The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[Omegatime]

IMO I stand with there is no perfect english transcribed editions of the Bible.

To go one step forward I say the Bible is incomplete. I have no problem with the 66 books in use but when I see the number 6 being used it has man's fingers all over it

 

[Dino246]

I already pointed out that the doctrine of the divine preservation of Scripture was thoroughly undermined. How? We were told to believe that only in the late 19th century was the true Word of God discovered in a handful of corrupt manuscripts (Aleph, A, B, C, D, and E). That was a blatant lie therefore an elaborate theory was cooked up to support it. So how did God preserve His Word? Through faithful copying by scribes and monks. Who corrupted the Word? It was the Gnostics who did so. So now Christians are using bibles based on Gnostic corruptions. I will give you just one example, because it will cause you (and others) to search for all the other corruptions.

JOHN 6:69 ALTERED AND CORRUPTED
As an example of how doctrine can be changed, we take John 6:69 and analyze the changes made to it: “And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God”, has been changed to “And we have believed and have known that thou art the Holy One of God” (Nestle, RSV, NEB, JB, NAS, NIV). Here's how your favorite NASB puts it: And we have already believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

(a) “we believe” changed to “we have believed” – by putting this in the past tense, it implies that this believing is not a continuous and continuing faith and trust, but something that occurred in the past;

(b) “and are sure” vs “and have know” are two different things. To know something does not necessarily mean to be sure of something, but Peter stated on behalf of himself and the apostles that they were sure, they were certain, they were positive, they were unshakeably convinced;

(c) “that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God” is an unequivocal declaration of the Deity (Godhead) and eternal Sonship of Jesus the Messiah. Christ is called “the Holy One of Israel” or “the Holy One” consistently throughout Scripture. However, “that thou art the Holy One of God” was an expression used only by unholy demons when fearfully addressing Christ with full knowledge of their judgment and doom (Mk. 1:24; Lk. 4:34), and not once do we find the apostles addressing Christ in this manner. Thus the words of demons have been put into the mouth of Peter, and there is a huge difference between the two statements. Therefore several Bible doctrines have been changed very seriously through these few alterations. When this is repeated over and over again throughout the Scriptures, we can be sure that Satan is behind these changes.

This is silly fearmongering based on circular reasoning and narrow-minded thinking. Frankly, I think you give far more credit to the devil on his ability to corrupt God's word than you do to God to preserve it. "Huge difference? No. "The words of demons"? Really? Is your confidence in God so small? It looks like you aren't sure who's in charge.

You are claiming that someone reading a modern translation will come to a fundamentally different conclusion about Jesus' identity than someone reading the KJV. I don't buy it. Just because you use "know" and "sure" differently doesn't mean everyone does. "We have come to believe and to know" looks like "sure" to me.

Most people don't normally dig into the precise meaning and usage of words; they get the gist of the statement and move one. Preachers preparing for a sermon and regular people who are studying (as opposed to simply reading) may do such research. They will look at other passages that address Jesus' identity and not make any conclusions on a single verse. Does "Holy One of God" mean something other than "Christ"? No.

Though many claims of "corrupted doctrines" have been made, I haven't seen anything in any KJV-only source that actually supports such a claim. In order to make a reasonable comparison, you need to stop looking at individual verses in isolation. You need to look at the entire translation and see whether a whole doctrine is undermined, changed, or removed. You would also need to dispense with the biased fearmongering comments like you used above. Just present the evidence and your calm, rational, and brief commentary.

I don't think you're prepared to do that. I don't think you would like the conclusions. I think you'd rather rant about the alleged danger.

 

[Lanolin]

To me it just seems NASB vs KJV is more of an argument between two countries, USA (NASB) and England (KJV) since USAs language American english is so very different from the way Anglos speak.

The KJV bible was brought over from Britain and Americans have long wanted to disassociate themselves from the British monarchy and church of England, worshipping how they want to worship and not under any King or Queen. Thats why they prepared newer translations, like NASB and NIV. But they didnt use the manuscripts that the KJV used, they used the discarded ones that were a bit different from the ones the KJV used. They had copying errors and things that didnt match up, while the KJV used the majority text.

I do get confused when people use and quote from the NASB because it is quite different from KJV, and it ends up in needless arguments. NIV is more like a storybook/novel version of the Bible, and I struggled with it. It wasnt inspired for me.

I think its great that the Bible has been translated and preserved to this day from the original tongues and has the power to guide us, scripture is precious but certainly English isnt the ONLY language in the world but seeing it as one of the most mongrel adaptable languages and widespread it does have an impact when it is carefully translated from the original tongues rather than carelessly done. Otherwise its more a game of chinese whispers of a translation of a translation of a translation.

 

[presidente]

And that justifies its use? Are you serious? The preaching of the cross correspond to "we preach Christ and Him crucified". The NASB is simply another corrupt modern version. Check out its Preface. This translation has had four revisions since it was published in 1971. Yet it was touted as the best and most accurate translation right at the beginning. And one does not revise something that is "near perfect".

Irrelevan to the word choice for translating this verse. 'Word' is a better formal equivalence translation of 'logos'.

 

[NightTwister]

3. No factual arguments have been made against the KJV.

None that you would accept.

4. There can be only one true version of God's word, or none.

False dichotomy fallacy.

God is not the author of confusion.

You're misusing this verse.

5. Multiple versions has caused confusion and dissension among the brethren

Mostly from the KJVO folks.

and disbelief among non-believers.

Facts not in evidence.

6. Greek text? Where? Do we have the original Greek text? Nope.

Genetic fallacy.

7. God has always preserved his word throughout the course of human history. He made it available completed in one book in the KJV.

Facts not in evidence.

8. God foresaw the explosion of the English language and the boldness and courage of those who would use his word to evangelize the world.

Only 20% of the people in the world speak English. Not all of those are able to read it, and even fewer can understand 17th century Elizabethan English.

 

[presidente]

To me it just seems NASB vs KJV is more of an argument between two countries, USA (NASB) and England (KJV) since USAs language American english is so very different from the way Anglos speak.

The KJV bible was brought over from Britain and Americans have long wanted to disassociate themselves from the British monarchy and church of England, worshipping how they want to worship and not under any King or Queen. Thats why they prepared newer translations, like NASB and NIV. But they didnt use the manuscripts that the KJV used, they used the discarded ones that were a bit different from the ones the KJV used. They had copying errors and things that didnt match up, while the KJV used the majority text.

I do get confused when people use and quote from the NASB because it is quite different from KJV, and it ends up in needless arguments. NIV is more like a storybook/novel version of the Bible, and I struggled with it. It wasnt inspired for me.

I think its great that the Bible has been translated and preserved to this day from the original tongues and has the power to guide us, scripture is precious but certainly English isnt the ONLY language in the world but seeing it as one of the most mongrel adaptable languages and widespread it does have an impact when it is carefully translated from the original tongues rather than carelessly done. Otherwise its more a game of chinese whispers of a translation of a translation of a translation.

Americans may have had a very strong desire to disassociate themselves from the British crown in the early 1800s but most Americans don't even think about that much right now. America is the global superpower. Americans tend not to be self conscious when we think of Britain, and maybe tomanticize British history, like the accents from there, etc.

Most Americans aren't that familiar with vocabulary differences between rge two places. I would imagine the Brits are more eager to assert their place in the world when it comes to the English language than Americans are.

And the language spoken at the time of King James is just as much at the root of American English and Australian English and New Zealand English as it is at the root of British English.

And the NASB is not that popular of a translation these days.

The NIV, ESV, NLTV, and NKJV all outsell it. I think the NIV has a UK version, preserving the u in armour and such.

 

[presidente]

And why? Thanks

We can associate word with preaching from the context.

Look up logos in Greek then lets discuss.

Formal equivalence is not supposed to do a lot of interpreting for the reader when it's not necessary.

How about if you're thinking is that the King James is perfect came down from God on a silver platter and he can't have any errors and-- it is as an axiomatic matter of doctrine-- more accurate than any other translation and then it's hard to reason with someone who thinks like that.

 

[presidente]

Do you think the king James version has errors in it? If so what ones, and if not why change to a version that clearly does

Adding a Latin text about the tribity, following Erasmus on that. Making the certificate of divorce in Deuteronomy 24 a command rather than setting it up as a legal case consistent with Christ's words in Matthew 19. The KJV translation agrees with the Pharisees.

You can look up numerous errors on web pages dedicated to the topic.

But if you treat the inerrancy of the King James Version is some kind of religious doctrine than your mind may not be open to accept this issue especially if you don't know any Greek or Hebrew and are willing to do a bit of study.

The 1611 King James version included the Apocrypha also. Is the KJV apocrypha inerrant?

 

[Lanolin]

Americans may have had a very strong desire to disassociate themselves from the British crown in the early 1800s but most Americans don't even think about that much right now. America is the global superpower. Americans tend not to be self conscious when we think of Britain, and maybe tomanticize British history, like the accents from there, etc.

Most Americans aren't that familiar with vocabulary differences between rge two places. I would imagine the Brits are more eager to assert their place in the world when it comes to the English language than Americans are.

And the language spoken at the time of King James is just as much at the root of American English and Australian English and New Zealand English as it is at the root of British English.

And the NASB is not that popular of a translation these days.

The NIV, ESV, NLTV, and NKJV all outsell it. I think the NIV has a UK version, preserving the u in armour and such.

I had a job where I had to transcribe keywords from english into american english. and actors in nz had to take on american accents for the american market.

Americans just dont like English that much which is ironic considering the vociferous KJV-only people tend to be american. Its just rankles the others who then complain that they dont live in shakepearean times.

In terms of errors in the Bible there is a case for KJV being the most trusted version and its longevity, and how modern versions can be watered down. It could have fallen by the wayside over the four hundred years its been published like all the other bibles.

But then again it was the authorized version that was read in the church of england. Any new coming bible, after its been revised MANY times was viewed with suspicion. The NKJV is basically the same except with thee and thou pronouns removed but it was only like that because the original tongues had those specific pronouns to address a single person as opposed to a group. In that sense the KJV is accurate to the nuance of the original languages.

 

[Lanolin]

I think people generally view the apochrypha as extra, except for the catholics who take it as inspired even though it contradicts the rest of scripture in places.

Some Bibles were translated with a view to ecumenism between the catholic and protestant churches. So it could have been political as well...and of course remember the RCC actually banned Bibles in English from their churches for a long time

 

[Niki7]

This is silly fearmongering based on circular reasoning and narrow-minded thinking. Frankly, I think you give far more credit to the devil on his ability to corrupt God's word than you do to God to preserve it. "Huge difference? No. "The words of demons"? Really? Is your confidence in God so small? It looks like you aren't sure who's in charge.

You are claiming that someone reading a modern translation will come to a fundamentally different conclusion about Jesus' identity than someone reading the KJV. I don't buy it. Just because you use "know" and "sure" differently doesn't mean everyone does. "We have come to believe and to know" looks like "sure" to me.

Most people don't normally dig into the precise meaning and usage of words; they get the gist of the statement and move one. Preachers preparing for a sermon and regular people who are studying (as opposed to simply reading) may do such research. They will look at other passages that address Jesus' identity and not make any conclusions on a single verse. Does "Holy One of God" mean something other than "Christ"? No.

Though many claims of "corrupted doctrines" have been made, I haven't seen anything in any KJV-only source that actually supports such a claim. In order to make a reasonable comparison, you need to stop looking at individual verses in isolation. You need to look at the entire translation and see whether a whole doctrine is undermined, changed, or removed. You would also need to dispense with the biased fearmongering comments like you used above. Just present the evidence and your calm, rational, and brief commentary.

I don't think you're prepared to do that. I don't think you would like the conclusions. I think you'd rather rant about the alleged danger.

This is really one of his better over the edge, lemmings leaping into the sea, posts. And its nonsense and gives credit, as you say, to the devil.

 

[Lanolin]

The scofield Bible did corrupt the KJV by adding to the Bible with dubious footnotes but they insisted KJV be read only if it was a Scofield Bible. For those that follow the end times.

Also the mormon church used the KJV but added the pearl of great price and book of mormon to it. Apparently the Holy Bible just wasnt enough.

 

[Kroogz]

1 Corinthians 1:18, If a new believer in Christ uses the NASB, he might be confused over the Doctrine of Eternal Security. The NASB says to us who are “being saved” require fulfillment for completeness. Yes, I am not saying we cannot be saved using modern Versions but a new believer in Christ might be confused on this aid doctrine. God bless.

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

New American Standard Bible
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Honestly brother. The NASB is closer to the original language. And the intended meaning of this verse.

Greek Interlinear Bible (NT)


[ Hebrew Interlinear OT ]
Greek Text: ScrTR Scriveners Textus Receptus 1894 (Basis of KJV / AV translation)Sublinears:ScrTR_t, Strong, Parsing, CGTS, CGES_idTranslation:Authorised Version.

apollumenois apollumenois G622 vp Pres mid/pas Dat Pl m ones-beING-destroyED ones-perishing...."who are perishing."


swzomenois sOzomenois G4982 vp Pres Pas Dat Pl m ones-beING-SAVED ones-being-saved......."are being saved."

 

[Mem]

This topic has caused me to wonder along the way of the development of the English language that, by the time Elizabethan came into being some English sovereign had a lisp so the commoners had to adopt it as "proper" English, so that nobody would make fun of it.

 

[Niki7]

I believe YHWH not Jesus, wakes those dying.

But you are actually unsure as you have stated.

 

[Niki7]

Faith in the word of God. Faith in God's righteousness which is by faith of Jesus Christ.

Like the song says (and the Bible too) IN CHRIST ALONE.

 

[Dino246]

This topic has caused me to wonder along the way of the development of the English language that, by the time Elizabethan came into being some English sovereign had a lisp so the commoners had to adopt it as "proper" English, so that nobody would make fun of it.

Thurely thou jetht!

 

[Niki7]

And not to confuse anyone (it is already apparently an issue), it is faith alone in Christ, but faith is never alone. It is the life lived after the confession that demonstrates the reality.

 

[Dino246]

1 Corinthians 1:18, If a new believer in Christ uses the NASB, he might be confused over the Doctrine of Eternal Security. The NASB says to us who are “being saved” require fulfillment for completeness. Yes, I am not saying we cannot be saved using modern Versions but a new believer in Christ might be confused on this aid doctrine. God bless.

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

New American Standard Bible
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

You made the same error many KJV-only proponents make: you pretend that doctrines are built from single verses.

The "doctrine" of eternal security is not undermined at all by a single difference in wording. You have to look at the entirety of the Scriptures in order to make such a determination.

 

[Lanolin]

Ya canna unnastan ?

I wonder what people say about Da Jesus Book. Its in Pidgin English.