The Error of KJV-Onlyism

  • 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.
P

presidente

Senior Member
#22
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
#22
Nehemiah6 said:
I am glad you said "some". In fact they are a MINORITY. But the majority of Christians who hold to the King James Bible as their only Bible do not believe this. The only documents which were written by divine inspiration were the original manuscripts (called "the autographs"). What we believe (and rightly so) is that the King James Bible -- even today -- is the most faithful and trustworthy English translation, and should be used by all Christians. Why? Because it is based solely on the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text and the traditional Greek Received Text. Careful research has shown that those two texts fairly represent the majority of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts (which are copies of copies of copies).

The King James Bible has been in continuous use for over 400 years. and there is no question that God has blessed this translation mightily. Indeed the Trinitarian Bible Society publishes the KJB exclusively, and all the other language translations are based up the same Hebrew and Greek texts.

Can their be further improvements to the KJV? Certainly. There are minor flaws in this translation such as not consistently capitalizing "Holy Spirit" or "Spirit" (when the text makes it clear that it is a reference to God the Holy Spirit). But there are already updated King James Bibles for those who have a problem with the actual 1611 edition.
Click to expand...
Maybe we could call your view KJV-light, or KJV-preferred.

You shouldn't rule out the possibility that another translation made from the same manuscripts could be just as good or better. Also, you should be open to the idea that there are other errors in the KJV translation.
 
Nehemiah6

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
#24
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,771
113
#24
presidente said:
Also, you should be open to the idea that there are other errors in the KJV translation.
Click to expand...
The real issue is the huge number of errors and mistranslations in all the other English translations. Also these modern versions call the most corrupt manuscripts " the best", and alter the Bible accordingly. That is extremely serious. No other English translation since 1881 has adhered solely to the two traditional texts.
 
GaryA

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
#25
Aug 10, 2019
9,801
4,303
113
mywebsite.us
#25
presidente said:
Why would you think the translation has to be perfect rather than the interpretations.
Click to expand...
Why would you think that you could obtain a reliable 'perfect' interpretation from that which is not a reliable 'perfect' translation???
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#26
Jun 30, 2015
25,366
13,728
113
#26
presidente said:
Do a little bit of research and you will see that the gospels and the Epistles of Paul were actually written in Greek and not in King James English.
Click to expand...
Nehemiah6 said:
That is just a specious argument. Nobody believes such nonsense.
Click to expand...
specious (adjective)
  1. superficially plausible, but actually wrong:
    "a specious argument"
    • misleading in appearance, especially misleadingly attractive:
      "the music trade gives Golden Oldies a specious appearance of novelty"
Is the statement "the gospels and the Epistles of Paul were actually written in Greek and not in King James English" "superficially plausible, but actually wrong"?

No. Not even remotely.

YOUR comment, Nehemiah6, is actually wrong.
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#27
Jun 30, 2015
25,366
13,728
113
#27
Nehemiah6 said:
The real issue is the huge number of errors and mistranslations in all the other English translations. Also these modern versions call the most corrupt manuscripts " the best", and alter the Bible accordingly. That is extremely serious. No other English translation since 1881 has adhered solely to the two traditional texts.
Click to expand...
This thread is not about other translations.
 
GaryA

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
#28
Aug 10, 2019
9,801
4,303
113
mywebsite.us
#28
presidente said:
You shouldn't rule out the possibility that another translation made from the same manuscripts could be just as good or better.
Click to expand...
I don't - but, today - everyone is in it for the money. Show me even one [English] translation since the KJV that:

~ is a good-and-correct translation from the same historically accepted manuscripts

(because Westcott-Hort, etc. are corrupted manuscripts)

~ was 'published' by the authors into the public domain (no one actually "owns" the text)

~ no one is making any 'royalty' money from the translation (not talking about printing physical copies)

Could another English translation possibly be made from the same manuscripts? Sure. Is anyone likely to do it? No. Why? I will save that for another post if you really do not understand why I say this and would like for me to expound on it a bit...
 
GaryA

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
#29
Aug 10, 2019
9,801
4,303
113
mywebsite.us
#29
Dino246 said:
This thread is not about other translations.
Click to expand...
On the contrary - it has everything to do with other translations. If no other [later] English version is a good translation, that is a very good reason to believe that the KJV is the best/only English version available.

What do you think 'KJV only' is based on?
 
GaryA

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
#30
Aug 10, 2019
9,801
4,303
113
mywebsite.us
#30
Dino246 said:
This thread is not about other translations.
Click to expand...
True - it is not "about" other translations; however, the idea of the topic itself cannot be removed completely from the fact that 'KJVO' folks mistrust every other [English] translation in existence.
 
GaryA

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
#31
Aug 10, 2019
9,801
4,303
113
mywebsite.us
#31
GaryA said:
True - it is not "about" other translations; however, the idea of the topic itself cannot be removed completely from the fact that 'KJVO' folks mistrust every other [English] translation in existence.
Click to expand...
If there were other good-and-correct translations in existence, it would not be nearly so much an issue.

What matters is that a translation is good-and-correct.

All the rest are corrupt.

Feel free to show me one that is not. (If it does not come from the same historically accepted original manuscripts as the KJV, then it must be considered corrupt as it comes from corrupt manuscripts.)
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#32
Jun 30, 2015
25,366
13,728
113
#32
GaryA said:
On the contrary - it has everything to do with other translations.
Click to expand...
This thread is entitled, "The Error of KJV-Onlyism". Where in that title is anything said about other translations?

GaryA said:
If no other [later] English version is a good translation, that is a very good reason to believe that the KJV is the best/only English version available.
Click to expand...
"Only" English version available? Gary, I know you aren't stupid, but that was a stupid comment.

There are several good translations in English produced since 1611.
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#33
Jun 30, 2015
25,366
13,728
113
#33
GaryA said:
True - it is not "about" other translations; however, the idea of the topic itself cannot be removed completely from the fact that 'KJVO' folks mistrust every other [English] translation in existence.
Click to expand...
That KJVO folks mistrust every other English translation is their problem... in both senses.
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#34
Jun 30, 2015
25,366
13,728
113
#34
GaryA said:
What matters is that a translation is good-and-correct.
Click to expand...
Since there are actual errors in the KJV, it is not "correct". That (some) KJV-only people cannot accept that there are errors is what makes their position so laughable.
 
GaryA

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
#35
Aug 10, 2019
9,801
4,303
113
mywebsite.us
#35
GaryA said:
If no other [later] English version is a good translation, that is a very good reason to believe that the KJV is the best/only English version available.
Click to expand...
Dino246 said:
"Only" English version available? Gary, I know you aren't stupid, but that was a stupid comment.
Click to expand...
You should have derived from the first part of the statement that I meant the last part in the context of 'good translations'. :rolleyes:

Stop being petty.
 
GaryA

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
#38
Aug 10, 2019
9,801
4,303
113
mywebsite.us
#38
Dino246 said:
Since there are actual errors in the KJV, it is not "correct". That (some) KJV-only people cannot accept that there are errors is what makes their position so laughable.
Click to expand...
Any actual errors in the KJV are extremely minor and not truth/concept/doctrine level things that the others are in great error about.

Not capitalizing 'holy spirit' is one thing - teaching that Jesus is not God in the flesh is a serious error.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.