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
#1
May 29, 2013
9,161
1,788
113
#1
Jude 3:4 says to earnestly 'contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.'

When the apostles passed on the teachings of Jesus and their own teachings as led by the Spirit, and when their teachings were written down in gospels and epistles, they did not write them in Late Modern English. They wrote in Greek.

There are some people who teach basically that the King James Bible is word-for-word inspired. That would require basically the canon of scripture to be open until 1611, turning translators into something like inspired scripture writers.

I've seen a variety of arguments for KJV onlyism. One is to point to flaws of other manuscript compilations that some other translation was translated from. But that doesn't prove the KJV is an inerrant inspired translation.

Another argument is that the Bible you have 'in your hand' needs to be inspired. But I could hold an NIV or NASB in my hand, too. That doesn't make it inspired.

Another argument is that there has to be a 'final authority.' It doesn't make any sense to use that to argue that the KJV is an inspired inerrant translation.

Some KJV-onlyist argue that it was the only translation 'authorized' by a king. But Henry VIII had the Great Bible translated, and that doesn't make it an inerrant translation.

Yet another argument is to take a verse about how pure or preserved the word of God is, quoting a verse about it. But those verses existed in the actual original languages scripture was written in, and they show up in the other translations as well. So how is that an argument for KJV onlyism?

The fatal flaw of KJV-onlyism is that it is an ignorant back-woods idea made up by preachers or others some time after the KJV was translated, and not part of 'the faith once delivered to the saints. The apostles did teach it. The Bible doesn't teach it. People got saved through believing the word of God before King James was born.
 
Magenta

Magenta

Senior Member
#2
Jul 3, 2015
59,938
29,304
113
#2
I have seen a KJ onlyist admit there are errors in the KJ Bible while claiming it is superior to all others. Which really seems self-contradictory! I got into a discussion with another KJ onlyist (who is no longer here) about how a sentence at the beginning of a chapter of Daniel (can't remember which one) was put together and what it meant. He was insisting that the way other versions were worded, other versions were saying that the unsaved would be raised to life everlasting, which was completely wrong. He repeatedly kept pointing to that one sentence, so I went to the chapter to get the context, and saw that he was completely misreading the other versions, for it was plain they were not saying what he claimed they were. What's more, it became apparent to me after going over this with him for a while, that had the tables been turned and the KJV worded the way the others were, and the others worded the way the KJ was, he would be making the very same argument to defend the authority and superiority of the KJV over the others!!! I had found him to be quite reasonable and even gracious on many topics before that, and was able to mostly keep his "cool" when under fire, but realized he was blinded on this issue to be so adamant in his view when he was so clearly wrong. He was banned sometime after that. He must have lost his cool. Oh, I was sorry to see that.
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#3
Jun 30, 2015
25,411
13,754
113
#3
You're stirring a hornet's nest, but don't worry... I brought lots of bug spray. :cool:
 
1

10-22-27

Active member
#5
Dec 17, 2023
454
141
43
#5
presidente said:
Jude 3:4 says to earnestly 'contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.'

When the apostles passed on the teachings of Jesus and their own teachings as led by the Spirit, and when their teachings were written down in gospels and epistles, they did not write them in Late Modern English. They wrote in Greek.

There are some people who teach basically that the King James Bible is word-for-word inspired. That would require basically the canon of scripture to be open until 1611, turning translators into something like inspired scripture writers.

I've seen a variety of arguments for KJV onlyism. One is to point to flaws of other manuscript compilations that some other translation was translated from. But that doesn't prove the KJV is an inerrant inspired translation.

Another argument is that the Bible you have 'in your hand' needs to be inspired. But I could hold an NIV or NASB in my hand, too. That doesn't make it inspired.

Another argument is that there has to be a 'final authority.' It doesn't make any sense to use that to argue that the KJV is an inspired inerrant translation.

Some KJV-onlyist argue that it was the only translation 'authorized' by a king. But Henry VIII had the Great Bible translated, and that doesn't make it an inerrant translation.

Yet another argument is to take a verse about how pure or preserved the word of God is, quoting a verse about it. But those verses existed in the actual original languages scripture was written in, and they show up in the other translations as well. So how is that an argument for KJV onlyism?

The fatal flaw of KJV-onlyism is that it is an ignorant back-woods idea made up by preachers or others some time after the KJV was translated, and not part of 'the faith once delivered to the saints. The apostles did teach it. The Bible doesn't teach it. People got saved through believing the word of God before King James was born.
Click to expand...
So, you're saying the King James is corrupt?
 
J

John146

Senior Member
#6
Jan 13, 2016
17,111
3,687
113
#6
presidente said:
Jude 3:4 says to earnestly 'contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.'

When the apostles passed on the teachings of Jesus and their own teachings as led by the Spirit, and when their teachings were written down in gospels and epistles, they did not write them in Late Modern English. They wrote in Greek.

There are some people who teach basically that the King James Bible is word-for-word inspired. That would require basically the canon of scripture to be open until 1611, turning translators into something like inspired scripture writers.

I've seen a variety of arguments for KJV onlyism. One is to point to flaws of other manuscript compilations that some other translation was translated from. But that doesn't prove the KJV is an inerrant inspired translation.

Another argument is that the Bible you have 'in your hand' needs to be inspired. But I could hold an NIV or NASB in my hand, too. That doesn't make it inspired.

Another argument is that there has to be a 'final authority.' It doesn't make any sense to use that to argue that the KJV is an inspired inerrant translation.

Some KJV-onlyist argue that it was the only translation 'authorized' by a king. But Henry VIII had the Great Bible translated, and that doesn't make it an inerrant translation.

Yet another argument is to take a verse about how pure or preserved the word of God is, quoting a verse about it. But those verses existed in the actual original languages scripture was written in, and they show up in the other translations as well. So how is that an argument for KJV onlyism?

The fatal flaw of KJV-onlyism is that it is an ignorant back-woods idea made up by preachers or others some time after the KJV was translated, and not part of 'the faith once delivered to the saints. The apostles did teach it. The Bible doesn't teach it. People got saved through believing the word of God before King James was born.
Click to expand...
Unless you personally have a bible other than the KJV that you believe is the word of God without error, there is no argument. There is no comparison. You are just another guy who believes you do not have the word of God that you can fully trust. You must rely on your own authority to figure it out.
 
P

presidente

Senior Member
#7
May 29, 2013
9,161
1,788
113
#7
John146 said:
Unless you personally have a bible other than the KJV that you believe is the word of God without error, there is no argument. There is no comparison. You are just another guy who believes you do not have the word of God that you can fully trust. You must rely on your own authority to figure it out.
Click to expand...
The scriptures were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Do you not know that the KJV is just a translation?

If a doctrine is based on ignorance just let it go.
 
P

presidente

Senior Member
#8
May 29, 2013
9,161
1,788
113
#8
10-22-27 said:
So, you're saying the King James is corrupt?
Click to expand...
Corrupted, as in it was good, but then it rotted or was contaminated somehow? No; translations by human beings have strong points and weak points and the King James isn't perfect either. 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.

And the KJV is actually a translation not what the prophets and apostles wrote down. Look it up and do a bit of reading. It's true. I'm not making it up
 
1

10-22-27

Active member
#9
Dec 17, 2023
454
141
43
#9
John146 said:
Unless you personally have a bible other than the KJV that you believe is the word of God without error, there is no argument. There is no comparison. You are just another guy who believes you do not have the word of God that you can fully trust. You must rely on your own authority to figure it out.
Click to expand...
Well said!
 
J

John146

Senior Member
#10
Jan 13, 2016
17,111
3,687
113
#10
presidente said:
The scriptures were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Do you not know that the KJV is just a translation?

If a doctrine is based on ignorance just let it go.
Click to expand...
Are you under that assumption that a translation cannot be the holy word of God without error?
 
Artios1

Artios1

Born again to serve
#11
Dec 11, 2020
678
419
63
#11
presidente said:
Jude 3:4 says to earnestly 'contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.'

When the apostles passed on the teachings of Jesus and their own teachings as led by the Spirit, and when their teachings were written down in gospels and epistles, they did not write them in Late Modern English. They wrote in Greek.

There are some people who teach basically that the King James Bible is word-for-word inspired. That would require basically the canon of scripture to be open until 1611, turning translators into something like inspired scripture writers.

I've seen a variety of arguments for KJV onlyism. One is to point to flaws of other manuscript compilations that some other translation was translated from. But that doesn't prove the KJV is an inerrant inspired translation.

Another argument is that the Bible you have 'in your hand' needs to be inspired. But I could hold an NIV or NASB in my hand, too. That doesn't make it inspired.

Another argument is that there has to be a 'final authority.' It doesn't make any sense to use that to argue that the KJV is an inspired inerrant translation.

Some KJV-onlyist argue that it was the only translation 'authorized' by a king. But Henry VIII had the Great Bible translated, and that doesn't make it an inerrant translation.

Yet another argument is to take a verse about how pure or preserved the word of God is, quoting a verse about it. But those verses existed in the actual original languages scripture was written in, and they show up in the other translations as well. So how is that an argument for KJV onlyism?

The fatal flaw of KJV-onlyism is that it is an ignorant back-woods idea made up by preachers or others some time after the KJV was translated, and not part of 'the faith once delivered to the saints. The apostles did teach it. The Bible doesn't teach it. People got saved through believing the word of God before King James was born.
Click to expand...

I am a KJM …King James Mostly…. because that is what I started with. But I have several other versions I utilize for cross reference.

It would be a blessing beyond measure to have a word for word from the originals … but we don’t …nobody does. I alone have marked well over two hundred errors in the KJV…be it punctuation, chapter and verse divisions, and words added or subtracted that are not in the critical Greek text or Aramaic Peshitta.

When I run into a KJO, I always have them look at Rom 5:5 (as an example) in any of the common online parsed Greek from which the KJ was translated. That verse, in the Greek sports “the” article 5 X …zero in the KJV….. (so not word for word) …An that is just one verse the article frequently omitted from multiple verses.

In English… it’s not a big deal….. but… The article originally came from the demonstrative pronoun (such as “this” or “that”)…. which calls attention with special emphasis to a designated object. Its function is to point out an object or draw attention to it. It's use with a word makes the word stand out distinctly. When the article appears in the Greek it always signals some special significance.

Something else that is a bit obscure with KJ …Was the intent of word choices when translating.

One of the goals the KJ translators had when bringing it into English was to use various different (hopefully related) words in translation ….It was done with the intent as a teaching tool. Because the Bible was one of the most read book in classrooms at the time …..(obviously that has changed). I guess the intent was well meaning and most of the time the words used coincide with the Greek, but not always. My slight objection to that is …. it should have been translated with the intent of making the Word live… rather than as a teaching tool…………… I am sure they tried to do both.
 
P

presidente

Senior Member
#13
May 29, 2013
9,161
1,788
113
#13
John146 said:
Are you under that assumption that a translation cannot be the holy word of God without error?
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence that God ever revealed that there would be or had to be an English translation without error? KJV-onlyism is a problem of man-made, unrevealed doctrine.
 
J

John146

Senior Member
#14
Jan 13, 2016
17,111
3,687
113
#14
presidente said:
Do you have any evidence that God ever revealed that there would be or had to be an English translation without error? KJV-onlyism is a problem of man-made, unrevealed doctrine.
Click to expand...
Yes or no, can a translation be the holy word of God without error?

God only promised to preserve his word. God commanded that we live by every word. How is that possible if we don't have every word? What will God hold against us since he did not preserve his word? What good is inspiration without preservation?
 
J

John146

Senior Member
#15
Jan 13, 2016
17,111
3,687
113
#15
Omegatime said:
IMO there is no perfect english translation. Having other versions assist us in finding knowledge
Click to expand...
Would you agree that God inspired His holy words in the "originals," but has since lost them, since no one has a perfect bible today?
 
Blik

Blik

Senior Member
#16
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,428
113
#16
presidente said:
Corrupted, as in it was good, but then it rotted or was contaminated somehow? No; translations by human beings have strong points and weak points and the King James isn't perfect either. 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.

And the KJV is actually a translation not what the prophets and apostles wrote down. Look it up and do a bit of reading. It's true. I'm not making it up
Click to expand...
We cannot expect perfection in any translation, the most perfect word of God is Hebrew. All the people God gave His word to had Hebrew as their original tongue, even those who wrote in Greek. They had been taught scripture in Hebrew, and when they wrote in Greek about that scripture, they had to translate that Hebrew teaching to Greek.

The KJV had at least 47 scholars working together to create it, they did a miraculous job. However, we must study the world these scholars lived in and wonder if it affected their thinking. In Spain, for instance, Jews were punished. If you search the KJV for indications that discrimination against the Jews affected the translation, you will find it. For example, the word Easter is not an accurate translation of the original.
 
Nehemiah6

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
#18
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,773
113
#18
presidente said:
There are some people who teach basically that the King James Bible is word-for-word inspired.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Nehemiah6

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
#19
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,773
113
#19
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...
That is just a specious argument. Nobody believes such nonsense.
 
P

presidente

Senior Member
#20
May 29, 2013
9,161
1,788
113
#20
John146 said:
Yes or no, can a translation be the holy word of God without error?

God only promised to preserve his word. God commanded that we live by every word. How is that possible if we don't have every word? What will God hold against us since he did not preserve his word? What good is inspiration without preservation?
Click to expand...
It sounds like you are looking for a lame excuse.

Read from Romans 1,
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Men without the Bible translated in their language didn't have an excuse because of what is seen in creation, so why would you have an excuse if there are some mistakes in your Bible translation.

You are equating God preserving His word with the idea of there having to be one infallible translation in English. What about other languages? What about the original languages the Bible was actually written in? Why would you think the translation has to be perfect rather than the interpretations.

Are you going to prophesy 'Thus saith the Lord' that God says that the KJV is infallible? If you do, I would question the legitimacy of your prophecy. If no one claims to be a prophet and no one claims to prophesy this idea, then what rational support could you have for such a notion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.