King James Onlyism: A New Sect - A Bible Believer's Response

[John the Baptist]

pluckedbrand:

You tell us: "The authority in word meanings in Scripture is ... the Hebrew and Greek text", it should be obvious to anyone with two fingers of forehead that there is no such thing as THE Hebrew and Greek text. You are off in fantasy land.

Will if there is no Hebrew and Greek text then we are in trouble. What do you think the manuscripts are that we have today.KJV Only actually put authority in the English text for word meaning over the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts we have. You deny this. but this is what you do. this is totally ill-logical.

God Bless
John

[IM4given]

26And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

27Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

29Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

30And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

31But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Some things you just have to take on faith. :Bible:

[kevinmiller]

Some things you just have to take on faith.

The KJV should not be a matter of faith IMHO.

[Jerry]

Faith is believing what God said - and then applying it to our lives.

God said His Word was pure (not corrupt), inspired, preserved, perfect (ie. complete), truth, exalts Jesus, for all generations, etc. The KJV is the only English Bible that fits all these and other criteria. The MVs contradict themselves and each other, contain ommissions and additions, downplays Jesus' divinity, eternality, virgin birth, resurrection, etc.

[kevinmiller]

Yes, but based on what Janet said, I could also have "faith" in the NIV or NASB. The facts are what are important with regards to translations. The KJV is faithfully translated from the proper Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts. Most modern versions are from corrupt texts. We have factual proof that the KJV is the best, I don't believe faith in the translation should enter the picture.

[Jerry]

We have factual proof that the KJV is the best, I don't believe faith in the translation should enter the picture.

You don't make sense - how can we cling to God's Word if we don't have faith it IS God's Word?

Romans 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

God said He would preserve His Word, that it would be available for all generations - so I accept that by faith, and look for the Word of God that He has preserved for my generation. I see that in the King James Bible - yes, there is a lot of evidence to back it up - but my position is still based on faith: God did what He said He would do.

[kevinmiller]

You don't make sense - how can we cling to God's Word if we don't have faith it IS God's Word?

Romans 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

God said He would preserve His Word, that it would be available for all generations - so I accept that by faith, and look for the Word of God that He has preserved for my generation. I see that in the King James Bible - yes, there is a lot of evidence to back it up - but my position is still based on faith: God did what He said He would do.

I have faith that the originals were written by God. I believe God when He said that He would preserve it. But I must have facts to know which version is the English version that I should use. I can put my faith in the NIV, or I could put it in the NLB. The only thing that can logically separate the English versions are facts, because I can put my faith in any number of them. Facts also give me the freedom to use foreign versions that I believe are faithfully translated rather than believing(through faith) that God has preserved His Word in just one language, which is something many KJVO's believe(by faith).

[Jerry]

I realize some may be promoting a blind faith - but then, that is not real Biblical faith either. True faith is accepting what God said, believing He will keep His promises, looking for the fulfillment of them.

Okay, He said He would preserve His Word and it will be available to all generations, pure and unadulterated. Where is it? I see that in the KJV - because all that God said He would do is witnessed in the history of the KJV and the manuscripts behind it. The evidence pointed me to the KJV - but it is my faith that accepted it as the English version that fulfills all the requirements that God laid down.

I am not here to knock Brandplucked, but this is one area where I would differ from him (inasmuch as I understand his position): I believe God's Word is found in sound TR-based foreign translations as well. I am KJVOnly in English - and that is the only one I read and study because I do not know foreign languages (ie. in a working manner - I know some vocab, but not how to speak or write in those languages). You will find that the majority of KJVOnlys here are also of the same mindset (ie. that they are KJVOnly in English, and TR-based in foreign languages).

[brandplucked]

This is the whole foundation that most hardcore KJVO's make their argument on. Yet it is without basis. No, THE original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts may not exist, though we do have things like the Dead Sea Scrolls that are still around today, but copies of them do exist.... But we do have the Hebrew and Greek and they are the originally inspired Words of God.

Kevin, you continually reveal your ignorance concerning the textual issues involved. You are right in that we do not have the originals, but what we have instead are literally hundreds and even thousands of Hebrew and Greek variants, and versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV often reject the Hebrew texts (or any of them) and instead follow the Syriac or some LXX reading or something else.

Here is just one of a hundred examples I can post about the textual confusion of the modern perversions.

If you read this example, would you mind telling us what "the Hebrew" really says? Has it been lost? What does your "infallible bible" say?

1 Samuel 13:1

Have some of God's inspired words been lost? The modern version proponents would have us believe that such is the case. We will consider one specific passage of Scripture to illustrate this point and will also hear from one of the NIV translators regarding a few others.

One of the hundreds of Scripture references called into question by today's bible translators is 1 Samuel 13:1. We read in the Authorized King James Bible: "Saul reigned ONE YEAR; and when he had reigned TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel; whereof two thousand were with Saul in Michmash and in mount Bethel, and a thousand were with Jonathan in Gibeah of Benjamin; and the rest of the people he sent every man to his tent."

"Saul reigned ONE YEAR; and when he had reigned TWO YEARS..." This is the reading of the KJB, the NKJV, Miles Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599, Daniel Webster's translation of 1833, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602 and 1960, the Italian Diodati version, the KJV 21st century version and the Third Millenium Bible.

There is a brand new Hebrew-English translation put out in 2003 called the Judaica Press Complete Tanach. It can be seen online here:

http://www.chabad.org/library/archive/L ... ?AID=63255

In 1 Samuel 13:1 it reads as does the King James Bible: "Saul was a year in his reign, and he reigned two years over Israel..."

The Spanish Reina Valera 1960 reads: "Había ya reinado Saúl UN ANO; y cuando hubo reinado DOS años sobre Israel..."= KJB

Italian Diodati - Saulle avea regnato UN ANNO, e poi (then) dopo (after) aver regnato DUE ANNI sopra Israele..." = KJB

Luther 1545: Saul war ein jar König gewesen / vnd da er zwey jar vber Jsrael regiert hatte...

"Saul was king one year, and when he had reigned two years over Israel...= KJB

The Swiss Zürcher 1531 says exactly the same thing.

There are several bible versions like Darby's, the RSV, NRSV, ESV, and the New Scofield KJV, which actually read: "Saul was ____years old when he began to reign; and he reigned_____and two years over Israel." Then in a footnote they tell us "the number is lacking in Hebrew" and "two is not the entire number. Something has dropped out."

The ASV of 1901, which is the predecessor of the NASB, says: "Saul was (FORTY) years old when he began to reign; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel..." Then in a footnote it tells us "The number is lacking in the Hebrew text, and is supplied conjecturally."

Young's tells us: "A SON OF A YEAR is Saul in his reigning, yea, two years he hath reigned over Israel", while Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta says: "And when Saul had reigned ONE OR TWO years in his kingdom over Israel..."

When we finally get to the NASB and the NIV we really get confused. The NASB of 1972 and 1977 reads: "Saul was THIRTY years old when he began to reign, and he reigned THIRTY TWO years over Israel." But the 1995 edition of the NASB has changed the 32 years to now read 42 years. The NIV says: "Saul was THIRTY years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel FORTY TWO years." But wait. There's more to this Bible Babel. The 1970 New English Bible actually says: "Saul was FIFTY YEARS OLD when he became king, and he reigned over Israel FOR TWENTY TWO years."!!! So was Saul 30 or 40, or perhaps 50? And did he reign 2 years as the ASV tells us, or 22 years as the NEB says, or 32 as some NASBs have it, or was it perhaps the 42 of the NIV?

Not only do the NIV, ASV, NEB and NASB all contradict each other, but they also contradict Acts 13:21 where we are told that Saul reigned over Israel 40 years.

Dr. Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, is creating his own personal bible version called the NET Bible. It frequently departs from the Hebrew texts. He has come up with a reading in 1 Samuel 13:1 that is even different than all the others.

His NET bible reads: "Saul was THIRTY (1- footnote) years old when he began to reign; he ruled over Israel for FORTY (2 - footnote) years."

Then in the footnote "today's most eminent textual scholar" tells us: The Hebrew Masoretic Text does not have

[brandplucked]

pluckedbrand:



Will if there is no Hebrew and Greek text then we are in trouble. What do you think the manuscripts are that we have today.KJV Only actually put authority in the English text for word meaning over the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts we have. You deny this. but this is what you do. this is totally ill-logical.

God Bless
John

John, the problem is we have WAY TOO MANY Hebrew and Greek texts and variants. Which ones are right? You don't know and neither does any other "bible scholar". All you guys differ among yourselves as to which are the true readings or not.

Also, your nasb niv rsv, esv stuff all frequently reject the Hebrew texts of any kind. You simply do not have nor believe in an inerrant Bible.

Will

[brandplucked]

I am not here to knock Brandplucked, but this is one area where I would differ from him (inasmuch as I understand his position): I believe God's Word is found in sound TR-based foreign translations as well. I am KJVOnly in English - and that is the only one I read and study because I do not know foreign languages (ie. in a working manner - I know some vocab, but not how to speak or write in those languages). You will find that the majority of KJVOnlys here are also of the same mindset (ie. that they are KJVOnly in English, and TR-based in foreign languages).

Hi Jerry. I have always appreciated the fact that you have stood strong and fast for the King James Bible as being the pure word of God. I just want to add a note about what I believe concerning the King James Bible. I do not want to get into a "debate" or anything of this nature with either you or others about this, but just want to express what I believe.

I do believe that the King James Bible and ONLY the King James Bible is the Final Written Authority, and is the only pure Bible on earth today. I am not a TR man, nor a Masoretic text man, but a King James Bible believer.

I do not know of another pure Bible in any other language. Maybe there is one, but I have yet to see a good likely candidate. I know Spanish quite well and the older Reina Valeras are very good and very close, but they do not always follow the same texts and do not always come up with the same meanings of those texts.

I believe a foreign language Bible is good as far as it agrees BOTH in underlying Hebrew and Greek texts, AND in the resultant translational MEANING of those texts. Of course I believe God can save anyone using any bible version out there as long as the gospel of salvation through our Lord's death on the cross is still taught.

If you or anyone else has a likely candidate for a 100% pure Bible in any other language other than the English of the King James Bible, please let me know what it might be, and I will look into it further.

Thanks and God bless,

Will K

[kevinmiller]

Kevin, you continually reveal your ignorance concerning the textual issues involved. You are right in that we do not have the originals, but what we have instead are literally hundreds and even thousands of Hebrew and Greek variants, and versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV often reject the Hebrew texts (or any of them) and instead follow the Syriac or some LXX reading or something else.

Will, you've seemed to have separated everyone into two kinds of people; those who agree with you and those who don't. Those who don't are automatically labeled as someone who doesn't believe in any infallible Bible. Therefore, you get stuck on these tangents that have nothing to do with the issue at hand and do not accurately represent the person with whom you are speaking, since you blanket everyone. I never advocated the NIV, NASB, ESV, or NKJV. I simply pointed out, and rightfully so, that the Greek and Hebrew texts still exist.

[John the Baptist]

brandplucked

Kevin, you continually reveal your ignorance concerning the textual issues involved. You are right in that we do not have the originals, but what we have instead are literally hundreds and even thousands of Hebrew and Greek variants, and versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV often reject the Hebrew texts (or any of them) and instead follow the Syriac or some LXX reading or something else.

Here is just one of a hundred examples I can post about the textual confusion of the modern perversions.

Will, you show your lack of understanding of the manuscripts. What about the majority text original language manuscripts, or the Byzantine manuscripts, are they trash also? These are copies which were transmitted over time as well as the Alexanderian text. these are the manuscriptural evidence that we have which is the foundation for our English translations including the KJV (excluding) the Alexanderian text. The KJV did not just fall out of the sky.

God Bless
John

[brandplucked]

I never advocated the NIV, NASB, ESV, or NKJV. I simply pointed out, and rightfully so, that the Greek and Hebrew texts still exist.

Kevin, to say that "the Greek and Hebrew texts still exist" is like saying "God's words are all found in Webster's unabridged dictionary". They're all in there somewhere, mixed up and out of order, and found also among many others that are not part of God's word, but Hey, there in there somewhere.

Most modern versionists believe the Hebrew texts have been corrupted in numerous places or even lost. Your position isn't really all that different. You still can't point us to a specific Hebrew or Greek text and say "These are the true words of God". Or can you?

Will

[brandplucked]

Will, you show your lack of understanding of the manuscripts. What about the majority text original language manuscripts, or the Byzantine manuscripts, are they trash also? These are copies which were transmitted over time as well as the Alexanderian text. these are the manuscriptural evidence that we have which is the foundation for our English translations including the KJV (excluding) the Alexanderian text. The KJV did not just fall out of the sky.

God Bless
John

Hi John. First off, you should know that there is no consensus or agreement as to what the so called "Majority text" really is, since it hasn't been thoroughly collated, and there is also considerable variety among the Byzantine tradition. Your problem is that you cannot produce for us a single text in any language that you would call the complete and inerrant Bible. You simply do not believe The Bible or any Bible in any language is the infallible word of God. You have no such Book.

If you think you do, then please tell us what it is called and where we can get a copy of it, so we can compare it to our King James Bible.

Thanks,

Will K