K
KJV-Onlyism - Have We Been Lied To?
- Thread starter Praus
- 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.
Ah. Most of the time we go by 'Aussie', but no matter.
At the risk of repeating myself, 'American', I don't have a problem with people reading the KJV. In all caps, so it's clear
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE READING THE KJV.
I am not 'deviant[sic]' against it at all. I don't have a problem with hymns (I even posted in a seperate sub-forum a number of hymns that I love). The problem I have is with people demanding EVERYONE should read the KJV (or for that matter, sing only hymns), and use incredibly fallacious arguments to do so. You re-ask questions that I have already furnished you with answers to, I ask you question that you don't answer. If I am defiant against anything, it's against juvenile, poorly reasoned arguments that seem more interested in attacking people than actually trying to have anything even vaguely resembling a rational discussion.
R
Reformedjason
Guest
K
Kerry
Guest
Hey, just for CC members I have the old rugged cross updated and put in language that even stupid can understand. Normally its cost 69.99. But this is limited time offer, I can put the old rugged cross in terms that you can understand and pass down to your children. But wait there is more. I will also throw in "oh how I love Jesus" for just 3 dollars more. Its in a language that you can understand and have no need of geek and Hebrew. Just trust me and if you act now in the next 30 minutes I will throw in the miracle spring water that Moses struck from the rock. For just 19.99.
R
Reformedjason
Guest
More nonsense to attack the body of Christ ? Wow. Even if you are right in the bible version issue , are you edifying the body of Christ ?
K
Kerry
Guest
Matt 13:29-30 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
K
Kerry
Guest
H
Huckleberry
Guest
No, not insinuating anything sinister, but accusations are out there.
I remember reading that Tischendorf only got part of it on his initial visit to the monastery,
and that he came back one or more times attempting to procure the remainder.
Can't give you the source. Read that a long time ago.
Okay, the NASB:
John 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
Two manuscripts agree that this is translated correctly.
The KJV:
John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
Five thousand manuscripts agree that this is translated correctly.
That is a blatant doctrine-of-faith issue.
There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of similar examples.
I'm picky. It matters to me.
It is the most honest, most accurate,
most complete translation we have in English,
and English is the only language I speak, read, and write.
Glad you came back, Huck. The thread swung off in another direction and wasn't sure if you'd see it to reply 
I think he returned twice more after the first time. Again, the fact that he does doesn't mean anything. Goes once, accidentally sees something valuable, takes it to see if it really IS valuable, and then goes back a couple more times to see if there's anymore, and to arrange what will happen with what turns out to be one of the most valuable finds in biblical textual archaeology. Again, I'm not entirely sure why this is an argument against the use of Sinaiticus in and of itself - feel free to enlighten me further.
Let's put the full passage up, so we can better deal with the issue you raise
In the above passage, I have underlined every instance where belief (or the accompanying metaphor, eating of bread) is brought up. It is quite clear in context that belief is in the context of belief in Christ, and it states in multiple other places explicitly aside from v.47 that belief in Jesus singularly is required for eternal life. Putting aside whether the earliest manuscripts are right or the majority text is right for the time being, it is clear that it doesn't change the thrust of the text, and it only matters if you use v47 as a proof text in complete isolation from the rest of John.
In other words, it seems to me that the objection posed by KJV-onlyists at this point only stems from poor exegesis and a proof text based approach to Scripture that is actually only quite recent, and hasn't existed for most of the time of the existence of the Church (or ISrael for that matter). It's worth remembering, of course, that the original texts did not include verse numbers or chapter breaks, and for the most part don't even have punctuation! The text just runs together. So the texts were intended to be read in full, not verse by verse. In short, we rely too much on individual verses to prove things, and don't read the Bible as it was meant to be read, in large chunks.
In any case, I think there's a perfectly logical explanation for the discrepancy between the critical and majority texts. The words "on me", as per the earliest texts that we have (which realistically are the best physical proofs we have as to the original text), were probably inserted at a later date to clarify and harmonise the text. Some scribe who thought he could do a better job with Scripture, perhaps. But the reality is that the words don't really change the doctrine of the passage at all. Take them out or leave them in - John 6 is clear that belief in Jesus is required for eternal life.
The inverse, that the words were taken out, makes much less sense for precisely the same reasons. To take out "on me" at that point, and leave the clear christological nature of belief everywhere else in John 6, would not erode the doctrine. If someone were trying to corrupt the text, you would expect a much larger amount of redaction in chapter 6 then there actually is. Hence why it makes more sense that the added words were added in to clarify, rather than taken out to corrupt. While I'm happy to say that there's no theological problem with the addition of the words, it seems safe to say that they were not a part of what John originally note, which I'm sure we can agree is what's important in the biblical text.
Which is your perspective, but as we're discussing, is not quite proven. I'm happy for people to read the KJV, as it is a perfectly fine translation. I just question the bases on which it is judged to be the standard, as hopefully I've been able to illustrate somewhat above
I think he returned twice more after the first time. Again, the fact that he does doesn't mean anything. Goes once, accidentally sees something valuable, takes it to see if it really IS valuable, and then goes back a couple more times to see if there's anymore, and to arrange what will happen with what turns out to be one of the most valuable finds in biblical textual archaeology. Again, I'm not entirely sure why this is an argument against the use of Sinaiticus in and of itself - feel free to enlighten me further.
Let's put the full passage up, so we can better deal with the issue you raise
John 6 NASB said:
In the above passage, I have underlined every instance where belief (or the accompanying metaphor, eating of bread) is brought up. It is quite clear in context that belief is in the context of belief in Christ, and it states in multiple other places explicitly aside from v.47 that belief in Jesus singularly is required for eternal life. Putting aside whether the earliest manuscripts are right or the majority text is right for the time being, it is clear that it doesn't change the thrust of the text, and it only matters if you use v47 as a proof text in complete isolation from the rest of John.
In other words, it seems to me that the objection posed by KJV-onlyists at this point only stems from poor exegesis and a proof text based approach to Scripture that is actually only quite recent, and hasn't existed for most of the time of the existence of the Church (or ISrael for that matter). It's worth remembering, of course, that the original texts did not include verse numbers or chapter breaks, and for the most part don't even have punctuation! The text just runs together. So the texts were intended to be read in full, not verse by verse. In short, we rely too much on individual verses to prove things, and don't read the Bible as it was meant to be read, in large chunks.
In any case, I think there's a perfectly logical explanation for the discrepancy between the critical and majority texts. The words "on me", as per the earliest texts that we have (which realistically are the best physical proofs we have as to the original text), were probably inserted at a later date to clarify and harmonise the text. Some scribe who thought he could do a better job with Scripture, perhaps. But the reality is that the words don't really change the doctrine of the passage at all. Take them out or leave them in - John 6 is clear that belief in Jesus is required for eternal life.
The inverse, that the words were taken out, makes much less sense for precisely the same reasons. To take out "on me" at that point, and leave the clear christological nature of belief everywhere else in John 6, would not erode the doctrine. If someone were trying to corrupt the text, you would expect a much larger amount of redaction in chapter 6 then there actually is. Hence why it makes more sense that the added words were added in to clarify, rather than taken out to corrupt. While I'm happy to say that there's no theological problem with the addition of the words, it seems safe to say that they were not a part of what John originally note, which I'm sure we can agree is what's important in the biblical text.
Which is your perspective, but as we're discussing, is not quite proven. I'm happy for people to read the KJV, as it is a perfectly fine translation. I just question the bases on which it is judged to be the standard, as hopefully I've been able to illustrate somewhat above
Last edited:
Thank you fro that simplicity, I would rather be a blind man that sees over a seeing man that is blind. Truth is only Spiritually discerned to ones that believe from God and by God alone
[h=3]Romans 14:4[/h]New International Version (NIV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP]Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
And I personally trust God the Father whom I have received through Christ in doing what God says for all that believe will be set free
Yes. has God stopped talking to us, and if so, then why do we those that believe, receive God's Holy Spirit? Is this not to teach us, each personally and overflow us with God's pure love
Kerry are you a KJV fan only? Can anyone still be saved from God without ever reading the KJV? Just curious and alright to me if you believe this to be truth or not.
I am not a KJV fan only. That to me is like saying this person got saved over the radio, so all must be saved this way or else, hope you see the hypocrisy here?
Love you and the wisdom you have put forth in many a posts, have learned much through you that God confirmed in me to be truth, and I thank not only you, more importantly God through you and all others posting
Taking note:
We all have our own stories in our own experiences, and can learn from one another, and taking whatever one says not as truth, but sifting all through our new hearts for confirmation from God to what is truth and what is error, do you think God will sort this out
[h=3]Romans 14:4[/h]New International Version (NIV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP]Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
KJV
Romans 14:4) Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
CJB
Romans 14:4) who are you to pass judgment on someone else's servant? It is before his own master that he will stand or fall; and the fact is that he will stand, because the Lord is able to make him stand.
(goodness, do three different translations find agreement here?)
Is it possible a cult masquerading as being good? To me anything as onlyism is never God's way. if one claims onlyism, are they not claiming their own way as they see it to be?. Which is the same as just loving those that love you., hmm!!!!!!!!!!!!
Luke 6:32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.
So are we seeing men that have been blinded by self works, now?
the ONLY "onlyism" I'm interest in is.......LET ME SEE JESUS ONLY!
(uh, does that make me a Jesus onlyiest?)
Yet both are good. Peter kill and eat, no lord I can't kill and eat anything unclean. The Lord then said do not call anything unclean that the Lord has cleaned. So what did Peter do, being led by God's Spirit? Killed and ate at the Gentiles house, which by Law he was forbidden to enter, hmm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! how much did God clean through Christ all a jus a bit?
[h=3]Romans 14:14[/h]New International Version (NIV)
[SUP]14 [/SUP]I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.
So anyway for me I see as Paul says, in maturity, not all are yet matured, yet are growing into this maturity, so, Amen to all and please ask God for truth to separate us from error(s) and then one might be free. but if anyone is in bondage still, then the truth has not yet set them free, and might be in need to re-think their truth, whether a KJV onlyism or any onlyism's out there, and or open to any and all, sifting any and all through one's new heart for God to do the separating needed in order to be set free from sin from God and by God a free gift if only we would seek the whole truth. freedom is what Christ to earth for, to free us from self man works to Faith in him and be alive in God's Spirit, via the resurrection