Why the King James Version only?

[FundieGirl02]

I have a question. Why must we use the King James Version only when there have been older manuscripts found and we know more about the English language than we did before back in 1611? :puzzled: I am not disagreeing with the King James Only position, I am just curious. I actually agree with the King James only position but this question was brought up on another board that I frequent.

[Guest Guest]

Why must we use the King James Version only when there have been older manuscripts found

The issue isn't the age of the manuscripts, indeed one of the two main manuscripts the MV's(modern versions) are based on was know about and rejected before the KJV was translated.

The real issue is the text lines, the KVJ comes from the "textus receptus"(recieved text) which is what has been used and accepted as the NT bible for hundreds of years, and the MV's are based on an "older" alexanderian text line of which only a relatively few copies exist, and these copies disagree among themselves as much or more than they disagree with the TR. However, certain textual critics came along with a pre-formed opinion that what had been regarded as the scriptures for hundreds of years was flawed and that these few older copies that disagree significantly with one another were going to be "better" and "more" accurate. So, today we have a vast number of "new"(relatively speaking) bibles based on these flawed texts that greatly disagree even among themselves, yet they are supposed to be "more accurate" because the copies they were translated from are older. Of course, if you believe that you have to believe that God left his people with only a corrupted bible for hundreds of years(and that is still all they think we have today), and it took modern textual critics to "fix" it "somewhat" for us. Unfortunately, some people actually do think that....

we know more about the English language than we did before back in 1611?

That part isn't the case at all. If anything the English language has declined somewhat since then and not as many words are in common use.

[John81]

:goodpost:

[FundieGirl02]

The issue isn't the age of the manuscripts, indeed one of the two main manuscripts the MV's(modern versions) are based on was know about and rejected before the KJV was translated.

The real issue is the text lines, the KVJ comes from the "textus receptus"(recieved text) which is what has been used and accepted as the NT bible for hundreds of years, and the MV's are based on an "older" alexanderian text line of which only a relatively few copies exist, and these copies disagree among themselves as much or more than they disagree with the TR. However, certain textual critics came along with a pre-formed opinion that what had been regarded as the scriptures for hundreds of years was flawed and that these few older copies that disagree significantly with one another were going to be "better" and "more" accurate. So, today we have a vast number of "new"(relatively speaking) bibles based on these flawed texts that greatly disagree even among themselves, yet they are supposed to be "more accurate" because the copies they were translated from are older. Of course, if you believe that you have to believe that God left his people with only a corrupted bible for hundreds of years(and that is still all they think we have today), and it took modern textual critics to "fix" it "somewhat" for us. Unfortunately, some people actually do think that....



That part isn't the case at all. If anything the English language has declined somewhat since then and not as many words are in common use.

OH ok. Thanks. But what I don't understand is how the newer manuscripts could be better than the older ones. Could it be that the newer manuscripts were actually copied from manuscripts that were older than the Alexandrian texts but we just don't have the older manuscripts now?

[dwayner79]

The issue isn't the age of the manuscripts, indeed one of the two main manuscripts the MV's(modern versions) are based on was know about and rejected before the KJV was translated.

The real issue is the text lines, the KVJ comes from the "textus receptus"(recieved text) which is what has been used and accepted as the NT bible for hundreds of years, and the MV's are based on an "older" alexanderian text line of which only a relatively few copies exist, and these copies disagree among themselves as much or more than they disagree with the TR. However, certain textual critics came along with a pre-formed opinion that what had been regarded as the scriptures for hundreds of years was flawed and that these few older copies that disagree significantly with one another were going to be "better" and "more" accurate. So, today we have a vast number of "new"(relatively speaking) bibles based on these flawed texts that greatly disagree even among themselves, yet they are supposed to be "more accurate" because the copies they were translated from are older. Of course, if you believe that you have to believe that God left his people with only a corrupted bible for hundreds of years(and that is still all they think we have today), and it took modern textual critics to "fix" it "somewhat" for us. Unfortunately, some people actually do think that....

Fundie, I'll only say that this is only one side of the discussion, and I find Seth's description to be a horrible misrepresentation of the position. Its what is called a "strawman".

[dwayner79]

Sorry, I got distracted...

I wanted to finish by saying, this is a KJVo site. You are going to get replies from people who are KJVo. Its only fair to let someone who is a MV proponent make their case. The data you get here will be biased. Not saying its right or wrong, but it is biased. You then can look at the proponent of both sides, and look at the data for yourself, and only then make your own, informed decision.

[Pastor Matt]

I wanted to finish by saying, this is a KJVo site. You are going to get replies from people who are KJVo. Its only fair to let someone who is a MV proponent make their case. The data you get here will be biased. Not saying its right or wrong, but it is biased. You then can look at the proponent of both sides, and look at the data for yourself, and only then make your own, informed decision.

If you read the first post you would see that the other side has already been mentioned to her and she was coming here to get the other side. She is clearly asking the other side so that she can make her own informed decision.

FYI: You called Seth's tactic "Strawman" argument and yet you used the "Attack The Messenger(OB)" tactic. I really see no need for this kind of tactics and accusations in discussions.

[dwayner79]

If you read the first post you would see that the other side has already been mentioned to her and she was coming here to get the other side. She is clearly asking the other side so that she can make her own informed decision.

Yea, I read that... so let me clarify. It sounds to me like fundie was asked a question, and she came here to get an answer. That answer she would reply on another board with.

I admittedly assumed she would not verify that position as accurate before 1. taking that as her position, or 2. responding with the same comment on the other board. The intent of my post was to comment on the need to view the positions offered here (and on the other side) as biased. Then go look at the (raw) data for herself, and only then make informed decisions. That assumption (perhaps wrong) of mine is not based on anything but my own opinion, so I am not preemptively judging Fundie.

I am sure that anyone will be able to respond to Seth's post on a non-KJV board and show it for what it is. Hopefully, that will lead to a healthy discussion of the topic.

[Pastor Matt]

Our members deserves better than posts based on assumptions.

[dwayner79]

Last I checked, I was a member too...

Matt, not sure why your coming down so hard on me. I am not trying to be overly flamey here. And I think I have a long enough track record of level-headedness. I even clarified that my assumptions were based on my own opinions, and that I was not pre-judging Fundie.

I posted with two posts because I got sidetracked mid-post. Those two are meant to be put together. Seth's post is an incorrect description of the "other side" and since I can't expound on that without making it into a Pro-MV post, I was simply trying to point out that Seth's post is biased, and incorrect, and in order to work out the details of a particular position, you should not get your information from someone who is against that position.

My posts were trying to have less divisiveness, but it seems are generating more. For that I apologize.

Fundie, this is obviously a push-button topic. Please hear my intent on my post is to say that you cannot take what you hear at face value when a pro-KJVo person is describing the opposing position. Inversely, I would never trust a MV'er to properly define the KJVo position. They are biased. That was all I was trying to say.

[dwayner79]

FYI: You called Seth's tactic "Strawman" argument and yet you used the "Attack The Messenger(OB)" tactic. I really see no need for this kind of tactics and accusations in discussions.

You must have added this, because I just saw it.

What you read as "attack the messenger" is not anything of the sort. I hope I explained myself well enough in my last post, but I did not at all "attack" OLB. I simply said that a person who holds the opposing position is likely to show fallacies in their description of the other person's position (as evidenced by Seth's post). I would expect this to be true of both sides, and its why I try hard to present other sides of the topics correctly even if I do not hold to them.

[Marcus2Israel]

I have a question. Why must we use the King James Version only when there have been older manuscripts found and we know more about the English language than we did before back in 1611? :puzzled: I am not disagreeing with the King James Only position' date=' I am just curious. I actually agree with the King James only position but this question was brought up on another board that I frequent.[/quote']


I would recommend you read "Final Authority" by William P. Grady and "The Revision Revised" by Dean Burgon, Here is some links to get these books if you really want them.
http://www.gradypublications.com/produc ... 1&c=102418
http://www.amazon.com/Revision-Revised- ... 1888328010

http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0157.asp (Havn't read this one but it looks good)
I havn't read this one either but it most likely is the best free information source you will find:
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158cont.asp

[Guest Guest]

If you read the first post you would see that the other side has already been mentioned to her and she was coming here to get the other side. She is clearly asking the other side so that she can make her own informed decision.

FYI: You called Seth's tactic "Strawman" argument and yet you used the "Attack The Messenger(OB)" tactic. I really see no need for this kind of tactics and accusations in discussions.

I just wanted to add that I am sooo very tired of dwayner79 and Kevin and their "strawman" arguments. Yes...I am calling people out that "try" and tear down the KJB!! This causes so much confusion for a person who is actively seeking the truth of God's Holy Word on OB...the KJV only!!

Acts 14:27...And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed (reviewed) all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles. "Strengthening the Converts" KJV 1611 AV.

[dwayner79]

I just wanted to add that I am sooo very tired of dwayner79 and Kevin and their "strawman" arguments. Yes...I am calling people out that "try" and tear down the KJB!! This causes so much confusion for a person who is actively seeking the truth of God's Holy Word on OB...the KJV only!!

Acts 14:27...And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed (reviewed) all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles. "Strengthening the Converts" KJV 1611 AV.

I hope you read my comment to Matt about me attacking OLB. It was certainly not my intent.

[Marcus2Israel]

Here we go...