Another KJV-Only Comment

Another KJV-Only Comment

Every so often a KJV-Only advocate comes by this blog to comment.  They normally don’t hang around long, but I occasionally feel inclined to respond.  I like to tolerate and even celebrate other points of view, but I don’t make an idol of it; it’s one value, not the value.  KJV-Only is one of those views I simply cannot respect.  It’s too divorced from reality.

This most recent comment was no exception.  It resulted from my poll on Bible translation.

There were 5 versions of the Biblical Scriptures/Sources-printed–

Really?  Which five were these, and which versions will you exclude from your list?

The One in English from the Textus Receptus(received Text) was the Authorized King James Version-1611-

Well, at least this is approximately correct.

All Others were from the Catholic Codexes/Manuscripts found from 1841 -1881

Well, no, not precisely.  In fact, many other versions were translated from the TR or something similar, many manuscripts were discovered outside that time frame, and I have no idea what makes a manuscript “Catholic.”  If one uses any definition that doesn’t make practically every manuscript at the time Catholic, then relatively few would be.  One wonders whether all manuscripts copied in the eastern church are Catholic or not.

–which were in Philosophical Greek-Not Koine-

No, they were not.  They were in the same dialect as the rest.

that were being used as fire-starters in the churches-

This is a falsehood built from a falsehood.  The initial one was that Sinaiticus was being used to start fires, which would comment on the stupidity of the person so using it rather than on the value of the manuscript, but even then we can hardly jump to “fire-starters in churches.”  But even the fire starting in the monastery is not factual.  (See here.)

and Not complete/or Preserved as God Promises- which Add,Subtract, and Change the Word of God

By what standard do you judge completeness and preservation?  Is not a manuscript with additions just as corrupt (if that is even the correct word) as one with deletions?  In order to determine which is the case, one needs to have some idea of the source text.

And on another note, why can’t KJV-Only advocates punctuate normally and write complete sentences?

/Perverts Doctrines–contrary to the Word of God–From these the American People Seek to make Profit in the Churches like the “Money-Changers” of Old that Jesus chased – out of the Churches ??–

The folks who print KJV Bibles also make a profit.

The 70 Translaters of the King James Bible did Not Hide their Identities like those of the Modernistic Versions-

This is simply false.  Many modern translations include lists of the translators. For editions that do not, a little bit of web research will turn up the information.

Many who themselves claimed to be Atheists, Agnostics, and Members of “Cults” ??—

… assuming that atheists, agnostics, and members of cults cannot translate.  But the fact is that most of the translators of modern versions belonged to churches that would fall within orthodoxy.

My Great Grandparents readily understood the King James Bible- SO are people today More Stupid or What ??—

The argument about readability, as anyone should be able to tell, is not that people are getting less intelligent, it is that language has changed.  Modern English would be similarly difficult for people of a few centuries ago.  The reason KJV-Only advocates generally can’t read Greek isn’t that they’re stupid; it’s that they haven’t learned Greek.

The King James Bible IS The Bible–Not Just Another “Version”–or should I say — a “Perversion” ??

On the contrary, the KJV is a version.  It is not the original.  It is not the best.  It’s not extraordinarily inspired.  It’s just one translation of a set of texts into a new language.

The sad excuse of “Interpretation(s)”–is Weak at the Best-for those who Reject the Authority of God’s Word in their Lives..

Well, no.  Any translation involves interpretation.  Any preaching involves interpretation.  You can’t get away from it.

I have found that the KJV 1611 Bible woks just fine with those that I witness to in other countries that are 3rd World countries–

I’m sure you imagine that you do.  It’s amazing to me how many people can convince themselves they are communicating when they are not.

But these Modern Perversions only Confuses them !!!

I suspect that the problem is that the modern version make them question what you have to say.

– In Cambodia I found that the Mormons(a Cult) even PAYS People to come to Church ??–Further Proof that their “Another Testament of Jesus Christ ” has NO Power in the Word !!!

Of course, use of modern versions is not connected to Mormonism, so this is just a red herring.

And thus we come to the end of another KJV-Only comment.  I spent too much time on it, but on occasion it’s fun.

10 thoughts on “Another KJV-Only Comment

  1. In my opinion you did not spend enough time. too kind (which I suppose is very Christ-like). I have very little tolerance for the KJV-Only position!

    The best book I’ve read on the subject is James Whites, KJV Only Controversy.

  2. Henry: I cannot understand how anyone can put their entire faith in only one (KJV) bible translation. When we say that the bible is inerrant, we mean (or should mean)that the original manuscript was without error. The only errors that crept into God’s Word were those from human hands–the scribes who copied, recopied, etc. them. Besides, these errors were of minor importance and did not affect God’s meanings. How then can we choose one translation from our time frame and bestow authenicity to it above all else? Does not God work throughout the ages to provide us His Word?

    1. Bob – It is an odd belief. I do believe in providential preservation, i.e. what we have is sufficient. The level of preservation is remarkable.

      I don’t think the KJV-Only position is either God-honoring nor does it honor the scriptures.

  3. I agree with you the KJV only people generally argue from the wrong point. The correct arguement would be which original manuscript is more accurate. It appears from the discovery of things like the dead sea scrolls that we have the closest thing to at least 1st centruy literature as possible. With concordances and lexicons one can easily use just about any translation to figure out the meaning as well as a good contextual study. Its a bad argument but a great translation…

  4. I agree. I believe the best english translation (or my favorite) is the NASB. But I am going to buy a study Bible tomorrow of the KJV.

    Why? Because. Just preference. If you know any amazing study Bibles let me know. I already got Scofield, Dake, etc. I want a study Bible I can take everywhere and study anywhere. To have A LOT of commentary and footnotes, and references. I want it to have a belief or a non-ignorant approach to the “gap theory” which I do believe.

  5. I’m not a KJV-only advocate, but I do like them best. I appreciate the fact that so many different types of bibles exist. I know they vary, but the variation lends validity to the meaning that we all individually gleam from it. Absolutes are good when we are dealing with the word of the lord, but as Mr. Makar accurately stated errors crept into God’s Word from human hands. Study what and where you can and keep an open mind.

  6. Hello Henry,

    First of all, I must commend you for your excellent article “Hebrews 2:5-9: Lower than the Angels,” very enlightening! In regards to “the KJV only” syndrome, it just doesn’t make any sense to me. Did Moses come down from the mountain carrying an English KJB bible in his hands? So why using the term “only” as if the KJV was personally written by the finger of God on stone tablets? Why trying to make it the indisputable authentic text, while at the same time, regarding everything else as being wrong? The AV is guilty of about 20000 errors (e.g., it includes wrong verbs, syntax, placement of commas, mistranlations, word-placement etc)! Its New Testament was largely based on the Beza manuscript (1589) that closely followed the one published by Erasmus between 1516-1535, which in turn was based on eight medieval manuscripts dated from the tenth century marred with errors! I personally use the AV. But anyone that knows “one or two things” about Greek and Hebrew will quickly realize that is a text that cannot be 100% trusted. Blessings!

  7. rather then argue amond yourselves about KJV OR NOT KJV Ask GOD.FOR God’s word is Truth..God is not the author of Confusion Satan is.that is why all these other versions,or translations or whatever you care to call them .but the KJB Is true to the Diety of Christ cause nearly all the others take out or add to which questions the diety of JESUS.And takes the Blood out too.without the shedding of Blood there is no remisssion of sins..so yes the KJV is the best cause it has stood the test of time for nearly4oo years so until you can disprove entirely and completely that the KJV is not right than remain silent.don’t let satan win.TRUST GOD ALMIGHTY NOT SELF

  8. I read KJV only because I trust it. I don’t know that it is the only reliable english version for finding the truth of God, but I do know that it is reliable, I have not tried others. Well, I have read the NIV which i don’t trust since it gives Satan the title reserved for Jesus, it calls Satan the morning star, when Jesus is known as the morning star. The KJV translates this verse to call him son of the morning which is not a title given to Jesus that I am aware of. I think it is blasphemy to give satan glory of jesus. At any rate, I trust the KJV and would trust the original greek if I could read greek. As for it, the KJV, being hard to understand, it isn’t. I feel that is a lie from Satan that sounds good enough to give people reason to mess around with the bible until there are some fake translations out there. If KJV worked for years, why change it? If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. I would imagine that some of the standard based translations could be trusted, but I will not go out on a limb and say they are for I have not tried them, as david said. KJV works for me, and I can’t vouch for what I don’t know, but I do know that it is the inspired word of God just from reading it with certain keywords that relate passages for study. If these keywords are not standardly translated in other versions then the truth is hidden. I just think it is dangerous to mess with changing the word of God.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.