Where have all the KJV defenders gone?

[tracifish]

We can only hope so ...

 

[RedneckAnglican]

Wait! You're one! Why don't you say so???

because I'm in hiding...really...I'm not here...

 

[IronWill]

I'm sorry you left....

I didn't leave. I returned to historic fundamentalism.

 

[tracifish]

I didn't leave. I returned to historic fundamentalism.

Uh oh... now I'm confused....

 

[tracifish]

because I'm in hiding...really...I'm not here...

Me either, I'm in my KJV closet...

 

[RedneckAnglican]

Me either, I'm in my KJV closet...

ooooo...I need to build me one of those...

 

[IronWill]

Uh oh... now I'm confused....

KJV-Onlyism is a relatively new doctrine. It's definitely not one of the fundamentals of the faith. Historic Fundamentalism was around prior to the advent of KJV-Onlyism, which really didn't make a serious appearance until the 1970's or so.

 

[tracifish]

KJV-Onlyism is a relatively new doctrine. It's definitely not one of the fundamentals of the faith. Historic Fundamentalism was around prior to the advent of KJV-Onlyism, which really didn't make a serious appearance until the 1970's or so.

It's not really a doctrine, but something that had to be addressed when all these other versions came out.

 

[tracifish]

ooooo...I need to build me one of those...

We all may need to come up with a special code so we can recognize one-another...and KJV closet morse-code...

 

[BereanTodd]

Keep listening...I think you will be shocked. I know I was.

I've listened plenty, and as a seminary student I have some training in the biblical languages. I know what I'm talking about and what I believe, and I have been fully exposed to the arguments for the kJO. I find them extremely wanting.

 

[IronWill]

It's not really a doctrine, but something that had to be addressed when all these other versions came out.

And why precisely did it have to be addressed? What makes the KJV any better than say, the NKJV? Or the Geneva Bible? The Bishop's Bible? The NASB? The ESV? King James wanted a Bible put into the everyday language of the people(that would replace the Geneva Bible, he didn't like that translation because some of the commentary notes in it stated that it was better to obey God than the king). So why not have a modern English translation put into the everyday language of the people?
When Erasmus wrote the first version of the TR, he was condemned by the church for daring to put the Bible into Greek instead of Latin.

 

[tracifish]

I've listened plenty, and as a seminary student I have some training in the biblical languages. I know what I'm talking about and what I believe, and I have been fully exposed to the arguments for the kJO. I find them extremely wanting.

I have been exposed to the arguments, as well....and I don't understand how you can find them wanting. When I first heard about the "critical" texts...the Vaticanus and Alexandrian manuscripts, and Westcott and Hort...and Nestle Allen...I was shocked to learn how they put this manuscript line together....and I was extremely shocked to find out how many words and verses are missing from these versions...and how much it attacks at so many doctrines...

 

[IronWill]

I have been exposed to the arguments, as well....and I don't understand how you can find them wanting. When I first heard about the "critical" texts...the Vaticanus and Alexandrian manuscripts, and Westcott and Hort...and Nestle Allen...I was shocked to learn how they put this manuscript line together....and I was extremely shocked to find out how many words and verses are missing from these versions...and how much it attacks at so many doctrines...

And how did they put this manuscript line together? What doctrines does it attack?

BTW-How do you account for the NKJV, which comes from the TR same as the KJV?

 

[tracifish]

And how did they put this manuscript line together? What doctrines does it attack?

BTW-How do you account for the NKJV, which comes from the TR same as the KJV?

Okay...first tell me the arguments you haven't heard, so I don't say stuff you've already heard...

 

[IronWill]

Okay...first tell me the arguments you haven't heard, so I don't say stuff you've already heard...

I've probably heard them all. But give it your best shot. Specifically, what doctrines do the newer versions deny? How was the text line assembled? What are you basing your belief on?

 

[arunma]

I've listened plenty, and as a seminary student I have some training in the biblical languages. I know what I'm talking about and what I believe, and I have been fully exposed to the arguments for the kJO. I find them extremely wanting.

You're being very gracious to the KJVO crowd. Personally I consider KJV-onlyism to be on par with flat earth doctrine.

And why precisely did it have to be addressed? What makes the KJV any better than say, the NKJV? Or the Geneva Bible? The Bishop's Bible? The NASB? The ESV? King James wanted a Bible put into the everyday language of the people(that would replace the Geneva Bible, he didn't like that translation because some of the commentary notes in it stated that it was better to obey God than the king). So why not have a modern English translation put into the everyday language of the people?
When Erasmus wrote the first version of the TR, he was condemned by the church for daring to put the Bible into Greek instead of Latin.

It's interesting that you mention that. Historically, Christians have always been condemned by men for making the Bible available to the public through modernized language. But their new translations end up replacing the older ones as the "only true Bible." It all started when Saint Jerome translated the Bible into vulgar Latin (i.e. "street Latin"). This was so that the average Latin-speaking Christian could read the Scriptures. But then the Catholic Church started believing that the Vulgate was the only true Bible. So when the European reformers began translating the Bible into vernacular European languages like German and English, they were condemned by the Catholic Church. One of these translations was the KJV. And now, we've got people who believe that the KJV is the only true Bible. The cycle continues ad infinitum.

 

[diamondjoust]

in the edition I have on my desk beside me now is the most loyal and God-honouring translation of the Bible in English that I can find anywhere in the world at the present time. It's the Hertel King James Bible, published by DeVore and Sons, Inc., Wichita Kansas, copyright 1979 by A. J. Holman Co.
I don't know of any errors in it, and I would challenge anyone to produce and prove that are errors in it, because I'm very interested in having a Bible that is inerrant, as you can imagine. If you can find an error and convince me of its validity, I'll readily adopt it as an improvement on the edition of the translation I presently have. But if you can't you should not arrogantly imply that there is an error in it, because that could be calling God a liar, if he has, in fact, preserved his words without error in the edition of the KJV I have on me at the present time.
I understand that there are errors in all of the versions of the Bible in English outside of the KJV in its various editions. I also understand that improvements were made on the KJV as it passed through its various editions to the one I have on me now.
I also understand that the improvements in the various editions of the KJV were largely expunging copyist and printers errors, or improving words by producing words spelt in a manner that has superseded their equivalent in years gone by; and that any errors in the various editions had little if anything to do with corrupting biblical doctrine.
And while it's possible, I think it's unlikely that there will ever be an edition with substantial improvements that will supersede the one I have on me at the present time, let alone a new translation of the Bible that will achieve that status.
For me, the whole issue of which Bible is the word of God comes down to which one, if any, has no errors. And that presently leaves me with the standard of the KJV only in English (in the edition I presently possess), because I don't know of any errors in it at the present time.
A Christian with a Bible that has known errors in it is a Christian with a weapon or instrument that may be, and often is, of some use, but is obviously flawed when confronting an enemy of a certain sort. Those sorts of enemies are out there, but I found that I could overcome them by saying that I believed that the Bible I had on me had no known errors. I also found that I could confirm the victory by saying that if anyone could show me an error I would then accept that correction and adopt it as the new word or words to make the edition of the Bible I had without error to my knowledge at that time.
I notice that many of the Christians who attack the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible in translation are almost invariably trying to get around fully obeying the words of God on the basis that no one can prove what all those words really are in translation today. In fact some even appear to be trying to undo the biblical doctrine that God has preserved his words; on the basis that we don't have the original manuscripts of scripture, and it's not possible to prove which extant copies of the original manuscripts are the inspired, inerrant words of God, let alone which are faithful translations of them today.
Based on the Bible, I believe God has preserved his words in extant copies of the original manuscripts, and also in translations of copies (extant or otherwise) of the original manuscripts in many languages today, but in no more than one translation (and/or edition of that translation) in any one language today. I also believe the words in the KJV, in the edition I have on hand, are the very words of God without error (notwithstanding the printing or publishing errors created under the copyright, of which I have found one or two). Can you prove me wrong?

 

[BereanTodd]

and I was extremely shocked to find out how many words and verses are missing from these versions...

The question is, are the missing from the other versions or were they added to the TR versions?

and how much it attacks at so many doctrines...

There is not one single doctrine (apart from handling snakes if that's your thing) that is damaged by the Nestle-Allan, etc, etc.

 

[BereanTodd]

I don't know of any errors in it, and I would challenge anyone to produce and prove that are errors in it, because I'm very interested in having a Bible that is inerrant, as you can imagine. If you can find an error and convince me of its validity, I'll readily adopt it as an improvement on the edition of the translation I presently have. But if you can't you should not arrogantly imply that there is an error in it, because that could be calling God a liar, if he has, in fact, preserved his words without error in the edition of the KJV I have on me at the present time.

For starters, the following verses are not found in any single greek manuscript anywhere. NOT ONE single Greek MSS. Not a TR, not an Alexandrian, NO Greek MSS contains these verses/sections.

1. Acts 9: 5,6: "..it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him…" (Erasmus honestly admitted in the notes accompanying his Greek NT that he took the words from the parallel passage in Acts 26:14, and included them in his GNT because they were in the Vulgate.)
2. Col. 1:14: "..through his blood.."
3. Rev. 5:14: "..him that liveth for ever and ever."
4. Rev. 17:4: "..full of abominations and filthiness.." The Greek term for "filthiness" (ajkaqavrthto") used in this verse in the KJV, does not exist in the Greek language


The following errors are also found in no Greek MSS, and come from Erasmus translating from the Latin Vulgate because he did not have any Greek MSS for the last section of Revelation:

1. Rev. 22: 16: "... the bright and morning star." The term for "morning star" (ojrqrinov") appears in none of the Greek manuscripts.
2. Rev. 22:19: "..book of life.." In fact, the Greek has "..tree of life.." (Gk. xuvlou th'" zwh'")
3. Rev. 22: 17: "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come… " Both of the Greek terms for "come," and the term for "let him… come," do not appear in any of the Greek manuscripts. However, this is of no practical importance since the terms that are in the Greek (jjjejrcou and ejrcevsqw, respectively) carry the same meaning.
4. Rev. 22:18: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book… " The italicized words are to be found in no Greek manuscript. However, as in the preceding example, the meaning is not materially altered by the terms that are in the Greek.
5. Rev. 22:19: "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Again, the italicized terms are those that appear in none of the Greek manuscripts. As with the preceding two examples, the correct Greek terms mean pretty much the same things–with the exception of the term "book," in the "book of life" (in bold letters). This should read, "tree of life." There is not a single Greek manuscript that supports the KJV reading.
6. Rev. 22:21: This should read, "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all," not "…be with you all." Again, a minor variation, but the purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the KJV does contain errors which can be clearly demonstrated. It is a good translation, but there are better.

And if you want some errors in translation, here you go, here are several areas where words are mistranslated:

1. Mk. 6:20: "he observed him" should be "he was protecting him." (Gk. sunethvrei)
2. Mk. 9:18: "pineth away" should be "becomes rigid." (Gr. xhraivnetai: He becomes stiff.)
3. Lk. 18:12: "I give tithes of all that I possess" should be "… all I acquire."
(Gk. o{sa ktw'ai)
4. Jn. 13:2: "supper being ended" should be "supper taking place" (kai; deivpnou ginomevnou). To say that supper was ended conflicts with v.12 and 26.
5. Jn. 18.1: The "Brook Cedron" should be the "Valley of the Kidron."
6. Jn. 20:17: "Touch Me not" should be "Do not keep on holding me." The verb is a present-continuous-imperative, and means that Mary was holding on to Jesus.
7. Acts 2:6: "Now when this was noised abroad" should be "And at this
sound." (Gk. genomevnh" de; fwnh'": And this sound having happened..)
8. Acts 19:2: "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" should
be "Did you receive the Holy Ghost when you believed?" The doctrine
of Second Blessing has resulted from this mistake.
9. 2 Cor. 12:2: "I knew a man" should be "I know (oi\da) a man."
10. 2 Cor. 2:17: "Corrupt the word of God" should be "peddle the Word of God." (Gk. kaphleuvw)
11. Gal. 3:24/1 Cor. 4:15: "Schoolmaster"and "instructor"are misleading. The Greek term (paidagwgo;") refers to a male slave who had charge of the boy to take him to school.
12. Gal. 6:11: "How large a letter" should be "large letters." Paul is speaking about the size of the letters he is writing, not the length of the epistle.
( [Idete phlivkoi" uJmi'n gravmmasiv e[graya: See with what large letters I write to you.)
13. Col. 2:16: "The sabbath days" should be "a sabbath."
14. 1 Thess. 5:22: "Abstain from all appearance of evil" should be "every form of evil." (… Ajpo; pantov" ei[dou" ponhrou' ajpecesqe: From every form of evil abstain.)
15. James 3:2: "For in many things we offend all" means be "in many things we all offend."
16. Rev. 1:6: "Kings and priests" should be "a kingdom, priests."
17. Rev. 11:15: "kingdoms" should be "kingdom." The term is singular.
18. Mt. 5:15/Lk. 15:8: Light, in Palestine was produced by oil lamps, not by candles.
19. Men did not "sit" at table; they "reclined;" they used "wineskins," not "bottles;" they wore "sandals," not "shoes;" they kept ointment in "flasks," not "boxes."
20. Lk. 2:1: "all the world" was the Roman Empire, not the population of the entire earth.
21. 1 Cor. 14:20: The statement, "..be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children.." should be "be not children (paidiva) in understanding; yet in evil be babes (or infants: nhpiavzete).." Two different Greek terms are used for "children" and "babes," implying that in evil we should be especially innocent.
22. Rev. 4:6 and elsewhere in the Revelation: The term "beasts" should be translated "living beings" (zw/'a). These are, after all, God's cheribum.
23. Rev. 20:14: If the "lake of fire" is hell, what is the "hell" being cast into it in this verse? The first "hell" is actually the term "hades," which is the
temporary abode of the dead, while awaiting resurrection. Since, by that time in history (Rev. 20), there will be no more death, the temporary abode is no longer functional. Therefore it is destroyed in the true hell, the lake of fire.
24. In all ten uses of Hades, it is translated "hell." The difference between Hades or Sheol as the intermediate state of the dead, and the final state of the wicked in gehenna, is unknown to the average reader, largely because the KJV completely obscures the distinction by translating all three terms with the single term, "hell,"
25. Mt. 26:27: "Drink ye all of it" means "Everyone drink of it." A comma after "all" would have helped the KJV version: "Drink ye all, of it."
26. Rom. 12:8: "..he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity." "Simplicity" should be "liberality." (or generosity: aJplovthti)
27. 1 Tim. 6:5: "..gain is godliness" should be "..godliness is gain," meaning that the person being described thinks he can achieve personal gain by acting godly.
28. Acts 12:4: "..intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." The Greek term translated "Easter" is pascha, which means "Passover," and is so translated in every instance in the KJV, except this one. The celebration of Easter was unknown in biblical times.

Now I haven't even TOUCHED on the places where words used have completely different meanings today than they did when the KJV was written, or areas where the syntax is a little off. But the point is that the KJV is far from a perfect Bible.

 

[tracifish]

The question is, are the missing from the other versions or were they added to the TR versions?



There is not one single doctrine (apart from handling snakes if that's your thing) that is damaged by the Nestle-Allan, etc, etc.

Snake handling? Huh????? Now you are attributing KJV defenders to snake handlers? There is no snake handling in the KJV.