement, they are entirely incorrect. The King James Version was copyrighted when first published. In fact, to this day, the KJV is still under copyright protection in the United Kingdom. The existence of a copyright is meaningless in determining the quality of a translation. And, even if the existence of a copyright mattered, the King James Version is, in fact, copyrighted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright protection in Britain dates back to the 1556 Charter of the Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers

This is NONSENSE!!! It is amazing that anyone can think up this nonsense, and even more amazing that some people actually think it has validity!

More voodoo nonsense!

It shows nothing of the kind. It is simply your imagination run amok!

BTW, have you actually surveyed all the books ever written on the planet? More proof of the absurdity of this stuff.

My NIV Bible has 1812 pages! This is iron-clad proof that God gave Russia a successful defense of the French invasion by Napoleon in that year!