King James Onlyism

[Chad]

King James Onlyism
By Todd Strandberg

Yet Another Distraction

Distraction is one of Satan's favorite tools for hindering the work of God. If he can't pervert or stop the message, he does his best to sidetrack the messenger with trivial debates. After studying the issue of King James Version Onlyism (KJVO), I’ve concluded that we have yet another prime example of the devil's handiwork.

The advocates of KJVO believe that the King James Version is the only God-inspired translation of the Holy Bible. They insist that all modern translations have been modified to the point that they are unreliable or even dangerous for Christians to use as a resource. One writer claims that these "New Age" translations are somehow preparing the way for the rise of Antichrist.

I have a long list of problems with KJVO folks. First is my inability to find the damage supposedly being caused by all these other translations. I haven’t found any major Bible version that contradicts well-established Christian theology.

Some so-called translations do corrupt the Word of God but these versions are best described as revisions rather than translations. For example, the New World Translation Bible, produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses, is more of a rewritten version of the Bible than a translation. The New World Translation renders John 1:1 as: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Notice that the word “God” has been changed to the phrase "a god." Another example of a version that’s been rewritten rather translated is the gender-neutral Bible, which tries to rob God the Father of His masculine nature.

Burden Of Proof

Most who promote the teachings of KJVO avoid personalizing the sinister actions of the translators. If all of these scholars were actively involved in perverting the Holy Bible, they would have to be classified as men of evil intent. The Bible very plainly says that those who tamper with the Word of God are destined for the lake of fire.
Because middle-aged scholars translated most of the Bible versions several years ago, a good percentage of them have now gone on to their eternal reward. If the translators of the New International Version, Good News, Amplified, New English Bible, Living Bible, Revised Standard Version, and many others were actually doing mankind a godly service, anyone attacking them would have to answer to the Lord of heaven.

Because the consequences of being wrong are so high, I think the critics of the new translations should build a stronger case against the non-KJVO crowd. I've yet to find one KJVO person who bothers to speculate about how this massive conspiracy might have been pulled off.

Validation Is A Two-Way Street

The errors cited by the advocates of KJVO deal mostly with missing or downgraded words. They point to an example of new versions eliminating the name Jesus by inserting the pronoun "he" in place of the Lord's name. The NIV is repeatedly cited for omitting the name of Jesus, but that version actually uses His name more than the New KJV.

The main problem with these errors is that the KJVO watchdogs only look for examples that have the KJV using a proper name for God, while the same verse in another translation uses a pronoun to represent deity. Error finding needs to be a two-way street. If the KJVO researchers would do even a quick concordance check, they would find the following examples:

"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" ( Colossians 2:9 NIV). "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9 KJV).


"Who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Thy Servant, didst say, why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples devise futile things?" (Acts 4:25 NASB). "Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?" (Acts 4:25 KJV).


"To the only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now forever. Amen" (Jude 25 NASB). "To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen" (Jude 25 KJV).​

Another good example of the King James Only people failing to cross-check their facts is their claim that the KJV uses the proper name "Jehovah" while the modern versions substitute the word "Lord." They claim the switch is meant to depersonalize God and that it is somehow an attack against the Jews. These statements are ridiculous in light of the fact that the KJV uses the same "Lord" dozens of times where the Hebrew word “Jehovah” [“Yahweh”] is found.


Going Concordance Crazy

Gale Riplinger, in her book New Age Bible Versions, takes the practice of one-sided validation to a new height. She makes plenty of comparisons that are intended to show non-KJV translations in a bad light, but she also draws a comparison between "New Age" writers and the modern Bible versions. Riplinger uses quotes from a wide variety of sources with religious views that conflict with Christianity. She implies by example that the thoughts of evil men have been written into all these corrupted translations.

Her quotes are so extremely brief, I don't understand how Riplinger can dare claim that they are from the sources she cites. For example, she implies that "the Blessed One" of Mark 14:61, NIV, actually refers to some exiled Hindu guru named Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Even if a demonic hand were at work in the NIV translation, plenty of other evil men have been called "the Blessed One" at some point.

Riplinger goes totally overboard in her "new age," "new world," "new order," "old order," and "former order" examples. Of course, these words are all highly satanic (I'm being sarcastic) and any appearance of them in a Bible translation confirms its evil origin. She put together a nice little list of how these praises appear in non-KJV Bibles. To assemble this list, she needed to reference 18 translations, and in most cases the offending praises only appear once in the various translations.

Her absurdity reaches its peak with her claim that the word "age" in Matthew 28:20 has a sinister meaning. The King James Version says that Jesus will be with us until "the end of the world." The NIV says the Lord will be with us "to the very end of the age." Because the Bible informs us in Isaiah 45:17 that the world will never end, the NIV translation is probably a better interpretation of Matthew 28:20.

"But Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end" (Isaiah 45:17).


The King James Version is the only major translation that contains the word "gay." Does this give someone the right to claim that the KJV was written by homosexuals to plant the seeds of the "gay movement?" The answer would be "yes" if we employed the same type of logic as the KJVO crowd.

The Snail Pace Conspiracy

One of the most widely quoted verse used by the folks who argue for the King James version's supremacy is Colossians 1:14. A comparison is made to all the modern translations has them omitting the blood of Christ from this passage. If no one bothered to investigate why those three words were deleted, it would be very easy to conclude that skullduggery was at work.

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins" (Colossians 1:14 KJV). "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins" (Colossians 1:14 NIV).​

There is a very simple explanation why the scholars who produced the NIV did not include the words "through his blood." When the passage was translated into English, the words did not come from the early Greek manuscripts. The phrase was most likely borrowed from Ephesians 1:7, which happens to be a parallel passage to Colossians 1:14.

The King James translators got a little wordy in their translating. The NIV translators simply corrected what should not have been added to the passage. The KJVO crowd, however, says that we should trust their favorite translation over manuscripts that date back to the third century.

There is a lot of talk about the removal of the phrase "through his blood" as being some sort of conspiracy to destroy the doctrine of the blood atonement of Jesus Christ. If the devil were working to corrupt the Bible, this would have to be his slowest-moving scheme of all times. It makes no sense to do this with only one verse while leaving dozens of other verses untouched. Here are a few examples:

"In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace." (Ephesians 1:7 NIV)
"But with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect" (1 Peter 1:19 NIV).
"To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood" (Revelation 1:5 NIV).
"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ" (Ephesians 2:13 NIV).
"How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that led to death, so that we may serve the living God!" (Hebrews 9:14 NIV).​

English Bias

Supporters of the King James Only doctrine often claim that Elizabethan English translation is superior to Hebrew and Greek manuscripts upon which it is based. They take this step to try to defend themselves against the contradictions the early translations create for their exclusive view. If the KJV has no source document, it has to be a new revelation from God.

Because we have the original Hebrew and Greek, we don't need to rely on an English translation that was written 1500 years after the fact. If the original Greek was good enough for the scholars who produced the King James Bible, it should be good enough for us. Even Jesus said, "I am Alpha and Omega" (Rev. 1:8). He didn't say, “I am the A and Z.”

If KJVO proponents are right, where does that leave the 2,000 non-English translations? German-speaking people have the same right to claim their version of the Bible as the one and only "infallible translation." The only way to resolve differences between the translations is by checking the ancient original Hebrew and Greek.

Errors In The KJV

Many people believe that the King James Bible is infallible. They boldly claim the translation is so blessed by God that it is 100-percent free of errors. This kind of talk is just bluster because there are several minor translation errors in the KJV.

As the marginal notes indicate, the King James translators did not regard their work as perfect or inspired, but they did consider it to be a trustworthy reproduction of God's Holy Word.

In Hebrews 10:23, the word "faith" is erroneously substituted for the word "hope." All of the source documents use "hope." It is very obvious that Paul meant to use faith, hope and love in verses 22, 23, and 24.

"10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works."​

In Revelation 22:19, the scholars made the mistake of thinking Jesus was speaking of the "Book of Life." Researchers have found 99% of all Greek manuscripts reading "tree of life." The context of verse 14 verifies that the Lord was speaking of the "tree of life."

"22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."
"22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."​

One of the most obvious errors in the KJV is the word "at" in Matthew 23:24. It's not grammatically proper to say, "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." The translators should have used the word "out." The most common English translations that pre-date the KJV bear this out:

"Blinde leders; clensenge a gnat, but swolowynge a camel."--(Wyclif, 1380.)
"Ye blinde gydes, which strayne out a gnat, and swalowe a cammyll."--(Tyndale, 1534.)
"Ye blynde gydes, which strayne out a gnat, and swalowe a camell."--(Cranmer, 1539.)
"Ye blynde gydes, which strayne out a gnate, and swalow a cammel."--(Geneva, 1557.)
"Blinde guides, that strain a gnat, and swallow a camel."--(Rheims, 1582.)​

There Is No 1611 King James Bible

For many people, it is not enough to just have any King James Bible. They take the extra step of proclaiming the Authorized 1611 KJV translation to be the only true Word of God. Because the King James used today has been revised several times, they don't feel it can be trusted.

I have some bad news for these 1611 KJVO folks: There is no existing copy of the original manuscript produced by King James' faithful translators. The pre-print text and the original autographs confirming the validity of the translation have all been lost to history. There is no way the KJVO advocates can be certain that the 1611 translation has not been tampered with.

According to a pamphlet written in 1660, the king's printers possessed the finished product five years before it was published. Because the KJVO camp is fond of conspiracies, the time gap should cause great concern. After all, they have no way of knowing if the original KJV translation made it to the print press.

The 1611 KJV Bible has indeed seen several revisions - 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the final one in 1850. The concern over the validity of the modern KJV Bible is silly because the vast majority of the changes were simply spelling changes or single word updates.

The Need For Clarity

Language is always in a constant state of change. A word may mean one thing one year and have an opposite meaning a year later. If the Bible is not periodically translated into the language of the common person, the meaning of the original text becomes lost to the reader. Just consider the following KJV words:

Almug, algum, chode, charashim, chapt, earing, gat, habergeon, hosen, kab, ligure, leasing, maranatha, nard, neesed, pate, pilled, rabboni, raca, ring-straked, stacte, strake, sycamyne, thyme wood, trode, wimples, ouches, tatches, brigandine, ambassage, occurrent, purtenance, bruit, fray, cracknels, nusings, mufflers, anathema, corban, talitha cumi, ephrata, aceldama, centurion, quarternion, delectable, sanctum sanctorum, carriage, wot, trow, sod, and swaddling clothes. (1)
​

Dr. Jack Lewis put together a good example of how the KJV has changed. His original writing goes on for several pages. Here is small excerpt that gets his point across:

"Sith the noise of the bruit of this school hath reached to thee-ward, we trust that our concourse liketh you well-particularly those who blaze abroad that there is error here. Whoso setteth thee against us-whoso saith we offend all-speaketh leasing. We be not affrighted, but withal, we are straightened in our bowels. We knoweth well that what thou wilst hear straightway wilt fast close up thy thoughts. With some we be abjects, some have defied us; but there has been no daysman betwixt us. They subvert the simple!" (2)

I'm sure Satan would love to keep the Bible shrouded in mystery. When the King James translation came out, many church leaders complained that it was too easy to read. We've forgotten that church leaders once tried to keep the public in the dark by opposing all efforts to modernize the Bible.

The best way to show how the new translations can help clarify the meaning of the Bible text is by example. Listed below are comparisons between the King James and the New King James Version produced by Thomas Nelson Publishing:

Matthew 10:42
"And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward" (KJV).

"And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward" (NKJV).

---

Matthew 17:25
"He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon?" (KJV).

---

"He said, 'Yes.' And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, 'What do you think, Simon?'"(NKJV).

---

Matthew 18:32
"I forgave thee all that debt because thou desiredst me" (KJV).

"I forgave you all that debt because you begged me" (NKJV).

---

Mark 8:33
"For thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men" (KJV).

"For you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men" (NKJV).

---

John 8:46
"Which of you convinceth me of sin?" (KJV).

"Which of you convicts Me of sin?" (NKJV).

​

1. Jack Lewis, The English Bible From KJV to NIV (Baker Book House, 1981)
2. Jack Lewis, Questions You've Asked About Bible Translations (ISBN 0-945441-04-5)

 

[Coconut]

Very good address!

I was raised on the KJVO theory, and even believed it, until I realized the KJVO 'truth' was based on tradition - (church traditions more often than not, find their origin in theory, rather than any actual historical testimony)

I`d like to add, if "Truth" was dependent upon the historical Scripture, and not the Author (whom is very much still alive and present with me) then perhaps I might worry about ' correct translations' as much as some seem to do...as it is, I believe without knowing the Author, it wont really matter which translation you read, and likewise, if you know the Author, it wont really matter which translation you read...you must be born of the Spirit

"Truth" survived the Dark Ages without so much as a blot of human ink in the commoners hands...and i`m sure the "Truth" will survive the dark age of today as well...

Joh 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and remind you of all that I have told you.

Joh 16:13 Yet when the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. For he will not speak on his own accord, but will speak whatever he hears and will declare to you the things that are to come.

1Jn 2:27 The anointing you received from him abides in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. Instead, because his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not a lie, abide in him, as he taught you to do.

 

[hiselect]

I praise God all the time that He rescued me from King James Onlyism

 

[Boanerges]

I love my King Jimmie but it is not an idol to me.

 

[Will Kinney]

Alleged errors addressed

King James Onlyism
By Todd Strandberg

Yet Another Distraction

Distraction is one of Satan's favorite tools for hindering the work of God. If he can't pervert or stop the message, he does his best to sidetrack the messenger with trivial debates. After studying the issue of King James Version Onlyism (KJVO), I’ve concluded that we have yet another prime example of the devil's handiwork.

Hi Todd. Satan's main distraction regarding the inerrancy of Scripture is found in the very first question found in The Bible. Genesis 3 - "Yea, hath God said...?

The simple fact is, nobody defends any of the modern versions as being the complete and inerrant words of God. Versions like the NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV differ from one another by literally hundreds to thousands of words depending on which one you use. The NIV, NASB, ESV often reject the Hebrew texts, and not even in the same places.

I will bet that you yourself do not believe that ANY Bible in ANY language IS the complete, preserved and inerrant words of God. If I am wrong about this, then please tell us where we can get a copy of your "inerrant Bible" and compare it to whatever we are using now. OK? thanks.

Now, to address the 3 examples which you think are irrefutable errors in the KJB. They are not.

You listed Hebrews 10:23 profession of our faith

Revelation 22:19 - the book of life
and

Matthew 23:24 strain at a gnat.

I will take each of them up in separate posts.

Thank you,

Will Kinney

 

[Chad]

Hi Todd.

? My name is Chad actually, as you can see.

I will bet that you yourself do not believe that ANY Bible in ANY language IS the complete, preserved and inerrant words of God. If I am wrong about this, then please tell us where we can get a copy of your "inerrant Bible" and compare it to whatever we are using now. OK? thanks.

What gives you the right to be presumptious about what a man feels or thinks without getting the "truth" first?

As for 'inerrant Bible', you obviously (a KJVO person clearly based off your Geocities page) claim the KVJ is without errors. Do you have proof?

I deleted your 4 posts of copy/paste from your own site. That's not necessary to post extra lengthy content like that to prove a point.

Do you think people that read any other translation but the KVJ are not walking with Christ? Do you believe pastors who use NIV, ESV, NSAB, or other non KJV are teaching wrong? Do you believe they are saved?

Let's see if you're honest and actually answer all 3 of my questions.

 

[rizen1]

Hi Todd.

I'm sorry Will but Todd, is not going to be able to respond to your post, because he was not the one who posted . But if I do come across a email or website for Todd ,I'll gladly share it with you, so you can share all of this with him.

God bless you.

 

[Will Kinney]

God's book - the King James Bible

? My name is Chad actually, as you can see.

Hi Chad. Sorry for the mistake. I guess the article you posted from some other site had a different name on it. So, is it OK for you to copy and paste something that you didn't even write, but it's not OK for me to copy and paste something that I DID write? Is that how this works?

I previously wrote that most Christians today do not believe that any Bible is the inerrant words of God. I said that this is probably your view too, and that if it wasn't and you DO believe in the Bible IS the inerrant words of God, then would you please tell us where we can get a copy of it so we can compare it to what we are using now. You did not answer the question. You just asked another question.

What gives you the right to be presumptious about what a man feels or thinks without getting the "truth" first?

I am asking you about the truth of whether or not you believe there exists such a thing as an inerrant Bible in any language. You are dodging the question.

As for 'inerrant Bible', you obviously (a KJVO person clearly based off your Geocities page) claim the KVJ is without errors. Do you have proof?

Sure, I just posted 3 studies showing that your alleged errors are not errors at all. So what did you do? You deleted them. Are you afraid to allow others to see what you REALLY believe about the Bible issue?

I deleted your 4 posts of copy/paste from your own site. That's not necessary to post extra lengthy content like that to prove a point.

Do you think people that read any other translation but the KVJ are not walking with Christ? Do you believe pastors who use NIV, ESV, NSAB, or other non KJV are teaching wrong? Do you believe they are saved?

Let's see if you're honest and actually answer all 3 of my questions.

I believe that a person does not need to be King James Bible only nor even to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (any Bible) to be saved or a redeemed child of God. The gospel is found in any bible version out there. This is not the issue. The issue is the inerrancy of the Scriptures. Most modern day pastors are originals onlyists. Yet they have never seen them a day in their lives and this leaves them with no inspired and inerrant Bible now. It was YOU and your article that was criticizing the King James Bible and claiming error in it. So I responded as a Bible believer.

I have answered your 3 questions. You may not like the answers, but I did answer them.

So, are you going to just delete my posts again this time, or are you going to answer the simple question I have for you? Do you believe there exists such a thing as a Bible in any language on the earth today that IS the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God? If Yes, where can we get a copy of it so we can compare it to what we are using now to see the differences and similarities?

Yes, No or I dunno?

Will Kinney

 

[Will Kinney]

God's 100% true Holy Bible

I'm sorry Will but Todd, is not going to be able to respond to your post, because he was not the one who posted . But if I do come across a email or website for Todd ,I'll gladly share it with you, so you can share all of this with him.

God bless you.

Hi rizen. Thanks for the note. I was mistaken about the name. I saw the name Todd on the article and actually should have looked more closely to see that Chad had posted it. Hopefully we have that corrected now, unless he is going to just delete my posts again.

God bless,

Will K

 

[jiggyfly]

Hi Chad. Sorry for the mistake. I guess the article you posted from some other site had a different name on it. So, is it OK for you to copy and paste something that you didn't even write, but it's not OK for me to copy and paste something that I DID write? Is that how this works?

I previously wrote that most Christians today do not believe that any Bible is the inerrant words of God. I said that this is probably your view too, and that if it wasn't and you DO believe in the Bible IS the inerrant words of God, then would you please tell us where we can get a copy of it so we can compare it to what we are using now. You did not answer the question. You just asked another question.



I am asking you about the truth of whether or not you believe there exists such a thing as an inerrant Bible in any language. You are dodging the question.



Sure, I just posted 3 studies showing that your alleged errors are not errors at all. So what did you do? You deleted them. Are you afraid to allow others to see what you REALLY believe about the Bible issue?




I believe that a person does not need to be King James Bible only nor even to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (any Bible) to be saved or a redeemed child of God. The gospel is found in any bible version out there. This is not the issue. The issue is the inerrancy of the Scriptures. Most modern day pastors are originals onlyists. Yet they have never seen them a day in their lives and this leaves them with no inspired and inerrant Bible now. It was YOU and your article that was criticizing the King James Bible and claiming error in it. So I responded as a Bible believer.

I have answered your 3 questions. You may not like the answers, but I did answer them.

So, are you going to just delete my posts again this time, or are you going to answer the simple question I have for you? Do you believe there exists such a thing as a Bible in any language on the earth today that IS the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God? If Yes, where can we get a copy of it so we can compare it to what we are using now to see the differences and similarities?

Yes, No or I dunno?

Will Kinney

Do you believe an inerrant translation exists Will?

 

[Will Kinney]

God's inerrant Bible = the King James Holy Bible

Do you believe an inerrant translation exists Will?

Hi jiggyfly. Absolutely. Unfortunately this forum will not let me post links to my own articles, but I can go into much greater detail as to why I am convinced that if the King James Bible is not the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God, then nothing is.

There are several polls by Barna and other people that show the believe in the inerrancy of the Bible is now held by a minority of Christians and that among Seminarians and pastors in particular, about 95% or more deny that any Bible in any language is the inerrant words of God.

I have not always been a King James Bible onlyist. It took a lot of study and prayer and the grace and mercy of God to open my eyes and reveal to me this vital truth.

God's Book tells us that there will be a falling away from the faith in the last days before the return of Christ, and this unbelief in the inerrancy of the Bible (any bible) is a big part of this falling away.

The Lord Jesus Himself asked: "When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8

God Himself says that He is going to send a famine of hearing the words of God into the land, and this is happening now by the multitude of conflicting versions pouring out today one after the other. People don't even read them very much; biblical ignorance is at an all time high, and most people couldn't quote 3 or 4 whole verses from memory if their life depended on it.

So, Yes, I most assuredly do believe there is an inerrant Bible and it is called the King James Holy Bible. You can pick one up almost anywhere and be sure that you have the very words of the living God.

How about you? Do you believe there exists such a thing as an inerrant Bible by which all others are to be measured? If so, which one is it?

God bless,

Will Kinney

 

[Chad]

Let's get some things straight Will.

First, I deleted your posts because they were 4 consecutive posts that were excessively lengthy and only causes confusion. That's my personal decision and you must respect that if you desire to be on this site. If you cannot respect that, then leave in peace.

Second, you accuse me of dodging a question. I did not dodge your question at all. I merely asked you questions as a response. Its possible to ask a question in response to someone else's question as a reply. Because my 3 questions to you were within reasons to be asked, which would void your question holding water anyway.

Also don't waste our time by making things up (again). I did not post this article to mock the KJV in any way nor degrade it as a good translation. Try reading again carefully. If you easily misread the name of the post by replying to "Todd" then I can safely assume you did not read the whole thing carefully either. You accusing me of mocking the KJV is nothing but a lame excuse on your part.

I read the KJV translation and I have been reading it for 2 years straight now, study Bible edition. I love it, but in no way do I believe this particular translation is better than all modern ones.

Put it this way, what gives you the right to assume GOD cannot inspire men today (as He did ages ago) to update the KJV or translate from original Greek/Hebrew to modern day language so people can understand easily? Anywhere in the Bible that forbids this possibility? No.

I believe that a person does not need to be King James Bible only nor even to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (any Bible) to be saved or a redeemed child of God. The gospel is found in any bible version out there. This is not the issue. The issue is the inerrancy of the Scriptures. Most modern day pastors are originals onlyists. Yet they have never seen them a day in their lives and this leaves them with no inspired and inerrant Bible now. It was YOU and your article that was criticizing the King James Bible and claiming error in it. So I responded as a Bible believer.

This makes no sense at all. So you admit that salvation has nothing to do with the translation. Good. You admit the Gospel is found in every version. Good.

Then you say "this is not the issue" followed by "The issue is the inerrancy of the Scriptures." That is contradicting. How is the Gospel found in every translation if there are errors in those? You still call it Gospel then?

You claim most modern day pastors are 'originals onlyists'. How do you know? Do you have proof of this so called claim of all this 'most' pastors you mention from around the entire globe?

I know your website and its nothing but a bunch of KJVO hardcore preaching that does not edify the body of Christ but only harms the least of them and maybe the elders if possible.

What gives you the right to assume you're in the right and everyone else who is not KJVO is wrong? That's exactly what you're preaching here, and another reason for my deleting your 4 too-long posts.

Read this:

http://www.talkjesus.com/supposed-contradictions-explained/24444-isn-t-bible-full-errors.html

View this poll:

http://www.talkjesus.com/polls/373-what-version-bible-do-you-read.html?highlight=translations

What do you think of those that voted anything beside KJV? Are they not comprehending Scripture as much as you?

Why are there so many Bible translations / versions, and which is the best?

Last, but not least:

KJV Only movement? Is the King James Version the only Bible we should use?

 

[Richie]

King James Onlyism
By Todd Strandberg

Yet Another Distraction

Distraction is one of Satan's favorite tools for hindering the work of God. If he can't pervert or stop the message, he does his best to sidetrack the messenger with trivial debates. After studying the issue of King James Version Onlyism (KJVO), I’ve concluded that we have yet another prime example of the devil's handiwork.

The advocates of KJVO believe that the King James Version is the only God-inspired translation of the Holy Bible. They insist that all modern translations have been modified to the point that they are unreliable or even dangerous for Christians to use as a resource. One writer claims that these "New Age" translations are somehow preparing the way for the rise of Antichrist.

I have a long list of problems with KJVO folks. First is my inability to find the damage supposedly being caused by all these other translations. I haven’t found any major Bible version that contradicts well-established Christian theology.

Dear Chad,

I'm glad to be back after a long time. I've been quite busy lately. You've touched upon a really interesting topic. I remember Cody used to say, "KJV is the only true version of the bible." and there used to be tough arguments about it.

Yes, its true, it is another distraction from satan, that modern translations like NLT, NIV, Amplified are corrupt. But there are versions which do modify God's word a lot (like the Jehovah's witnesses).

I didn't read your full post because I'm quite busy now, but I had a glance. I'm glad that you've touched this topic because this is exactly what I wanted to see from a long time.

God bless you.

 

[Chad]

there are versions which do modify God's word a lot (like the Jehovah's witnesses).

I'd like to point out that translations and "versions" are two different things.

There are perverted, unbiblical *versions* such as Jehovah's Witness, Mormons, etc as you mention yes. They are not Christians at all, just deception from the devil.

 

[jiggyfly]

Hi jiggyfly. Absolutely. Unfortunately this forum will not let me post links to my own articles, but I can go into much greater detail as to why I am convinced that if the King James Bible is not the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God, then nothing is.

There are several polls by Barna and other people that show the believe in the inerrancy of the Bible is now held by a minority of Christians and that among Seminarians and pastors in particular, about 95% or more deny that any Bible in any language is the inerrant words of God.

I have not always been a King James Bible onlyist. It took a lot of study and prayer and the grace and mercy of God to open my eyes and reveal to me this vital truth.

God's Book tells us that there will be a falling away from the faith in the last days before the return of Christ, and this unbelief in the inerrancy of the Bible (any bible) is a big part of this falling away.

The Lord Jesus Himself asked: "When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8

God Himself says that He is going to send a famine of hearing the words of God into the land, and this is happening now by the multitude of conflicting versions pouring out today one after the other. People don't even read them very much; biblical ignorance is at an all time high, and most people couldn't quote 3 or 4 whole verses from memory if their life depended on it.

So, Yes, I most assuredly do believe there is an inerrant Bible and it is called the King James Holy Bible. You can pick one up almost anywhere and be sure that you have the very words of the living God.

How about you? Do you believe there exists such a thing as an inerrant Bible by which all others are to be measured? If so, which one is it?

God bless,

Will Kinney

Well, Will, I too have study a little on this subject and you and I are of much different opinions here. My studies show that KJV is as biased as any other translation so I generally read a translation that is in a more modern English but study from from the Hebrew/Greek texts using interlinears, lexicons, and word study references and most importantly I try to listen to HolySpirit and allow Him to do the teaching.

I'm not sure if you have done any historical study of King James or his version/translation of the bible but there are some very good and revealing resources available.

KJVO is a very simular religious paradigm to one that many shared at the time the KJV was being introduced. You see, KJV was not commonly welcomed with open arms or minds and the general consensus was against the new translation even though it was a better translation than many of those existing at the time.

Fact is the KJV is just another translation of the bible and is errant as any other translation, while it has it's good points it is not perfect by any means and despite differing opinions it must take it's seat among the rest of the errant translations.

So you should understand that this forum can not allow prejudices like KJVO to be propigated because it is a form of elitism and we must insist that you refrain.

Now let's talk Jesus

 

[Will Kinney]

God's book - the King James Bible

Let's get some things straight Will.

First, I deleted your posts because they were 4 consecutive posts that were excessively lengthy and only causes confusion. That's my personal decision and you must respect that if you desire to be on this site. If you cannot respect that, then leave in peace.

Hi Chad. The posts I made were in response to the article you posted which claims there are errors in the King James Bible. The attack upon the inerrancy of the KJB was started by the post that you made here. I was merely showing that the 3 examples you posted are not errors at all.

Second, you accuse me of dodging a question. I did not dodge your question at all. I merely asked you questions as a response. Its possible to ask a question in response to someone else's question as a reply. Because my 3 questions to you were within reasons to be asked, which would void your question holding water anyway.

You have every right to ask the questions that you did, and I answered them. However, you did avoid answering my question to you. Twice now. Here it is again - Do you personally believe that there exists any Bible in any language (including "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek) that is the complete, inspired and 100% inerrant words of God?

I looked at the articles you suggested and here is what I found.

"Our loyalties are to the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Only the original languages are the Word of God as He inspired it....However, none of the modern translations are perfect. ..By comparing and contrasting several different translations, it is often easier to get a good grasp on what the verse is saying than by only using one translation."

Chad, let's examine your statement. You talk about "the original manuscripts" as though they were something that you have right there in your possession or that you have seen before. Do these "original manuscripts" to which your loyalties belong actually exist? Has anybody living today seen a single word of them?

It seems that you are professing a faith in something that you KNOW does not exist. Now how sensible is that? Are you promoting an invisible, non existent and imaginary. The statement you told me to look at says this: "Only the original languages are the Word of God as He inspired it." I notice you use a present tense verb -"are". Don't you more accurately mean "were" inspired?

Then to address one last point. I am pretty sure you are going to delete this whole post, but I will try to point out something anyway.

Your statement also says: "By comparing and contrasting several different translations, it is often easier to get a good grasp on what the verse is saying than by only using one translation."

Let's see how this works out in practice. Can you give us a good grasp of what these verses mean by comparing your multi-choice versions for us?

“MEANINGLESS and PICKY DETAILS”?

The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples. Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV,ASV) or Merab (NIV,NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva,Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, ESV); 2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV) OR “four years” (NIV,RSV, ESV,NET), or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read THREE (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, NET, Holman or THIRTY from the Syriac NASB, RSV, ESV), or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, ESV) or the fine linen being the “righteousness” of saints or the fine linen being the “righteous acts” of the saints in Revelation 19:8, or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV,RV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV).

Is the meaning of these passages clearer now?

Will Kinney

 

[Richie]

Well friends,

So far I've seen preachers being criticized, but lately, I have been seeing bible translations being criticized. Apparently, our attention has been turned from preachers to bible translations. Just look at how satan is working.

 

[Will Kinney]

God's book - the King James Bible

Well friends,

So far I've seen preachers being criticized, but lately, I have been seeing bible translations being criticized. Apparently, our attention has been turned from preachers to bible translations. Just look at how satan is working.

Hi Y5, actually this battle over the inerrancy of the Bible (any bible in any language) has been going on for a long time. When the liberal RSV came out back in the 1950's in their introduction they severely criticized the King James Bible as being full of errors and containing many "grave defects".

The article that begins this whole thread was an attack on the inerrancy of the King James Bible. In fact, the articles Chad referred us to told us that no translation was perfect and that ONLY the originals ARE inspired. Never mind the obvious fact that the originals do not exist, and that stated position leaves us with no inerrant Bible today.

Has God preserved His words in "the book of the LORD" or not" Was the Lord Jesus telling us the truth when He said "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away"?


Brother, as a King James Bible believer, I am not the one who is denying the inerrancy of the Bible. Even those who are not KJB onlies have pointed out that belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is at an all time low.

Here are just a few quotes from well know Evangelicals, and not one of them is a KJB only. I am not making this stuff up.

The number of professing Christians who do not believe in a "hold it in your hands and read" type of inspired Bible has steadily increased over the years since the flood of multiple-choice, conflicting and contradictory modern bible versions began to appear about 100 years ago.

The following testimonies about the character of Evangelicalism today were made by key Evangelical leaders. The irony is that these same men are part of the problem they lament. Each of these men has been guilty of endorsing modern bible versions.

"MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO AN INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE HAVE BEEN EMBRACING AND PROPAGATING THE VIEW THAT THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS IN IT. This movement away from the historic standpoint has been most noticeable among those often labeled neo-evangelicals. This change of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" (Harold Lindsell, former vice-president and professor Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, The Battle for the Bible, 1976, p. 20).

"WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart. What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world ... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).

The neutral method of Bible study leads to skepticism concerning the New Testament text. This was true long before the days of Westcott and Hort. As early is 1771 Griesbach wrote, "The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced then any other book." Griesbach's outlook was shared by J. L. Hug, who in 1808 advanced the theory that in the second century the New Testament text had become deeply degenerate and corrupt and that all extant New Testament texts were but editorial revisions of this corrupted text.

As early as 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New Testament text had not at all been settled but was "more than ever, and perhaps finally, unsettled." Two years later Conybeare gave it as his opinion that "the ultimate (New Testament) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable."

H. Greeven (1960) also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the neutral method of New Testament textual criticism. "In general," he says, "the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the original text of the New Testament, according to its nature, must be and remains a hypothesis."

Robert M. Grant (1963) adopts a still more despairing attitude. "The primary goal of New Testament textual study," he tells us, "remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible." Grant also says: "It is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered."

"...every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO MAKE A DEFINITIVE DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT THE BEST TEXT IS; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alteration of the text in the first few centuries; and, accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default" (Eldon Epp, "The Twentieth-Century Interlude in NT Textual Criticism," Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 87).

"As New Testament textual criticism moves into the twenty-first century, it must shed whatever remains of its innocence, for nothing is simple anymore. Modernity may have led many to assume that a straightforward goal of reaching a single original text of the New Testament--or even a text as close as possible to that original--was achievable. Now, however, REALITY AND MATURITY REQUIRE THAT TEXTUAL CRITICISM FACE UNSETTLING FACTS, CHIEF AMONG THEM THAT THE TERM 'ORIGINAL' HAS EXPLODED INTO A COMPLEX AND HIGHLY UNMANAGEABLE MULTIVALENT ENTITY. Whatever tidy boundaries textual criticism may have presumed in the past have now been shattered, and its parameters have moved markedly not only to the rear and toward the front, but also sideways, as fresh dimensions of originality emerge from behind the variant readings and from other manuscript phenomena" (E. Jay Epps, "The Multivalence of the Term 'Original Text' In New Testament Textual Criticism," Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 245-281; this article is based on a paper presented at the New Testament Textual Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 1998).

George Barna, president of Barna Research Group, reported that a study exploring the religious beliefs of the 12 largest denominations in America highlights the downward theological drift that has taken place in Christian churches in recent years. The study found that an alarmingly high number of church members have beliefs that fall far short of orthodox Christianity. ONLY 41 PERCENT OF ALL ADULTS SURVEYED BELIEVED IN THE TOTAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE. Only 40 percent believed Christ was sinless, and only 27 percent believed Satan to be real.

Of the Baptists surveyed 57 percent said they believed that works are necessary in order to be saved, 45 percent believed Jesus was not sinless, 44 percent did not believe that the Bible is totally accurate, and 66 percent did not believe Satan to be a real being. Barna said, "The Christian body in America is immersed in a crisis of biblical illiteracy."

Pastor Michael Youseff's Message on His "Leading The Way" program. The title of todays message was "The Bible, The World's Most Relevant Book - Part 2. In his message he gave statistics of a poll that was conducted. Here is what the poll revealed:

85% of students at America's largest Evangelical Seminary don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

74% of the Clergy in America no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

Those are the facts guys. Are we going to ignore what is really happening and "just talk about Jesus"? Would this Jesus be the one who has "origins" as the RSV, NIV teach in Michah 5:2. Or the Jesus who was not the Son of God until a certain day as the NIV teaches in Acts 13:33? Or how about the God who was deceived as the NASB teaches in Psalm 78:36? Or the Jesus who was a liar as the NASB has it in John 7:8-10? Is this the Jesus we are to preach to the lost world?

Is anybody here willing to actually think through this important issue of the inerrancy of the Bible or would you rather hide your heads in the sand and hope it all goes away?

Will Kinney

 

[Chad]

The article that begins this whole thread was an attack on the inerrancy of the King James Bible. In fact, the articles Chad referred us to told us that no translation was perfect and that ONLY the originals ARE inspired. Never mind the obvious fact that the originals do not exist, and that stated position leaves us with no inerrant Bible today.

How do you know the originals do not exist? Where do you get this from? Opinion? Prideful guessing? If the originals do not exist, how do you know the KJV is "inerrant?"

Why are you so hardcore on smashing others faces with your annoying views that only the KVJ is inerrant? What gives you the right? You seem so bothered by the fact that others don't care about your views at all, nor any KJVO believer.

I believe the modern translations are valid and from GOD. I do believe there are some translation mistakes here and there, but nothing in any way to void the validity of the Bible or the Divine inspiration of it. Translation errors are perfectly normal, Bible or not.

 

[Chad]

And speaking of "dodging questions" that you accused me of, foolishly. You are the one that dodged my questions below.

Put it this way, what gives you the right to assume GOD cannot inspire men today (as He did ages ago) to update the KJV or translate from original Greek/Hebrew to modern day language so people can understand easily? Anywhere in the Bible that forbids this possibility? No. You claim most modern day pastors are 'originals onlyists'. How do you know? Do you have proof of this so called claim of all this 'most' pastors you mention from around the entire globe? What do you think of those that voted anything beside KJV? Are they not comprehending Scripture as much as you?

Notice how no one here agrees with you too.

Has God preserved His words in "the book of the LORD" or not" Was the Lord Jesus telling us the truth when He said "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away"?

And how is that KJV related? Since when does that verse pertain to KJV only (as you're preaching that only KJV is inerrant).