Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?

  • 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.
Bible_Highlighter said:
You cannot know what the text says if you don't have a standard and if you are going off modern lexicons and modern scholars who have made many blunders over the years. They don't compare to the scholarship of the KJV Translators and their integrity. Try looking up their credentials some time and look to the classic older lexicons. If not, then have a nice life. I cannot force you to see something you are unwilling to see
Click to expand...
Are you not reading my posts? Your claim that “you cannot know what the text says without a single standard” is just the same KJV‑as‑anchor argument in different packaging, because the moment you elevate one edition as the stabilizer, you’ve already replaced the actual manuscript_witnesses God preserved with a human printing tradition; appealing to “modern lexicon blunders” or “superior KJV translator credentials” doesn’t solve the problem, because the issue isn’t translator intelligence but the reality that the manuscripts behind the KJV contain the same textual_variants you accuse modern scholars of “shape‑shifting.”
The TR changed across Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevir, meaning your “fixed standard” never existed even in the tradition you trust, and your appeal to “classic older lexicons” simply assumes older = purer, which is not how textual history works.
You’re not defending certainty; you’re defending a printing era and calling it the only way God could preserve His Word, while Scripture itself defines preservation as God sustaining His Word across the witnesses He actually left us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dino246
Bible_Highlighter said:
Again, that does not address the problem. How can God hold anyone accountable for adding or removing from His words if there is no set printed standard somewhere? That would be like a master who kicks a dog across the room for pooping on his carpets despite the fact that it has an uncontrollable pooping problem because it is sick. The dog has no way of stopping its release because it is sick. Yet, the master kicks the dog anyways even with it knowing the dog is sick and it cannot help itself. Thats what you want me to believe here. You want me to believe God punishes others for a standard that nobody really can know or have. Your argument or logic is flawed. You cannot add or take away from God's words if there is no single set standard that we all agree are His words.



....
Click to expand...
Your entire objection still assumes the very premise you never prove — that God must give the world one printed edition or else Revelation 22:18–19 becomes unjust.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dino246
OMC said:
Ok, One more time, your position is still functionally KJV‑Only, just with a Greek‑Hebrew footnote, because you’re treating the KJV as the fixed standard that stabilizes all doctrine, and anything outside it as a “shape‑shifter” that makes Revelation 22:18–19 impossible — but that argument collapses the moment you remember the very TR underlying your KJV changed repeatedly across Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevir, meaning your “settled text” never existed even in the tradition you trust; your fear that modern editions make people “tossed to and fro” assumes the KJV is the anchor God ordained, but Scripture defines preservation as God keeping His Word across manuscript_witnesses, not across one English printing.
Your “Jesus becomes the I AM in UBS6/NA29” example doesn’t prove instability — it proves textual_variants exist, just like they did in the manuscripts behind the KJV, and Revelation 22 applies to intentional tampering, not to reporting the readings God actually preserved. Your worldview needs a single printed standard for Revelation 22 to make sense; Scripture doesn’t.
You’re not defending the Bible — you’re defending the idea that God’s Word must match one edition or else preservation fails, and Paul never gives you that requirement.
Click to expand...
You don't get it. Family 35 while not based on the Critical Text used manuscripts to translate into English the "become" reading. Some poor sap out there is going to believe that Bible and it is going to affect their faith. In time, the Modern English Bibles can add the new NA 29 / UBS 6 reading and it will influence even more minds to believe that. You just call it a variant as if it was unimportant but by believing Jesus becomes the I AM, they will think the Living Word (second person of the Trinity) did not exist from eternity's past. That's what your not getting here is that bad texts affect people and creates bad false beliefs or bad doctrines. But you can just ignore this elephant in the room if you like.



....
 
OMC said:
Your entire objection still assumes the very premise you never prove — that God must give the world one printed edition or else Revelation 22:18–19 becomes unjust.
Click to expand...
I already proved it. I gave you many reasons why the KJV is that standard. It's not some obscure translation sitting on a shelf that nobody uses or has never used. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were virtually unused through a giant portion of church history.

Again, Revelation 22:18-19 cannot be applied if you don't have a standard you know 100% is true. If there is any room for doubt and you introduce the 160 new changes like in the NA 29, then how can you really know what is being added or subtracted? You don't. Not in the Modern Bible Movement. You cannot truly know what is truly in or out because your text keeps changing.


....
 
OMC said:
Your entire objection still assumes the very premise you never prove — that God must give the world one printed edition or else Revelation 22:18–19 becomes unjust.
Click to expand...
You also fail to consider that God's word took time to be printed (1400s) and then in the 1500s it was starting to come together, and it was being refined then finally in 1600s, those copies of the original languages finally came together in one place . Before that it was scattered manuscript copies and printed editions in the original languages. That is just the progression of how we see God's words are preserved through history. English is a global language and it makes sense that God was bringing a Bible to meet that demand to hold men accountable to His words. But again, I believe the inspired words are the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek of the KJV. The KJV is just an English translation of those inspired words.


...
 
Bible_Highlighter said:
You don't get it. Family 35 while not based on the Critical Text used manuscripts to translate into English the "become" reading. Some poor sap out there is going to believe that Bible and it is going to affect their faith. In time, the Modern English Bibles can add the new NA 29 / UBS 6 reading and it will influence even more minds to believe that. You just call it a variant as if it was unimportant but by believing Jesus becomes the I AM, they will think the Living Word (second person of the Trinity) did not exist from eternity's past. That's what your not getting here is that bad texts affect people and creates bad false beliefs or bad doctrines. But you can just ignore this elephant in the room if you like.
Click to expand...
The “elephant in the room” isn’t that variants create heresy — it’s that you’re treating any variant you dislike as heresy while ignoring that the very manuscripts behind your KJV contain the same textual_variants you condemn; your Family 35 example doesn’t prove your point, it proves mine: a translation can mishandle a reading, but that’s a translator’s error, not a flaw in God’s preservation.
 
Bible_Highlighter said:
You also fail to consider that God's word took time to be printed (1400s) and then in the 1500s it was starting to come together, and it was being refined then finally in 1600s, those copies of the original languages finally came together in one place . Before that it was scattered manuscript copies and printed editions in the original languages. That is just the progression of how we see God's words are preserved through history. English is a global language and it makes sense that God was bringing a Bible to meet that demand to hold men accountable to His words. But again, I believe the inspired words are the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek of the KJV. The KJV is just an English translation of those inspired words.
Click to expand...
Your entire “God slowly assembled a single printed standard over centuries” narrative is just a theological reconstruction built backward from the KJV, not something Scripture ever teaches; saying God intended the printing press, the TR refinements, and finally the KJV to become the one global standard is not exegesis, it’s providential storytelling, and it collapses the moment you remember the very manuscripts behind your “underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek” contain the same textual_variants you condemn in modern editions.
 
I tried my best and your not getting it.

Moving on from talking to you (specifically).

May God bless you.

Tchau, Tchau.

full



....
 
Bible_Highlighter said:
I already proved it. I gave you many reasons why the KJV is that standard.
Click to expand...
You're playing fast and loose with definitions, employing the false equivocation fallacy.

"Standard" has several meanings. You are trying to argue that because the KJV has been in common usage for centuries, that it is the standard translation.

You're right, in ONE sense: "common".

However, when someone who is arguing against KJV-onlyism says, "The KJV is not the standard", they are using the word in a DIFFERENT sense: one of a tape measure or micrometer: a standard against which others are measured.

In the second sense, the KJV IS NOT and WILL NEVER BE the standard. The original-language manuscripts ARE the standard in this case.
 
Dino246 said:
You're playing fast and loose with definitions, employing the false equivocation fallacy.

"Standard" has several meanings. You are trying to argue that because the KJV has been in common usage for centuries, that it is the standard translation.

You're right, in ONE sense: "common".

However, when someone who is arguing against KJV-onlyism says, "The KJV is not the standard", they are using the word in a DIFFERENT sense: one of a tape measure or micrometer: a standard against which others are measured.

In the second sense, the KJV IS NOT and WILL NEVER BE the standard. The original-language manuscripts ARE the standard in this case.
Click to expand...
Nice try. But you are missing the fact that the KJV is unlike other previous translations in history in that it was:

#1. The dominant translation in a world language (English) that was influential, had a positive impact globally, and broke denominational barriers within the Protestant world, leading to good fruit (like three of the great revivals). In short, our text now has a global positive impact for good that creates unity and not confusion.​
​
#2. It was tied to the Reformation in its early formation with the TR, which gave people a Bible in Greek that helped many people break away from the Catholic machine. Luther used one of Erasmus' TR editions, which was also crucial as a part of the Reformation.​
​
#3. Represents a historic chain of custody that aligns with patristic writers, early manuscripts, and papyri.​
​
#4. Superior doctrine when compared to the now-popular Critical Text of our day.​
​
#5. Led to the memorization of God's word on a larger scale than ever before.​
​
#6. Believed to this day to be the word of God and recognized by even unbelievers as a magnificent and poetic achievement. Its words and 200-plus idioms have been ingrained in English-speaking countries all over the world. So even unbelievers speak the word of God without even realizing it.​
​
#7. It aligns with the promises of God in that His words are pure, trustworthy, and preserved forever.​

But of course, I know that none of this will register in your brain as anything special because of your current belief system that runs contrary to having a settled word of God for our day that will lead into the end times.

So I am wondering how your one-liner jabs and no-evidence claims, or your lack of any good points, will somehow draw me into your side of the movement of conflicting Bibles and never-ending, shape-shifting NA editions as somehow better or superior. Your movement is only filled with confusion and contradictions and a constantly changing text with no end in sight. Your movement has led to people falling away from the faith because they do not have a settled text that they can trust in. Bart Ehrman, Rick Beckman, C.J. Cornthwaite. How is this a better Bible line or path? You offer junk doctrines, extreme heretics, liberals and lies by scholars about the TR/KJV. Yeah, not convincing or even tempting for me to join. It's like offering me spoiled food and saying it is good. Yeah, no thanks. You don't have any good alternative or anything remotely tempting to offer. Being accepted by popular Christianity is all you really have to offer, and that is not a good enough reason if it is a compromise on truth. Make your case for why you think your side is better than our side. I don't really think you can do that. I think you know that deep down on a subconscious level you cannot do that. So on it goes with your sad tactics. Your upcoming insulting one-liners and sad, unproven theories are just attempts to avoid obvious truths in history involving the true words of God for the Lord's people.

If you want to be liberal with God's word, that is your choice, but I know where all the words of God are.

You don't know where all the precise words of God are for His people today. The Critical Text side is still trying to figure it out, and their results or efforts have been an absolute dumpster fire.


....
 
Bible_Highlighter said:
Nice try. But you are missing the fact that the KJV is unlike other previous translations in history in that it was:

#1. The dominant translation in a world language (English) that was influential, had a positive impact globally, and broke denominational barriers within the Protestant world, leading to good fruit (like three of the great revivals). In short, our text now has a global positive impact for good that creates unity and not confusion.​
​
#2. It was tied to the Reformation in its early formation with the TR, which gave people a Bible in Greek that helped many people break away from the Catholic machine. Luther used one of Erasmus' TR editions, which was also crucial as a part of the Reformation.​
​
#3. Represents a historic chain of custody that aligns with patristic writers, early manuscripts, and papyri.​
​
#4. Superior doctrine when compared to the now-popular Critical Text of our day.​
​
#5. Led to the memorization of God's word on a larger scale than ever before.​
​
#6. Believed to this day to be the word of God and recognized by even unbelievers as a magnificent and poetic achievement. Its words and 200-plus idioms have been ingrained in English-speaking countries all over the world. So even unbelievers speak the word of God without even realizing it.​
​
#7. It aligns with the promises of God in that His words are pure, trustworthy, and preserved forever.​

But of course, I know that none of this will register in your brain as anything special because of your current belief system that runs contrary to having a settled word of God for our day that will lead into the end times.

So I am wondering how your one-liner jabs and no-evidence claims, or your lack of any good points, will somehow draw me into your side of the movement of conflicting Bibles and never-ending, shape-shifting NA editions as somehow better or superior. Your movement is only filled with confusion and contradictions and a constantly changing text with no end in sight. Your movement has led to people falling away from the faith because they do not have a settled text that they can trust in. Bart Ehrman, Rick Beckman, C.J. Cornthwaite. How is this a better Bible line or path? You offer junk doctrines, extreme heretics, liberals and lies by scholars about the TR/KJV. Yeah, not convincing or even tempting for me to join. It's like offering me spoiled food and saying it is good. Yeah, no thanks. You don't have any good alternative or anything remotely tempting to offer. Being accepted by popular Christianity is all you really have to offer, and that is not a good enough reason if it is a compromise on truth. Make your case for why you think your side is better than our side. I don't really think you can do that. I think you know that deep down on a subconscious level you cannot do that. So on it goes with your sad tactics. Your upcoming insulting one-liners and sad, unproven theories are just attempts to avoid obvious truths in history involving the true words of God for the Lord's people.

If you want to be liberal with God's word, that is your choice, but I know where all the words of God are.

You don't know where all the precise words of God are for His people today. The Critical Text side is still trying to figure it out, and their results or efforts have been an absolute dumpster fire.


....
Click to expand...
Yawn.

The KJV is not the standard.

Deal with it.
 
Bible_Highlighter said:
Nice try. But you are missing the fact that the KJV is unlike other previous translations in history in that it was:

#1. The dominant translation in a world language (English) that was influential, had a positive impact globally, and broke denominational barriers within the Protestant world, leading to good fruit (like three of the great revivals). In short, our text now has a global positive impact for good that creates unity and not confusion.#2. It was tied to the Reformation in its early formation with the TR, which gave people a Bible in Greek that helped many people break away from the Catholic machine. Luther used one of Erasmus' TR editions, which was also crucial as a part of the Reformation.#3. Represents a historic chain of custody that aligns with patristic writers, early manuscripts, and papyri.#4. Superior doctrine when compared to the now-popular Critical Text of our day.#5. Led to the memorization of God's word on a larger scale than ever before.#6. Believed to this day to be the word of God and recognized by even unbelievers as a magnificent and poetic achievement. Its words and 200-plus idioms have been ingrained in English-speaking countries all over the world. So even unbelievers speak the word of God without even realizing it.#7. It aligns with the promises of God in that His word is pure, trustworthy, and would be preserved forever.
But of course, I know that none of this will register in your brain as anything special because of your current belief system that runs contrary to having a settled word of God for our day that will lead into the end times.

So I am wondering how your one-liner jabs and no-evidence claims, or your lack of any good points, will somehow draw me into your side of the movement of conflicting Bibles and never-ending, shape-shifting NA editions as somehow better or superior. Your movement is only filled with confusion and contradictions and a constantly changing text with no end in sight. Your movement has led to people falling away from the faith because they do not have a settled text that they can trust in. Bart Ehrman, Rick Beckman, C.J. Cornthwaite. How is this a better Bible line or path? You offer junk doctrines, extreme heretics, liberals and lies by scholars about the TR/KJV. Yeah, not convincing or even tempting for me to join. It's like offering me spoiled food and saying it is good. Yeah, no thanks. You don't have any good alternative or anything remotely tempting to offer. Being accepted by popular Christianity is all you really have to offer, and that is not a good enough reason if it is a compromise on truth. Make your case for why you think your side is better than our side. I don't really think you can do that. I think you know that deep down on a subconscious level you cannot do that. So on it goes with your sad tactics. Your upcoming insulting one-liners and sad, unproven theories are just attempts to avoid obvious truths in history involving the true words of God for the Lord's people.

If you want to be liberal with God's word, that is your choice, but I know where all the words of God are.

You don't know where all the precise words of God are for His people today. The Critical Text side is still trying to figure it out, and their results or efforts have been an absolute dumpster fire
Click to expand...
wow! thank you for this immaculate museum‑grade display of KJV triumphalism — truly a seven‑point constellation of perfection unmatched since the dawn of language.
Let me just bask in the radiance of your argument: the KJV isn’t merely a translation, it’s apparently the cosmic apex of linguistic evolution, the theological North Star, the global unifier, the doctrinal purifier, the memory enhancer, the poetic gold standard, the fulfillment of preservation promises, and — my favorite — the text that even unbelievers unknowingly quote like sleepwalking prophets.
Meanwhile, the Critical Text is, of course, a “dumpster fire,” a “shape‑shifting monster,” a “confusion factory,” and the spiritual equivalent of offering me a plate of spoiled meat and insisting it’s filet mignon.
And naturally, every person who ever struggled with faith did so because they didn’t have your exact edition of the Bible — Bart Ehrman didn’t lose confidence in Scripture because of textual complexity; no, he simply didn’t have the KJV to tuck him in at night. Truly, your argument is so airtight that NASA should study it for spacecraft hull design.
And yes, I absolutely understand: you know precisely where all the words of God are, every syllable, every vowel, every jot and tittle — while the rest of us are apparently wandering blindfolded through a textual landfill clutching NA28 like a cursed relic.
Thank you for this gourmet feast of rhetorical certainty; We will treasure it forever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back