Put your short definitions of "KJV-Only" in this thread.
- Bible Versions and History
- Textual Criticism and Manuscripts
- Scripture and Technology
- KJV-Only
- References and Tools
- Westcott and Hort
- General Theology
- Anything Goes
- Archive 1
- Archive 2
- Archive 3
- Archive 4
- Archive 5
- Archive 6
- Archive 7
- Archive 8
- Archive 9
- Bible Versions Archive
- Anything Goes Archive
- Anything Goes Archive 2
- General Theology Archive
- Definitions Archive
Define: "KJV-Only"
| Author | Comment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 BrianT |
Define: "KJV-Only" |
Lead | |||
|
Posts: 2080 (04/15/1999 10:29:22) ezOP |
|
||||
|
Wayne Leman |
KJV-Onlyism | ||||
|
Posts: 326 (04/15/1999 12:02:39) |
http://www.mcn.net/~wleman/glossi.htm#kjv-onlyism
The belief that the King James Version (KJV), also known as the Authorized Version (AV), is the only version of the Bible which English speakers should use. This belief has a number of claims, some of which are that the KJV is the only "inspired" version in English, it is the only version which God has "preserved" for the English language, it is the only accurate version in English. Some KJV-Onlyism adherents deny that the English language has changed enough since the publication of the KJV in 1611 A.D. to warrant any other English version. Many KJV-Onlyism adherents refer to themselves as "Bible believers", implying that anyone else who uses a version of the Bible other than the KJV do not believe the Bible. Some include "KJV" in the term, calling themselves "KJV Bible believers." Some KJV-Onlyism adherents believe in "corrective revelation", that is, that the KJV translators were so guided by the Holy Spirit as they translated that they corrected the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Final written revelation for them resides in the KJV text, rather than in the original Biblical documents. See the http://www.mcn.net/~wleman/english.htm#kjvo KJV-Onlyism links for further information. Wayne Leman,Cheyenne Bible translator
Bible Translation website Bible Translation email discussion list God is the one who began this good work in you, and I am certain that he won't stop before it is complete on the day that Christ Jesus returns. (Phil. 1:6) |
||||
|
Unregistered(d) |
From the horse's mouth, tabulated | ||||
|
Posts: 0 (04/15/1999 18:51:33) |
KJBOs (e.g. Ruckman, Riplinger, Gipp) are careful to distinguish themselves from OKJBs (Only King James; e.g. Waite, TBS, Cloud) and TROs (e.g. NKJ committee, Hodges, Farstad). This chart shows where the overlap and where they don't. >(http://www.biblebelievers.com/KJVvsTR.html)
|
||||
| |
THIS WAS WRITTEN BY HERB EVANS. IT FIRST APPEARED IN THE BIBLE BELIEVERS'
BULLETIN, MARCH, 1990.
Wayne Leman
Posts: 326
(04/16/1999 02:28:04)
http://www.biblebelievers.com/KJVvsTR.html
Wayne Leman,Cheyenne Bible translator
Bible Translation website
Bible Translation email discussion list
God is the one who began this good work in you, and I am certain that he won't stop before it is complete on the day that Christ Jesus returns. (Phil. 1:6)
Bible Translation website
Bible Translation email discussion list
God is the one who began this good work in you, and I am certain that he won't stop before it is complete on the day that Christ Jesus returns. (Phil. 1:6)
Wayne Leman
Posts: 326
(04/16/1999 03:07:59)
From website: http://www.sureword.com/kjb1611/html/kevin.html
The ultimate issue in the KJB debate is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice. Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, in his booklet, Why I believe the King James Bible Is the Word of God, stated:
"The subject of final authority is a crucial subject absolutely--crucial to anything going on in America or the world today. If there is one issue that is important anywhere in the world today, it is the issue of final authority -- absolute truth."
Let me formulate the argument from authority as follows:
1. God is actively guiding His church/people through the history, even today.
2. Gods guidance is largely delivered through His word, i.e., the Holy Scriptures. All forms of Gods guidance detected by men need to conform to the teaching of the Bible.
3. God is not the author of confusion, and thus, His word is sure.
4. As a consequence of premises 1-3, there must exist written documents which can be properly called Gods word so that Gods people can use to determine exactly what Gods word is.
5. The autographs of all the Holy scriptures have been lost. The existing manuscripts have varying readings. The majority of Gods people do not understand the original language and do not have access to the manuscripts.
6. If the only way for the body of Christ to have access to the exact word of God is via the reconstructed biblical texts by the scholars, then the final authority will rest on the shoulders of the scholars.
7. Let us suppose the conclusion of statement 6. Since no consensus exists among the biblical scholars as to what the pure texts should be, there is really no way for the body of Christ to determine exactly what Gods word is, either corporately or individually as a member of the body.
8. Statement 7 clearly contradicts statement 4. Since statement 4 is clearly true, statement 7 must be false.
9. In addition, the conclusion of statement 6 sets up the scholars as the final authority on all matters of faith and practice for the body of Christ. Such authority is obviously untenable. The scholars exhibits the following characteristics which prove that they are definitely not the final authority: There is no consensus, the opinions always change over time, locale, and people, and human judgments are
always error-prone unless the judgments are part of the inspired scriptures. Thus, if the conclusion of statement 6 is upheld, we have the naturally implication that the scholars opinions are inspired. Not a single scholar will dare to agree with this implication anyway. To summarize, I would say that the option of making reconstructed texts by the scholars in general the word of God is obviously unworkable.
This does not necessarily imply that a particular reconstructed text by a particular group of scholars which stays constant over time cannot be the word of God. To clarify, I would say that the scholars as a group within the body of Christ cannot be accepted as having the supreme position to reconstruct the word of God. However, God can still use a particular group of scholars (such as the KJB translators) over a definite period of time to produce a document which can be called the word of God. Any such document must stay constant, after a short period of time of composition.
10. According to Deut 30:11-14, John 5:39, Acts 8:32,35, 17:11, II Tim 3:15-16 and many others, common people, especially Gods people must have access to the exact word of God at all time soon after the scriptures were first written.
11. Since the NT quotations of the OT texts are the Greek translations of original Hebrew or Aramaic texts, there is a demonstration by the Bible itself showing that translations can be inspired and there were translations which were inspired.
12 As a consequence of the scriptures cited in statement 10, common people must have access to the exact word of God. Gods word must exist in the form of a translation because the majority of people today do not understand the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.
13 As a consequence of the scriptures cited in statement 10, common people must have access to the exact word of God continuously over the history. In other words, Gods word cannot disappear for more than an extended period of time.
14. Statement 13 implies that all the NT readings which disappeared for an extended period of time are not Gods word. This implies that the Alexandrian texts, the Western texts, and every text/reading which does not agree with the Byzantine texts are not Gods word. (See also Appendix B).
15 Gods word must exhibit the characteristics of Gods word: inerrant, self-consistent, and bringing glory, praises, and honors to God.
16. The Septuagint cannot be the word of God, see the appendix A. The Septuagint also has many definite differences from the traditional Masoretic text and its earliest manuscript appeared only after 350-400 AD. Either the Masoretic text is the word of God or the Septuagint is the word of God and both cannot be the word of God simultaneously. The Masoretic text has a long un-broken tradition while the Septuagint has a very doubtful origin and the earliest manuscripts that contain the Septuagint also contain the apocrypha as part of the inspired scriptures. Based on statement 15, the Septuagint cannot be Gods word. A minimum requirement for Gods word is that the text cannot contain God-dishonoring apocrypha.
17. From statements 10-16, the only candidates for Gods word are those texts which are based on the Masoretic texts in the OT and the Byzantine Texts in the NT. Thus, the KJB is a candidate for Gods word.
18. No one on earth has ever conclusively proved, using scriptures and logic, that there is an error in the King James Bible. Thus, the KJB is a strong candidate for Gods word.
19. Since, we must have Gods exact word today, and English is the universal language for a long period of time now and there is no end in sight for its dominance, there must exist a copy of Gods exact word in the English language.
20 Among all the English versions today, every version except the KJB contains at least one error which can be conclusively proved to be an genuine error, the only candidate for Gods word today is the KJB.
21. Thus, KJB is the word of God until proven otherwise.
Conclusion:
If God has no power to preserve His word after inspiring it, then our God is incompetent (which I dare not agree).
Perfect preservation is the same as the inspiration of the translation. A translation which is perfectly preserved is equivalent to an inspired translation. If one wants to avoid translation issues then he has to go to manuscripts. All scholars agree that we do not have perfect manuscripts. Thus God did not preserve His words through any single manuscript. Now here comes a critical problem: Who is going to decide what God has preserved in all the extant 4000+ manuscripts? Who has the final authority (or should we say inspiration) to decide what is inspired and what is not inspired?
The issue of final authority is this: The Bible teaches sola scriptura (Bible is the final authority on everything). The equally important question (if not more important) is What is the inspired scripture?
In conclusion, God must have supernaturally inspired some translations so that people of God have access to His word. Otherwise, there is no final authority and there is no sure word of God. We cannot accept biblical scholars today as the final authority
The ultimate issue in the KJB debate is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice. Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, in his booklet, Why I believe the King James Bible Is the Word of God, stated:
"The subject of final authority is a crucial subject absolutely--crucial to anything going on in America or the world today. If there is one issue that is important anywhere in the world today, it is the issue of final authority -- absolute truth."
Let me formulate the argument from authority as follows:
1. God is actively guiding His church/people through the history, even today.
2. Gods guidance is largely delivered through His word, i.e., the Holy Scriptures. All forms of Gods guidance detected by men need to conform to the teaching of the Bible.
3. God is not the author of confusion, and thus, His word is sure.
4. As a consequence of premises 1-3, there must exist written documents which can be properly called Gods word so that Gods people can use to determine exactly what Gods word is.
5. The autographs of all the Holy scriptures have been lost. The existing manuscripts have varying readings. The majority of Gods people do not understand the original language and do not have access to the manuscripts.
6. If the only way for the body of Christ to have access to the exact word of God is via the reconstructed biblical texts by the scholars, then the final authority will rest on the shoulders of the scholars.
7. Let us suppose the conclusion of statement 6. Since no consensus exists among the biblical scholars as to what the pure texts should be, there is really no way for the body of Christ to determine exactly what Gods word is, either corporately or individually as a member of the body.
8. Statement 7 clearly contradicts statement 4. Since statement 4 is clearly true, statement 7 must be false.
9. In addition, the conclusion of statement 6 sets up the scholars as the final authority on all matters of faith and practice for the body of Christ. Such authority is obviously untenable. The scholars exhibits the following characteristics which prove that they are definitely not the final authority: There is no consensus, the opinions always change over time, locale, and people, and human judgments are
always error-prone unless the judgments are part of the inspired scriptures. Thus, if the conclusion of statement 6 is upheld, we have the naturally implication that the scholars opinions are inspired. Not a single scholar will dare to agree with this implication anyway. To summarize, I would say that the option of making reconstructed texts by the scholars in general the word of God is obviously unworkable.
This does not necessarily imply that a particular reconstructed text by a particular group of scholars which stays constant over time cannot be the word of God. To clarify, I would say that the scholars as a group within the body of Christ cannot be accepted as having the supreme position to reconstruct the word of God. However, God can still use a particular group of scholars (such as the KJB translators) over a definite period of time to produce a document which can be called the word of God. Any such document must stay constant, after a short period of time of composition.
10. According to Deut 30:11-14, John 5:39, Acts 8:32,35, 17:11, II Tim 3:15-16 and many others, common people, especially Gods people must have access to the exact word of God at all time soon after the scriptures were first written.
11. Since the NT quotations of the OT texts are the Greek translations of original Hebrew or Aramaic texts, there is a demonstration by the Bible itself showing that translations can be inspired and there were translations which were inspired.
12 As a consequence of the scriptures cited in statement 10, common people must have access to the exact word of God. Gods word must exist in the form of a translation because the majority of people today do not understand the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.
13 As a consequence of the scriptures cited in statement 10, common people must have access to the exact word of God continuously over the history. In other words, Gods word cannot disappear for more than an extended period of time.
14. Statement 13 implies that all the NT readings which disappeared for an extended period of time are not Gods word. This implies that the Alexandrian texts, the Western texts, and every text/reading which does not agree with the Byzantine texts are not Gods word. (See also Appendix B).
15 Gods word must exhibit the characteristics of Gods word: inerrant, self-consistent, and bringing glory, praises, and honors to God.
16. The Septuagint cannot be the word of God, see the appendix A. The Septuagint also has many definite differences from the traditional Masoretic text and its earliest manuscript appeared only after 350-400 AD. Either the Masoretic text is the word of God or the Septuagint is the word of God and both cannot be the word of God simultaneously. The Masoretic text has a long un-broken tradition while the Septuagint has a very doubtful origin and the earliest manuscripts that contain the Septuagint also contain the apocrypha as part of the inspired scriptures. Based on statement 15, the Septuagint cannot be Gods word. A minimum requirement for Gods word is that the text cannot contain God-dishonoring apocrypha.
17. From statements 10-16, the only candidates for Gods word are those texts which are based on the Masoretic texts in the OT and the Byzantine Texts in the NT. Thus, the KJB is a candidate for Gods word.
18. No one on earth has ever conclusively proved, using scriptures and logic, that there is an error in the King James Bible. Thus, the KJB is a strong candidate for Gods word.
19. Since, we must have Gods exact word today, and English is the universal language for a long period of time now and there is no end in sight for its dominance, there must exist a copy of Gods exact word in the English language.
20 Among all the English versions today, every version except the KJB contains at least one error which can be conclusively proved to be an genuine error, the only candidate for Gods word today is the KJB.
21. Thus, KJB is the word of God until proven otherwise.
Conclusion:
If God has no power to preserve His word after inspiring it, then our God is incompetent (which I dare not agree).
Perfect preservation is the same as the inspiration of the translation. A translation which is perfectly preserved is equivalent to an inspired translation. If one wants to avoid translation issues then he has to go to manuscripts. All scholars agree that we do not have perfect manuscripts. Thus God did not preserve His words through any single manuscript. Now here comes a critical problem: Who is going to decide what God has preserved in all the extant 4000+ manuscripts? Who has the final authority (or should we say inspiration) to decide what is inspired and what is not inspired?
The issue of final authority is this: The Bible teaches sola scriptura (Bible is the final authority on everything). The equally important question (if not more important) is What is the inspired scripture?
In conclusion, God must have supernaturally inspired some translations so that people of God have access to His word. Otherwise, there is no final authority and there is no sure word of God. We cannot accept biblical scholars today as the final authority
Wayne Leman,Cheyenne Bible translator
Bible Translation website
Bible Translation email discussion list
God is the one who began this good work in you, and I am certain that he won't stop before it is complete on the day that Christ Jesus returns. (Phil. 1:6)
Bible Translation website
Bible Translation email discussion list
God is the one who began this good work in you, and I am certain that he won't stop before it is complete on the day that Christ Jesus returns. (Phil. 1:6)
Wayne Leman
Posts: 326
(04/16/1999 03:14:39)
http://www.whidbey.net/~dcloud/fbns/kingjamesonlyism.htm
Wayne Leman,Cheyenne Bible translator
Bible Translation website
Bible Translation email discussion list
God is the one who began this good work in you, and I am certain that he won't stop before it is complete on the day that Christ Jesus returns. (Phil. 1:6)
Bible Translation website
Bible Translation email discussion list
God is the one who began this good work in you, and I am certain that he won't stop before it is complete on the day that Christ Jesus returns. (Phil. 1:6)
Biblicist
Posts: 63
(10/06/1999 09:46:52)
One who is AV only is one who recognizes that the AV is the only readily available English Bible that is trustworthy and true to the Byzantine family of Greek Texts and Masoretic Hebrew. It is the only readily available English Bible that has no demonstrable errors. For this reason, The AV is the only readily available English Bible that is 100% absolute in authority.
Kristi
Posts: 3769
(10/06/1999 12:38:29)
Registered User
King James Only:
A heretical movement within Christendom that is currently quite popular and established, especially among Neo-Fundamentalist, Independent Baptists, that can be traced back to circa 1930s (or even possibly back to the late 19th century) as a panicked, ill-informed over reaction to the introduction of new texts based upon Alexandrian Biblical manuscripts. Its rise, and especially its current foothold, is also due in large part to extreme ignorance and paranoia.
While there are differences among adherents of this group on some issues (e.g., some argue the superiority of the KJV on the basis of the Byzantine manuscripts, others on that of the Textus Receptus), the King James Only Movement is largely based upon the (false) belief that the King James Version is the only true, trustworthy "Word of God" for the English speaking people, and that all other Bible versions (particularly ones produced in the last 150 years) are heretical and/or evil.
It is believed by King James Onlyists that these "modern" Bible versions (such as the N.I.V., N.K.J.V. or N.A.S.B.) "omit" verses, or downplay certain doctrinal concepts (or else insert false doctrine), because these versions are (allegedly) products of New Age, homosexual, Roman Catholic, Gnostic, and/or Satanic individuals.
As such, the individuals who comprise the KJV Only movement tend to see conspiracies where none exist and to misrepresent the views of others; if one does not agree with them, one is said to be a heretic, is suspected of being a "false Christian," or a naive rube who is too daft to see the "obvious" truth. (The compilers of one of the first modern Greek texts, Westcott and Hort, are routinely villified by those who are of the King James Only persuasion, for example.)
Additionally, while expressing great disdain for scholarship and intellectualism, proponents of King James Onlyism will resort to the use of scholarship when it suits their needs and helps to bolster whatever point they wish to make. They routinely confuse higher textual criticism (which is used by liberal scholars, most of whom are not Christians) with that of lower textual criticism (which is used by conservative scholars, many of whom ARE Christians). Some of them do make this distinction, but then deride lower textual criticism anyway, even though lower textual criticism was used in the making of the King James Version itself.
Overall, however, the KJO movement is NOT marked by intellectualism or even honesty-- instead, one usually finds example after example of ignorance, slander, name calling, blind faith, logical fallacies, and sometimes, lies, in their writings or websites.
Further, members of this group refuse to face reality:
there is no such thing as a perfect translation, Biblical or otherwise. For admitting this truth, one is usually referred to as a "Bible hater," a "scholar worshipper," a member of the "Alexandrian Cult," or it is said that one doesn't believe that there is a "Final Authority" on earth, or else that one does not believe that God's Word has been perfectly preserved.
Anytime any of the errors, discrepancies, or mistakes of the KJV are pointed out (e.g., the KJV renders "passover" as "Easter"), the KJOists will typically deny that any such errors exist, and some will misconstrue (and misrepresent) this honesty as an "attack on God's Word." Some, such as leading KJOist Peter Ruckman, will go to great (and absurd) lengths to explain away such errors, e.g., "advanced revelation."
It does not occur to KJOists that God's Word can be expressed in more than one way, so that while the NIV, for instance, contains the same exact message as the KJV, the NIV (as well as other modern versions) are condemned by these people for not having the same exact number of words/verses/passages as does the KJV, or because the modern versions express the same concepts but by using different words.
This of course demonstrates one of the major weaknesses with the King James Only movement: Circular Reasoning. The KJV is believed to be God's One and Only true and trustworthy Word, so that any other Bible version that differs from the KJV is thought to be untrustworthy, false, or what have you. (My advice: Be sure to take dramamine, aka "dimenhydrinate,' or some other motion sickness medication before reading King James Only materials.)
Members of KJOism routinely mock and criticize those who point out that only the very first Biblical Originals (a.k.a. the Autographs) were totally without error, and that study of the Bible's original languages, Hebrew and Greek, is beneficial to the understanding of and in translation of the Scriptures.
Some King James Onlyists will trump the supposed superiority of the Byzantine manuscripts over the Alexandrian ones, but then, at the same time, insist that the manuscripts are worthless and should be disregarded because, they say, the KJV "corrects" the Greek manuscripts, and knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is pointless and irrelevant.
This brings us to another point:
the King James Only phenomenon is marked by many double standards, e.g., (there are many examples, this is but only one), they attempt to discredit modern versions by linking some of them to Roman Catholics but downplay the fact that a Roman Catholic, by the name of Erasmus, indirectly contributed to the production of the King James Version.
Ultimately, the KJOers mean well, in that they believe they are "defending God's Word," but they are actually casting doubt upon God's Word, since they attempt to undermine the NIV (and other modern Bible versions, as well as ancient Biblical manuscripts). Many of them do not hesitate to refer to God's Word as "trash".
---Kristi. ~ Pages/Sites of Interest:
King James Onlyism is a Man-Made, False Teaching
Responding to Misconceptions About Christians
Light on Archaeology
King James Onlyism is a Man-Made, False Teaching
Responding to Misconceptions About Christians
Light on Archaeology
Nsaccord
Posts: 290
(10/06/1999 18:03:30)
Hello Biblicist,
Without the mumbo jumbo? Which facts are causing you confusion?
>It is the only readily available English Bible that has no demonstrable errors. For this reason, The AV is the only readily available English Bible that is 100% absolute in authority.
Your KJVO position above is sad because God knew that if he left people the originals they would try to lord over those that didn't have them. Just as you are claiming for the KJV by saying that its "100% absolute in authority."
Don't you realize that is the world's worst thing that could happen? If this was true that a version like the KJV was the absolute authority, then you would have these groups of KJV people that are intolerant be more intolerant still! Persecution would be worse than in Nero's time against the Christians.
Christians have always been persecuted for reading and believing the Bible, and now your idea of giving the KJV supreme authority would cause the suffering and death to start all over again. When Christ had said, "Search the scriptures, for they speak of me." He did not mention the KJV. Could it be that he knew of the KJVO's anger and hatred of other versions?
I think so, God knows the heart.
The problem is not with the Bible versions, but with the people that read them and who choose to miss the message of the Bible which is basically clear. Unfortunately we make the bible say what we want it to say, so prejudice dies hard.
Then there are KJVO's that add to the problem by insisting that one version is good and all the rest are bad. I read the KJV and that bad idea is not taught by it. I think you folks do a great disservice to a good version by making it to be an absolute authority which it never was intended to be.
This action by KJVO's is counterproductive to the word of God and His people.
Jesus must be sad when he sees how His word is being used by Christians against fellow Christians. A house divided cannot stand is something to think about.
You talk about mumbo jumbo, that's what you get when you try to parse the manuscript genealogies of all the versions. Leave it alone and be grateful that God lets us have a bible in this great nation of ours. So remember, 100% authority is bondage! God's word is free. I pray Biblicist that the good Lord will set all KJVO's free as well from following man made doctrines, Golden Calf's, exclusivism, elitism, arrogance and eventually an unloving spirit.
No good can come from resenting other people or their versions that are not KJV. It will only cause grief and sorrow to the misguided persecutor of God's people. God calls us as individuals and not as club members of the KJV Society. Can you understand what I am trying to tell you? If I thought the KJV saved, I would fill my room with them and yours too!
The only version we need is God's word in our hearts. And yes, it is to be found in many different versions.
God bless,
Nsaccord
amarillo
Posts: 3645
(10/06/1999 18:06:35)
Administrator
> "only readily available English Bible that is trustworthy
and true to the Byzantine family of Greek Texts and Masoretic Hebrew"
definition is abundantly hedged, but it's also full of motherhood. whatever does "trustworthy" mean? nice try, but u simply can't define truth into ur false position, just like claiming to be a Biblicist doesn't increase one's allegiance to the Scriptures one bit.
funny, for a Biblicist to want to swear allegiance to a Roman Catholic/Greek Orthodox Text of the NT. also, i wouldn't say that the Masoretes were Bible believers; how would they interpret the Messianic promises, for example.
when all's said and done, there's little interest in what the autographs say, but only a fixation on what Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox, plus Masoretic, traditions hold.
> "has no demonstrable errors."
he that hath an ear, let him hear. go ask D.A. Waite how many Substantial changes there are between the 1611 and 1769 KJB alone, not including those between the several versions in between those dates. he's one of ur own. of course, we can always claim everything to be printing errors :-) (but how many KJBOs apply that excuse to other literature?). demonstrable? the onus of proof's in ur court. like i said, attributing the plethora of Substantial errors to printer's errors simply doesn't stick to begin with, and u'll still have to identify WHICH ones are correct in each case. much easier to face the facts and tell the truth.
> "For this reason, The AV is the only readily available English Bible that is 100% absolute in
authority."
for some strange reason, the KJB's translators, for all their devoutness and incredible wisdom, denied this in their Preface. it's the Neo-KJBOs who invented this nonsense, and who are schizophrenic about whether the KJB's translators are really smart or dumb. ultimately, these KJBOs believe what they want to believe, bless the evidence.
and true to the Byzantine family of Greek Texts and Masoretic Hebrew"
definition is abundantly hedged, but it's also full of motherhood. whatever does "trustworthy" mean? nice try, but u simply can't define truth into ur false position, just like claiming to be a Biblicist doesn't increase one's allegiance to the Scriptures one bit.
funny, for a Biblicist to want to swear allegiance to a Roman Catholic/Greek Orthodox Text of the NT. also, i wouldn't say that the Masoretes were Bible believers; how would they interpret the Messianic promises, for example.
when all's said and done, there's little interest in what the autographs say, but only a fixation on what Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox, plus Masoretic, traditions hold.
> "has no demonstrable errors."
he that hath an ear, let him hear. go ask D.A. Waite how many Substantial changes there are between the 1611 and 1769 KJB alone, not including those between the several versions in between those dates. he's one of ur own. of course, we can always claim everything to be printing errors :-) (but how many KJBOs apply that excuse to other literature?). demonstrable? the onus of proof's in ur court. like i said, attributing the plethora of Substantial errors to printer's errors simply doesn't stick to begin with, and u'll still have to identify WHICH ones are correct in each case. much easier to face the facts and tell the truth.
> "For this reason, The AV is the only readily available English Bible that is 100% absolute in
authority."
for some strange reason, the KJB's translators, for all their devoutness and incredible wisdom, denied this in their Preface. it's the Neo-KJBOs who invented this nonsense, and who are schizophrenic about whether the KJB's translators are really smart or dumb. ultimately, these KJBOs believe what they want to believe, bless the evidence.
Joseph Ng"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven."Ps 119:89 KJB
Kristi
Posts: 3769
(05/28/2000 17:52:19)
Registered User
My updated definition of "King James Only:"
A heretical movement within Christendom that is currently quite popular and
established, especially among Neo-Fundamentalist, Independent Baptists, that can be traced back to circa 1930s (or even possibly back to the late 19th century) as a panicked, ill-informed over reaction to the introduction of new texts based upon Alexandrian Biblical manuscripts. Its rise, and especially its current foothold, is also due in large part to extreme ignorance and paranoia.
While there are differences among adherents of this group on some issues
. . .
(e.g., some argue the superiority of the KJV on the basis of the Byzantine manuscripts, others on that of the Textus Receptus, and some tout themselves as being believers in "biblical preservation," which is actually nothing but another form of King James Onlyism: I have yet to see a hyper-biblical-preservationist stating that the N.I.V. is God's Perfectly Preserved Word), the King James Only Movement is largely based upon the (false) belief that the King James Version is the only true, trustworthy "Word of God" for the English speaking people (or is the only perfectly preserved Word of God in existence), and that all other Bible versions (particularly ones produced in the last 150 years) are heretical and/or evil.
It is believed by King James Onlyists that these "modern" Bible versions (such as the N.I.V., N.K.J.V. or N.A.S.B.) "omit" verses, or downplay certain doctrinal concepts (or else insert false doctrine), because these versions are (allegedly) products of New Age, homosexual, Roman Catholic, Gnostic, and/or Satanic individuals.
As such, the individuals who comprise the KJV Only movement tend to see
conspiracies where none exist and to misrepresent the views of others; if one does not agree with them, one is said to be a heretic, is suspected of being a "false Christian," or a naive rube who is too daft to see the "obvious" truth. (The compilers of one of the first modern Greek texts, Westcott and Hort, are routinely villified by those who are of the King James Only persuasion, for example.)
Additionally, while expressing great disdain for scholarship and intellectualism, proponents of King James Onlyism will resort to the use of scholarship when it suits their needs and helps to bolster whatever point they wish to make. They routinely confuse higher textual criticism (which is used by liberal scholars, most of whom are not Christians) with that of lower textual criticism (which is used by conservative scholars, many of whom ARE Christians). Some of them do make this distinction, but then deride lower textual criticism anyway, even though lower textual criticism was used in the making of the King James Version itself.
Overall, however, the KJO movement is NOT marked by intellectualism or even honesty-- instead, one usually finds example after example of ignorance, slander, name calling, blind faith, logical fallacies, and sometimes, lies, in their writings or websites.
Further, members of this group refuse to face reality:
there is no such thing as a perfect translation, Biblical or otherwise. For admitting this truth, one is usually referred to as a "Bible hater," a "scholar worshipper," a member of the "Alexandrian Cult," or it is said that one doesn't believe that there is a "Final Authority" on earth, or else that one does not believe that God's Word has been perfectly preserved.
Anytime any of the errors, discrepancies, or mistakes of the KJV are pointed out (e.g., the KJV renders "passover" as "Easter"), the KJOists will typically deny that any such errors exist, and some will misconstrue (and misrepresent) this honesty as an "attack on God's Word."
Some, such as leading KJOist Peter Ruckman, will go to great (and absurd) lengths to explain away such errors, via the theory of so-called, "advanced revelation," and still others will toil away, jumping through hoops, giving many rationalizations as to why or how such renderings (e.g., "unicorn" for horned animals) are not "mistranslations."
It does not occur to KJOists that God's Word can be expressed in more than one way, so that while the NIV, for instance, contains the same exact message as the KJV, the NIV (as well as other modern versions) are condemned by these people for not having the same exact number of words/verses/passages as does the KJV, or because the modern versions express the same concepts but by using different words.
This of course demonstrates one of the major weaknesses with the King James Only movement: Circular Reasoning. The KJV is believed to be God's One and Only true and trustworthy Word, so that any other Bible version that differs from the KJV is thought to be untrustworthy, false, or what have you. (My advice: Be sure to take dramamine, aka "dimenhydrinate,' or some other motion sickness medication before reading King James Only materials.)
Members of KJOism routinely mock and criticize those who point out that only the very first Biblical Originals (a.k.a. the Autographs) were totally without error, and that study of the Bible's original languages, Hebrew and Greek, is beneficial to the understanding of and in translation of the Scriptures.
Some King James Onlyists will trump the supposed superiority of the Byzantine manuscripts over the Alexandrian ones, but then, at the same time, insist that the manuscripts are worthless and should be disregarded because, they say, the KJV "corrects" the Greek manuscripts, and knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is pointless and irrelevant.
This brings us to another point:
the King James Only phenomenon is marked by many double standards, e.g., (there are many examples, this is but only one), they attempt to discredit modern versions by linking some of them to Roman Catholics but downplay the fact that a Roman Catholic, by the name of Erasmus, indirectly contributed to the production of the King James Version.
A heretical movement within Christendom that is currently quite popular and
established, especially among Neo-Fundamentalist, Independent Baptists, that can be traced back to circa 1930s (or even possibly back to the late 19th century) as a panicked, ill-informed over reaction to the introduction of new texts based upon Alexandrian Biblical manuscripts. Its rise, and especially its current foothold, is also due in large part to extreme ignorance and paranoia.
While there are differences among adherents of this group on some issues
. . .
(e.g., some argue the superiority of the KJV on the basis of the Byzantine manuscripts, others on that of the Textus Receptus, and some tout themselves as being believers in "biblical preservation," which is actually nothing but another form of King James Onlyism: I have yet to see a hyper-biblical-preservationist stating that the N.I.V. is God's Perfectly Preserved Word), the King James Only Movement is largely based upon the (false) belief that the King James Version is the only true, trustworthy "Word of God" for the English speaking people (or is the only perfectly preserved Word of God in existence), and that all other Bible versions (particularly ones produced in the last 150 years) are heretical and/or evil.
It is believed by King James Onlyists that these "modern" Bible versions (such as the N.I.V., N.K.J.V. or N.A.S.B.) "omit" verses, or downplay certain doctrinal concepts (or else insert false doctrine), because these versions are (allegedly) products of New Age, homosexual, Roman Catholic, Gnostic, and/or Satanic individuals.
As such, the individuals who comprise the KJV Only movement tend to see
conspiracies where none exist and to misrepresent the views of others; if one does not agree with them, one is said to be a heretic, is suspected of being a "false Christian," or a naive rube who is too daft to see the "obvious" truth. (The compilers of one of the first modern Greek texts, Westcott and Hort, are routinely villified by those who are of the King James Only persuasion, for example.)
Additionally, while expressing great disdain for scholarship and intellectualism, proponents of King James Onlyism will resort to the use of scholarship when it suits their needs and helps to bolster whatever point they wish to make. They routinely confuse higher textual criticism (which is used by liberal scholars, most of whom are not Christians) with that of lower textual criticism (which is used by conservative scholars, many of whom ARE Christians). Some of them do make this distinction, but then deride lower textual criticism anyway, even though lower textual criticism was used in the making of the King James Version itself.
Overall, however, the KJO movement is NOT marked by intellectualism or even honesty-- instead, one usually finds example after example of ignorance, slander, name calling, blind faith, logical fallacies, and sometimes, lies, in their writings or websites.
Further, members of this group refuse to face reality:
there is no such thing as a perfect translation, Biblical or otherwise. For admitting this truth, one is usually referred to as a "Bible hater," a "scholar worshipper," a member of the "Alexandrian Cult," or it is said that one doesn't believe that there is a "Final Authority" on earth, or else that one does not believe that God's Word has been perfectly preserved.
Anytime any of the errors, discrepancies, or mistakes of the KJV are pointed out (e.g., the KJV renders "passover" as "Easter"), the KJOists will typically deny that any such errors exist, and some will misconstrue (and misrepresent) this honesty as an "attack on God's Word."
Some, such as leading KJOist Peter Ruckman, will go to great (and absurd) lengths to explain away such errors, via the theory of so-called, "advanced revelation," and still others will toil away, jumping through hoops, giving many rationalizations as to why or how such renderings (e.g., "unicorn" for horned animals) are not "mistranslations."
It does not occur to KJOists that God's Word can be expressed in more than one way, so that while the NIV, for instance, contains the same exact message as the KJV, the NIV (as well as other modern versions) are condemned by these people for not having the same exact number of words/verses/passages as does the KJV, or because the modern versions express the same concepts but by using different words.
This of course demonstrates one of the major weaknesses with the King James Only movement: Circular Reasoning. The KJV is believed to be God's One and Only true and trustworthy Word, so that any other Bible version that differs from the KJV is thought to be untrustworthy, false, or what have you. (My advice: Be sure to take dramamine, aka "dimenhydrinate,' or some other motion sickness medication before reading King James Only materials.)
Members of KJOism routinely mock and criticize those who point out that only the very first Biblical Originals (a.k.a. the Autographs) were totally without error, and that study of the Bible's original languages, Hebrew and Greek, is beneficial to the understanding of and in translation of the Scriptures.
Some King James Onlyists will trump the supposed superiority of the Byzantine manuscripts over the Alexandrian ones, but then, at the same time, insist that the manuscripts are worthless and should be disregarded because, they say, the KJV "corrects" the Greek manuscripts, and knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is pointless and irrelevant.
This brings us to another point:
the King James Only phenomenon is marked by many double standards, e.g., (there are many examples, this is but only one), they attempt to discredit modern versions by linking some of them to Roman Catholics but downplay the fact that a Roman Catholic, by the name of Erasmus, indirectly contributed to the production of the King James Version.
Ultimately, the KJOers mean well, in that they believe they are "defending God's Word," but they are actually casting doubt upon God's Word, since they attempt to undermine the NIV (and other modern Bible versions, as well as ancient Biblical manuscripts). Many of them do not hesitate to refer to God's Word as "trash".
CorpseNoMore
Posts: 6
(02/06/2002 22:59:40)
Below are brief descriptions (with criticism) of the various KJV-Only camps,as I see them.
==========
==========
1) The Double Inspiration View: is the notion that the Holy Scriptures were *reinspired* in 1611 in the form of the King James Version. (Readers will gather my opinion of this view set off at the bottom of this page.) Suffice it to say, however, that this view is so bizarre, and without any reasonable explanation that it can only be described as the fantasies of deluded minds.
==========
2) The >"PERFECT"< Preservation View: this view is the more temperate sister of view #1. The idea that God had so actively fastidiously superintended the pristine copying of the originals and subsequent generation copies up to and through Erasmus and to the KJV translators, that they (the KJV translators) were able to make the perfect translation choices that give the ultimate in perfect rendering from one language to another.
We can therefore say (by faith) that the KJV is an English *mirror* version of the originals. This view is wholly unsupportable by empirical observation, historical record, and textual & linguistic sciences. Moreover, it's NOT really a "faith" position at all! It is based on a kind-of rational presumption and the non-sequitur... " it just has to be that way, or God's a liar."
===========
3) The TR-Only View: this view is really a half-brother of view #2. It is one in which the proponants presumably think they can escape the nonsensical argument that one language can perfectly mirror another. So they can hold the same 100% perfect pristine preservation up to the Textus Receptus. Which would mean (in theory) that one COULD make another translation from the Textus Receptus. However, the advocates of this view seem to miss the fact that the NKJV >>WAS/IS<< translated from the TR, and they disregard it anyway.
This view also fails upon analysis the way that view number two does because of the very simple fact that out of the 5000+ New Testament textual pieces, no two manuscripts agree perfectly, DID YOU GET THAT? Read it again!. This then necessitates the science of textual
criticism, which is in fact the way the TR came to be.
=============
4) The Majority Text/Traditional Text View: this/these view(s) are scholarly attempts to derive the closest wording to the original wording, and while not *strictly speaking* "KJV-ONLY," they have a prejudice for, and exclusive use of, the Byzantine type manuscripts. As I see it, the MT and TT advocates differ only in degree, not in kind.
==============
I list four broad views, because those who have the position: "I like the KJV best, that's why I only use it,"... are stating a *preference* position. In this kind of view, the inference is that such people are not busy-about making it normative for everyone else.
Positions 1-3 are clearly in the KJV-Only camp mindset; position #4, it depends. It depends on their view of the modern versions and the critical text.
IMO, the dividing line between KJVOs and non-KJVOs is simply...
" does one believe that ONLY the King James Version is the Word of God, and conversely, as well, does that person believe the modern versions are not?" ======================================================================
Special footnote on the view which we can shorthandly call Ruckmanism:
Why Double-Inspiration View is heresy?
1. The doctrine of RE-inspiration of Holy Scripture emasculates the doctrine of providential preservation. In this sense the extreme KJVOs are just like the worst of the Higher Critics. Because, by practice, the necessity of reinspiration is a *de facto* disregarding of providential preservation.
2. The doctrine of RE-inspiration of Holy Scripture is neo-pentecostal extremism. If we accept this doctrine by it's very validity it tranforms the KJV translators into "apostles & prophets."
3. The doctrine of RE-Inspiration of Holy Scripture undermines (to some degree) a historical and theological appreciation for the special place of the biblical writers. This has to be so, since God went ahead and re-did the whole thing over in 1611.
4. The doctrine of RE-Inspiration of Holy Scripture calls into question the propriety of >>ANY<< biblical translation work. If God did not (for whatever reason) providentially preserve the sacred scriptures from biblical times, and thus needed to >>RE-inspire<< the biblical books in 1611, then, who is anyone to think that he can make a translation into Spanish, Tagalog, Swahili or what-have-you. If such-a-one does he must be an apostle or prophet?
This then opens up the logical necessity for revelatory Charismata in each new country missionaries enter, unless of course we teach them Elizabethan English.
cordially,
CorpseNoMore -- Luke 7:11-17
==========
==========
1) The Double Inspiration View: is the notion that the Holy Scriptures were *reinspired* in 1611 in the form of the King James Version. (Readers will gather my opinion of this view set off at the bottom of this page.) Suffice it to say, however, that this view is so bizarre, and without any reasonable explanation that it can only be described as the fantasies of deluded minds.
==========
2) The >"PERFECT"< Preservation View: this view is the more temperate sister of view #1. The idea that God had so actively fastidiously superintended the pristine copying of the originals and subsequent generation copies up to and through Erasmus and to the KJV translators, that they (the KJV translators) were able to make the perfect translation choices that give the ultimate in perfect rendering from one language to another.
We can therefore say (by faith) that the KJV is an English *mirror* version of the originals. This view is wholly unsupportable by empirical observation, historical record, and textual & linguistic sciences. Moreover, it's NOT really a "faith" position at all! It is based on a kind-of rational presumption and the non-sequitur... " it just has to be that way, or God's a liar."
===========
3) The TR-Only View: this view is really a half-brother of view #2. It is one in which the proponants presumably think they can escape the nonsensical argument that one language can perfectly mirror another. So they can hold the same 100% perfect pristine preservation up to the Textus Receptus. Which would mean (in theory) that one COULD make another translation from the Textus Receptus. However, the advocates of this view seem to miss the fact that the NKJV >>WAS/IS<< translated from the TR, and they disregard it anyway.
This view also fails upon analysis the way that view number two does because of the very simple fact that out of the 5000+ New Testament textual pieces, no two manuscripts agree perfectly, DID YOU GET THAT? Read it again!. This then necessitates the science of textual
criticism, which is in fact the way the TR came to be.
=============
4) The Majority Text/Traditional Text View: this/these view(s) are scholarly attempts to derive the closest wording to the original wording, and while not *strictly speaking* "KJV-ONLY," they have a prejudice for, and exclusive use of, the Byzantine type manuscripts. As I see it, the MT and TT advocates differ only in degree, not in kind.
==============
I list four broad views, because those who have the position: "I like the KJV best, that's why I only use it,"... are stating a *preference* position. In this kind of view, the inference is that such people are not busy-about making it normative for everyone else.
Positions 1-3 are clearly in the KJV-Only camp mindset; position #4, it depends. It depends on their view of the modern versions and the critical text.
IMO, the dividing line between KJVOs and non-KJVOs is simply...
" does one believe that ONLY the King James Version is the Word of God, and conversely, as well, does that person believe the modern versions are not?" ======================================================================
Special footnote on the view which we can shorthandly call Ruckmanism:
Why Double-Inspiration View is heresy?
1. The doctrine of RE-inspiration of Holy Scripture emasculates the doctrine of providential preservation. In this sense the extreme KJVOs are just like the worst of the Higher Critics. Because, by practice, the necessity of reinspiration is a *de facto* disregarding of providential preservation.
2. The doctrine of RE-inspiration of Holy Scripture is neo-pentecostal extremism. If we accept this doctrine by it's very validity it tranforms the KJV translators into "apostles & prophets."
3. The doctrine of RE-Inspiration of Holy Scripture undermines (to some degree) a historical and theological appreciation for the special place of the biblical writers. This has to be so, since God went ahead and re-did the whole thing over in 1611.
4. The doctrine of RE-Inspiration of Holy Scripture calls into question the propriety of >>ANY<< biblical translation work. If God did not (for whatever reason) providentially preserve the sacred scriptures from biblical times, and thus needed to >>RE-inspire<< the biblical books in 1611, then, who is anyone to think that he can make a translation into Spanish, Tagalog, Swahili or what-have-you. If such-a-one does he must be an apostle or prophet?
This then opens up the logical necessity for revelatory Charismata in each new country missionaries enter, unless of course we teach them Elizabethan English.
cordially,
CorpseNoMore -- Luke 7:11-17
- Bible Versions and History
- Textual Criticism and Manuscripts
- Scripture and Technology
- KJV-Only
- References and Tools
- Westcott and Hort
- General Theology
- Anything Goes
- Archive 1
- Archive 2
- Archive 3
- Archive 4
- Archive 5
- Archive 6
- Archive 7
- Archive 8
- Archive 9
- Bible Versions Archive
- Anything Goes Archive
- Anything Goes Archive 2
- General Theology Archive
- Definitions Archive
Quick Reply
|
|
