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.
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.
For a video that includes nothing but me talking and some amateur (by me) captions, my Why I Hate the KJV video has done well on YouTube. With 3563 viewings as of the time I’m posting this, and 231 comments.
I must confess that I have not paid much attention to the comments thread, because YouTube doesn’t permit links and comments are short, and because most of the comments are quite inane, as is usual in KJV-Only discussions. After all, what profound and informed argument actually favors KJV-Only?
Comment 231 caught my attention, not because it was profound or informed, but because it was bad in a new way.
The comment reads:
The HIV (NIV) false “bible” is published by the same company that publishes the Satanic Bible by Anton LaVay. Jesus Christ said a corrupt tree cannot produce good fruit. If you think the HIV is good fruit, you’re calling Jesus a liar and you need to get right with God.
I mean one of the translators of the HIV was an OPEN PRACTICING HOMOSEXUAL. How much more obvious does it need to get? Burn your HIV!
Of course we have all the usual charm and logical structure of the normal KJV-Only comment. I have written previously on the issue of having a homosexual translator on the team, which I regard as not only ad hominem, but largely irrelevant even as ad hominem arguments go. The key point here is that when a Bible translation is released we have the source texts, we have the translation, we can look and see whether it is accurate or not. (Usually there will be disagreements, but that’s translation.)
Debating the quality of the translators, even if one is discussing their actual qualifications for translation work, is generally missing the point. If I find a translation that is poor, and I look and see that the committee involved was underqualified, I might take that as an explanation. I wouldn’t read the list of translators, decide they’re underqualified, and determine that their translation was lousy without reading it.
But I find the whole tree and fruit thing very interesting. Here are some questions:
- Is the “tree” that produces a Bible translation the company that publishes it?
- If so, would a Bible become corrupt if it was first published by a “righteous” company, but later licensed to a “corrupt” publisher, however defined?
- What kind of sin must a publisher be guilty of to pollute otherwise pure scriptures that it might print?
- What kind of sin must a translator be guilty of in order to corrupt his translation? For example, would the translation be corrupt if the translator was a gossip? An adulterer?
- Is the translation corrupt if the translator is guilty of such sin, but we don’t know about it?
While this KJV-Only argument may strike many of my readers as beneath comment–though when has that ever stopped me?–perhaps what we should think about is whether when we make what seem to be high moral pronouncements, we also say things that we really don’t want to say.
I will probably have to repent for posting this, but I can’t resist. Post in haste, repent at leisure–probably much leisure.
SHUT UP! “Thou fool”. The only obstacle is your own wickedness selfishness laziness and stupidity. The only hinderance is your nausiating self absorbed slop. Repent and get saved you ignorant unsaved pharisee!
I guess that will teach me!