The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[Bible_Highlighter]

You are aware, aren't you, that when the Bible was actually written, words translated 'book' typically referred to a scroll, right? The codex wasn't widely used at that time. We hear 'book' and we think of a codex bound on the end.

Where does it say anything about holding in the hand? Being able to hold the KJV in the hand, and that being an argument for it being inspired seems to be a KJV-onlyist trope. Where is the scripture that says that if you hold it in yoru hand, that has anything to do with it being inspired?

And what about all those non-English speakers in the world throughout history, even before modern English evolved. They didn't have a KJV in their hand. And it doesn't do much good for people who read only Chinese, Vietnamese, Spanish, etc. to have KJV Bible written in a language that they don't understand, in an old version of the language that most native speakers only partially understand. (Notice how '-eth' is put in the wrong place in ads that try to use Elizabethan English.)

Why would inspiration go off of the actual quotes of the words in the original languages that Moses, Jesus, or the apostles spoke, and then go onto the KJV so that 'there can be only one.' Honestly, I hear arguments for KJV onlyism, the way scriputres are misapplied to support it, and like many others, I think, "that is just dumb.' We don't always say it, but that is what a lot of non-KJV-onlyists think. Why is that the case? Because arguments for KJV-onlyism are just dumb.

Of you want to say this manuscript tradition is better or worse you can make reasonable arguments. But if you want us to believe that what the KJV was translated from was inspired, but now the KJV is THE Bible.... it just doesn't make any sense.

And none of those verses offer any support for KJV onlyism. The Bible is written in Hebrew and Greek with a bit of Aramaic here and there. It's translated into different languages. One of the many translations into English is the KJV, in an out-of-date dialect of the language, if it ever was truly a dialect.



Not all of those verses are necessarily talking about the whole Bible... I mean the law of the king passage? But why would you think it refers to a translation of the book instead of the book. Why not just get a bound copy of the Greek and Hebrew scriptures?

As for your theory that a translation becomes 'the book' centuries after the Bible was written, the original 1611 had the Apocrypha in it, too, so you'd better look elsewhere if you think its the 1611 KJV.

Yes, I am aware of that “book” means scroll in many cases in the Bible. I am not born again yesterday so don’t falsely assume I did not know that by your mocking question. However, if you are even remotely familiar with the Bible, you would know that it has homonyms within it. This is why this conversation is not going to go far. You are not even bothering to check Isaiah 34 to see if there are any verses that align with Revelation. Well, if you watched the video I sent you, you would be able to see them, but you don’t appear to want to look at anything that challenges your belief in a non existent phantom Bible that only exists in your own mind (Seeing you are your own Textual Critic of what the Bible should say or not say). There is no standard for you, except yourself or your preferred selected scholars because you believe the Bible has errors in it. The point here is that you don’t think you can be wrong even if there is many Scripture verses that defend our position. I have provided Scripture but you did not address those Scripture verses. The proof is in, “what saith the Scriptures?“ I don’t see anything in my Bible about the Textual Critic belief of us questioning God’s Word because it is full of errors or variants, or looking to scholars to get the real meaning of His Word. That’s not what I see when I read the Bible. So your belief is unbiblical. But the Bible does talk about how His words are perfect, and they would be preserved. The Bible does talk about how the Scriptures cannot be broken. But you believe they are broken. Paul says the Scriptures have been corrupted even during his time. But your Modern Bibles change that truth to something else. How convenient. Textual Critics generally do not think there is any agenda by any to corrupt the Word of God. The Bible also does talk about seek ye out the book of the Lord and read in Isaiah 34:16. This is in context to verses in Revelation and it is spoke to Gentile nations. I really have time to keep up this discussion if you do not address my points that I present, including the video. My life is busy and I do have a write-up I have to finish. If you just want to tear down the King James Bible at every turn, and not really look at the points for the KJB, I am wasting my time with you. You are clearly against what the King James Bible says based on your own fallible human reasoning and not what Scripture says. The thing is that if you were living in the 1700s in America, you would not even have any other choice but the King James Bible. You wouldn’t even know about Textual Criticism unless you were a German.

 

[Dino246]

Do you believe God was involved in the giving of the cannon of Scripture?

I'm not going to justify that with a direct answer... and the word is canon, not "cannon".

There is no page in Scripture listing out the books that are to be in our Bible. Yet, God would have had to move in men to guide them to choose the right books to put in the Protestant Bible.
It was not solely the minds of men and or their working alone. It was not solely their great brains that made that happen.

No argument on this matter.

Job says this about inspiration.

“But there is a spirit in man:
and the inspiration of the Almighty
giveth them understanding.”
(Job 32:8).

So the inspiration of the Almighty gives the spirit in man understanding.

Yes, but neither is this a definition, nor does the context state anywhere that it is exclusive of all other definitions or nuances. In other words, don't use it as an exclusive definition.

Scripture was written down when holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:20-21).

Inadequate and misleading. Peter clearly gives the context in the previous verse: the "prophecy of Scripture". Not all Scripture is prophecy... by a long shot.

Yet, even when they gave a record or written account of when these holy men of God spake (being moved by the Holy Ghost), they did so by the inspiration of the Almighty to have understanding to write down what these holy men of God said.

You would do well to learn and practice proper English grammar. The above is bafflegab.

They were writing by God giving them the understanding. Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16). For the inspiration of the Almighty gives them understanding to do so.

Here you're applying your 'exclusive definition' from Job... inappropriately.

So, when a true pure copy by God is made into another language, in order for it to truly be Scripture, then it would naturally be given by inspiration of God according to the Bible.

And here's where you take it into error.

Scripture is not "made" into another language; it is translated. By knowledge of languages and competence of writing (or speaking), a person takes the message in the source language and reproduces that message in the destination language. One need not even believe in God to do this competently, though it is obviously better if one does.

The original writer of Scripture is "inspired". The Holy Spirit nudges, guides, instructs, or imparts the words He wants written. This does not happen with the copyist or the translator. The message remains "inspired" but the copyist and the translator are not "inspired"; however, the copy and the translation are both "inspired Scripture".

If it is not that, then they are corrupted Scriptures... They would simply be Bibles created by men’s intellects alone and or by carnal reasoning. In such a case, it would be a hybrid Bible that has true parts, and false parts.

Think that through. If you write down a message, I copy it, and a bilingual third person translated it into Farsi such that a native Farsi speaker understands it as I understand it, is it "corrupt" or "false"? Obviously not.

If inspiration is God giving us understanding

But it isn't, at least not exclusively so...

, then naturally the KJB would be guided by God. So the spirits of the KJB translators would be given the inspiration of the Almighty to have the understanding to translate correctly what was in the originals manuscripts.

And here you continue with your error.

There is no rationale to the fantasy that the KJV translators were "inspired" in the same way that the original authors were. Period.

Scripture repeatedly tells us it is perfect and would be preserved and would be in a book. Scripture says it cannot be broken. It shows us that there are many who are not discerning things correctly. They willfully ignore heretical doctrines in their own Bibles and they willfully ignore the heretical origins of the Modern Bible movement and seek out the wisdom of men instead of God and His Word alone. They are not able to discern the times that we are in the Laodicean age and the corrupted Modern Bible movement that gets men to doubt the Bible is all a part of that.

I'm not going to bother addressing dispensational codswollop in this thread.

They are not able to recognize that the KJB translators and their credentials far surpass any other group in a translation in human history.

Nobody is questioning the credentials of the KJV translators. Rather, those credentials are irrelevant.

They are not able to recognize that even unbelievers speak like the King James Bible with the KJB’s popularization of the Bible’s idioms.

Irrelevant, to a much greater degree.

They are not able to see that it was authorized by a king and that is significant in Scripture.

Laughably irrelevant and a misunderstanding of history.

They are not able to see that the KJB is the most printed book in the world and the most influential book.

Irrelevant.

They are not able to see the superiors of the KJB with it’s personal pronouns and that it was not motivated by a copyright in it’s creation, unlike most Modern Bibles.

Irrelevant.

Stop referring to some mysterious "they". Quote real people by name (or forum handle) with their exact words. Otherwise, you're just making up strawman arguments.

 

[Dino246]

I am not born again yesterday so don’t falsely assume I did not know that by your mocking question.

You do this frequently to me. Why should others not do it to you?

 

[Dino246]

However, if you are even remotely familiar with the Bible, you would know that it has homonyms within it.

That's a ridiculous accusation. One would normally have to be quite familiar both with language generally and with Scripture to note the presence of homonyms. Unless one were looking for them specifically, one likely wouldn't notice them.

Unless, of course, you ignored my earlier post, and the word you should have used is "synonyms"... and it would still be a ridiculous accusation.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Your adeherence to the stupid ignorant doctrine of KJV-onlyism combined with your own propensities leads you to accuse others without any basis.

Your adherence to the illogical doctrine of Originals Onlyism combined with your own propensities leads you to accuse others without any basis.

The Bible does not teach anything about preserving doctrine in the KJV. That is just dumb.

The Bible does not teach anything about Originals Onlyism. That is just silly.

The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. When you read the KJV, you are reading a translation of what these texts say.

While the Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, we know the Ethiopian eunuch had a copy of Scripture and it was called Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16 says ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Jeremiah was told to remake another scroll after the king burned the first one in a fire. God was not concerned with the originals. He made a copy and it was just as equally authoritative. Moses also was told to make new tablets of stone because the original tablets of the ten commands were destroyed. God was not concerned with the originals but with the copy. The copy was not any less perfect than the original. This is what Scripture teaches that you have to willfully ignore. When God made translations in the Bible, do you believe they were in error? In other words, the point here is that we see God is in the translation business. Again, you have to willfully ignore this truth in Scripture.

Straw man. I pointed out how the KJV rendered a passage in a way that did not align with the Lord Jesus' interpretation, but rather aligned with that of the Pharisees who were testing him. How is that an issue of 'textual criticsm'?

That does not prove Textual Criticism. You would need a better example of how there was an error in Scripture and it was considered normal. Or you would need to show how there was a reading that did not even say remotely what the other verse said. You would need to prove how it is normal to question certain parts of Scripture like with your footnotes in your Moderns Bibles. No such thing exists.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

You do this frequently to me. Why should others not do it to you?

Post numbers please.
Where did I question a basic truth in the Bible that a Christian should know in a mocking fashion?

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

That's a ridiculous accusation. One would normally have to be quite familiar both with language generally and with Scripture to note the presence of homonyms. Unless one were looking for them specifically, one likely wouldn't notice them.

Unless, of course, you ignored my earlier post, and the word you should have used is "synonyms"... and it would still be a ridiculous accusation.

There are Christians on the forums in the past who have disagreed with me on the existence of homonyms in the Bible.
Anyway, the point I was making is that he assumed that the word “book” could only have one meaning (Which is a scroll). I am not implying that he does not know know of homonyms. I am saying that if he is aware of them, he should consider that the word “book” having the biblical meaning (like scroll) could be more extensive. Just looking at current dictionary today will even show multiple definitions.

 

[Dino246]

You would need to prove how it is normal to question certain parts of Scripture like with your footnotes in your Moderns Bibles. No such thing exists.

Um... you are aware that the 1611 edition of the KJV contains sidenotes, the equivalent of footnotes... aren't you? You are aware that some of the show alternate words... aren't you?

 

[Dino246]

There are Christians on the forums in the past who have disagreed with me on the existence of homonyms in the Bible.

Homonyms are language-specific. There may well be homonyms in any given translation, but it's a non-issue. Don't argue about inconsequential things.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

There are Christians on the forums in the past who have disagreed with me on the existence of homonyms in the Bible.
Anyway, the point I was making is that he assumed that the word “book” could only have one meaning (Which is a scroll). I am not implying that he does not know know of homonyms. I am saying that if he is aware of them, he should consider that the word “book” having the biblical meaning (like scroll) could be more extensive. Just looking at current dictionary today will even show multiple definitions.

Note, I am saying this in context of the Bible. Presidente believes the word “book” believes it can only mean scroll in light of the Bible. I don’t believe this is the case in Isaiah 34:16 because of the verses in Revelation that are paralleled in that chapter and because it is addressed to the Gentile nations.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Um... you are aware that the 1611 edition of the KJV contains sidenotes, the equivalent of footnotes... aren't you? You are aware that some of the show alternate words... aren't you?

Yes, these are the marginal notes. I already addressed this point in this thread already.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Homonyms are language-specific. There may well be homonyms in any given translation, but it's a non-issue. Don't argue about inconsequential things.

It is not inconsequential. The point is that he believes that the word “book” must always refer to a scroll in the Bible. If he is aware that there are homonyms in the Bible (Which I am sure he does), then he must take under consideration that context could change the meaning of this word beyond its normal usage.

 

[Dino246]

Post numbers please.
Where did I question a basic truth in the Bible that a Christian should know in a mocking fashion?

"There are homonyms in Scripture" is NOT a "basic truth".

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I'm not going to justify that with a direct answer... and the word is canon, not "cannon".


No argument on this matter.


Yes, but neither is this a definition, nor does the context state anywhere that it is exclusive of all other definitions or nuances. In other words, don't use it as an exclusive definition.


Inadequate and misleading. Peter clearly gives the context in the previous verse: the "prophecy of Scripture". Not all Scripture is prophecy... by a long shot.


You would do well to learn and practice proper English grammar. The above is bafflegab.


Here you're applying your 'exclusive definition' from Job... inappropriately.


And here's where you take it into error.

Scripture is not "made" into another language; it is translated. By knowledge of languages and competence of writing (or speaking), a person takes the message in the source language and reproduces that message in the destination language. One need not even believe in God to do this competently, though it is obviously better if one does.

The original writer of Scripture is "inspired". The Holy Spirit nudges, guides, instructs, or imparts the words He wants written. This does not happen with the copyist or the translator. The message remains "inspired" but the copyist and the translator are not "inspired"; however, the copy and the translation are both "inspired Scripture".


Think that through. If you write down a message, I copy it, and a bilingual third person translated it into Farsi such that a native Farsi speaker understands it as I understand it, is it "corrupt" or "false"? Obviously not.


But it isn't, at least not exclusively so...


And here you continue with your error.

There is no rationale to the fantasy that the KJV translators were "inspired" in the same way that the original authors were. Period.


I'm not going to bother addressing dispensational codswollop in this thread.


Nobody is questioning the credentials of the KJV translators. Rather, those credentials are irrelevant.


Irrelevant, to a much greater degree.


Laughably irrelevant and a misunderstanding of history.


Irrelevant.


Irrelevant.

Stop referring to some mysterious "they". Quote real people by name (or forum handle) with their exact words. Otherwise, you're just making up strawman arguments.

Thank you for the correction on the spelling of canon. But the rest of what you said as being irrelevant I disagree with (Of course).
The Bible has only one verse that directly teaches the Trinity (i.e., 1 John 5:7). Oh, wait. Most Textual Critics do not believe that verse should be in our Bible.

 

[fredoheaven]

I wouldn't say the KJV is 'incorrect' in that verse, but that translations that use 'logos' are better on this one point, from a formal equivalence standpoint, because they are not interpreting the meaning of the word for the reader. Keeping 'word' there preserves some aspect of the meaning that the KJV does not convey.

And there is no reason to think that the KJV authors were inspired to write scripture like Paul who wrote the epistle. There is no reason to think that the actual Hebrew and Greek books ceased to be inspired so that God could 'preserve His word' in the KJV, so that the KJV could be 'the one.'

This is not according to Jamaisson, Faucet, and Brown “logos” rendered here as “the word” is a literal meaning. So, from the standpoint of formal equivalence, I believe KJB is accurate in the passage being discussed. There is no dispute that logos literal meaning is “word” in many cases of both modern English Bible and KJB. Not only the translation is supported by the Greek grammar rule which may be dependent on the context. The scripture speaks of parallelism as well or line upon line (Isa. 28:10, 13) or as Paul stated “comparing spiritual things with spiritual (1 Cor. 2:13), thus for 1 Cor. 1:18 would correspond to Paul’s in 1 Cor: 1:23. If it is used literally, the question is what is the word of the cross? Did the cross speak literally? And so on and so forth.

1 Corinthians 1:18

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

! Corinthians 1:23
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

Jamaisson, Faucet, and Brown Taken from E-Sword

preaching, etc. — literally, “the word,”

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

"There are homonyms in Scripture" is NOT a "basic truth".

If one has ever looked at a Bible dictionary or Strong’s Concordance or even studied the Bible for a while, it would not be too long they would discover words that look and sound the same but have different meanings.

 

[Dino246]

It is not inconsequential. The point is that he believes that the word “book” must always refer to a scroll in the Bible. If he is aware that there are homonyms in the Bible (Which I am sure he does), then he must take under consideration that context could change the meaning of this word beyond its normal usage.

"Book" and "scroll" are not homonyms. They aren't even synonyms. They are related words, but that's it.

 

[Dino246]

Thank you for the correction on the spelling of canon. But the rest of what you said as being irrelevant I disagree with (Of course).
The Bible has only one verse that directly teaches the Trinity (i.e., 1 John 5:7). Oh, wait. Most Textual Critics do not believe that verse should be in our Bible.

You simply ignored far more than half my post. That's okay, I'll call you on it later when you make the same errors.

 

[Dino246]

If one has ever looked at a Bible dictionary or Strong’s Concordance or even studied the Bible for a while, it would not be too long they would discover words that look and sound the same but have different meanings.

Which 'book' and 'scroll' do not.

Again, you're using the definition of "homonym" while applying it to synonyms. Learn the difference! It's painful watching you repeatedly make a fool of yourself.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

"Book" and "scroll" are not homonyms. They aren't even synonyms. They are related words, but that's it.

Uh, no. That’s not what I am saying. A homonym is a word that looks and sounds the same but they have different meanings. For example: Sons of God can refer to either angels or believers. So “sons of God” is a homonym in the Bible. So it depends on the context that determines the meaning of a word. Even the word “repent” has multiple meanings in the Bible. I believe the word “book” in the Bible is defined as a scroll in many of it’s usages. But this does not always mean that this is the case. We have no idea what the Lamb’s Book of Life will be like. In any event, I believe Isaiah 34:16 is a reference to the King James Bible because….

(a) Isaiah 34 addresses Gentile nations in the beginning of the chapter.
(b) Isaiah 34 has verses that are parallels with verses in Revelation.

So this lets us know that we Gentile nations are told to seek out the Book of the Lord and read from it during the time of Revelation.
So logically this must mean we have the Book of the Lord today, seeing we are nearing the End Times spoken about in Revelation.

Textual Criticism does not have a singular book they call the Book of the Lord.
What they have is manuscripts that disagree with each or Modern Bibles that contradict one another.