Why King James Only?

[John81]

I was more speaking to arguments regarding why the Apocrypha was included in the KJB and why it was later removed. There are various arguments about this but most I've read don't include a lot of sourced facts.

The Geneva Bible I have, which is boxed away right now, doesn't include the Apocrypha. Other than the facsimile of the original KJB, none of my KJB's include the Apocrypha either.

I've found it interesting over the years that while preaching the Apocrypha isn't Scripture, some pastors will still point to certain Apocryphal books and quotes from them as authoritative.

[Ukulelemike]

There are certainly interesting things to read in the apocryphal books, but except in the Catholic church, no one has ever considered them as canon or trustworthy. They certainly add strange doctrines, as well as some areas that are blatantly in opposition to Bible doctrine.

As I understand, the book of Judith is about a prophet during the time of Jeremiah, who is supposedly given direction from God to tell the people that they are to stand and fight the invading Babylonian armies, while we know that Jeremiah told them to stand down and surrender and accept God's discipline, and He would protect them and the land and the temple, and bring them back. So Judith was telling them just the opposite of what Jeremiah was telling them. One is wrong.

 

So they are interesting, but dubious, at best, outright false at worse.

[heartstrings]

I was more speaking to arguments regarding why the Apocrypha was included in the KJB and why it was later removed. There are various arguments about this but most I've read don't include a lot of sourced facts.

The Geneva Bible I have, which is boxed away right now, doesn't include the Apocrypha. Other than the facsimile of the original KJB, none of my KJB's include the Apocrypha either.

I've found it interesting over the years that while preaching the Apocrypha isn't Scripture, some pastors will still point to certain Apocryphal books and quotes from them as authoritative.

​Yes, Didn't the "angels cohabiting with women" thing come from the "Apocrypha" too?

[Genevanpreacher]

​Yes, Didn't the "angels cohabiting with women" thing come from the "Apocrypha" too?

​I think you might be referring to the Book of Enoch which is not in any Bible but is a coupla different books on their own.

[John81]

The History Channel tells us over and over again there are many "lost books" and "banned books" of the Bible out there and without knowing and reading those we don't really know the whole story. After all, these shows they repeat over and over again all have the same thesis which is the Bible isn't right, complete or good.

If you don't like those programs, wait until the next night and they will provide programs explaining away much of the Bible based upon ancient astronaut theories or something similar.

[heartstrings]

​I think you might be referring to the Book of Enoch which is not in any Bible but is a coupla different books on their own.

​Shows how much I've read the "Apocrypha"

[John81]

​Shows how much I've read the "Apocrypha"

​That's probably a good thing!

[Ukulelemike]

​Yes, Didn't the "angels cohabiting with women" thing come from the "Apocrypha" too?

​Oh Boy, Let's not get into THAT again, LOL. We have had some spirited discussion on it, and I think it is because of this very statement, not found in the BIble.

 

 

Unless we WANT to get into it, I don't mind.

[heartstrings]

not today

 

[Genevanpreacher]

I am sure there are more edifying things to discuss.

[John81]

I am sure there are more edifying things to discuss.

​Please proceed.

[Genevanpreacher]

As I understand, the book of Judith is about a prophet during the time of Jeremiah, who is supposedly given direction from God to tell the people that they are to stand and fight the invading Babylonian armies, while we know that Jeremiah told them to stand down and surrender and accept God's discipline, and He would protect them and the land and the temple, and bring them back. So Judith was telling them just the opposite of what Jeremiah was telling them. One is wrong.

​Actually was reading the book of Judith and came across the 'timing' of the events in chapter 5, where it describes that this history occurred AFTER the return of the Jews to Jerusalem. And AFTER the rebuilding of the Temple.

Therefore it has nothing to do with Jeremiah and nothing to do with the Nebuchadnezzar that we are usually familiar with. In fact the name used was Nabuchodonosor, which some have referred to as Nebuchadnezzar. Could be the 'greek' version of the same name, but not the same person.

[Genevanpreacher]

allow me to play devils advocate here, Where was the perfectly preserved text before the KJV? Why does nOBody hold to a Geneva Bible only position?

 

If as you say God has promised to give us a perfect preserved word, why does it have to be in english?

 

What about Russian? to my knowledge the only Russian Bible translation is from a Critical text, They do not have anything in their language that is perfect, has God failed them or lied to them? If you are willing to admit that God would leave them without a perfect bible, why do we English speaking people think God owes us a perfect english translation? on what basis do we have to say the King James is better than the Geneva, the Bishops, or even the Wycliffe Bible... how can we say we accept by faith that the King James is perfect and preserved, and not be able to apply that to the Geneva Bible translation before it? 

 

Some honest questions that I never find good answers to.

 

Again i am playing devils advocate, I do hold to a King James only position for English.

​I do.

[Genevanpreacher]

Why are you King James only? or if you aren't why not?

 

I found that many people from both sides of the debate are ignorant about a lot of things, many often parrot what they have heard from others, and many have not done critical thinking on these issues.

 

I would say that my main reasons is that I absolutely do not believe that the textual theories of Wescott and Hort are valid, and I believe the critical text is based on minority manuscripts because of the cultic following and unquestioning loyalty to their textual theories (Oldest and Best Manuscripts blah blah blah).

 

on the flip side I have seen many King James Only people with some pretty lacking defenses of the King James Only position.

 

What is your position and why do you hold to it?

​I have found that there are 'wordings' in the 1611 text that actually say different than the meanings, and the bible I use 'says' what the meaning is - in the text.

[Genevanpreacher]

 

Stop mischaracterizing Dr. Ruckman's position. I get so tired of uniformed people putting a doctrine in the mouth of a man. And it isn't just "Ruckman" he has earned his doctrates unlike many pulp mill professors in the IFB colleges.

 

Can you please post the context of your information where, when and why he may have said the AV was better than the "originals" which no one here has ever seen yet seem to act like they exisit.....

 

MIke, you started with " " on your opening statement, thereby atributting your statement to Dr Ruckman, I for one would like to see that direct quote from Dr Ruckman.

​I used to receive his mailer newsletter all the time, back in the 90's, and that is exactly what I got, and from his multitude of videos.

No I don't have'em anymore, and can't quote sources, but that is/was my thinking from his teachings.

[Genevanpreacher]

Found an interestin' quote about Ruckmans belief:

"To blazes with “THE GREEK TEXT.” It is so inferior to the English text they are not worthy of standing on the same shelf. I put Nestle, Hort, Aland, Metzger, Alford, Souter, Erasmus, Stephanus, Elzevir, and the rest on a shelf below my original edition of the Authorized Version from 1613." (Ruckman, Peter. The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship. Pensacola, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1988, p. 338)

[Genevanpreacher]

 

Stop mischaracterizing Dr. Ruckman's position. I get so tired of uniformed people putting a doctrine in the mouth of a man. And it isn't just "Ruckman" he has earned his doctrates unlike many pulp mill professors in the IFB colleges.

 

Can you please post the context of your information where, when and why he may have said the AV was better than the "originals" which no one here has ever seen yet seem to act like they exisit.....

 

MIke, you started with " " on your opening statement, thereby atributting your statement to Dr Ruckman, I for one would like to see that direct quote from Dr Ruckman.

​Not the originals, but the one's used to translate our bible from.

See post above.

By the way, doesn't the KJB state 'translated from the original Greek' on the title page?

That would make Elziver, Stephanus, and Erasmus, as the Greek used for the KJB, the 'original Greek' referred to?

[Beza not even being mentioned - even though the TR says it was]

You know, since the originals haven't existed for probably 1900 years or so.

[Genevanpreacher]

One more...

"Correct the Greek Textus Receptus with the AV, exactly as you would correct the Alexandrian text with the AV—always." (Bible Believers’ Bulletin
Jan 2006, p. 5)

[Veritas]

allow me to play devils advocate here, Where was the perfectly preserved text before the KJV? Why does nOBody hold to a Geneva Bible only position?

 

If as you say God has promised to give us a perfect preserved word, why does it have to be in english?

 

What about Russian? to my knowledge the only Russian Bible translation is from a Critical text, They do not have anything in their language that is perfect, has God failed them or lied to them? If you are willing to admit that God would leave them without a perfect bible, why do we English speaking people think God owes us a perfect english translation? on what basis do we have to say the King James is better than the Geneva, the Bishops, or even the Wycliffe Bible... how can we say we accept by faith that the King James is perfect and preserved, and not be able to apply that to the Geneva Bible translation before it? 

 

Some honest questions that I never find good answers to.

 

Again i am playing devils advocate, I do hold to a King James only position for English.

I am interested in the answers to these questions.

I am currently trying to discern the truth of this KJV Only matter and I currently lean towards the non-KJV Only position.  My dad holds to a KJV only position and I have been in discussion with him on this issue as of late.  He holds to the position that it is the underlying Greek texts of the KJV and of the other versions that are the real issue. For instance, writing the meaning of an archaic word next to it is perfectly acceptable.

I have read the 'King James Only Controversy' by James White and have found many of the arguments put forth to be convincing.  I am currently reading 'The King James Version Defended' by Edward F. Hills.  

I, like the OP, have also noticed that many people that hold either position have not really taken the time to search this out thoroughly and have deferred to pastors or other men of God in coming to their conclusion on the matter.


Also, what do you all think of the preponderance of true, faithful Christians that use other versions such as the ESV, NASB, or NIV? Or would you say they are not true believers?  

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I am interested in the answers to these questions.
I am currently trying to discern the truth of this KJV Only matter and I currently lean towards the non-KJV Only position.  My dad holds to a KJV only position and I have been in discussion with him on this issue as of late.  He holds to the position that it is the underlying Greek texts of the KJV and of the other versions that are the real issue. For instance, writing the meaning of an archaic word next to it is perfectly acceptable.

I have read the 'King James Only Controversy' by James White and have found many of the arguments put forth to be convincing.  I am currently reading 'The King James Version Defended' by Edward F. Hills.  

I, like the OP, have also noticed that many people that hold either position have not really taken the time to search this out thoroughly and have deferred to pastors or other men of God in coming to their conclusion on the matter.


Also, what do you all think of the preponderance of true, faithful Christians that use other versions such as the ESV, NASB, or NIV? Or would you say they are not true believers?  

 

​Read the book "For the Love of the Bible" by David Cloud. really sums up a big issue that exists with all of the modern versions.