King James ONLY Controversy

[Major]

Well... since I seem to have contracted a wee bit of an "ATTITUDE" this morning.... I would go with ALL of the ABOVE. HA

Attitude?.....You mean like my cousin Festus................

 

[Major]

It's appropriate for a church to pick a version. That facilitates reading along and formal study. That's a far cry from saying only one version is legitimate, however.

Agreed.

IMHO, there are probably more KJV than any other so the KJV would be the popular one that most would have.

But as in most things, it comes down to the personal preference.

I was brought up on KJV. I preached from it due to the fact that most everyone in the congregation had that version and I was not going to insist on them spending the money for something else. If they wanted to fine.

However....my preferance now is the ESV.

 

[In Awe of Him]

There are several reasons for that. Most all of them spring from a phycological problem.

Are you suggesting that I have psychological problems?????????? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Major]

What's most frightening is that he has a sizable church full of people eating up what he says.

Based on the level of ignorance he displayed, he's either lying about his education; he got a substandard education from some KJVO school such as Pensacola Christian College, Crown College, or Hyles-Anderson Bible College. If that's not the case, there's a servant of Satan in the pulpit.

Or......a combination of all the above!

 

[Major]

Are you suggesting that I have psychological problems?????????? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Are YOU trying to get the last word ????

 

[YeshuaFan]

The KJV Only Bible promoters insist that the only acceptable Bible translation is the King James Version.

The King James Only controversy is essentially a conspiracy theory that claims that all modern translations of Scripture are based on tainted manuscripts and that their translators are driven by a liberal Protestant or Roman Catholic (or even one-world government) agenda. This theory manifests itself in various forms, some of which are more extreme than others.

KJV Only Arguments but are not limited to........

1. The King James Version is based on the “Majority Text” over against the modern versions that are based on the corrupt “Alexandrian Texts.”

2. The modern translations attack the deity of Christ by removing references to his lordship.

3. Heretics, occultists and homosexuals were on the translation committees of modern versions.

4. The modern translations delete verses from the Bible.

5. The 1611 Authorized Version is the preserved Word of God in English.

6. The modern translations promote a “works-salvation.”

7. The newer versions include footnotes which offer different renderings of certain words or verses.

Do YOU have a preference on these arguments or do YOU have a different one to support your own personal opinion?

My personal observation, having dealt with this topic over the years is like with anyone who expounds any conspiracy theory, it is usually fruitless to try to reason with the KJV Only crowd.

So what do we do???? Argue? Confront? Dismiss?

IMHO, we should, we must seek to prod these brothers and sisters to a correct understanding with love and patience, realizing that most efforts will be spurned and may turn out in vain. That does not dismiss our attitude to try.

What to me is irony is that they always state that modern versions based upon the Critical Greek text are corrupted and tainted since those texts came from Rome authorities such as the Alands, and yet their very own 1611 kjv was based upon Erasmus Greek text, whowas a staunch Catholic scholar, and well as they chose to use renderings from Vulgate and Rhems Catholic bible, so why their bible not also "corrupted and tainted" then?

 

[YeshuaFan]

My church is KJVO, but I'm not. During my seminary studies, I learned how to differentiate between a good translation and a bad one. That being said, I can respect and tolerate KJVO people based on what Paul taught on how to accept a weaker brother.

They drift off into being cultic and really wrong by insisting that ONLY the Kjv can be used, by projecting that upon all others

 

[YeshuaFan]

I have no desire to address all of the arguments.


Both claims are are factually wrong.

First, the KJV is based upon the textus receptus not the majority text. The majority text differs from the textus receptus in over 1,800 difference places.

Second, modern version follow an eclectic text. That is a text compiled from multiple sources such as papyri, manuscripts, church fathers, and early translations of the Greek New Testament.


So does the majority text.


I believe that. I also believe the same is true of the ESV, NRSB, NIV, NLT etc.

I agree with the Preface of the KJV:
"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

In 1611, the word "meanest" most commonly meant lowest in rank, status, or importance.


Guess what? The 1611 KJV had margin notes. It had 7,342 margin notes.

An exhaustive listing of the marginal notes of the 1611 edition of the King James Bible – Literatura Bautista

It is the follow claim that sents chills down my spine and is a real threat.

Did you hear what he said?

What is interesting is that the 1611 translators themselves did not hold to a KJVO position regarding own work, and those holding to KJVO can never answer which kjv would be the proper and correct version, 1611/1769/1984/1873. or which of the various TR texts would be now the definite one?