A problem with 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.
Have you ever opened your mouth and spoke, and learned from the words which proceeded things you never had learned before? This is not Biblical, it is true and happens to all at times when they share the Word of God. The gift of knowledge is the best explanation.

The Holy Spirit leads all who are born again the scripturas no matter what book God chooses to use, but truly, it is almost always one version or another of the Bible. He edits it as we learn, yes He does.
 
2.0 if you don't count the many other historical threads kicking up the dust on this one
 
John146 said:
If I believe that God has preserved his words completely in one book in the English language through the KJV, does this make me a "nut case"? Let's say you believe that God has preserved his words in the English language through the NASB, and your truly believed that, then all other versions would fall short and you would not acknowledge them as being God's word. Yes?
Click to expand...
Nehemiah said nut case. I tried to soften it and say perceived to be nut cases. I do not believe that most KJV only is are literally mentally ill, but the interpretation is not particularly rational.

The idea that God preserving his word means that one English translation has to be inspired whether it's the KJV or the NASB does not seem to be a reasonable interpretation to me at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2ndTimeIsTheCharm and Dino246
presidente said:
Nehemiah said nut case. I tried to soften it and say perceived to be nut cases. I do not believe that most KJV only is are literally mentally ill, but the interpretation is not particularly rational.

The idea that God preserving his word means that one English translation has to be inspired whether it's the KJV or the NASB does not seem to be a reasonable interpretation to me at all.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I agree it's not rational. We've already debated this topic to death. But what I would like to know, is why they latch on to something like this. I don't mean the reason why KJV-only. I mean, what is the psychology behind this, since we're talking about it being irrational.

I think, from observation, that idea appeals to their need to stand out by living out in their minds that they're keepers of the truth or something. And they are being honorable knights when they defend this false teaching. There is something fantasy-like about how they defend that insanity.


🐹
 
2ndTimeIsTheCharm said:
Yeah, I agree it's not rational. We've already debated this topic to death. But what I would like to know, is why they latch on to something like this. I don't mean the reason why KJV-only. I mean, what is the psychology behind this, since we're talking about it being irrational.

I think, from observation, that idea appeals to their need to stand out by living out in their minds that they're keepers of the truth or something. And they are being honorable knights when they defend this false teaching. There is something fantasy-like about how they defend that insanity.
Click to expand...
A friend of mine had a grandfather who was a KJV-onlyist, and he said he'd preach something like, "Don't you get one of those New Bible translations. Get you one like your grandmamma and grandpappy had, a King James Bible."
I think it's largely sociological. You either grow up and gets saved or get coverted in or through a KJV-only church, and brother and so and so taught it and he's such a godly man and a role model, and everyone in your church seems to believe it. And in some churches there is this idea that our church or movement is special, and we have a handle on the truth....
 
presidente said:
A friend of mine had a grandfather who was a KJV-onlyist, and he said he'd preach something like, "Don't you get one of those New Bible translations. Get you one like your grandmamma and grandpappy had, a King James Bible."
I think it's largely sociological. You either grow up and gets saved or get coverted in or through a KJV-only church, and brother and so and so taught it and he's such a godly man and a role model, and everyone in your church seems to believe it. And in some churches there is this idea that our church or movement is special, and we have a handle on the truth....
Click to expand...

You know? That would be interesting to find out where each of the KJV-onlyists in this forum got their influence from....

So KJV-only crowd, where/who from did you get your first exposure that KJV is the only true Bible?


🐹
 
Evmur said:
... but I am, English not Anglican
Click to expand...
At one time almost all Englishmen were Anglicans. Many were Roman Catholics. Some separated themselves from the Anglican Church. The Pilgrims who came to America on the Mayflower were Separatists. They wanted nothing to do with the Church of England.

On the other hand the Calvinistic Puritans chose to remain within, to try and reform it from within. But that would never happen. It was primarily the Puritans who petitioned King James for a new translation of the Bible, which then became the Authorized (spelled Authorised in England) Version of the Anglican Church. Famous Oliver Cromwell was a devout Puritan who rose to power in England in the 17th century. But the Anglican Church destroyed itself from within. Now King Charles III pretends to be a Christian, but is entirely something else.
 
Evmur said:
... but I am, English not Anglican
Click to expand...
At one time almost all Englishmen were Anglicans. Many were Roman Catholics. Some separated themselves from the Anglican Church. The Pilgrims who came to America on the Mayflower were Separatists. They wanted nothing to do with the Church of England.

On the other hand the Calvinistic Puritans chose to remain within, to try and reform it from within. But that would never happen. It was primarily the Puritans who petitioned King James for a new translation of the Bible, which then became the Authorized (spelled Authorised in England) Version of the Anglican Church. Famous Oliver Cromwell was a devout Puritan who rose to power in England in the 17th century. But the Anglican Church destroyed itself from within. Now King Charles III pretends to be a Christian, but is entirely something else.
 
The claim that the KJV is the perfect and inerrant word of God in English is a strange one. Before the Revised Version came along (1881), there were a few people saying the KJV was the perfect word of God; however, at that time there really were no competitors to the KJV so it was the Bible, and the Bible of course is the perfect word of God.

After the Revised Version came out, the debate really started heating up with the publication of The Revision Revised by John Burgon. Burgon showed, quite successfully in my view, that the Revised Version wasn't a new version of the Authorized Version of 1611 as it claimed on its title page but had referenced Wescott & Hort's Greek text in many passages. This really got people paranoid and the debate has raged ever since.

I started a thread a couple of years ago on the history of KJV onlyism; and with a couple of exceptions most KJV onlyists had no clue where it started or how it evolved. Personally I believe the fires of KJV onlyism are mostly stoked by fear, not reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dino246
I think in KJ. I have two Bible versions, King James & New King James. If I need to find a particular verse in the Bible I will remember it by the words of the King James, then I can use my Strongs or Cruden’s concordance to look it up. This works well for me for cross reference purposes as well. If some people find the KJ language to be an obstacle to their Christian development I suggest the NKJV.
I haven’t developed any extra-Biblical doctrines concerning any other version.
 
I think they just like that version of the Bible and stick to it thats all.
If you dont then dont worry about it.

If you dont know which one ask God which Bible is best for you. I think its easier to just read one Bible than 20 different ones all at the same time. People always find they end up prefering one over the other.

Those who like KJV are being thankful that thats the one that spoke to them. I dont see its a huge deal to be going on and on about it. If you prefer another version and are open to Gods word then be thankful for that one.

You are not going to change someones mind over a well loved Bible. if someone thought it was out of date and started correcting it and 'updating' it, that is there problem and of course theres going to be a bit of backlash over that. The preface to the KJV itself said it was only hoped that the translation would please the church of England readers...and the monarch...it would not please Catholics 'popish persons' or scholar type Pharisees 'self-conceited persons' but by the truth and innocency contained within it they were offering to the public.

For the words to be scripture, they do have to be inspired by God so I dont think there is any argument over that. People are really straining over it because many cant get their around scriptures being divine or having any power, but the word is powerful otherwise Jesus wouldnt have quoted or said 'it is written' to Satan and made him go away. Jesus wouldnt have read Isaiah in the synagogue, and Peter wouldnt have opened his mouth and starting quoting scriptures in book of Acts.

You just need to get over some KJVists favouritism. Just respect that it has its place as an english translation still 400 years later They arent suddenly going to say oh the Message is the only Bible Im ever going to read and all the others are wrong and people in the past before it was published didnt have a clue. But who knows maybe there are some diehard messagefans out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JaumeJ
I know personally that NO translation is perfect, though many claim theirs to be.
An example:
1 Timothy 3:1
English Standard Version
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.

King James Bible
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

New King James Version
This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work.

New American Standard Bible
It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.

Notice the word 'office' itself isn't even the early manuscripts, but her it is in some of the best translations. Neither does God want us to seek for religious offices, but to seek what God would charge him/her to do. No office necessary, commanded, or otherwise.
Look at what this one error has done to the church for almost 2000 years. It fits in perfectly to early Roman catholisism from which we get the modern Catholic church.
But let us not judge them so harshly until we take a good long look at the hierarchies(nat'l, state, local) of our own denominations that all are 100% unscriptural.
I believe it all started when godly people started looking at their callings as "offices", thinking of themselves more highly than they ought to think.
 
Edify said:
Notice the word 'office' itself isn't even the early manuscripts, but her it is in some of the best translations.
Click to expand...
πιστὸς ὁ λόγος Εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυμεῖ (Received Text)
πιστὸς ὁ λόγος. Εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται, καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυμεῖ.(Critical Text)

As you can see, both Greek texts are identical.

LITERAL INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION
Trustworthy is the saying: If anyone overseership aspires to, of good a work he is desirous.

IDIOMATIC ENGLISH TRANSLATION
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

OTHER VERSIONS
American Standard Version
Faithful is the saying, If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
Douay-Rheims Bible
A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
New American Standard Bible
It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
English Standard Version
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.

"The office of a bishop" is perfectly correct for "episkopes", since "overseership" is awkward, but the "office of" is much clearer. "Episkopos" can be translated either as "bishop" or as "overseer". But the Greek word "presbuteros" is translated as "elder" (and some translations have used "elder" incorrectly in this verse. But even the Calvinistic Geneva Bible has the word "bishop": This is a true saying, If any man desire the office of a Bishop, he desireth a worthy work.
 
..
Nehemiah6 said:
πιστὸς ὁ λόγος Εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυμεῖ (Received Text)
πιστὸς ὁ λόγος. Εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται, καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυμεῖ.(Critical Text)

As you can see, both Greek texts are identical.

LITERAL INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION
Trustworthy is the saying: If anyone overseership aspires to, of good a work he is desirous.

IDIOMATIC ENGLISH TRANSLATION
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

OTHER VERSIONS
American Standard Version
Faithful is the saying, If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
Douay-Rheims Bible
A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
New American Standard Bible
It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
English Standard Version
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.

"The office of a bishop" is perfectly correct for "episkopes", since "overseership" is awkward, but the "office of" is much clearer. "Episkopos" can be translated either as "bishop" or as "overseer". But the Greek word "presbuteros" is translated as "elder" (and some translations have used "elder" incorrectly in this verse. But even the Calvinistic Geneva Bible has the word "bishop": This is a true saying, If any man desire the office of a Bishop, he desireth a worthy work.
Click to expand...
I can't help how "awkward" it is, it's still not there.
One should never add to scripture what's not there, regardless of how many translators do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2ndTimeIsTheCharm
A problem with KJV onlyism can be seen here:


He doesn't get the language right, and sings about her wanting to lie with him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back