A problem with KJV-Onlyism

One of the arguments for KJV onlyism is supposedly that God can't preserve His word in a body of manuscripts, but there has to be just one... and not only that... a translation into English.

One of the problems with that argument is that in the centuries leading up to 1600's, the Bible is in a variety of Greek manuscripts. So if the Bible can't be in a variety of manuscripts and be 'preserved', was God's word not preserved prior to the translation of the KJV?

Good question.

You do not even understand the KJV advocates position and you want to post about this matter.

The position is based upon the FACT that the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts (now in printed form) represent the MAJORITY of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, and underlie the King James Bible in English.

There is no modern translation which is based upon the traditional texts. They are all based upon the Minority or Critical Text of Westcott & Hort (which has continue through others). And this text is based upon primarily THE TWO MOST CORRUPT Greek manuscripts -- Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph).

I believe in KJ bestism ... by far

Westcott and Hort did not believe Christ was God.

They also did not believe in the virgin birth, what does that MEAN? that Jesus was born out of wedlock?

They also stated that the KJ is a vile translation that had held the church back.

I read this from Got Questions: https://www.gotquestions.org/Westcott-and-Hort.html

Unfortunately, Westcott and Hort are still infamous names with respect to the Bible, despite their text not being the basis of any major modern translations. Most mentions of the pair today are from detractors of their work, particularly those supporting the King James Only movement (KJVO).


🍣

yes that's the line that has been put out

You have to be English to understand the likes of Westcott, and you have to be Anglican to understand Anglicans.

No people on this earth can balance words like the Englishman. How to frame a sentence so that it appears to say something but when you get into thinking carefully you'll see that it doesn't really say that at all, in fact it half implies an opposite view.

You have to understand when Westcott says that the KJV is a vile translation which has held the church back he's talking about contentious issues which the KJ clearly state like that Jesus is truly God in the flesh. The virgin birth etc. His kind would see those doctrines as a hindrance to the more educated, more enlightened folks believing the bible.

... it makes me yuk

Wescott and Hort went as far as they dared to oppose the KJ. They were afraid of being howled at

*Shrug* I'm not English or Anglican so I don't care.


Here, have some sushi!
🍣

I don't think you understand, or property else represent KJV-onlyism. You have your own version of it. I was just in a long thread discussing the theory that God 'preserved His word' uniquely in an English translation.

The manuscripts still exist in Hebrew and Greek. Why would an English translation of them have to be inspired like the actual scriptures?

What exactly is “ kjv onlyism “ ?

presidente does not really understand what it is.

I don’t either to be honest I’m assuming it the idea tbat only the kjv is authentic but was wondering what the person meant by it who made the op

The spirits do.
To know what I mean, the sermon starts at 29:12 mark. I think you'll find it interesting.

I responded to him in post #4. What is boils down to is that too many people are unable to distinguish between strong KJV advocates and the nut cases on the fringes.

Originally "KJV-only" meant that -- according to the nut cases -- the English translation itself was "inspired" (God-breathed = theopneustos). Peter Ruckman is a typical example, who even said that the English translation "corrects" the Greek text. But then he used a lot of foul language also, and gave KJV advocates a bad name.

However, what strong KJV advocates believe -- based strictly on the facts -- is this:.
1. Only the ORIGINAL autographs were divinely inspired (God-breathed).
2. There were only 24 books in the Hebrew Tanakh, now represented in the Protestant bibles by the 39 books (when split up).
3. The apocryphal books are NOT divinely inspired, hence not Scripture.
4. All the original autographs perished with usage.
5. However faithful copies of those autographs were made over and over again, and are now found in thousands of manuscripts from different ages and different regions.
6. The traditional Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received texts of the OT and NT fairly represent the MAJORITY of those manuscripts.
7. The Hebrew and Greek texts were put into printed form in the 16th century.
8. The King James translators had these printed texts in their hands and translated directly out of the original languages.
9. For over 400 years, the King James Bible dominated all English translations, and is the most faithful and reliable English translation because it is firmly based on the traditional texts. It has many other qualities which make it a translation par excellence.
10. In the late 19th century Westcott and Hort replaced the traditional texts with their "critical" Greek text which was based upon the TWO MOST CORRUPT Greek manuscripts.
11. All modern bible versions are based upon the critical text of Westcott and Hort, which is at variance with the Received Text in thousands of instances.
12. Modern bible versions mispresent the true NT text, and also attack important Bible doctrines, therefore they must be rejected.

If our Father wants an individual to know the truth, He could give it to him with a Betty Crocker Cookbook.

Now we know the Betty Crocker Cookbook is not the best translation, nor even rendition, of the Word. So allarguments as to the best are moot.

I was brought up with the KJV and sometimes the RSV, neither of which are perfect but , because of my upbringing, I have a particular fondness for the KJV, which I do read most of the time.

I hane not read all versions of the Word, however I have read many versions. All are perfect as long as the Holy Spirit leads the person.

Not a one is ualified to be the "only" unless the individual is lead by the Holy Spirit to it, ergo it preferred only for that individual.

This seems to be a rather silly subject to actually spen so much time disputing, and, YES, the Holy Spirit moves me to say this.. Oh boy, now I am in trouble.

My impression is that KJV onlyist is a fringe movement with a typical viewpoint that is perceived as 'nut-case' by non-KJV-onlyists. Your viewpoint seems to me to be on the fringe of KJV-onlyism. If you believe the original manuscripts are the word of God and the KJV is the best translation, how is that even literally KJV-onlyism? KJV-onlyists argue for doctrines because the KJV translates it a certain way, whether the KJV is right or not.

I posted the OP, and it addresses this belief, already described on this forum in another conversation.
"One of the arguments for KJV onlyism is supposedly that God can't preserve His word in a body of manuscripts, but there has to be just one... and not only that... a translation into English"

This is a post aimed at KJV-onlyists who think that way, as some have argued for such in the forum, and those who want to discuss this concept, not at those who hold to your viewpoint.

You've already posted your concerns that not all KJV-onlyists think the same way. But I would ask if you want to elaborate on that, that you do that on another thread, rather than hi-jack this thread, which was designed to have a narrow focus in the OP.

The KJV is the only translation that uses the right manuscript line, I'll admit that argument is within the realm of sanity. But that is not what the OP addresses.

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?

Explain, how is this possible? Please give scripture to back you view.

Nothing is impossible with our Father. God will use what is not to bring down what is. This should suffice. If not I think we should not dispute.

I speak from memory of scripture due to my lack of sight, but I see in other manners, thanks be to our Father in Jesus Yeshua, amen.